Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

User:FellGleaming

{{archivetop|strong community consensus support for a 3 month 1RR editing restriction. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FellGleaming#Editing_restriction_notification Notified user here] and logged at [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]] - [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)}} ( Please see comment at end of thread about this non-admin closure. 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

FellGleaming (talk · contribs) is disruptively editing Challenger Deep and Mariana Trench in the middle of two different discussions about his poor use of sources, the first at Talk:Challenger_Deep, and the second at WP:NORN. Now, Slatersteven (talk · contribs) has showed up and started tag teaming for Fell and making blanket reverts.[1] After a discussion about Fell's edits began at Talk:Challenger Deep, I helped Fell find reliable sources for his claims because he was having trouble understanding how we use sources. No offense to Fell, but the user has a long history of misusing sources and not understanding basic policies and guidelines governing their use. It is not quite clear why this problem has continued for so long, but his poor use of sources resulted in an enforcement request warning in April.[2] The concerns expressed in that warning are the same here:

• Failure to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them.
• Failure to be scrupulous in the representation of sources and the use of purported quotes from them.
• Failure to respond directly to the substance of concerns about the use of sources and quotations.
• Continued aggressive posturing when asked the above.

In any case, Fell didn't like the discussion on Talk:Challenger Deep and took this dispute to WP:NOR/N. Not liking the responses he received there, he began engaging in extremely WP:POINTy behavior, and duplicated the same disputed content[3] that was removed from Challenger Deep into Mariana Trench.[4][5] The result, is that FellGleaming is ignoring the concerns raised about his misuse of sources on Talk:Challenger Deep, and disregarding the problems raised with his use of sources on WP:NORN, and has now managed to copy the same disputed content into two different articles for no reason other than because he can. This is extremely childish and disruptive and with the addition of Slatersteven demanding that I prove a negative, and with Slatersteven supporting FellGleaming's disruption with tag teaming over disputed content, I think it's time for administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from FellGleaming

A short history of events:

1. Viriditas blanked a section of the article: [6]
2. After talk page discussion, Viriditas allowed restoration of some of the material, but would not allow a Berkeley Law of the Sea Institute (a group of legal scholars specializing in international sea law) to support the text that "nuclear waste dumping is banned according to the UNCLOSIII treaty. As of September 2010, the US has not ratified this treaty". I gave some additional sources for this, such as a NYT article. He still refused, on the grounds that none of these sources "were about Challenger Deep specifically". He also began making threats and personal attacks on the article's talk page ([7])
3. To seek conflict resolution, I took the issue to the No Original Research noticeboard ([8])
4. Another editor (SlaterSteven) saw the issue there, and responded by restoring the text Viriditas removed. (I note that this editor, rather than being a "tag team" helper, is an editor who has actually conflicted with me regularly in the past).
5. Viritidas responded by attacking that editor as well, and posting snarky comments to the editor's talk page: ([9]). He also began canvassing other users to search for complaints to use against me (See links from Collect).

I believe Viriditas' edits to be disruptive, and his talk page activity to violate civility and harassment guidelines. I ask for no formal sanction against him, but do request an administrator acquaint him with basic policy in this regard. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already succinctly explained the problem in my original report, but I would like to clear up Fell's misrepresentation of basic facts. To refresh Fell's memory, I originally removed poorly sourced material from Challenger Deep[10] and placed it on the talk page per best practices.[11] This was done because the solitary source used, did not support the content. FellGleaming, without replying on talk first, quickly restored the material,[12] adding an unreliable source to Helium.com as his chosen source, a "peer reviewed citizen journalism website". FellGleaming then begin making a series of very strange claims on talk, arguing that "the Helium source is not being used as a WP:RS for a science claim, but merely to support that the location has been suggested as a waste repository." Fell began trying to reinterpret and reinvent the concepts of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR on the fly, so that they would support his edits. Because Fell was unable to find a reliable source that supported the content he wanted to add, I felt sorry for him and tried to help him out. I found the Hafemeister (2007) source[13] and Fell was happy.[14] However, things quickly devolved into Jekyll and Hyde territory after I helped Fell find a source. At this point, Fell began to go off on bizarre tangents, arguing that any reliable source is acceptable to use in the article, even one that is not about the topic. I calmly explained to Fell, that per the policies and guidelines, we generally only use topical sources, mostly to avoid original research and drawing conclusions that aren't found in the sources. As it stands, Fell will not accept this fact. So now, Fell has added the disputed material into two different articles, and continues to ignore the concerns raised about his edits on the article talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore. CANVASS per [15], [16]. I have not seen anything nasty from Fell Gleaming. Charges of "tag teaming" should be weighed carefully, and discarded as chaff. Absent any real charge, and considering the CANVASS involved, I suggest the first word I wrote is correct. Collect (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been no canvassing, and MastCell asked me to "bring it up elsewhere" because he can no longer deal with FellGleaming on both a personal and administrative level. Screwball23 has nothing to do with this report. Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

CANVASS occurs even if the people CANVASSED do nothing. It is the contact which is the violation, not the result of the contact here. Collect (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ::

A simple question for teh alledged canvaser, did you ask anyone who has not been in conflict with fell? A si8mple question for the accuseer, has the user asked for comment or asked what he should do in both cases?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There has also been no tag teaming. I made Two edits, one imidialty after the other [[17]]. I ask that this blatant mis-representation is withdrawn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And you blanket reverted my edits and restored Fell's. You tag teamed. And like Fell, you have not been able to answer the questions posed on the article talk page by myself, or on the NOR noticeboard by other editors. This is disruptive editing by the both of you. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ONe making an edit you do not like (or restoring an edit you do not like) is not tag teaming (and I now belive this to be casued by the fact you cannot revert due to having used 3 reverts already, that you are attmepting to use this ANI to continue an edit war). Two I have answerd the questions, that you do not accpept the answers [[18]] (why this should be here) [[19]] (sources supporting the fact the nUS has not ratified the treaty) [[20]] (that the sectio with out the material about US nonratification mis-represents the situation) is not my problom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I have filed this ANI because both Fell and yourself have ignored concerns regarding your misuse of sources on both the article talk page and the OR noticeboard, and have now duplicated the same, exact disputed edits in two different articles for no reason, which not only doesn't make any sense, but is a good example of the disruptive, POINTY behavior going on here. You can't just ignore talk pages and noticeboards that question your edits. You need to stop adding the disputed material and work towards resolution and consensus. Neither of you seem able or willing to do this. I don't know where you stand at this point, but I do know that Fell has some kind of difficulty understanding basic policies and guidelines, and from what I can tell, has no interest in understanding them. That's a bit strange for an editor active since January 2008. I mean, he's had plenty of time to figure things out, right? Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you care to check I have only edited the one articel. I ask you to withdraw the accustion I have done this on two artciels as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was presenting that finding as a total, not as evidence that you yourself edited two articles, but you are correct, you have only edited one, but two separate articles between the both of you now contains the same content. Viriditas (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps also relevant, this discussion with FellGleaming about not so reliable sources for science articles on the Goddard Institute talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

GISS is not a "science article", and the text being cited is not a scientific point, but simply that a particular person works for GISS. Even worse is the fact that Ibis himself agrees the fact is accurate; he simply wishes to use a separate source for the citation. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How can our article about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) not be a science article? --TS 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The notion that the statement "Steven Schneider once worked for GISS" is some sort of scientific method, theory or discovery that can only be verified by a Ph.D-authored science book is rather odd. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is different, i.e. that you don't want to use a source which, while verifying the statement, covers the science related to the article's topic in a way that makes the book not a good source for the other information it contains. There may be cases where such a book is the only source available and you don't have a choice but to use that book. I think there exists a special tag for such references that indicates that one would rather have another source. But in this case we already have a better source. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case we have an apparently perfectly adequate source for the late Stephen Schneider's association with GISS. I agree that the source proposed by FellGleaming is a little odd for an article about a scientific institute. --TS 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The source was proposed by another editor, not myself. As for the other source being "perfectly adequate", multiple independent sources are often used. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this in the article at all? As far as I can tell he was at Goddard as a post-doc for less than a year in 1971-72? (according to his own CV). What particular relevance the GISS article has his brief stop there to do with anything? Put another way -- rather than argue about "what" source for this information, a more important question would seem to be "why this information at all?" (The place for it would seem to be the guy's biography, you know "Early career and education.")Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good point, Bali. I don't feel comfortable removing it myself because of this ongoing dispute, but if you (or anyone else) wants to excise it, I support the action. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple, but you need to understand the history. Cla68 is having a campaign to add as many facts to as many articles as he can, using Fred Pearce's book as a source. That is where this factoid came from [21]. See-also the next diff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have encountered this editor before. He bears careful watching. Basically FellGleaming is so very strongly pro-nuclear power that he will bend or break WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR to get a pro-nuclear slant onto articles. Tenacious to the point of tendentiousness, this editor will likely require the attention of Arbcom eventually. A SPA with an agenda, who treats our project as a battleground. --John (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsuccessful enforcement request from April 2010

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

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

   After I challenge this,

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

   After my warning, below, then

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Terra Novus has said that he's a former user who has a new user name, per "Clean start".[46] However he seems to be engaged in contentious issues. Perhaps it'd be helpful if he'd share his former username with a Checkuser or ArbCom member to make sure that he is following best practices.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to share my former name with a qualified Checkuser or Arbcom member..--Novus Orator 05:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Then please go ahead and do that, and ask the person to publicly confirm that you've done so. Rd232 ^talk 12:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Has this been completed?   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
        • User_talk:Carcharoth#Confirmation. Novus seems to have misunderstood though, and merely declared on Carcharoth's talk page that he is User:Gniniv. Rd232 ^talk 11:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Issues of "Clean start" aside, it appears that Gniniv had few editing overlaps with FellGleaming.[47]   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary of opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's just a naive, bureaucratic recitation of rules. Toddst1 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR proposal

• OK, then, suggested outcome: impose 1RR now (indefinitely, or at least til end of calendar year), and have an RFC/U later on, maybe in late October or November sometime. RFC/U outcome can then take into account FG's behaviour during 1RR restriction. The assumption remains that FG can improve, otherwise a community ban would have been passed. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support That seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I remain hopeful that FellGleaming can make a useful contribution to the project, if he learns to discuss things first, and gain consensus before making changes to controversial articles. --Merlinme (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, especially if someone initiates a RfC/U. I would prefer a time-limited restriction, and three month sounds about right. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: 1RR now (at least until the end of December), and an RFC/U (in Oct or Nov) sounds fair. Johnfos (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support a reasonable 1RR until December (excluding legitimately minor edits to prevent inadvertant crossing the line) - as not being draconian at all. The RFCU is, however, moot as to desireability - letting things calm down is not aided by an incipient RFCU by any means. Collect (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it can be taken as read that if an RFCU becomes moot through FG improving then no-one will bother. It should be left a while, so there is a sufficient opportunity for FG to make it unnecessary. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Collect; 1RR until 1/1/11; no more monkey business with misrepresenting sources; no need for an RFCU because by January 2011 this user will either have reformed or be indefinitely blocked. --John (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • FG's interest in the upcoming US election makes end December (3 months) a better choice. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • End December /start of Jan was what I meant by 1/1/11 above. --John (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I guess I misread it. :) Rd232 ^talk 20:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
        • My fault for not being clearer. I should have said "January 1, 2011" instead of being cute with the special date. --John (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support as the best current chance of sending a message to this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Hope it works. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Though honestly I don't think that 1RR gets to the other significant problems of non-verifiable edits, battleground editing style and ad hominem attacks on other editors. Until recently I had had no contact with this editor, but in the brief time that I have been, I have been singularly unconvinced that accurate, NPOV content and collaborative editing is this editor's goal. --Slp1 (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1RR for all the editors involved in the troublesome articles...--Novus Orator 03:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Trouble is, we agreed above that the areas of conflict FG was involved in were too wide to permit a subject restriction. So what "troublesome articles" would you propose? There are other means of getting broader attention on whole areas of the project, but this seems from the above to be one editor whose editing style creates problems wherever he goes. --John (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. But we can't establish a pre-determined expiry date. FG hasn't edited since 24 September, and appears to be doing what some editors have said he did last time he was close to being banned over climate change articles: just bugging out for a while. His edit history via wikichecker is very "spiky". We need to see three months active editing under 1RR before we can tell whether it needs to be lifted or whether to proceed with an RfC/U. And I think 1RR needs to be construed very restrictively in this case, i.e. no "undo" edits of previously-added material beyond 1RR just because the material is not under current dispute or wasn't added recently.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Good point. Could the 1RR restriction be made to last until Mr FG has completed a certain number of article edits—excluding any form of reversion—rather than expiring on a particular date? If so, what would be a reasonable number of such edits to impose the restriction for? 200? 500? David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• In his last three months of editing (from the end of June to the end of September) he made roughly 550 article edits, so perhaps 500 would be an appropriate number of edits for the restriction to run. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the intention of the 3 months' 1RR is to provide a restriction for 3 months of active editing, for the purpose of FG learning to be a better member of the community. It isn't intended to provoke a self-imposed exile for the period of the restriction, with a resumption of the status quo ante afterwards. So: any calendar months with less than 100 article or article talk edits don't count towards the 3-month restriction. Rd232 ^talk 12:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize with the sentiment here, but I think it is misplaced. If FG wishes to continue to contribute here, the burden is clearly on them now to do so within clearly expressed community norms. The point of the restriction is to lessen the cost to the community while they learn to do so, not increase it by requiring someone to count edits and months. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of the restriction is to have FG learn to contribute in a way the community is OK with. Circumventing the restriction by disappearing whilst it's in effect is not going to achieve that. If FG continues contributing, it's not an issue. If he goes away for a while and then returns, it's a small burden to check his contribs in a certain period (using wikichecker) compared to worrying about enforcing 1RR. I'd also anticipate it being unnecessary, since FG probably wouldn't disappear for a long time knowing the restriction would remain until he'd faced it. Rd232 ^talk 11:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So, are you saying that the restriction should be indefinite, not to be lifted until FG requests it and the community assents? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would accept that, but I would prefer a flat time (until the first of next year). If FG chooses not to edit during that period, then it will be up to their ability to recognize even without a formal active restriction that the community has spoken and edit warring in any form will not be tolerated. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like we have consensus for 1RR for three months. Would someone uninvolved mind closing this lengthy thread, please? - 2/0 (cont.) 14:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

( Note: Off2riorob closed this thread in this edit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC) )

I agree a final sanction needs to be determined and that this thread needs to be closed. But I don't think Off2riorob is the best person to make the decision about how to apply the 1RR sanction since he's not an admin and since I can't consider him uninvolved due to his editing overlap with FellGleaming where he has (to my brief inspection) generally come in on the same side of conflicts as FellGleaming. There was discussion above in which Rd232 (most notably, among admins) believed 1RR should be not time-limited but rather based on active editing. For these reasons I've re-opened Off2riorob's non-admin closure: I do want this thread to be over with, too, but I think an uninvolved admin needs to be the one to decide how the 1RR restriction should be applied, and should update the editing restrictions entry, as needed, to reflect that decison. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well perhaps it would be simplest to record it as 3 months' 1RR, finishing at the end of 31 Dec 2010, with a caveat that if FG is not very active during this period, this will be taken into account in the event that future sanctions are necessary. Please could an uninvolved admin finalise this? Rd232 ^talk 10:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

Unresolved

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm, I thought usual practice in this situation was the venue changed to the arb case, with sanction proposals and whatever else going to /Workshop. As GWH put it (re arbcom) "if they're going to take it then they preempt."[48] My bad if I closed that page improperly (I see you have reopened it). It's certainly inappropriate to act as if there is some kind of turf battle between ANI and arbcom, if that's what you're thinking. If they're willing to handle this thing, it has structural advantages, and I don't see any problem with moving it there. They arbs are themselves, as the saying goes, uninvolved admins; they can handle it just fine. 67.122.209.115 (talk) —Preceding undated

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

As the particulars of the Arbcom case don't evidently and completely preempt the community consensus here, I have enacted it today, and I am timestamping the discussion subsection here. Stevertigo is now subject to a community sanction of 1 RR / article / week, indefinitely.

The diff on the subpage with the close and verbage on the edit restriction are here, the edit restriction as logged is here, and I have additionally noted it on the Arbcom case main talk page here.

I am timestamping this section for archival purposes now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough and unnecessary capitalization changes

Template:Formerly

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Done. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × >9000)  Done... about a minute after you did. Never mind. I left an informative message about this thread though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've blocked him until this can be resolved. This is clearly causing disruption. In addition to this, it has tagged the Main Page as uncategorized. According to the bot policy, automated bots cannot be run on main accounts unless approved by BAG (and AFAIK, this is not). (X! · talk)  · @926  ·  21:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Done[49]. Communication with the bot owner is going to be exceedlingly hard, it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with a user undertaking blanking and implementing 1h[50] (one hour) auto-archiving on the talk page designated as the point-of-contact for the bot. There were multiple threads open on the User_talk page on the topic at the time of blanking. —Sladen (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• RF has a long history of controversial mass-actions and refusing to discuss them or even consider that anybody else might possibly be right. Suggest he simply be banned from running a bot or engaging in any automated edits, or edits that seem to be automated, for one year. At the end of that year, if he has demonstrated that he will actually discuss his edits and not summarily blank discussions, he may apply at BAG to have his bot reinstated. → ROUX ₪ 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Good, I warned him like 4-5 times about changing {cite foo} to {Cite foo} in the last two days, and he was still making them. In general, it would probably be a good idea to force him to do these AWB runs on a BAG-approved bot rather than on his main account. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from user's talk

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

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

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

No. I think Rich's belief is that it somehow helps new users identify templates and improves readability [51]. My belief is that it just bloats the diff and makes it hard to see what the actual meat of the edit was, while imposing a personal preference that does not seem to be shared by the majority of editors. –xeno^talk 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have two questions:

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

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

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

My stalker is back

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

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

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

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

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

SmackBot is not following its own documented stop process, and I have just drawn Rich's addition to this.[52]. The instructions given at User talk:SmackBot are to place the string "STOP" in that page and a new section link is provided to do this. This "STOP" string continues to be the present, but the bot is making edits[53][54] including the these capitalisation changes under discussion[55]. A bot making edits while apparently stopped is a fairly serious bug as there is then no reliable way to stop the bot without resorting to an administrative block (as has had had to be performed here). —Sladen (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Desysop?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So if you mess up c. 1000 articles with your bot and you refuse to reverse your actions, anyone seeking to revert you is supposed to use undo? And you expect people to care about your time being spent? As you should remember, I informed you that I was using rollback and explained, which is enough to comply with rollback policy (not that anyone cares about that these days). If you did it now I would just block you, but I was trying to mencourage you to co-operate of your own free will. At this rate, you are unlikely to retain both your bot and admin access, but if you started being responsive and respecting bot policy and stopped arguing with everyone giving you feedback, you might have a chance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My response at the time:

Please note that Deacon rollbacked these edits without discussing with me. It is not an issue that he has reverted several hundred recent edits that are not those he is targeting (although they have a different edit summary) - recent stuff can by and large be redone - the problem with rollback is it undoes all the consecutive edits by that user to the article. So for example, edits the bot made in 2006, using code which will no longer run could be reverted. Adn there is no way to know which articles this applies to. Had deacon come to my talk page as clearly requested on the bot's talk page and discussed the matter there, we could have avoided a lot of work for both of us. I have rollbacked as much of Deacons rollbacks as I can, and am re-applying the removal of the template he finds so disquieting. I will be left with probably several hundred articles to go and check the history of manually. Deacon, you really needed to talk to me about this, rather than just apply rollback which is for anti-vandalism purposes only. Rich Farmbrough, 17:43 22 January 2009 (UTC).

I did not mention that you were rollbacking at 60 edits per minute. Hardly "mere rollback". Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

The 'mere rollback' was in reference to its power vis-a-vis bots. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The way you were using it was more powerful than bots, and considerably more of a blunt instrument. And curiosity prompted me to check - in addition to the several hundred unaffected articles which you rolled back, you caused (unintended) damage to another 146, destroying edits going back to April 2007. It's no big deal but nor does it seem to me a shining example. Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich, you are only further illustrating your tendency to avoid taking responsibiity for your own actions while arguing childishly with those trying to give you feedback. Believe it or not, this continued protesting only harms you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback or rollback? You had a problem with my actions, your response was to violate policy in two different ways and break hundreds of articles. And to report me to ANI. I fixed up all the articles you broke, undid the actions you had objected to responded to your comments, asked you to talk to me about any future problems, and considered the matter closed. 18 months later you bring it up again and call me childish? So who is being responsible for their actions? The editor that takes action to resolve them, and invites discussion, or the one that gets out his admin-tools, and creates havoc? Rich Farmbrough, 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

The two complaints you are playing up are 1) rollback was used to revert bot disruption and 2) when your edits were reverted, good edits were reverted at the same time.

1) See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; as was explained to you, this was necessary and complied with policy . 2) If you included good edits with bad edits in a bot run, then that's your mess, not the person reverting you; then as now, if you want your good edits to stick, don't package controversial ones along with it. Not everyone has a bot, and they aren't expected to spend days and days cleaning up the mess of bots when it can be done much faster.

These are poor and unpersuasive ways of deflecting blame. What's childish is not that your disruptive bot runs get remembered, but that you constantly argue with people trying to help you and constantly try to evade responsibility. Because you are very bad at doing this, all people perceive is immaturity and inconsiderate brat-ness ... the community expects people with active bots to be mature, to take responsibility and to deal with people with care. If you look like you have a princess complex, you are unsuitable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My view

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

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

Minor technical question

Smackbot was doing what I thought were strange things to DEFAULTSORT for cats eg [56]. ie ÖBB Class 2070 became sorted as {{DEFAULTSORT:Obb Class 2070}} Which was fairly counterintuitive. (yes I know what Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_keys says but if the bot had made no edits the page titles caused perfect categorisation anyway, whereas incomplete bot activity made a mess.) Whilst I had no real objection to what it was doing in principle the effect was usually to totally mess up alphabeticalisation of categories requiring remedial manual editing work .

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

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

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

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

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

Unblocking?

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

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

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

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

1. No more changing the cases of the initial letters of any templates. No more changing {{for}} to {{For}}, or changing {{silicate-mineral-stub}} to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}}, or changing {{coord missing}} to {{Coord missing}}, or anything else.
2. No automated editing at all from main account. Specifically:

1. All 'bot-like tasks, like this one, no matter how uncontroversial, to be farmed out to non-administrator accounts like Femto Bot (talk · contribs), and approved via Bots/Requests for approval.

2. Use of a dedicated non-administrator account, in accordance with AutoWikiBrowser rule of use #2, if editing at speeds like 10 edits per minute with AutoWikiBrowser.

3. Clear linkages be provided on the bot pages to the appropriate approvals through Bots/Requests for approval.

4. No altering a bots function outside of the linked approvals without approval of the change.

5. Scope and function(s) of the bot explicitly stated both in the application for approval and on the bot page.

3. A message to any bot's talk page stops the bot; 3.1 the task is not restarted until the issue is resolved. 4. No unblocking one's own bots.

Small-ish suggestion re point 2:

Merged with above.

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

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

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

1 is redundant to 2.4

2 has nothing to do with some of its sub-conditions

2.1 goes off at a tangent

2.2 is good

2.3 is good

2.4 is good

2.5 is good

3 Is unreasonably onerous. AWB tasks will be stopped by a talk page message. Other tasks you will have to find an admin to block if I am not around - although I am likely to be for non-AWB content tasks.

3.1 Again unreasonable. This gives the other party veto - on Wikipedia you will find someone to oppose the tiniest changes. I will discuss, as I have with everyone (except with one editor who has been gentleman enough not to bring it up - for which my apologies), but we are talking about approved tasks here. Ninety nine times out of a hundred problems are sorted out on talk pages, but it is not reasonable to expect every one to be. A Bag member can be called if the other party thinks there is clearly a problem that a botop is refusing to acknowledge, and they have the power (or so the template documetnatin says - and templates documentation, I am informed, is the ultimate authority on Wikpedia (yes-joke)) to revoke BRFAs. There are 17 "Active" Baggers and 24 "Inactive". Or you can find an admin to block the bot (pretty easy - changing one letter got SmackBot blocked) or maybe even a 'crat who will do it on the basis of two duff diffs? (Yes another joke, but also true.)

4. Seems reasonable, given my arguments at 3.1. As long as I am allowed to remove CBM's blocks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Incidentally I would expect those admins that zoomed to stop/block my bots to have taken the trouble to leave me a note to that effect, especially as this ANI is supposedly about communication? Well maybe they had collective amnesia, but five admins all failed to leave me a note, including the one who left a stinky edit summary in his block. Rich Farmbrough, 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Unblocked

Rich Farmbrough has finally agreed[57] to both participate in discussion here, and to cease doing the disruptive and unresponsive editing that got him blocked in the first place. So I've unblocked him. Wknight94 ^talk 20:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK. I'm going to keep this short: I could write a book, but it would be TLDR - I hope the following is both informative and reassuring.

What happened? SB dates maintenance tags as it's most intensive task. It also does various minor cleanup as it goes - as people have said pretty unexceptional.

One of the features of templates - indeed all wikilinks - is that they are not simply literals but a minor grammar in their own right for example:

____ __ _ __ :____ __ _ __ Template____ __ _ __ :____ __ _ __ Citations____ __ _ __ needed____ __ _ __ is a perfectly good link to {{Citations needed}}. Particularly when SB's regexes were hand crafted for each template (back then merely 1000 , now well over 2000 counting redirects) dealing with this complexity meant canonicalisation of template names was the only way to go. (I thought dating a few templates was going to be trivial when I started.) Therefore standard functionality is to replace the clean up template names with a clean version, following redirects. This also has the benefit that the number of different possible clean up templates left after a run is 569 (!) rather than four or five times that number. It also means that the template is capitalised - an "arbitrary but intelligent" decision I made - yes I know algol coders, C coders, perl hackers just love lower case - and I have been all of those things - but for someone who has never coded it seems to me that the capital says "Here is a new thing starting that is somewhat like a sentence." - and it is not a great leap from {{Citation needed|reason=this seems unlikely|date=July 2009}} to "Citation needed, because this seems unlikely, request added July 2009" (Incidentally anyone looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Citation_needed&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 right now will see six articles that appear to redirect to Citation needed - these are almost certainly articles that have had the redirect placed at the top and the article text left in place - normally I would go and fix them, but I am being "chided" for not writing here as a priority.) Having canonicalised the templates - which - only takes (569 + a few) rules, dating them is simple - provided that they haven't already been dated, don't have an invalid date don't have "date" mis-spelled (SB will pick up "fate" but not "jate" - that is left for some poor human drudge to do - as being a very unlikely mispelling SB is pretty conservative to avoid errors, similarly it will pick up "date=Spetember" and correct it to September but "date= Josh is ghey" will simply get over-written with the current month and year) - so another 569 rules for the basic dating and a few hundred to deal with specials like "As of". Anyway some of the minor cleanups SB picked up were related to templates in wide use that either had oodles of redirects or were moved. Again pretty unexceptional. Foolishly on 6th Spetember (or September if you prefer) I added the Cite templates to this list - this was foolish because cites are an area where "angels fear to tread" much like dates and MoS - I have been foolish enough to contribute to MoS too. Having said that it was foolish, it wasn't mind-numbingly stupid, despite what others may think, I had been pleasantly surprised not to receive negative feedback on other changes, and there are a surprising number of redirects to , for example {{Cite web}} - 21 in fact. That's 21 templates - not 21 pages, the number of pages is 12,118 and the number of actual uses will be higher still. Moreover I knew that removing those four templates would be fairly trivial. So what was the response? Were seven different kinda of hell unleashed upon my talk page? Find out in the next thrilling episode. Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

I get the impression that you think the only reason you were blocked, or that people are concerned, is this recent problem with SmackBot's capitalisation, which I see this more as being the last straw. I think the underlying problems are: You ignoring bot policy, by running unapproved bots; running bots on your own account; not responding to concerns, which you are also expected to do as an administrator, but instead you blank messages, ignore concerns, claim to be too tired (even claim that you're always too tired), you even seem to play word games. These are the problems which need to be addressed, since they are what lead to problems such as the template capitalisation. It's no good just dealing with the result of these problems, as we know (from prior experience with you in regard to bots) that all that happens is problems arise again. This isn't a one-off mistake. That said... Looking at what you say above, it mostly seems to be explaining how the task works, that's nice, but really the question is can you prevent SmackBot from changing the capitalisation of all templates (not just the cite templates or whatever). You could maybe even use a regex find/replace after the other changes are made to effectively "revert" any capitalisation changes made (but before actually saving to the wiki)? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of explaining how the task works - which is pretty deadly dull - is to lay the ground work. Understand, for example, that powerful though AWB is, it is an application, not a programmers framework like Pywikipedia. SmackBot's rulebase runs to 750k+ of XML - let me find out how many regexes that is - 5067 rules plus some "advanced" rules. The suggestion you make above might be workable - while I try to keep the rules as simple as possible, there may be an elegant solution, but on the face of it I would have to pull apart the redirect consolidation rules and have a separate one for "Sentence case" and "lower case", and the same would apply to any specific rule - since there are about 2500 redirects and some hundreds of other rules this would mean a massive increase in the rulebase (possibly more than doubling it). I outlined what is easy and what is hard to change, on my talk page, along with the benefits. And I really don't hear a clamour for {{infobox... There are two reasons I find commenting here tiring: one is the fact that every word is hostage to fortune - as shown in your comment. And indeed every edit or lack of an edit: - I don't know whether its funny or sad to have people counting my edits between being unblocked and starting to comment here. The suggestion that it would have been better for the project to leave redlinked categories on a hundreds articles than to keep the ravening hordes of ANI waiting - especially when commenting on the volume of text here, let alone the 50k or so on my talk page was likely, and still is likely, to take some time, may have some merit, but I can't see it. More later. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

This reads a bit like "Smackbot is too big to be maintainable". If that's the case, break Smackbot up into small pieces running on separate bots that are individually auditable. If the answer is that individual smaller tasks would mean loosing the opportunity to discreetly make whitespace/capitalisation changes otherwise deemed without merit, then that's actually a positive; the minor changes brought your activities to a head—as Kingpin mentions (and I'll reiterate for the explicit avoidance of doubt) there is a wider general problem; which is one of interaction (acting on feedback, not disputing/arguing it; and participating in discussion to a closure). —Sladen (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but here (and on my talk page) you are plain wrong about software maintainablity.

• (Citation[ _]+style|Cleanup-references|Cleanup-citation|Ref-cleanup|Citationstyle|Citation-style|Refstyle|Reference[ _]+style|Reference-style|Cleanup-refs|Citestyle|Cleanrefs|Refclean|Refsclean|Source[ _]+Style|Sourced[ _]+wrong|Ref-style|Refcleanup)

is longer than your proposed

• (clean(up)?-?(ref(erences|s)|citation)||(cit(ation|e)|ref(erence)?|source?)-?([Ss]tyle|clean(up)?)|sourced[ _]+wrong)

But it is also more maintainable and more readable

Your version

1. Has errors of coding
2. Has errors of design
3. Is hard to add to
4. Is hard to remove items from
5. Has no discernible performance benefits, and maybe performance costs (although I do agree that this is "in this case" not critical, I'm fed up with people saying "don't worry about performance" as a blanket statement when we have literally hundreds of fantastic servers worth millions of dollars which time out serving pages, yet my little desktop, encumbered as it is with the world's worst operating system, runs most of the software I write (pace infinite loops) before I can blink, or at least IO bound. I was running SmackBot - and everything else on a skip-rescue PC until about 18 months ago.)
6. Is less readable

It is also very very clever - and I am not being sarcastic. In fact I am being a little peacocky, because it is exactly the sort of regex I was using until I simplified and automated. And it caused a number (not necessarily a lot) of problems, picking up incorrect templates.

(See now, this has taken me over half an hour to write, maybe I'm slow, maybe I'm just being careful what I write - and maybe other people spend as long and as much care on what they write, but I certainly see evidence that some of them don't read what I say, and just bash of a few hundred words at top speed to express their feelings. But I have probably already spent about 4 hours on this thread, let alone my talk page. And I am being accused of "not responding" - I know there are subjects here I haven't even broached, and I have made it clear that it will take time to get to them - anyone who can't wait - well I would offer an informal reply on my talk page - but it would only get quoted back out of context here -as has already happened.)

Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

At the risk of putting words into Rich Farmbrough's mouth, I'm going to respond to something Kingpin13 wrote: that RF has claimed "to be too tired (even claim that you're always too tired)" -- only because it sounds true. There seems to be a familiar pattern to the last chapter of the career long-term Wikipedians: increasing lack of patience with others, obsession with details (which may appear to be WikiLawyering), & an increasing weariness with contributing or the discussion which follows contributions. The bastards finally wear the dedicated & selfless volunteers down. Now if this is truly what is happening here, then the only advice I can offer to Rich (I say "only" because I honestly don't have a better solution & wish there was one) is to simply cut back on what you do. If running certain bots on Wikipedia is getting to be more of a pain than it is a joy, then stop doing it. Wikipedia can survive without all of the bots being operated here, believe it or not; & if I'm wrong, it's likely someone else will pick up the slack. If someone doesn't, the resulting carcass will get preserved, & another group will try to resurrect the online encyclopedia with a slightly different set of rules of operation. And I'm writing this because I, too, feel tired with Wikipedia, just like Kingpin13 says RF claims to be. And after I finish the projects on my plate here (i.e., a few groups of articles & upload a few PD images), I'm going to drop my involvement here even more. Or if one of these leads I'm chasing gets me back into the job market, maybe sooner. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

llywrch is right - but I don't blame the "Aha! I have a diff... " brigade. "I too was once as you." (Yes that's (self-deprecating) humour, not being patronizing.) Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Well, take time to consider my advice. Maybe if enough experienced Wikipedians say "I'm burned out, so I'm quitting" the PTB may decide that it would be better for the Wikimedia projects to allocate resources to retaining veteran editors than increasing the the pool of Crowdsourcers in places like India. The idea is to create a quality encyclopedia, not to recruit every Tom, Dick & Hari to make questionable edits to Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to cite template

I have just discovered that, without any discussion, Rich made significant changes to the Template:Cite web. Specifically, while we were complaining about his bot, he changed the template examples from lower case to upper case. Since this was his response to complaints on his page, and since his deleting the comments on his talk page without responding to our comments is what started this whole discussion, I think that these changes need special attention.

• 22:21, 21 September 2010 Start of "Could you not capitalize citation template in the future?"
• 15:49, 26 September 2010 Start of "cite vs Cite"
• 12:47, 27 September 2010 Rich says that the bot is no longer changing "cite" to "Cite"
• 18:41, 27 September 2010 I complain again because the bot is still making the changes
• 18:42, 27 September 2010 Rich changes the case of the first character in the Template:Cite web examples
• -- There are additional comments in both threads
• 20:29, 28 September 2010 Rich blanks the talk page without responding to anyone since
  • 15:19, 26 September 2010 in the 1st thread, and
  • 12:47, 27 September 2010 in the 2nd.
• 20:54, 28 September 2010 This ANI discussion was started by me.

It was very difficult to step back through his contribution log. It appears that on Sept 28, he made well over 5,000 edits. (Perhaps over 100,000. And all with AWB. It is totally unbelievable that the admins allow this. Link to contribution log so no one else will have to search for it.)

As a result of this "new" information, I am requesting others to comment before I simply undo his uh, changes, to the template. I for one do not like them. For another, I think this was an underhanded slap in the face. He didn't even have the courtesy to mention this on his talk page when two groups of people were complaining about the same subject. He also did not mention it in any of the other discussions since. Q Science (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously been established above that he has no consensus for the capitalisation changes, so I say change them back. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just revert Q. Rich Farmbrough, 08:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

ok reverted [58] Note there's one reason why none of the fields are capitalised, and that is that non-bot editors can enter them without having to press shift key. Clearly the first field could be an exception, and changed by bots later. There are many arguments, it probably didn't need changing - anyway continue that debate on relavent page.Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I stalk Rich's talk page, but even now, I still fail to understand why some editors object so much to capitalisation. The typical reason seems to be they are immaterial and thus unnecessary. Whilst I am not sure why he changes the capitalisation, it makes not a jot of difference to anything, whether in the smaller or the larger scheme of things. Our servers recognise and resolve both. The important thing I see is that SmackBot is providing an invaluable service with all the detritus it picks up. This business about capitalisation should be allowed to overshadow the huge contributions (whether in terms of load or in types of small changes) by Rich and his bots. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The question is indeed, why does he do it? Imagine a page with all cite templates in lower case. RF comes along, changes them all to uppercase. I add a new cite, using the edit box cite functionality. This by default add cites in lowercase. We now have, thanks to RF's unnecessary edit, an article where some of the cites are in uppercase, some in lowercase. Everything still works, but we get less consistency for no good reason at all... Fram (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The great thing is, being only visible in the read mode makes them totally inconsequential. Not worth busting a blood vessel over it, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Totally inconsequential, but a nuisance when you notice an article on your watchlist being updated by an RFbot. You get tons of "differences" which consist only of meaningless spacing or capitalization, and to find what was actually changed (usually, admittedly, improved) takes a lot more work than it should do. Fram (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"This business about capitalisation should be allowed to overshadow the huge contributions" I'm not sure if you're suggesting we should let him continue with these disputed changes (which makes zero sense to me), or if we should "cut him a break" as long as he doesn't do it going forward. You have to keep in mind that this ANI would not have come to be had Rich stopped making these changes after being asked several times. –xeno^talk 12:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Rich ignore the talkpage complaints; au contraire. Of course he should be transparent with the rationale for the capitalisation changes too. If I understand correctly just what Rich he has programmed his bot to do, I'd say it combines a large number of inconsequential changes which would otherwise never be made with jobs such as tag-dating. One way forward is perhaps he will program his bot with more consequential tasks (such as date format alignment or other style fixes), so that the chances of there being only inconsequential edits is further reduced. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The capitalization changes aren't merely inconsequential but also undesired. –xeno^talk 14:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI re: cleanup template capitalization

FYI WP:AWB does cleanup template ucfirst capitalization in-house (see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#autotag makes disputed capitalization changes), so Rich is at the mercy of his tools. –xeno^talk 16:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if AWB does it automatically, operators are still fully accountable for actions the script takes. The warning is on top of Huggle, Igloo, AWB, etc. (X! · talk)  · @131  ·  02:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by Born2cycle

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been soapboxing all day at Talk:Libertarianism. Now he is admittedly disrupting the talk page by hiding other editor's pertinent comments, with the edit comment "Fine, I can play this stupid game too. Carol's comment about UNDUE also applies to scope... hide it too" which shows it to be an intentional WP:POINT violation. Yworo (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding (yet another I've been having with Yworo, but it's hard to work out differences when he deletes your comments from his talk page and requests that you not post there again) and refuses to continue discussion and answer questions in discussions he starts on my talk page.

1. That hide referenced above with the poorly chosen words in the edit summary was in compliance with a decision made by some editors earlier in the day and subsequent hides were made in enforcing that decision.

   The decision: Talk:Libertarianism#General_warning_regarding_disruption

2. As a result of that decision, you can see entire sections hidden on Talk:Libertarianism towards the bottom that say, "Discussion of Topic or Scope during the period 1 October 2010 - 1 April 2011".
3. A bit earlier I wanted to respond to an earlier discussion about what different sources indicated, and I found it to be hidden/closed not for the agreed upon reason, so I had to unhide it before I added my comments. Then Yworo deleted my comments. Is that acceptable?
4. As to the section I hid, is filing an ANI really necessary? When I disagreed with a hide, I just reverted it.
5. I'm disappointed that Yworo escalated to ANI without discussing his concerns with me first,. I suggest Yworo take a break, and then return open to working out differences on our talk pages before escalating to ANI or elsewhere. I'm confident we can work this out, except he unfortunately is apparently in a "battle" frame of mind, as made evident by this wikilawyering trick to accuse me of WP:POINT because of my poor choice of words in an edit summary comment. That is, if I had just commented "hiding per decision about hiding discussions about article scope", there could be no technical complaint.
6. Since we're here, any assistance would be appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made that particular revert (3) because you removed the {{hab}} at the bottom of the collapsed section but not the {{hat}} at the top, hiding the entire rest of the talk page from the {{hat}} down. That's not the disruptive behavior I was talking about, which I very clearly indicated. However, the thread was collapsed for valid reasons and you shouldn't have been adding to it in any case. Still, you seem to be attempting to distract from the focus from my actual complaints. Yworo (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? It seems to me that you discovered and corrected that problem later (thanks for fixing that, by the way, though I still don't understand what I did wrong because you can see both hat and hab removed in the diff of my change).

Note the reason you gave for the edit summary (at 19:36) for the diff in (3) when you deleted my comments: "Undid revision 388214486 by Born2cycle (talk) discussion was closed)". Seems pretty clear to me.

Your edit to fix something by adding a hab occurred 13 minutes later at 19:49 with edit summary, "by removing the {{hab}} but not the {{hat}}, you collapsed the entire rest of the page, please pay attention to what you are doing".

What are your actual complaints? That I hid a section for discussing article scope in concert with the decision of some others (including you, apparently, because you implemented it too) to hide sections like that (see below)? If that's sufficiently disruptive to warrant an ANI, why not mention that you and Fifelfoo and everyone else who agreed with this is being disruptive too? Or is it because the comment in my edit summary indicated I was complying with the decision in order to make a point? Pardon me for disrupting you with my edit summary comments. How is that disruption? You couldn't instead put a friendly reminder about WP:POINT on my talk page? Is this really worth an ANI? Is this not WP:HARASSMENT?

Though I would not have filed an ANI for it, since we're here, I thought involved admins might want to look at your deleting of other users' comments, your ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions (which is characteristic of WP:TEDIOUS), and refusal to work out disagreements on your talk page as actual disruption, since you're the one raising this ANI, which sure feels like disruptive harassment to me, especially considering the time and effort it takes to defend and explain my behavior. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

On 1 October 2010 I boldly instituted a general warning regarding the disruption caused by the continual revisiting of topic and coverage. The warning is in place until 1 April 2011, six months is a reasonable period after which to revisit topic and coverage. Two remedies were provided for: hiding threads to immediately shut down disruption, or taking the matter to AN/I as disruptive user conduct. The article has been through a very large number of RFCs and extensive discussions, all of which have supported the current broad topic and coverage. Attempts to change the topic or to narrow the coverage have been rejected as against the consensus of the article's editors. As "I didn't hear that" revisiting of achieved consensus were continual, and disruptive, I generally warned article editors, so as to allow editing and WEIGHTing discussions on the current article. Feel free to sanity check this, but imho, it shuts down the disruption without preventing editing or content disagreement within the current scope, and six months is a decent time to wait to revisit topic consensus after six months of disputation over what the scope should be. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Born2cycle's point 3 is correct. I boldly hid a large body of text because it appeared to have (imho) descended into battleground mentality. Hiding this text was was not connected with any breaking the warning about topic or scope. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I was also accused (multiple times, not just in this ANI) for "soapboxing", I should also point out that I have no idea what this is about. I've read and reread WP:SOAP (including 2. Opinion pieces) and cannot for the life of me understand how that applies to anything I've ever posted anywhere in Wikipedia, much less "all day long" yesterday at Talk:Libertarianism. I mean, I don't deny having my own views and biases (who doesn't?), but I try very hard to adhere to WP:NPOV, especially with respect to how material is presented in the article, and so take some offense at these accusations. So, if someone can explain this to me, by citing my exact words (should be easy enough since I supposedly did it "all day long") and quoting whatever criteria in WP:SOAP that supposedly corresponds to my allegedly inappropriate behavior, and explaining how it applies, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I think we have to conclude that this is just yet another form of WP:HARASSMENT. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You added a comment to a discussion marked closed. Any editor may revert the addition of a comment to a discussion marked closed. Apparently I didn't scroll down enough and missed the second comment outside of a collapsed discussion. My apologies, that was a mistake.

As to your demands for answers, I repeatedly pointed out that I considered the whole scope argument, especially the "just libertarianism" and cat arguments, to be soapboxing. It was soapboxing, and all the threads containing those arguments have been collapsed. I don't have to answer soapboxing. Yet you kept harassing me to answer your soapbox questions after I made clear that I wasn't going to debate the "logic" of your soapboxing.

That soapboxing is major part of the disruption that I intended to report here, which is why I mentioned it first. Even after the agreement not to discuss scope, you brought up your scope argument in the middle of one of my discussions about definitions of libertarianism from sources, in an obvious attempt to disrupt my discussion thread. When you became frustrated that your soapboxing was being collapsed and wasn't achieving the effect you intended, you started to uncollapse threads and post less than civil comments. How is that not a pattern of disruption? Anybody who goes and reads the talk page will be able to identify your voluminous comments as primarily soapboxing. Yworo (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle's edit summary, "Fine, I can play this stupid game too", shows an unwillingness to work cooperatively with other editors. He should accept the results of three recent RfCs and stop pushing his own POV about how the article should be written. TFD (talk)

Born2cycle also participated in the POV-fork of Libertarianism created at Libertarian, making these three edits to the forked article: [59], [60], [61]. Of course, primary responsibility for that POV-fork remains with Darkstar1st, who actually replaced the longstanding redirect with the POV-fork [62]. Yworo (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

yworo accuses others of hiding comments, yet he tried to hide an entire section which received 100+ edits in the span of a day http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=388148762&oldid=388148380, including many by yworo. he has also reported me for hiding his 2 word comment "just so" as off topic, yet now that entire section was collapsed. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"which received 100+ edits" That's a serious exaggeration. It received between 20 and 25 comments, and it wasn't particularly productive. If you disagree, please summarize the conclusion of the discussion and precisely how it contributed to the content or structure of the article. What was the outcome? Yworo (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your collapse of "just so" was directed at a specific editor (myself) for no reason other than I dared to question your turning Libertarian into a POV-fork of Libertarianism. It had no justification. The later collapse of the whole thread was done based on the agreement not to discuss scope. If you'd collapsed the whole thread for that reason, it might have been justified. Collapsing a single editor's two word comment had no justification and was clearly a disruptive WP:POINT violation, and you edit warred to restore it after I reverted it. Yworo (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

the whole thread was disruptive, my edit was later restored as well as the rest of the thread being collapsed. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't justify your collapsing a single comment of a single editor, replying to an established thread that was active at the time. Yworo (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

very well, i apologize for removing "just so", being from the ysa, i didn't realize it meant "agree", i assumed it was some kind of taunt of misplaced comment. may wind of a 1000 camels, fill your sails! Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, that one edit summary comment (which is all you mentioned) in a moment of frustration "shows an unwillingness to work cooperatively with other editors"? I hope one has to demonstrate much more and much worse than one unfortunately worded comment to prove someone has "an unwillingness to work cooperatively with other editors". I suggest almost all, if not all, of my other edits on the talk page and article fall on the other side of that scale, clearly demonstrating I am willing and able to work cooperatively with other editors. As to my edits on the Libertarian article, I went there after someone brought it to my attention on my talk page, and made a couple of edits to try to improve it.

Yes, Yworo, I know it is your opinion that much of what I type is soapboaxing because you disagree with me, which apparently you use to rationalize your ignoring of much of what I'm say and ask you. As a contrast to how discussions with me go when someone else is equally skeptical but willing to cooperate, see this discussion with John K on his talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to present a mainstream view of subjects. Obviously your view is fringe, not that there is anything wrong with that, but what is wrong is that you try to inject fringe views into articles. TFD (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, thank you for stating this. That's quite the accusation (and is at the root of the harassment, I believe, because everything I post seems to be interpreted through this "he has a fringe view" lens by a few of you, and not taken seriously, and often ignored).

So, please identify, as clearly and specifically as you can, for the sake of others reading this if not for me, the view of mine that you believe is so fringe that it should not be represented in (or "injected into") Wikipedia articles.

Also, please identify enough instances of me doing this (to establish a problematic pattern sufficient to bring to ANI) where you believe I was doing so, and explain how that behavior exemplifies inappropriately injecting this fringe view. Also, if it's an example of me arguing that that the scope of an article should be reduced to be not about a general use of the term in question but about a more specific topic because the more specific use is primary please explain why this is an example of me trying to inject my alleged fringe view rather than applying the Cat specific/general argument (Cat is about the specific commonly used use of the term, domestic cat and not about the general use referring to the family that includes lions and tigers), and how it's not just me upholding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as I consistently have done at WP for over five years, including recently at Talk:Stockman (Australia) (also discussed here). If you are unable or unwilling to do this, I request you withdraw this accusation for being without basis, and agree to not bring it up again. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Even I can do that, the fringe view that TFD refers to is the view that left-libertarianism is not part of the topic of libertarianism proper, which is contradicted by numerous mainstream sources, as can be seen from the many provided sources on Talk:Libertarianism. When you have abandoned using sources and are reduced to arguing about "just libertarianism" and "cats" to make your point, it becomes clear that you have no sources that explicitly state what you assert. Bringing your "pet" soapbox (pun intended) to AN/I may not have been the smartest move, either. Yworo (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "libertarianism proper", especially in the context of deciding Wikipedia article WP:TITLE and scope, an editorial issue that is almost never determined by what sources "explicitly state". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As to the specific accusation that the view that left-libertarianism is not part of the "libertarianism proper" (whatever that means), can you identify any prominent individuals or organizations that are associated with left-libertarianism AND are identified as being libertarian? For example, in any of the following WP libertarian categories (including their subcats), which, if any, individual or organization members are also associated with left-libertarianism? Category:Libertarians, Category:Libertarianism in the United Kingdom, Category:Libertarian organizations based in the United States, Category:Libertarian think tanks.

Note: this is typical. Someone makes a claim, I question it with specific questions, and it's ignored, sometimes for being "soapboxing". Accordingly, I don't expect them to address this point either, but would be pleased if they did. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you're going to continue with scope discussions, both on the article talk page and here, even though it's been agreed by consensus that there will be no more such discussions until April? How is that not soapboxing? Yworo (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

At the contentious article, on the issue in contention (inclusion/exclusion of disparate, even opposite philosophies with the word "Libertarian" in them) I happen to agree with Yworo (think we should include) and disaqree with Born2Cycle. However I think that Born2's conduct has been exemplary, and Yworo is using notices like this as methods of warfare. After I saw Yworo go to the user page of an admin who had just blocked another of Yworo's opponents and tell them that my milk-toast middle of the road peacemaker proposal [direction / compromise?] was "soapboxing" [[63]]that view has become reinforced, and I consider reports like the above to be warfare tactics. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, North, but I do slip once in a while and so I can't agree that my conduct has been exemplary. But I sure try, and thank you for recognizing that. I wish certain others would...

And thanks for reminding us that the the accusation of "soapboxing" was also inappropriately leveled at you, which illustrates the "shoot first ask questions later (if at all)" approach which some are employing here. They need to be made to understand that when someone attempts to explain a perspective with which they disagree, that is not soapboxing. Building WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia is all about WP:CIVIL discussion, and trying different arguments per WP:TENDENTIOUS ("bring better arguments"), which is what they keep trying to suppress with their soapboxing and "fringe view" accusations.

Achieving consensus with someone who refuses to give serious consideration to the arguments presented, but is instead focused on the suppression of discussion (deleting comments, hiding comments, refusing to answer questions, requesting comments not be made on their own user talk page, baseless accusations of "soapboxing", harassing filings of ANIs, etc. - evidence for all of which has been provided above with respect to the filer of this ANI), is not possible. If anything needs to be addressed here, it's that. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yworo continues to interpret my posts through a "he has a POV" lens, making snide remarks accordingly, etc., here. All I said was, "that seems [like a] different [use of the term]", and Yworo responded, "Different from what you would like?" What does this have to do with what I would like? What's the point of even saying that? I've asked him before to please stop trying to read between the lines - there is nothing there.

  Please comment on content and not about users, Yworo. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yworo and Fifelfoo are not the only ones trying to suppress genuine WP:CIVIL discussion at Talk:Libertarianism that seeks to improve the article (which many agree is currently a mess) through WP:CONSENSUS. Here is an example from User:Snowded. How can this kind of commentary -- "You really have to stop this you know,...", "desperate attempts" -- be discouraged? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And I stand by it. You and a few other editors are refusing to accept a clearly establish position and keep raising the same issue again and again in different forms. it is disruptive and it smacks of desperation. The matter has been discussed to death and a conclusion reached. Your simply don't like it, so continue to attempt to impose your definition of Libertarianism on the article and obviously hope that sooner or later other editors will be worn down by your persistence and give in. Personally I think you need a topic ban from the subject. --Snowded ^TALK 15:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I second the idea of a topic ban from articles related to libertarianism for Born2cycle. Yworo (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone who disagrees with User:Snowded should be topic banned. That would be a novel way to establish WP:CONSENSUS with regard to how to improve the article. Thanks for establishing that you too have the attitude that "he has a POV different from mine so I can just ignore or discount what he's saying and do everything I can to suppress him" (not that you ever said that, just that you respond to my posts consistent with that view). Note that my follow-up question was ignored and is likely to remain unanswered. It's this attitude that is ultimately responsible for over 5 years of turmoil and no consensus at Libertarianism and Talk:Libertarianism (just count the archives). You can't reach consensus when people refuse to participate in discussion and don't even want to understand what others are trying to say. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2 (and all) what you think about this idea: Where there is a name for a strand of Libertarianism (anything with with the word "Libertarian(ism)" in it)which RS's establish is significant, we put it in the article, but with wording to explain any large differences? I know that the latter is vague, but it's the best I could do. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Very good. I think the article would be tremendously improved if we were clear about what the terms mean when we use them.

This is a very challenging topic because there is no consistent use of meaning in reliable sources. Tertiary sources fall back on a very general definition, and then tend to invent terms like right and left libertarianism to distinguish among the strands (but even there different tertiary sources mean different things when they refer to, say, propertian Karl Hess as being a left-libertarian while anti-propertian Chomsky is referred to as a left-wing libertarian). But primary and secondary sources tend to just use "libertarian", so you have to read the source and infer what is meant by "libertarian" in each context to understand. There are understandable concerns that doing so is violating WP:OR. Still, WP:OR also recommends, "Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. ". Well, that applies to almost everything referring to libertarians or libertarianism considering the disparate uses of those terms, especially considering usage before and after the 1950s, and, to a certain extent, within and outside the U.S., but there are no clean/distinct chronological or geographic lines of usage. This is why this is so difficult and controversial. But it's much worse because many editors of this article don't seem to understand and appreciate this problem.

I can say more, but discussions about the article like this should be occurring at the talk page, not here. But they're not occurring at the talk page because a small but vocal minority keeps trying to suppress discussion by those with whom they apparently perceive to have an ideological disagreement. I'm hoping some very experienced administrator can help us out. Again, this has been going on for more than five years which anyone can see by perusing the archives. To suggest that any single editor is the problem here is completely missing the point. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Proliferation of Disruptive Comment Hiding/Deleting

Something that is disruptive is the recent proliferation of comment closing and hiding at Talk:Libertarianism. For example, yesterday a previously uninvolved editor, S. Rich, dropped by and left some sage advice, but today nobody can see it, because that section has been hidden. This is but one example of the kind of indiscriminate comment hiding going on. Surely there is a better and less disruptive way. I hope an admin can address this too since it's indicative of the problematic behavior on that page. And, no, I'm not defending the restarting of that RfC, just the way it was closed, and hidden. If this was an isolated case I would just address it there, but since it's only one example, I think the bigger issue needs attention. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet another incident of comment deletion just occurred from the filer of this ANI, User:Yworo, alleging "not a forum". Even if it was a violation, how about warning the anon IP? But it's NOT a violation, and so was properly reverted by Siafu ("restore anon's comment: it IS about the article itself, whether you think it's a good question or not. "Not a forum" does not apply, and we've had quite enough talk page misbehavior here already").

I request that everyone involved with these indiscriminate and disruptive hiding/deleting of comments at Talk:Libertarianism be warned that this practice is intolerable. Given his filing of this ANI against my behavior, I'm probably not the right person to put a warning on Yworo's talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Epson291

After using a verbatim, unattributed quotation from a source [64] ("Dominick suggested that Stewart, who is Jewish, is also a minority.", from [65]), I warned Epson291 [66] that such plagiarism was unacceptable. Unbelievably, his response was that he hadn't committed plagiarism because he provided a reference to the source from which the quotation was lifted [67], even though no quotation marks or other means were used to denote the direct copying of text. After I rewrote his plagiarized material in clear, original language [68], Epson291 proceeded to reintroduce the plagiarized sentence [69], changing the wording only slightly "Dominick suggested that Stewart, who is Jewish, is also a minority." became "Dominick then noted that since Stewart is Jewish, he is also a minority" (material removed from the original is in strikethrough, new language in bold). Given Epson291's repeated failure to adhere to common standards of academic honestymisuse of source text on Rick Sanchez, he's probablymay have added plagiarized material to other articles as well. Blocking his account would permit the damage to be stopped while his contributions are thoroughly investigated.Therefore I'm requesting that an administrator take appropriate action. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Excessively heated language rewritten by Peter Karlsen on 01:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

non admin reaction May I suggest you refrain from texts as your plagiarism, unrepentant plagiarism, unbelievably and academic honesty for the possibly improper attribution of a short sentence. It seems to be a bit more confronting than needed and it hardly suggests assuming good faith. Probably by investing some time in the discussion with the user on talk:Rick Sanchez or user talk:Epson291 you can come to an acceptable solution within a few days; and without much drama. L.tak (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Users who reject Wikipedia's attribution requirements for the verbatim copying of text need to be stopped, not negotiated with. Anything less than a firm response trivializes the seriousness of the offence: what we have here is no mere accident, but a user who insisted that he's done nothing wrong [70], then did it again [71], on the same article, with the same sentence from the source. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, these are very serious accusation not assuming good faith. You seem to have a discussion on the way a short sentence was attributed/phrased. Epson seems not to explicitly reject the policy, but has problems with a different version which he phrases as poor wording. Thus this seems to be merely a content conflict and I have confidence that in a good discussion the two of you will come to a solution. Otherwise, you can try to obtain a third opinion. But again, texts like he committed an offence, blocking suggestions or bringing things to ANI are not helping here. L.tak (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So now issues of whether sentences can be copied from sources without using quotation marks or similar attribution are "content disputes" merely because the user inappropriately introducing the source text chooses to complain about the style in which the offending text was rewritten? If this were purely an issue of stylistic disagreement, then, yes, it would be a content dispute, but plagiarism shouldn't be permitted to be re-framed as such. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the issues you mention are not content disputes. However, you provided a solution. That solution was not ok because it was poor wording according to Epson. Instead he reintroduced a not properly attributed text. The challenge that remains is to find a wording acceptable to both of you (that's what I called the content dispute); an additional challenge might be to explain/convince Epson that his way of attributing is not correct.L.tak (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not terribly concerned with the style of the sentence. If Epson291 disagrees with the language I used, he can rewrite it in his own words, and I won't revert him. But let's be clear: avoiding the verbatim, unattributed copying of text takes priority over any stylistic disagreement. To the extent that I'm seeking to stop Epson291 from adding incorrectly attributed text to the article, I am not in a content dispute with him. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a clear position; and in this wording it is free of anything which could be construed as an accusation to him/her. I suggest you take this to the talk page there and see if you can come to a solution together. I realize you attempted before at his user talk and you discussed in edit summaries, but you are hardly completely out of options yet I'd say... Good luck! L.tak (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've crossed out and rewritten some language in my initial report that was unnecessarily intense. I'd still like an administrator to deal with this, because Epson291 is likely to respond better to an editor who carries more authority in policy enforcement than I do, and whose language has been more temperate. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

He's only been here for about two months. HalfShadow 00:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Epson291 is in the right, simply because he has the longer tenure? Is there a "vested contributor right" to copy sentences without attribution? Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(just in case the questions were not rethorical): Tenure time doesn't count on wikipedia and sentence copying without attribution should be dealt with. When working with users who are around shorter, some inexperience can be expected and should be taken into account by others. L.tak (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a serious problem with your language directed towards me, from the very first time you wrote on my talk page. Yes the poor wording referred to content, not attribution. I'm not going to reedit it, because I don't have the time to debate with you, but be civil, and assume good faith, the way you've handle this is not appropriate for WP in my opinion, nor was taking this to ANI. - Epson291 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just the tip of the iceberg

It's unfortunate that Epson291's response above was unapologetic and refused to acknowledge that he'd done anything wrong. As I suspected, his plagiarism on Rick Sanchez wasn't the first instance, and, if he isn't sanctioned, it won't be the last. For instance, consider Yellowstone Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which Epson291 created. An original sentence from a Fox News Article: "Founded in 1999, the invitation-only club in the Gallatin Mountains counts Bill Gates and Dan Quayle among its 340 members." Now Epson291's version: "The club was founded in 1999, in the Gallatin Mountains and counts Bill Gates and Dan Quayle among its 340 members." [72] (provided without quotation marks or other indications of the direct copying of text.) Epson291, you have two choices: you can admit the extent to which you've plagiarized material, and devote an adequate amount of time to cleaning up the mess you've created, or I can open a contributor copyright investigation on material you've added to Wikipedia. Which option would you prefer? Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As do you, however, given your problem with civility, which need I remind you is a rule here, I am getting the feeling you're the one that's going to be blocked first. I suggest you stop issuing the ultimatiums here, you've already done enough, and posting here further could be seen as baiting, especially with the tone of your posts. I suggest you leave this thread be, and wait for more knowledgeable people to comment, instead of biting and biting. You've been told it's wrong already to bite someone new to things, yet you continue to do so in your completely rightous attitude. Drop it, leave them alone, and if your complaint has any merit, an administrator will comment. Until then, stop berating them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE? Epson291 has been editing since December 2006 [73], and has over 14,000 edits [74]. Here's some more material that he plagiarized: He created Jewish Community Center of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Here are two original sentences written by a Jewish Community Center archivist:

"In addition, it has provided resources for individuals and families to express themselves culturally and physically, and it has changed its activities, directions, and locations to help meet the needs of the community. The JCC has also sponsored many activities for those people who are serving in the military during wartime and many holiday observances." [75]

Now Epson291's version:

"In addition, it has provided resources for individuals and families to express themselves culturally and physically, and it has changed its activities, directions, and locations to help meet the needs of the community. The JCC has also sponsored many activities for those people who are serving in the military during wartime and many holiday observances." [76]

(as usual, no quotation marks or similar are provided to indicate that text has been directly copied.) With all due respect Daedalus969, academic honesty is more important than being nice to editors who reject Wikipedia's standards in this respect. In none of his responses has Epson291 been at all willing to admit any wrongdoing or to improve his editing [77] [78]. Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue with Jewish Community Center of San Francisco was not created by Epson291: it was split off from Jewish Community Center where it was introduced here by WJHC (talk · contribs). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That's obviously a prior account of the same user: Epson291 takes credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on his userpage [79] (he does indicate other articles which he merely merged and rewrote, only "sort of" created, or "Created by Merging/Splitting other WikiUser's Content", but not this one.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking over Epson291's edits this is looking less like an issue of plagiarism (since the sources are attributed) and more like an issue of copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia:Plagiarism,

Works with copyright restrictions can not usually be extensively copied into Wikipedia articles. Limited amounts of text can be copied from such works providing they satisfy the Wikipedia copyright policy and are clearly indicated in the article with the use of quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations). All quotations must be followed by an inline citation (see WP:PROVEIT).

Since Epson291 copies non-free text into articles without "the use of quotation marks, or some other acceptable method", his behaviour does indeed constitute plagiarism. Also,

If an external work is under a standard copyright notice, then copying text from such a work, with little, or no, alteration to that work, into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless it is clearly indicated in the text by quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations).

Therefore, plagiarism of non-free sources is a copyright violation per se, even if it otherwise would have been fair use. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WJHC is not a previous account of mine, and yes I split it from a previous page. If there are attribution problems or anything which constitutes plagiarism, I'm not perfect, and I am certainly willing to look at this, with the advice from other editors, but your tone towards me is not acceptable. - Epson291 (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, a concession that you may have done something wrong only after an administrator threatens to block your account indefinitely [80] has to be taken with a grain of salt. If WJHC isn't your prior account, then why did you take credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on your userpage [81], even though you have a section devoted to "Articles I Created by Merging/Splitting other WikiUser's Content"? If you're willing to take credit for other contributors' work, then you're also going to have to take the blame. If WJHC is your prior account (your claim to have created Jewish Community Center of San Francisco is truthful), then you're going to be in serious trouble for copyright violations [82]. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Why did you take credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on your userpage" - Well looking at it, because in the only edit I made on the page was its creation, hence it being on my section for pages I created. And in the edit summary I wrote, "(new article --> split from main)", so yes I did split it, so it should probably have been on the other list, it may have just gotten their because I was looking at the tool for seeing which pages I created, I was certainly not trying to decive anyone, or take credit for someone elses work. Those lists exist as a sort of watch list, to give me an ability to check up on the articles.- Epson291 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly,even isolated sentences taken from a prior source must be attributed, and the consistent failure to do so after warnings is a serious offense, and would certainly merit a block to prevent further abuse. Even if attributed, using previously written sentences for the presentation of plain facts where there would be no difficulty in rewriting does not make sense, and is probably a violation of our NFCC policies (even though, from a legal point of view, it would be fair use in the US). Epson, you do need to pay very careful attention to this: please consider this a formal warning. . However, I see no prior warnings at any time. This does not on the present evidence seem at all analogous to the major CCI problems we have been dealing with lately. But it's certainly true that is some articles have such problems, other may also , and I suppose they do need to be checked. On the present evidence, I see no reason not to treat him as a good faith user who has adopted an unfortunately erroneous pattern of work. The best thing for him to do will be to revisit his earlier contributions and check where quotation marks and citations may need to be added. Unless the pattern continues, I do not se the need to do more than that. Obviously, if it does continue, its another matter entirely. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the split article, it is very easy to get confused while doing this process. Attribution is claimed here by the edit histories, not the user pages, and I do not regard a slip like this as a serious problem. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What I do regard as a serious problem is a confrontational attitude between editors. Peter, you were not wrong to come here, but as I see it you did not do well to come here as aggressively as you did, and to use language implying moral turpitude when what the evidence supports is error or lack of understanding. I see you have realised this , by striking out some of the previous language above. I commend Epson, in fact, for remaining calm in the situation--many people here would have responded in a way that would have escalated the matter. It really helps here to assume the most benign explanation possible of apparent problems: there are many more people here careless about attribution than there are deliberate offenders. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it is/was certainly not my intent to violate the non-free content criteria, and it's (obviously) important that I properly understand the polices to ensure that any work I do here in the future including my existing contributions are not copyright violations. I'm going to start to relook at my previous entries to ensure the my contributions are consistent with said policies. Epson291 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

@DGG, Peter: That is what I was trying to say, but another point in regards to Peter, yes, 'bite'. Bite does not solely apply to new users. Yes, I misread who was knew and who was not, but that does not take away from the fact that you were unnecessarily aggressive. The proper action would have been to assume good faith and be polite, instead of assuming this user's goal was to commit copyright violations.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a legitimate disagreement between editors as to the appropriate tenor of response to Epson291's actions. While DGG believed that more subdued and measured language was appropriate, another administrator believed that a firmer approach was necessary under the circumstances:

Could you explain to me why I should not block your account for an indefinite period of time? This is a serious question, and if I do not receive a response I may be forced to take action on the grounds that we simply don't know what you will do in the future. NW (Talk) 15:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

— [83]

Perhaps this is because, contrary to DGG's assertion that "I see no prior warnings at any time", Epson291 did receive a warning [84] before his most recent addition of inappropriately attributed non-free text [85] (from [86], explained further in my initial report). Most importantly, after DGG observed that "This does not on the present evidence seem at all analogous to the major CCI problems we have been dealing with lately," additional copyright problems were discovered in Epson291's contributions [87]. Therefore, I still am willing to open contributor copyright investigation if necessary. However, since Epson291 states that he will take the initiative to remedy the problems himself [88], I am holding off for now. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a very large difference between 'firm' and 'aggressive', Peter. I realize that WP:NOTTHEM is focused on unblock requests, but it applies here to; others' behavior does not excuse your own. You may well argue that others agree with you; but that doesn't give you the right to be unnecessarily aggressive. Again, WP:CIVIL. Please learn it and take it to heart instead of continuing attacks against this user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize how much of editors' time Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Epson291 will require? Every article to which he has added significant content, 593 in total, must be carefully checked for plagiarism and copyright violations. When someone causes this much damage to Wikipedia, editors should be angry. Furthermore, the prohibition against plagiarism isn't just a Wikipedian norm: it's sufficiently common knowledge in academia that anyone who's graduated from high school is almost certainly familiar with it. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of things anyone who's graduated from highschool is familiar with. That does not mean their definitions of it might not vary on what is exactly acceptable. In this case you have caught possibly quite an extensive case. However, if angriness had been the primary reaction here, you would have come nowhere since people would have been only angry with your tone. As for the merit of teaching: every 5 year old is taught that shouting and exaggeration to get attention is not the right procedure. Yet one day of looking at this noticeboard shows that big differences exist between theory and practice; and we'll have to live with that... L.tak (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, until you've been to 'every high-school', you cannot say that without a doubt; as L has said, not each and every school out there follows the norm, not each high-school is well-funded.

I suggest you stop contributing to this thread until you learn how to follow WP:CIVIL. Also, I have dealt with far worse copyright violations, from a user was trying to commit them. If anything, this aggressive attitude you have towards this user is better spent on 98, but Epson does not deserve it. So either learn how to be civil or just leave this thread be.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Contributor copyright investigation opened

Due to Epson291's extensive plagiarism and copyright violations, another editor has started Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Epson291. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

213.6.27.118 and 213.6.11.49

Unresolved

I feel comfortable assuming this is the same user. User:213.6.11.49 was blocked for edit warring. A few days later User:213.6.27.118 made an argument for[89] then then blanked the block and appeal discussion on the 213.6.11.49 talk page.[90] That isn't a big deal but then User:213.6.27.118 made the same edits that got User:213.6.11.49 blocked.[91] Can an admin give them a firm warning about using the talk page and not edit warring?Cptnono (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like WP:DUCK. He pretty much says so himself here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

IP User:213.6.29.97 is probably the same user, contributing the same content to the same articles (see 213.6.29.97 contributions). However, I have a feeling that he is trying to be constructive or at least follow the rules this time. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talkpage.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Continues now to edit war break WP:3RR with different IP address [92] LibiBamizrach (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lame. I was about to mark this as resolved. Clearly edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Four points I'd like to mention:

• The user has been dealt with on WP:ANI before: User:213.33.31.120 .40 Gaza War and User:213.6.11.49.
• He seems to be less aggressive this time. May be he will do better if treated with patience and respect.
• This time his IP address changes frequently, so far I've seen 213.6.27.118, 213.6.29.97 and 213.6.36.81.
• There are many good contributions from 213.6.* IP range.

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgot about the User:213.33.31.120 .40 Gaza War conversation. It doesn't matter if he is doin better since the behavior is still disruptive. Needs to be notified of the arbitration case and blocked for edit warring after a recent block.Cptnono (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

213.6.29.97 received a final warning yesterday 3rd October at 12.08. Thereafter he appears to have endeavoured to discuss things on talkpages. I left a message on 213.6.27.118 talkpage at 12.57, 3rd October. However, this one, 213.6.36.81 took part in a minor, two-edit edit war with one edit, at 21.19 on 3rd October. This was a follow on from the edits of 213.6.29.97. In other words,having received and apparently absorbed a final warning from one editor at 12.08 and a message from me at 12.57, another IP made an edit continuing the disruptive editing of 213.6.27.97, if it is indeed the same editor. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

188.225.180.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just returned after 3 month block, going directly to the same two articles, adding the same changes in the same manner and using the same language as the IPs mentioned before. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it appears to be the same editor. I was waiting to see if the editor was indeed trying to cease edit warring and discuss instead as appeared might be the case despite the 213.6.27.97 edit. However, obviously not. The editor has not appeared here to discuss the matter. I have reblocked for 3 months.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Constant rudenesss

Resolved

 – KnowIG blocked. So yeah... HalfShadow 20:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

KnowIG (talk · contribs) has a big problem with incivility, and has done for quite some time. In the last day or so he's managed to produce the following: [93] (which includes disturbing connotations of, "I don't give a stuff about BLP,") [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]

Note that he generally tries to implicate me in baiting him into his outbursts, but I haven't had any contact with him for well over ten days, and I invite everybody to check that I had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the diffs above. However, I am irked by his persisten lapses into what is, at best, gross rudeness. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 18:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I see my stalker's reappered, who constantly swears at people KnowIG (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I should perhaps just point out that while KnowIG (talk · contribs) may believe that I appear and disappear, he must surely be aware that Wikipedia's civility policy does not; rather, it is constantly a requirement. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Coming from you who was banned for being incival the other day KnowIG (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not going to get into a debate with you, so this is my last comment in response.) Nothing I have [supposedly] done in any way makes the above diffs from you acceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So ur admiting that your actions are acceptable cause you can get away with it KnowIG (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

His point is that whatever his imperfections they do not invalidate his assertion that you have been incivil to other users in your edits, and I agree. What makes you think that communicating in such a way on Wikipedia leads to a positive communal environment? I find your matter pretty dickish, to be honest, and I advise you to be a bit more civil. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• KnowIG (talk · contribs) has been blocked for one month. Guess this thread can now be closed then? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  I think a third party should review the diffs below to see if there is anything more than "tit for tat" and decide if a close is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Fair enough :) It is basically tit-for-tat, though, with the stress on tat! ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 20:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  I've been skimming through those diffs, all incidents identified appear to be prior to TreasuryTag's block a week or so ago, so time already served - no evidence provided of returning to the behavior that resulted in the block. Appears to be a pointy report. Disclaimer: I didn't do a comprehensive review of TreasuryTag's recent edits, only those examples that were linked below. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked KnowIG (talk · contribs) for a month and have provided a rationale on their talkpage. My actions are without prejudice to any review of concerns expressed regarding TreasuryTag, as listed below, but were in part because of KnowIG's attempt to divert attention from his poor behaviour by raising these matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Not that I care one way or the other, but a month seems a bit excessive. HalfShadow 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Check out the weight of stuff in the RfC I linked to in my initial post – this has been going on for a long time and if this month's block encourages a change in behaviour (which I genuinely think it might) then it's a success. If it doesn't, then an indef is fast approaching. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 20:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Anything less might simply be waited out, and it allows those area's where the editor was in conflict with others to return to a normal editing environment. The reactions of the blocked editor when their block expires will signal whether they are interested in being part of the editing community. Of course, if consensus forms that the block is excessive or incorrect then I have no objection to it being varied or removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  Having looked through the diffs quoted, a block of one month seems reasonable to me. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• One month looks excessively long for the six links above. I could see an admin taking an action from no block up to maybe 24 hours, but not more than that. At this point, time served would be enough. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest you note the RfC linked to under the "for quite some time" text - that, plus the diffs, plus the immediate attempt to divert attention to the other party, plus my rationales at the user talkpage and subsequently here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm rather unimpressed with the RfC as a basis for a new block. Most of the links are more than 3 months old - prior to the last block on 30 June. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I will take you through it then; the diffs example recent poor behaviour, the RfC indicates a historical problem, and the attempt to divert attention from the editor to the complainer and its manner is evidence that the problems continue. Since it is apparently both a long standing and existing issue, I felt that a shorter block - even of a couple of weeks - would not be sufficient deterrence for the editor. I am open to persuasion, but I do need to feel that my rationale is understood in the first instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag

User:TreasuryTag has constantly been swearing and incival towards other users and in edit summeries. I've had enough. So here are some examples 1, plain rude infact patronising here, and here, more rudeness shown on 3 ocassions here, any way back to the list, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8 910, 11, 12. And also examples of him making unhelpful/rude reasons for revising a page 1 2 3, 4, 5, 6 7, yeah, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.

That's only since June and I'm sure you'll agree this behaviour is unacceptable and has gone unchecked for far too long. KnowIG (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, completely unchecked – ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 20:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking MickMacNee from AfD boards permanently for PA and UNCIVIL violations

I was wondering if it is possible to bar a user from participating in Articles for Deletion. I was shocked at the level of uncivilty displayed by the user MickMacNee in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243. He was unacceptabally nasty in his responses to anyone that disagreed with his views. While passion is good, taking any dissent as an attack on ones' self is not only bad, but damaging to the project, as it steers the focus off of the issues at hand and onto the user and his own personal dramas.

His decision to badger users who disagreed, and I mean badger, which is distinct and different from offering counterarguments, as well as his name calling and borderline personal attacks on Kafziel demonstrate to me that he should be barred from participating in AfD for a significant amount of time. His continued beheavior after being told he was acting uncivil is a primary motivator for such a harsh proposal.

Please advise, Sven Manguard _Talk 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I just had the destinct displeasure of reading an exchange between MickMacNee and Kafziel on MickMacNee's talk page. Quite simply, MickMacNee has demonstrated extreme violations of good conduct, launching a series of increasingly angry and illogical personal attacks. I was tempted to slap the upper level personal attack and uncivil warnings on his page, but I doubt it will do any good. He has a long history of blocks and including one explicitly justified as ‎ "attitude not compatible with this project" from January of this year. For posterity, the attacks on the talk page are available here [99] It's time to ban this person for an extended period of time. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that gem awhile ago. Mick feels the need to badger most (all?) of the keep comments. I've seen him do it elsewhere as well. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)) Grsz¹¹ 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Sven brings up a good point. Everybody has the right to reply to comments in AFDs, of course, but his answers are becoming heated and incivil, and yes, badgering; and his replies to Kafziel ("Fucking 'TLDR', that just about sums up the issue for me, pure and utter laziness.", "I am bloody amazed you are an admin tbh") are unacceptable. He has also received a final warning for incivility. I'm not sure about barring MickMacNee from AFD is the best way to deal with this, but the situation is something that requires attention. That being said, I'm fairly new on the English Wikipedia, so I'm probably not the best person to comment on this. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 03:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You have as much right as anyone to speak your mind Clementina. I think that it is high time to permanently block this user. He has had more than enough chances. I'm sure there is precedent for banning perpetually uncivil people, and there certainly is precedent for banning users with personal attack track records of this magnitude. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Changed header title to reflect change in circumstances. Blocking from AfD is not enough, considering that the user takes his attacks beyond AfD. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to ask, where is he being uncivil in the page linked? I only read the first half, but every one i looked at was quite appropriate. To take a random example of a strongly-worded but perfectly civil response:

Arguing that it is both notable right now, and that it should be kept to see if it becomes notable, is not sound reasoning in the slightest. It is positively unsound reasoning infact. You would have more chance of having your vote counted if you didn't just piggy back other people's thoughts, when it's not even clear what policy or guideline is backing up their rather vague and WP:ATA-like opinions. MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out logically bereft arguments is the duty of any wikipedian. That's just plain good looking out for the project. Not every opinion is valid, AfD is not a vote. He may have stepped over the line, like i said i only read the first half, but this has been done before with him and afd, and the end result was whining about having to make your afd !votes actually defensible is not productive. -- ۩ Mask 04:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue are with his tone most of the time. He comes off rather stand-off-ish. [100]. As a note, I agree with him that the article in question should be deleted, do not agree that he should be blocked indef, and am just commenting as an observer. Grsz¹¹ 04:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mick's tone is not exactly conducive to mature and healthy debate, however, he is right. It would be a travesty if the AfD were closed as keep and nobody so much as challenged the the drive-by "follow the leader" votes. It's not much to ask people to produce some kind of informed rationale for their vote. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think a ban is needed here. He has been blocked often in the past for repeated incivility, but as HJ Mitchell said, MickMacNee's opinion is usually not unreasonable - it's just that the tone in which he expresses them which is troubling. And while "follow the leader" votes may count as less than a personally written vote, yet sometimes a personally written vote is really just be a repetition of what another has more fully commented on, and the voter might feel that a succint endorsement would express his or her opinion just as well. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 04:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

HJ, I thought that I had given a rationale as to why the accident is notable. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Given the OP is now effectively asking for a community ban, I would vote to oppose that remedy. But Mick has been here long enough to know that news stories in popular areas never get deleted, regardless of policy. Fighting that hard against the tide wont win any friends. Sometimes one has to simply accept what is and move onto other battles. Resolute 04:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict:

You are correct that pointing out bad logic is okay, but the way he does it is by attacking users, specificly saying that users are not entitled to their own opinions because they do not think for themselves. This is what I have the problem with.

Direct cut and paste quotes:

You really don't have any opinions of your own on the matter? None at all? Are we playing follow the leader here today? MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an Afd. It is not disrespectful or badgering to expect you to have your own opinion on the matter. Given that your only contribution here is to agree with a contradictory rationale, whose actual intention w.r.t. the issue is still open to interpretation, I should think that it is more respectful for you to realise the deficiency of making such a vote, and correct it, rather than implying wrongdoing in others. MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Treating it as a game as ever WR. I'm guessing you put as much thought into this Afd as all the others based on the evidence. I am pretty sure that whatever happened in those other debates, the outcomes really had nothing to do with anything you might have said, which is generally not a lot, as you can only seem to manage these sorts of 'per x' votes anyway, and then fall back on this ridiculous grandstanding act of yours. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of things add nothing to an Afd. This warning was just one of them. You should just concentrate on not making the sort of reading mistakes like you did down below, and let others worry about their knowledge, or lack of, of the contents of CIVIL. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Each of these are violations of civility policy. Telling people you disagree is okay, telling people that they are not thinking and don't deserve opinions is not okay. These are mostly from the first half of the article. There are other bits and pieces elsewhere, some of them better than these (although the first one is a real gem) but I didn't want to be accused of taking things out of context. Also, read his user talk, in the big blue box, for the reason I moved for a full ban. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that we allow editors to read the AfD for themselves and form their own opinions? Taking quotes out of their original context, while not your intention, I'm sure, has a tendency to alter their meaning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I just did that because I've proven time and again how bad I am at the linking that everyone else seems to do easily. I encourage everyone interested to read the whole thing. My intention is not to distort. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mick's tone is unfortunate and I wish he would moderate it. No cause to ban or restrict him though, as far as I can see. --John (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Not to beat a dead horse, but the focus of banning him came up after reading his talk page. Read the section "Wind Jet" on [101] and you will see why I think the user has outstayed his welcome. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything here remotely approaching ban level. In the linked AfD, his comments may be a little more heated than need be, but they are addressing the issue—whether the article should be kept or deleted. He can argue with everyone who comments if he wants to. They're not required to engage with him, and the closing admin will also make the determination on which arguments are most firmly grounded in policy. I would also agree that "Fucking TLDR" is not the most civil thing to say, but responding to someone's argument or comment (as Kafziel did) with "tl;dr" is quite uncivil in itself—it's a dismissive handwave, and is quite rude. So while his response didn't exhibit the best behavior, what he was responding to exhibited rather poor behavior as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that if anyone ought to be banned then it's you Sven, for bringing this nonsense to the punishment board. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Now that comment certainly isn't helpful. Why does this page and its contributors have the terrible habit of creating more drama? Grsz¹¹ 04:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Now that is harsh. I again point out that this is a ban for a pattern of activity, it wouldn't be his first for incivilty, and the reason I am so concerned, despite what would normally be of little personal interest, is his treatment of Kafziel at "Wind Jet" on his talk page.
    • I'm staggered that you apparently can't see the irony in your question Grsz11. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The pile-on was not needed. Obviously nothing was going to come of Sven's proposal, but he brough up legit concerns. But stupid counter-comments aren't helpful. Why not just keep your mouth shut and ignore it? Grsz¹¹ 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
        • You've clearly lost the use of your irony muscle Grsz11, or else you wouldn't consider "why not just keep your mouth shut" to be a civil response. Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Seraphimblade's assessment in that Kafziel shouldn't have used "tl;dr" in a discussion. It's counterproductive. On the other side, Mick is standoff-ish. I don't think he's at the level of communal ban. I would say open an RFC first, or take it to mediation. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Wait, what? I'm confused here. What just happened, was Malleus being uncivil as an illustration of why we shouldn't tolerate incivility, or am I reading into this poorly? These last few posts have made no sense. Also, I am completely serious about the ban, but everyone is ignoring the talk page, the reason I am asking for the full ban, and focusing only on the AfD, which is now secondary. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You ban him from XfD, and then block on the normal scale for being uncivil. But I'd rather people go through RFC and mediation first. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think even that level of formal dispute resolution is warranted. This whole thread would be better suited to WQA than the drama board, but how many of the people here have taken the time to actually have a serious conversation with Mick about comments you perceive to be uncivil rather than berating him or reaching for the pitchforks at ANI? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. MickMacNee has had, on occasions, civility issues, but his behaviour in this AfD is absolutely fine. I don't see any evidence of incivility, and legitimately questioning weakly (or even well) reasoned opinions is part of consensus-building, it isn't badgering. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that he seems to be doing that to every single opposing opinions, and keeps arguing the same point when it seems that it is addressed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well if people will insist on giving pathetic rationales for keeping such as "per nom" or "per the drive-by voter before me"... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Well what's more repetitive and annoying: comments arguing the same thing, or Mick arguing with the same argument. Grsz¹¹ 05:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • HJ, I want to be sure I'm understanding you here... are you suggesting that any voter at AFD must come up with their own unique reason? If they agree with the nominator (or indeed agree with someone else), what purpose isn't served by them saying per X'?→ ROUX ₪ 05:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The talk page thread I have been referring to. Please read it.

===Since this is being ignored, I'm just going to transpose it here=== Wind Jet The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hey man, you seem to be getting a little upset at that AfD. While the purpose of AfD is to discuss the articles, you're not going to win any points by a) arguing with everyone who disagrees with you, or b) telling the closing admin what he should or should not pay attention to. Of course, both are within your rights... but that doesn't mean they're good ideas. At this point you can rest assured that every visitor to that page will be well aware of your point of view, and for the sake of your own happiness, you would probably do well just to walk away from it and let it unfold however it will. If the article should be deleted, other editors will take up the cause. If it shouldn't be deleted, there's no use wasting any more time there. Not saying you can't, just saying you shouldn't. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I'd rather you just clarified your rationale than give me advice. The only thing I get upset about is people ignorantly piggy backing on Afd voting rationales that for all the world appear to contradict both policy, and their own logic. MickMacNee (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Isn't it possible that my rationale is quite clear, and that everyone else who is "piggy backing" simply understands and agrees with it? I haven't responded there because I've found that in AfDs it's best to address the issue, not individuals. If something I said was really out of whack, that would be one thing. But since nobody else seems to be confused by what I wrote, and since you have argued with everybody for one reason or another, it's hard to see how a reply would help anything. I've voiced my opinion and I don't feel the need to defend it against all challengers; there are plenty of better things to spend my time on around here. All I did was give you the same advice I follow myself. It works. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Frankly, 'keep, it's notable, and we should wait to see if it becomes notable' really is out of whack. As is your idea that I nominated this because nobody died. A reply would make it clear to everyone, not just the piggybackers, that you really do know what you are on about, and have really attempted to address the deletion rationale. If you don't, then that's a pretty easy angle of attack for me in a DRV, if the closer doesn't bother to engage his brain when reviewing that discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't say "we should wait to see if it becomes notable". My meaning—which was apparently clear to everyone else but you—was that it is notable (by virtue of broad, international news coverage) and that we should wait to see what more comes of it. Notability can always increase as time goes by and further analysis comes in, but that doesn't mean it isn't also notable now. The two are not contradictory, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the very argumentative nominator happens to be the only person who claims not to understand that. I'm not worried about your "angle of attack" at DRV, except to say that the fact that you look at this as a battle says a lot about your frame of mind. You're taking this too personally. I am by no means required to address the deletion rationale if I dismiss it out of hand; if I can make a case for why it should be kept (which I did), that's all I need to do. I said what I wanted to say and I'm comfortable with it. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I doubt this was your intention. I think it's pretty obvious from your nomination that you wanted to wait to see if it became notable, hence the 'keep, for now'. If you simply thought it was notable right now, you would have just said so, and not bothered with the rest of your post, as it was completely irrelevant. You can dismiss the deletion rationale all you want and make up whatever case you like, but EVENT is the guideline which was written to combine the GNG for current events, so I think that is a pretty bizarre thing to do in an Afd on an article about a current event. The only remotely relevant part of your keep rationale was where you said "verifiable, has received significant coverage in third-party sources". It's pretty weak, simply a stock statement trotted out parrot like by everybody and anybody, and as such, it does not convince that you've even read the article, let alone are confident that you can actually justify it's exsitence here wrt actual policy wording and theory, by expanding on your rationale in the proper way. You can be comfortable with this approach all you want, you can even believe it's a good way to make a case in an Afd, but it really isn't, according to all our policies and guidelines on the practices and purposes of the venue. And this sort of thing is precisely why DRV exists, to stop lazy admins making the mistake of taking this sort of non-argument as read. It is probably about as far from being all you need to do, as if you had just rocked up and given a basic WP:JN vote. MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC) tl;dr I tell you what: You go ahead and rage, and argue with everybody, and file a DRV, and argue some more, and I'll leave what I wrote there, move on to other things, and when this is all over we'll see which of us is happier. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Who gives a fuck about happiness? I'm only concerned with having articles and processes adhere to policy. If that's impossible because people like yourself would rather fool around giving non-arguments and feeling ever so pleased about themselves afterwards, so be it. It definitely won't be me who suffers the consequences in the long run. I really hope you haven't invested a lot of time here writing and defending articles that fail EVENT, because one day they will all be gone, either that, or Wikipedia will be gone. Either way, my happiness is completely irrelevant. Fucking 'TLDR', that just about sums up the issue for me, pure and utter laziness. MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Dude, if you don't enjoy editing here, there's no point. The world is not going to say, "Thank god some heroic soul took a stand to get rid of that accursed Wind Jet article. It had really been rubbing me the wrong way." Nobody cares about you or the work you do here; case in point, I've been here a damn sight longer than you, I've written a good number of articles, taken more than my share of images, and made thousands of edits to the Wikipedia namespace, not to mention all the work I've done as an administrator... and you don't care at all. See? But it doesn't matter that you don't care, because I'm enjoying myself. That's the key. I don't know what "consequences" you think I'm going to suffer... People like me not giving a shit about people like you is what makes the Wiki go 'round. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I am bloody amazed you are an admin tbh. Maybe you've been here so long that you really don't know what you are doing any more, and are just happy to mess around and have fun irregardless, but maybe you haven't kept abreast with what the Wikipedia of 2010 actually is, and how it's basic operations like Afd work now. EVENT was written in 2009 - read it, and get with the programme, and don't pretend that simply giving sub-standard arguments and having fun is what flies here for decent practice anymore. Playtime's over. I don't care about what you've done, and you don't care, or more likely, have no idea, what I've done here. So what, as you say. I'm fine with that. So you're here for happiness, good for you. I think that's pretty sad myself though. I get my happiness in the real world, I come here to get shit done, like, y'know, writing an encyclopoedia that is credible, and not a dumping ground for non-notable worthless junk that will need to be deleted eventually if this site still wants to be called a serious reference work and not a fancruft database. I could give a monkeys if anybody notices me for doing so, as long as they have their own shit in order and are doing good work. It's hilarious that you thought I was talking about consequences for you. Again, that just about sums it up. Now, have your last word, but then kindly just do one, I've had it with you. MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC) tl;dr. Looks angry, though. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC) You read it. Go and have fun with an article somewhere, and stop wasting my time pretending you have a clue what Wikipedia is actually for. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes this is drastic, but as I have kept saying, it is this, not the AfD that is the basis for the block. This is what is out of hand, IMO. Sven Manguard Talk 04:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, Sven. They weren't ignoring your comments - they just thought that it was not unprovoked, and doing like this probably won't help anything. Thinking over it carefully, though Mick's comments were growing quite incivil, I do think WQA is probably preferable in this situation than ANI. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 05:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure many will be aware, this has been going on for months. Please see the RFC that MickMacNee filed about my participation at AfD and the associated talk page for further information. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Disruptive behaviour at AfD where I attempted to gain the community's support in curbing MickMacNee's behaviour at AfD without success. This should not just be about MickMacNee, as there are other editors who indulge in similar behaviour. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

[expletive] You know, on the one hand this guy has pushed a whole lot of boundaries far too often, on the other hand it's 3AM where I am and I need to get some sleep. After seeing your post, I sincerely hope someone just up and bans this menace, but I am formally done with the issue, and unless this explodes onto my userspace, I'm not perusing it tomorrow morning. That being said, if you need anything don't be afraid to call. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolve and move on?

Okay, this has gotten out of hand, and it seems unlikely that there will be any blocks, so can we settle on a harshly worded final warning for incivility and a request that the user takes disagreement less personally, then move on. Either MickMacNee will calm down or he won't, and if he does this again, we can take this up again, but again, this ANI isn't going to end in a block or a section ban, and there continuing serves no purpose. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to participate here, but I do think I should at least say that I do not think Mick's comments to me were out of line. We're both adults, we were speaking our minds, and in the end we agreed to disagree. I do think some of his comments at the AfD are pretty bad, which is why (as I said on his talk page) I declined to respond to him there, but it's certainly nothing that's going to get him banned from AfD. So let's just close this and move on to something more productive. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Mick is often abrasive, but all I see here is him trying to make a strong case for deletion and to point out invalid arguments and to debunk the straw man arguments advanced for retaining the article. There is fairly terse language on both sides, and it would be unfair to single Mick out for any punishment. Anyhoo, it may be that the OP to this thread genuinely thinks Mick is being exceptionally uncivil, or simply that he may feel threatened by the relentless assault on his own hollow arguments. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I posted my keep vote after this whole thing began. I doubt that Mick even knows I exist, considering that this entire thing appears to have taken place while he was offline. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I hear what you're saying, but by doing so, isn't MickMacNee insulting the intelligence of the closing admin/editor? In my experience, regular AfD closers are quite capable of evaluating the arguments for and against deletion, and making a decision on the merits of those arguments. In the rare cases they get it wrong, there is a mechanism for dealing with it. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

He may well be, but he hasn't to my mind breached WP:CIVIL (and if he has, he's not the only one), although he may have perhaps overstepped WP:POINT. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• A final warning? He didn't do anything. So no, we can not settle on that. This entire thread has been people saying they dont see what you're upset about. -- ۩ Mask 05:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  "Didn't do anything" is laying it on a bit thick. But, yes, it's not THAT big a deal. Sven has been editing for all of two weeks, so maybe everyone could give him a break already. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  I actually did not know that, and I do apologize. I just assumed someone who has found ANI has more experience then two weeks. This can be a learning experience for him, and I don't hold it against him at all. No harm, no foul :) -- ۩ Mask 10:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• How about we just give both Mick and Kafziel a trouting for letting their talkpage discussion get a bit overly heated, and all move on with our lives? No harm, no foul on both sides, IMO. rdfox 76 (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• As a clarification, this began as my objection to Mick's beheavior on ANI, then I saw his warnings and block log and realized that he has a history of these things. That's when I went all out. I admit that it might have gotten out of hand, but I saw him as an aggressor mistreating a half dozen people and stepped in out of what now seems like a misplaced desire to protect others from what I perceived to be a community threat. I'm sorry for the trouble I caused. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As to the suggestion that this is marked as resolved, I think that we need to hear from MickMacNee before this can be done. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Late to my own party as usual, I miss all the fun around here, although I was having much more fun in RL while this was going on.... As ever, given this is a venue for cluefull independent review against actual policy, from people without horses in the race, I've nothing to add here beyond the very cluefull feedback given by most, except to extend some thanks to this month old editor who, through his attempted banning of me, has brought some much needed independent community input to that Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Given lots of previous discussions with lots of different editors on this very subject, why don't we simply stop kidding ourselves and simply remove WP:CIVIL from being core policy and one of the five pillars. That way, we'll save on soooo much wasted time where innocent editors make complaints only for other editors to say things like "Yeah, that was maybe uncivil, but true and everyone is entitled to their opinion". Why bother with WP:CIVIL at all if its not going to get enforced? --HighKing (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably not the right place for that discussion; but as "pillars" go, WP:CIVIL is pretty damn crumbly and not acutally supporting the real day to day workings of Wikipedia. There are essay-level admonisions that get applied far more frequently and with greater impact. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough comment that roughly agrees with my own thoughts. I certainly don't mean to divert this discussion away from the community's ongoing battle with Civility. I wonder where a more appropriate place for this discussion might be? --HighKing (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Civility? --John (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mick loves to spout lots of Wikipedia rules & guidelines at people (WP:NOT, WP:NTEMP, WP:AIRCRASH, WP:GNG and WP:EVENT is this ONE edit alone). But he seems to fail to understand the important of one of the five pillars on which this project is built on, that of Civility. Something will have to be done about this at some stage before it get further out of hand and I get the strong impression from above that people just want to sweep it under the carpet in the hope that it will go away. Bjmullan (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bjmullan, believe me, I'd love to block MickMacNee for the next thousand years or so for the behaviour brought up here. Unfortunately, I'm way too involved to even click on the block button. This issue will only go away when MickMacNee tones down the rhetoric and stops badgering every editor who holds the opposite view to him in AfDs. Whether that can be done before another block is handed out is down to MickMacNee. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2010

• What makes you think he fails to understand civility? This community runs on consensus, and the community consensus reached in this thread is that Mick was above-board on all counts. If you disagree with the community's decision that's one thing, but dark, sweeping pronouncements of future consequences based on failure to heed your words are not only impractical, but a touch more then slightly amusing as well. -- ۩ Mask 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• MickMacNee understands civility all right. Putting it into practice is another matter. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I had meant that as a response to Bjmullen, but touche. This does illustrate a point though. Many of the things said towards MickMackNee in places like this thread, his RfC in regards to you, any of the other ANI threads, are farther over the line then most of the things others complain about him saying. He was called a menace, a cancer before . And yet he doesn't even mention them. He never holds it up as justification, or a shield. Mick, honest to god, doesn't seem that interested in this if others didn't try to stir it up. He's not trolling, looking to get a rise and stir shit up. He's working on making the encyclopedia better. -- ۩ Mask 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• the community consensus reached in this thread is that Mick was above-board on all counts - reading the comments, just about every single editor expressed a negative view on Mick's tone and comments. I'd go so far as to say that Mick is right (a lot) more often than he is wrong, and maybe he is working on making the encyclopedia better, but there is a systematic civility issue here and if Mick refuses to .. adjust, then this topic is going to continue to rear it's head again and again. This isn't the first ANI opened on Mick relating to civility in the last 60 days, and his Talk page is peppered with pleas from editors to tone down his comments. While this isn't the worst example, it doesn't take long to find examples in his contributions. As a community we should ask ourselves, is letting Mick "get on with it" working? Clearly not as evidenced by the drama surrounding him on a daily basis. So what are the options? (Sweeping it under the carpet is not an option). --HighKing (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Besides the OP and mjroots, did any editor comment on the push to ban Mick favorably? Or the plan to restrict him from XfD? No. We are not 'sweeping it under the rug', if you want him punished we have to wait for him to actually do something worth punishing. A lot of people bringing ANI threads with nothing behind them does not dictate that we 'must' do anything. -- ۩ Mask 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I pulled you up on your comment that Mick was above-board on all counts. This is clearly not true. While the community consensus is that Mick does not deserve a block in this instance (and I also agree with that btw), the community has also acknowledged that there's a problem with his tone and his comments (just not quite enough for a block). That is not the same as bringing ANI threads with nothing behind them. If you take a look at Mick's longer-term behaviour, it's clear that there's an ongoing systematic behavioural problem relating to CIVIL policies. But what to do? We can agree that Mick's intentions are good. Waiting for him to do something worth punishing is sticking ones head in the sand, and the block ends up being a punishment. Perhaps a civility probation is in order before we have to resort to blocks or bans might be more productive all round. --HighKing (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick's view on WPCIVIL and its application to him are clear: Per this diff]: "If you want to chat to people about the theory that demanding civility before you feel the need to justify positions or defend arguments is remotely conducive to taking discussions to a higher intellectual plane or achieving a defensible outcome, then go and have a chat with Giano or one of his hangers-on, they love debunking that sort of tosh." That's quite clear that he doesn't feel bound by WPCIVIL, and is further stated in his comments above and below that post. In addition, his constant badgering of other editors is usually accompanined by such incivility. He doens't veiw himself as bound by WPCIVIL in anyway. How is that compatible with WP's policies?

As to the assertion "I'd go so far as to say that Mick is right (a lot) more often than he is wrong", pray tell where? The majority of the AFDs that he has participated in have been kept inspite of his lengthy protestations, and most of them were upheld on apeal. So no, he doesn't appear to be right more oftern than his is wrong, but just the opposite.

While he may aguably do good work in contributing to articles, his "contributions' to discussions are far from productive. Perhaps the soultion would e to totally ignore his badgering on AFDs, but editors unfamiliar with him contribute at each new AFD,a nd theire unaware of his behavior, so enforcing that is problematic. Should we ban him from talk pages? That doesn't seem workable either, and his history of edit warring and uncivil edit summaries on articles suggests that would would continue. I don't see another way of handling his incivility other than an outright ban at this point. He's proven he sees no need to change ehavior in anyway. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

his "contributions' to discussions are far from productive. His contributions to the AfD this started in relation to were the only intelligent thing on that page until this thread got more eyes on the discussion in question (eyes that then proceeded to agree with him, I'd like pointed out). Mick doesn't personally attack very often. He comments on contribution (your rationale) and not contributor. Not always, none of us ever do, but the vast majority of the time. WP:CIVIL makes that exact distinction, too. It protects you from assholes, not things you dont want to hear. -- ۩ Mask 18:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never felt intimidated by the Mick, at AfDs. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as an outright ban but perhaps being placed under civility parole (as happened to a couple of disruptive editors at WP:BISE) may be the first step in getting Mick to understand what civility means. Bjmullan (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If such a parole will help prevent Mick from getting banned? then that's a good plan. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Such a parole does not help Mick get banned, all it does is give the people who enjoy causing drama a nice clearly defined line they need to bait him over to get their desired outcome. Holding him to the same standards as everyone else clearly just isnt working because they misjudged where the, you know, actual line is. -- ۩ Mask 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't get him banned. I rather it help prevent that, by saving Mick from himself. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We haven't even gotten that far yet my friend :) I doubt there's consensus to implement any sort of parole. There might be, I just dont believe there is. Might be wrong though. -- ۩ Mask 18:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner

Created on the 15th of September, with 8 editors endorsing it as well as the two who certified it, this seems to have had no effect on Milogardner (talk · contribs) who has made minimal input to the RfC. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Talk:Rhind Mathematical Papyrus 2/n table. I'm one of those who certified it so I may be seen as involved, but I think it is time that some action is taken to stop his disruptive editing. I'll notify him about this thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) (thanks for fixing my sig, clicking on the sig icon at the bottom has been giving me a very erratic response for weeks, placing it in section headings, edit summaries, etc, anywhere other than where it should be Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

• I'm not really sure what can be done about this user. He does not seem to be responsive to the RFC and has just used it as another venue to expand on his personal thesis (RFC Response). This thesis has adversely affected pretty much the whole of the coverage of the work on Egyptian Mathematics for several years now. I would suspect further attempts at Dispute Resolution will be similarly unproductive, so we might want to look at a community ban.--Salix (talk): 10:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• I would support an indefinite topic ban from Egypt-related topics, until the user signals that they got the message. Hans Adler 13:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I made my support explicit further down. Hans Adler 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please cite one or more specifics? Every one of my latest posts cite scholars and scribal issues ... Anneka Bart cites 'common sense' opinions without citing sources, therefore being unclear and non-Wikipedian. What are you folks going to do about her practices? One background issue all along has been: was Egyptian math intellectual or emotional in scope? I will continue to side with the intellectual facts, taking Wikipedia posting rules and practices into proper account adding scholars at every level ... Get used to it, and document Egyptian math controversies ... ignoring a controversy is non-scholarly and non-Wikipedian ... The recent 'flap' revolves around single false position, a proposed form of Egyptian division that Howard Eves reported in my undergrad History of Math class 48 years ago. Note that Wikipedia correctly discusses the topic in terms of diffusion from India and documented byuFibonacci in the Liber Abaci ... no one has added the proposed scribal idea with hard evidence ... I'd like to read several updated scholarly reports on Ahmes' false position that guessed (at first partitions) as scribal division operations ... ignore or fix Wikipedia's false position ... Egyptian scribal division used divisors n and inverted and multiplied by 1/n to prove answers (example: RMP 38, Clagett (1999), multiplied one hekat (320 ro) by 7/22 and 22/7, returning 320 ro; and Akhmim Wooden Tablet, Vymazalova (2002), multiplied one hekat (64/64) by 1/3, 1/7, 1/10, 1/11 and 1/13 and multiplied by 3, 7, 10, 11 and 13, and returned (64/64) facts that are not in dispute. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The only relevant background issue has been that your idea of what Wikipedia is and how it works is very different from everybody else's, and that you are not really listening when people try to explain it to you. This behaviour is described in WP:IDHT. It is so common here, and so detrimental to our goal of writing an encyclopedia, that it often ends in editors being blocked for it. If you want to contribute to the project you will need flexibility and openness w.r.t. what the community of editors tells you. Most of us experts get away with a bit of original research, when done appropriately. What nobody gets away with is huge amounts of original research that is so fresh that it contains errors, and which we push into articles against the opposition of other experts. Hans Adler 13:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that the above response from Gardner is absolutely typical: blast a long message about the specifics of his original research into a space where it is off-topic, ignore any criticism of his behavior, and continue editing exactly as before. The RFC does not appear to have changed his behavior and bringing it to the attention of ANI does not appear to have changed his behavior. The only thing that might make a difference is a block. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support temporary block and/or topic ban. He's just not getting it. Seems to think we're on him about his theories and research or their authority or whether they're wrong or right, it doesn't matter.. just stop kicking cryptic lyrics leaving readers scratching their heads "wtf he said?" and write a decent article with content that stays on-topic and makes at least a bit of sense to a layman. -- œ^™ 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support temporary block and/or topic ban.I am one of those who certified the original RfC, so I am involved. But he's just not getting it as today's posts under IP 75.48.21.119 show. More hard to follow edits, a post of one of his own blogs as an external link, etc. His additions invariably require major rewrites to get something that OE describes as "a decent article with content that stays on-topic and makes at least a bit of sense to a layman" --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My own summary of what others have said:

1. There are long-standing problems with Milogardner's editing on Egyptian mathematics
2. The RfC has two certifiers and nine editors who endorse it
3. Milo sees no problem at all and is unwilling to change
4. Several people have expressed general support for 'a block and/or a topic ban'

What remains for admins to do at this board is probably to figure out what response is most likely to cure the problem. If you check WP:RESTRICT you will see that it is very common to address this type of a problem with a topic ban. Since Milogardner's editing has been causing unfavorable comment since 2006, a short time limit on a topic ban seems unwise. How about an indefinite ban on the topic of Egyptian mathematics, broadly construed, that would include talk pages? EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban on the topic of Egyptian mathematics, broadly construed and including talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support temporary block and/or topic ban. Agree with comments in this subsection by OlEnglish (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban on the topic of Egyptian mathematics, broadly construed and including talk pages. --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support this precise proposal. Our short interaction on my talk page shows that there is little hope. Of course if and when he appears to get it after a while, we can still discuss lifting the ban, as always. Hans Adler 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Paul August ☎ 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support this proposal, with the proviso articulated by Hans Adler. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Hans Adler. I'd consider lifting the ban, if he could demonstrate a change in his communication style, sticking to a single idea, and using language that others could easily understand. --Salix (talk): 23:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic ban, to be lifted if he shows (e.g. through edits on unrelated topics) that he can contribute constructively without the problems described in the RFC. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin - User:Nyttend

My main "work" is images and related issues. As such I view images and their sources. I look for copyvios, I look for valid claims of authorship, I look for valid sources, I look at the uploader history, I look at the source website if one is given. In other words I do a lot of looking before I tag. I only tag for speedy if it is something obvious (Incorrect license, blatant copyvio, duplicate, spam/advertising) Otherwise I send to IfD/PuF or tag with a "di" (Semi-speedy). When I first came across Nyttend it was when they removed a Dfu tag claiming once an image had already been discussed via a deletion discussion (Or other deletion means) it could not be deleted in any other way. Feeling it was an mistake by a new admin I made an attempt to contact them off list, but they never responded. However the more and more I started to encounter Nyttend, the more I saw, and felt, their understanding of image related issues was lacking. When I started to explain, or question them, in deletion discussions it became more apparent to me their lack of understanding with image related policies. Prior to taking them to this venue I did make an attempt to resolve these issues by asking them to refrain from image related matters and to ask myself or someone else for help if need be. (User talk:Nyttend/Archive 16#Warning and request) However, they are unwilling to discuss image related policies and guidelines. They bluntly said I do not need it, and I am not at all thankful for your continued declarations to the contrary. Kindly cease from continued offers of unwanted instruction. This morning I have again realized that they have removed several valid image tags with summary comments again leading to my firm belief they do not understand image related issues. Two of the biggest issues I have been seeing is their belief of "Author" and "Source" is fully covered via the generic wording of all of the "self" tags that use the word "I". For example File:2009 Ekin Cheng in Friends For Life Concert.JPG clearly states the image was taken by a fan. Nyttend removed the {{di-no source}} tag because the permissions template contains a claim of own work. File:19 no. Azimpur Road.jpg is clearly a scan or photocopy from a book or paper. It too was tagged {{di-no source}} and Nyttend removed it stating Sorry, but "I created this work entirely by myself" is a source. Take to PUF if you don't believe it. There are many other examples and I don't want to list them all now, but will if I need to. I do not think Nyttend's admin rights need to be revoked, but I do strongly feel they need to avoid any image related discussions, image tag removal or image related admin work Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You may not have wanted this issue broached, but I'm going to bring it up anyway. First, anyone has the capability of deleting a tag, so you can't argue for stripping his adminship on that basis. You can argue that he doesn't understand issues around images, and that's a normal editing issue... which leads to the second point, which is that the rules and regulations for images on wikipedia are extraordinarily complex, unclear and confusing, so it's not at all surprising when someone doesn't understand. Compounding that is users such as yourself who tag stuff for deletion when the wording is not precisely correct as per this week's version of the rules, when your better course would be to advise the user of what the appropriate tag might be... assuming you even know. The other day I asked at the help desk about the proper tag for an image. Their response was "read the rules", which is absolutely a useless response. The rules make no sense except maybe if you already understand the rules. Which is why I only upload photos I've taken, because "PD-self" is the only tag that I can make certain sense of and which doesn't seem to change every week or month. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I apologize if I wasn't clear - the issue is not the removal of tags on a few images. The issue is their overall apparent lack of understanding of terms, polices, guidelines and so on that extends to closure of deletion discussions, participation in deletion discussions, denial of image deletions, removal of tags and so on. And I concur with what you said - that the polices ("rules) may not make sense to some, however I have offered, and suggested, that if they did not understand something to ask and they have refused. About the "self" tags - they are used because they are convenient most of the time, not because every image uploaded is actual taken by the uploader. In other words an "author" may not always be the "source". A scan marked as "self" may, in the eyes of the uploader, be true in that they did the scan so they are the "source" and the "author", however that is not what the "self" tags are meant for and an admin should understand that if they work with images. The same for images found on the internet - a user may very well find a cool image on facebook and upload it here using a "self" tag because it was they who uploaded it. However that is not a correct use of the tag, but is may be a good faith mistake. That is why tags such as {{di-no source}} are used. It is not a speedy tag, it is a tag where there is a copyright tag/license tag in place but there is no clear source. In order to verify the license and copyright we need to know a source. An image from the internet without a source may not be clear, but an admin should look over the uploader uploads to see what else has been uploaded - are all the images exactly the same? Are they different but all claimed as "self"? Does the user have a history of uploading others work and claiming it as their own? But with some images it is blatant - and if an admin does work with images and views File:19 no. Azimpur Road.jpg as an original photograph there is a clear issue with that admins understanding of images. Just to illustrate two other examples (Not related to Nyttend) - I can look at File:2005 Champs.jpg and "assume good faith" that it is most likely a user created image. I do not question that, I sent it to IfD because it is unused and appears to be a personal snapshot. File:Farmers of the Blue Hills, 2010.jpg is licensed as "self" and even states the uploader full name as the author. Someone with a keen eye spotted it was being used in the Richard Winkler article, meaning Richard Winkler is the author, not the uploader. Had I discovered that I most like would have marked with a {{di-no permission}} tag and there would have been a high probability Nyttend would have removed it claiming it was very clear that the uploader was the author. In either case however (Being sent to PuF or tagged no permission) the end result would have been the same - the uploader was informed and had Richard Winkler submit a permissions email to OTRS. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there is some confusion about process - admins are only empowered to speedy delete obvious cases, and just about everything else gets pushed through Files for Deletion. In situations where a speedy is declined, I'd suggest opening a discussion at Files for Deletion. If the discussion is closed as 'keep' and you consider that an error has occurred, you should then speak to the closing admin. If afterwards you still consider the decision to keep was a mistake, then you can open a discussion at Deletion Review.PhilKnight (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am seeing I was not 100% clear in this. Read my above response and see if it makes it more clear. If not let me know and I will start a list. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem knowledgeable, so I'll ask you: I took a photo from commons, isolated a portion of it, and uploaded it under a new name. I used PD-self, but that doesn't seem correct. What would be the correct tag to use? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What was the original license? PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In response to Baseball Bugs - It would matter what the original license was, and what is contained in the image that you have isolated. For example if you took a picture of your living room and your TV set was in the picture and was turned on. The overall image could be freely licensed but, for example, if someone did a "remix" and kept only the image on the TV screen there is a likelihood that image is *not* available under a free license. This is why "self" images of screen/frame grabs are often speedied as copyvios. Actual photographs of tv sets, movie screens, jumbotrons will vary. As will photographs that contain other trademarks and copyrighted material. (And any associated derivatives) Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This File:Target Field - Opening Day of Inaugural Season.jpg is the original photo. I referenced that photo in my description of my subset of it: File:Target Field retired numbers.JPG ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would place a link to the original work in the "Other versions" section. The source license is a CCL 2.0, so it fine as the original allows for "remix", which is what you have done. I would also make sure you give attribution to the original photographer by their name - Jeff Wilson. I know the full legal code is somewhat overhwelming it woul dhelp, with any license, to read it over. In this case section 4 - "Restrictions", sub section "b" is the information about derivative works, most of which you have already done. The "in a nutshell" version is your derivative version needs to "keep intact all copyright notices", a link to the license, "give the Original Author credit" by giving their name (Jeff Wilson), the source URI (The flickr source page) and "a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work." Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you check the current version and revise as needed? Then I would have a good practical example of how to handle it if this kind of thing comes up in the future. Thanking you in advance. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] This is the result of a bigtime edit conflict: when I started writing, the most recent comment was by Bugs at 11:40. Soundvisions1 needs to learn that "no source" means "no source", not "no source that Soundvisions believes to be valid". While I'm well aware of IAR, I'm not generally willing to acquiesce in a file's deletion for lack of a source if it has a claim of being made by the uploader. Soundvisions appears to be lacking in good faith, believing that uploaders can't be trusted in their claims of authorship: we have no greater reason to trust that an image is created by the uploader simply because the words "own work by uploader" are added by that uploader, so as long as there's a claim that the uploader is the copyright holder (or was, in the case of PD-self images), our requirements have been fulfilled. I'm quite tired of being told that Soundvisions' knowledge of image rules is superior, especially when declarations that I know nothing of image rules are accompanied by patronising offers of assistance, and also when it is deemed necessary to readers of this board that the various image deletion procedures be explained, rather than simply referred to. Soundvisions also appears to be unaware of other procedures: when my removal of a no-source tag gets rolled back like vandalism, it is obvious that Twinkle is being misused; I initially thought of making a request for the removal of semiautomated rights, but I decided not to go to the hassle of an ANI discussion. To respond to three of Soundvisions' statements:

1. Why could the author of File:2009 Ekin Cheng in Friends For Life Concert.JPG not have been a fan? Does Soundvisions believe that an uploader who took the uploaded pictures would never offer comments upon how s/he was able to get close enough to take this picture?
2. How can "Own work by uploader" not be a source? I have no complaints about File:19 no. Azimpur Road.jpg being taken to WP:PUF, but Soundvisions needs to understand that we have different deletion processes for a reason: many images that probably should be deleted aren't always eligible for speedy deletion under any criterion.
3. After saying "Two of the biggest issues", Soundvisions spends the rest of the paragraph on one issue. What's the second?

Finally, let me note that I was made an admin just a couple of days after Soundvisions's first edit. I do not say this in order to gain prestige; my point is simply that I'm not a new admin. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Soundvisions: About the "self" tags - they are used because they are convenient most of the time, not because every image uploaded is actual taken by the uploader. In other words an "author" may not always be the "source". This statement can be true of many images with a statement of "Own work by uploader"; for example, last night, I deleted File:McMahon Stadium.jpg, even though it had a statement of "I (Shahroze (talk)) created this work entirely by myself.", because it was obviously taken from this webpage. An upload cannot be more trusted simply because the uploader said "Own work", and it should not be less trusted simply because the uploader claimed authorship solely through a self template. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The overall issue is an ongoing one. Again, to everyone reading this, I used just two recent examples. I am more the willing to help *anyone* with why I tag images the way I do - and I *have* done that with many admins and other editors. To explain what a "source" and an "author" is should not be really needed when it comes to admins *if* they do a lot of work with images. Also "rollback" is not that seam as a "revert". I reverted tag removals, I did not "rollback" because of vandalism. What Nyttend has a pattern of may be attributed to many things - their unwillingness to discuss it prior to this point is also an issue. As for "good faith" arguments - it is bad faith to assume anyone who uses a semi speedy tags such as {{di-no permission}} and {{di-no source}} is not assuming good faith. I have stated this in the past - it is not the intent to speedy everything, it is the intent to clarify sources in order to confirm copyright. I have used "di" tags for year and it has not been until the last few week that Nyttend had repeatedly removed/denied/question my use of them. Considering my first real noticeable interaction with Nyttend was only this year, the issue of when they became and admin is somewhat irrelevant. The question really is - how long do you want this ANI to be? I can take the entire day and provide links with specific questions if need be. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools: this Twinkle feature is meant to enable you effectively to have rollback if you haven't been granted it as an explicit user right. You're responsible to use it only to revert vandalism. Anyway, as I don't remember encountering you until recently, why would you expect my concerns to have surfaced before the last few weeks? In case you've not noticed, I delete images for lack of a source rather frequently; for one example, I've never complained to Magog the Ogre for tagging File:Heinrich thomas mann.jpg under that criterion: no source was provided, and it wasn't obviously PD for age or simplicity reasons. You have failed to assume good faith on the part of uploaders who claim authorship through certain means. What's more, you persist in following the wrong means of deleting these images; if you'd stop trying to speedy these images (and yes, tagging for lack of a source is speedy deletion; it's accomplished by criterion F4, not by some other process) instead of taking them to PUF or FFD, we wouldn't have this problem. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a small point: It appears that Soundvisions1 used the Twinkle "rollback" link for the above edit, so as long as they used a descriptive edit summary, they weren't misusing Twinkle. On the other hand, if they had not provided an edit summary or had used the "rollback (VANDAL)" link it would not have been a proper use of the tool. —DoRD (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are seriously failing to look at the issues involved. First is I do not "rollback" but I do "reverts", TW can be used for vandalism yes - and I have used it for that in which case I use the "rollback" marked "vandalism" as opposed to the "restore this version" or "revert" option. I could have just as easily just retagged the image and we wouldn't be having *this* discussion.

The larger issue is how you seem to fail to understand image related policies and tags and how they relate to copyright issues. Even now - right here - you insist that {{di-no source}} is a speedy failing to understand that this is the *semi*-speedy tag that has now fully replaced the Db-f4 speedy tag that stated images with an "unknown source or unknown copyright status which has been tagged as unknown for more than 7 days and still lacks the necessary information." Simply because you would like all images to be sent to a deletion discussion for 7 days (or 14 for PuI) does not mean people who use a "di" tag are "wrong", the Db-f4 tag used the same "7 days" wording since October 8, 2005. The {{di-no source}} since July 4, 2007, If you feel any of the "di" tags should not be used than you need to discuss their use in the proper venue, not remove them repeatedly because you feel their use is "the wrong means of deleting these images."

As for deletion discussions - your participation in those does not aid in proving, to me at least, you understand image related issue either. When discussing press images and how their use on Wikipedia in only accepted under limited circumstances your only response was Keep, this claims fair use, so it's not a copyvio. (Victoria Climbié.jpg deletion discussion) In attempting to explain to you why a press image could not be used I raised an issue that you may not understand fair use by pointing to a post you had made entitled Forgive me, but I've never understood details of the fair use criteria. Instead of directly addressing all of the issues you accused me of attacking you and again said I don't understand every detail of fair use criteria too well... and We don't delete non-free images as copyvios if they're claimed as fair use I replied to you that I was not attacking you and that you quesiton was 100% relevant to the deletion discussion as File:Victoria Climbié.jpg was a press image that was being used, and that Wikipedia has policies that are is clear that such images can not be used unless they show "Respect for commercial opportunities", or in the plain English examples, "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts." The exact wording of your question was about an image that you wanted to upload but you did not fully understand the criteria and can't produce any sourced commentary on the image itself (it's just a portrait that I would add to his article exclusively to demonstrate his appearance), so I have a nagging feeling that it would be nominated for deletion (regardless of the fair use rationale) because it will never be the subject of sourced commentary. I also directed you to the Wikipedia:Image use policy which is every clear that "Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal." and any such images "which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight". The wording in the Image use Policy that states images incorrectly marked as fair use can be deleted as a copyvio predates the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy and first appeared under the "Fair use considerations" section on November 5, 2005. (Media which is mis-tagged as fair use or is a flagrant copyright violation can and will be deleted on sight.) At that time the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria was just in guideline form, it was not an official policy until January 5, 2006. Instead of addressing that you again said I was attacking you and misquotes you and setting up a "straw man". All you would say at that point was "It's possible to make fair use of AP images, and I believe that this is an appropriate example." But, again, you did not establish why and how. To me that shows a clear misunderstanding of polices. And I found deletion discussions from August 2008 where another press image is being discussed. The nom was not as detailed as mine was but is is the same idea - a press images that is not being used in a transformative nature, or as the nom put it: "Uploading non-notable pictures form news agencies to illustrate articles about the image subject (and not about the picture) is like kicking a dead horse" In that discussion you also seemd to miss the entire point and failed to understand related image polices by saying Keep So what if the picture itself is notable? Its rationale and use plainly satisfies fair use criteria. And further down on the same page there is another discussion on a press image File:Soe Win.jpg where the nom was: "Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable)" and your comment was Keep Despite the nominator's contention to the contrary, this plainly passes our fair use policy's criteria, as showed by the detailed justification. IFD is not a place to advance a minority interpretation of fair use policy. To be fair in that case the image was kept however the same exact comment was used for the deletion discussion of File:Fernando Poe, Jr..jpg which was shown to fail the same "respect for commercial opportunities" criteria. Your idea that "IFD is not a place to advance a minority interpretation of fair use policy" shows a general lack on understanding of the existing polices, even at that time. For more examples see below. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some recent examples concerning image tags.

• File:1wikidrumbo.jpg was uploaded as "self". I used the {{di-no source}} tag on it because there is not any actual source listed. Before tagging I checked the uploader other image contributions and found they also upped File:Wikiprpcd034.jpg, which is an album cover that was also upped using the same "self" license. I had tagged that image as {{di-no permission}} October 10, 2008 and an admin removed it, changing the license to fair use. As the user only made two uploads there is not a lot of information to base any valid source on. For File:1wikidrumbo.jpg Nyttend said: GFDL-self is a claim that the uploader is the source. If that were all that was needed that Nyttend should be change back File:Wikiprpcd034.jpg to the original license because GFDL-self is a claim that the uploader is the source.
• File:1st page Photo Banner.jpg is a derivative work consisting of 11 images. There is no source given for any of the images. It is not out of line with images of this type to list all sources the work has been derived from. When it is missing it is asked for. As with most "self" images they all use the same generic "self" tag - but in looking over the uploaders other image I see images seemingly from other sources. File:Iris Apr08 small.jpg is using a "Self" license but is watermarked as "Gil Houette". File:Clublogo.jpg was upped with a self license but a summary that said "As a member of Committee and publicity officer for the Koolie Club of Australia, I have permission to display this logo". File:Koolie Family.jpg simply says "Kerrie Challenger" and looks like it was taken form a website. File:Tjukurpa Kool Jill USA Import.jpg is claimed "self" as "Tjukurpa Koolie Club of Australia". There is no solid proof that they actually own the copyright on any of these images, but there is some proof they are a "member of Committee and publicity officer for the Koolie Club of Australia", but that does not mean they own the copyright on any of these images or were the photographer. How can this be handled? {{di-no source}} or {{di-no permission}} would be two ways. File:Dylan Large Web view.jpg and File:Snowview3.jpg were apparently tagged similar and delted without issues. Nyttend's reason for keeping the derivative is: GFDL-self is a claim that the uploader is the source; no reason provided to say that uploader couldn't have taken all of the photos
• File:1st Duke.jpg does not have a source, and the uploaders description is vague: "George, 1st Duke of Gordon (Private Collection)" I tagged it {{di-no source}} and even left a note to reinforce the tag: "Listed as being form a "private collection" but that is too vauge. Is this a reproduction of a painting in PD? IS it a new piece of art showing "George, 1st Duke of Gordon"? Is it a derivative work of art? Without the original source and/or date copyright (or lack of) can not be established." Nyttend removed the tag, added "digitization of original painting", changed the "self" license to {{PD-old}} and said It's obviously a period work, way too old for copyright. However, again, the uploader said it was from a "Private collection" - that does not establish who the author is or even how old it is. Maybe the uploaders daughter painted it. Maybe their uncle painted it. Maybe they got it at a garage sale. Maybe it is a print of a poster made in 1999. Can anyone but the uploader be sure? Is Nyttend willing to go to court, if need be, as an expert witness to state that this image of artwork in somebody's private collection is "way too old for copyright"? Uploader also is claiming "I, the copyright holder..." on File:ElizabethBrodie.jpg and File:5th Duke.jpg. Neither of those say they are from a "Private collection" however. No sources listed on those either.
• File:1940s KYCA building.jpg was upped with no author information and "source" given as "KYCA". It was tagged {{di-no license}} on March 5, 2008 and the uploader wrote in the summary "Free for use". Another editor added "Unknown, circa 1940s" and added author as "Southwest Broadcasting". UIt was again tagged {{di-no license}} om July 2, 2008. The uploader changed the author to their username and added a self {{cc-by-3.0}} license. Base don all of that I tagged it {{di-no source}} on September 29, 2010. Nyttend could have deleted the image on October 4, 2010 but instead said Source is provided; it's just that we can't be sure that the permission is valid and {{di-no permission}} on it.
• File:1936 - Pipe-Major (WO1) John P. MacDonald 1932 - 1939-5x7.jpg is an image that lists the source as "self-made" but the date is "1936". If the user were born *in* 1936 they would be 74 right now. This is important because of the reason Nyttend did not delte: 1936 isn't so far back that the uploader couldn't have taken it But I did not tag the image because I felt a 74 + year old could not upload image here, I tagged it because the uploader has a clear interest in the genre as they have also uploaded File:Pipes & Drums of The Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa - 1 July 2007.JPG and File:LCol Bud Walsh Presents Pipe banner to Pipe-Major Alan Clark - 20 Oct 2007.JPG as well as several images taken from ebay: File:The Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa.jpg, File:43rd Regiment Duke of Cornwall's Own Rifles.jpg, File:43rd Ottawa and Carleton Battalion of Rifles.jpg and File:43rd Carleton Battalion (Carleton Blazers).jpg.
• File:1923 Darband, PM Amb state with governer of Mecca and gov. of Madinah.jpg was upped using the {{PD-self}} tag but the source is given as "My Personal collection". That very important. I tagged it {{di-no source}} and added a note that said "Uploader states this is an image from "My Personal collection", however that is not the original source. Without the original source there is no way to verify the correct copyright holder and if they have released into PD." After I had tagged it the uploader added "I WIKITANOLI hold rights to this image.", but still did not clarify the original source. The next "edit" was Nyttend who said "I WIKITANOLI hold rights to this image" is a claim that the uploader is the source Keeping in mind this user had also upped images such as File:Nawab Muahammad Saeed Khan.JPG, File:Darband 1948, Governer frontier and PM.jpg andFile:1920, field marshall lord william birdwood and nawab khan zaman khan, commander in chief india.jpg all using a "self" and all saying they are images from their "collection".

So these are just a few of tag related issues. I want to be clear in that this is not just a one time thing, or a tag only issue. As I stated my first notice of this admin was a month or so ago when they removed/refused a DfU tag saying once an image has gone through a deletion discussion it can not be deleted by other means. That is not at all accurate and, as I said, at the time I was unfamiliar with the name Nyttend and thought it was a new admin. When I started encountering them more I realized they were not a new admin, and now, due to repeated issues such as these, and their failure to convince me they understand policies related to images we are here in this venue. And I can keep going with this list if need be. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Soundvision, I see your point for the "Ekin Cheng" and "Azimpur Road" images. In the first in comment it says " This photo taken by a fan" but it's not clear who the fan was. It could be the uploader and it could have been some other fan. The second one does look like a book scan and probably is. Have you considered asking these editors for clarification? This especially might have been a good idea for the first. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ron, I use "di" tags in these cases. {{di-no source}} allows up to 7 days for the uploader to provide an original source. In some case an uploader may have only done one thing - up an image. In others they may have a long history of suspect uploads. It really varies. The di tags are designed to provide time so that the uploader can fix an issue or to ask questions about the tag. So to answer your question the uploaders are contacted. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, have you ever bothered to read the {{self}} tag? Try it out sometime, and when you do, take your finger and put it on the source. There, not so difficult now was it? To answer your question, {{self}} tags are acceptable as standalone sources for media files. Now, if the uploader explicitly sources the file to someone other than themselves, but does not give any reason to suggest that the original copyright holder has given permission for the file to be hosted on Wikipedia under a given free license, tag it with {{subst:npd}}, regardless of whether the file is tagged with a {{self}} tag. If the file is the work of someone else, but the uploader claims it as their own work, tag it with {{db-f9}}. If you're still doubtful of a user's "I created this work myself" claim (regardless of free license), and it does not fall into any of the categories I just mentioned, list it at PUF. There is absolutely nothing wrong with listing a file you are unsure about at PUF to clear uncertainty. And last but not least, assume good faith man - not every uploader is a scheming, bloodthirsty copyright violator. And with comment to the topic of the thread, while I've had my fair share of gripes with Nyttend, but there is no evidence suggesting he acted inappropriately declining your tags. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have. I thought I had made that clear. I apologize if I didn't. Nor do I assume every uploader is a "scheming, bloodthirsty copyright violator." I thought I had been clear on that as well, but again, I apologize if I wasn't. As I said to Nyttend if anyone has an issue with the use of "di" tags and feels IfD/Pui is a better venue for deletion than suggest it in a public forum where the deletion of all di tags would be appropriate. I personally feel the "di" tags are much more user friendly than placing the image in a "deletion discussion" and would give my opinion to not delete these tags. If a name is given as the author and it appear to be someone other than the uploqder I use {{di-no permission}}. If an image is licensed via a "self" tag but states no clear author or a vague source (i.e - "personal collection", "a photo album", "google") I use {{di-no source}} (As the {{di-no author}} tag was deleted) and may also leave and "admin note" to clairfy why it was tagged as such. Or if I find the real source on such images I tag it as a blatant copyvio if it is warranted. If it states a source that has a conflicted license I use a few things depending on what the uploaders history shows me. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've opened discussions at WP:FFD and WP:PUF for some of the images listed above. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat on a CSD spree

User:Wuhwuzdat seems to have embarked on a CSD spree and is adding various inappropriate tags to articles, including...

• George and the Christmas Star tagged as A3 less than a minute after creation, with this reply to my pointing out that A3 tags should not be applied within moments of creation.
• D P Kut-Moi-Cheung tagged as A7 when at the time it said "Currently the all-time laeding scorer for the Mauritian National football team".
• Ocean Bottom Nightmare tagged as A7, when at the time it said "..the week following it's release they were BBC Introducing's Pick of the Week".
• Deviant Way tagged as A11, when, though it's quality is poor, it is not blatant advertising.

That's just four recent ones, but there are quite a few more I haven't checked yet - just thought the biting of newbies needs to be stopped asap, and Wuhwuzdat's response to me did not seem to be constructive. (Just about to inform Wuhwuzdat) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Now informed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The first example still contains nothing, and the fourth example reads just like a book advertisement to me. HalfShadow 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with HalfShadow. Saebvn (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd even go so far as to tag the fourth example (and other articles this user has written) as {{db-nocontent}} as it contains literally no information pertaining to the book's plot, or even a synopsis.

Yes, the first one still contains nothing, but my point is that it should not have been tagged A3 moments after creation - who knows what the editor might have added had they not been bitten? And the fourth - I don't think it's clear enough to tell between a blatant advert and a poor-quality start at a genuine article about the book -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering every other book article he's written are exactly the same way, and the last ones were about ten days ago, he doesn't plan on expanding the descriptions at all. HalfShadow 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but "doesn't plan on expanding the descriptions at all" is not a justification for a CSD:G11. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of my edits are CSD tagging of new editors new articles. I had not seen the notice he informed me of before he made me aware of it, as I patrol almost exclusively from this page. WuhWuzDat 17:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you responded in a combative manner after I did point it out to you, which suggested you were not prepared to listen - and that's the only reason I brought it here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: seeing as you appear so prolific, do you think it might be a good idea to remove the "Semi retired" banners from your home and talk pages? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The first one has been deleted. The second one is a possible hoax article that contained unreferenced BLP violations until I deleted them a minute ago. The third one does not seem CSD worthy. I have prodded the fourth one as it essentially has no content except for fair-use book covers (without rationales) and showy taglines usually used by marketers to promote their product. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've prodded the others from him in the same way. HalfShadow 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

After a quick Google search, Google brings up zero hits for D P Kut-Moi-Cheung, except for the wiki article. That plus the stuff I removed from it make it a pretty clear hoax to me. Should have been G3 instead of A7, but still pretty speedy-able to me. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. It was really just the reply to my CSD:A3 comment that made me think we had some unconstructive CSD tagging going on here - had I seen a constructive reply rather than "It met the criteria at the time of tagging, and per WP:CRYSTAL I cannot and WILL not attempt to read the creators mind, or predict his future editing (if any)" (now deleted), then I would not have come here - I just really hate seeing newbies being bitten within seconds of creating something. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a real problem in general with the tagging. There's going to be a few borderline situations or times when another tag would have fit better when you do a lot of tagging. I do feel like pointing out that WP:CRYSTAL has nothing to do with how it was used in WWD's response to your comment. 'Crystal' isn't about editors not predicting the future actions of other editors. It's about not predicting the potential future notability or the future history of the subject itself. --Onorem♠Dil 17:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, an A3 tagging within minutes of creation violates "articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision", and I think biting newcomers so quickly is very poor - and as I say, had I not got such a dismissive response when I pointed it out, I would not have come here. Of the other three, one was tagged with the wrong tag, one was debatable, and one should not have been CSD tagged at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that this is a very long term issue, and Wuhwuzdat has been warned about his behaviour towards newbs creating pages, and other CSD-taggers, multiple times, and does not appear to be about to change his behaviour. Although since he's been less active recently, this may have been forgotten. Also, he's been told that citing CRYSTAL is not appropriate in this case - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate someone actually listening to my point about not biting newcomers with A1 and A3 tags within moments of an article's creation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I decided to check his most recent nominations. I looked at all of the most recent 31 (back to Sept 22). Of these, 21 were unquestionably suitable for speedy deletion, 4 were declined by other admins, and 6 were deleted, but in my opinion should not have been (for none of them do I feel there was such a high likelihood of a decent article that I would ask for undeletion) This is an error rate between 13% and 32%. For someone of his experience, 13% is pretty high. In the other direction, of the 21 unquestionably good speedies, 4 of them were either clear abuse or clear hoax, and deleted as such by the admins, but marked just as A7. Missing this many of the really serious problems indicates that he is scanning the articles quickly, but not thinking about them. I think he could do better if he went slower.

The problem of A1 and A3 is more general. I've made this error a few times myself, & I suspect most other admins also have once in a while failed to check the edit history for time of creation. For years we've been unable to find a solution that would't let the actual problems slip past. But it occurs to me that we should be able to use the edit filter system to detect tagging under these criteria of articles started within, say, the last hour, and at least warn the tagger. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Question. Isn't it more important that the deleting administrator delete properly? Or is only this user receiving a grade for CSD tagging due to prior history? Just asking.    Thorncrag   00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

  I think the problem here is Wuhwuzdat's attitude towards NPP, and newbs. He also does some questionable tagging, but personally I see the main problem as the way he interacts with others. Since he is the one warning the creator, that means it's normally him the new editors will go to with the typical "why did you delete my article" questions (rather than the deleting admin). I've seen some rather rude responses to these questions. For example, Wuhwuzdat applies his "talk page rules" very strictly, and normally seems to completely ignore anyone who doesn't follow them (despite it being completely unreasonable to expect new comers to always manage to follow/understand them). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed formal site ban for Kagome 85

Kagome 85 has been featured on some canadian news site where it is said that she was put on probation for making death threats on wikipedia, and, as evidenced by this edit this edit she has been harassing and cyber-stalking Moukity since he first came here 2 years ago. More threats to Moukity here

So, it may be time for a community discussion about a formal site ban of Kagome 85.

Discussion may now begin.

FelipeJoaoSalaoCastenada (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Whose sock are you? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition to this issue, the user in question has been indefinitely blocked for two and a half years. --13² 17:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone RevDel the diffs posted by the SPA sock? The first one is a gross libel and the second one is a link to a personal attack. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed as SubversiveUser (talk · contribs), whom I'm certain it's Kagome 85.  IP blocked. –MuZemike 17:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So, two people (Kagome 85 and Moukity) are involved in a mostly off-wiki dispute. Someone shows up here to ask that Kagome 85 be given a site ban for comments they made against Moukity, also linking to a news article which details legal actions taken against the person behind the Kagome 85 account and likely embarrassing to them. The requester is blocked as a sockpuppet of... Kagome 85? Did I miss something? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Bugs, I was wondering something similar as well, they initiated this to discuss having themselves banned? Heiro 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of vandals who have posted requests here to themselves banned, however I suspect this is probably someone else. There's quite some background. We benefit from no involvement in this type of dispute. Kagome 85 is indefinitely blocked, and as such, banned. End of. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY - I won't go into details as to what people / accounts are involved... But the behavior of creating new accounts and insisting that we ban or reban or unban then reban their own account is unfortunately persistently common among some of our more problematic users. WP:NOTTHERAPY. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY, I've removed the sock post to this thread; it will soon be tagged and bagged. This user was given plenty of chances to earn the good-faith they were given; instead they opt'd to continue their harassment and post harassing and insulting messages that were rightly removed on my talk page, and the person they were harassing. If they were here in good-faith, they would have not brought it up again. They had their chance, and no more time should be spent here except to bag and tag.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Debolina Sengupta inserting copyrighted material to SAKHR Software Company (صخر)

I believe this requires administrator attention, so bringing this here. New user, Debolina Sengupta (talk · contribs), inserting copyrighted material to SAKHR Software Company (صخر). I removed copyrighted material from the article 1, warned the user about inserting the material 2 and began removing addition copyright violations 3. There's still more copyright violations from http://international.sakhr.com to be removed from the article, but I stopped when Debolina Sengupta reinserted the information into the article 5 to bring this matter to administrator attention. Will notify the user of this AN/I immediately after saving page. Akerans (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Most likely this is fundamentally a WP:COI issue more then a copyright issue. The user should provide WP:OTRS proof of permission to use the material. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this is a paid editor based on this. I've blanked the article to permit time for verification of permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Moonriddengirl, I am a paid editor. Just give it some time. The owner of the material is contacting wikipedia with all the copyrights. If that doesn't solve the issues, no problem deleting the article. I respect the copyright fact and that's the reason I have already asked the owners to contact the wikipedia admins. Debolina (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've linked the above signature per WP:SIG, and I've warned the user they need to fix it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Trolling

Please have a look at this post by User:AP1929. Bear in mind he has a history of personal abuse [102] [103] (e.g. "communist piece of shit" [104]) and that he was topic-banned from Yugoslavia related articles by FutPerf. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment the topic ban expired over a year ago. -Selket ^Talk 20:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Keeping that type of user around would not be a net positive for the project. I'd say a block for WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL violations, and permanent topic ban are clearly warranted. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That editor, or at least that account, has made 3 edits this year (all in September) and none within the past week. As DIREKTOR has reverted the edit complained of - and the one following by an ip, which I considered more inflammatory - I do not think there is anything an admin can do. Even a discussion over topic banning the account is likely to create more drama (as the usual suspects, of which I might be considered one, line up on the usual sides) than find an effective remedy. If AP1929 becomes active again, and continues to make personal attacks, then action may be considered - but not at the moment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, no one has to ban me, I can leave myself. Clearly DIREKTOR can not communicate with someone of my intelligence. I added my two cents to a discussion. The article really is a disaster ! Do some Bleiburg / Keelhaul research for yourselves. What DIREKTOR is doing within that sphere is as sickening as Holocaust denial. The user claims to speak a language which does not exist. Everywhere he can he makes sure he hints his Yugophile fantasy fetish along with communist agitprop. He loves Tito (openly) and gets to be the all-mighty editor on the Bleiburg page. That's like a a devout Nazi trumping everyone else in Holocaust discussion. Very interesting. AP1929 (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

AP, this has nothing to do with the intelligence of the involved parties, and everything to do with your inability to follow a simple rule: Do not attack other editors. You added your 'two cents' to a discussion? You openly insulted another editor instead of discussing content. That has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note the user continued to troll on my talkpage ("Long time COMRADE DIREKTOR!") [105] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

AP1929's response here, an his insults at Direktor's talk page, both indicate that the user is for the moment not here to edit productively. I have blocked him for one week, feel free to change the block (duration) as consensus sees fit though. Fram (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well, if their intermittent edits are going to be in the same vein - and I do not see any real interest in contributing to the encyclopedia - then I feel indefinite is an appropriate tariff, and anything less than a year is going to be ineffective (since they are editing so sparsely). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This guy does not get it

Resolved

 – indef blocked after repeat problems. Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

2tuntony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have tried to help, but this guy just deletes posts. This has gone too far from the concept of collegial editing, IMHO. I'm off to advise him of this filing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Although not an admin here, as an editor I have come across this guy and have found his manor very rude. Looking at the comments on the talk page I would personally but this ismy opinion feel free to comment but would block for 48 hours for rude/disruptive editing? and if the user didnt respond to this then block for longer? Corruptcopper (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That comment is extremely inappropriate and has been removed. If it reappears, the editor should be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess he hasn't read WP:CIVIL and realised he doesn't have "the right to tell you to go fuck yourself". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

After looking in to the matter further, his/her incivility seems to be much more widespread [106], [107]. Given previous and recent blocks for NPA, I have blocked the editor for 1 week. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I was caught in an edit conflict but I was going to say: :Block Log looking through the block log this is not the first incident of incivility and perhaps needs a bigger wrap on the knuckles? Corruptcopper (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a 1-week block is a logical progression from previous blocks; I was about to mark this as resolved but noticed Corrupt's message; I think the block is suitable though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it's not too often that someone says a block I issued was too short! Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that's certainly one of the more creative defiances of NPA that I've seen. Maybe a "rap" for a week, and a permanent "wrap" if the reason he's blocked doesn't turn the lightbulb on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking at the indenting Toddst, it's possible that Corrupt left the message without realising you'd blocked the user, and was referring to the fact that they'd been warned again despite multiple previous blocks. Maybe corrupt can clarify? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

just to clarify yes thats what I meant. I wasnt saying that the block wasnt long enough was mearly saying this is what I think of the situation. Corruptcopper (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I am no apologist for this guy and I have been at the receiving end of his sometimes-colorful language, but I think he is actually a reasonable personal who responds to discourse. He doesn't react well to being templated or to situations he finds illogical. I suggest that he is a productive editor and could probably stay out of trouble with some mentoring. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of responding, was he notified of this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One way or another though, he needs to learn that his persistent violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL aren't acceptable; the week block should give him some time to cool off. I have no objection to him being unblocked early if he indicates that he understands why his edits were problematic and agrees to get a mentor and abide by policy in future, though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was notified by Bwilkins. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw, about 15 seconds after I posted this question. Where's that face-palm illustration when I need it? File:Facepalm2.svg ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

2tuntony has shown an ability to contribute usefully to the project but clearly has some issues. Another editor has offered to mentor and this seems like a great idea; I hope Tony will consider it if he comes back after his block expires. Doc Tropics 22:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

He's put the "fuck off" box back at the head of his Talk page - suggest blocking Talk page access again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my block to indef and revoked talk page access. Some folks just refuse to "get it" as Bwilkins stated. Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

209.79.*

The IP 209.79.69.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for a year; in response, other IPs from the range have begun to dump hundreds of kilobytes of garbage into the talk page; when I protected it, into their own talk page. (Examples: 209.79.72.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 209.79.76.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - also see deleted edits). Perhaps a rangeblock is in order? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked this range for five days: 209.79.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; is there a way to check all edits from a particular range? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=209.79.* Bovlb (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Soxred93's rangecontribs tool shows the IP contributions sorted by date, which is surprisingly useful. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Xanderliptak

I've had enough. I warned him more than once to stop lying about me (oh fine, civility police, to stop 'misrepresenting the truth', better?), and to stop being dishonest about what I know and what I have said. after another comment from him earlier today, I left a final warning on his talkpage... after which he decided to make another personal attack. Someone else deal with this please, I am stepping away. → ROUX ₪ 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if user:roux is an admin or not, but he has threatened to block me several times in retaliation to a content dispute. He has been rather rude and aggressive through the whole process, accused me of lying several times, see his edit summary and comment here and here, and even had another editor (admin?) warn him about his language and attacks, see here. Roux has personally attacked my character and credentials in an effort to marginalize me and win a simple content dispute, taking the dispute much to personally. His most recent threat came because I said an editor knew nearly nothing about heraldry, which that editor said himself here. There is no reason that a content dispute should be taken this far by an editor, and he should be blocked for a short time until he can cool down and approach this matter much more calmly and without so much vitriol. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to impose a solution on the content dispute, but this comment you made, Xanderliptak, violates our No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) policy and our civil and collaborative editing policy (WP:CIVIL). "You lack the ability to infer information" is not acceptable behavior in comments here, and if you persist in abusive behavior you will be blocked.

Regarding the content dispute - I am highly concerned that you, as a researcher in this field, are too close to realize what our no original research policy (WP:NOR) means and why it's inappropriate to synthesize content here. We report what other reliable sources have said. You, as an expert, can write in a Heraldry publication that A+B=C; you, as an expert or editor here, cannot assert A+B=C unless it's published elsewhere. We're not the venue to publish new research or synthetic deductions. It's not what the encyclopedia is for.

With that said - that's a comment and perhaps mild warning, but not a threat of impending action. The no personal attacks warning IS a warning - if those continue, I or other admins will block you.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The part about inference is not a personal attack, but an observation based off his comments. He refused to accept sources because they spoke in generalities and not specifically on this content dispute. His inability to apply sources that speak in generalities to a specific instance seems to simply be an observation.

So my single observation is in violation of civility policy, but the multiple examples of ROUX calling me a liar and unfit to give an opinion on Wikipedia are acceptable behavior? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK

Oh for god's sake. Here you go again. I called you a liar because you repeatedly characterized everyone (and at times specifically myself, BMK, and DrKiernan(!)) in the discussion as knowing nothing about heraldry--several times claiming that we had said so ourselves--after being told repeatedly that it was not in fact the case, and only BMK is a tyro in the field. Continuing to state something that is untrue after you have been told it is untrue is known as 'lying.' At no point did I say you are unfit to give an opinion on Wikipedia, and I will require you to either provide a diff or retract it immediately. → ROUX ₪ 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So you admit to a more serious violation of WP:NPA than the editor you are reporting? Watch out for the boomarang! Yworo (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable facts are not personal attacks. Xanderliptak kept making Statement X. He was informed by me several times that Statement X was incorrect. He continued to make statement X. That is known as lying. One of the statements he kept making is that everyone in the discussion 'admitted' that we knew nothing about heraldry. He was repeatedly told that was not the case, and kept saying it. In what way is that not lying? → ROUX ₪ 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, calling somebody a "liar" is a personal attack even if it is true. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs? Remember that 99% of us don't know what this is about. Fribbler (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I linked about in my first comment some places where he accused me of lying, and where an admin had told him that he was attacking me. They are here, here and here. The only issue he is trying to bring against me is a comment I made after he wrote this ANI, which was not an attack but an observation about his refusal to accept the sources provided him because they spoke of generalities. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I trust that disinterested parties will actually look at the truth of the matter. [This, particularly, is telling. I shall be making no further comments upon this matter unless specifically asked to by someone other than Xanderliptak, as I have zero interest in getting myself blocked by responding to him the way he has been attacking me. → ROUX ₪ 22:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that upset you, I apologize. I just thought it would be helpful if you read the source before commenting on what a source stated. I am sorry for suggesting you should read a source. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This isnt really the place to bring childish talk/arguements between yourselves. In answer to your question Roux isnt an administator and has been blocked Several times before for incivility attacks against other users. Corruptcopper (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is precisely in order to avoid such a block, by having someone else deal with this situation rather than me saying what I want to say, that I brought this here. As it is, I have had to walk away from Xanderliptak's disruption on the talkpage as his personal attacks, including the one directly above your comment, have pushed me to the edge of what I may say and remain civil. → ROUX ₪ 23:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked

I have blocked both Roux and Xanderliptak for 24 hrs for repeated mutual personal attacks here and in pages and with diffs referenced above.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

While both parties have used indelicate language, I have to say that Xanderliptak's editing stance has been and remains extremely disruptive. He has had senior editors and admins explaining policy to him, in that his interpretations of sources amount to original research and cannot be included, and has been requested by the editors involved in the matter to provide a source for his contention. Instead, Xanderliptak has mocked the acumen of other parties who cannot (or will not, since it is irrelevant to writing the encyclopedia) read the sources in the manner he does, and has not provided a reference for his position (possibly because he cannot - but in any case has ignored these requests.) Under the circumstances, I feel that this disruption should draw a significant sanction - I suggest 2 weeks, which is difficult to simply "wait out" - in an effort to prompt Xanderliptak to follow WP process, practice and policy if they are to continue contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest 0 weeks. There are uninvolved admins dealing with this who elected not to block. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned by his behavior - but I didn't impose a longer block at this time, and won't unless he is abusive again when it's actually expired. Assuming good faith on that point, it shouldn't hurt us to see if the problem subsides on both parties' accounts. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional input requested at an AFD

I would appreciate some additional input at this AFD about a television reporter's biography. She submitted some translations of articles about her via emails to OTRS. I've added information about them, but only two participants have since commented in the discussion (mostly to argue with each other). I am uncertain whether anyone else has the discussion watchlisted. Additional input, considering these new sources, would be appreciated. (Since I am corresponding with the subject via OTRS, I am recusing myself from the discussion.) Thank you.

I already tried posting this to the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, but got no new participants in the AFD. I am posting to ANI because it gets lots of traffic from admins and non-admins alike.--Chaser (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Law-enforcement vs. law enforcement

Radiojon has just moved virtually all of our articles whose titles include "law enforcement" (although Law enforcement is one exception, oddly) from "law enforcement" to "law-enforcement". I've reverted some of the moves, and some article contents I've cleaned up, but I have homework to do — could some more admins help with moving these pages back? See his recent contributions (assuming "Jon" = "he"), since about 23:00 on the 4th October, for the pages that need to be moved. In particular, List of law-enforcement agencies in Alabama and parallel articles for all or nearly all other US states need to be moved. A few other pages appear also to have been moved for no apparent reason, such as Charging Data Record to Charging data record, even though the article uses the term as a proper noun.

I bring this up here for two reasons: (1) I've already had to perform one deletion to move a page back to the proper title, so asking non-admins might not work as well. (2) It might help to have a discussion here with Radiojon about these moves; if you look at his talk page, you'll see lots of notes from people telling him that he was moving pages inappropriately. I can't tell whether he's responded on other people's talk pages to these comments, but it's obvious that he's not getting the message. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I left a query on his talk page a little over an hour ago. He(?) has not been active since about an hour before my note. —EncMstr (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

The use of the hyphen in titles like that of the Alabama list is defensible under WP:HYPHEN, as "law-enforcement" is used as an adjective. Ucucha 02:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you on the grammar front, moving such a large number of articles without discussion is a problem, since the sheer number of articles with the opposite convention tends to indicate that we had a de facto standard already in place. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand the grammar point, but I've never seen this usage before (either on-wiki or off-wiki); perhaps this could be considered one of the zillions of exceptions to English grammar rules. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the hyphen is usually optional in constructions like this, and it indeed doesn't seem to be used much for "law enforcement". Ucucha 03:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because "law enforcement" is a compound noun, not a noun/verb combination, so no hyphen is needed, or proper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All these moves should be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I've undone all the moves. —EncMstr (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Per a new edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the hyphen is dying. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's "seen as messy looking and old-fashioned." ;-) TFOWR 17:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of WP:LE I object to this move :P --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Which move? The addition of hyphens, or my removal of them? —EncMstr (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Radiojon's behavior

Radiojon's usual response to such an inquiry is to ignore it (and sometimes reinstate the mass page moves, again without discussion).

Previous threads:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive538#Radiojon
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#Unilateral redefinition / article moves

—David Levy 03:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This guy has been pulling this since 2005 with nary a block? Greatest. Troll. Ever. Don't let me interfere further with erudite discussion of the use of the hyphen in English.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the "troll" description. Radiojon appears to honestly believe that he's improving the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, he does so by "correcting" articles to comply with his personal views, without regard for anyone else's. —David Levy 03:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case let's put out a collection jar to pay for his therapist. Either that or a troll, the answer for wikipedia is obvious (though that would get in the way of much hilarity as people rush to their OEDs for guidance on how to handle this, so i suppose contra-indicated (contraindicated!).Bali ultimate (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

He's at it again? Because Radiojon's moves consistently attract controversy, he should be required to discuss all moves on the talk page before making them. I seem to recall making this request of him in the past. Does this sound like a reasonable solution? In other words, no moves unless he's first proposed and discussed it on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding wiki-layerish, I'm not sure anyone other than arbcom has the authority to issue a restriction like that (a move ban). --Selket ^Talk 07:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the community has the authority to do that, if it's needed. Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.191.39 (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick note. (I'm short on time.) He recreated Vintage Hawaiian Treasures. After it was deleted by consensus. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where it was deleted by consensus. Only where it was an expired PROD. Was it originally under another name by any chance? --Smashville^talk 13:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Given Radiojon's long history of making unreasonable moves without consensus, I'd like to propose a topic ban in accordance with Viriditas' suggestion above: that Radiojon be prohibited from moving any page (other than his own userspace) without first proposing the move and gaining consensus from others. One question — I've never before asked for any sort of ban, and I virtually never participate in ban proposals, so I'm not sure — does this proposal go here or at WP:AN? Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

AN is the preferred venue, but when ban proposals evolve out of an AN/I thread, they're generally kept here. I suppose it wouldn't be bad to post a pointer on AN to here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made this user an unbeatable offer regarding this bad habit he seems to have acquired. I did this after looking in some detail at his contribs over the past few years; he basically doesn't edit talk pages or user talk and hasn't substantively done so since 2004 or so. This is unacceptable and this user has long since passed the point where the net benefit to the project is negative. My offer is intended to bring about a "win-win" situation; either Radiojon starts making edits that are actually of benefit, or he gets indefinitely blocked. Either would be better than going on as we have been. --John (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Abusive interactions from IP-hopping editor 79.116.xxx

I would like to know what steps can be taken to lessen the problem of an IP-hopping editor who often violates civility guidelines in talk page interactions, and who reverts against consensus, all without fear of disciplinary action because of the ever-changing IP address.

The editor I am concerned with promotes Romanian aviation pioneers Traian Vuia and Henri Coandă, pushing the view that Coandă flew the first jet aircraft (a fringe position disputed by some experts), and the view that Vuia flew the first aircraft to take off under its own power (again, disputed by experts). The editor is abusive in discussions, and goes against consensus by edit warring. It would be easy to counter this editor by semi-protecting a few articles, but the edit warring spans more, including Aviation history, 1910 in aviation, 1906 in aviation, Coandă-1910, Jet aircraft, Carpi (people), History of the jet engine, Jet engine, Timeline of jet power, Aircraft engine, and perhaps more.

Examples of abuse include:

• "no shit, its lie? hahaha. Because, you said so? Cool, hope you will land after all with the foots on Earth, from your alternative world, where probably you talk with Gibbs ghosts, and wake up to reality" – Special:Contributions/79.116.208.207
• "Man, you are really pathetic. ...Wake up" – Special:Contributions/79.116.206.162
• "Man, your bias is so big that you become almost delirious." – Special:Contributions/79.116.207.120
• "Man, you are the exponent of why wikipedia sucks many times and is not seen as something reliable by many peoples." – Special:Contributions/79.116.209.209
• "Boy, sometimes your bias is so big than you look plain stupid saying such things." – Special:Contributions/79.116.206.235
• "So, to avoid unecessary wars all over wikipedia, just let aside your stupid bias and let the competent peoples to be saw here." – Special:Contributions/79.116.206.207
• "first, your opinion doesnt count too much." – Special:Contributions/79.116.206.171
• "sorry i ask you, are you idiot? ...i am not in the mood for a kind of editions and some sort of war with all kinds of silly kids" – Special:Contributions/79.116.208.124

Even with the number of articles involved, is page protection a better option than range blocking? Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is bad enough to warrant sanctions. There are no more than 25 edits from all those IPs put together. The earliest edit happened five or six weeks ago. The most recent is more than two days old. Even if they are all bad edits, this still isn't that big a deal.--*Kat* (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the range is pretty small. The entire range looks like it only covers 79.116.206-209.XXX, which would only be about 1000 IP addresses, a comparitively small range for a raneg block. This looks like it would catch all of his currently used IP addresses if we instituted a block of 79.11.206.000/22. We'd need a CU to check that range to see if there was minimal collateral damage, but if it would stop him and him alone, then it would actually be less disruptive than a protection. --Jayron32 06:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate the block you suggest of 79.116.206.000 to 79.116.209.255, a span of 1024 addresses. It would be a relief to require this editor to log in with a user name, and to be answerable for his own behavior.

Other IP addresses outside the suggested range, ones that have been used both for edit warring and peaceful editing on the above-listed articles, are: 79.113.9.72, 79.117.198.15, 79.117.145.162, 79.117.151.42, 79.117.148.190, 79.117.143.46, 79.113.15.217, 79.117.152.9, 79.117.149.178 and 79.117.196.21. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuous myspacing by ian.bjorn (talk · contribs)

This user has been constantly myspacing on mine and airplaneman's talk pages, and doing silly things like adding a hidden comment saying peekaboo to Hi878's talk. I having pointed Ian to WP:MYSPACE numerous times and repeatedly tried to discuss this with him, but nothing seems o be working.Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 48 hours for Harassment.--Salix (talk): 09:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I will block him indefinitely for disruptive editing and myspacing if he continues this behavior after the current block expires. It's obvious he's not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Akamal1947

Can someone check on this users edits? here I've left messages for them at their talk User talk:Akamal1947, and in edit summaries. I've been on and off here tonight, not really paying attention and have inadvertently gone past 3RR, for which I will take any consequences that are relevant. They're last edit here is pretty symptomatic [108] unreffed additions that I dont have the relevant knowledge to judge the accuracy of, removal of refs, etc. I have not reverted this one, I will leave that up to someone else. Earlier tonight, before they created this acct, they were operating as User talk:69.117.175.79 with these contribs [109]. Heiro 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Heiro 08:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by User:121.115.68.130 and User:Koczysz

• 121.115.68.130 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Koczysz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Both are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheynhertz-Unbayg but in the meantime are causing a lot of disruption, not only in the creation of multiple inappropriate DAB pages but in repeatedly vandalizing the user and talk pages of editors who warn/revert them, e.g. [110], [111], [112] Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Koczysz is indefinitely blocked by me for the death threats, at the moment. Sock or not, thats not a reasonable thing to say. Syrthiss (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And now their talkpage access has been revoked for adding me to the list of sockmasters whose puppets they supposedly are. Syrthiss (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously a sock of some user, who it doesn't really matter. I'm more or less annoyed how an admin (User:Bkonrad) reverted multiple edits of his and didn't even block him.. Tommy! 14:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Err, well I am reluctant to block editors in conflicts in which I am involved as participant. I almost came here to request assistance, but quickly gave up as the layers of instructions were rather confusing. older ≠ wiser 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you had ample time to block the troll, but that's my opinion. It "clogs" up huggle when there are enough schools vandalizing everything. Tommy! 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's my opinion that it is very poor form for an admin to block a user that the admin is involved in a conflict with, even if the admin is personally convinced the person is a sockpuppet, troll, or whatever derogatory term you like. older ≠ wiser 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:Banning policy. It's my opinion that sysops know what banned means. Tommy! 15:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not that obvious whether a user is in fact a sockpuppet of a banned user. I might personally be convinced of it, but I don't have checkuser privileges. It's an area where confirmation by other admins, especially uninvolved admins, is a useful check on abuse of power. This particular user is especially problematic because some edits are marginally useful and are not obvious vandalism. Where it becomes a serious issue is when the user becomes abusive towards other editors. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It just makes absolutely no sense for you to tag a sockpuppet of a banned user, and then refuse to block him because you think it's "poor form." I mean, honestly, give me a break. We need more competence around here, and I'm at the moment uninterested continuing to combat vandalism. And it was so obvious it was a sock. 1. New users don't start out with redirects and wiki lingo such as "rvv." Tommy! 16:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself, it's a volunteer operation. I do not use the block button often and am reluctant to do if there is any question of my objectivity in dealing out the block. older ≠ wiser 16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A side note: I've deleted almost all the redirects Koczysz created, leaving only the ones that were related to surnames (e.g. redirecting from Borowsky to Borowski). The others were all names of towns, mostly in Poland, in languages other than Polish. I'm aware that we do have those type of redirects, but we don't seem to have them consistently, e.g. we don't have redirects for the Turkish names of all the cities in Greece, or even a redirect from Yunanistan to Greece. None of them had any incoming links, except for one page which was recently edited by 121.115.68.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so I assumed that they weren't going to be widely used. But if anyone disagrees it'd be just as easy to restore them as it was to delete them. —Soap— 15:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know if RBLibertarian2 is a sock?

RBLibertarian2 (talk · contribs) keeps trying to get banned. Now I'm happy to block him indefinitely since he clearly is unconstructive, but is this behaviour at all familiar to anyone? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean User:RBLibertarian or do you think they are both socks of someone else.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any accounts other than that on his network range, nor do I recognize the behavior off-hand. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to both of you. Fainites, I didn't look at '2' long enough, as I've now found [113] and [114] - almost certainly the same person behind the accounts. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – Threat retracted, user unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for this edit after it was brought to my attention on my talk page. The other editor seems fairly convinced it's a threat, as am I, but I'd appreciate a third opinion since legal threats tend to be less clear-cut than other blockable issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Solid block. Toddst1 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that isn't a legal threat per say, but what do I know....--Threeafterthree (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC) +

• He's requesting unblock and I've infomred him of this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good block. -- ۩ Mask 17:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I understand the block. However now in his unblock he affirms that he intends no legal action. IMHO the correct thing now would be to clear the block, and address the conflict itself.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears though that word games are more important than addressing the matter.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why this happens

Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a relatively new user. Aside from the templated welcome every thread on his talk page begins with a threat. Stop playing cops and try to educate new users.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User has struck through the comment, now support an unconditional unblock. -- ۩ Mask 19:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic, since you say this an hour after he was already unblocked. What though does this have to do with my comment above.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that after I made the comment. Seemed pointless to correct. How it relates is that the user was calmly shown why it was inappropriate, counseled how to fix it, and even let slide on a 3RR violation. There was no impersonal template with this incident, which is my pet peeve, but human interaction and enculturation to the values of the wiki, followed by gracious acceptance into the fold. Your cop remark seems misplaced and not really applicable. No comment as to the same sentiment in regards to the other threads on the user talkpage. -- ۩ Mask 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you read his entire talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also there damn well was an impersonal final warning template, which led to the reaction that got the user blocked. It wasn't until after that someone finally started talking to him.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

AMuseo, Broad Wall & Historicist

Firstly, a declaration, I have have recent negative interactions with Amuseo and do not feel sufficiently dispassionate to act neutrally. I noticed a link on their userpage to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicist which reveals that Amuseo is actually a sockpuppet of a user Historicist used to get around a ban from PI articles enacted under ARBPIA.

• Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Broad Wall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AMuseo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AMuseo was created first but appears to have been abandoned in favour of Historicist then resuming after the topic ban was enacted. Broad Wall became active from 1 January and appears to have been created for editing PIA articles as a quick scan of AMuseo's contribs suggests that this account was mostly clean of PI edits after the ban was enacted. Broad Wall was abandoned on 22 July and AMUSEO has been extensively editing PI related articles in breach of their topic ban since then. The relevant wikistalk report is here.

The question is what do we do about this? There is no real evidence of abusive socking except for the flagrant disregard of the topic ban although the absence of recent issues does suggest that behaviour has improved. I do feel that some response is required but, apart for reaffirming the topic ban should we consider a community sanction to restrict AMuseo or one account or is something more direct required. Since I'm too partial to involve myself in the decision I am simply reporting the facts for further discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that they should be indef'ed as the accounts have been used to escape detection of the topic ban, and as such are not valid WP:Clean start accounts. Also any pages that they have created in violation of the topic ban (that they are the only significant editors of) should be CSD G5'ed. Codf1977 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether it was created by many editors or just one, Historicist and AMuseo have created dozens of new articles and expanded many others, earning DYK recognition for a substantial number of these articles which have been reviewed by other, unrelated Wikipedia editors. While I understand that there is a rush to delete any articles that are believed to be irretrievably tainted by their association with a particular editor, in this case such deletions will only serve to create greater disruption to the encyclopedia. I am more than willing to review and take editing responsibility for any article created by any of the editors in question here and oppose any effort at mass deletions using CSD G5 as a justification. Alansohn (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well G5 shouldn't be applied on a blanket scale, no; if other editors have made significant contributions since AMuseo's creation of it, and/or it has reached DYK status, then it shouldn't be used. But in cases where neither applies, .e.g Café Hillel bombing, Nava Appelbaum and so on, they should be speedily deleted right now. These are the types of charged, and mostly non-notable, articles that this user has been arguing fervently for for months now, in violation of the topic ban. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I was on the fence about this one, never having had a bad interaction with any of the iterations of this editor (and only a few positive ones, all with AMuseo) but the fact that the topic ban was documented by a sitting arbitrator is pretty compelling. I don't think that G5 is appropriate, given that the user had not been "banned" from en.wiki entirely when the edits in violation of the topic ban were made, but I agree that an indef block for socking is the correct response and the appropriate starting place for further discussion. I want to commend the editor in question for being forthright in explaining his intentions, although they do indeed appear to have been a de facto admission of guilt. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc. AMuseo has a long history of creating slanted articles about events in the news that don't merit encyclopedia articles. G5 is appropriate in these instances. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• As a confirmed sockpuppet and topicban breaker, shouldn't AMuseo/Historicist be revoked their special rights visible here and here (but not here), right away by an admins discretion? -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I had already indef-blocked AMuseo before finding this discussion, and I think the same should clearly be done to Broad Wall. Perhaps it is less clear cut for Historicist, so I shall wait to allow more discussion. However, my own view is that this account too should be indef-blocked. We have here an editor with a long history of troublesome editing, with a string of blocks and bans extending back over almost two years. Three of the editor's previous blocks were for abuse of multiple accounts or topic ban evasion. If an editor with a history of that sort continues to blatantly evade a topic ban by using other accounts, then I think the time has come to decide "enough is enough". There is no sign that the editor intends to stop defying consensus, and the net loss to Wikipedia through the time and effort wasted on continually dealing with this editor's transgressions will far outweigh any gain by letting the editor have yet another chance. (Incidentally, one of the previous blocks was originally indefinite, but reduced to allow the editor another chance.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz is mistaken to say there has been an "absence of recent issues" with regards to Amuseo. The user in question has created a string of problematic articles in recent weeks, all of which were heavily POV, containing numerous misleading statements and even outright flights of fancy, most of which were immediately nominated for AfD and a number of which have already been deleted. I myself had to do a complete rewrite of a couple just to bring them up to a remotely NPOV standard. He did exactly the same kind of thing when he was editing as Historicist.

Amuseo/Historicist is a relentless POV pusher who just wastes huge amounts of other users' time. Certainly his topic ban should remain in place; whether a wider ban should be enacted I will leave to others to judge. Gatoclass (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty of removing some material that violates WP:BLPTALK from Amuseo's user page. As can readily be guessed, it related to an individual involved in Israeli-Palestine disputes. This would appear to be another example of the sockpuppet account breaking other guidelines related to the topic ban area, in addition to merely breaking the topic ban itself. I will refrain from making further comments until a little later; I am far from impartial on this since, as a completely new editor, many of my first interactions were with Amuseo, I did my very best to assume good faith, and it is very clear that any such trust placed by me or other members of the community was comprehensively betrayed by this individual. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(AMuseo's user page has now been replaced with an appropriate tag by another user - I'm also fixing the redlink in my previous comment) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A couple of thoughts:

• I haven't interacted with this editor myself, but I remember noticing when he was topic-banned, and thinking that he really hadn't done very much to deserve a topic-ban. (Expressing an opinion of a living person in too-strongly worded language on a talk page; but the editor offered to redact the comment, as I recall. It wouldn't have been obvious to me, either, that it was not allowed to express negative opinions about living people on talk pages).
• Looking at the articles that have been linked to above, Café Hillel bombing and Nava Applebaum, both look notable and well-sourced, although the prose in both could use cleaning up to adhere to WP:NPOV.
• From spot-checking some of the user's recent contributions, they all seem constructive.

The question I have is: will blocking this editor, who seems to be a prolific content contributor, improve the encyclopedia? From what I see, it looks to me that this is a basically constructive editor who has gotten tangled up in the wikibureaucracy surrounding the I/P topic area. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor with a long history of troublesome editing, with a string of blocks and bans extending back over almost two years, three of whose previous blocks were for abuse of multiple accounts or topic ban evasion, and who then continues to blatantly evade a topic ban by using other accounts? An editor who made more than eleven thousand edits with the account on which they were first topic banned, and explained this by saying "it takes a while to learn the system" ?

An editor whose comments on what he had learned about that "system", expressed to a newer editor who was being advised by others that bickering with an admin about being blocked was not the right approach, were that "there are several dedicated bullies who get away with murder by the expedient of always being exquisitely polite and never technically violating a rule" ? An editor who continued to mass-produce POV articles often under dubious WP:COATRACK disguises, to the extent that anyone who wanted to avoid such POV material dominating the topic area and other prominent parts of the encyclopedia, was forced to propose and then re-write some or most of each article (just two examples, but I'm sure there are dozens [115] [116] )

An editor who, when a newbie editor (myself) adds a completely neutral note to an AfD (opened by someone else) referencing one of the many POV articles pushed in that manner, describes that newbie editor as "editors who have little more to offer than Wikipedia:I just don't like it" and accuses them of "manufacturing arguments" ? [117]

An editor who, right up until he was discovered, was using the user page of one of his sock puppet accounts in flagrant violation of the very clear very first sentence of WP:BLP, in fact concerning a living individual in the topic area from which he had already been banned? (Incidentally I'm not sure if your comment "It wouldn't have been obvious to me, either" referred to the instance of that I removed from his user page today, or if he'd already had action taken against him for a previous breach of that policy - in either case, it's outrageous to suggest that a user with over ten thousand edits, including many on this noticeboard itself, would be unaware of the very first sentence of a key policy.)

An editor who still - after all that refuses to admit that he has done anything wrong? But instead warns (threatens?) the community that ""you cannot ban the entire world, not even the entire university" ?

I would say yes, for an editor like that, the encyclopedia would benefit from saying "enough is enough".

I have a question for you in return. For someone like myself who has relatively recently started using Wikipedia, and for whom this is the first other editor with whom I had a serious difference of opinion about content, how do you think it feels to discover that despite my attempts to assume good faith, the other editor was committing a serious breach of trust against the community covering several years? Some of the suggestions made here and elsewhere, leave me feeling that quite a few people really do agree with AMuseo/Historicist's stated view that you can "get away with murder" so long as you never technically violate a rule. People really have actually said his behaviour as AMuseo was somehow "acceptable" and therefore it's all OK. Is it the right message to send to anyone - me or another newbie editor or anyone else - that if your POV doesn't always get top billing, then you should scream and scream until you get warned that you're breaking the rules, then you should break the rules some more until you get blocked, then you should break the rules some more until you get topic banned, then appeal it, then break the rules again, then immediately start up with a sock, then switch socks to another one, and just keep on going? And then when you finally get caught, people will still say "well I think he's a prolific contributor!" If I had a POV I wanted to push on Wikipedia, what this would tell me is that by acting in this disruptive manner, in flagrant breach of multiple policies, I could indeed do that for years and still be defended. Do you think this is acceptable? Do you really think it benefits the encyclopedia?

Sorry this was rather long, but as can probably be seen, I feel very very let down and disappointed - and angry. I have paraphrased JamesBWatson in the first sentence but I hope I'm not being unduly repetitious.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• For the sake of fairness, his contribution as AMuseo has been praised multiple times in the comments to the Sockpuppet_investigations. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That praise has all come from I-P conflict partisans. I am quite familiar with this user's contributions since I have had to do a great deal of work to try and clean up his submissions to DYK, I could provide examples of his problematic editing chapter and verse but perhaps a couple of examples will suffice:

• Here is an article recently submitted to DYK for front page exposure by Amuseo. The article contains next to no information about its ostensible topic, and is basically just a WP:COATRACK for listing attacks made by Islamic extremists against Gaza's Christian community. The article repeats references to the same attacks to make them look more numerous, conflates attacks by unidentified militants with the governing authority Hamas in several places, fails to mention that Hamas has strongly condemned attacks against Christians, fails to mention that attacks against Christians in Gaza are "rare" and that the Muslim and Christian communities there have always enjoyed good relations, and fails to mention that the Christian leader murdered there in 2007 was the first such religiously motivated killing of a Christian in living memory. By omitting all such details, Amuseo created a false impression of a Christian community in Gaza under siege from Muslim fanatics, led by Hamas. I was forced to completely rewrite this article, you can compare Amuseo's version with my own.

• As another example, here's just one of Amuseo's recent edits that I had to amend. See if you can find the details added by Amuseo in the original source. Amuseo just fabricated most of these details to make the crime appear as heinous as possible, it's simply a piece of fiction, and this is far from the only edit of this type I have found by this user. Gatoclass (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first article you've linked, it's really not bad for a new article. While the omissions that you describe make useful additions to the article, they aren't necessarily obvious facts that an editor would know to include, especially if the editor is reading news articles to learn about the topic (since news articles often lack some relevant context). I also don't see the repetition in the description of attacks that you describe. Your version is a clear improvement, but even the early version seems to be a reasonable article about a bookstore and the attacks on it. In fact, your version gives me more of an impression of a "Christian community under siege" than the original version. (In particular the last sentence, "In the three years since Ayyad's death, the growing Islamization of Gaza, along with a tough Israeli blockade[1] and rising chaos and lawlessness, have placed increasing pressure on Gaza's Christians,[4] and the Christian community there has dwindled from 3,000[2] to barely more than 1,000.)"

Regarding the second diff I agree that misrepresenting sources is one of the most hugely frustrating things that an editor can possibly do, and I'd like to see, in general, editors being more proactive about challenging assertions for which the sourcing does not match the article text. However, the diff you've cited doesn't seem to be an egregious example of this general problem. I can think of some good-faith explanations for the edit, for example that the details not in the source cited were something that the editor read somewhere else. To be honest, I'm not even sure that the added details make the crime sound more heinous. (The sources describe terrorists murdering 4 people and stealing their bodies with the goal of sabotaging peace talks; does the unsourced assertion that they also planned to give the impression that they had kidnapped live victims really make it sound worse?) In any case, I'd like to hear what Amuseo has to say about it.

So, at least from the diffs you've cited, I don't see evidence of unconstructive work from this editor. The first looks like a good start to an article, the second might well be an honest mistake or a missing source. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Several articles by Amuseo were nominated for speedy deletion, under WPBan#Bans apply to all_editing, good or bad. As that page is talking about site bans, not topic bans, I have declined the speedy on Café Hillel bombing, which just needed some language changed, on Abu Ubaida (Hamas military leader), which was an unexceptional stub, and on Shawarma restaurant bombing, where the speedy certainly does not apply because it had also been edited by a good faith editor who had made the correct edits to remove the improper POV & the article was presently in his good version. I did delete Jihad and Genocide", an article about an extremist book whose notability seems highly doubtful. I know not everyone will agree with me, so if anyone wants to send the articles to AfD, feel free. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Street View

Resolved

 – Article protected, stopping edit war back and forth. Talk page warning issued to all. No further administrator action necessary until the edit warring parties come up with a edit-under-protection request. Uncle G (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Situation at Google Street View:

1. - Google published a news release informing us of their update from September 30. It says that Brazil, Ireland and an island in Antarctica were added.
2. - I have updated the article accordingly.
3. - Someone added a few cities from Mexico citing no source for that.
4. - I removed it after I found a news piece from April - [118] that says that those Mexican cities were added then (thus contradicting the unreferenced claim of the user that the update happened in September)
5. - It got re-added. I put templates refimprove and fact. They got removed. I issued a warning for the removal of maintenance templates and placed them again.
6. - Finally in the edit summary I was informed that "you don't need references for something that has already been added" and they were removed again and again. To me that means absolutely nothing. If we follow that strange logic, I can now add that aliens are behind Google Street View and then because it has already been added no references are needed? Ridiculous. Someone just mentioned that it was supposed to mean that if it was added to the map not to Wikipedia, however the issue here is not whether those cities were added but when and the map can't tell us that.

I am, with every right, am asking for a valid external reference instead of an original research by Wikipedia users (second claim is that because you can see it is on the map, you don't need any further reference but the problem here is not whether those cities are on Google Street View but on what date they were added), to the claim that these cities from Mexico were added to Google Street View, now in September update. Not only that there is lack of reference to back up this claim, there is also counter reference that shows that this information, not only that it is unreferenced, it is also most probably completely false.

Talk seems futile but I've tried and it failed. The reason is that the user that I am having trouble with has dozens of warnings, blocks and quickly erased articles etc. and I don't believe I have superpowers to change him. So please, react, I don't have the energy and I don't feel like violation any rules, primarily 3RR (if one can violate the 3RR if the edit is solely readding removed maintenance templates?), in order to protect the basic rules of Wikipedia on referencing articles. Thank you.--89.110.232.235 (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is resolved as you put it, however I have my concerns as I've stated earlier. First of all I have tried to put the correct information into the article here, however as the other user insisted in keeping that unsourced content (despite the fact that there are both positive and negative source that claim otherwise, one saying that the update took place in April and one not mentioning it in September update), so I added the refimprove and fact templates as that would give me the opportunity to remove the false content more easily if the other editor fails at providing a by the rules reference. But the only thing he did was removing the templates.

Also I am not sure if the wrong version locking will really incite him into talking here as he is content with it and a quick look at all the blocks and warnings on his talk page, well I have some doubts over whether he is ever willing to talk so I would like to hear the strategy if he simply evades talking or tries to sabotage it?--89.110.232.235 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotional edits at Skyy Vodka

Skyyspirits (talk · contribs) has been editing Skyy Vodka, replacing the entire article with promotional material. [119] The new material ("The history of SKYY reads like the American dream.", etc.), seems to come from the distributor's web site.[120]. User was reverted automatically by XLinkBot for reference removal, and given an automatic warning. I added a conflict of interest template. No reply on talk page. User undid the XLinkBot revert. I reverted that. Skyyspirits is a new account with no edits to other articles. --John Nagle (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• The advertising blurb is copyrighted and non-free ("©2008 SKYY SPIRITS, LLC, SAN FRANCISCO, CA."). Use Copyright Judo to exclude the advertising. The advertising-only account has been blocked indefinitely by Beetstra. Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sabbatic dis-information

User:Lulubyrd posted false and misleading accusations at WP:Articles for deletion/Sabbatic Witchcraft, claiming I've lied and "made every effort to interfere". The purpose of that post was to cast aspersions at me and provide dis-information, (the edits in question can still be viewed by anyone, not just admins). It was added in isolation from the original context, when the opportunity arose 3 days later. Because it so grossly misrepresents not only my actions but my intentions, I had removed it per WP:NPA, however another user thought I just didn't see the "do not modify" message and has reverted it back.

The fact is, on 14 September 2010, User:Lulubyrd unquestionably deleted most of the content of the 2009 "Sabbatic Witchcraft" section of Contemporary witchcraft and renamed the section "Sabbatic". Here are the two consecutive diffs with edit summaries: "Sabbatic Witchcraft → changed incorrect details" and "Sabbatic → removed unverifiable quotes. Link used as reference broken.".

I never said User:Lulubyrd deleted anything from the Sabbatic Witchcraft article, (which was deleted shortly after the user's post). The full text of what I actually said was:

Then I'll use a different redirect. Wikipedia is only too happy not to return Create new Sabbatic witchcraft article.

By the way, when you deleted most of Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Witchcraft, because the quotes were allegedly unverifiable, you could have just referenced An Interview with Andrew Chumbly in The Cauldron.

Or just tag it: {{citation broken}} —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the user's longevity and persistent conformance with the definition of WP:SPA, I'm confident User:Lulubyrd is intimately familiar with the Andrew D. Chumbley article and thus aware the interview is verifiable, even without a url. It's not like there are a variety of sources available...

If User:Lulubyrd would like to represent that they misunderstood what page was being referred to, 1) due to having forgotten about the content they deleted from Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Witchcraft, and 2) due to their highly selective reading of: "By the way, when you deleted most of Contemporary witchcraft#Sabbatic Witchcraft, because the quotes were allegedly unverifiable..." and finally, 3) because they couldn't even be bothered to click the diff I provided; then before I can WP:AGF, I'd like an apology and their assurance there'll be no more baseless accusations in the future.

I'm not unsympathetic to the grief and polemics the user has endured maintaining the Chumbley article these many years, and how that can impede one's ability to WP:AGF, however the WP:OWN issue evident in characterizing my participation as "interference" compounds the problem. Much like there was no actual "dispute" regarding the deleted article's title, I didn't actually disagree that the article lacked notability. (Perhaps obfuscated by calls for an early close in order to redirect to the 2009 content, which I had restored and expanded). It's reasonable to expect a large minority of searches (approx. 40%) to be for the misnomer "Sabbatic Witchcraft", as opposed to "Sabbatic Craft". For better or worse, a redirect with lowercase "w" is fine with me!

Again, here is the text from User:Lulubyrd:

Machine Elf-you have posted a lie regarding my editing the Sabbatic Witchcraft page. I never deleted a thing there. You have lied here and have made every effort to interfere with this process. I hope that the mods take note of your behavior. Lulubyrd (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm requesting userfication of Talk:Sabbatic Witchcraft (plus history) so I can respond with diffs to anymore of the same from User:Lulubyrd. I'd also like the post to be removed, or better, stricken, if that's at all possible, (and, of course, good advice is always welcome too). Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Two things. 1) While I'm a master of the long post, I don't think you need such a long post to request userification. In fact it may be better to just ask the admin who deleted rather then bringing it to ANI unless the admin refuses. 2) It's probably better to ask Lulubyrd whether they'd be willing to withdraw their comment before bringing this here. Unless I'm missing something (and I did look thorough the talk page) you seem to have no discussion on Lulubyrd's talk page about this or anything else which would suggest to me you haven't yet sufficiently tried to resolve this privately. Do remember ANI is "for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators". It isn't the place for help resolving general disputes you may have. Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the length. I'll ask that admin for a userfication, thanks. If Lulubyrd won't recant, (it does say not to edit), can I remove it please?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Machine Elf 1735\Moved\Talk:Sabbatic Witchcraft. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user socking through IP

Tmhm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked one month for edit-warring, is now socking through this IP [121]. It's obvious it's him from this [122], and from the fact that it performs identical edits. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for block evasion. It's pretty obvious it's the same person. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Britney Stevens

There's an article on a pornographic actress. The article gives a link to her web page. Following this link takes you directly to a site showing explicit photographs of penetrative sex. There is no warning or age verification process. You click the link and you see people having intercourse. I removed the link but Epbr123 replaced it siting WP:NOTCENSORED. I understand that Wikipedia should not be censored, but nor should it break the law. Allowing minors to view pornography is a criminal offence. What should happen here? Surely we should not break the law, either explicitly or by an omission. If the site warned the viewer that they were about to enter an adult site and asked them to verify their age then we would be in the clear. Where do we draw the line? — Fly by Night (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• We are not hosting the images and there are plenty of explicit images on commons, some of which but by no means all have encyclopaedic value. Basically policy is on the side of the link. Anyone looking at articles of pornstars is clearly going to be aware of the nature of the article and the likely content of any personal sites linked too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• I now have doubts this is actually Britney Stevens official website, so it is best to leave it out. However, if it was her official site, I don't see a problem with linking to it. Epbr123 (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think we are breaking the law if we do. Children could navigate onto that page and follow that link. We have to do everything reasonably in our power to make sure no laws are being broken. As the Omission (criminal law) article says: "An omission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty... A person who creates a dangerous situation may be under a duty to take reasonable steps to avert that danger." By us hosting the link to explicit pornographic material we are creating a danger that a minor may view those images, and so may be under a duty to take reasonable steps to stop a minor viewing those images; otherwise this will give rise to liability. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By that argument Commons shouldn't be hosting explicit images, let alone allowing them to be linked to from other Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Which Link are we refering to exactly? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please notice that the link contains explicit sexual images and should not be viewed by anyone under the legal age in the country of viewing. britneystevens.org — Fly by Night (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Like most Males my age having been around these sites at one time or another, I have severe doubts its her site. There is no indication of her awards or way to contact her manager or Talent agent or who ever works for her. I think its a fansite at best, or at worst some one looking to cash in with banner adds with pirated pix. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not our problem; we don't host that site, and anybody clicking a link to the official site of a porn performer is getting what they expect. No action is needed; take it up with Mike Godwin if you really think it's a concern. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hosting the link by itself does not expose us to legal jeopardy in any jurisdiction I am aware of, no. The laws on pornographic content on the Internet are extremely loose and poorly enforced in the first place; there's no law anywhere I know of that linking to it (as opposed to the actual photos) is regulated.

We routinely link porn company, film, and performer articles to the company, film, or person websites. This is normal and accepted. If someone feels the need to filter the internet for their children or to supervise, we don't pretend that we don't link to content they may feel is objectionable. We host content many people feel is objectionable ... There are explicit anatomical photos for most body parts one can think of in the articles, and for many sexual practices we have photos or diagrams thereof. We have a policy - WP:NOTCENSORED

Anyone who needs more filtering needs to use common sense or tools which keep the links from being followed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Note, though, that the comment that this may not be the artist's own website does raise a troubling concern. If you can substantiate that, that's a real problem and we should undo the link... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Britnetstevens.net seems far more genuine. It has a "2257" (link is safe for work etc) and the homepage has that "enter/exit" stuff that I assume is required of legal sites. TFOWR 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

AKMask has reinstated the link to the original "official website". — Fly by Night (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. This series of sites (see links at the bottom of the pages) was widely spammed a while back. There is no way this is a legitimate site. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Did not see this thread before, just the 'zomg, think of teh children11!1!!' Good call, wont reinsert it. -- ۩ Mask 21:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose account at Talk:Mike Cox

The new Wiki editor Fpetes is insisting on restoring clear BLP violations(1,2,3) on the Talk:Mike Cox page, while removing valid edits from other Wiki editors. I have reverted the violations and warned the editor(1,2), but the editor restored the comments and made accusations on my talk page. I'm not sure this is the correct forum for this, but here it is. Dave Dial (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed - This was a correct forum to chose, yes.

I have left a final warning for WP:NPA, WP:BLP and informed him of the five pillars and other related policies.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think the NPAs were more out of frustration in not understanding Wikipedia policy, and am glad that explanations were left by someone other than me on the editors talk page. Hopefully, the user reads the suggested guidelines and decides to contribute constructively. Dave Dial (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Admins Please Assist with Tapioca Express Situation

Some users have been deleting all updated contributions to the Tapioca Express Wikipedia article. There were also users adding fluffery and biased view towards the company, but as a third party (tea connoisseur) looking in, I feel there needs to be some fresh unbiased administrative third parties involved. More specifically, there was one user named Tapex, whose contributions were promotional and definitely biased for the company. Yet, on the other extreme a user deleting any and all updates or contributions to the article. Hence, there was edit warring between Tapex and Kuru.
This is where Jayron32 came in to attempt mediating, but instead of contributing to the article, deleted all contributions and brought the article to barebones with very little information; this does not do Wikipedia or it's community justice, as one could find more information on this company anywhere else on the internet. This is when I came in to contribute updated information to the article; but at that point, Jayron32 put this article up for deletion, and it has been weeks where the article is not only left with very little information and an image of a rundown, closed down, store, but with a negative deletion box looming over it.
I feel this issue should be resolved as soon as possible, as to not leave an eye sore on Wikipedia. Delete it or let it rest and allow users to contribute to the article, but enough with the edit warring and deletion limbo.
Please see Tapioca Express view history and look at my last contribution on October 5, 2010. I feel this is a thorough and well sourced article on the company. Such as including the company logo as the image, instead of any one particular franchise store. Your unbiased, considerate and experienced suggestion and resolutions for this issue would be very much appreciated. Thank you admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrosteaTheSnowman (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The questions raised on the Article for Deletion page are valid...

Can you provide sources which meet reliable sources policy and which are sufficiently well known to satisfy our company article notability standards, at WP:CORP and generally at WP:N?

Not every small business, even small chains, is worth having a Wikipedia article on...

If there is reliable major media coverage of the chain, that's ok. Just provide us the information and citations.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal threat

Made on my talk page here, by User:72.20.109.58 after I reported the username User:Recovering Obamunist as offensive and it got blocked. Looks like both parties have now been dealt with, but this should be on the record in the unlikely event that the "Cliff Cage" he thinks is me, and who is apparently some sort of NYC entertainment figure, meets with any problems. --CliffC (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Telling Me To Reverse Myself in Deletion Discussion

Resolved

"Can you please return to that discussion and change your comment" [123]. I don't think that's acceptable,is it? He seems to be overreacting for some reason about a benign photo,the first one I've put into Wikipedia, which has already been taken off the article I put it into. If deletion at Commons is appropriate, why does it matter if I still vote that it should be kept? You would think the consensus will be to delete so I fail to see why he would want me to change my vote. It feels odd,to say the least and maybe I am overreacting in which case,please, let me know. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I did overreact, to be honest, and am willing to retract. I was asking you to be cautious about copyright and your subsequent action struck me as reckless, but telling you to alter your comment was not necessary. Sorry about that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Paul, no problem and best wishes. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, "can you please..." would amount to asking, rather than telling. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

See

• 86.157.103.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.129.194.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.129.199.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.132.250.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.105.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.133.168.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.71.49.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.164.244.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and user talk:JzG/nuxx.

The ISP do not seem to be willing to do anything about this. I don't think we are really up for people IP-hopping in order to make edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_Chapman&diff=prev&oldid=388915027 (admins only).

I've also contacted Jimbo and the foundation. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to minimize this, but just the 86.xx addresses there are within a BT /10 net range:

[124]

That's all of 86.128.0.0 - 86.191.255.255

That's a lot larger than we're currently allowed / enabled to do rangeblocks on ( /16s at the most ). We'd have to impose 64 separate /16 rangeblocks for the whole range; the 3 subsets (86.157. ; 86.129 - 86.133 ; 86. 164.) would in no way guarantee they can't get more IPs outside those 3 sub-ranges.

I think the CUs have a tool to evaluate the side effects of rangeblock sizes. I don't know what a safe range is within those groupings to go after, from this point looking inwards.

Semiprotect all the pages they're after indefinitely would be easier. A lot easier. If we have to go after them in a permanent way this is going to be a pain in the arse, as it were...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And the BT dynamic ISP range is at least double that - there's 81.128.0.0/10 as well. That's 8 million IP addresses, and a BT user can access pretty much any one of them - I'm on it myself and I've noticed my address moves all over both ranges. The collateral damage would be horrific - I know someone blocked a BT range to hit a well known serial vandal a while back and the unblock list got deluged. The only option here if BT can't help is to semi the pages. The 82.71. IP, by the way, is a different ISP (Zen Internet). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Montanabw behavior

This is utterly unacceptable. Please block User:Montanabw immediately. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this unacceptable? I don't see anything abusive or harrassing there... If I missed it, please point it out.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For days now this editor has been following me around to talk pages of other editors and a project,[125][126] making insinuations and accusations like the one Montanabw has made here (below). GTBacchus has tried to counsel Montanabw to stop doing this. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review the talk page and edit history of this anonymous user before any action is taken. I will not be able to develop a complete rebuttal for awhile. This is the second ANI she's filed since beginning to edit (the other was not me). Please also note this anonymous IP's edit history of making multiple move requests and disrupting at least a half dozen articles, as noted in my inquiry to the above user. I made a sincere inquiry of another user who got a little frustrated with this anon's behavior. I see no ANI here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz's editing behavior

Hello, I am currently involved in a dispute with Ronz at Talk:List of Philippine restaurant chains. I have brought this up at a noticeboard and the relevant issue has been talked about on a guideline's talk page. To avoid further deterioration of the conversation I offered that we settle the dispute through mediation to which he replied on my user talk page stating "Mediation is unsuitable for such disputes, as explained at WP:Mediation." I copied the short conversation on my talk page to the disputed article's talk page so that there would be a record of the conversation on one page but he refactored his comments out of the article talk page saying it doesn't belong there. I submitted the dispute for a third opinion (WP:3O) but Ronz removed the submission saying another party was involved. Even if that were so, that should be up for the third opinion editor to determine. I guess another venue I could take this to is RfC but given the behavior displayed and the efforts already expended to resolve the content dispute I think ANI is now appropriate. I am increasingly concerned that his edits along with his actions are taking the form of pettifoggery per WP:Gaming the system, display signs of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, and do not create a welcoming environment for article contributors. Lambanog (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)