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

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' [1]
• Starblind - "Well past WP:IDHT" [2]
• Kww - "disruptive" [3]

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,[4] 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 [[5]]). 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)
    • Looks like it's been amended. I had hoped it wouldnt get so far that sanctions were necessary, but I can Support it now. Pretty severe WP:IDHT on Danjel's part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:05, 3 February 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.[6] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

Completely unrelated issue that should have been raised on his talk page, not here. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) You could have posted a message on my TALK page. Anyways, you are probably right, so I deleted the links section on my Userpage. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:53, 2 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[96] 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

This discussion has run its course and the debate has now moved to RFAR. I'm therefore closing this with a note that RAN may well not be as lucky if they break their restrictions again. Spartaz Humbug! 11:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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) [97] 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[98] I removed it again. Now, he introduced his articles at geni.com and findagrave.com[99], and again the one from Familypedia[100]. 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 [101]). 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[102] 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[103]; that page hosts a copy of a newspaper article from 1949[104]. 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[105]. Other links have the same problem, he e.g. links to [106], 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[107] to [108], 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[109] 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[110]. 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) This ought to be interesting, although I will note that Wikipedia is going to run into serious problems if you keep banning all of the content creators. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 06:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC) If they can't create content while remaining within policy - especially WP:COPYVIO - then they shouldn't be editing here. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

EMr_KnG

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

---

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.[111] 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)

Judging by these comments on his talk page (or rather the translation I get from Google's translator), he does neither understand nor accept that he is wrong and that his edits are not helpful. I let the others judge for themselves. Regards. --Lysozym (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A WP:CIR indef block is called for here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The user apears to be on a mission to "Turkify" historical, ethnic, and individual pages, so appears to be a Single Purpose account, relentlessly pushing an extreme POV from dubious and unreliable sources. The users page appears to be an explicit mission statement, including the rather bizarre Ataturk "quote" (I dont personally accept it as accurate in terms of the interpretation the editor gives it). There appears to be no attempt to compromise with other editors in any meaningful sense. On top of all this, the editors English abilities appear non- existent, and communicates in English via a translator, judging from the mangled syntax. So we do not have the ability to communicate meaningfully with the editor, losing all the subtle nuances essential for dialogue of this nature. A bleak picture. However the Turkish WP account would still be functioning, even if the editor is blocked, so our Turkish colleagues may be able to improve the editors attitude and turn the editor into a positive WP contributor. Irondome (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Can we not persuade the editor to voluntarily refrain from editing Eng WP pages until the editors linguistic and WP-related skills inprove. ( A whole gamut of issues, but its not impossible). If the editor would reject that, then a block on WP Eng would be the only option. If a native Turkish-speaking Ed could relay these conditions on the Editors talk page, maybe we would at least have a basis for dialogue. Also I would suggest offering the option of a mentor from our Turkish WP colleagues. If the editor is amenable to these ideas, then theres hope. Irondome (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, a number of Turkish speaking editors have engaged EMr_KnG on their talk page and educating them on what's required to edit on ENWP. As a gesture of good faith, perhaps this could be closed while this engagement is ongoing without a Sword of Damocles hanging over them? Blackmane (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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 Removes mentions of pseudoscience from numerous articles [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] and even removed a mention of homeopathy from the article on pseudoscience [117].

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)

Jellypear - read what Hgilbert wrote: "His [Dahlin's] monographs appear to clearly qualify as RSs." That assertion shows no understanding of the RS/N discussion, or acceptance of the consensus reached there. That is the point. Working on this article is the editorial equivalent of Groundhog Day! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I completely agree with you on the GroundHog Day sentiment. What would help in getting everyone on the same page is if fellow editors would diligently work towards developing a pattern of consistency with respect to sources. The "one-off" discussions concerning sources likely has the effect of muddying the waters even though the wiki guidelines and policies are remarkably clear (especially when it comes to intent). However if an editor comes to believe that unpublished manuscripts by professors ought to be reliable sources - because there is one currently in use - and their source is being criticized/excluded on the basis of credentials, a reasonable response is to show that their guy is a credible expert after all. It strikes me as disingenuous to make an issue about the "biased" nature of a proposed authors credentials - and then criticize someone for defending against that - when ostensibly less biased credentials wouldn't fix the main problem of being an unpublished source anyway. But such discussion does succeed in helping to reveal someone as a POV-pusher via their efforts to address the (irrelevant) credential issue, doesn't it? I've only been around for a little while but it seems to me that the issues with this page are more complicated than being presented, and there is also a longer history. People are way too invested for this not to be the case. It also appears to be a problem of a more collective nature, and not solely limited to one editor. That being said, I do feel that effective collaboration is possible with the current editors, albeit with some more clear-cut external guidance. Jellypear (talk) 00:12, 3 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)

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,[118] 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)

Re TParis, unless I'm missing something, personal attacks don't come in to it. The unblock conditions say they must not comment on individual editor except in appropriate noticeboards. It doesn't say anything about personal attacks. I presume this condition, while harsh, was imposed because the community or whoever no longer trusts them to comment on editors and/or to avoid disputes oer what sort of comments on editors are acceptable. In other words, if any of these are comments on editors, it doesn't matter if they →are positive, innocous, borderline personal attacks or clear cut personal attacks they're clearly a violation. Now if the comments are genuinely positive and didn't cause any offene to the editors cncerned, it would be foolish to block them. But if and editor does disagree with comments on them, it would seem we have a problem. I haven't looked at the comments so can't say whether the comments are bad. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My summary of the diffs is that they were not talking about Dr. K but about their comments; with the exception of diff 2 maybe. However, what I see is discussion. Unless you consider "your source contradicts you" to be about a person and not the source then I don't think the letter of the sanction is violated. Which is why I said the spirit of it was. Context helps with the diffs provided, and in the case of the third diff, an ellipsis is used instead of a comma which doesn't make sense to me other than to change the context. The comma takes less characters and is actually in the diff. It splits the sentence. If you disagree, that's fine, it's just my take and my take has seemed to lead us down the path to deescalation.--v/r - TP 23:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(@Bbb23) Unhelpful? Maybe, and it wouldn't be the first time my outlook has been wrong, but I am simply stating how I feel. If there's one indisputable fact here, it's that he and I don't play nice together. You can blame the reasons for that on one of us or both, but it remains a fact. I have said before many times that I want him to "leave me alone" (infact I have quite loudly exclaimed it on my talk page), I asked for an interaction ban (that was not even given consideration), and I've put in my due effort to avoid him. But somehow, DrKiernan seems to quite frequently "drop by" on pages I'm involved with where he has had absolutely no previous involvement and was not invited by anybody. Recently it has been happening on Commons as well, where DrKiernan is rarely active. You'll forgive me if I doubt the serendipity of it. I accept what I said and that it was inappropriate, but unless you have had as frequent and negative of interactions with a signle user as I have had with DrKiernan, please don't be so quick to reject the notion as me overreacting. As for the suggestion that I should unilaterally "move on" if he comes into something I'm involved in, surely you understand the implications of that, giving him to power to just impose himself on anything I'm working on forcing me to leave. I don't like that suggestion, and I don't think any other user who feels like their being followed around would like it either. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry, in my view and in the view of some others (perhaps not TP), you have violated the civility conditions of your unblock. Some of the diffs DrKiernan set forth are weaker than others, but there's enough there to constitute more than one violation. Thus, even if you could demonstrate that DrKiernan is hounding you (that's essentially what you're claiming), it wouldn't do you a bit of good if we hold you to your conditions. As TP said (implied?) earlier, you should be focused on finding a way to continue editing here. Shifting the focus to DrKiernan won't help you. If you feel so strongly that DrKiernan is hounding you, then separately you should be asking for some sort of sanctions, an interaction ban or whatever you believe is appropriate. Now is not the time to be doing that unless you are simply so frustrated that you don't care, but most of us know that allowing present frustration to interfere with our long-term desire to edit here is generally self-defeating. Venting may provide some satisfaction, but it's transient and yet you're stuck with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't really know the background of Fry1989's restrictions on editing, but what I have witnessed at talk:union badge of Norway and Sweden strikes me as obviously disruptive behavior. Fry has been debating rather ferociously about an article title which is based primarily on personal opinion, not what sources actually say. I can't say I've seen outright personal attacks, but there's plenty of civility gray zones, and above all a tendency of completely disregarding other editor's arguments in favor of home-brewed theories and interpretations. You can see the result for yourself at the article talkpage, but the latest of Fry's edits is very indicative of highly belligerent form of interaction.[119] Peter ^Isotalo 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Attacks on the validity of my points by calling them "home-brewed theories" (alongside other names I've had to endure) like I'm some conspiracy crackpot is why I'm here in the first place, and I greatly resent your use of the term. Instead of people being willing to discuss my sources and points, they accused me of making things up, and saying that "this word was never use now or ever!" even though I have a very clear sources saying the opposite. It is the shear frustration from being ganged up on like that which causes my ferocity. You don't have to condone the way I carry on my arguments on that page (something I have not attempted to do here in my own defence), but don't pretend I do it just because that's "how I am". It takes a lot to cause me to be so angry and negative. There's plenty of examples of me carrying on arguments in a civil, even cheerful, manner. I have the ability to be very pleasant, polite, and helpful, but when people start accusing me of lying and making things up, that's when my effort to be friendly goes out the door. As for my last edit you linked, no where is there a rule I have to agree with someone. That was completely civil, I said "you can think what you want, but I'm gonna think what I want". Tell me how that is belligerent to "agree to disagree", which is essentially what I said? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry, I am very close to getting you a slap on the wrist and a gentle shove to be on your way instead of an indefinite block. For Pete's sake, don't screw it up.--v/r - TP 00:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made it clear I have no interest in continuing on that page any longer. I said that they can think what they want, and I'll stick to what I think, essentially "agree to disagree", and I've stated on my talk page that I will no longer be engaging on that article's talk page. But calling my sources and points "home-brewed theories" was out of order. Decide what you want to do about me, and I'll accept and deal with it accordingly, but if you're worried of me screwing it up by continuing to an unreceptive crowd, you'll be happy to know that will not take place. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Restrictions are put into place to improve Wikipedia, not be tripwire sanctions used in content disputes. As TP has already elucidated, the diffs presented are very ticky tacky to be indeffing an editor over. Looking at the history, it appears Fry was editing the article and talk page long before DrK, and DrK raised the restriction two weeks ago on the talk page and yet continued to engage Fry. The issue isn't really Fry's incivility but their tendentious editing, but as there was no support for his position all that was required was to let them have the last word, but since DrK was "fed up" instead a motley collection of diffs has been presented to indef Fry over not very much. Let's just agree it's time for Fry to move on from that issue and be done with this. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree with the above. The dispute seemed mostly on topic, and appears to have burnt itself out, somewhat. I apologise if I am interjecting inappropriately. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. The dispute was technically on topic, but it also involved Fry being "angry and negative" about people simply disagreeing. I'm not pushing for a indefinite ban, but I consider the behavior surrounding union badge of Norway and Sweden disruptive enough to deserve a warning.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

indeed. A more severe sanction would appear counterproductive, and would demotivate an otherwise productive editor with a good editorial history on a relatively specialised topic. Irondome (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where we are. We almost got to a point of agreeing that there would be no block but there would be a 6-month extension of the civility condition(s). However, Fry did not voluntarily agree to that, and it's not clear to me there's a consensus for it. I believe there was a consensus that Fry violated the unblock conditions (DrK, me, BWilkins, Sandstein, TP (spirit)), but not necessarily a consensus as to the remedy. I believe the only editor who disagrees is NE. The two editors who commented after NE follow up on his characterization of Fry's behavior as "tendentious editing", but although they appear to agree that a block is unwarranted (one wants a warning, one doesn't), they do not really address the issue of the violation. I should point out that a consensus isn't required to block Fry, but given the lengthy discussion, I'm not sure that any admin wants to take that step without a consensus. I know I don't at this juncture, although I am not happy with some of Fry's responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry if I didnt make myself clear. I meant I agreed with the mildest sanction available, if that is the consensus. Irondome (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My feelings lean toward the lowest possible sanction that ensures this does not happen again. Fry says he has a "flair for hyperbole" and that needs to be controlled by him (as I said to him, I deal with it too, personally). If a block is the lowest remedy, then so be it, I'll support it if that's the case. If an extension of the conditions and a stern warning and commitment to control himself, that would be preference. I trust you, as you have all of the history behind you, to make a good decision. I'm not sure how involved you are, but if your only involvement is the previous block then I'm fine with you taking action.--v/r - TP 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As suggested, and to make my side clear, I'll reiterate that I accept I have broken the spirit of my restrictions before their expiration, and that it wasn't acceptable. My intent and the way things can be seen by others are two separate things, and I need to hold a tighter tongue. As for a remedy, I have no objection to an extension of the restrictions I agreed to, because outside of this incident they have assisted me greatly. If a temporary block is decided on, I'll deal with it, and if not I'll be thankful. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The unblock conditions, while well-intentioned, have turned out, in practice, to be problematic; I've suggested modifications on their talk page. NE Ent 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have read, understand, and have no objection. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Before Fry's latest posts and NE's suggested revisions, I proposed a resolution at Fry's talk page. We now have two discussions going on, one there and one here. Based on Fry's response above after TP's post, I believe that we could have finished this as it pretty much did everything I asked him to do on his talk page. However, partly based on my bias for simplicity and partly because I don't agree with NE's suggested revisions (at this point I'm not going to go into why), I have advised Fry (on his talk page) that I prefer NOT to implement any of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with NE's suggestions. My primary concern is that in the course of discussion with another user, two way communication requires the use of 2nd person language and I am concerned that such use is considered "talking about someone." As long as we're clear that talking to someone and talking about someone's comments is not the same as talking about someone, then I think we can continue with the current wording.--v/r - TP 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    • While I'm waiting to close this, I thought I'd respond to your comment, with which I agree, with a simplistic example of a hypothetical Fry communication: Acceptable: "I don't agree with John Doe's changes to the article because the source is unreliable." Unacceptable: "John Doe's changes to the article are dumb because the source is unreliable."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
      • The second one is the gray area that concerns me. It's saying the changes are dumb. I might be over-analyzing and the 2nd one certainly violates the spirit of the rule, but I'd say the existing rules cover "John Doe is dumb because the source is unreliable."--v/r - TP 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I intentionally phrased the unaccceptable example the way I did (as opposed to "John Doe is dumb", which I think is clear-cut) for two reasons. First, I wanted to err on the side of avoiding problems for Fry in the future. The unacceptable example is gray, and I didn't want to get into an endless battle later on wikilawyering such a phrase to death. Second, I think editors generally should avoid the second example. It's true that you're not calling the editor dumb, you're calling their actions dumb, and one can be smart and still do something dumb, but saying something someone does is dumb is often a politically correct proxy for calling them dumb. Moreover, it's simply not necessary. There's no reason why everyone can't convey their point using the acceptable example.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
          • That's fine with me, but let's make sure that Fry understands that's what is intended then.--v/r - TP 02:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Agreed. I'm fairly certain Fry is paying attention to all the comments, but depending on the outcome, which is now less clear, we can make sure he understands. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
      • In John Doe's changes to the article are dumb John Doe's is a possessive determiner modifying the noun "changes"; thus the crux of the sentence is changes are dumb which is assuredly not referring to another contributor. Which just goes to show how, agreements that seem reasonable when agreed to often, in practice, become difficult to implement when the penalty is so all or nothing. NE Ent 03:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Remedy. I've revised the unblock conditions, the effect of which is to extend the civility conditions an additional 6 months from their current expiration date. I'll leave this thread open in case someone notices a mistake. I've also asked Fry to look at them. Assuming there's no error, this discusion will be closed (with thanks for everyone's help).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  Apologies - I'm overseas and have limited time to access Wikipedia. As one of the authors of the civility restrictions, I agree that their interpretation (while seeming clear at the time) have become problematic. I believe that further exploration of clarifying the restrictions should be explored as NE Ent has done. The restrictions weren't intended as a hair-trigger re-block mechanism. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  At this point, I'd still like to close this incident with the revised conditions. They don't involve a block, and they put to rest this incident and this thread. In addition, there's no reason why the conditions can't be revised again based on NE's suggestions - or anyone else's - to make them clearer and/or fairer. That said, based on your comment, I'm not closing this now. I want to see if there's agreement on closing first. I will be going off-wiki soon, so I probably won't be around until late afternoon tomorrow (American Pacific time). It seems dubious to me that there will be agreeement to close this before I go off-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

92.26.60.215

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

---

• 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)

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

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

[120]

[121]

[122]

[123]

[124]

(there are lots more)

• POV-pushing major deletions (without consensus)

[125]

[126]

[127]

[128]

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 [129] 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)

• Perhaps you did, perhaps you didn't move it for that reason. You "can't get a break" because we keep finding edits that are borderline vandalism, and show your COI very strongly. The only place your "film is better than digital mkay" type ideas have any place is in the talk page for the article about Digital versus film photography. NOT in an article about High Frame Rate, because that has precisely 3 shades of cow manure to do with film's "better quality". Lukeno94 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedural note - Perhaps this is better suited for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC) On second thought, this is as much a incident reporting as NPOV, so it should remain here.--Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with the Lukeno94. One of the fundamental tenants of this or any encyclopedia is writing in a neutral point of view. That's why Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a strict policy. In particular WP:NPOV states in bold "Avoid stating opinions as facts".

As digital video has become extremely of high quality and continues to evolve, there's now strong contention as to what format is "superior." "Superior" is in quotes because it's a subjective opinion. For example, some viewers like the extreme sharpness of high-res video and some prefer the old exposure rendering of film. But digital video has become so advanced, it's become a multi-billion dollar industry with many major studios choosing to shoot on digital video rather than film, like the films The Avengers (2012 film), Zero Dark Thirty and Hugo (film).

But what user:NickCochrane is doing is simply "film is superior to video" POV edits, like in the High Frame Rate article. [130] And his "references" have all been opinionated blogs, several year old articles from when video was only developing or even, I'm not making this up, Kodak, a company that SELLS FILM STOCK.[131] It's very easy to find "references" that say video is superior to film. Here are a few after a quick search [132][133][134]

It's okay for NickCochrane to have a "film is better than video" opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. I'm personally neutral on the topic. Once again per our policy of WP:NPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts"

It should also be noted that there's a Sockpuppet case regarding NickCochrane Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCochrane where, after two Checkusers conducted, the consensus is that NickCochrane is either using sockpuppets or meatpuppets (a block is likely to occur), so we don't exactly know who we're dealing with here. --Oakshade (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)--Oakshade (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Oakshade, you're much more eloquent/better at putting the point across than I am! Lukeno94 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Nick is still re-adding biased information into articles: He reverts my edit here[135], and is then re-reverted by Algr here.[136] Lukeno94 (talk) 09:01, 4 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)

I disagree. The other user has not really attempted to provide any reason for their position on the issues in question, making compromise irrelevant. They have simply dismissed the status quo using a variant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and in my opinion they have been overly aggressive about it. The actual issues at hand are irrelevant, it is the conduct of other users that needs addressing. – PeeJay 21:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As an outsider to this conflict and the involved personalities, let me tell you what I see: an inflexible position on your end, combined with an attempt to harass your opponent on his talk page and then using that harassment to justify a conduct report on ANI. There's nothing for anyone to do here. You should instead focus on resolving the dispute on the article talk page. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's perfectly alright for him to remove the notice from his talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedia policies governing how long someone is supposed to wait before removing notices or missives from other editors from their user pages. There are likewise no Wikipedia policies requiring that an editor show remorse to you for his sins, real or imagined, and there are sure as hell no policies justifying you bringing him to ANI solely on the strength of him failing to do so. Would you care to spell out just what Wikipedia policies you claim he is breaking? Ravenswing 08:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, anyone who states "The actual issues at hand are irrelevant, it is the conduct of other users that needs addressing." is the one with the attitude problem. The actual issues at hand are the only reason anyone should be here doing anything. From the looks of things it appears you don't want to compromise, don't want to be particularly civil yourself and are hoping that you can ignore any real discussion and then get the other user in trouble to get him out of the way so you can do what you want to do on the article. The best way to prove to us that you are acting with the best interest of the project in mind instead of petty personal desires is to start talking about the actual issues at hand. DreamGuy (talk) 19:29, 3 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)

I don't know, but I happened to be reading Enron Scandal today and it names a bunch of living people there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

if you want a broader discussion either try VPP or advertise it in apporpriate places like WP:CENT rather then here. Nil Einne (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks , Nil Einne; I hadn't known of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, and will use that resource in the future. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If they're named in reliable sources as being convicted, and it's listed in the narritive as opposed to a "hall of shame" list, then they shouldn't be removed. Wikipedia is not censored. If it's a list appended to the article though of "people convicted", then it's probably WP:UNDUE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

All I can add onto that is to remember WP:UNDUE; with something sensitive like this, we must be careful not to include irrelevant or less-relevant information. As long as an incident belongs in an article, names that appear in reliable sources should appear in the article. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite. BLP doesn't enjoin us to avoid saying things which disparage a subject; it just enjoins us from doing so without ironclad, reliable sources. Ravenswing 08:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the above examples, it should be noted that in many cases the people named weren't convicted. In at least one case they were never charged, and in another we named someone as having had allegations made against him when later he was cleared of all charges, without mentioning that he was cleared. I think it is important to distinguish between appropriate naming of people who have been convicted, people who have been charged but not yet convicted, charged but the charges were dropped or cleared, and allegations without charges. - Bilby (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Lee (referee)

Can anyone lend a hand at Chris Lee (referee)? I'm at 3RR now and there's an editor who insists that a huge chunk of content be added in violation of WP:UNDUE. – Connormah (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• The article has Pending Changes applied. If so, why are the other editors' edits being accepted, as they're clearly not autoconfirmed? Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  The only edits that were being accepted were those that reverted those changes made by that newly registered user. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• "I know your policy. Here's mine: no more money to Wikipedia from me, my family, and extended family if you continue to censor this! How much money do you think it is? Check the records, and check your yellow journalisim editing at the door!" rather interesting edit summary from User:Michelle Ginrew there... Lukeno94 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• A primary reason why those type of pages are under pending changes is this sort of thing happens occasionally every single year: a referee makes a controversial call during a game, and generally fans of the team that lost that match come in and vandalise/BLP violate that referee's Wikipedia article (I don't know for sure if this newly registered user was one of those angry fans, but it is safe to assume that it was not a fan of the team that benefited from that call). Now if this was a controversial call that has a lasting historical impact, like leading to a rule change or affects a playoff/tournament/championship contest, where there are long lasting reliable sources, then that content generally stays. But if it is a case like this, a call in one out of many regular season games, where it is usually forgotten once the season ends, it is almost always eventually removed on grounds of WP:RECENTISM. I doubt that "drive by" user, like all the others before, will stick around after the season. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Anybody who pulls the "shut up or I take my money" card should be immedately blocked as being WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't that WP:NLT? I tend to agree, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not a legal threat. Neither is it block worthy. If they want to "vote" with their pocket book, that is their business. All we should do is shrug our shoulders, watch the article and go about our business.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a legal threat, more like a lame sort of bluff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's blackmail, and anybody who thinks blackmail is an acceptable tactic in any walk of life is somebody who should not be editing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's worded like blackmail, in a way. Not demanding money, but instead saying he won't be contributing more money. The catch is, we don't know if the guy has ever actually contributed even one cent to the foundation. That's why I call it a bluff. The user needs to be watched, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"unjustified threats to...cause loss to another unless a demand is met" sums it up pretty nicely. Either way it falls under the category of "general tomfoolery that doesn't belong 'round these parts". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless WMF has logged the potential donation, then there is no loss, because it was never a gain in the first place. This "threat" is along the lines of "keep my edit or I'll call all of you doody-heads". Nothing to worry about.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like this article has been attracting vandalism for years, having looked at the edit history. Maybe a permanent semi-protect to comply with BLP is necessary. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Is the individual actually notable? Afd? NE Ent 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd support an AfD. GiantSnowman 17:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• A redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials would be easier and better. Lee is well known amongst NHL fans, and, well, the general opinion of him is a BLP violation, thus the vandalism. Resolute 17:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad calls are unfortunately a dime a dozen (consider the brutal "no-goal-interference" during the Ottawa-Montreal hockey game yesterday). That the ref sucks (even repeatedly) is WP:ONEEVENT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Afd'd. NE Ent 18:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Social market economy

Continuation of the edit war of last November [137]. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've also left a note on the talk page encouraging all users to discuss and arrive at consensus before it will be unprotected. Oh, and Mr. Mustard, consider yourself lucky you didn't get hit with your own WP:BOOMERANG. There's plenty to hand out a bunch of blocks per WP:EW, but I chose to enforce this by encouraging discussion. Let's keep in mind that edit warring is grounds enough for a block. --Jayron32 01:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing at Michael Milken

Over at Michael Milken (one of the big-name financial crooks of the 1980s), we have some paid editing by LarryWeisenberg (talk · contribs). This editor writes "My name is Larry Weisenberg, and I am a representative for Michael Milken." His edits generally try to de-emphasize Mr. Milken's criminal record (he did Federal prison time, and now he's out). The current issue started when an anon put "ex-con" in the lede paragraph, and it was removed at "Revision as of 17:35, 23 December 2012 LarryWeisenberg (Removing derisive term that brings negative POV to the article.)" [138]. I suggested using "convicted criminal" instead. Weisenberg didn't like that. So that's out, but I put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox (which is just a bio infobox, not a criminal infobox). Weisenberg didn't like that either. The general trend of these edits seems to be to keep any mention of the criminal history out of the snippet Google displays on searches, and to add various minor items that make Milken look good.

WP:NOPAY would seem to apply. --John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Who is this guy to dictate how the article should look? Seems like owning to me by the way he disagrees with you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You "put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox"? Why would you do that? That is not appropriate for a biography, even if a person were to be notable for being a criminal. I think there's more than one issue here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

His federal prison number isn't of any use outside the federal prison system. Britmax (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, removed federal prisoner number, put back "convicted criminal", which is what he's notable for. --John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Many many people have been convicted of crimes at various times in their lives. If those convictions are relevant to that person's notability, we include them in their article. Milken's convictions clearly are relevant and are discussed in the body of the article. Putting things like Federal prisoner number or convictions in the infobox are inappropriate, violate our WP:NPOV policy, and suggest that you are editing with an agenda. Whatever crime a person has been convicted of, please try to remain neutral when editing their biography. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems a little unfair to have "convicted criminal" be the very first way an article defines him. That doesn't actually tell us what he did for a living. Strangesad (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's ok, I've fixed it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Any user who admits to being a paid editor should have some setting changed on their account to prohibit editing articles from then on. We need to force these people to only use the talk pages. DreamGuy (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That might make sense if there was a policy that said "paid editing is not allowed". There isn't. And there never will be, now that paid editors and PR professionals have established a firm foothold, thanks to the concerted efforts of some Wikipedians. And more and more people seem to be leveraging their status on Wikipedia into paid "consulting" work. The writing has been on the wall for years, but in the last 18 months things have taken a major turn for the worse. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there is no way "convicted criminal" should appear in the infobox as what a person is known for, it's rude, skirts our BLP policy, and if the guy is best known for being a criminal, the article speaks for itself. Second, I am becoming increasingly concerned at the actions of admins who believe that paid editing should be banned, and act towards non-admins as if paid editing was banned. That is substituting personal judgment for the community's, as the community has not seen fit to ban paid or COI editing. That is a problem as an admin acts as part of the enforcement arm of the community, to the extent there is one.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If they did see fit to do so we would have to ban a few of the Foundation employees as well as the Dear Leader himself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you should be more concerned about the type of editors who insist on tagging every living person ever convicted of a crime as an "ex-con" or "criminal" in the first sentence of their bio than someone making a dime off removing that kind of material.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What Milken is notable for is his participation in the junk bonds scandal. He should be describe neutrally, and his conviction, sentencing and jail time should also be in the lead with equal dryness.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no great sympathy for Miliken, and cringe whenever he makes his annual trips to broadcast booths during baseball season to plug his foundation (which I see as primarily an attempt to rehabilitate his name), but he was notable before the junk bond scandal for basically having invented the junk bond market, and then for the conviction and incredibly large amount of money he had to pay in connection with it. All of that is proper to be in the lede, as long as it is, as lgr says above, neutrally described. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree with BMK. Milken is a more complicated personality than merely a convicted criminal. However, all this is best discussed on the talk page of the article rather than here. My suggestion is that we let LarryWeisenberg know that, as someone with a clear conflict of interest, he should confine himself to making suggestions, as specific as he prefers, on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. That should take care of the COI. --regentspark (comment) 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

However, very few people come here to edit by making suggestions on talk pages. While it isn't an unreasonable suggestion, it may not be reasonable to expect that someone will so confine himself. It's also not an offense against our "rules"; we cannot require him not to edit directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

while I agree that very few people come here only to make suggestions on talk pages, paid editors do have a COI and our wp:coi guideline actively discourages direct editing by editors with a conflict of interest. A useful guideline IMO because it makes paid editing and COI editing less combative. --regentspark (comment) 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Others have already pointed this out, but let's make sure there is no confusion about it. Milkin isn't notable for being a convicted criminal. He was very involved with junk bonds, but it is highly misleading to say he was part of the junk bonk scandal. The article should not avoid saying he was convicted, but it should be balanced, with discussion of his contributions as well.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Miliken was very much involved in the junkl bond scandal, and did serve time and paid a humongous fine for it. It's hardly a trvial part of his biography and needs to be dealt with, but in a neutral manner. Leaving it out does not serve the interests of our readers and makes the encycylopedia that much less valuable. The question is not whether it should be in, but how much WP:WEIGHT it should be given. Labelling him a "convicted criminal" in the infobox is too much, but the lede should include it, as it was a significant event both in his life and in the history of stocks and bonds trading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a "behaviorial guideline" that says paid editing is prohibited, WP:NOPAY. What is the status of WP:NOPAY from an enforcement point of view? Are editors blocked for that? I'd thought they were; we had a big flap over this a few months ago on another topic. --John Nagle (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOPAY does not say that paid editing is prohibited. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a guideline. It is not actionable. People can be pointed to it, but admins who block or warn for it are off base.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The junk bonk scandal? That would be interesting...! Britmax (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw another voice of agreement in here - the criminal conviction is a secondary feature of the thing he was notable for, and defining him primarily as a criminal is definitely showing a slant! We have a lot of articles that tend to creep this way over time (see eg/ the discussion on Talk:Robert Tappan Morris); I wonder if there's any efficient way we could start digging out some of these long-running BLP issues? Andrew Gray (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me started. This was an outrageous edit for someone supposedly interested in compromise, and if it's indicative of John Nagle's typical attitude towards BLPs then he shouldn't be editing anywhere near them. Couple that with an apparently large misunderstanding of what precisely our rules on COI and paid editing are (I note a trouting from Dear Leader over this wholesale reverting of sourced content, for instance, because of the identity of the responsible editor) and we have a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is about self-promotion and whitewashing. We have here a convicted criminal, one responsible for "the biggest fraud case in the history of the securities industry"[139] who pays someone to edit Wikipedia to make themselves look good. There's no question about this; the editor involved admits it. Does Wikipedia want to support such efforts? John Nagle (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, this isn't an "either with us or against us" situation just because you say so. Over the years a huge amount of drama has been caused by people taking an ostensibly good idea (a particularly relevant example is pushing back against the promotion of pseudoscience) and going at it so single-mindedly that they cause more trouble than they prevent. Here, you're editing a BLP to skew it egregiously towards the opinion you want the reader to form of the subject (that he is a career criminal, above and beyond any other detail of his life) and that is most certainly something that bears further investigation regardless of any alleged problematic editing on behalf of the editor you initially reported. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerns for 67.183.80.158

Earlier today, 67.183.80.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked with an expiry time of 2 weeks for block evasion and disruptive editing, but this user has previously been indefinitely blocked under the usernames Nadekodayo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Totorinoatorie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), first for personal attacks and harassment, and then for block evasion. My concern is that once the block lifts for 67.183.80.158 in two weeks, it is probable that the user will continue their disruptive behavior, which recently included what appears to be stalking of User:Cyberlink420's and User:Moscowconnection's contributions and reverting their recent edits to articles the user never previously edited, which can be seen in Upcoming Super Smash Bros. video game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Christopher Sabat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Street Fighter X Tekken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Haruna Iikubo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The user also has a history of using edit summaries to make it appear as if they are reverting vandalism, when they are in fact vandalizing articles themselves, which include numerous diffs on Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and on AKB48 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (which include this and this).

So based on the user's history of harassment, vandalism and block evasion, would it be possible to also indefinitely block the IP address the user edits with? Or would this only occur if/when the user returns after the two week block is lifted and they come back to continue with their behavior?--十八 07:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We almost never indefinitely block IPs, because IP addresses regularly get reassigned to other people. Even a static IP address is likely to be eventually reassigned, and if it's dynamic it can be reassigned just by restarting your modem. And then there are IPs which are technically dynamic, but which persist for weeks or months before changing (mine is like that). So I'd say leave it at the two weeks, and then escalate if it continues after that and it is clear that it is still the same person. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it make any difference by pointing out that, as Nadekodayo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user used personal attacks in which the edit summaries for both diffs in which it occurred, here and here, were suppressed? My main concern is that if the user once again gets into a conflict with me or another user, that this will occur again, so for the sake of protecting a user's privacy, would an indefinite block be justifiable?--十八 07:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, do you think it would be fair to indefinitely block all possible future users of an IP address just because the person who it currently happens to be assigned to is abusing it? No, of course it wouldn't, and that is why we do not indefinitely block IP addresses. If this IP address turns out to be static and/or assigned to the same subscriber for a reasonably long time, then a longer block can be used - but not an indefinite one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this editor a pure vandal yet. What happened is that after a few edits of his were reverted with an assumption of good faith, he resorted to false edit summaries to make his edits appear not serious. He also leaves the same references while twisting the text to say what he likes instead of what the sources say. And he deletes the parts he doesn't like even if they are referenced. When I started reverting his edits assuming bad faith, he reacted by committing vandalism. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

But I too think that if the IP continues, the block should be much longer. I think the editor is dangerous to Wikipedia because he is becoming skillful at false edit summaries and thus he may cause damage that will go undetected. Also, if you look at the IP's edits [140], he is interested in very controversial topics. I'm looking at his edits and I frankly don't know if I should just revert all of them or not. As I say, his edits don't appear malicious, they appear constructive at first, but he seems to have some strong opinions and twists everything to say what he wants. Since I've seen him leave the same references while inserting different data (like here and here), I am afraid I will be tempted to revert him on sight in the future. At first, these edits seem to be in good faith (there is a 13-year old trainee in AKB48 currently), but he doesn't want to discuss the matter and tries to push his corrections through by force. For now, I will leave his edits to the topics I don't know anything about be. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I started a discussion about the AKB48 members age range here: Talk:AKB48#AKB48 members range in age from what?. Anyway, as I said his edits may look constructive but he gets nasty when he is opposed. If he continues with more constructive edits, he may still be useful to Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts

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

---

I recommend administrative action against Lugnuts. After what I believe was a fair effort on my part to ask this editor to use edit summaries and not engage in vandalism, the editor engaged in quite obvious incivility.

No edit summaries[141]
Initial vandalism[142]
Obvious incivility[143], [144]

I'm asking for administrative action in the form of a final warning or even a block. Any one of these behaviors in isolation wouldn't be enough, but editors operating in good faith shouldn't have to contend with this level of malicious antagonism. Chicken Wing (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

... and you'll be notifying him of this report as required? Plus, you approached him a mere hour ago, were you going to wait for him to reply? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I notified him originally on my talk page where he (or she) had edited, and then to make sure it was seen, posted it in both places. So, yes I did, though you may have posted here before I had time to post both notices. The user has replied, with incivility, to every comment I have made. You can look at the edit Lugnuts has made below, and the user's antagonistic tone becomes pretty obvious. Chicken Wing (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus wept. I'm not using edit summaries. Get over it. Move on. I try to talk to this user, but he/she keeps blanking my edits. Doesn't help, does it? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

From WP:VAND - "Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings". So where is the presitant vandalism? Looks like Chicken Nuggets has shot himself in the foot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a fair warning for vandalism. I didn't report you to administrators only for vandalism. Nor were you reported only for failure to use edit summaries as your previous comment implied. You're being reported for a wide range of misbehavior. And even then, I am not strenuously pushing for a block. Even a final warning from an administrator would do. It seems reasonable that if an editor cleans up your mess (an act of vandalism in this case), having to endure incivility would be insult to injury. I should point out also that the poor behavior continues in your above post for everyone to see. Chicken Wing (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"a wide range of misbehavior" - Go on, expand on that one. You're the lawyer afterall. I'm dying to hear this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Failure to use edit summaries, vandalism, incivility, and gaming the system. As I mentioned, any one of these in isolation probably wouldn't be a big deal if it happened once, but this was repeated acts, and you continue to engage in incivility and efforts to game the system even after being posted here. You were given chances to let this go, and you chose to make it worse. Just the attitude you have displayed in this section alone should also make it clear that you are not willing to tone it down. Chicken Wing (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• In and of itself, failure to use edit summaries is not something we block about. It is, however, usually a sign that the individual is WP:NOTHERE or at least not willing to abide by community standards. A sniper was killed by a sniper - although ironic, it's incredibly insensitive to insert a wikilink to irony on their article, or even state that you're "laughing about it" - it's a loss of human life, and any human being with a shred of decency does not defile that. It's as bad as the church that pickets military funerals. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, not to draw this out, but you've never laughed at a dead celebrity joke? Ever? In any case, the ironic edit was removed in double-quick time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is a block-worthy offence, but, seriously - have some class, please. If you'd like to make others laugh, go to one of the comedy clubs in your area. Keep the jokes out of mainspace articles. m.o.p 11:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that per the sources, the sniper was shot dead at point blank range not sniped. There may be some irony here, but not that much so really the joke is even sillier. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Was this main space edit and the comment about the sniper in incredibly bad taste? Probably. Has Lugnuts abused you in any way shape or form Chicken Wing, apart from a couple of light-hearted remarks? I don't think so. Lugnuts not using edit summaries is not really something you should be that bothered about - certainly not to take it to this level. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Lukeno94, I apologize in advance for singling you out. I don't know you. I have no reason to think you are anything other than a good Wikipedia editor and a decent person off this site. But your edit annoyed me, and in a way I suppose it's what I expected when I posted the original ANI comment.

The main space edit wasn't just in bad taste, it was vandalism. Yes, Lugnuts was abusive, and no, comments about death on someone's talk page are generally not considered light-hearted. Your third edit falsifies what has happened here, as Lugnuts wasn't brought to ANI for not using edit summaries. In fact, I even stated in my original post that none of the edits taken in isolation are enough to be here.

This is what I expected though. Every single act the user has engaged in that I brought up has been downplayed, and in your comment and in the first comment by BWilkins, I am actually the one facing questioning instead of the offender. Now, it's obvious to me that Lugnuts is an abusive editor, but it appears we're all willing to play dumb about it. So let me add some more evidence, and let me state, this isn't necessarily all the evidence. This is just what I found after looking for the obvious:

[145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]

There's also this likely sock edit:[151]

I asked for a block or even just a final warning in my original post. That's still all I'm asking for. Just an admin to tell Lugnuts this kind of behavior can't be tolerated on Wikipedia, and you'll be blocked if it continues.

I don't know though. Reading through this, it would appear maybe this kind of behavior is tolerated. Chicken Wing (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I've not taken offence at you your comments, I shall respond to them. I do not believe I condoned Lugnuts' edits that are directly referring to the sniper's death. The "light-hearted remarks" refers to his pun on your name, and the "don't let the door hit you" comment. The issue with the edit summary thing is that you're the one who brought the information about it here, and you're the one who cited it in things that Lugnuts should be punished for. I would not consider Lugnuts to have been abusive - crass, yes, but abusive, no, and certainly not to you. I'd leave the socking remarks out unless you intend to take him to a SPI. "Jesus wept" isn't really a bad edit summary; "fuck off and die" IS, however. I couldn't really care less about the missing edit summaries, but it seems that Lugnuts is indeed capable of being very aggressive if something doesn't go his way. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Aggressive? Maybe. But I wouldn't shoot you in the face about it. I guess deadpan humour isn't everyone's cup of tea. The sock claim is laughable. I look forward to Wings' proof behind this and his stalking of my edits. I guess there's not a lot to do in Texas. Well, maybe join the NRA. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not the deadpan humor; it's the deadpan humor in the article. The sock claim isn't laughable; it's an IP address that's made one edit, and that one edit was a profane defense of your use of your user space. I'm not about to defend "stalking" your edits, but I am admittedly mildly interested at this point in seeing if an admin acts like that's not a transparently bad faith effort to twist my legitimate use of your edit history. Your arguments here are weak and your attitude overtly contentious. Fortunately, it appears the entirety of foul edit history is going to be referred to as "failure to use edit summaries", etc. and dismissed. Chicken Wing (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• As others have indicated, there is nothing AN/I-worthy here. Bundling failure to use edit summaries in with the editor's comment that he thinks them a waste of time (etc.) does not rise to the level of block-worthy behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

By "etc." do you mean vandalism, gaming the system, repeated insults, telling people to fuck off and die, calling them twats, calling an admin a coward and spineless, and so forth? Come on. I feel like I should be blocked for just repeating those things. I'm going to start using this line of reasoning from now on. "What, O.J. is being brought to trial for owning a glove, thinks it doesn't fit, etc.?" "What, people don't like Ray Lewis because he got blood on his white suit, threw it away, etc.?" Sweet Sassy Molassy. Chicken Wing (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My comments refer to 3 of your 4 diffs, which focus on failure to use edit summaries and on discussion in regards to that choice. AN/I is for admin action, such as blocks, and looking at the diffs you present I don't see them as rising to that level.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That just isn't true. I really don't understand what is going on here. I originally posted four links. One deals completely with edit summaries. One is vandalism, and two are incivility. Later I posted seven more, none of which dealt with lack of edit summaries. That's 11 links, only one of which is failure to use edit summaries. 3 of 4? I mean, I'm not mad at you. I'm really not. I'm trying to make this work, but I feel like I'm in a parallel universe. Right now, an admin is having to remove comments made by Lugnuts from this very discussion (!) because they were too childish, and yet you're questioning me with terribly incorrect facts. Chicken Wing (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like I'm the only admin who's posted here who believes that Lugnuts should be blocked for their behavior. I believe the block was justified based on the OP's original comments. Taken in combination, they justify a block, even though the lack of edit summaries and the incivility diffs would not by themselves justify a block. However, the irony addition to the article is blockable all by itself. Wikipedia article space is not an editor's toy to make a political point or, worse, to make a "joke" (all agree that the "joke" is in incredibly poor taste). Beyond that, though, Lugnuts's behavior here has only made a block more justifiable as they refuse to acknowledge any problem and continue to behave in an immature and disruptive manner. (The edit summary insult diffs (twat, etc.) are pretty old and don't do much except maybe show a pattern of behavior. I find it interesting, though, that Lugnuts uses edit summaries to attack when reverting but not to explain their own edits.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• No you're not the only one, Bbb23. This was just crass and almost looks like Lugnuts is seeing how far he can go in thumbing his nose before a block is enacted. Go ahead and briefly block for pure disruption, though it's probably what he wants so he can call "foul". Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for 36 hours for disruptive editing and pointed to this arbitration principle, which, without getting into specifics, sums up the situation relatively concisely.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts seems to have a clear history of gaming the system by using as much abusive language as possible while still managing to escape unscathed. The user has been blocked twice for edit warring, but the user's history is also filled with etiquette complaints and other avenues for conflict resolution on Wikipedia, but most have resulted in no action. In some cases, Lugnuts has badgered users until they've left the project. Here are more abusive diffs in case this discussion has to be referred to in the future [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], and [159]

Lugnuts also denied this IP address edit was a sock.[160] But compare the insult there to the insult used by Lugnuts here.[161] Bad stuff. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

OK Chicken Wing, that's enough: Lugnuts is blocked. If you want (more) blood, you should try a different avenue. FWIW, I agree with Bbb's block and would not oppose a closer look at Lugnuts's editing behavior in a different forum (it's not an ANI matter). Drmies (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Good block. And beware of making assumptions, as the IP could be a copycat. Either way, using an IP potentially exposes the IP vandal's possible location, which is not very smart of him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see there are some admins still willing to enforce a modicum of standards. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I support the block for vandalism.--v/r - TP 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Reasonable block, Lugnuts was pretty obviously trolling. Perhaps he should consider using Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outlet in similar situations. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Talk:Progressive utilization theory

User:Abhidevananda has written a lengthy section in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#RFCs or just another attack suggesting that my opening of an Rfc on that talk page was done in bad faith. My preference is to have an administrator close that thread (as it is not entirely relevant to the article) and suggest a more appropriate forum to Abhidevananda in which his or her grievances toward me can be addressed. (I guess a review with brief comment on whether or not things seem to be in order with the Rfc would be welcome, too.) Thanks! Location (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC) edited 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Wikipedia:Mediation. Anyway, the issue here in brief: for last 2 months so we are trying to solve content dispute. Few users think the article is full of primary sources and is more a manifesto than an encyclopedic entry, other group of editors think these sources are required in this article.
The article has been fully protected twice, first time for 1 week, second time for 1 month. We are trying to reach a consensus before 18 February (that day 1 month full protection will end). Changing header to just "Progressive utilization theory --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Titodutta, I opened this thread in regards to Abhidevananda's allegations of bad faith editing and canvassing on my part. The content dispute is a separate issue that can be addressed there or in a different forum or ANI thread. Location (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Civil pov-pushing, editwarring, misuse of sources, and lengthy talkpage diatribes should be called out for what they are. I would invite uninvolved editors to look at the recent history of the article and decide for themselves whether it's better to have Abhidevananda's version, or the version supported by a bunch of uninvolved editors who commented following the last NPOV noticeboard thread... since the wrong version is protected this time, nothing need change at the end of protection until some other editor is bold enough to try removing unsourced or fringey content, which will be immediately followed by a revert. bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Abhidevananda and their 2 allies at the article are acting in good faith, do not understand how Wikipedia works, and sincerely feel persecuted. They are also defending a version which (unbeknownst to them) in violation of a range of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and a 100 miles away from being an encyclopedic article. They have also managed to stop efforts to fix the article. What is needed is for a few more people to tell Abhidevananda this, and then to unlock the article while a few more persons familiar with wikipedia guidelines and policies and enclyclopedic articles visit there for a few weeks and help fix it. North8000 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two WP:FT/N discussions on PROUT and its creator here and here. Almost every article related to Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar is stuffed full of primary-sourced material, with notability problems left and right; and this template evinces an intent to create two or three times more articles than already exist. At the moment the major evidence for Sarkar's notability is the Ananda Marga organization, which has had some political involvement, and a PROUT economist at SMU who made a prediction which got him on the NYT bestseller list and the earned him an Ignobel. Bringing this balloon back to earth is heavily inhibited by a group of crusading SPAs who don't really seem to have a grip on what this project is about. It would be useful to have one of these people working from secondary sources (because the proliferation of Sarkar works tends to mask everything else) but if they can't learn to play by the rules, we are going to have to cut drastically. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO

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

---

Hello,

I would be grateful if you could review SPECIFICO's activities on WP. His short record is already abysmal. He has already been warned by numerous editors, and blocked for edit warring. This has not modified his stance, much to the contrary. He has been following-me through my edits, reverting good-faith contributions, and refused to participate in the discussions I proposed. I have tried to politely ask him to cease and desist (here and here). I have the strong impression he is using WP to push his point of view. Your intervention would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Alfy32 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide more evidence (diffs) of a specific problem. This isn't a forum to "review" another editor's behavior generally. Also, if you know enough to come to ANI, then you should also know you must notify SPECIFICO as the instructions clearly state at the top of this page; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment – This ANI is not well taken. Bringing up the start-off editing history, and calling it "abysmal", only re-hashes a learning experience and improperly characterizes the case at present. Alfy32 has a very short history of editing, and implying that SPECIFICO is wikihounding is ill-founded. I've observed that SPECIFICO has responded well to various criticisms, and his edits (for the most part) stand on their own two feet. Please close this ANI immediately. – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Shiny new editor Gravitycollapse and yet another MOS-ditching editwar

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

---

• Gravitycollapse (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#We_need_to_update_relevant_pages_to_gender_neutral_pronouns.

Will someone please throw a bucket of water over this before it even starts. N-bomb dropped already. Godwins' law armed and waiting.

Also, is socking in evidence yet? This sort of mule-headed single-position edit-warring is usually socked from one of the regulars, but I just can't think who it might be? TobiasConradi? Apteva? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Using the "N-bomb" instead of the intended word, nigger, is an offense to straightforwardness. You're getting away with saying words without suffering the consequences of their observation. I am not attempting to rouse protest by my usage of the term. I am trying to prove a point. As can already be observed, my systematic editing has ceased and I am now only participating in the discussion.

Bucket of water has been thrown and the fire is out. Gravitycollapse (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have aroused protest by your use of the term. (And by your preemptory manner of address). So, it would be good to modify all that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd strongly advise you to drop the issue before you do something you really regret. You won't achieve anything, so it's just a waste of everyone's time. Give it up. —Rutebega (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your advice is duly noted. However, I will not volunteer to censor my posts because my argument ruffles feathers. As I've already stated, my actions are not meant to generate protest. Quite the opposite actually. Gravitycollapse (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

People choose to be offended by things all the time. That does not mean we at Wikipedia are responsible for changing that which you have chosen to find offensive. So far you seem to be trying to swim up a waterfall with this little crusade. I trust statements like " I will be continuously altering these pages as it is on my project list. I will be monitoring these alterations for any attempts to revert them back. It might be wise to let this one go." are not indicative of your future editing habits? Resolute 03:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

One would expect my actual future habits to be proper indicators of my future habits. Hence, if you choose to generalize my agenda, you should at the very least consider the posts I've actually made since then. -Gravitycollapse (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My comments were made based on my perception that specific users were reverting my posts arbitrarily. You will notice that as a number of users protested, I halted my editing and started a discussion. My original intent to edit was made under the assumption that altering to gender neutral pronouns was both logically correct and non-controversial. Obviously that is not the case. Gravitycollapse (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perfectly straightforward and non-controversial -- which is why you felt it necessary to include the edit summaries "This is a permanent change. Please do not alter my edits. I will be monitoring" and "Reconverting back to gender neutral pronouns. Please do not change this. Thank you". So no, you were perfectly aware of what you were doing and attempting to impose your changes by fiat. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Guys, can we all try to remain a little more civil, less sarcastic, and a little nicer here? The user in question (Gravitycollapse) is in fact in discussion, and has not made any edits changing the wordage in a while. As long as the user continues to discuss instead of editing (barring any consensus for the change in question), I feel no action is necessary. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly clear that Gravitycollapse has changed his position since he made those edits, so it's probably best not to badger him about them. There's no obvious evidence of sockpuppetry, and Gc shows many signs of a newbie editor. He is no longer edit warring, and apparently doesn't intend to repeat this behavior. Oh, and if you're bothered by his use of the word nigger: while it was insensitive and unproductive, Wikipedia isn't censored, and it was by no means a personal attack. I think if Gravitycollapse can a. accept consensus and b. understand pertinent policies and guidelines moving forward, then there's nothing else to be done. —Rutebega (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Closing this down, as discussion seems to be going forward, and this doesn't look like anyone needs a block. --Jayron32 04:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Stealthysis/pro-ana/ and User:Stealthysis/pro-mia/

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

---

Are these appropriate? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they break any rules. Userboxes are often used to espouse personal beliefs, and this doesn't seem disruptive or anything. What makes them inappropriate? m.o.p 10:28, 4 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Not inappropriate. This is apparently a young editor.[162] Adam Cuerdon has not informed them about this discussion and they have not edited since June 2012. Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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