Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive659

Rangeblock

I have just blocked 192.148.117.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours for personal attacks and harrassment. Could someone who knows about rangeblocks consider whether a rangeblock is feasible to cover other IPs that have evidently used by the same person to make the same kind of recent attacks against the same editor (Bidgee (talk · contribs)? The other Ips are:

• 192.148.117.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 192.148.117.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW I would try it myself but I don't know how and WP:Rangeblock advises admins who don't know how to seek assistance. I don't want to accidentally block Canberra from wikipedia. Normally blocking Canberra would be good for the project but I'm in Canberra today and don't want to rangeblock myself.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's 192.148.117.64/27, 32 IPs. Any objection to proceed, or is the collateral damage too big? KrakatoaKatie 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the /29 ranges under that /27 is already blocked, but there is a fair amount of account creation activity under that /27. If you want to block it, don't make it too long (like 1-2 days at the most). –MuZemike 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I did the /29 earlier, hoping it would be enough... obviously not. 192.148.117.64/27 given 24 hours; short due to MuZemike's comments. Courcelles 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

[1] and similar URLs provide some guidance as to which IP ranges are allocated by country, if you're worried about blocking an entire region or country (Like I inadvertently did once). –MuZemike 03:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock

I have just blocked 192.148.117.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours for personal attacks and harrassment. Could someone who knows about rangeblocks consider whether a rangeblock is feasible to cover other IPs that have evidently used by the same person to make the same kind of recent attacks against the same editor (Bidgee (talk · contribs)? The other Ips are:

• 192.148.117.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 192.148.117.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW I would try it myself but I don't know how and WP:Rangeblock advises admins who don't know how to seek assistance. I don't want to accidentally block Canberra from wikipedia. Normally blocking Canberra would be good for the project but I'm in Canberra today and don't want to rangeblock myself.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's 192.148.117.64/27, 32 IPs. Any objection to proceed, or is the collateral damage too big? KrakatoaKatie 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the /29 ranges under that /27 is already blocked, but there is a fair amount of account creation activity under that /27. If you want to block it, don't make it too long (like 1-2 days at the most). –MuZemike 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I did the /29 earlier, hoping it would be enough... obviously not. 192.148.117.64/27 given 24 hours; short due to MuZemike's comments. Courcelles 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

[2] and similar URLs provide some guidance as to which IP ranges are allocated by country, if you're worried about blocking an entire region or country (Like I inadvertently did once). –MuZemike 03:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review a block I am about to make

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661 § Political prisoner page – Request for opinions on my level of involvement

TL;DR User warned to talk more and revert less, kept reverting first and talking after.

---

I'll try to present this in an objective manner:

• There has been some contentious editting on Political prisoner (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.
• My involvement commences at Talk:Political_prisoner#Recent_contentious_editing
• Several very new editors were making good-faith attempts to add new material, providing sources, etc.
• There was insufficient discussion on the talk page, with both sides choosing mostly to revert.
• I warned two users not to revert the addition of sourced material without first using the talk page, and not to re-revert.

  Bidgee (talk · contribs): warning, warning removed, more explicit warning.

  Stepopen (talk · contribs): warning.

As (in my opinion) there was a stark contrast between the standards being set for the new user's edits and the existing standard on the page, I then opened discussion on the other material on that page. See Talk:Political_prisoner#Other_entries_in_the_list.

• Cecilex (talk · contribs) attempts to use the talk page, while also re-adding the material.
• User:Bidgee twice reverts, and does not first use the talk page as warned was a requirement:

  00:32, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Political prisoner ‎ (Undid revision 403621844 by Cecilex (talk) Per the reasons set out on the talk page about the sources also new sources a opinion pieces and blog)

  00:52, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Political prisoner ‎ (→Other entries in the list)

  00:46, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (Requesting full protection of Political prisoner. (TW))

  00:43, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Political prisoner ‎ (Undid revision 403623305 by Cecilex (talk) Per prev reason, see talk page. Also do not readd.)

  00:39, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Political prisoner ‎ (→Back to discussion of the sources and inclusion criteria)

Once I've posted this, I'll be blocking User:Bidgee for twenty-four hours to prevent further disruption to the page. I would have preferred a more gentle approach, but he's proven remarkably resistant to clam feedback. I'm not fussy about having my adminstrative actions reversed so anyone with the bit is welcome undo this block, with the caveat that I'd prefer they comment in this thread and wait a few minutes for comments/consensus first. But even if they don't, I'm not going to get my knickers in too much of a twist.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the block yet, I haven't gone through everything in fine detail. But given that no-one else was trying to edit the article in other aspects, would full protection not have been an alternative option? If the aim is to get people on both sides off the article and onto the talk page, full protection could be a more calibrated solution than a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do not agree with the way this was handled. I don't understand why this admin opposed the request to protect the page with the rather odd argument that as it was a content dispute we shouldn't protect the page,(what else is full protection for?) [3] and instead chose to block but one edit warrior. Both users edit warred, they should both be blocked, or neither of them should be. Using the talk page at the same time as one is edit warring does not excuse it in any way. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• My thoughts: the ideal behaviour would have been for Bidgee to revert once, but not again. But a block isn't necessarily warranted for failing to adhere to ideal behaviour. There are other important factors to bear in mind. First, Bidgee was unquestionably correct: the sources don't support Manning's description as a political prisoner. In fact, Quigley is right to remove many more entries than Manning. Being correct isn't an excuse to edit-war, but it should be a factor in whether a block is an appropriate solution. Secondly, it was the other side that broke the BRD cycle, by insisting on re-inserting contentious material after it had been reverted and while a discussion was taking place. Third, there were better options: full protection would have stopped the edit war and forced everyone onto the talk page. Here, full protection is a viable option because this dispute is the only editing activity happening on the page. Blocking one party means that party can't even continue to engage in discussion on the talk page. Fourth, he hasn't broken 3RR (of course, that's not determinative - edit warring can happen regardless of 3RR - but he hasn't even come close). Accordingly, I'd suggest a lift of the block and a lockdown of the article for about a week. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• WP:BRD applies. The change proposer must get a consensus for his/her change. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblocking. I'm unblocking Bidgee, because (a) this has now been open for well over an hour and the block has been opposed by up to three editors (I take Beeblebrox and, perhaps, GoodDay to be opposed to the one-way block) and supported by none; (b) it's a short block so only a short discussion period for the purposes of unblocking is warranted; and (c) the blocking admin kindly indicated it would be ok for any admin to unblock after a short period for comments. I'll also full-protect the article for a week with the caveat that the unblock is not an endorsement of Bidgee's actions.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that everyone. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Aaron, you seem to have involved yourself in the content on talk beginning December 17, so that would preclude you from using the tools. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I saw Aaron's involvement on the talk page as weighing in, in an administrative capacity, to stop edit-warring, rather than getting involved in the content dispute (although it is fine line and Aaron went further than I would have). That's something admins should be encouraged to do. I've found a few times that a few stern messages on a talk page from an admin who reserves the right to use their tools in the dispute can cool things down before the need to dish out blocks arises.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the involvement was clearly editorial. Aaron hasn't been an active admin for some time, so no one had reason to believe he was there as an admin and not as an editor, always a fine line in the best of cases. Arguing on RfPP against page protection during a content dispute, then blocking the regular editor who requested the protection, but not blocking the occasional editor causing the trouble—while being involved in expressing an opinion about content on talk—these are all the kinds of things best avoided. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman actions as an Administrator are questionable. He is clearly an involved editor, even if he never edited the article, as they are heavily involved in the talk page discussion. Aaron Brenneman also seems to have little understanding of the policies and guidelines in place, as an Administrator they should be able to understand them (doesn't have to know it off by heart).

Aaron Brenneman as an involved editor should not threaten to misuse their tools, I also question the amount of time it took them to block me which was just over one hour and twenty minutes after the undo when it was clear I wasn't going to do another revert (infact I had limited myself to those two undo/reverts) not yet breached the 3RR which is another reason why I had asked for protection. It has me confused as to why he has refused the protection of the article while there is a dispute in progress. He's latest comment on the talk page is also questionable and clearly has failed to assume good faith towards me.

I would have thought that past history he as to deal with would have given him an idea when to block editors. I'm sadly considering at taking this to WP:RFC/ADMIN since he has failed to apologise for the unwarranted block and has continued to act in bad faith (see above link about ABF). I also believe that block should be annotated since no once will ever look at the diff link and will be yet another block that people will try and use against me (and they have in the past). Bidgee (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman has followed the wrong path. It's good to tell regular editors to not BITE newcomers, but such advice should be tempered when the newcomer is an WP:SPA making a political point by adding Bradley Manning as a political prisoner while citing two sources which merely describe the person as a prisoner (Manning's circumstances are disgraceful, but Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs). See this discussion where Courcelles said "For you to have threatened these users with a block for enforcing BLP standards is quite inexplicable." That was four days before the block under discussion here. Bidgee's first revert ('sources do not state that he is a "political prisoner"') was precisely correct, and Bidgee did not violate WP:3RR. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The court system will decide what laws, if any, this Manning guy broke; wikipedia won't decide it, but only report it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the block was an error; the unilateral block and the refusal to use page protection are at the least out of keeping with current practice. I think, however, this should not be perceived as a threat to misuse his tools...since I highly doubt that he considered it might be misuse, what with his complete opennness about the situation and his recommendation that Bidgee seek feedback from other administrators if he disagreed. (cf. here.) "threat to misuse" carries connotations of intent to knowingly take improper action. The level of involvement here is borderline; the input at the talk page of the article does not seem strictly editorial to me, but it would have been a good idea to make clear that he was speaking in his capacity as an administrator. I've recently discovered that when people don't understand that you're wearing your admin hat, they can view your behavior in quite a different light than it is intended. I don't think there's any abuse of tools, but I'd encourage Aaron to immerse himself a bit more in the current culture of Wikipedia to make sure that his tool use is in line with current policy and practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is not the way I perceived it, they should have sought an opinion as their warning was out of line for an Admin who is involved in the dispute. Why block an hour after I undid the edit on the article when it was clear that I wasn't disrupting Wikipedia or the article and had not reached the 3RR (and just to clarify that I wouldn't had done any further reverts which is why I took the step of requesting protection)? As an Admin on Commons I would have, if involved, gotten a third party Admin and also protect the article as well as warn those involved (if not involved in the dispute) that they will be blocked if they continue after the protection has ended. Being heavy handed like Aaron Brenneman was, is completely out of line. I'll also quote he's comment on the political prisoner talk page "that editor was blocked shortly to stop the disruption, and the discussion was clear that their behaviour was "not ideal."", disruption? how was I disrupting the article at that time (when I was well away from a computer), I'm sorry but I don't feel it was in error with a comment such as that which was well an truly after I was unblocked.

Now I have a block log in which I shouldn't have. It was ok in the early days of Wiki but now it effects anything I do. Bidgee (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add further to my comment, if any one still thinks that the block wasn't misuse of the tools then see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Misuse of administrative tools (RE: Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute). Bidgee (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, since more or less every block in your log was lifted or otherwise noted as not having bearing, I don't think it's much of a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have had the first block used against me, even though it was noted in the block log, on more then one occasion. Bidgee (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A short block like that, which happened almost three years ago, means very little today. That's donkeys' years on a website. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I haven't had the block used against me in the past year (partly due to not being as active on Wiki) but the point is the last one will be, especially those who don't bother to look at the link or plainly just want to use anything such a blocks [of any length (an editor showed me a recent example)]. People also use the block logs in RfA even though you really don't have anything to answer for. Bidgee (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee is quite correct and you are wrong Gwen; many editors just look at the length of a block log, nothing else. Do you recall blocking me for using the word "sycophantic" for instance? That was two entries, one for your stupid block and another for your reluctant unblock. Yet your own record of making similarly poor blocks remains unblemished. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As we both know, Malleus, I didn't block you for using the word "sycophantic." I blocked you for a long and wearisome pattern of incivility. If you would like to talk about your block log further, please start another thread somewhere, or you're welcome to bring it up on my talk page. That said, I do agree with both of you that there sometimes is carelessness in reading block logs. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that you and the truth are such strangers. Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Watch it. Drop the stick and back away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you back away? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to our friendly neighborhood administrators, I think this topic and the one from yesterday really invite us to revisit discussions over whether admins who are absent from the project for extended periods should really retain their admin privileges. Wikipedia changes quickly, and if someone is gone from here for nearly 2 years things like this happen. It's not about "punishing" admins, but about competency. I don't think someone who was absent for so long should be exercising their admin tools like this until they've become familiar with current policies and guidelines. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Being a non-admin intrigued to see the behaviour - I am convinced that Burpelson AFB has something there which should be built into policy - absence - specially when it comes to the way things change - even within 6 months - should either require update as to currency of some issues, or even a refresher on some of the intriguing shifts in the procedures and policies that can occur that even regulars seem to miss or misinterpret even. The fact that the rfa process has block logs as a stumbling block (forgive the pun) that in turn falls back on careless admins reflects badly all round SatuSuro 14:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why Commons has that type of policy yet Wikipedia lacks it, see: Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. Normally Commons lacks the policies which Wikipedia already has but not in this case. Bidgee (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) De-adminship has been proposed here a number of times but it always ends up as a huge dramafest/shouting match with no consensus because many people characterize it as unfairly punishing admins (which is really a red herring, but I digress). I suspect it's unpopular with some folks the same way term limits are unpopular with some politicians. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Closer to Motion of no confidence, which can be used as a political tool to tie up important decisions while other things are going on. That's where most of the resistance comes from, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But what's being referred to here isn't a general de-adminning policy or procedure, but something to deal with a specific situation: when an admin doesn't edit for X amount of time, they lose the bit. That part of it could be semi-automatic, and there obviously wouldn't be any ongoing conflict at the time, because the admin isn't editing. The question of regaining the bit is a little trickier, but not much. Requiring another RfA seems unnecessary and unfair, something on the order of getting the bit back after Y amount of edits over Z amount of time might be sufficient to ensure that the editor is aware of any changes in Wikiculture in the meantime. It could all be cut-and-dried. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the Commons policy is nothing at all like a motion of no confidence. The criteria are entirely objective. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the Commons policy, it seems very fair for all while still expecting admins to retain a certain level of current experience. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the Commons policy put in use and it works well nor is it strict. A small number of Admins do return after being emailed that they are have a few weeks to do more then five sysop actions and do become regulars again, the others that have their sysops removed never return or when they do have no issues getting the sysops back. Aaron Brenneman's lack of comments or apology is leaving me with no other opinion but to list a RfC, as any other Admin I've dealt with has always kept commenting with the AN/I discussion. Bidgee (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As a general matter, it seems to me that if an administrator is unsure enough about whether to block that he or she decides to open an ANI thread discussing the block, then unless the situation is an emergency, the discussion should usually come before the block rather than afterwards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my thoughts as well (as an Commons Admin) and I have seen a lots of discussions before on AN/I blocks are put in place but I have also seen a small amount of blocks put in place before the discussion (like in this case), though I do have to give those Admin's credit as they admitted fault, apologised and dealt with the consequences, however in this case none of that has happened. Bidgee (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Goodness, that's a lot of responses.

• @Newyorkbrad - That's quite a high bar you're proposing. General discussion on ANI does not require that I'm "unsure" but simply that I recognise that there is a possibility of tenable debate. The blocked editor had also already brought the matter to this page, but it had not recieved much attention. I was being courteous.
• @Bidgee
  1. Your suggestion that a request for comment based upon me not "ke[eping] commenting" is histrionic. I commented here last on 22 December 2010 at 05:54 and within half an hour I was done editting for the evening.
  2. I'm open to recall. I see that (since the category move) it's not obvious from the history, but I created recall.
  3. I'm a bit confused why you've linked my block log while at the same time you decry the use of someone's block history against them?
• @Moonriddengirl
  1. The use of the phrase "unilateral block" is an unfortunate obloquy. What percentage of blocks are anything other than unilateral?
  2. I'm not sure how I "refused" to use page protection. No one asked me to protect the page, and while my input into the request for page protection was marred by not being explicit in that the requesting editor was involved in the content dispute, the current wording at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes says "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed with blocks or bans, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others."
• @Johnuniq
  1. I have not even suggested anyone violated the three revert rule.
  2. The very new editors' sourcing was much better than almost anything else on the page. On at least one occasion the sources they provided did explicitly say there was a claim he was a political prisoner.
• @SlimVirgin - I am simply stunned to see it suggested that I'm involved. From Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'."

I've looked again over each of the edits, and other than failing to say "I'm an admin" I'm still quite confortable with each step I took:

• My initial comments where I ask for editors to improve their editting
  1. are consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit summaries in that "Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits"
  2. and is also consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Source citations in that "Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate."
• My second set of edits where I explicitly state that the edit warring must stop
  1. is consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit wars/three-revert rule in that "In cases of edit-warring, revert limitations are applied in which reverting is restricted and violators can be blocked for specified periods,"
  2. as is my third set of edits where I issue a general editting restriction.

Penultimately

• Given the state of the other references on the page and the generally poor level of discourse that was occuring, how were the newer editors expected to learn community norms?
• They were making serious attempts to comply, and as far as they could tell edit warring was what you do.

Finally, and with respect to the block itself

• I had issued a warning that was consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Civility.2Fdisruption.2Freasonableness in that "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement."
• Without substantive discussion with me regarding this warning, the warned editor violated both of the editting restrictions he had been placed under.

While I've certainly taken on board the feedback presented in this section, forgive me if I state that several of the positions expressed are inconsistant; poorly informed; and at odds with the facts of this event as well as policies and guidelines as they exist.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron, I do not use the term unilateral in the sense of done by one person, but in the sense that it affected only one party in the content dispute. I'm quite taken aback that you regard that as abusive. So far as I know, it's not an uncommon definition. In terms of your refusal to use protection, is that not what you meant to do when you wrote there, "This is a content dispute, and there is no requirement for full protection."? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all Admin's keep tabs with a discussion in which they have been involved in and you have been on elsewhere but not here.

Also you have failed to explain your bad faith comment towards me.

Also you can not place what ever restrictions you want on others who you don't agree with and the fact that you were already heavily involved.

I wasn't using the block log against you just pointing out that in the past you also had unfair blocks but mealy pointing out that I thought that you would have taken into account past experiences. Fact is I'm rather appalled with your handling of this whole fiasco and the fact your not even sorry for it, I feel that you should recall yourself considering the feeling from other Admins here have been the same. Bidgee (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl - Thank you for that clarification with respect to "unilateral." And with respect to the protection, I argued against the protection (poorly, it has been noted and I've acknowledged) but I didn't refuse to do it. The use of the active tense seems to place greater onus on me than I believe is warrented. If I'm drawing more out of that than you intended, I apologise.

@Bidgee - Thank you for clarifying that. I simply didn't understand for what purpose you were bringing up the log. And I was keeping tabs, but I was mostly asleep or at work while this was going on. And² in case it's not utterly pellucid: I'm not at all sorry. I want polite collegial editting of the page;I want consistant, robust sourcing. I tried on several occasions to engage you in polite discussion, and I failed in that. And³ adminstrators can place editting restrictions as they see fit. Have you read any of the numerous links to Arbitration principles that I have provided?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you fail to see you abuse of tools and are not sorry for your incorrect blocking, then I feel that you are no longer fit to be an Admin. Fact is no Admin who is involved in a dispute should ever place restrictions considering they were bias to one side (Your block is proof of that), Admins who are not part of the dispute can place restrictions. Bidgee (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop dramamongering. If you have an issue with Aaron's actions, either file a RFC/U or submit a request for recall. There is nothing more to be done here. NW (Talk) 05:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So I can't make a reply to something Aaron Brenneman has said? Fact is I was giving them time to respond before taking it further. Pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. Bidgee (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

admins are abusing their power

Extended content

{{checkuser needed}} This account looks like an obvious sock of somebody who's been banned from that article. Jehochman Talk 21:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Says one of the very admins who abuses their power on a daily basis. How do you lot sleep at night??? 89.168.109.117 (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Quite well, thank you. Daily exercise seems to help, as does refraining from caffeine. Jehochman Talk 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC) One can have caffeine and still sleep at night ya know. Just don't drink caffeine 3 hours before bedtime, doctors say. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC) or 5mg of Diazepam ;) Jack Merridew 12:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC) AfricaTruth (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) I insist that someone look into the administrators at Sarah Palin. They are working with pro-Palin people to shut out and ban all the neutral editors who want to tell the truth. Then they whitewash the article and talk page. AfricaTruth (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Amazing. A user with just three edits (counting the one above) is already an expert on wikipedia. Who says our education system is failing? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC) ...Quack? N419BH 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC) With a name like "AfricaTruth" there is no way this account has an agenda. Just no way... Doc talk 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Having just read the agenda account page, I think it should be merged with the single-purpose-account page. In fact, I will fight to the death over this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC) ... On second thought, I'm not allowed to fight anything to the death. Strict doctor's orders. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC) AfricaTruth seems to be an obvious sock of someone. HeyMid (contribs) 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk · contribs), maybe?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think so. Based on the standing off that the user has made (they actually opened a discussion after they were warned to talk it out). I'll notify the user as you did mention them. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you, sorry I missed the notification. I'm striking the comment, because there's a more-obvious candidate if I had been paying attention. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Here's the africa discussion from a week or two ago. Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_63#Africa_.28part_I.29--Cube lurker (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I am shocked- shocked, I say- that there are Wikipedia administrators who are actually preventing Sarah Palin from making it clear what an awful, awful person Palin is (i.e., the Truth). Whatever happened to Wikipedia's well-known liberal bias? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Really simple, Haliburton bought out half our administrators... Sheesh you didn't know you could get paid for blocking liberals? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I should be getting my check tomorrow, just in time for last-minute Christmas shopping. Horologium (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Non-administrative note: You worded your assertion quite carefully so as to get around the notification requirements. Please provide proof that administrators are abusing their power. Enforcing the currently standing community consensus does not take administrative powers nor is it an abuse. Coming to this page and yelling "Abuse" without providing evidence is a very quick ticket to having your actions scrutinized and preventative actions enforced on you. Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I do think we should give some credit for getting the heading correct, even if the rest of the posting has serious flaws.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I cannot conclude anything via CU. The SPA is on a BlackBerry, and I haven't found any other abusive users on that range. AFAIK, it could be anybody. –MuZemike 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet/single-purpose bad faith account. I'd rather not quack my way to blocking the person I think is the puppetmaster, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC) "And living in the same city as a banned user does not make me a sock."[4] What city and what banned user? This guy knows more than he's letting on... Doc talk 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Well, shucky-darn, you beat me to pointing that out, thanks to a side debate about Carmel-by-the-Sea, of all things. That's one of the more interesting comments I've seen a sock make. There needs to be a corollary or subsection in WP:BOOMERANG titled "Dead Giveaway". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Carmel-by-the-sea, eh? After they are discovered they could be flung into the "dead pool", maybe. Doc talk 22:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Meanwhile I've blocked User:AfricanTruth, who also popped up. Very sorry to say, this could be User:Dylan_Flaherty, who I topic banned from Palin. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Actually, this may be a joe job. Good call on the block, however. Horologium (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't be at all surprised. There's been what seems to my eyes to be a growing problem with impostoring users to try to get them into further trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Yes. I would think, there is no way DF should be blocked without a CU. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I saw the account earlier, and agree with User:Horologium that it looks quite clearly like someone was trying to appear as though they were a sock of User:Dylan Flaherty. Based on the style and tone, though, I sincerely doubt that's the case. The question remains: who is doing this, and why? Merely trolling? jæs (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Dylan is certainly no dummy: and this would be a very dumb thing for him to do (and really makes it clear that's it's a troll). I agree with the above. Doc talk 00:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC) No, it's not even trying to look like my sock, and you should be ashamed of piling on to accuse me, especially Gwen who has wronged me enough times in the last few days alone. It's very obviously someone trying to look like a sock of User:Uncensored Kiwi. Of course, we don't know if it actually is because there's no real evidence; they were blocked without the courtesy of a CheckUser. The side-effect of this blatant breach of due process is that I wind up being falsely accused of socking again. Well, I'm really sick of it. Gwen, you owe me a retraction, an apology and an unban. Do it immediately or your reputation will take another blow. Dylan Flaherty 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC) How does Gwen's current accusation (mistaken or not) all of a sudden nullify your topic ban? –MuZemike 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC) It's her second strike: two mistakes in a row. This is her chance to fix them. Dylan Flaherty 01:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC) You're mistaken, Dylan, I said it could be you but that there should be no block without a CU. Sockpuppetry sometimes isn't easy to track at first. As for the Africas, are you saying they're not socks? If so, how do you know this? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I said AfricaTruth never even tried to look like a sock of me; rather, they look like an Uncensored Kiwi sock. Whether they are is another matter, and not one that any of us is qualified to rule on. Then again, we don't even know whether Uncensored Kiwi was an actual sock in the first place, only that they got censored based on a rather underwhelming "likely match". Given the distribution of population in New Zealand, this is particularly unconvincing. And now AfricaTruth was blocked on no match at all. Dylan Flaherty 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I didn't block Uncensored Kiwi. Are you in the same city then? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Uncensored Kiwi and BlueRobe are both in Auckland, along with almost a third of the total population of NZ, which is why I find the CU suspect. From the fact that I don't use Commonwealth English, it should be pretty obvious that I'm not a kiwi, but you already accused me of being a sock of Uncensored Kiwi, so I guess that what I consider obvious might not be to everyone else. The funny thing is that AfricaTruth was right; not necessarily about intentional admin abuse of power, but certainly about the Palin article being locked down by pro-Palin WP:OWNers, effectively with support from admins such as yourself. All the Palin fans have to do is insult and generally abuse anyone who suggests edits they dislike, and they can count of that person being blamed for not going along with the "consensus" (read: mob rule). Dylan Flaherty 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC) You're mistaken yet again, I never even hinted, much less thought, that you were a sock of Uncensored Kiwi, given I don't recall ever hearing of that account until about 15 minutes ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC) No, you said that AfricaTruth/AfricanTruth was me. Now you're asking if I'm in the same city as Uncensored Kiwi, which - even with lots of good faith assumed -- would qualify as hinting that I'm a sock. Dylan Flaherty 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I didn't say the Africas were you. As for the city, I didn't know you were talking about Auckland or Uncensored Kiwi, rather, you had only said something about NZ. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) She did not say that it was you. Let me quote her post above (emphasis added): "Very sorry to say, this could be User:Dylan_Flaherty". "Could" does not equal "is". [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Retro, you apparently live in a kinder, gentler Wikipedia. In the one I live in, Uncensored Kiwi was blocked on a "could". Dylan Flaherty 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC) He sure was. :-o [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Indeed. So if I lived in Auckland, an SPI accusing me of being Uncensored Kiwi would have yielded a false positive in the form of a "likely match". Dylan Flaherty 02:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The topic ban was upheld by the community: it's not for her to reverse at this point. Doc talk 01:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Nonsense. She's free to undo her own block topic ban at any time. Dylan Flaherty 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC) You're mistaken again, Dylan, I didn't block you. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Dylan Flaherty 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Actually, she can't, because the discussion showed overwhelming support for a two-week (or longer) topic ban; in fact, only one person supported you in your effort to get the topic ban overturned. A substantially greater number of editors (most of whom were totally uninvolved) supported the topic ban. At this point, Gwen would need to bring this back for another discussion, and it's likely that the original consensus would still stand. This is, of course, assuming she were willing to do so, and other than casting aspersions, you've provided no reason for her to accede to your demand. Horologium (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Fine, you go tell her what she can and can't do. I'll wait here. Dylan Flaherty 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Done. [5] Horologium (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Very impressive. If only it had some effect. Dylan Flaherty 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC) While blocks can be overturned by the decision of a single admin, that is not the case with bans. Bans are a group decision that can only be overturned by a group decision. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I invoked the ban under the Palin arbcom sanction (and logged it), which an admin can do on their own. However, it's true that after Dylan appealed it here, the outcome being an overwhelming consensus to uphold, that made it much tougher to undo. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Not really interested in hearing about this. You were very wrong to have banned me in the first place. Dylan Flaherty 02:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC) If she's obeying an arbcom sanction, how is it wrong? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Arbcom didn't tell her to ban me. She decided to ban me. Dylan Flaherty 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC) If you were in violation of an arbcom decision, then she would be obligated to issue a ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) "Arbcom didn't tell her to ban me. She decided to ban me."--Citation needed. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC) It should be obvious that the burden of proof is on you here. I can't cite every diff to show that none of them include Arbcom telling her to do it. Dylan Flaherty 02:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Bugs, I wasn't "obeying" an arbcom sanction, nor am I ever obligated to take an admin action. I invoked a topic ban through the Palin arbcom sanction and as you know, Dylan, the consensus here upheld that. As you also know, even after that happened, I was quite open minded, on my talk page, about finding a way for you to at least get started on an RfC if you wanted to, but you said no to talking further about that, which you can indeed do. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I see. This authorizes (though does not obligate) an admin to issue a ban as deemed necessary. And it's only 2 weeks. Dylan would be best off to just let the clock expire and leave it alone otherwise. If he lets it be, he'll be un-banned before New Year's Eve. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC) There are people in the world who still care about the principle called justice. Dylan Flaherty 02:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC) There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The square root of 4 is both 2 and -2. See, I can match your non sequitur with my own. Dylan Flaherty 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Your arguments about "justice" are the non sequitur. I say again, you have no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. It's a private website, not subject to anything pertaining to the Bill of Rights. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I thought this might be Dylan for a minute, too, until I remembered that Dylan did not appear to be an idiot the last time I saw him here. That doesn't seem to be a reason for lifting Dylan's topic ban, and I don't have any problem with blocking Africa, who's clearly a sock of someone, and I don't care that much who anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC) You don't have a problem with blocking the whole country of Africa? Kelly hi! 02:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Not the whole "country" of Africa, just the stockings. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC) It's a poor "country", they probably have wholes in their stockings. Kelly hi! 02:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Yup. A lot of them do not even have shoes. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Many of the stockings they do have tend to be red. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) L.O.L. X-D By "Africa" she meant User:AfricaTruth (and probably the other one, User:AfricanTruth as well). See the earlier parts of this discussion. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Good fundraising idea. Bandwidth=$$$. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Note: Dylan has been repeatedly disinvited from posting on my user talk page - but repeatedly posts again and again. [6] where I iterated the disinvitation. [7] where he posts again (making twice after specific disinvitation). And [8] marking his third post after being told not to. Might someone note this behaviour on his part? Thanks. Collect (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Added [9] - this consistent posting on my user talk page is getting a teensy bit bothersome. Collect (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Dylan needs to remove his little "no-fly zone" from his talk page, since he doesn't respect requests from others to do the same. I haven't commented there because I respect his wishes: why can't he? Doc talk 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Everyone (including Dylan) needs to stop pissing on their talk pages so as to somehow mark their territory. It's a collaborative project, and that requires our talk pages to be open to other editors -- some we may not even like. If someone is hounding you on your talk page, an administrator will deal with it. Otherwise, talk pages belong to the project, not to individual editors. You can delete (almost) anything you'd like from your talk page, but "banning" other editors just looks childish. jæs (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC) AfricaTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AfricanTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Yes. Both of them obviously socks of each other, and trying to impostor Dylan, but it didn't work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Uh, no. They're obviously not trying to impostor me. The comments about being in the same city as a banned user are straight from User:Uncensored Kiwi. Dylan Flaherty 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC) It doesn't really matter who they're socks of. They had to hit the road. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC) It certainly matters to me, as I was falsely accused of being the foot. Dylan Flaherty 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I'm beginning to think the Africa Truther socks (sorry, couldn't resist) may not be alone. jæs (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC) That possibility had been raised near the top of this section. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Heh, Africa Truthers. Just wait, soon we'll have an article like this one about believe who believe Palin said Africa is a country. Kelly hi! 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Such bloody ignorance I keep seeing. Everyone knows Africa is not a country; it's a song, by Toto. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Really? I thought it was by Perpetuum Jazzile! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Wow! Outstanding. I'm guessing you've seen this by now:[10] but it's in season anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Of course, but thanks for the reminder. :-) How about these guys? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC) And like this umpteenth thread concerning this editor: "It's gonna take a lot to drag me away from you..." Doc talk 03:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The reality is that this thread has nothing to do with my actions. I didn't file this report, I'm not related to the AfricaTruthers, and I don't want to be here. I got involved because of yet another false sock accusation. I realize that it's something of a tradition in the "community", but please try not to blame the victim, ok? Dylan Flaherty 03:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC) You're really "muti-tasking" between this thread and the one at the bottom. Did you know someone gets assaulted in this country every 90 seconds? Why does it have to be the same unlucky guy? Doc talk 03:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) @ Gwen Gale...Using the same criteria that you based your "Sorry to say this could be User:Dylan Flaherty" on, what other editors could be socks of User:AfricanTruth?Buster Seven Talk 06:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing practices by 2 IP-editors - 209.221.34.4 & 208.101.233.54

User:209.221.34.4 & User:208.101.233.54 are both generating massive amounts of edits on the same general-interest articles while similarly disregarding certain accepted Wikipedia editing practices.
User:209.221.34.4 (Special:Contributions/209.221.34.4) deleted content, deleted certain sources, is not using edit summaries and seems to be writing WP:OR while not utilizing the Preview button (and therefore generates massive lines of edits that could be taken care of with much fewer edits). After I left some Notices and Warnings about these practices at User talk:209.221.34.4, the second IP-editor, User:208.101.233.54 (Special:Contributions/208.101.233.54), started editing the same or similar articles in a similar fashion: also no edit summaries, also doesn't use Preview button (so ends up making multiple lines of edits), also writing WP:OR on the same general-interest articles ("blonde bombshell" movie-stars/B-movie stars such as Jayne Mansfield, Kim Novak, Sheree North, Marilyn Monroe, Cleo Moore and others). I have tried to assume good faith and notify these IP-editors of accepted Wikipedia practices/guidelines and have been correcting obvious errors as I find them but the massive lines of edits are proving too much for me to keep up with. I have been finding that some of their text additions are, in my opinion, veering into unsourced original research, such as the following:
209.221.34.4 Jayne Mansfield diff & 209.221.34.4 Kim Novak diff.
208.101.233.54 Jayne Mansfield diff & 208.101.233.54 Kim Novak diff.
Another consideration is that at least two of the articles' subjects, Kim Novak and Mamie Van Doren, are still living and therefore the articles are biographies of living people. I would appreciate some other opinions on the two IP-editors and the general situation. Shearonink (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have only looked at the Mansfield edits that you gave above, but it seems that (even though xe isn't telling you xyr sources, communicating with you at all, or even using edit summaries) the editor without an account there is working from one of the many books that document Mansfield's career in more detail than our article did before that edit. ISBN 9781561711468 records, for example, that Mansfield's first rôle was opposite Edward G. Robinson in Illegal (released 1955), and goes on to record further rôles in Hell on Frisco Bay and Pete Kelley's Blues. It even gives her initial salary. The entry for Mansfield in the St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture documents those, too. The "low budget German thriller" Dog eat Dog!, with its German, Italian, and original English titles, and indeed a note about the poor dubbing, is documented with reference to Mansfield in ISBN 9780313285448. Yes, it would be great if the editor cited xyr sources, used edit summaries, and communicated. But from the Mansfield edits at least it doesn't appear that what is being added is either intentionally wrong or a new analysis not to be found in the several existing detailed biographies, in books, of this person. Your best course of action here is to consider the edits being made as prompts for things that the article hasn't yet covered in detail, and to take some of these books in hand and improve the article's coverage of the subject. Replace the mediocre content that is pointing you in the right direction with good, solidly sourced, content.

  Oh and fix the bogus book citations that are citing Amazon.com as if it were the source in Jayne Mansfield#References, will you? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Addendum: Kim Novak's bad performances in Middle of the Night and others are discussed in Barnett2007 that's already cited in the article. Indeed Barnett xyrself cites Shipman1973, with a particularly scathing quotation ("a performance of such inadequacy that it soon became legendary") from Shipman. Again, an editor without an account is making what is still a fairly poor article better, but simply not telling you the sources, using edit summaries, using the preview button, or communicating. Take it as a prompt, take the already cited sources in hand, and improve the article further — attributing to Shipman that which is Shipman's, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Valid edits or not, it is the IP's job to cite the sources he or she is using. If they don't know how, they can go to the talk page and request assistant. —Mike Allen 11:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Long history of copyright violations by User:Logger9

User:Logger9 has the habit of writing long, unencyclopedic essays, compiled from outdated research literature, which has led to long, infertile debates in the past. Recently it has been discovered that much of his writing consists just of copying or superficially reformulating entire paragraphs. He has been warned several times about copyright violations, but he continues as before. For more information, please see my recent note Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Logger9 -- Marie Poise (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you creating an LTA page is constructive at this point, those are usually only created for the most egregious of disruptive editors who are also blocked/banned. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel increasingly lost in WP's ever increasing bureaucracy. Anyway, I am sure this user will be banned soon. -- Marie Poise (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for WP:CCI which can set up a systematic review of all of their contributions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the LTA page and opened a CCI request. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues are confirmed, and the CCI is open Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Logger9 is continuing the edit war at physics of glass. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot review the entirety of the PDF, but a few glimpses in Google convinces me that the content he added back to the article is still a violation of our copyright policy.

examples

For a few examples, I can see the following in Google search are present in Haymet (oddities of formatting courtesy of Google) the stability (or lack of it) of all 230 lattice types could be calculated He wrote, the stability of all 230 lattice types could be determined It should be emphasized that in the most complete formulation of the theory, although the lattice symmetry is assumed, the lattice constant He wrote, It should be emphasized that although the lattice symmetry is assumed, it is actually the lattice constant most severe approximation in the density funcн tional theory is to relate the single-particle direct correlation function of He wrote, most severe approximation in the density functional theory is to relate the single-particle direct correlation function leads to a mean field theory, which would be a poor approximation at a second-order phase transition such as the gas-liquid critical point He wrote: lead to a mean field theory, which would be a poor approximation at a second-order phase transition such as the gas-liquid critical point For certain first-order phase transitions, the empirical evidence suggests that this assumption docs not lead to such serious problems He wrote: For certain first-order phase transitions, the empirical evidence suggests that this assumption does not lead to such serious problems There may be more. I stopped looking.

Some of this is paraphrased; some is verbatim. As per his comments at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9, he may not understand what is required by paraphrasing. See that page (in background) for a few examples of content he seems to have copied. If he continues placing content onto Wikipedia copied or minimally paraphrased from external sources, I believe he will need to be indefinitely blocked until we have some assurance that he both understands the degree of rewriting required and is prepared to meet it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Logger9 has continued his copyright violations, after the above comment was written ([11], subsequently removed as a copyvio [12].) If no action is taken here, then he may construe statements that he will be blocked for further copyright violations as idle threats. Since he's already been blocked once for copyright violations, I suggest that the next block be much longer. Chester Markel (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked. I don't believe he should be unblocked without some assurance that he knows how to handle content and will abide by our policies. His note here that "I do not copy content directly: I paraphrase" in the face of so much direct pasting is hard to comprehend. (See his talk page for one example, and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9 for more.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry and votestacking at MfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher
• User:Pablo X/spa (list of previous SPA accounts)

The above ANI subthread from September this year details the issues at the article Murder of Meredith Kercher which were mainly defined as a large number of SPA accounts, mostly created at the same time, causing disruption at the article and its talkpage through virulent POV pushing, incivility and other issues. The discussion ended with the most problematic of the editors, User:PhanuelB, being blocked indefinitely. Recently, two userspace drafts by the user have been sent to MfD.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/sandbox
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhanuelB/The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

User:PhanuelB was notified on his talkpage, where he has been active. However now, many of the other SPA accounts, having been inactive since Phanuel's block, have resurfaced to comment on the MfDs.

Although this looks like obvious sockpuppetry, I suspect that it is not that simple, as there is evidence that for some of the accounts, similar named usernames have been active on other forums regarding Knox and Kercher. However, this obviously is meatpuppetry, and it is definitely votestacking. However, the effects are the same, and per WP:SOCK my initial thoughts are to strike the SPA !votes on the MfDs and block them all indefinitely. Input would be useful. I will be notifying all the accounts after I have posted this. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Having a point of view and arguing a point is not a crime. Perk10 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

No, it isn't. However, Wikipedia is not the place to do this, it's an encyclopedia - see WP:SOAPBOX. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Block all socks-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, I am interested in Wikipedia. I have only edited mainly on one topic so far. What is the problem with that? Is that against WP rules? Perk10 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

If one is a sock of a blocked editor, that's a problem. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Having a point of view, as an individual, is not a crime... And, is editing so far on only one article on WP against WP rules? Perk10 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Is there a way to prove one is not a "sock puppet"? Perk10 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

If there is, please let me know. I think a secondary concern is that admins who disagree with people who agree with each other might call them sock puppets rather than arguing for or against points. Perk10 (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Open an WP:SPI, if you suspect anybody of socking. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I said, I don't think you (or the others) are sock puppets. You are, however, as shown through your editing patterns, meatpuppets. None of these accounts are here to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia; they are only here to push a point of view on one single article (or in this case, to votestack a deletion discussion concerning that article). They all disappeared for three months after PhanuelB was blocked, only to resurface now - just as PhanuelB starts editing again. I don't see any reason why the usual sanctions shouldn't apply. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The same principle applies. I am an individual with a point of view on how to improve the accuracy of an article and I am learning what Wikipedia is about as well. Perk10 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Answer me two simple questions then. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• (a) Why did you suddenly stop editing the Kercher article in September, around the same time as all the other accounts named above?
• (b) How did you know about the MfD that you suddenly appeared to vote on today?

Because I am an individual who cares about the accuracy of the article. As do you do, too, I think. EDIT: The admins seem to care about the specific content of the article. Perk10 (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

I very much care about the rules of WP and I care about admins following those rules, as well as editors, and authors. Perk10 (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Your timeing stinks, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? Perk10 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

You dissapeared when the others dissappeard. You reappeard when the others reappeared. It's looking like a case of Meatpuppetry 'atleast', to me. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If I care about an article, I will follow what is going on. I think something against the rules is afoot with that particular article. Perk10 (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

I don't see the need for this purge unless it is the policy of Wikipedia to remove editors who take certain views on the MoMK article --Footwarrior (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. It is, however, Wikipedia policy to remove sockpuppets (and per WP:SOCK, meatpuppets are effectively the same thing). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the MoMK article was fully protected back in September. It became almost impossible to make changes to the article, so it's understandable why a lot of participants stopped trying. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I don't believe a word of it. There are only two reasons why this group of editors should suddenly re-appear after a 3 month absence to votestack the MfD. They are - (a) they're all the same person, or (b) they're being off-wiki canvassed to vote there. Either way, it's sock/meatpuppetry. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. The amount of hostile meta-discussion and unfounded-accusation-hurling that has resulted from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article has, in the past, been epic - as if to rival the dramatic value of a Greek tragedy, with the perpetrators a collection of almost indistinguishable SPAs hell-bent on baseless criticism of Wikipedia editing policies. I would argue that there are firm grounds for an SPI - although I doubt that there is one particular person operating all these accounts (and we know which ones we're talking about), equally I am not convinced that each SPA belongs to a different individual. An investigation could certainly put an end to much of this confusion. SuperMarioMan 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't think an SPI is necessary (quite apart from the fact that behaviourally these are probably separate people). Their editing patterns mean that they are indistinguishable from sockpuppets anyway. The only thing an SPI might be useful for is to ascertain some IP ranges in case there are further issues in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between voting and "votestacking"? Perk10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perk10 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:VOTESTACKING - "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion..." )in fact, most of WP:CANVASSING applies here. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• The different claims laid forth here don't add up. Perk10 (talk · contribs) states he only cares for the article, but the MfDs are for userspace drafts. He further asserts interest in the subject matter of the article - yet in the three months since he vanished along with the other SPAs, there have been significant events influencing the article's content, one as recently as last Saturday. Enough reason for someone asserting interest to come back and edit, or at least discuss on the talk page. But they all only come back to votestack on MfDs for two stale userspace drafts. Footwarrior claims that the article was fully protected and that deterred editing from that whole group (Footwarrior himself isn't part of the group BTW) - fair enough, yet the article has been back to semi protection for two and a half months, and none of these SPAs have shown any interest up to the very moment the MfDs were created. Offsite canvassing is the only reasonable explanation. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Or people who care about the accuracy of this topic. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is not against the rules of WP. Perk10 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Perk10

Really? So where were you when one of the convicted had his final appeal rejected? Where were you when the appeals for the other two began? Where were you after last Saturday, when evidence from the first trials were sent for re-testing? The topic is exposed on the article, not the userspace draft, as you very well know. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No. However it is against the rules of Wikipedia to (a) "Contact users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions" and (b) attempt to influence a discussion by means of sock or meatpuppets - both of these are clearly happening here. Also, as MLauba says, the article has been unprotected (or at least only semi-protected) since early November. Why have none of the 13 accounts listed above - or at least the ones that aren't blocked for disruption already - made a single edit anywhere in that time? Sorry, we're not stupid here, and you haven't given a convincing answer to any of the questions. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Given that is has now been 17 hours since I posted this, and no believable reason has been given for the behaviour of the SPAs, I intend to block them all unless a substantive reason is given for not doing so within a short period of time. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does that include Charlie Wilkes, who has a great deal of subject matter expertise and has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia? --Footwarrior (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Since User:Charlie wilkes (contribs) has never made any contribution to Wikipedia except commenting/arguing on talk pages about the Kercher article, then yes. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Yoyohooyo, one of the blocked SPAs, has suddenly returned to their talk page (after an absence of more than two months, during which time the page has not been edited - of course, this probably has nothing at all to do with the AfD and ANI discussions ...) with comments that come within a whisper of threatening legal action. POV-pushing from off-site sources, meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry - I wouldn't be surprised if all three were playing a part here. SuperMarioMan 17:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this page the whole time. I stopped editing because it was disturbing to see how many editors were being banned and compromises were not being achieved. Many good editors left and that was sad to see. I chimed in because I respect PhanuelB's work. In the spirit of Christmas why not just let this go? I'm leaving for the holiday and do not have time to discuss this now. I would ask that you do not block me or anyone else. If my participation is actually encouraged I will return to the page as an editor in the new year.--User:jaberryhill —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

• I have removed the trolling at User:Yoyohooyo (who is a sock of an indef blocked editor) and am going to block the others now. Any or all of the editors may be unblocked when they convincingly account for their editing patterns. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. I have only blocked the active accounts, but will block the others if they follow suit. I have updated User:Pablo X/spa to show the current status of all SPAs. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reversion of sourced material in retaliation in a dispute on another subject

Good afternoon,

User:Someone65 was called out by several users for performing mass page moves without discussion in the Islam portal last week. User was then banned for a week for sockpuppetry. User returned a couple of days ago and began a campaign to get articles deleted on the Islam portal. When I opposed user S65, we got into a skirmish on the subject, after which S65 went through my edit history and picked out an article I added content to over the weekend.

S65 reverted my changes, claiming they were "unreferenced". As you can see, the change he reverted consists primarily of sourced content, and a photo gallery.

This user is exhibiting a pattern of destructive behavior. The reversion cited above is an act of vandalism committed solely in retribution for our disagreement on a different issue.

Do you have any suggestions as to what can be done to curb the destructive behavior of this user? User is currently requesting rollback authority, citing his efforts to fight vandalism, which sounds frightening.

Thanks

Aquib (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This ANI report is absolutely absurd.

Firstly, User:Aquib is untruthful about my page moves (which happened 16 days ago) . I DID discuss the page moves with consent from 3 other established editors. (see [13] for evidence)

Secondly, I reverted this edit [14] by User:Aquib because he;

1. added an entire paragraph without adding a single citation
2. he deleted a reliable and secondary reference from the University of Pennsylvania, which was perfectly referenced.
3. i considered his pointless addition of an image gallery as totally unecessary and against Wikipedia:Image use policy

Thirdly, i have not began a "deletion campaign". I'm simply objecting to the creation of misinformitive pages by User:Imadjafar over the past 2 days. (check his User talk:Imadjafar). Two administrators involved have not objected whatsoever to my edits.

What concerns me is the fact that User:Aquib has stalked me over my last 7 edits. Someone65 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

S65's responses are a total distortion, as can be proved by the timestamps on the conversations and the diff on the revert I am complaining about in this ANI. Further, it is part of a growing pattern of tendentious editing and misrepresentations. This editor needs to be banned or prevented from damaging articles.

------

To respond to Someone65s first point:

Firstly, User:Aquib is untruthful about my page moves (which happened 16 days ago) . I DID discuss the page moves with consent from 3 other established editors. (see [82] for evidence)

• The link Someone65 has provided here is to a discussion that I initiated after the page moves had been executed, and after my initial discussion discussion asking him why he had executed the moves, not before. The initial conversation I had with him was here where I asked him why he had moved the pages. As you can see, S65's response is that the move was done under the umbrella of the Jagged85 RFC. It is only when I went to the Jagged85 RFC page to follow up on S65's claim this conversation S65 claims is a pre-move discussion occurs, I learn S65 is not involved in the Jagged85, and is misrepresenting the page moves as being part of the RFC. In fact, as evidenced by the discussions, other editors are upset about the moves as they have occurred without discussion. So S65's first point is an obvious distortion, as was the misrepresentation of the reason for the move. Frankly I am surprised at these claims, as anyone can look through S65's edit history and see the page moves began before my first contact.

To respond to Someone65s second point:

Secondly, I reverted this edit [15] by User:Aquib because he;

1. added an entire paragraph without adding a single citation
2. he deleted a reliable and secondary reference from the University of Pennsylvania, which was perfectly referenced.
3. i considered his pointless addition of an image gallery as totally unecessary and against Wikipedia:Image use policy

• An examination of the diff I have provided shows in fact S65 has reverted the information I have inserted about the gardens at Azhar park, and included a reference to D. Fairchild Ruggles' book on Islamic Gardening. I may have also cleaned up some uncited text, but my new section on the gardens is what was removed along with its citation. So S65's second point is another obvious distortion, as was the first, the claims about the move etc.
• In fact, the diff shows the citation was mine, and S65 deleted it. Point-blank Distortion.
• S65 considered the addition of a few photos a violation of policy? I'm not sure how to respond to that. Consistent, perhaps?

Rather than S65s account of the "move incident" which I have demonstrated as a misrepresentation, and the supposed reasons for his the reversion of my al-Azhar edits from this weekend, which I have refuted, I can offer a much simpler, obvious truth. As evidenced from the timing of the al-Azhar park edit on 12/22/2010, I was involved with him in a dispute (which he is continuing to pursue as I type) regarding the notability of biblical figures in Islam. When I began to revert some of the edits S65 was making against another editor's work, he swung around and attacked the al-Azhar article I worked on over the weekend, then tried to explain it by claiming it was I who damaged the article.

To respond to S65s third assertion

Thirdly, i have not began a "deletion campaign". I'm simply objecting to the creation of misinformitive pages by User:Imadjafar over the past 2 days. (check his User talk:Imadjafar). Two administrators involved have not objected whatsoever to my edits.

• The references to biblical figures in Islam is neither a small matter nor a new one. S65's objections to them are simply part of a pattern of tendentious editing and misrepresentations, much as the defense of S65s actions have been misrepresented here.

On S65's last remark

What concerns me is the fact that User:Aquib has stalked me over my last 7 edits.

• If I am not supposed to be concerned when I come across an editor who behaves the way S65 is behaving, I am open to suggestions as to what I should do.

To recap

Virtually every point S65 made in response to this ANI is a distortion or a misrepresentation. It is almost as if S65 thinks no one will bother to check the statements for truth. This is the same pattern S65 exhibits in editing articles: Misrepresentations, distortions and a tendency to suppress information. This editor needs to be banned or prevented from damaging articles.

Aquib (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

-----

Almost forgot to recap the main point: S65 clearly retaliated against me by reverting sourced changes to an article I edited over the weekend. This was done in response to an ongoing, totally unrelated dispute we are currently engaged in. Deliberate vandalism.

Aquib (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time -Aquib (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on Someone65

I believe that the project would be improved by the indefinite removal of Someone65 for the following reasons:

1. Previous abusive sockpuppetry noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi/Archive.
2. Reverting an edit for the supposed reason that it "Did not provide references" [16], while actually removing the reliable source {{Cite book|last=Ruggles|first=D. Fairchild|title=Islamic Gardens and Landscapes|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|date=2008|page=168|isbn=0812240251}} is blatantly malicious activity, suggestive of sneaky vandalism. Someone65's repetition of his lies about this edit here [17], pretending that he restored the reference which he actually removed, provides further evidence of Someone65's mendacious conduct.

There's probably more evidence of duplicity by Someone65, but I really shouldn't have to look. When an editor has been caught betraying the community's default assumption of good faith by abusing multiple accounts, lying in edit summaries to damage articles, then brazenly lying again to justify their vandalism, thus requiring good-faith contributors to review all of their edits for potential sneaky vandalism or misrepresentation, the only appropriate response is to eject the malicious editor from the project. Chester Markel (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's a need for a community ban at this time, but I have blocked Someone65 indefinitely, because their recent editing is just too disruptive/weird. If Someone65 can make a persuasive case for unblocking, no further discussion with me is required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sarek, but considering a history of abusive socking and the fact that the main account has been indeffed since November, I think this sock should remain blocked and future socks should also be blocked until this editor understands how to work with other people and stops the sneaky vandalism and meatpupptery campaigns. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Riddle me this, riddle me that: sock, meat, or tofurkey?

For several weeks, a variety of anon IPs in Ryiadh, Saudi Arabia have been trying to remove material from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. They tend to display the singular coincidence of also editing articles related to Wikileaks:

77.31.5.157 SAUDI ARABIA AR RIYAD RIYADH. Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak, United States diplomatic cables leak. Contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.31.5.157

94.99.114.21 RIYADH SAUDI ARABIA Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.99.114.21

94.99.22.252 RIYADH SAUDI ARABIA Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.99.22.252

77.30.64.67 RIYADH SAUDI ARABIA Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.30.64.67

Suddenly (as of yesterday), an anon IP in Seattle has taken over, making the same edits to the same articles.

66.36.242.81 SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98168 Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak‎. Contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.36.242.81. Vandalism caught my eye: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symon_Gould&action=historysubmit&diff=394571128&oldid=376381745

How odd. IP spoofing? Meat puppets? The last two IPs, taken together, have made 4 reverts in the last 24 hours, making it an obvious evasion of the rules. The situation involves possible edit warring, vandalism, and puppeting, there's no one forum that seems best.... Mindbunny (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No comments about anything else, but 66.36.242.81 appears to be a proxy hosted by svservers.com. I've blocked it accordingly. TNXMan 17:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Women's rights in Saudi Arabia for a week. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Malicious hoaxery

Resolved

 – Articles speedied, commons images nominated for deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• VERITAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Veritas Trust Seal Veritas trust (AfD discussion)
• 129.31.65.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 129.31.212.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 129.31.65.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Some more watching eyes would be useful on this. Already the article on VERITAS, a telescope array, has been overwritten twice with the same content as at Veritas trust and Veritas Trust Seal, all of which is in the first place a copy of what can be found in our VeriSign article with some name changes to make it seem as if the U.S. VeriSign is the Singapore Veritas. Trust seal has been vandalized to contain this purported company's purported trust seal. This appears to be a systematic, multiple article, attempt to mis-use Wikipedia to impersonate VeriSign, that — oddly — is originating from Imperial College London. Uncle G (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Level One Warning" for AGF?

Resolved

 – Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! On my talk page another editor has given me a "level one warning for assuming bad faith" and I'm curious about this on several levels:

1. Did I actually do anything wrong or that could be considered wrong? If so, I want to correct it.
2. I searched through WP:AGF and found nothing about "levels" and "warnings"-am I missing something?
3. Obviously the editor feels something is wrong--what's the best action for me to take?
4. Is there anything I could have done differently to avoid this (outside of not being involved in the AFD in the first place?)

Any coaching and comments for me would be appreciated! I'm not looking to report the other user, I'm looking to improve my own style.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

1. You said I wonder if this is a personal issue and it's just that you don't like the performer so you were "wondering" if he was editing without integrity, ie you failed to assume good faith.
2. I've left a link to the templates page on your talkpage.
3. You could apologise for not assuming good faith, or, if you think you have good reason to believe they are not editing in good faith you need to explain yourself and back it up and try and resolve the issue.
4. You could read your posts before you click save and imagine whether you would like to be on the recieving end.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it appears they took umbrage at, "I wonder if this is a personal issue and it's just that you don't like the performer?" That seems to imply that they're motivated by dislike of some individual, rather than by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. In general, it's best not to post speculations about another editor's motives.

That said, leaving a "level one" - or any kind of - warning on the page of an established editor is a terrible idea. If someone seems to doubt one's good faith, the solution is to explain one's intentions, not to officiously notify them that they've "violated" AGF. That's the fastest way to make a situation worse. Wikipedia is not made of "rules" and "levels" and all that junk.

The best thing you can do at this point is probably to say you didn't mean to impugn their motives, and walk away from it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wow. Welcome back GTBacchus! It's lovely to see you.
• Hi Paul. Although I would say that you were being a little cutting edge in your statement to Hell In A Bucket, I don't think Hell should have given you the level one warning. In other words, the part where Hell points you to assume good faith, is appropriate. Look, beyond this discussion, I'll be archiving this discussion very soon as the ANI is not for discussing such simplistic editorial conflicts which you both, as mature editors, should resolve in good faith. Fainites and GTBacchus have given the precisest suggestions possible. Employ them and don't throw the olive branch away. Sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, Fainites and GTBacchus have said everything that needs to be said. As to this particular thread, rather than archiving this, I'd suggest moving it straight to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests seeing that's where it should have went in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My advice...don't take offense to anything any editor does to you. Your reaction can actually be judged and used as evidence against you as being disruptive if an issue builds. Only push an issue if you can clearly demonstrate that wikipedia is being harmed by an action or behaviour, and even so such actions can be seen as being disruptive and may result in a block. As a wise administrator told me, build up allies...it's much better and safer to have an administrator make your case. --scuro (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice everyone! I think I'll apologize for the harshenss of the comments and walk away from the discussion. I'll also be more careful in the future. Feel free to archive this!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

user:Kuguar03

Resolved

 – This should never have been brought to ANI, but one can say, Kuguar03 was not personally attacked. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It all started at this Afd. User:Kuguar03 nominated this article for deletion. User:Piast93 voted to keep it, and added a little advice to Kuguar03 about maybe not nominating articles for deletion so quickly, as it may discourage new users. Kuguar03 immediately accused Piast93 of personal attackshere. When User:Netalarm tried to calm the situation, Kuguar03 accused Netalarm here of joining in a smearing campaign against Kuguar03. That’s when I tried to defuse the situation, but then Kuguar03 began demanding here what he did wrong. User:ZooPro and I tried to explain that there were no attacks made, and no one thought any less of Kuguar because of his Afd, but he kept asking what he did wrong, and ended up demanding “a huge apology” for wasting his time. Netalarm, Piast93, ZooPro, and I all tried to calm him down, but it seems Kuguar03 won’t stop accusing people of attacking him. The Arbiter^Talk 00:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. If that's an "attack" or a "smear" then I've been executed and drenched in mud many times over; any thicker skin for sale somewhere? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. First it's unbelievable that you'd rather go to ANI than admit you were wrong, but then you misrepresent what happened in such a ridiculous way? Here I thought you were just foolishly joining in the pile on without really trying to understand the issue, but it seems you have some deeper issue that I'm unaware of.

All I've ever wanted is to know what I did wrong, or acknowledgment that I didn't do anything wrong. Is that so much to ask? Kuguar03 (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not really see any personal attacks at that AfD either. Kuguar, it may very well be better even for your own sake to not let little stuff like that insult you so easily. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

AGAIN, as I've pointed out many, many times the only issue here is what "mistake" I made by nominating this article for deletion, as stated here, here, here, and here. That's not trying to "defuse the situation", it's escalating it. If I made a mistake, tell me what it is. If I didn't, then I didn't. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, I gave an in-depth explanation of my reasons for nominating the article here. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can all see, he just refuses to let it go. The Arbiter^Talk 01:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can all see, he refuses to answer a simple question. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not really see where you did something really wrong. Although it is nice to have new users create articles for us, I do not think we should 'keep' articles just because a newbee created it. When an article is poorly sourced and/or there is doubt that the subject is notable enough, we should look for reliable sources that give the facts and establish notability. If we can not establish notability, then it may well be worth deleting. The other editor may have been just giving his own opinion. It does not look like he was trying to put you down. At this point, I would say just move on. You will waste a lot more time trying to get a result to your satisfaction out of an other user making that comment, than you would just moving on and improving the encyclopedia. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2)Kuguar03, I don't recall that I've interacted with anyone of the editors with whom you're upset, and I don't think I've ever run across you, so I'm completely uninvolved. I read every word of the AfD and the subsequent conversations you initiated, and I have to tell you that you were not personally attacked. I can show you lots of actual personal attacks, against me and against every admin here, but this is not one of them. Piast93's comment was a constructive criticism - people seek criticism of their contributions every day at Wikipedia:Editor review. Nobody has said anything personal about you - it was a simple suggestion to keep in the back of your mind as you edit. You have to calm down about criticism of your editing or you're not going to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia at all. - KrakatoaKatie 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is there so much emphasis on the personal attacks? Is that even relevant to the discussion? I'd have walked away from this ages ago if it weren't for the constant accusations that I did something wrong. That's the only issue as far as I can tell. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're doing something wrong right now, that's for sure; this dog is dead. Leave it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Who, me? The Arbiter is the one who brought this to ANI. If anything he should be censured for wasting everyone's time. If he won't acknowledge he was wrong there's not much to talk about here. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read my second comment above (the one with the blue edit conflict tag)? That should have gone somewhere in telling you what you may or may not have done wrong. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this. Why is there so much emphasis on the personal attacks? Kuguar, in your third message on Piast93's talk page, in the section you yourself titled Try to avoid personal attacks, you said, "Criticizing me for constructively participating in the building of wikipedia is a personal attack". We're trying to tell you, no, it is not. He did not personally attack you. If you are going to take things like that so personally, if you don't want your work criticized - including your AfD nominations, comments, uploads, or any other aspect of your contributions - don't edit here. Let these people alone now. KrakatoaKatie 02:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with KrakatoaKatie, No personal attack was committed and I feel it seemed to go from something very very simple to ending up on ANI, like I said to you before Kuguar03 I did not consider anything you or anyone else did wrong I do think there may have been some miscommunication that has somewhat been resolved here. No one holds any ill towards you and will treat you like any other editor. I welcome your contributions to the project and hope that this mis-understanding has not blackened your view. Please try to remember we are humans just like you who are sitting in front of a computer trying to make the world a better place by building a free encyclopedia. ZooPro 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment from an uninvolved editor. I don't think User:Kuguar03 really did anything wrong in nominating the article, but I also don't think User:Piast93 was guilty of bad faith or made any personal attack in offering some advice. User:Kuguar03's pursuit of this has gone way too far into dead horse territory -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that I did nothing wrong, ZooPro. I'm curious what caused you to reverse you previous position, but I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. I did nothing wrong by nominating an article for deletion after careful consideration, and repeatedly criticizing me for doing so is an attack and not constructive. Some editors disagree with that, fine, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion here. The only issue is, and has always been, whether or not it's a mistake to nominate an article for deletion. I don't believe it is, and as I understand it, wikipedia policy is on my side. I don't know why Arbiter would rather escalate (and totally misrepresent) issues than admitting to being wrong, but if he hasn't done so by now he probably never will. I don't know what outcome he expected, but he now owes lots of other people apologies for wasting their time. But as long as none of the editors involved come after me again I don't see any point in pursuing this matter further. Kuguar03 (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How many times is it going to have to be repeated to you? Criticism is not a personal attack. It is not their 'opinion' as you state above, it is defined that way in policy. As katie said, if you can't handle critique, you would probably have better luck elsewhere than wikipedia.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap, talk about beating dead horses! Let me say once more before finally walking away: The only issue here is whether it's wrong to nominate an article for deletion or not. That's it. That's all. There is no other issue here. Constantly talking about personal attacks is adding nothing to the discussion. Constantly misrepresenting what I said is adding nothing to the discussion. Constantly misrepresenting the issue is adding nothing to the discussion. Yours, KrakatoaKatie's, and other editors' comments are completely irrelevant to the issue here. If you think they are, you need to go back and look at what actually happened, because they are not, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Arbiter, Piast93, and Netalarm repeatedly told me I made a mistake by nominating an article for deletion. I disagree. I was hoping to get some explanation of their view to try and understand better where they were coming from, but none is forthcoming. That's all that's going on here. That's it. There is nothing else. If you don't have anything to add to that discussion you're adding nothing to the discussion.

Now if anyone wants to have a constructive discussion, you know where to find me: Diligently working with other editors to build an encyclopedia. It's baffling to me why so many people would oppose that. Kuguar03 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about I repeat most of my second post in this thread, where I try to answer that?: "I do not really see where you did something really wrong. Although it is nice to have new users create articles for us, I do not think we should 'keep' articles just because a newbee created it. When an article is poorly sourced and/or there is doubt that the subject is notable enough, we should look for reliable sources that give the facts and establish notability. If we can not establish notability, then it may well be worth deleting."

And, in addition to that repeat: There is nothing wrong with nominating an article for deletion, as long as it does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia (such as it not being notable enough).

Does that answer your question? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 10:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because you say something, doesn't make it automatically true.. also, you don't get to decide whose comments are relevant to this discussion; firstly to my above point, the rightness/wrongness of the AfD is not the only issue here, the other issue is your misunderstanding of wp's WP:NPA policy. You can't go claiming someone is attacking you every time you're criticized as it's disruptive editing and draws away from improving the encyclopedia.

Secondly, there is nothing our comments are misrepresenting about yours; you clearly think you were attacked because someone disagreed with your nomination; you say that exact thing in several posts above. It may be the case that you think you were attacked; that isn't what's up for dispute in this issue, what is up for dispute is under policy, those are not attacks, and continuing to claim such is in itself an attack, because it is baseless accusation. Calling you stupid would be an attack, saying you were wrong for noming an article.. no.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And just to remind you, this thread was not about whether you were right to nominate the article for deletion, but about your unjustified allegations of personal attacks after you had been given constructive suggestion. If you re-read the thread you'll see that no contributor to the thread felt that you had been subjected to personal attacks. So the situation is simple: You were justified in raising the AfD, and you weren't subjected to personal attacks. End of thread? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Come on folks, I suggest we all just back away from the man with the stick now - let him have the last word if he wants -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about last words; this is about an ongoing behavioral issue that needs to be corrected, continuously claiming others have been issuing insults is nothing but disruptive when they in reality have done no such thing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, he says he's stopped now, and I personally see no benefit in continuing this - so that's the last from me on the subject too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Continued Actions by User:Daedalus969

I hate to pursue administrative action, but I don't know what else to do about User:Daedalus969's continued actions WRT this discussion. Apparently not satisfied with my responses here, he's made comments on my talk page here, here, here, and here, all but the first coming after the discussion here was closed, if I'm reading the time stamps correctly. Both myself and another editor have told him to drop the stick but he just won't let up. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to stand by while you accuse me of harassment on my very first message to you, and then subsequently tell me to start a disruptive request for policy change because you have a misinterpretation of WP's policy on personal attacks; further, I sent my first message to you before the discussion above was closed, but you decided to instigate again with a baseless accusation of harassment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true at all. But then, none of the accusations here are true. I've never been hostile to constructive criticism. The issue of the attacks (or "attacks" if it makes you feel better) was dead and I had dropped it long before Arbiter brought this to ANI, just as the AfD discussion was dead and I had withdrawn it long before Piast93 started this whole thing. I've never been the one holding the stick. Others have, currently you are. Just drop it. Please. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it should be that everyone just go seperate ways and drop the stick. I can not seem to make sense out of this issue, so maybe it would just be better if we just stop and leave this issue behind us. Where are we going with this anyway? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all? Are you telling me then, that you never told me my first message to you was harassment and subsequently told me to start a policy discussion because of your interpretations of policy? Talk about a bold-faced lie.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your failures at reading comprehension are not relevant here. There is a stick in your hand. Drop it. End of discussion. Kuguar03 (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus969, what we have here is a user who was reported here by mistake. They don't seem to want to press any previous claims about personal attacks, so it would be courteous to allow them to drop it. This means you need to drop it, too. It's over, walk away. Dylan Flaherty 04:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, it would be better if you just recuse yourself from anything to do with me, as all you ever do is bait me. If I see one more comment from you on an issue that didn't have anything to do with you, giving your uncivil advice, I will request a topic ban preventing you for commenting on issues regarding myself.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that, Kru, is an attack; there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, you quite clearly accused me of harassment. Do I really need to quote you? Or are you going to continue to lie?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The same happened to me a few month ago. user:Daedalus969 harassed and wikihounded me all over wikipedia including, but not limited to nomination for deletion pages from my own user space, leaving me 10 (maybe more cannot remember) annoying messages on my talk page in a matter of hour after I asked quite a few times to be left alone, and reporting me as a vandal, when I removed those messages from my own talk page. Then an interaction ban (that I enjoyed very much) was issued between the user and me. I voted for it myself with both my hands.user:Daedalus969 has opposed it. Too bad it has expired. That user user:Daedalus969 will never drop the stick, and he wants to be an administrator! With the same behavior persisting a few weeks block is in order. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And you just violated your -indefinite restriction from commenting on me. I also never harassed you or wikihounded you 'all over wikipedia'; I'm now going to seek your block, as you have broken your indef restriction.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see now it wasn't indef, either way, that was a clear attempt at instigation; you've got your thread since you just couldn't control yourself.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The only block that's in order is yours for dredging up something that happened a year ago in order to start another argument. You obviously need to be indef-banned from commenting on me, as you are obviously unable to control yourself.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Crikey, this has gotten way out of control. You all need a time out, I suggest stepping away from Wikipedia for at least 48hours and take a breath. I have no idea how "nothing" turned into world war 3 on ANI. This should probably be the final comment made on this as i think we have far more pressing issues to deal with. In plain simple english "No one attacked anyone, no one did anything wrong, no one needs to continue with this sense less arguing", because sooner or later its gunna turn into a real personal attack and then people will start getting blocked. I hope this is the end of this please. ZooPro 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The only issue at this point is Daedalus969's unwillingness to let it go. The issue of the personal attacks was dead long before Arbiter brought his completely fabricated charges to ANI for the sole purpose of wasting everyone's time, so I have no idea why you would try to restart that discussion. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a grand example of something that is not true; you attack me several times above, so your incivility is definitely an issue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I swear if either of you comment here again I will trout slap you repeatedly. ZooPro 00:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this a violation of WP:3RR?

Basically, there's a pop album called The Fall coming out Christmas day. Editor after editor keeps listing the tracks from the album, but that's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, right? There's know way to know until it's actually released. So I've been reverting these edits, and I'm not sure whether this counts as an exception to the three revert rule or not. Am I in the right here, or are the reverts a violation of policy? Friginator (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Counter-intuitively, being correct is not an exception to 3RR. WP:CRYSTAL certainly isn't an exception either. The best thing to do in these circumstances is to stop reverting. Then post messages on the user's talk page and the article talk page explaining your position. Then seek some input from outside sources, such as the relevant wikiproject (WikiProject Albums), via a neutrally-worded message. If the other side keeps adding the content without contributing to the talk page discussion, they're clearly edit-warring and can be reported to WP:AN3, whether or not they've breached 3RR. Another option is to seek full protection of the article (at WP:RPP) to force an end to the revert war and an opening of discussion on the talk page. Sometimes full protection isn't viable if the article is prominent or heavily edited.

But, all that being said, this isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL. The track listing has been confirmed by a source which I assume is reliable.[18] CRYSTAL only applies to speculation about future events, not if the future events have been confirmed. If the article said "The band has announced the following track listing..." and cited the source, it would seem to be fine. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just leave it alone then. It's only 2 days, anyway. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

AIV has a small backlog. If an admin could take a look before it gets out of hand that would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus

Terra Novus is a creationist editor who has been topic banned form broadly defined "Young Earth Creationism topic ban" Terra Novus has recently created an WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR article called Interpretive science where the entire thesis is

"Though it (Interpretive science) originated in the field of Sociology, applications in the natural sciences can yield insight into the process of forming a scientific theory, and some of the fallacies that persist in consensus ideas.[9] Interpretive science calls into question the ability of an individual to accurately assess all of the data that is processed, without first making a value judgement.[9]"

This pretty obviously once you see the context of his past editing in creationism its a pretty meant to be a round about attack on "Normal Scientific consensus of a 4.3 billion year earth."

Given his past ANI visits in topic area after a [19] [20][21] and misuse of retirement and Clean start. We need to have another talk The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You have provided absolutely no connection with how Interpretive science is related to my Young Earth Creationism topic ban. When it comes to the WP:SYNTH issue with the above article I have actively requested and approved the proposals for merging and removing the problematic content. I believe that my recent editing history will show that I have complied with the topic ban while focusing my contributions on editing and improving the article in question.--Novus Orator 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

indeed even more explicit evidence of the article purpose from the FAQ on the talk page "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me add wikilinks to the statement to make it more clear what i am reading " "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are extrapolating without sufficient data.--Novus Orator 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also surprised that ResidentAnthropologist instantly elevated this conflict to an ANI without going through the proper dispute resolution process. Perhaps his edit history would yield some insight into this odd behavior...--Novus Orator

This is not content issue its a violation of your topic ban. Please Specify an accusation rather than make vague statements The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My original question remains unanswered.--Novus Orator 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Terra

(ec-od) I am not aware that a formal topic ban was ever enacted. There have been various agreements, all of which Terra Novus has not really adhered to. The discussion of the article Interpretive science started on WP:FTN; at present Terra Novus is disrupting the merge/deletion discussion on the talk page of that article. He is equally well being disruptive by not recognizing criticisms from multiple editors. Personalizing this as a dispute with ResidentAnthroplogist is a completely unhelpful strategy and just more disruption. There are several other issues. He declared himself a co-organiser of WP:WikiProject Cryptozoology.[22] when he made a WP:CLEANSTART. Just recently he has been active with that WikiProject.[23] And he has made several abortive attempts at starting Wikiproject Jupiter. He himself does not seem to have edited any articles related to Jupiter, so the many structures he has put in place for Taskforce Jupiter are perplexing. Mathsci (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I read the archived material, and I noted several supports for a topic ban, but no formal discussion of one was started (e.g., under that heading), nor did any administrator conclude that a topic ban proposal had reached consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He does not seem to have disengaged from the article Cryptozoology as this edit in support of an edit-warring IP shows [24]. The IP 68.224.206.14 (talk · contribs) has broken 3RR on the article and the normal reaction would be a request for semiprotection and/or a report at WP:AN3. Instead he requested Dougweller to impose a sanctions template. Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In support? No, I merely requested that all of the editors involved seek a more collaborative solution.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat predictably, as on each other occasion when he's caused disruption, he has now diseppeared for a while, hoping that matters will settle. This is the fourth time this has happened. Isn't it time to say "enough is enough"? Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Disappeared? I am right here if anyone wants to comment.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is frustrating, on a side note I have a hard time seeing how Speedy deletion under Blatant Hoax should not be used on Interpretive science. It seems pretty clear with the from my interpretation of his FAQ that its merely that... a WP:SYNTH Hoax to push a POV The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because you have still not provided evidence for the original reason of this ANI.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

After an absence from the discussion, I looked into things again when I bumped into Terra Novus on other science-related pages, including Climate Change Denial. I had quite a history with his editing a few months ago (under User:Gniniv), but specifically chose not to participate in the ANI threads under this new account name. Having looked at the archives, particularly the one Jclemens alludes to, I've seen several instances where either a topic ban or outright block reached near-unanimous support, but nothing was enacted. Is there a reason for that which I've been unable to track down?

As I've mentioned before, I have no issues with the idea of Terra working collaboratively, or having a 2nd chance, but I've become fully convinced that's not possible after he blew through his 10th chance some time ago. Unfortunately, it is still the case that the overwhelming majority of his edits to mainspace are reverted for POV issues, and he seems to be increasingly encroaching on his self sanction by creating YEC wikiprojects and contributing to physics and pseudoscience articles. These issues have been going on for 7 1/2 months, and the only dent in WP I see that he's made is to frustrate and waste the time of other respectable editors. One of the reasons I took a wikibreak some months ago was due to frustration stemming from this issue. From the responses of other editors I've seen, I'm undoubtedly not alone. Is it appropriate that we lose editor time, or editors all-together, in order to salvage some hope Terra will finally turn around and work constructively despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? I know we all want to assume good faith - I did it working with him every day for months - but good faith or not I'm having a hard time finding value in this user's history.

This discussion is fully warranted, and I think it's about time we act on what appears to be consensus support. Jess_talk|_edits 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The above assessment seems reasonable. Terra Novus has been given umpteen second chances but despite that has shown little sign of changing his attitude to the project. He appears to be somebody not cut out for editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban

After the above discussion and past discussions on Giniv/Terra Novus and any future identities from editing articles or participating in discussions involving the topic of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly defined.

• Support as proposer The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately I think an indefinite community ban is more appropriate, considering his conduct and past attempts to impose topic bans of this kind. There seem to be hardly any redeeming features in his editing. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I dont blame you an indefinite community ban is jumping the gun. We have never formally given out a topic ban as the ANI threads have shown. Lets give him WP:ROPE, I hate to say but I think he will hang himself with the rope. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Requests of this type have been started before, as Jclemens correctly commented. If anybody can point to a body of useful edits, that might be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thats why the community imposed ban rather than one he agrees to. bottom line he break the one we are imposing right now we will adress the next step.
• Support and Comment I think his long history of self-imposing topic bans and breaking them makes a strong case against another one being effective. I also think his history of editing other topics to include wording which relates to, but doesn't directly involve, creationism or pseudoscience makes the case for casting a wider net than those two topics alone. Therefore, I (very unfortunately) think a community ban is preferable to wasting more editor time reviewing contributions and inevitably discussing this again later. However, I would change my position if someone can find a string of useful edits he's made in the year he's been editing which we'd be remiss for losing. If they exist, I would encourage changing the topic ban to also include Science, generally. Jess_talk|_edits 21:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought of that but thats far too broad to be reasonable. His only issues in Science are when brings in Creationism or Pseudoscience into play... at least that I have observed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support expanded topic ban per Jess, at least. If a formally imposed ban is ineffective, as seems very possible, then a community ban would be appropriate to consider. This needs to be truly his or her last chance to contribute productively, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support the original proposal, with a caveat that if Terra Novus is unable to abide by the topic ban and contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia, any further disruption will result in a full community ban. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I thought I was abiding by a topic ban on the above subject already. I am surprised that Interpretive science is considered to be under that umbrella, but I will stop contributing to this area of Wikipedia if my behavior is viewed as disruptive. Taskforce Jupiter keeps me pretty busy anyways. I would leave with the note that perhaps some of the editors involved in this ANI are going on a wild goose chase without substance.--Novus Orator 02:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Rooster

I thought that this shouldn't go to AIV, and I hope I reported it to the right place. Someone keeps vandalizing the Rooster article (history), and the IP address keeps changing, so it's difficult to keep track of. Those involved so far:

• 95.28.65.19
• 93.80.212.5
• 81.211.117.162

--T H F S W (T · C · E) 18:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now added it to my watchlist, which was getting a little thin. I have to say I never thought I'd see an article where it says "Cockadoodledoo" and "Cocka-doodle-doo" redirect here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to either a quick case of SPI for a rangeblock, or RFPP for semi-protection of the article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

All three of the IP's listed emanate from Russia, of all places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In soviet Russia, page blocks you!— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Da! "America loves Smirnoff" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• What I want to know is why the heck are they calling Mikhail Kryukov a rooster? Silverseren^C 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• I wonder if this has something to do with the release of True Grit (2010 film)? Kelly ^hi! 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There's only one Rooster Cogburn, Pilgrim! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

    "Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!" Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

    • Don't forget that Barettas favorite informant was also Rooster. MarnetteD | Talk 01:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Semi'ed, three weeks, can always be extended. The range is a gaping wide /4, so options there are extremely limited. Courcelles 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Shakespeare authorship question: Zweigenbaum

Zweigenbaum (talk · contribs), a new (but remarkably wiki-savvy) user, has added the {{POV}} tag to the Shakespeare authorship question article four times over the past week, against talkpage consensus and failing to address most of the objections made to the tag. I'd block him for edit-warring and (not just for the tag) for tendentious editing, but I'm probably too involved in the content issues to use any admin tools on that article. I haven't exactly edited it, but I've argued some on the talkpage, and I've once removed the POV tag (I'm too impulsive). Would somebody like to take a look? These diffs [25][26][27][28] are where Zweigenbaum adds the tag. These [29][30][31] are where I warn him. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm always suspicious of precocious newbies. He should be given a block, atleast it'll get his attention. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the talk page indicates that tensions between regular editors of this article are already strained. Perhaps discussion on the talk page about temporary protection could be a way to de-escalate this, without blocking a new user. Just a suggestion. David Able (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about jumping to 'blocks to get his attention'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection is reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

O RLY? What purpose do you see semi serving? Nobody involved is less than four days old as a user (did I mention Zb has been adding the tag for a week?), and there's hardly any IP problem. Cavalry, nobody's going to block for such a reason, I'm sure. A good read of the talkpage is really what's wanted here, but it's full of tl;dr and I don't want to ruin anybody's Christmas... maybe I'll fullprotect for a few days, just to give the editors a break. After all this is the season for quarrelling with our families, not with co-editors. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Tis the season indeed. Is anyone else ready for Christmas to be OVER! Anyway, I'm not attempting to respond for another editor here...just commenting because it caught my attention: A semi-protect would (hopefully) prompt the new user in question to realize, "Hey, I can't edit the article anymore!" And then hopefully prompt them to look for alternatives, namely the talk page and to responding to his/her user messages. Encouraging him/her to open an RFC about the issue might be a way to go, or perhaps even opening one yourself, on their behalf, if nothing else but to cover all the bases before blocking. David Able (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Z can edit the article. Semi-protection only stops edits by users of less than four days old. That's why I mentioned the four days. He is by no means absent from the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 02:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Full protection. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Without having the will to work my way through the whole talkpage, it does appear there is some collaborative work going on between the main parties with Tom Reedy incorporating at least a few of Z's ideas into the article. That might suggest that it should remain unprotected, in spite of the (reasonably mild) edit-warring. However, the talkpage is such a mess I'm finding it hard to make sense of it (some of the sections seem to be out of order) - if you're familiar with the whole page you should probably just do what you think is best, since I doubt anyone else will manage to read it all. Trebor (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Trebor, that's a helpful comment. Yes, the page is a ghastly mess, mainly (IMO) due to the passionate tendentiousness of the two WP:FRINGE editors, of whom Zweigenbaum is one. And yes, I'm tolerably familiar with it, god help me. Bishonen | talk 03:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Question

Does this edit require oversight or no? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Revdelete should be sufficient. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO just vandalism, doesn't need anything. Prodego ^talk 02:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you believe something may require oversight, err on the side of caution and email User:Oversight rather than posting it to a noticeboard. Nakon 02:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio uploader

Resolved

 – User indef blocked until starts responding to talkpage notices

• BanglaGuy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think this user has an understanding of copyright. Uploading multiple images with claims that they are self-created, including team logos. Some blatant copyvio, too - such as File:Zohur Ahmed Chowdhury Stadium.jpg which was lifted straight from ESPN. The user has a page full of notices about past uploads and is pressing on with uploading new copyvio images anyway. Pretty sure all past uploads should be deleted as suspect. Kelly ^hi! 03:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Everything I checked was a copyvio. I'm going to nuke the lot just in case. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

John Boehner

Please semi-protect or full protect for a short time John Boehner. Siddownwaldo has been vandalising the article and now that he/she is blocked an IP, obviously associated with Siddownwaldo, is continuing the vandalism. IP could be blocked, but it may be easier to simply semi-protect for a short period of time. Arzel (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for one day (don't want to go longer given the article's prominence) because no-one should have to be bothered chasing around the IPs. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has been hit with a lot of IP vandalism recently, hopefully one day will suffice. Thanks. Arzel (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Rooster

I thought that this shouldn't go to AIV, and I hope I reported it to the right place. Someone keeps vandalizing the Rooster article (history), and the IP address keeps changing, so it's difficult to keep track of. Those involved so far:

• 95.28.65.19
• 93.80.212.5
• 81.211.117.162

--T H F S W (T · C · E) 18:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now added it to my watchlist, which was getting a little thin. I have to say I never thought I'd see an article where it says "Cockadoodledoo" and "Cocka-doodle-doo" redirect here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to either a quick case of SPI for a rangeblock, or RFPP for semi-protection of the article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

All three of the IP's listed emanate from Russia, of all places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In soviet Russia, page blocks you!— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Da! "America loves Smirnoff" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• What I want to know is why the heck are they calling Mikhail Kryukov a rooster? Silverseren^C 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• I wonder if this has something to do with the release of True Grit (2010 film)? Kelly ^hi! 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There's only one Rooster Cogburn, Pilgrim! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

    "Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!" Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

    • Don't forget that Barettas favorite informant was also Rooster. MarnetteD | Talk 01:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Semi'ed, three weeks, can always be extended. The range is a gaping wide /4, so options there are extremely limited. Courcelles 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Shakespeare authorship question: Zweigenbaum

Zweigenbaum (talk · contribs), a new (but remarkably wiki-savvy) user, has added the {{POV}} tag to the Shakespeare authorship question article four times over the past week, against talkpage consensus and failing to address most of the objections made to the tag. I'd block him for edit-warring and (not just for the tag) for tendentious editing, but I'm probably too involved in the content issues to use any admin tools on that article. I haven't exactly edited it, but I've argued some on the talkpage, and I've once removed the POV tag (I'm too impulsive). Would somebody like to take a look? These diffs [32][33][34][35] are where Zweigenbaum adds the tag. These [36][37][38] are where I warn him. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm always suspicious of precocious newbies. He should be given a block, atleast it'll get his attention. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the talk page indicates that tensions between regular editors of this article are already strained. Perhaps discussion on the talk page about temporary protection could be a way to de-escalate this, without blocking a new user. Just a suggestion. David Able (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about jumping to 'blocks to get his attention'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection is reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

O RLY? What purpose do you see semi serving? Nobody involved is less than four days old as a user (did I mention Zb has been adding the tag for a week?), and there's hardly any IP problem. Cavalry, nobody's going to block for such a reason, I'm sure. A good read of the talkpage is really what's wanted here, but it's full of tl;dr and I don't want to ruin anybody's Christmas... maybe I'll fullprotect for a few days, just to give the editors a break. After all this is the season for quarrelling with our families, not with co-editors. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Tis the season indeed. Is anyone else ready for Christmas to be OVER! Anyway, I'm not attempting to respond for another editor here...just commenting because it caught my attention: A semi-protect would (hopefully) prompt the new user in question to realize, "Hey, I can't edit the article anymore!" And then hopefully prompt them to look for alternatives, namely the talk page and to responding to his/her user messages. Encouraging him/her to open an RFC about the issue might be a way to go, or perhaps even opening one yourself, on their behalf, if nothing else but to cover all the bases before blocking. David Able (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Z can edit the article. Semi-protection only stops edits by users of less than four days old. That's why I mentioned the four days. He is by no means absent from the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 02:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Full protection. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Without having the will to work my way through the whole talkpage, it does appear there is some collaborative work going on between the main parties with Tom Reedy incorporating at least a few of Z's ideas into the article. That might suggest that it should remain unprotected, in spite of the (reasonably mild) edit-warring. However, the talkpage is such a mess I'm finding it hard to make sense of it (some of the sections seem to be out of order) - if you're familiar with the whole page you should probably just do what you think is best, since I doubt anyone else will manage to read it all. Trebor (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Trebor, that's a helpful comment. Yes, the page is a ghastly mess, mainly (IMO) due to the passionate tendentiousness of the two WP:FRINGE editors, of whom Zweigenbaum is one. And yes, I'm tolerably familiar with it, god help me. Bishonen | talk 03:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Question

Does this edit require oversight or no? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Revdelete should be sufficient. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO just vandalism, doesn't need anything. Prodego ^talk 02:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you believe something may require oversight, err on the side of caution and email User:Oversight rather than posting it to a noticeboard. Nakon 02:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio uploader

Resolved

 – User indef blocked until starts responding to talkpage notices

• BanglaGuy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think this user has an understanding of copyright. Uploading multiple images with claims that they are self-created, including team logos. Some blatant copyvio, too - such as File:Zohur Ahmed Chowdhury Stadium.jpg which was lifted straight from ESPN. The user has a page full of notices about past uploads and is pressing on with uploading new copyvio images anyway. Pretty sure all past uploads should be deleted as suspect. Kelly ^hi! 03:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Everything I checked was a copyvio. I'm going to nuke the lot just in case. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

John Boehner

Please semi-protect or full protect for a short time John Boehner. Siddownwaldo has been vandalising the article and now that he/she is blocked an IP, obviously associated with Siddownwaldo, is continuing the vandalism. IP could be blocked, but it may be easier to simply semi-protect for a short period of time. Arzel (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for one day (don't want to go longer given the article's prominence) because no-one should have to be bothered chasing around the IPs. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has been hit with a lot of IP vandalism recently, hopefully one day will suffice. Thanks. Arzel (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty

Resolved

 – Doc talk 07:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You may recall that User:Dylan Flaherty came to WP:ANI with a frivolous accusation of "drive-by tagging" demanding that I be sanctioned for reverting his removal of a tag. The unanimous consensus at ANI was that the tag was appropriately placed and that his removal of the tag was disruptive, bordering on vandalism, and that Dylan should disengage. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Drive-by_tagging_and_false_accusations_of_vandalism.

Instead, he has canvassed other editors to remove the tag, and is back to edit-warring to remove the tag, despite the fact that he has refused to engage with me on the talk-page about multiple editors' multiple complaints about NPOV problems with the article. See Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Dispute_over_tags. Given the very clear warnings at ANI that DF has disregarded and his continued disruptive behavior, I hope administrators can intervene. DF has been topic-banned at Sarah Palin for similar WP:IDHT violations. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#User:Dylan_Flaherty_and_Sarah_Palin. More severe sanctions are apparently necessary, given that previous ones are not having the desired preventative effect against his disruption. THF (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that THF keeps inserting the tags as badges of shame, going against consensus. He has been consistently unwilling to explain what in specific motivates his tags, so they keep getting removed by whoever's paying attention at the moment. The rest of this complaint is simply frivolous. Dylan Flaherty 03:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Charles_G._Koch#Dispute_over_tags shows why this claim of DF is entirely false. I've repeatedly explained why I've added the tags. I get WP:IDHT in response without any engagement of my legitimate concerns. THF (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

THF, you need to present your argument better. I clicked on the first link and saw that Dylan Flaherty removed a template. TFD (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan complained to ANI that I added a template. He was told that I was right to add the template, and that he shouldn't remove the template. He kept complaining to ANI, and was told he would be blocked if he didn't drop the matter. He didn't drop the matter, and is edit-warring to remove the tag--to the point that the page is now protected with Dylan's removal of the tag. THF (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As explained below, this is not at all an accurate summary. I recommend that people read my response and also see for themselves. THF is not a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty 04:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have any doubt that the consensus is for removal of the tags, please read the article talk page.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Dylan Flaherty 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have any doubt that there isn't consensus for removal of the tags, see [47], [48], [49], and [50] and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Drive-by_tagging_and_false_accusations_of_vandalism where DF's argument was previously rejected. Why do I have to relitigate this several times a week when Dylan was explicitly warned to disengage and drop the matter? THF (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the AN/I report did recognize that you were uncivil, but they were not willing to get involved in a content issue. I was warned to drop the AN/I report, not to drop my participation on the article. Dylan Flaherty 03:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus is to remove the tags, basically because multiple editors agree that there are no current NPOV problems. The title of this post is in error as well, since Dylan is only one of several editors removing the tags. He did not canvass as far as I know- I came to the article entirely on my own. The basic problem is that THF is unwilling to give us a rundown on any problems he sees with the current article, but rather points to multiple threads on a long talk page, which other editors either see as resolved, or can't make heads or tails of in terms of current complaints. Since THF is the one saying there are problems with the article, he should clearly and concisely explain why he thinks so. Editors have asked him to do this multiple times, but he refuses. Meanwhile, he maintains a slow edit war over the tags on the article. So what you have here is THF edit warring and refusing to discuss. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I endorse Becritical's summary. Dylan Flaherty 03:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add, I'm not defending the actions of the editors involved re the incivility on the talk page or edit warring. I'm only saying that THF needs to constructively engage on the talk page. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors -- THF, Collect, ArthurRubin, MBMAdmirer -- say there are current NPOV problems. An NPOV tag indicates there is an NPOV dispute, and there plainly is one. I've repeatedly concisely explained what's wrong with the article. Dylan then adds twenty talk-page comments with personal attacks against me so that the talk-page is unreadable and then uses that as an excuse to remove the tags because I didn't respond while I was out of town for two days. Again: ANI has already weighed in on this. Dylan explicitly ignored repeated warnings about this. It's harassment that I have to keep relitigating this meta-conversation. THF (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a single one of them is willing to state what the problems are. In fact, as I pointed out last time, MBMadmirer asked you to list your complaints twice and you refused. Dylan Flaherty 03:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't lie, Dylan, since I've listed my complaints several times, as has Collect and Arthur Rubin. I've refused to relist them because you play WP:IDHT and repeat your request after I've relisted my complaints several times. THF (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to express disagreement, even to the point of saying that my statements are false. However, accusing me of lying is uncivil. Apologize. Dylan Flaherty 04:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article-in-question should be protected, until the dispute is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has been protected; unfortunately, DF's edit-warring has been rewarded because the tag is absent -- which is especially problematic, because this is a BLP that violates NPOV. THF (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, that would only prevent productive editing. There is a clear consensus to remove the tags. Dylan Flaherty 03:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that THF wasn't entirely candid about those supporting links. The first[51] is from an editor who then admitted that there are no current POV issues[52] The second[53] is from an editor who cited a long-deleted passage[54] as evidence of current POV issues and then argued for inclusion of tags based solely on WP:NPOVD not being binding. The third[55] is just you. The fourth[56] is an editor who immediately self-reverted[57] and is not a participant on the talk page. Dylan Flaherty 04:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes THF has a point that some editors do think there are NPOV problems, or at least say they want the tags. Unfortunately, they refuse to give a summary of extant complaints. And that's the problem. I came in with the intention of helping out, but was given absolutely no help in understanding what people are currently concerned about, but rather was told by longtime editors there that they couldn't figure it out either. And the refusal to engage continues. The consensus I spoke of may not be current but we did recently seem to have general consensus on the talk page before recent events. Still no idea why the tags should be there though. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying to another editor, "Please don't lie" is extremely insulting. Also, listing User:Collect and User:Arthur Rubin to support your case inspires no confidence. TFD (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty is not really the problem here, but neither is THF. THF simply needs to restate his concerns in one spot so others can address them. I suggest this AN/I be closed. I suggest THF follow the advice discussed on Becritical's Talk page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that this should be closed, but I do think that the fact that THF filed this report is a problem, as is his incivility. Dylan Flaherty 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

THF is repeating his incivility elsewhere.[58] Dylan Flaherty 04:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I retract what I said about Protection. Apparently, that's what it took to get THF to provide some objections. I'll save my comments about the merit of these objections for the talk page, though.

I believe we can close this report now. Dylan Flaherty 05:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, don't include me in this. I self reverted because I don't want to be involved; not because I agree one way or another; read my edit summary next time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe my summary of your role is fair: you self-reverted and are not involved in the discussion. This doesn't mean you endorse anything I've said, just that you aren't actively supporting THF on this matter. Is that inaccurate? Dylan Flaherty 05:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is; fine.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How about we just collapse this thread "unresolved" like the last one?[59] It's not going anywhere, right? Seems to be a trend... Doc talk 05:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is resolved. THF listed some of his complaints. Dylan Flaherty 06:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Remember that maintenance tags aren't the equivalent of a "badge of shame": they are indicators placed by editors that an article may need improvement (and editors will disagree about their usage, as always). "Badge of shame" could be seen as "POV terminology": it's just a "tag". Cheers :> Doc talk 06:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

They're certainly not supposed to be badges of shame, yet they are sometimes used that way. This improper use is characterized by leaving the tags on to discredit the article over an extended period or as a permanent protest over not getting consensus for desired changes. It would be like a creationist leaving an NPOV tag on Evolution indefinitely just because nobody seemed willing to change the article to start with "Evolution is a lie". :-) Dylan Flaherty 13:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If no one is going to enforce the administrative warnings that were issued at the last ANI to prevent Dylan's repeated abusive behavior, can someone at least revert Dylan's removal so I'm not edit-warring like he is? Thanks. THF (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

To be quite clear, you are mistaken with regard to any claim of admin support for your badges of shame. The warning was about dragging content disputes to this forum, which you are, ironically, guilty of now. Dylan Flaherty 13:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally uninvolved in this but I find some things very concerning. Dylan Flaherty keeps saying that the problems for NPOV weren't laid out yet if you read the talk page you will see that s/he states multiple times that they are laid out but that s/he doesn't agree with what is said. Looking at Dylan's contributions, I find it very concerning that the editors who have made comments are than hit with a talk page comment by editor Dylan. The problems were again laid out by THF here with Dylan there trying to knock them down. From the beginning of that comment by Dylan is this, and I quote; " Unfortunately, they were neither novel nor compelling". I'm sorry but this is not a good attitude when trying to resolve a problem. I'm sorry to say but Dylan seems to overwhelm conversations making it quite difficult to follow discussions going on. I have to say that I think Dylan is too close to this article and should stay away for awhile to allow normal discussion to continue. Please read the talk page to see what I saw in all of this. Also looking at Dylan's contributions helps to show that Dylan is too close to the topic to be objective. As I said above, I'm not involved and this is just my personal opinion of what I see going on. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for piling on. I will give your opinion exactly as much weight as I have always given it. Dylan Flaherty 13:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Dylan Flaherty indefinitely following the above response, bearing in mind that this is the 3rd or 4th time in little over a week that this one editor has appeared on an admin noticeboard in regard to their interactions with other contributors and the failure to resolve issues through discussion or other methods of dispute resolution. As soon as an admin is convinced that they are prepared to change their confrontational behaviour and follow the preferred WP ethos of collegiate and respectful collaboration, they may be unblocked without further reference to me. For the record, I have previously had dealings with and warned this editor regarding disputes they were engaged in with User:Malke 2010 when I was their co-mentor. I welcome review of my actions here and then. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

His request for unblock seems unlikely to win him support. [60]. [61] [62] showing his multiple posts to a page where he was disinvited also shows the degree of argumentativeness and drama intrinsic to him. Collect (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder - I had also previously warned Dylan Flaherty about his conduct regarding his posting upon Collects page. I still believe that I am uninvolved, since such warnings are within the remit of administrators. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Meh. I've been reading this thread and the one above, thinking, 'It's more or less inevitable that dude's going to be indeffed for this stuff one of these days.' I wasn't really expecting it to be today, but I'm not leaping to say, 'No, no, please, unblock him immediately! Wikipedia needs more of his unique way of ignoring other users while endlessly haranguing them at the same time! How will we get our daily dose of needless drama without him?' I suppose he should probably be unblocked if he seems likely to work in a true spirit of collaboration, but I have a sad suspicion that if he knew how to do that, he'd already be doing it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have declined unblock. I'm tired of seeing this user here and his approach to other users is simply horrendous. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Disclaimer: I've been involved with disputes with this user in the past. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to find out this wasn't the first block for this person...Dylan's mentioned on this page having an unspecified earlier account; some of his earliest edits were to his monobook. Perhaps he could be unblocked if he demonstrated some understanding as to why his editing style is problematic, or promised to stay away from political articles for some period of time and contributed in some other way. Has he actually contributed much in the way of content? Seems to be mainly talk page wrangling. Kelly ^hi! 14:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• While I am not uninvolved, at this point I don't think that the indef is inappropriate. The level of "I didn't hear that" (in various iterations) and tendentiousness does not lead me to believe that he's likely to become a productive contributor. Horologium (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I echo what FisherQueen has said (it also sums up my thoughts on this); at this point in time, I don't have anything further to add to that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:CHILDOFMIDNIGHT, a good block. Incessant, nasty aggression will always lead to the same bad end. This just doesn't seem like someone with either the desire or the capability to play well with others. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sad to say; this is a good block. Dylan has appeared in absolutely every single one of the contentious or problematic articles on my Watchlist in the last couple of weeks. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For a collaborative, respectful (and absolutely insane) editor, that might not be a problem — in and of itself. For an editor with a combative and tendentious attitude, it's a recipe for disaster. Case in point, sadly, here. jæs (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Good block. Hopefully we won't have an ANI thread involving Dylan every week now? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing untowards about this block, Dylan almost unendingly attacked more or less every editor who disagreed with him and I must say, sloppily so. I'd also echo what jæs said, one has to be a bit crazy to even edit those articles, which are indeed PoV driven and flawed as to both sources and content. Crazy can be very ok, even helpful, but crazy and battlesome stalls the encyclopedia in many, even more harmful ways. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan's first edit edit was 8/30/10, and he was an expert Wikipedian on day 1. North8000 20:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I support this block, as an editor who has worked fairly closely with him for few weeks now. However, if he states that he is willing to work to see where other people he disagrees with actually have valid points even if/when they are generally POV pushers, and stop being uncivil, I believe he should be unblocked. What Dylan does have is a good grasp of RS. I'm not an expert in his personal POV or whether he pushes that on articles. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Good block This user seems more interested in picking fights and taking offense at the actions of everyone else than in trying to genuinely improve encyclopedia articles. If he indicates that he understands how to work with others, then an unblock may be in order. Otherwise, based on his history (including the fact that he has been here a very long time, see the first day's edits of this account) I don't see where we need anymore of his dramamongering. --Jayron32 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifteen501

For a good portion of the past week, I have been in contact with Fifteen501 (talk · contribs) concerning several of his well intentioned but generally unconstructive edits to several pages. While going through his edits, I discovered his contributions to List of Pucca characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). From discussion in edit summaries and on the talk page, it appears that he has been arguing that a particular entity within the show is a separate character from another and it is called "Gyarados" (the name of a Pokémon). I did a Google search and determined that this character does not exist as far as the Internet is concerned, and also his argument for the character's name (if it did exist) was flimsy at best (he was using a Taiwan Chinese name that appeared in some comic adaptation which is the exact same name used for the Pokémon in its ROC releases).

I removed the section from the article, and began this section on his talk page (which he has removed twice) and responded to the thread he began on the article's talk page. Over the course of the past week, he has added the section back into the article despite my repeated requests that he provide a reliable source to show that this character exists and has that particular name, while he insists that I watch two particular episodes of this show to discover the truth. I sat down today and spent 15 minutes watching these two episodes and still discovered that he has been basing his entire argument on a case of mondegreen, and also discovered that he is the individual who has been perpetrating this falsehood across the Internet (his edits at zh.wiki as Fifteen501 (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Fifteen501 as well as some edits at a fan Wikia).

I cannot seem to get through to this user that he is hearing things wrong and he should stop editing the article to add this wrong information. I am not sure if English is his first language, and he just seems to keep ignoring me and adding the information back despite my civil and blunt requests that he stop.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

At least from his last message to me he seems to realize that the character is not a separate one, but he still insists on using the wrong name. I am not sure that if he edits List of Pucca characters, again, that he will continue to refer to this character by this wrong name, and I will have to remove the blatantly false information, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'm just going to link to this discussion for the time being.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong information or not, the article wasn't even formatted for sources. I sandboxed the whole thing, and the information should be re-inserted when sources can be found and properly formatted. Hope this helps. But from a google search, it is questionable if there are any RS on this subject, and thus whether or not it is even notable. The Pucca (TV series) doesn't have sources either. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not really going to help, particularly when subjects are notable but don't receive any sort of critical coverage because it's a kids show.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

But what is it not going to help? Articles can't be written here without WP:RS. I know you want administrative action on the user inserting incorrect information, but that's a matter of sourcing. Without sourcing, what can an administrator do? If what you just said is true, that there are no WP:RS, then the article needs to be deleted. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a deletionist. Lists of characters from a fictional work can be made into articles, and the reliable source for the information should very well be the piece of fiction itself. There is no reason to have blanked the entire character list and now have your sights set on sending any page regarding the Pucca TV show to AFD. The content of the article is not the issue. The issue is that this individual was being unresponsive to common sense. User conduct is the issue. Not content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If he's been edit warring, maybe you should report him for that, though. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Other than that, your complaint seems to be that he is telling untruth, and that is not for an admin to judge. And you're wrong, articles are based on secondary sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding blatantly wrong information is a problem, and I would find it hard to claim that it is any way plausible that there is a Gyarados in anything not licensed by Nintendo. But indeed there does seem to be a slight lack of sources on that article. It doesn't have to be blanked, but if there are no sources to be found, then the article's existence would be called in to question. Prodego ^talk 02:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't want to be disruptive to the process. It's just my observation that this will give it the best possible chance of being sourced. Otherwise, it will go on as usual, and the editors involved don't understand our sourcing or notability policies. If there are sources, this will be the best way to motivate, but perhaps it was a mistake. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Becritical, the work of fiction is a reliable source when discussing the work of fiction. You do not need anything other than the work of fiction itself to say what a character does or what happens in a film. Reporting on what happens in a work of fiction is not considered original research at all. If that were true, a lot of our articles on works of fiction would be empty or non-existant. I brought this up here because I needed someone else to talk to Fifteen501 so he does not add this information back in the article. At this point, I've restored portions of an article to where it was a sixth of the length is was prior to my removal of the blatantly wrong content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly a lot better the way you restored it. Let me try to explain what I'm saying about sources on the article. Yes, you can use the primary source for books and film, but as far as I know there is no exception for the requirement that articles be mainly based on secondary sources. Further, this subject does not, if what you said is correct, get coverage in secondary sources, and therefore may not have any notability for Wikipedia at all. So I'm really curious about what other people would say about whether an article about X, where X is a work of fiction, can be written entirely or almost entirely based on X. Can you write an article on a work of fiction without establishing notability and without referring to secondary sources? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources will rarely ever exist concerning various aspects of a work of fiction intended for an audience below the age one enters middle/secondary school. But, again, this is not the point. I need someone else to come in and tell Fifteen501 that he is not allowed to add information on this character he thinks exists and he thinks is called "Gyarados".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that many of the articles on works of fiction do not seem to meet the wp:notability guideline or the NOR policy. NOR is very clear, and if there is an exception I'd really like to know about it. And re your problem, I will post on his page, though I'm not an admin. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles consisting of lists of characters are generally allowed if the original work of fiction is notable and the list of characters would otherwise clutter up the main article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Is Pucca notable? I posted on Fifteen501's page. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been shown on TV in 22 countries.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in this. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Geez man. Let it drop. Pucca is notable so the rest of the topics generaly related ot it are notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a longstanding question with me how the notability and sourcing policies relate to these kinds of things. Right now, I'm of the opinion that either they should be changed or applied. But you have my (repeat) apology that your articles came up just when this question is coming to a head for me. Hopefully there will be input on this issue. Be assured your article is in no danger till it gets figured out. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sunflowergal34 blocked

I am opening this ANI thread in response to an email to unblock-en-l from the user, appealing their block. I think this situation calls for wider community review.

Will Beback blocked Sunflowergal34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for sockpuppetry a bit ago; this had been discussed here on ANI a day and a half-ish ago with a brief conclusion that them now openly admitting who they previously were and discussing actions on policy pages didn't require a block evasion block now, though only 3 people other than the person who made the report seem to have commented.

Will's decision seems to be based on the outstanding indefinite block on the prior "main account" that Jimmy Wales imposed this summer ( Petrosianii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ). The user was editing for hire, cf the varied controversies surrounding that. They state they have stopped, and based on cursory review (not intimately familar with the case) openly disclosed what they edited and what accounts were previously used.

I believe that the block is in line with policy, but it may be appropriate for community consensus to review it. Comments and opinions welcome.

Will is going to be notified of this thread immediately after I finish posting it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: the master account was blocked by Wales in June 2009, not this summer.[63]   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that the editor, who claims to have earned tens of thousands of dollars a month editing Wikipedia, is being honest. Today, when questioned, he admitted to five accounts and said those were all, but now he says there were more and he's trying to bargain for an unblock by offering to reveal more. He has not disclosed all of the accounts operated by his firm, he has explicitly refused to reveal which articles he created, and he has repeatedly lied. He seems more concerned about his business than about improving the encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not need editors who rely on subterfuge to use the project for personal gain.   Will Beback  talk  03:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A few days ago the editor wrote, ...I would agree with you that some of the articles were schlock. But they are no more schlock than a stub of two sentences that sits there for 3 years. Also, some clients only paid for "schlock" (you get what you pay for).[64] So the editor says he has written "schlock" simply because the clients weren't willing to pay for good articles. Despite earning "tens of thousands of dollars" a month, there's no indication that he or his firm have ever donated anything to the foundation.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor's latest email to unblock--en-l says that he is going to forget about Wikipedia. This was about half an hour ago. Unless he changes his mind, this discussion seems now moot. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Did that e-mail come before or after this series of talk page comments full of taunting, wheedling and just plain kvetching? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And how did that "schlock" thing work, anyway? Did they have a Premium package, where you got a fully sourced GA-grade article, a Regular package, where you got a good start-class article with enough refs to stop it from being deleted, and a Schlock package which got your name into Wikipedia, but with no guarantee it would survive an AfD? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why the maintenance contract is so important. Otherwise, they don't give a refund if the article is deleted.[65]   Will Beback  talk  07:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If those guidelines are an example of the quality of their writing, we should press harder to find out what articles they uploaded, because reading it made me want to edit it to fix all the problems in it: duplication of headings, contradictory information, inconsistency of formatting, etc. If they wrote articles that way, we need to fix them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 and reference style changes

Brief summary User:Bender235 was advised in two ANI threads [66] [67] to stop making minor stylistic changes to references, but refuses to desist. Now he is spamming article talk pages about the same stylistic changes (contribs). I have notified the user about this thread on his talk page.

Longer description A recent ANI thread about User:Bender235 closed with this summary (link) :

It is clear that multiple editors have objected to the mass-conversion, either by reverting, or by asking Bender235 to stop. Bender235 is reminded that, even though he may not have broken a specific rule, he did cause a degree of controversy, and is therfor advised stop making changes to {{reflist}} in articles. — Edokter • Talk • 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In a slightly earlier ANI thread, Bender235 was advised [68]

... For now, please stop making such changes in bulk, as there's a fair chance the Proposal will make it moot. Rd232 talk 10:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 has interpreted this to mean that he can still make the edits if he spams all the talk pages of the articles (talk page edits; search for "reference") He has not stopped making the edits in question, despite the clear language of the ANI threads.

Starting the same conversation on dozens of articles is completely counterproductive. Moreover, Bender235 is aware that his edits go against this Arbcom finding:

"Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." [69]

At this point, it is starting to look like a firm editing restriction, backed up by possible blocks, will be necessary. The pattern of IDIDNTHEARTHAT is very clear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think at this point we need to make it an explicit editing restriction: Bender is prohibited from making changes to the style of existing references in any articles. For most editors this would be draconian, but Bender235 has shown the lack of ability to make proper judgements regarding this. As a result, he should be forbidden from making any such changes. If he cannot be trusted to make good choices, then we should remove the option. --Jayron32 22:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Erm, there is a conflation of issues here: the previous ANI thread was about changing references/ to {{reflist}}. That will soon be moot, since the proposal to change the CSS at Wikipedia:VPR#styling_.3Creferences_.2F.3E_like_Reflist appears likely to be closed (at some point) as consensus for, and then that's moot. That still leaves the column formatting issue, which is also under discussion at VPR, less conclusively. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with posting such column-formatting style suggestions on talk pages, thought it would be preferable to get a style guideline that simply approved it so it could just be done. At any rate, if we want to agree that editors shouldn't make such proposals on lots of talk pages, fine, but for now I don't see he's doing anything wrong with that. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Both ANI threads reflect the same underlying problematic behavior, which is making mass stylistic changes to articles. The fact that bender235 makes more than one type of stylistic change only reinforces the pattern. The problem with making the same suggestion on numerous talk pages is that it makes discussion very difficult, by forcing editors to reply over and over to the same question. This is the point of the Arbcom finding I quoted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"...by forcing editors to reply over and over to the same question"

That is wrong. For example, I asked whether I should implement {{Reflist|colwidth=45em}} here. Now if someone would've replied: "no, please don't do that, because on WP:MADONNA we've always used {{Reflist|2}} and would like to continue to do that", I wouldn't have changed anything on this article or any related. But as a matter of fact, I was asked to do the exact opposite. —bender235 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. I was adviced not to change the reference list style w/out testing the local consensus. So I did test the local consensus, and asked if anyone objected the change. In most cases, nobody object, and in some cases people even encouraged me to do the change.
I really don't know what you want me to do. If I act per WP:BRD, it's wrong because I allegedly "impose" my prefered style on articles ignoring the local consensus. Now if I turn BRD around and start the discussion first, I'm "spamming the talk pages". What the hell I'm supposed to do? —bender235 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's completely clear from the quotes above what you are supposed to do: stop making these stylistic changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So in your opinion, no one should be allowed to ever make these kind of changes to articles, even when it has been discussed on talk pages a priori? Then your opinion is wrong. —bender235 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say "no one", "ever". Jayron32 has explained, above, the problem that this thread is about: "Bender235 has shown the lack of ability to make proper judgements regarding this". You are aware that there is no consensus for your changes; that the MOS explicitly discourages them; and two consecutive ANI threads asked you to stop. Continuing to make the same edits under those circumstances is patently inappropriate, and escalating them by also spamming talk pages verges on violating WP:POINT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So this "rule" is only supposed to apply to me? Because of your Wikihounding that led to two ANI, one of which I actually posted?

"You are aware that there is no consensus for your changes"

No, I am not. That was why I was asking on the talk pages in the first place. To find out what is consensus. And people replied, and said: "yes, colwidth looks nice, please change". —bender235 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the "I didn't hear that" aspect again. How many people need to tell you there isn't consensus for the changes? Two ANI threads asking you to stop is more than enough. It appears you're just filibustering at this point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to memore like you've made up your mind about this and aren't sufficiently assuming good faith or listening to Bender trying to figure out how best to handle this. Rd232 ^talk 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it seems like you still haven't gotten the point. The notion that "there is no consensus" may be correct globally. However, I was specificly asking on each article, whether local consensus was pro or con. So your assertion that I was ignoring consensus is just nonsense. —bender235 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Assume for the sake of argument that I go to every talk page you leave a note on, and point out that I disagree. What then? You know that various editors disagree with the changes, not just me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you told me numerous times here and here that I have no right to decide on the reference style of articles I haven't contributed to before, that "rule" would apply to you here as well. Which means your objection does not count, unless you have contributed to the specific article.

Obviously that "rule" conflicts with everything from WP:OWN to WP:BOLD, but you made it up, and you repeatedly uttered the fact that I have breached that "rule". —bender235 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that anyone can object is a key reason why it's silly to make style changes as you have been. When there are disagreements, our firm rule is to keep the established style, and there is no limitation on who can object. In practice people don't object if an article is changed by its frequent editors in the course of heavy editing, but they do object to widespread changes by editors who have never edited the articles before. This is well known to people who follow the MOS or WP:CITE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:DRNC? I guess not. —bender235 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that essay about content edits. But random stylistic changes (e.g. ENGVER, reference formatting) are not the same – these should be avoided, and reverted when they are made. We have a longstanding consensus, in the MOS and in arbitration cases, that editors should not change between optional styles in articles, and that making such changes is, in general, disruptive rather than productive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You agree with the essay on content edits? WP:DRNC doesn't even apply to those edits, because how can there be an a priori consensus about a content change or addition? That would be absurd. —bender235 (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is a prior posting on the talk page, with some reasonable time allowed for possible responses and consensus respected, I really don't see the problem. The whole tenor of the previous discussions was not forcing style changes, by fait accompli editing, and if Bender has stopped doing that (I haven't checked), then there's no real problem, is there? It might reasonably be decided that we should change policy (or possibly interpret existing policy) to declare that proposing this on lots of talk pages should be prohibited, but it seems a perfectly good faith action, and mentioning WP:POINT in this context is really not appropriate. Now if someone wants to point to a policy basis for disallowing this, or to propose creating one (and request Bender to stop pending the outcome of that discussion), fine, otherwise, this thread doesn't really seem to have anywhere to go. Rd232 ^talk 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's silly to require people to go around dozens of talk pages making the same comment: "I object, and therefore per WP:MOS the policy is that we keep the established style". This is what the arbcom case is getting at: it's not appropriate to go around making so many edits in a way that exhausts the ability of those you know disagree with the edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I only see one solution for this dispute: WP:CITE has to have a clear recommendation on whether columns are allowed, or disallowed. Because if there's a recommendation to have them, everyone should be allowed to implement them. And if there's no recommendation, no one should be allowed to, and the feature as a whole might be deleted. Which brings us to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Final proposal. —bender235 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how hard this is to understand. Stop making any changes to reflist formats until the VPPR proposal concludes with consensus in your favor. It's not rocket science. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I understood it. I thought I was urged to not make "mass changes" w/out finding out the local consensus. So I tried to find out the local consensus. But okay, I'll stop doing it until WP:VPR has come to a conclusion, on way or the other. —bender235 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Columns are allowed" or even "Columns are recommended" is not the same as "Columns are required". Something that is allowed, but not required, is called "optional". Per CBM, MOS, wiki practice, and numerous arb precedents are that if something optional is done a particular way in some article, leave it alone unless there is consensus to change it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the main point that needs to be explained to Bender235 is that, through the discussion that was undertaken at Village Pump:Proposals, the coding for both types of referencing is going to be changed so that they are identical. Therefore, no changes between the two styles should ever be made again anywhere on Wikipedia unless Reflist is needed to add specific dimensions (which is a fairly rare occurrence). Therefore, Bender needs to stop changing these referencing styles permanently, since they will be the same exact thing. Silverseren^C 04:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (semi-trolling) But think of his edit counter! How dare one make a single change to CSS that denies a dedicated editor the unique opportunity to make tens of thousands if not millions of edits?! Tijfo098 (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

JFYI: This was never about replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}}, therefore it is not affected by this proposal.

All I did was inquiring the local consensus on several talk pages, which CBM called "spamming". —bender235 (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Back on the 14th, Bender asked me what other gnomic work he can do if he can't do this.[70] I didn't answer, as I was not sure how to answer. Anyone here have suggestions? To me, the most obvious thing would be to look for spelling and grammar mistakes in articles, which affect wikipedia's credibility to the reading public, far more than any technical stuff about column widths. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Other suggestions could include WP:WIKIFY, which involves adding wikilinks and section headers, CAT:UNCAT, which besides being a bit of an oxymoron, is involved in categorizing articles, indeed, anything at {{Active Wiki Fixup Projects}} could use some help. --Jayron32 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AFC, WP:NPP, WP:CVU, he could write his own articles...he could improve existing articles...he could look through images for false claims of ownership or fair use...really, there's so much more than moving references around (and for that matter, he could format internal citations to add paramaters missing, like author and page title). I hear there are still several thousand WP:BLP's that need references... Seriously Bender, use the left mouse button instead of your keyboard for a while and click around, you'll find something. I think you're genuinely trying to help here, you're just doing something that isn't particularly helpful. Look around, you'll find all sorts of gnomish work that needs to be done. N419BH 21:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did all that and more over the past 6½ years. Besides creating and expanding articles from time to time, I've been fixing typos, adding/fixing infoboxes, fixing broken citations, implementing citation templates, and restructuring appendices. And as a minor part of it, in about 1% of the articles I edited, I replaced {{Reflist|2}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} where I considered it useful. And just because someone didn't like {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, he reverted it everywhere saying there was "no consensus" to use it. And after all, this is the third ANI regarding this dispute.

Actually I didn't ask Baseball Bugs what to do, but how to do it. Because if Wikipedia rules where actually like User:CBM claims, which was that I have no rights to modify the style of an article I haven't contributed significant content to, I couldn't do anything of the things mentioned above (except for typofixing, maybe). Because restructuring the appendix inevitably changes the style. Fixing an infobox inevitably changes the style. Implementing citation templates inevitably changes the style. If Wikipedia rules were actually prohibiting me from doing these kind of edits, then there is nothing left. —bender235 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What you asked me was:

"So, what gnomic work can I do from now on w/out risking a block? Obviously ref style changes are a no-no, and so are citation cleanups. How can I do those minor improvement from now on?"

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "how can I do those" if I'm supposed to (a) establish a status of "major contributor" (to a specific article) before making minor edits, and (b) discuss every minor edit on the article's talk page before actually implementing it. I always thought that (a) no one, no matter how much he contributed, owns an article or has the final say, and (b) consensus is established by bold moves. Like WP:CONSENSUS puts it: "In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit; If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns." But now, for some reason, this policy has been turned up-side-down. —bender235 (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy is different for style changes, that's all. So for example, yes, if a page has an established reference style that's reasonable, you shouldn't change it to citation templates. In effect, if you want to look at it that way, there is a partial exception to WP:OWN in that the first person to establish a citation style (or a variation of English, come to that) gets to WP:OWN that aspect of the article, barring a strong reason to change those style aspects. And also, "consensus is established by bold moves"? No, consensus is established in various ways; for some things, boldness is not appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 07:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See, there's the problem. Changing from "colour" to "color" might be merely a style change, but implementing a citation template is more, because it also produces meta tags and a "Z3988" context object in HTML. Likewise, implementing {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} is more, because it makes Wikipedia articles accessible platform independent. —bender235 (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the question you're really asking is, "What can I do on Wikipedia without ever risking a warning/block?" And the answer is "nothing." Because there's always opportunity for misunderstandings, misinterpretations and outright mistakes. The key is to listen when multiple folks say "You're doing it wrong," and try to establish a consensus before moving forward. WP:BOLD is fine, but remember that it's Bold-Revert-Discuss. People have been upset because your technique has been "Bold-Revert-'Keep Making The Same Changes on Multiple Articles Anyway". Just keep gnoming, but be willing to step back a bit when your changes are questioned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I always acted on WP:BRD. And in some cases, there were discussions after my edit was reverted. But in most cases, nobody reverted, and nobody disagreed with my edit. —bender235 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Except for, y'know, the majority of people in the ANI threads about you. That counts too. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some people here disagree, because they misinterpret WP:CITE, so that allegedly consensus has to be establised first before something can be change from one way to another. But (1) "Consensus is not the same as unanimity", and (2) "If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it." —bender235 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

...aaaand right back to the Wikilawyering. You have a severe case of "I didn't hear that" going on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Immediate Admin intervention needed... to Spread Christmas Cheer!

Merry Christmas ANI!!!!!! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to wish a Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year to everyone here on AN/I, I do apologize if I didn't get to your talk page to leave a card for you. To be honest, I only left cards on talk pages of users I knew very well. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 14:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings to all! Does Santa leave presents for editors who´ve been naughty since last Christmas?     ←   ZScarpia   14:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom will be having a word on their behalf, I'm sure... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What to do about an editor that tags images for deletion ...

What to do about an editor that tags images for deletion and refuses to notify the uploader, even after several requests to do so. He finds older images I uploaded that don't have the newest template, and instead of adding a template himself, or asking me to do so, he tags them for deletion and I notice them when I see the red link in the article or my watchlist. I end up just reuploding the fair-use image and adding the newest template. In a fraction of the time to go through this, he could have added the newer template, or notified me to add it or suplement the existing rationale. Instead we end up with a ritual that wastes everyone's time. Previously I had almost every image I loaded nominated for deletion by a user that I had opposed in an AFD debate. They spend hours adding a deletion tag to almost every image I added, including images of my own face on my userpage. Image deletion shouldn't be used as a punative measure or retaliation. Any comments? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What individual user are you talking about? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is User:Jsayre64.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Maybe you could save everyone the time and go through your CCI yourself and make sure that the licenses are correct rather than blaming it on the person trying to clean up the mess. Quantpole (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be lovely! Please do, Richard. You know that fair use requirements are a bit more extensive than what you've been accustomed to putting on images, and tagging for deletion is the way these are handled. I had asked just a few weeks ago at WT:NFC about creating a template to request improvement to rationale precisely because of your CCI, but I was told that a template of that sort was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_15#Template:Short-Rationale). As per that conversation, "It is the case that the person who places a non-free image should be the one to ensure that the fair use rationale is adequate, and if a rationale does not pass muster, the non-free content needs to be corrected soon or go." The "disputed fair use" deletion tag allows seven days for this correction to take place. As to notifications, as you know, I requested that your talk page not be spammed with notices in courtesy to you. I asked you previously to let me know if you would prefer individual notices, but I did not hear back from you. If you would like individual notices, I can certainly log that request at the CCI page, so that those who are taking the time to help make sure that your remaining images are compliant with policies will know that you would appreciate them after all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create the mess, Treasury Tag did by nominating what appears to be almost every image I loaded, over 400 were tagged before he gave up, including the images of my own face on my userpage, so please don't blame the victim. Remember the standard FUR template wasn't born with Wikipedia, it came along later, much later than most of the images I uploaded. Out of what is by my count over 400 images nominated for deletion I now count 8 redlinks, mostly for New York Times articles that were listed at "pre-1965 public domain without renewal" that had their copyright reapplied for, and the official notice was found. And even they could have been switched to Fairuse. There are a few that I can't figure out what they were because they were deleted before I could respond. I am still not sure why Treasury Tag's actions weren't labeled as harassment. I think I could challenge an equal number from anyone's uploads and get the same percentage deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We are all responsible for making sure that our content meets requirements. You are not a victim in this matter, regardless of what may or may not have happened with User:TreasuryTag. There were legitimate concerns with copyright and with fair use practices regarding your images, and a good many people have dedicated and are dedicating time to helping make sure that the many valid and usable images you have uploaded are properly identified and defined, while images that may not meet our policies are addressed. This is tedious but necessary work, and your proactive assistance with it would certainly be worthwhile. (By the way, I've dropped a note to User:TreasuryTag, as he is now a subject of this discussion.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite know why I've been name-dropped in this discussion other than Richard attempting to claim that since his poor copyright labelling was once reviewed and he didn't like it, he should henceforth gain complete immunity in this regard. Nonsense. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 14:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I ran into this same Issue a while back and it cycles back around from time to time thats why I stopped uplodading images. We have templates that when used arent any good, in most cases the image gets deleted before I have a chance to find the information, when I argue the point knowone seems to care other than CCI seems to be allowed to do pretty much as they want with only minimal concensus in the name of CCI. the following are suggestion I have for fixing this:

1. ) The uploader must be notified of the deletion, even if that is a group request or a link to the deletion discussion page. This is already the policy, if its not being followed then your breaking policy
2. ) The uploader must be given adequate time with the possibility of extension if needed to get the source information, with the exception of an extension this is already policy, I believe the rule is 7 days
3. ) If the templates people are using aren't good enough then we need to get rid of them and make new ones.
4. ) We need to document better what is needed. If the same mistakes are repeated from one uploader to the next then the problem lies as much with the policy written as with the uploader who doesn't know or understand it.

If we do these 4 things it will not only stop wasting peoples time (the uploader and the reviewer) we will make the image repository in WP a much better and cleaner place. --Kumioko (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

IRT Moongirls comments I would also say that we are all volunteers and knowone likes thier time wasted whether because thier edits get reverted or because their images get deleted. Running bots like VMbot a while back and deleting images without notifying the user are just bad practice and lazy no matter what the justification. CCI has an important role to play however they need to follow the rules like the rest of us. The attitude of CCI trumps all and we can do what we want needs to stop. You are not only causing unneeded problems with articles and drama with editors, more importantly, you are giving the CCI process a bad reputation and it is casting the whole CCI project and processes in a negative light, thereby turning off users who might take the time to help. --Kumioko (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I remember you. Since you've not been the subject of a CCI, I was confused as to to who was deleting your images before you had the chance to find the information "in the name of CCI". I gather you're not talking about images or you at all, but rather about your request to change copyright violation policy at Village Pump. This is not the place to change policy. If you would like to propose further changes to our policies related to copyright, you may wish to open a new discussion at Village Pump.

As to the specifics of this case, the contributor has been notified of the need to watch the WP:CCI page. Every image tagged should be noted at that page; I believe they have been. He has been asked if he would prefer individual notification, but so far has not indicated that this is his desire. No image has been presumptively deleted in this case, as this is not an indefinitely blocked contributor returning under sock puppet. Every one has been duly tagged and, where necessary, listed for review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Im the guy that told you your bot was screwing up articles and got the brush off. Thats a nice attempt to change the subject and redirect fire though. That policy request was based on the fact that I have had several images recently (and more over the past several months) tagged for deletion or deleted out right and I didn't find out until I saw it was missing to an article. Ot the fact that the bot went tearing through a couple hundred articles on my watchlist causing me to revert all but 2 (and Im not even sure about those but I let them go) changes. And since your bot recently caused me and several other editors several hours of work reverting bad edits (the majority of the edits made by the bot I might add) because it wasn't programmed correctly. Back to the point of the matter though. Telling someone to watch for their name on a page isn't the policy unless you chaneged it. You need to notify them on their talk page so that they can respond unless they tell you otherwise by exception. I admit that much of what CCI does pertains to contributors we don't want or need, but that doesn't appear to be the case here and that doesn't mean CCI is exempt from policy. --Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't run a bot. Please don't confuse individuals. There may be few of us who work in the CCI area, but we're not one person. :) That you have had images deleted (not via CCI) or that you disagree with the application of policy to one CCI has no bearing whatsoever on this case. (I don't believe you got any kind of a brush off in your earlier query, but that has even less relevance to this conversation. You probably know where WP:WQA is, if you feel differently and would like to request uninvolved feedback at an appropriate forum.)

This contributor is still actively editing and is capable of voicing his own desires. He has been asked if he would prefer individual notifications. Had he at any point indicated that he would, he would have received individual notifications. No individual notifications were supplied as a courtesy to him because of his prior concerns of harassment. That said, he still has only to request individual notification to receive it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the bot aside continuing to dodge the issue of why CCI tags violates policy by tagging articles and images for deletion without notifying the user is the issue here. And providing the Excuse that they can watch the CCI paeg isn't an acceptable response. Your right this editor is capable and did say something and then was told "Maybe you could save everyone the time and go through your CCI yourself and make sure that the licenses are correct rather than blaming it on the person trying to clean up the mess". This is what I am talking about. Comment like that coming from members of the CCI project. The ongoing pattern of "we are CCI and have free reign to do what we think is right and if you don't like it then help out" mentality. You are bullying users and using Gustapo style tactics as a recruiting tool for your project. It amazes me that more editors aren't complaining. I realize that at times it may not seem like it but I am trying to be civil here but the comments and etiquette coming from the CCI members is making it difficult. --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First, CCI is not a project; it's a process board. That said, I have to wonder why you think User:Quantpole speaks for CCI. This is the administrators noticeboard, and anybody is welcome to contribute here. I'm looking back at his or contribs and I see no edits whatsoever to CCI or any individual CCI...not one, ever. And that said, he'd be more than welcome to start. Any contributor with no history of copyright problems is welcome to help out. You may be trying to be civil, but you are falling somewhat short: "You are bullying users and using Gestapo style tactics as a recruiting tool for your project." Maybe I'm the one who needs to go to WQA. :/ I have never done any such thing. As to the rest, I don't plan to argue with you. If Richard, who has known since the CCI opened that he would not receive individual notifications, would like to receive notification, he need only speak up. Your speaking up does not replace his doing so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I hate to interrupt this dialog, but I'm getting lost so let me chime in with a quick question. Can someone explain why notifying the uploader isn't being done in these cases? It seems at the least like a reasonable request but I assume there are good reasons for not doing so? Hobit (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Notices are not routinely provided for items tagged during a CCI because these investigations can deal with hundreds or (as in this case) even thousands of specific items. The presumption is that contributors generally do not intentionally violate policies, and there is an effort made at discretion (which sometimes fails but, fortunately, not that often). Every item tagged at CCI is logged on the CCI page, so the contributor does not need to be watching every image or every article; they only need to watch that page if they want to know what is being done with a particular image or article. Since discretion totally failed in this one already (for obvious and very good reasons), let's take Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo for example. This involves 13,542 articles. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 1 begins the listing of each, which is marked when cleared or addressed. It is a courtesy to active contributors at CCI that we don't hit them with dozens or more templates. (Indef blocked ones, it would also be pointless.) (Eta Oh, and it certainly is a reasonable request; it may be lost, as this has gotten long, but it would have been honored if he had ever made it. I asked him here if he would prefer individual notices, but he never responded.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats good to know about it being a process board, I thought it was just a Project. I admit I don't know what the difference is but it seems like a board would have more authority. I honestly don't know who the members are since I usually see the same 3 people responding. So your saying that knowone from the CCI team has ever said something like "Feel free to volunteer to work on CCIs (we have 46 open - plenty to choose from!) and other copyright cleanup and encourage others to do so and no such drastic measures [as running a bot] would ever need to be considered" such as here and here when numorous editors stepped forward about the actions of VMbot? Which BTW didn't go through BRFA as far as I can tell but was supported by a couple of CCI editors on the CCI page that hardly anyone watches. These are just 2 examples from 1 editor but I have seen several others recently that paint the same picture. I do apologize if I seem like I am centering this towards you sepcifically as this deals with CCI's practices in general and not you as an individual. I confess that I find myself vecoming frustrated by the "its not my fault its the editor" fingerpointing and the ongoing rhetorical comments. It may not have been you as you say but it was folks from teh CCI team and the general tone is we have the power to this and you can't tell us otherwise. Back to the point of this discussion...again, is that niether I nor the user above should need to step up and say hay I want to be notified. The policy is that the user be notified. Exclusion should be by exception (or if the user is known to be gone or in large numbers such as the Darius Dhlomo incident), not by default as appears to be current practice. --Kumioko (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First, if you're going to complain about lack of notification perhaps you should have bothered mentioning this thread to me since you keep bringing me back up in it, even though I'm not working on the CCI which is nominally in question here. Second, there are no "members" of CCI anymore than there are "members" of ANI. Third, just so I have a reference: could you point me to the exact policies that state users must be notified when their images are tagged for deletion? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know of any such policy. I think that the existance of the CCI subpage is a lot like notifying the uploader, as long as the editor is watching the page. With the Darius Dhlomo CCI, you didn't have to notify Darius Dhlomo. The subpage served that purpose. Why not the same with this CCI? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if we can clarify things here. The process board does have authority. It's in action now. This user is the subject of a CCI; he has violated our copyright policy on a number of occasions...most recently just a few days ago, although this was a text matter (about which he has also been previously notified). There are literally a thousand (somewhere between 1780 and 1800, to be exact) of images involved here; I regard this as a "large number". I have personally reviewed and happily marked clear most of the images this user has added; many of them are excellent. A number have been deleted. What remains are largely non-free images, many of which have insufficient rationales.

Richard has known from the beginning of the CCI that he would not receive notification. He was told here: "To avoid spamming people, we do not do individual notices for issues located, but they are annotated there." That was reinforced to him here: "I've asked people not to tag your talk page to avoid cluttering it, since you know to watch the CCI." I've several times already linked to the interim edit where I asked him to let me know if he would rather his case be handled differently. His complaint against this contributor includes the allegation that he "refuses to notify the uploader, even after several requests to do so". Are there diffs to substantiate that he has requested of Jsayre that he be notified and ignored? If so, viewing them would certainly help. I see this note at the individual's talk page, where he mentions notification. It was left today at 02:10. AJsayre has not tagged any images since then, and, in fact, before this ANI report was even filed offered here to help supply FUR for these images.

In past CCIs, the notification procedure has apparently worked just fine. If Richard wants his handled differently, I see no reason to object to that, but he does need to make that clear.

(In terms of the bot, which again has nothing to do with this, it was discussed at an WP:ANI subpage, here, and its BRFA listing is here. Contributors can read for themselves whether the response you received was quite the way you recall it. I see some signs of frustration there, but certainly nothing like a Nazi comparison; Godwin's law remained uninvoked until today. ;)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm done. Your still not getting my point and I don't have the desire or the stamina to continue to debate this. Were so far off topic most readers of this discussion probably don't even know what were talking about by this point. I am confident we could continue to argue this in perpituity and still not agree or come to any meaningful resolution so its time for me to go back to what I was doing. At this point it just seems like I am being argumentative and thats not what was trying to convey. VM your absolutely right and I had actually gone to let you know a few minutes later but Moonriddengirl beat me to it.

Here is a link for 1 place where it says that you should notify the contributor Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Its a slightly different venue I grant you but the concept is the same. Here is 1 more just for good measure Wikipedia:Deletion policy--Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No one has answered as to why the people tagging for deletion cannot spend the same amount of time adding the newer tags. Whatever tag your demanding today to replace the earlier text version will be obsolete in the future. If it takes the same amount of time, why not do the right thing for the sake of the readers. All I hear are weak excuses and people saying it is the responsibility of the uploader.{{Non-free use rationale |Article= |Description= |Source= |Portion=All |Low_resolution=Yes |Purpose=To illustrate person at peak of career |Replaceability=Non replaceable, person is dead |other_information= }} --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They could spend the time and add tags / legitimate reasons, but they would have to know if it is in fact the peak of the subject's career and if the person is dead, etc. and so it doesn't take the same time. Just like at PUF where many of the files could just be retagged as copyrighted and given a FUR they are generally deleted when neither the uploader nor another interested editor takes the time to do so. The fact that someone else can go out of their way to fix your problems instead of just telling you about them doesn't mean they have to what with it being a volunteer project and all. You don't have to use newfangled tags, but a FUR does need to be complete; that rule has been around since before you started editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They'd also have to actually agree it is a valid fair use case. In particular issues of replacability NFC#1 (being dead doesn't mean there isn't a free image available), significance - does the image truely increase understanding as required by NFC#8, and to a lesser degree perhaps NFC#2 respect for commercial opportunities. Not everyone sees those the same way, so some will believe there is no valid rationale to tag it with. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if User:Moonriddengirl and User:Jsayre64 aren't willing to take a few extra seconds of their time to notify people of deletion, or to take a few extra seconds of their time to add the update FUR template when it is missing, or evaluate whether "To illustrate person at peak of career" is valid, I would rather have other people doing the investigation. If they can't evaluate whether "To illustrate person at peak of career" is valid to add, then they probably should not be volunteering for the job of going through my punishment audit by User:Treasury Tag. We should be measuring our success by how much we have fixed and preserved, not by how much we delete. I also think the "punitive audit" should be banned as a form of harassment. Moonriddengirl and Treasury Tag had already tagged my userpage image of my face for deletion. Treasury Tag as a form of harassment and Moonriddengirl for her own reasons. This doesn't instill confidence in me, and I am sure other editors are equally concerned. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard, that's is demonstrably untrue. Anyone can look at the edit history of your userpage image and see that I have never touched it: File:Norton-Richard Umea 2257.JPG. Please make sure that you accurately report your concerns at ANI. Speaking of which: do you have diffs to support your claim that you asked Jsayre for notification on multiple occasions and were ignored? Or are you perhaps not recalling that correctly as well?

You were told what to do if you desired notification. As to taking a few extra seconds, I assure you it took more than a few seconds to explain to you on the 18th that you still cannot copy text from previously published sources. Leaving you a pregenerated notice, that takes considerably less time. Since it is evidently your desire, I will make sure to give you the pregenerated notices in any future instances of copyright violation.

There is nothing whatsoever "punitive" about this audit. You for whatever reason have violated our copyright policies with images and, as I know now, text on multiple occasions. It is necessary to review your content to make sure that everything we still have is as it shoudl be. You have been treated with courtesy throughout the review and have done little to demonstrate your good faith in cleaning up issues that you have caused.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I requested MRG's assistance at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 31#Canada–Tonga relations. Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK... however that was not an incident related to Richard's image uploads. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The only time Richard has ever gone to my talk page was the recently opened section here, and as you can see I did not ignore him. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That was the first time he asked me to notify him of problems with his images, and I haven't been working on the CCI since then, because of this discussion, obviously, and Richard being upset. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are doing a tedious job, a valuable service to the project. Your volunteering your time has been appreciated, greatly. If and when you do decide to resume, please keep in mind that Richard has now said he would like the templates. I'll make a note of this change at the CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel that the investigation is a "punishment audit by User:Treasury Tag" when I'm the editor that placed the CCI request. AS MRG said above, please make sure the concerns you voice here are accurate. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been some images listed on the CCI that had a rationale with enough information, but just no template. In those cases, I can just merge that information into a rationale template... no problem. But "low res, no revenue loss, person is dead" is not quite adequate enough and, as I've told Richard before and as VernoWhitney pointed out, the uploader, and only the uploader, is the one who knows exactly how the rationale should look in the template. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My argument still stands, if you don't have the energy or skill to add the newer template you are demanding, we should find someone else who has those skills and who has the extra little bit of energy to add the template and make a quick evaluation. I always assume good faith, but I don't think you are the right person for this job. It gives the appearance you are measuring your success by how many you delete and not how many you preserve for future readers. If I can make the needed changes on an image of a dead person I have no personal knowledge of; and you lack that ability or the time to complete it, as you have repeated multiple times above, we need to find someone with both the skill and the time to replace you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That brings us back to the original reply, where Quantpole recommended that you go through yourself and make sure the licenses are correct. This is a good suggestion. No more images would need to be tagged with "disputed fair use" because of incomplete information; any disputes would be substantive. At that point, all that anybody else would have to do is note that there are no problems and move the images to join the many which have already been cleared. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Treasury Tag added about 400 tags to my images before he gave up, after we argued at an AFD. You can go back to the ANI I filed to get him to stop to read more. That is what started this punitive audit. So what I am asking is that we find someone more skilled, and more interested in preservation than Jsayre64 to finish the audit. Jsayre64 has just tagged for deletion File:Norton-ThomasPatrick 1891-1968 1918 draft.jpg, a document from 1918 clearly in the public domain. Treasury Tag as part of his initial harassment tagged File:Norton-Richard Umea 2257.JPG, my userpage image and another reviewer in the audit "Elen of the Roads" tagged it a second time. In his initial harassment Treasury Tag even nominated images that I had cropped that other people had loaded, just because my name was attached to them for reuploading. I admire TrasuryTag for thinking of such an ingenious way to harass me. Remember, anyone can be given a punitive audit like this, and I think everyone would agree that you want a fair and skilled person making the decision to keep, or fix, or delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I untagged File:Norton-ThomasPatrick 1891-1968 1918 draft.jpg, documents in the public domain don't need permission. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Where could I see a list of the tagged images, or find them in some way? I would like to take a look at them and see if there is salvageable stuff. Or tell which user did the tagging so I'll just look at his/her contributions list. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All current CCIs are linked at WP:CCI; Richard's in particular is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822. The vast majority of them have been collapsed into "clear" sections as obviously within policy. Some have been tagged as "Reviewed, believed clear" and some remain "Additional review needed (NF or free)". Every image that has been tagged should be noted in the section "Tagged for further action" with a standard sig to note who tagged it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed a few images. I'll just mention that stuff like File:Trade_Cards.JPG or File:Creams.jpg need more detailed information, like date of publication of trade card. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What started this audit was your out of policy uploads of images. Treasury Tag's nominations are not considerations in reviewing these images; each has been evaluated afresh. User:Elen of the Roads did tag your userpage image a second time; she also retracted the tag with apologies ([71], [72]) when she realized her error. I imagine you will have noticed by now that these tags draw review of other admins who make the decision to keep, fix or delete. If you think that the various administrators on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons who have responded to these tags are not "fair and skilled", that's a much bigger problem than can easily be resolved here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• • To deny the role of Treasury Tag in starting the audit as harassment by nomination of over 400 images, including my userpage image, and any image of other users I had cropped and reuploaded, is just silly. That the two were just a coincidence in the same week, defies statistics. Of the about 400 initially tagged, and the 1,000 now in the audit, I count 6 or 8 deleted, most because of the newer "No agency photo rule" and the ones where the NYT notice to renew copyright was found (and they could have been switched to fair use). I am sure I can go though anyone's image upload queue and delete a greater percentage if that was my goal. Adding a tag to delete is easy, fixing is a little more time consuming by a few seconds, but Wikipedia is better for it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for my mistake on that public domain image, and thanks for catching the mistake, Enric Naval. Richard: if you are catching every image I tag for deletion almost immediately, you must be a very active Wikipedian. And that said, you probably have the stamina to help review images from your own investigation, as I assume you have read about basic Wikipedia image copyright by now. And frankly, I'm hurt by your saying that I'm "not the right person for this job," as I have worked very hard on the CCI and you haven't. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • Whether Treasury Tag's actions were or were not appropriate (I had no part of that; it was over by the time I heard of you), this CCI was started because you demonstrably had uploaded images out of policy. Your count may be a bit off. There are 32 redlinked images at your CCI. Some of them may be coincidentally redlinked, but more than 6 or 8 are not. More of them may be redlinked by the time review is finished; some of those that are not redlinked are not because issues were repaired (as with those for which OTRS permission could be provided). I have no idea how many of the 400 you assert were initially tagged may have been deleted; the image listing I used was not generated until after the CCI was opened. It is your responsibility to bring your images in line with policy; again, it would be lovely if you went through the remaining and expanded those with incomplete rationales before somebody tags them. That, too, would be the better for Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is because you are counting ones that have been moved to commons and deleted from here, and ones that had their name changed from my numbering system to a prose name, and counting ones that were deleted without notification and immediately reuploaded under a new name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's almost certainly true. As I said, "There are 32 redlinked images at your CCI. Some of them may be coincidentally redlinked, but more than 6 or 8 are not." That is also true. If we want to do a count, we might want to wait until it's finished, but the talk page of the CCI might be a better place for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

After I tagged this image for deletion for an invalid FUR, Chester Markel (talk · contribs) added a FUR template, and look at all the info. he provided! That's the kind of rationale that's necessary. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So can we have a decision to have Jsayre64 withdraw from the review, so that editors willing to take an extra 5 seconds like Chester Markel can complete the review. Repeating my opinion: For older images that don't have the newer FUR template and only have a prose version of the FUR rational Jsayre64 is just tagging them for deletion. Whereas Chester Markel is actually upgrading them to the newer template. With Jsayre64 off and Chester Markel continuing his work, everyone will be happy and the readers win in the long run. Moongirl can deny the audit is punitive over and over, but it was instigated by Treasury Tag adding tags to about 400 images of mine after we argued at an AFD. A punitive audit is an excellent way to harass someone. Richard Nixon used the IRS to audit people on his enemies list, he denied it was punitive also. Deleting older images that were added before the FUR Template was demanded is just silly, Wikipedia rules should demand they be upgraded, not tagged for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr.grantevans2

Mr.grantevans2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has for the past several days done little but forum-shop and attack me and other editors regarding a dispute at Peter T. King, and is actively avoiding discussing the actual dispute instead . My objections to the content are at Talk:Peter T. King#Various edits reverted and can be summarised as follows. Two quotes from King were being used along with quotes from Joe Wilson and Joe Lieberman to manufacture two different controversies, all in the pre-existing "Controversies" section, when there's actually little evidence of controversy and/or criticism except from Joe Wilson, who has a highly partisan viewpoint when it comes to King anyway.

Timeline:

• 11:42, 18 December 2010. I removed various information from the article believing it wasn't compliant with BLP, and explained why on the talk page, and asked for further sources and discussion before it could be added back to the article.
• 01:58, 20 December. Mr.grantevans2 added back a large part of the disputed information, after making this talk page post which nobody had replied to.
• 13:36, 20 December. The addition was reverted by me, again with an explanation on the talk page.
• 16:10, 20 December. After an IP editor (who was been responsible for most of the original addition) also continued edit warring without discussion to the include the material, the page was fully protected without the disputed information in, which is obviously how protection works when it comes to BLPs.
• 03:30, 21 December 2010. Mr.grantevans2 claims on the article talk page that "I'm new to the BLP, looks to me as if its being tightly controled by Editors loyal to the Subject" and "Request for page protection was apparently part of that pov effort", with a header of "Page Protection Apparently for POV Retention"
• 03:26, 21 December 2010. Mr.grantevans2 makes the same claims on protecting admin Courcelles's talk page.
• 03:40, 21 December 2010. Mr.grantevans2 makes a protected edit request, later declined
• 22:03, 21 December 2010 Courcelles replies to his request for unprotection saying "This was an edit war over a BLP. Controversial material always stays out of a BLP when it is disputed . . . you discuss and then re-add the material when you have consensus, you do not get into a revert war"
• 22:06, 21 December 2010. Mr.grantevans2 asks Courcelles to reduce the protection to semi-protection, request refused with a comment of "No. I'm not going to unprotect a BLP during a dispute . . . There needs to be a lot less trying to change the page as it sits at the moment, and a lot more discussion towards what the stable version of this content- if it goes in at all- is going to look like."
• 22:10, 21 December 2010. Mr.grantevans2 posts on the article's talk page about the request to lower protection referring to "1 of the 3 involved Editors", which conveniently ignores that there were 4 involved editors since he added back material removed per BLP without discussion or consensus.
• 22:17, 21 December 2010. Mr.grantevans2 adds to his previous post on Courcelles's talk page, referring to "obviously pov Editor, RepublicanJacobite", obviously making the wholly erroneous assumption that his username refers to the Republican Party.
• 22:20, 21 December 2010. Mr.grantevans2 adds to the post again, now describing myself as an "obviously pov Editor".
• 03:34, 22 December 2010. Mr.grantevans2 makes a request at WP:RFPP for unprotection, stating "apparently King Supportive(User pages bias and talk page history)Editors,RepublicanJacobite and One Night In Hackney, reverted RS content once each"
• 13:30, 22 December 2010. I specifically direct him to the discussion at Talk:Peter T. King#Various edits reverted, which you will see has zero input from Mr.grantevans2 to date. I also warned him against further attacks on other editors and their motives.
• 16:31, 22 December 2010. Mr.grantevans2 replies asking me several wholly irrelevant questions about my userpage and talk page, stating "Your answers will have a bearing on whether I should be having any discussions with you at all", and a similar comment of "His answers will,obviously, have a bearing on whether I should be having any discussions with him at all" was also posted on the article's talk page.
• 03:37, 23 December 2010. Mr.grantevans2 posts on the article's talk page saying "I tried some mild editing and was quickly and fully shut down. The entire discussion page is full of pov controlled censorship".

So you'll see since the protection he's done nothing but forum-shop to try and get the disputed content back in the article and attack other editors and their motives, and has not once attempted to discuss the content under dispute. Apparently he won't discuss the content with me unless I answer his questions, and he might not even discuss it then depending on how I answer the questions. Would someone like to apply a liberal dose of clue please, while I busy myself writing Wikipedia:You don't have to discuss things with coke snorting riff-raff?

Also since the protection is due to expire on 25 December when I certainly won't be editing and since the dispute shows no sign of being resolved, perhaps someone could consider extending the protection. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Response: There was a discussion at the Wikileaks article about putting King's comments about Wikileaks there, but it was narrowly decided to leave it out of there and someone said,I think, that it would fit better here. I wasn't going to take it on, but then I saw the Valerie Plame movie "fair game" which includes several anti-Joe Wilson speech comments by King, and then I saw where Wilson had been interviewd about KIng's comments on Wikileaks; so it seemed like an interesting circle of comments by the Subject, so I figured it was worth having a look at this Blp.

For the first time ever, yesterday I asked the Editor who brought this to ANI, (referred to as"2 lines of k"above)a couple of questions before feeling comfortable with collaborating;specifically:

• Why is there a picture of a snort quantity of cocaine on your talk page? and an apparent attempt at humour relating to executing British Members of Parlianment on your User page?Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• not to mention your "2 lines of K" moniker directly above, which in some circles is a reference to Ketamine illegal drug usage.

Your answers will have a bearing on whether I should be having any discussions with you at all.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am awaiting a response from the Editor which I have no technical right to expect. So, I'm hoping enough other Editors will become involved in the BLP for me to work with.

I don't see how the User's User page has any bearing on any discussion. So long as they are not disruptive, and all I see is that you don't like it. Corvus cornix_talk 20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• This BLP has had neutrality concerns going back several years. Fifty7 (talk) tried from july 2007 to october 2008 to improve it. Others have as well[73][74][75]

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP controversy sections

I don't want to distract from this report, but I think we need a separate thread on what to do about the use of "Controversy" sections in BLP articles as the current situation appears to be out of control. For example, just before I saw this thread, I found this and promptly removed it from a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. As you can probably see by the article's talk page, my main issue is that sources do not describe either situation as a controversy or that King was "criticised" by Liebermann. It seems to be a recurring problem that any comment someone makes that editors feel is "controversial" is worthy of a section in a BLP, complete with people who "criticise" the person instead of a far more neutral "In reply, [x] said...." style wording. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel qualified to contribute to such a discussion, but I'd love to see that question being discussed; though possibly at another venue. Anthony (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Good editorial practice and therefore the Manual of Style should say that "Controversy" sections should not be written. Instead, the information should be interwoven into the article. If the information cannot be, then that is a pretty good sign that it doesn't belong in the first place. NW (Talk) 15:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For something to be labeled "controversial" there should be evidence of a controversy. I have no opinion of whether the material in question should be included under another heading.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am embracing the concept that "controversy" sections are often counter productive and the word can become a Straw man as well. Also, when the section pre-exists in a BLP, content will sometimes go in there that the contributor himself would not necessarily have thought of as being controversial but rather simply non-complimentary of the Subject. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the hope of making controversy sections generally is to remove possibly contentious material from the remainder of the article, and that is not necessarily a bad idea. There certainly are disadvantages in concentrating it in one section, for it can overwhelm the rest. Still, the original idea had merits. Perhaps we might be able to avoid the wording, and use sections like "disputes with XYX" or at least, "public reaction" or the like. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

They need to be treated cautiously and shouldn't become dumping grounds. This should only be done if there is legitimate controversy. I don't want to see a controversy section show up about, say, every single politician, sports player, or person who has ever been in a lawsuit just because most adversarial systems like politics, sports, and the law thrive on drumming up controversy. jps (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Anybody feeling delete-happy?

Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons has a backlog of about 6,300 images that need deleting. Even if some folks just deleted the easy ones that are orphaned on en Wikipedia, it would be a big help. Kelly ^hi! 04:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOTR? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll lend a hand on Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, wish I were an admin, I'd love doing that :P BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Im not an admin either, I have a list of several hundred that need tobe renamed that I would love to work on too. Good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Need to take care I have only looked at a few and a high percentage are copyright violations that have been copied to commons without any review. Causes extra work as it has to be deleted twice? perhaps we need to look at how we move images to commons. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I try to do a couple dozen or so of these every week in both categories. It's not just going and deleting them 1, 2, 3 - the files with different names can take as much as 10-15 minutes to process if the file is used on any pages. Same name is easier, but you still run into the copyright problems MilborneOne mentioned whenever you're working with images. We're also getting more and more images uploaded here that are tagged self-made that are clearly swiped from a Google Images search. The whole thing is just frustrating and depressing if you think about it. So I try not to think about it and just dive in and do the work. Yay, Christmas Eve!! :-) KrakatoaKatie 21:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I must confess to generating part of that backlog. (Unfortunately, I cannot delete the images straightaway.) However, I am always sure to rename all the image references so that the admins don't have to deal with the renames. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion campaign by Fram

Over the past couple weeks Fram has submitted over a hundred articles, mostly relating to Guantanamo Bay detainees, the lawsuits they filed and other related articles for deletion. Additionally a couple other users have also submitted some for deletion on the same subjects. The volume is so high that its almost impossible to provide comments on them all without them being deleted first. There also seems to be an edit war going on between Fram andn Geo Swan since many of these articles were created by Geo Swan and after reading several discussions between them I think someone needs to step in. I would also like to state that it "appears" that Fram may be using thier admin powers inappropriately by closing AFD's early and getting taking administrative actions on matter they are closely involved with, such as content disputes with Geo Swan. --Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it being argued that there are 100 of GTMO detainees who are individually considered notable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Has Fram closed AFDs early, this seems to be quite a binary issue so I can't see how it can be a "may", can you show examples of such early closes in relation to this dispute? Similarly for the other admin actions, are there any examples or just innuendo? --87.115.32.75 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you are referring to the userspace articles, correct? Yes, Fram has been nominating a ridiculously large number of Geo Swan's userspace articles, though this has been going on for far longer than just a few weeks. See this search for a partial list. I've just gone looking through a few of them and it seems that Kumioko is correct, the vast number stifles discussion. Furthermore, the exact same users have gone through and voted delete for all of them, which seems to hint at some sort of campaign going on. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. And that's only a rough sampling. As can be seen, the same users keep popping up. They don't even seem to be varying their delete reason either. Silverseren^C 18:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's possibly because the articles in question have the same issues. I closed one this morning where references had been attributed to the wrong person conflating two people with similar names. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw the title "Mass deletion" and thought this thread probably would be a complaint about a completely justified systemic deletion of inappropriate material. I wasn't wrong. The same users pop up, the same reason gets used, the same outcome prevails on each occasion, because it is correct. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• This AN/I report appears to be fraudulent, unless Kumioko plans to show a single AfD that Fram has closed. In this list of contribs to Wikipedia space, I see many nominations and !votes, but no closes. Geo Swan's userspace is a cesspool that needs to be drained to the ground IMO. If an admin was going through and nuking such pages themselves, then yea, that would be going overboard. But the proper course...bringing them to MfD for discussion...is being followed correctly here. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well for one its extremely difficult to review the merits of an item for deletion when there are groups of 25 or 30, plus individual ones, plus being closed early because "knowone really complained" as he put it. You can see evidence on his talk page, On GeoSwans talk page and on Rich Farmborogh and a couple of others. Also, it woudln't normally be a big deal but it seems that Fram has had ongoing isses with User:GeoSwan for sometime and probably should recuse themselves for a while. Since they have had ongoing edit disputes for some time know, IMO, submitting groups of the users articles for deletion, that have been a part of that dispute, is inappropriate. Also in reply to the inuendo comment I have seen this user doing this for sometime and only mention it now because I have had several articles on my watchlist get deleted before I had time to comment on them all. I would have mentioned it sooner but it seems that more often than not any suggestion that an admin is using their powers inappropriately is met with near instant scorn from other admins. To answer a later comment many of the justifications for deletion are subjective and quite weak citing notibility. Regarding notibility. I will try and locate some of the items I am talking about in the next few minutes. --Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Here are some of the issues that I have witnessed that I am referring too. Individually there not a big deal but together they indicicate the possibility of inappropriate behavior. Before someone calls me out for accusing this usere of anything, I am not. That is why I brought it here for "Discussion". I am not certain of anything but I felt that the users activity merited a closer look and review by their peers, thats it. First on the early closing issue I was wrong. I was thinking of another user so I apologize for that and withdraw that statement.
      1. Over the past several weeks has devoted what appears to be an inordinate amount of time and attention towards Rich Farmborough. I understand that Rich popped up on the radar for some unnecessary edits however there is no need to follow them around and scrutinze every edit.
      2. They have had an ongoing edit dispute with Geo Swan over articles relating to Guantanamo bay detainees and relating to the Iraq war. Both of these users have far different opinions of the subject, which is fine, but then to go and submit a large group for deletion after such disputes is IMO inappropriate. Especially after at least one other user asked them to take a step back for a while. Also, if one were to review the articles that this user is submitting for deletion you would find that the vast majority belong to User:Geo Swan. Since it is the same group of users who are submitting and voting for the articles to be deleted, with mostly the same cut and paste justifications each time. Its extremely suspicious even if there is nothing wrong about it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the question is not whether some of these userspace pages need deletion, which is a matter about which there can be, and are, different opinions. The question is the excessive involving of Fram with this particular eds. contributions. It might be well for them to leave the job to others, who can approach it without the difficulties of extensive prior involvement. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not all userspaces. In fact there have been a number of them that were articles. --Kumioko (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186

I'm here to report User:Legolas2186 for a variety of things. In Talk:Lady_Gaga#Not_Full_Italian_American. he has just twice reverted me, deleting a post I have made to a thread which he claims to be archived.[76][77] This thread acquired its archived appearance a few days ago at the end of an edit war, after Legolas first unilaterally and without consensus moved the entire thing to the latest archive,[78][79] and then was followed by User:Ianmacm, who after first collapsing the entire thread and being reverted by me then gave it its present appearance.[80][81] I'm not here to report Ian because he is obviously just a new follower.

This behavior of Legolas at the talk page followed a warning I received for getting angry with him in the same thread, after he called my contributions "useless" and "irrelevant", for which see the collapsed portion section under the subsection Talk:Lady_Gaga#up. So obviously he felt encouraged and still feels he is in some special position. But if you look at User_talk:Ianmacm#Talk:Lady_Gaga, what I have suspected all along is admitted: Legolas has had a problem with me ever since Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_9#Gays.3F a number of months ago, where he acted wildly, even cursing, but was not disciplined. In that thread at Ian's talk page I also warn them not to refactor or archive without consent/consensus again, or I might report it here. Now it has become outright removal.

The allegations of original research made by Legolas (and much later followed by Ian) in Talk:Lady_Gaga#Not_Full_Italian_American. are in my view a form of attack disguised as vigilance, because so far they have been unspecific. My long defense of the contents of the thread, which I did not start, can be found posted at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User:DinDraithou_again. Make sure to read the interesting posts made by Legolas above it. I don't know the terminology but I believe we have a case of a user who considers Lady Gaga and related articles his special "realm". Certainly this is an able polisher and technical contributor, but that doesn't mean this user gets to lord it over a talk page like this. DinDraithou (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Good lord. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sockpuppetting or backing up Legolas as a friend. The section Talk:Lady_Gaga#Not_Full_Italian_American was archived, because by DinDraithou's own admission, it contained material that was unlikely to be added to Lady Gaga. This article is not a complete genealogy of the Bissett family, and some of the sources (eg rootsweb.ancestry.com or blogspot are not reliable. This, combined with the ongoing feuding and incivility, made this section a dead duck. Please let's not drag this one out any further.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Daily Star the shittiest paper ever. Lol. On a serious note, concerned admins might wanna take a look at the homophobic comments at Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_9#Gays.3F , which were opposed by editors. And about this certain talk page, oh yeah, I had asked a number of times not to misuse the talk page as a repository of information for a different article and use a sandbox instead, but oh well. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We're still talking about what's on the talk page. In response to Ian, I'm hardly using these sources in the article itself, but they do in fact refer to published sources, if you check. So contending that they're unreliable is putting up a straw man in more ways than one. Furthermore, Ian's first action was not to archive the thread like Legolas had attempted, but to collapse it all in the current talk page and relable the contents "Starts off well enough, but descends into original research and incivility".[82] This strongly suggests he was following Legolas. DinDraithou (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

DinDraithou has already been asked to assume good faith on this. I have tried to give the thread Talk:Lady_Gaga#Not_Full_Italian_American an early bath, because its potential for improving Lady Gaga is practically zero. Please don't imply that things have been done simply to please Legolas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"... descends into original research..."? You had a long time to say something but said nothing, and remain as unspecific as Legolas. All of a sudden this and that happens and you jump into a revert war, even leaving the classic warning on my talk page. Your relabeling of the thread requires some better explanation. Probably my warning for the angry remark (or GW's proper redaction), although actually resulting from an unrelated campaign, appeared to justify Legolas' attacks and threats, making me look less than credible. Now you're trying to find a better reason and preaching assume good faith. I don't have a major problem with you Ian, but for future reference, you don't just condemn an experienced researcher's work with a label like that, even if it happens to be on the talk page of a mega-popular star's article. You would be suprised what's found acceptable on a lot of talk pages in Wikipedia, and in fact how many great articles themselves are the products of "original" research and synthesis. Take a look through those on Y-DNA haplogroups. It's really a matter of quality, and in certain contexts "original" actually means "probably no good, amateur, unprofessional, unsupported". It is certain how you meant it, and thus you followed Legolas. DinDraithou (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Would a rangeblock work here?

I seem to have upset someone, they're sending me their best wishes on my talk page and IP talk pages. :-) See [83], [84], [85]. There really is a Wayne Besanko (article deleted as an attack page)but I doubt this is the same person. It's obviously the same as Waynebesanko (talk · contribs) that I did block as a VOA, who among other things was busily vandalising with IPsocks at Proton Saga -- see the article history [86]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look to me that a rangeblock is appropriate here. I'll semi-protect the article for a week and see if that helps. --Nlu (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed that the Waynebesanko above isn't the one I first blocked, I blocked Waynesbesanko (talk · contribs). Waynebesanko (talk · contribs) is not blocked but should be. Hm, am I too involved to block a sock calling me a f****** c***? Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, Doug. My assumption of good faith is still intact, tho taxed greatly. My conscience won't allow me to block a user with no contribs. My tinnitus may be interfering with any quacking. Tiderolls 14:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a plain 'ol username block in order unril they identify to OTRS? Franamax (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

He continues to use IPs not just to vandalise my talk page, but to impersonate other editors and vandalise their talk pages: See [87] - he used that username to vandalise my talk page: [88]. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy

Inappropriate request, no evidence of actionable misconduct provided. Broad allegations are not evidence. This page is not for resolving content disputes.  Sandstein  16:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Nableezy continues their edit warring on this site, either expecting everyone to agree with them, or going around filing complaints about them. Of note, the user was blocked for 72 hours, only recently, for edit warring with other users. The user's block history for edit warring speaks for itself. Recently, User:Nableezy has been insisting to removed a very relevant section from the article Egypt, in accordance with this user's general trend of downplaying any relevant information pertinent to minorities in the Arab World and Israel. In fact, User:Nableezy is currently topic-banned for a few months from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, and I believe this includes Egypt. The user has been repeatedly violating this ban, and a complaint was recently filed against them because of this. No action has been taken yet with regards to this complaint. On the Talk Page of Egypt, multiple users have been arguing against the reverts that User:Nableezy insists on instating. After the user called all the references provided unreliable, we (myself as well as other users) proceeded to add what we believe are definitely reliable sources including CNN, BBC, der Spiegel, the Associated Press, ABC News etc. Unfortunately, User:Nableezy continued to insist that these sources were unreliable, and as a result went ahead today - in spite of all the discussion on the talk page - and again removed the entirety of the disputed section, including all of the aforementioned sources added on the talk page by multiple users. Admin Vassyana was made aware of this problem on their Talk Page. I have had it with User:Nableezy making the environment on Wikipedia hostile for a number of users. I believe it's about time for them to be undergo a long-term bloc (longer than just 72 hours this time, since this clearly did not change their attitude). I will be filing a complaint about the user shortly with the evidence provided above. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 21:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If somebody would like me to respond to this nonsense I will be happy to do so. But as it was simply copied and pasted from the above Id rather not do it in two places. nableezy - 22:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) You forgot to say that the editor who filed that complaint against Nableezy, User:mbz1, was indef blocked for filing other frivolous complaints (see ANI thread above). Besides, asking that Nableezy be punished here while the AE thread is still open appears to be a form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I did not see anything about User:mbz1 being blocked for a different reason, but regardless, I do not see how this pertains to Nableezy's repeated violations. Besides, you can call it WP:FORUMSHOPPING or not, this has no bearing on the facts provided. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Forum shopping isnt quite right, bad faith retaliation is a much better description of Lanternix's actions. This is something those of us familiar with this user have seen time and time again (see for example this, which an uninvolved admin said was "clearly filed in retaliation" for this). No worries though, hopefully the section above will deal with it. nableezy - 22:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Nableezy did not remove [89] the entire section as you claim, Lanternix. He removed some over-the-top unencyclopedic language from opinion pieces which are stated as fact in Wikipedia (usually a no-no per WP:NPOV), while leaving the more factual stuff from WP:RS in place. "Christian Copts are under severe pressure and siege, and usually live in fear for their lives" (in Egypt) reads like a fear- or sympathy-mongering op-ed not a Wikipedia article. I don't see why this edit requires admins to intervene. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC) However it is done, having the discussion as to assertions w/regard to Nab's behavior in one place to the extent possible, as Nab suggests, does seem to be the better approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I quote myself when I say: "in spite of all the discussion on the talk page - and again removed the entirety of the disputed section, including all of the aforementioned sources added on the talk page by multiple users." Please note the word disputed. Yes, he/she again removed the entirety of the section disputed on the talk page, along with all its references. You cannot say that he/she removed "over-the-top unencyclopedic language", he/she removed entire paragraphs as can be seen! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I hereby copy paste the entire section removed by Nableezy, to respond to Tijfo098's claims that the user removed "over-the-top unencyclopedic language from opinion pieces which are stated as fact in Wikipedia"!!! Please note all the CNN, BBC, der Spiegel, Associated Press, ABC News and other references in the section repeatedly removed by the accused user: Extended reading The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. “ Coptic Christians are minimally represented in law enforcement, state security and public office, and are being discriminated against in the workforce on the basis of their religion. The Coptic community, as well as several human rights activists and intellectuals, maintain that the number of Christians occupying Government posts is not proportional to the number of Copts in Egypt. They are also the victims of discriminatory religious laws, anti-Christian judges, and anti-Christian state police. Anti-Christian laws include laws governing repairing old churches or constructing new ones, which are usually impossible tasks, requiring presidential permission to build a new church, and a governor’s permission to renovate even the bathroom in an already-built church. Anti-Christian judges tend to "legislate from the bench". An example includes an Egyptian court's refusal to grant Muslim Egyptians who convert to Christianity identity cards that display their new religion. On the other hand, converting to Islam does not even require going to court. Copts are denied equal opportunities in recruitment and promotion. Very few are appointed to key positions in the government, and political parties almost never choose Coptic candidates for parliamentary positions. In addition, enrollment of Copts in police academies and military schools is heavily restricted. Along the same lines, very few Copts are granted positions as school teachers or university professors. ” “ Moreover, Copts are usually on the receiving end of anti-Christian hate crimes, the number of which has been rising since the 1970s. Since Mubarak took office in 1981, more than 1,500 violent attacks against Copts left thousands of Christians killed and injured. The violent anti-Christian attacks in Upper Egypt during the 1990s forced thousands of Copts to flee to larger cities in Egypt or to immigrate; a form of unrecognized ethnic cleansing. The last 10 years witnessed a dramatic increase in the scale of anti-Christian hate crimes, including a number of massacres such as the 2001 Kosheh massacre and the 2010 Nag Hammadi massacre. Copts also complain that the Egyptian government and the Egyptian judicial system are doing little to punish such attacks on the Coptic community, failing to prosecute the criminals, and thus leading to further persecution of the Copts. For instance, all the criminals responsible for the 2001 killing of 21 Copts in Kosheh, most of whom were children and women, were set free by court oder. Minor Coptic girls are particularly targeted by abduction and forced Islamization by fundamentalist Islamic groups. ” References The very diff you link to shows that he did not remove the entire section, please take this back to the article talkpage, WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN. un☯mi 22:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Do people NOT read what I say? Didn't I just put " disputed section" in bold? What more can I do? Can someone maybe show me how to highlight or underline words, please?! Yes, the entire disputed section was removed, not the whole section on Christianity in Egypt, if that's what you mean! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I must admit that when you wrote "I hereby copy paste the entire section removed by Nableezy", I was expecting all of the text that you paste to be regarding the removed section. As for sources; I would be surprised to learn that any of these are considered RS for anything but attributed opinion: http://www.metransparent.com/old/texts/elkosheh_violence.htm http://www.atour.com/news/international/20010514e.html http://www.meforum.org/2599/egypt-persecution-of-copts http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/21/ahmed.chane.christians.muslims/index.html Which you may recognize from the section that was removed. Rather than edit warring over this you should remain calm and take it to the proper noticeboards for feedback, this is *your* responsibility as you are the one seeking to add the information. un☯mi 23:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC) No this is NOT my responsibility, because I am NOT the one trying to remove the information. The info is pertinent and has been there for the longest time until the user tried to recently remove it. And thanks for mentioning 4 sources and ignoring the other 15 removed by Nableezy! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 23:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC) While removing sourced information that is presented in a neutral narrative is considered disruptive, that is not really the scenario you are presenting us with. You would have been on much better footing if the material that you wish to see included on the article did not contain questionable sourcing. Please take these matters up on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN. un☯mi 23:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, and what if you remove what you call "questionable sources"? (Noting that many would disagree with you on that) Aren't you still left with 15 other reliable sources that still endorse the same material? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 23:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Lanternix, stop trying to impress people with the name of your sources. CNN publishes opinion pieces as well as news, and http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/21/ahmed.chane.christians.muslims/index.html is clearly an OPINION. You cannot state whatever those two guys say as unattributed fact in Wikipedia. Either you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to contribute here, or are WP:POV pushing. Either way, you're not improving the article. Your teaming up with Mbz1 and the other pro-Israeli/anti-Nableezy editors who just happen to show up here or there is just aggravating the WP:BATTLEGROUND. These Copt/Egypt articles are full of crap like this that other editors removed before [90] but you keep adding back [91]. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Tijfo098, if you're attempting to scare me away from adding reliable sources to my material, that won't work. And if you're accusing me of teaming up with pro-Israeli/anti-Nableezy editors (which is not true), you are doing nothing but the opposite (teaming up with anti=Israeli/pro-Nableezy editors). In all of the links you provide above, I have done nothing wrong. These are all statements backed up with references. The fact that they tell an aggravating truth may not appeal to you, but it is the sad truth, nonetheless. I have no problem discussing the reliability of specific sources. In fact, this is what I was doing on the talk page of Egypt. But to tolerate massive deletion of sources material as demonstrated above has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of sources, and is just one more attempt to hide some of the true facts about Egypt. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 23:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Looks like a normal content dispute to me. The issue is not whether CNN is reliable, but how the opinion presented by CNN expressed is conveyed in Wikipedia. Blank reverts aren't nice, but sometimes if the material is too POV, it must be reverted until such time that it is written in NPOV form. - BorisG (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC) The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writers. is at the bottom of that CNN page. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) When an RS such as CNN publishes the opinion of someone who "is currently the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University in Washington, D.C., the First Distinguished Chair of Middle East and Islamic Studies at the US Naval Academy, Annapolis, and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution" and is "is considered 'the world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam' by the BBC Radio 2 'Good Morning Sunday' programme" then it might be considered impressive even if not exactly scary.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Tester

It has come to my attention that this article (section Notes on Contestants) could be under attack. Recent editor activity and current event nature. It may turn out to be another internet celebrity war. -- Cat ^chi? 14:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just deleted that section, looks like a BLP violation, some unsourced, others sourced from a private website. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Can this section be re-implemented with a neutral point of view? There are some behind the scenes notes that should be made and are being left out due to the silly war that took place earlier. Reslived (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley civility concerns

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say. Perhaps more people could make their New Year's Resolution to Wikipedia:Forgive and forget. Rd232 talk 02:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disclosure: I've had conflicts with WMC, so I'd ask for someone uninvolved to look at this, and I'm suggesting no particular course of action. His edit summary calls me a "twat" [92]. Now, I'm thick skinned so personally I'm not bothered with him sounding off: although twat "a vulgar synonym for the human vulva, vagina, or clitoris," isn't one of my chosen self-descriptions, and I'd sooner have a more erudite rhetoric deployed against me. Spartaz, however, is less forgiving and gives him a three hour block. His response? "Good grief have you nothing useful to do with your time? Oh well, I'll add you to the list". "Fool" is just another bit of poor invective, but the list bit is menacing. He then follows this up by calling his fellow admin "incompetent" [93] and then in another edit summary "Spartaz joins the twat list". (What's this list?) My main complaint is there's little style to this invective.--Scott Mac 15:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Part of the problem here is that once the admin powers are bestowed there almost never taken away despite incidents like this. Perhaps if this fellow cannot remain civil and show proper decorum when commenting on others talk pages their admin powers should be revoked, at least temporarily. --Kumioko (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC) (a) WMC has not been an admin for a year and a half; (b) he was already blocked for this specific misdeed. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I note WMC got a huge 3 hour block for such puerility. I think many admins would give longer blocks for such repeated incivility, to be sure. WMC appears to have been warned at least once in the past, so I suggest that the fact he can be blocked is not a huge surprise to him. Collect (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Short blocks like this are generally deprecated, as they tend to inflame rather than to give time for reflection. Note Spartaz also violated WP:TPG by restoring a section of WMC's talk page that WMC had recently deleted.[94] This supports the view that Spartaz intended to inflame. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Scott, you seem to have forgotten the rest of the sentence you quoted: "...but is more widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English". Cherry-picking half a quote (see quote mining) to make another editor look bad is inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) No, I don't doubt it is a derogatory epithet (I took that as read) - but it is one because of the sexual overtones - see also wanker and motherfucker.--Scott Mac 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If I use naughty words can I get blocked too? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Yes. --Conti|✉ 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Poop. Wee wee. Botties. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC) "Can", not "will". :) Context is everything. --Conti|✉ 17:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Just an informational point. As far as I can tell WMC is no longer an administrator.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Comment: short term blocks seem to be popular but they appear to be against WP:Blocking Policy, which says that blocks cannot be punitive and only designed to protect against or deter disruption. I can't understand how a 3-hour block can protect against anything. Either we enforce civility or not. - BorisG (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC) See above. Given that the short block was combined with the arbitrary restoration of a section of WMC's talk page there is no doubt that the block was deliberately meant to inflame the situation further. Unfortunately it appears that Spartaz succeeded in his goal and the block has now been extended for a week. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) The 3-hour block definitely had the opposite effect in this case: the behavior was repeated shortly thereafter. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I've blocked him for a week. Referring to other editors as twats or idiots is unacceptable. Continuing to do so whist blocked for this and then after the block expires shows that short block wasn't effective. If this user continues to behave like this on their talk page whilst blocked I will revoke their ability to edit their talk page. Adambro (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC) This seems fairly appropriate. Trebor (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Ongoing civility issues from WMC are a concern. A one week block is certainly appropriate; although I get the feeling we've gone through this before. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Agree. Good block. Being baited is no excuse to respond inappropriately. (It's a reason to scrutinize the behavior of those doing the baiting.) Jehochman Talk 16:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Actually I think a week is an over reaction for this. I'm personally not offended, I have been called worse in my time but whatever. Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If WMC undertakes not to repeat the offense, he could be unblocked early. I do not think the block needs to be shortened. He's had many prior incidents of this nature; a strong response is appropriate. Jehochman Talk 16:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC) But you criticised me for the first block. Good grief! Spartaz Humbug! 17:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, the three hour block was pointless needling; it got him good and angry so he ended up with a much longer block. That's exactly what we should like to avoid. Jehochman Talk 18:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) You surely aren't suggesting it would have been better to block him for a week or a month instead? Leaving a polite warning would have achieved what? Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) In response to Jehochman's re an early unblock, considering this user's block log, I'd be a little sceptical as to the credibility of any statement from him that he has learned to behave more in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I think that there becomes a point where "Sorry, I won't do it again" can't be taken seriously and so protecting Wikipedia from further disruption should take precedence over allowing a user to edit, which is after all a privilege, not a right. Adambro (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Because people with long block logs are manifestly incapable of learning? This is the kind of rhetoric that makes Wikipedia suck. jps (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) That wasn't what I was saying. I am sure anyone is capable of learning but there comes a point where I think it makes more sense to let a block run rather than unblock on the basis of a "Sorry, I won't do it again" when history suggests that might not be accurate. If the purpose of blocks is to protect Wikipedia from disruption then in circumstances such as this I'd suggest it is better to err on the side of caution rather than rush to unblock. If we simply accepted any claim that a user won't repeat previous behaviour regardless of what their history said then we'd never block anyone for more than the time it took them to request an unblock. Clearly as time goes on and a user's behaviour seems to remain the same, the credibility of promises to change must diminish. If it was that I didn't think this user could learn then I'd have blocked them for an indefinite period, not simply one week. Adambro (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Nope, you don't get a bye for that explanation of your fatuous argument. Looking at a block log tells you nothing about whether a person who says that they won't do something again is likely to do something again. You actually need to show that the user has a history of doing that. There could be evidence of that in a block log, but you actually have to show it's there if you're going to be taken seriously. Claiming you looked at WMC's block log and came to the conclusion that you couldn't take him at his word is insulting to him and to those who know that he always trustworthy to a fault in doing what he says he's going to do. People who think credibility diminishes in proportion to block log length are either incapable of or too lazy to actually look into the situation. Don't fall into that common trap. jps (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Three cheers for Joshua (JPS). The length of a block log is merely suggestive. Another relevant factor is the age of a block log entry; I think an entry more than five years old is virtually irrelevant and ought to be automatically deleted. Another factor is who made the block; if it's an admin who has been desysopped, for example, then that ought to be automatically deleted too (such incidents could still be cited using diffs). And even after you go and shorten block logs as I suggest, the remaining entries should not lead to confirmation bias, especially since some blocks are (gasp!) too long or too short or improvidently made. As for WMC, he might try the milder "twit" instead of "twat", but the better course would be something like "mistaken individual".Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Bringing this here was IMO an unnecessary provocation of drama by Scott Mac, a usually-wise editor who should have known better than this. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Wrong. He knew exactly what he was doing, and succeeded -- WMC is now blocked for a week. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Scott MacDonald is not provocative; he is too busy creating pages like this one. Mathsci (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Actions of Scott MacDonald and Spartaz Enough. Spartaz explained, Jehochman accepted, there's nothing else do to here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I believe that both Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should warned against further trolling or baiting. It is unacceptable to prey upon an upset or vulnerable user the way they have done here. Needling somebody until they explode so you can then block them, or request that they be blocked, is an odious violation of WP:GAME and WP:BATTLE. I'd like to see a confirmation from both Scott and Spartaz that they will try to help users, rather than trip them up. Scott, your post looks like it was designed to cause maximum ruckus. That's a misuse of Wikipedia. I can think of much better ways you could have handled this, and as an administrator, you are expected to be sufficiently clueful to figure things out for yourself. On the other side, I would like to see a confirmation from William that he will not use inappropriate language to describe other editors. Normally it is inappropriate to block a user merely for uncivil language. However, I am aware that William has been warned about this in the past, so he should not be given much slack. On the whole I see fault with both sides of this conflict, and I'd strongly recommend that all parties avoid interacting with each other for some time. Jehochman Talk 16:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC) What on earth are you on about Jehochman? Historically I have supported WMC as a clueful editor who makes a big difference but calling someone a twat was beyond the pale and some response was necessary. Restoring that section was an error caused by an edit conflict and multiple windows. Sometimes you guys read too much into Occam's razor. Spartaz Humbug! 16:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your explanation about the edit conflict. I consider the matter of your involvement resolved. Jehochman Talk 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Jehochman I'm sure you don't actually understand how supercilious and pompous you sound here otherwise you wouldn't have posted in this way. You need to demonstrate a bit more AGF and fact finding before jumping to conclusions. You really have no locus to judge me or my actions without speaking to me first and doing appropriate due diligence. If I shot from the hip like this at work at the bare minimum I would expect to be reprimanded if not disciplined and I am astonished that you find nothing wrong with your actions. You owe me an apology. Spartaz Humbug! 8:01 pm, Today (UTC 3) Section restored, I'm sure this was an accident. Spartaz Humbug! 8:07 pm, Today (UTC 3) Spartaz, it is rude to demand apologies. Your subsequent responses here reinforce my concern that you were inept at handling this matter. Jehochman Talk 17:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC) And yours show how self-important you are. The difference is that I assume good faith while you were all for hanging and quartering me for an honest mistake before you got the full facts. I know which side I'd rather be on. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I fail to see how I baited him. I hadn't interacted with him in weeks, when he needlessly called me a "twat" in an edit summary. If anything he was trolling and I didn't at that point react to it. I then noticed him upping the game with several attacks on the blocking admin. Since I'd had conflict with WMC in the past, I thought it best to bring it here for neutral people to examine. I didn't ask for a block, just for a review. I also disclosed my previous conflict with him. Sorry, but this is his doing and his alone. I consider this accusation to be scurrilous.--Scott Mac 16:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC) You could have turned the other cheek and walked away. You say you are thick skinned. Being called a naughty name is hardly a personal attack. If he had made a specific accusation about your character, I agree you would have needed to respond. The editor was apparently overwrought. Adding more pressure is unlikely to improve matters, and will likely make them worse. Whenever his block ends, I predict his behavior will be less temperate. WMC is effectively being put on the path to being sitebanned, which is a shame, because he's quite knowledgeable and capable of improving many articles. Jehochman Talk 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Scott, on the one hand you make a big deal out of someone using what you think is a naughty word, and yet on the other you say you are willing to make edits on behalf of banned users without disclosing such to the community.[95] Might I gently suggest that you rethink your priorities? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Now you are misrepresenting me in an irrelevant attack. I am willing to disclose anything you want, if you can tell me why it matters. I am certainly not willing to make edits on behalf of banned users, no.--Scott Mac 17:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I fully agree with Jehochman and think there should be consequence for all three editor concerned. Currently only one seems to be blocked, and it is the only one who is not currently an admin. That stinks. Hans Adler 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Spartaz explained his edit, which appeared inflammatory, but wasn't. I do not see how blocking Scott would help matters. My goal here is to help people understand that we do not want to run off potentially productive contributors. Instead we should try to help them. Jehochman Talk 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Ah, sorry, I missed that part and would not have made my comment if I had seen that. Not sure it was on the page before I pressed the edit button. I agree that it's better not to block without good reason, but I am also concerned when admins don't get this and get away with bad blocks. Hans Adler 18:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) (ec) The word "twat" in the UK is normally understood as a schoolboy word on the same level as "prat". It is not comparable to the words Doc Glasgow Scott Macdonald mentioned; he was probably aware of that. Posting this on ANI had the predictable effect of injecting extra drama into the situation. At this time of year people are normally a little more charitable, even north of the Antonine Wall and west of Offa's Dyke. Mathsci (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Depends where you're from as to the strength of the word [96] That said, I'm confused by some of these comments - it's clearly a personal attack and while Scott could turn the other cheek/be charitable, there's no obligation for him to do so. Trebor (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I was posting something similar but got caught in an edict conflict. 'Twat's like 'prat' or 'idiot'. I'm not convinced that this terrible, terrible occurrence (on a user's talk page, right?) is serious enough for a one week block. I suspect we've seen worse behavior by some editors go without such a block. --Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I though 3 hours was plenty. A week seems excessive to me. Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Dicdef. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Forgive me if I'm jumping in where I don't belong. Was just reviewing more on ANI while inspecting a situation above. Regarding, Scott's behavior, I find the initial sentence of his post here to be quite telling: "Disclosure: I've had conflicts with WMC, so I'd ask for someone uninvolved to look at this, and I'm suggesting no particular course of action". It's possible that WMC is on the road to being site-banned. It's also possible that he will reform (however unlikely that might be). Regardless, this discussion of Scott's actions now seem to be provoking Scott. Scott had previous conflicts with WMC and brought the situation here in order to avoid further provoking WMC. Scott could have gone to WMC's talk page and he could have responded perfectly nicely (although, take into account WMC's history). More likely, the situation would've escalated. Most certainly, by posting here, the situation did escalate. Still, given the likelihood that the situation would've escalated by Scott approaching WMC first, and the likelihood that Scott would face similar accusations of mishandling based on conversing with a user he had history with, I'm having trouble seeing what safe option Scott had. If I might speculate, Scott believed that the situation warranted further inspection, and knew he wasn't the one to objectively do so based on history, so he brought it here. Based on the user's prior conduct, he thought direct confrontation with the user would have been risky. He came here, declared his conflict, and let others decide. To take action against a user who has taken actions for which there is a good faith explanation seems a bit too much. Maybe WMC is valuable but he's taken actions for which there isn't a good faith explanation. Scott is a valuable editor/admin as well, and there is a good faith explanation. That's why I propose that this discussion end.--GnoworTC 17:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Rather than posting to ANI, WP:WQA would have been a good alternative. That board is for smoothing out rough conversations. ANI is for requesting blocks. Scott knew or should have known that posting something inflammatory here had a 99.9999% probability of WMC being blocked. "Oh me oh my, I'm not asking for a block on my habitual opponent, but look, he called me something naughty. Whatever shall we do?" Another option would have been to walk away. Bringing the situation to ANI was just about the most provocative choice possible. Jehochman Talk 17:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC) He could've walked away or gone to WP:WQA, and there could have been a number of other users chased off by WMC's actions in the meantime before someone decided to bring it here. So Scott can go to WP:WQA in the future. This may have been provocative, but it was a bad situation from the start, and the situation was initiated by WMC's actions. And there's the good faith explanation for Scott's actions.--GnoworTC 18:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I don't agree. He should have gone to WP:WQA. That board is very good at de-escalating things. This one just the opposite. The instructions above tell editors to post to WQA for civility issues. This board is only for requesting administrative actions (blocks). ANI is not for dispute resolution. Scott took his prior disputes with William, using the naughty word as a pretense, and successfully shopped for a block. Well done, except that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for that type of sport. Jehochman Talk 18:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Well, it seems we have a disagreement. Again, I'm not saying that Scott definitely acted with good faith, nor that he definitely acted with bad faith. I'm just assuming good faith. I think our disagreement is you don't believe my good faith explanation is plausible. Perhaps this is why I shouldn't have jumped in, as I don't have much( or any) experience over at WP:WQA. If WMC had done that to me, I might've brought it here. I might've been wrong since it's a WQA issue. We do hold admins to higher standards. Given WMC's history, I can see how even an admin might think WQA was an inadequate forum. Even holding an admin to a higher standard, I think the best course forward is just to advise Scott that WQA would be a first stop next time. You've made clear that you think the situation was handled poorly, Jehochman. I neither agree nor disagree. Scott is now aware that handling situations like this in the future might be regarded as "poor-handling", and at that point, I'd agree that action should be taken. What do you wish to see here now?--GnoworTC 18:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I wish to see recognition by the community, or even better by the editors involved, that the goal is to save users from trouble, not to help grease the skids. What happened here was a bad result and should be avoided if at all possible. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I appreciate your opinion. Jehochman Talk 18:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If this helped the discussion move forward, I'm happy to assist. I apologize if I got anything wrong by arriving late to the game. Scott, do you agree that based on this experience that bringing editors with whom you have a prior negative history to a non-AN/I forum would be more appropriate? (Apologies if this seems forward, trying to close discussion)--GnoworTC 18:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Scott MacDonald reported a deliberate pattern, not an individual instance of bad language. Views may differ whether this was wise, but he definitely has done absolutely nothing wrong. - BorisG (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) The List? Is anyone else concerned about this "twat list" that WMC mentioned? It could have just been said in a sarcastic, though clearly still deprecating, manner, but it could also mean that he is actually keeping a list of the users he dislikes. I think this is almost a bigger issue than the incivility that he has exhibited. SilverserenC 18:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I'm leaning towards "figure of speech." Unless he's got an on-wiki list, there's no way to verify any actual list. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Ooo, ooo! If it's on-wiki, let me know. I'll personally send cookies to everyone on the list!--GnoworTC 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC) WMC has quite a fan base that will support any action he does, including repeatedly calling other users "twats." He's done that to me at least three times, so I'm sure I am on his list, wherever it may be. He has lost all touch with whatever it was that originally led him to contribute here and now seems to delight in adopting a condescending and deeply insulting attitude toward everyone that won't kiss his ass. Unfortunately the application of slap on the wrist blocks and topic bans has only encouraged this nasty unproductive behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC) This is a meta-issue, not one that we can solve here. Wikipedia allows and even encourages incompetent people to do its governance and become administrators. People of higher levels of competence (such as, for example, those who have received PhDs in academic subjects) tend to bristle at being subject to the incompetence of those with power. This is why academics don't often rise very high in the fields of business or politics where incompetence is often a selling-point. Those whom WMC has chided are almost always, on the whole, deserving of criticism. Whether they accept the chiding as a form of criticism or hew strictly to the WP:PUNITIVE model of Wikipedia is just another measure of their competence or lack thereof. jps (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) There's an old American adage: "If you're really lousy at what you do, there's always a chance you can work your way into management." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC) There is a list, and if you're worried about it, you're definitely on it! jps (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Where is that list? I want to see it. And if I'm not on it, I'm going to feel dissed. :'( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC) "WMC is a silly pudding." There, that should get me on the list. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Interestingly (ironically? obviously?), simply calling WMC names is not one of the criteria for list inclusion. jps (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Here's a Jack Benny classic. Go to the 4:20 mark.[97] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If there is a list, I'm on it - and who gives a fuck about Billy Tantrum's non scientific opinions anyway? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC) And some admins wonder why many editors think that double standards exist... NW (Talk) 22:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Allright everybody, he's blocked. Let's just agree for the moment to uphold the block and go have a glass of eggnog. (with lots of booze in it). Goodwill toward men and all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Hell yeah! Have a Merry F***ing Saturnalia! Celebrate the blocking of the a****** with incivility of our own! Good on, y'all. You're really making Wikipedia a better place with your word censored because use of one of its derivatives resulted in a weeklong block! jps (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) The list and the addition of Spartaz to it appears to be here. It's not really that difficult to find this list once you start looking, given that it was the very next edit WMC made after the edit that Scott MacDonald questioned back at the beginning of this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I have rarely been as pessimistic about the future of this project as I am right now, having just finished reading this thread. MastCell Talk 05:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC) User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say‎ up for CSD 10 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Best to take the hint, ResidentAnthropologist. If you want drama on Christmas Day, please just switch on the TV. Mathsci (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC) This, I predict, will not end well. jps (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Someone with good sense has stepped in.[98] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Restoring an attack page is good sense? How do you figure? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC) at MFD now Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say I have to agree with Bugs this is the most blatant violation I have ever seen from an experienced user. I am not one for drama but this crosses so many lines. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC) You have 261 (and counting) edits to WP:AN/I, compared to 198 edits to your top 10 articles combined. It seems to me, anecdotally, that these sorts of ratios are increasingly common (even from people who profess a distaste for "drama"). Thus, in part, the pessimism. MastCell Talk 17:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Baseball Bugs also has some explaining to do.[99] Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Good grief. If that isn't a deliberate provocation then nothing is. Have we declared open season on WMC? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC) As I explained to TRA, I figured if everyone added their name to the list, it would dilute it and render it harmless. That was my reaction to someone reverting TRA's justifiable deletion of that attack page. TRA reverted my entry and advised a different approach. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Baseball Bugs's excuse seems incompatible with this subsequent edit by ResidentAnthropologist. [100] Mathsci (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Like I just said, TRA reverted it. Look, a week ago you all were ready to string Barts1a, a relatively inexperienced user, from the yardarm for posting a short list of editors he didn't want on his page. Meanwhile, you have this lengthy "twat list" of the user WMC's making, a guy who's been on here for years, and a list which you all are defending. What's your excuse for that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I did not comment in the discussion about Barts1a. [101] Note that Baseball Bugs made this edit to ResidentAnthropogist's talk page.[102] Mathsci (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I didn't say "you", I said "you all", meaning the general group here. And what I told TRA is what I just told you a few lines above here. TRA had deleted that entire garbage of a list from WMC's page, and someone added it back, which they should not have done as its presence is a violation of the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I really wonder about you people sometimes. Don't bother responding, as I'm taking this page off my own personal t'watch list for awhile. Merry Xmas. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) If you expect everyone to agree with you all the time and not argue their own viewpoints, maybe Wikipedia isn't a good fit for you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC) What the? I don't understand this response from a bunch of users. We've found this "twat list" and we know it's that page because of the addition here, which subsequently notes this diff. Both of those prove that it is indeed the "twat list". So why is everyone defending it all of a sudden? I'm really confused. SilverserenC 19:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC) User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration i clearly a list of people who disagreed with him in An AFD. No ambiguity there The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC) This seems to be the exact, textbook sort of list that WP:UP#POLEMIC says shouldn't be allowed. SilverserenC 19:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I agree this shouldn't even be t Afd - it should have been administratively deleted and WMC should have received a warning for promotion of battleground mentalities.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC) The problem comes when not all editors think there's a clear equality between the way WMC's being treated and the way we treat administrators, for example. Above, one admin refers to WMC using the words "who gives a fuck about Billy Tantrum's non scientific opinions anyway", and yet didn't get a block at all. I know it's not quite the same, but we've blocked WMC and are now smacking him with an MfD: people are concerned that he's not getting fair treatment. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC) And what have you, an admin and incoming Arbcom member, said to LHvU about this? Perusal of his talk page history shows the answer is "nothing." You make a big deal of pointing out that he didn't get blocked, when you have the ability to block him yourself. Even if you don't think it's worth a block (and that's a reasonable argument) you could mention to him that this isn't appropriate -- given your position within the community he might even listen to you. Instead you make this show of hand-wringing without actually doing anything or even mentioning your concerns to the person in question. Wikipolitics at its finest. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC) If you are going to discuss this with Chase me, please do so on his or your talk page, since it is not related to the subject of this section. SilverserenC 20:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Per "centralize drama" I think it's better to keep all the discussion in one place (i.e. here) than to spread it across multiple venues such as user talkpages. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Might I ask who you are? You seem to have started editing just a few weeks ago and almost immediately started joining high level discussions that only experienced Wikipedians get involved in, which implys that you are one as well. SilverserenC 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC) MMmmrrrow! jps (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC) It is a valid question. A month old IP jumping into a discussion is cause for questioning, especially when said IP started editing in policy areas from their very first edits. SilverserenC 22:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Validity really has nothing to do with biting. Just because our concerns are valid doesn't mean we should bite them. jps (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I just asked who they are, I didn't bite them. I pointed out that being in high-level discussions from their first edit implies that they are an experienced editor. What in there is biting? SilverserenC 22:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Reads to me like you're doing a whole lot more than "just" asking who they are. I have no idea who you "are", and it is, in theory, the right of every user to be as anonymous as they chose to be as long as they don't violate site policies. So if they aren't violating site policies, you have no business asking them who they are. The only thing left is an insinuation that this anon is violating site policies. That's what it looks like to me that you're doing. jps (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC) This is a frequent contributor whose IP changes every now and then. For a while it was 66.127.52.47 (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you, Mathsci, that is all I wanted to know. SilverserenC 22:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC) This has nothing to do with fair treatment. This has to do with the fact that that list is against policy here on Wikipedia, which is quite clear. Any actions taken by other users either for or against the idea of "fair treatment" is not being neutral in doing so and should excuse themselves from the discussion. This list should be looked at as if it was made by a completely random user and whether, under that view, it should be deleted. I would think that it should be quite clear that the answer is yes. SilverserenC 19:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Are you saying that enemies lists on user pages are suddenly just perfectly OK, then? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Indeed, i have added a space for WMC to have a statement be copied to the MFD page. He can still edit his talk page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Man people really need to WP:AGF [103][104] The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Man, people must stop behaving in a pseudo-officious manner and templating the regulars, not to mention either being circumspect or pretending to be able to read the future. And you cite WP:AGF in this issue? Are you up for an irony award? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC) How is asking for WMC's comment "templating" him? SilverserenC 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Templating is a style of non-communication that does not require actual templates. It's characterised by a mock-impersonal style and a usually inappropriate pretension of officialdom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC) To be literal about it, TRA substed Template:Db-attack-notice and Template:Db-csd-notice-custom on WMC's usertalk.[105] 67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Yes because of WP:Twinkle The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC) @Silver seren, Indeed, I have hardly edited anywhere WMC has and people are screaming bad faith, in fact in October I asked him for advice. Its not like I have an axe to grind The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think WMC's comments on the climate change AfD reach the level of attack or vilification evoked at UP#POLEMIC. If they do, it's probably enough for WMC to adjust the phrasing a little bit. My own reaction to that section is that it seems to point at systemic problems with the AfD process itself, among other aspects of wikipedia. The mention of individual users is secondary to that. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Even while blocked [106] the incivility continues. Will there ever be real, lasting consequences for WMC? Here's the thing, he does things he knows are wrong. He gets blocked for it. He makes nasty condescending remarks about the admin who blocked him, making it personal. Now that admin is too "involved" to ever be seen as neutral (especially by WMCs personal cadre of followers who relentlessly attack anyone who criticizes him) and the pool of potential admins to deal with his inevitable next incident of deliberately crossing the line is once again smaller. It's a neat trick, and I have to admit I fell for it and took the bait when I blocked him a ways back, only realizing after that I'd been had. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Apparently not "had" enough because you're still clamoring for him to be tarred and feathered just about everywhere you go. You've assumed a lot of facts not in evidence here ("he does things he knows are wrong.") and have generally stunk upcaused problems every place you've trod with your thinly veiled innuendo and vague pronouncements about how evil people who might disagree with you are. Vendettas aren't very fetching. jps (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC) This is very much a personal attack and I suggest you retract it. SilverserenC 21:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Support personal attack on Beeblebroks. I'll make another: of all the fatuous posts in this thread, Beeblebroks' post just above is the most fatuous; the most predictable in matter, the most hackneyed in style. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC). Is this edit [107] any better? Mathsci (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC) And an administrator said that?! Ouch. :-O [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC) No, nor this. Let's make a list. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC). What part? When I said he stunk up every place he trod? I wasn't being literal, but seeing as how some don't take well to that level of complicated metaphor, I'll retract that bit. jps (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC) There is no positive purpose to that page. It lists people that he dislikes and people that have disagreed with him. While it may not list personal attacks against them, I can see no positive purpose to the list existing. SilverserenC 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Pâte de coing, delicious with ewe's milk cheese WP:IDONTLIKEIT!!! jps (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC) No, WP:UP#POLEMIC. SilverserenC 21:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I must have stumbled into The Argument Sketch. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC) In Provence at this time of year, as part of the thirteen desserts, we drink vin cuit and eat pâte de coing; in Berkeley and its hinterland, I suppose properly adjusted natives might possible consume some kind of locavore oak-smoked alfalfa sprout smoothie topped with sushi shavings; in Denmark possibly Gammel Dansk; and elsewhere people might indulge in that highly dangerous beverage egg nog that figured earlier in this thread. But occasionally one can have too much of a good thing with unexpected results. Mathsci (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC) No you haven't! jps (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC) You just answered yourself. These diffs have not been used in dispute resolution and have, indeed, been on there for months, thus showing that they are not being used for that purpose. SilverserenC 22:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC) We just got finished a few months ago with an arbcom case involving most of the people on the evil, evil list. Many of these diffs were from after that case closed. Many of those diffs document legitimate concerns that WMC is not equipped for at least six months from the end of the climate change case from even petitioning arbcom to ask that they be dealt with. Some people are a glutton for constant WP:DRAMA. Others are patient. I don't think that giving, say, eight months lee-way to see what happens in that regard is too much to ask with respect to the keywords "timely manner". jps (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think adding any time they have been blocked has anything to do with the arbcom case. I assume you are talking about the climate change case? SilverserenC 22:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC) You don't do you? Well, there are other opinions out there as you surely must be aware. jps (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Motion for 3 month Civility Probation for WMC No need to keep this open any longer. NW (Talk) 22:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I propose that WMC be subject to a 3 month civility patrol. In the event that he makes any additional uncivil statements (or statements that appear to be uncivil) he can be immediately block by any uninvolved administrator for growing lengths of time. Basket of Puppies 19:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Support As nom. Basket of Puppies 19:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I've heard this guy in debate/lecturing style in a social situation and have huge respect for his expertise. However, his influence (and that of some others) on these articles has become harmful. I've made repeated efforts to improve the presentation of the topic and found only obstructionism. I've abandoned the effort. Whether WMC is the main problem or only the most obvious I can't say but reigning him in is overdue and necessary. Sorry, mate. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose As there's been controversy about bringing this concern here, I don't believe this is the best approach for WMC to get the message. This is probably appropriate at a future date if he gets brought to WP:WQA. I, like Wikipedia, and am not a crystal ball, so I hesitate to impose further sanctions at this time without additional action by WMC.--GnoworTC 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC) It paints a target on WMC's back. He will get get into trouble quick enough as it is if he steps out of line.... Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Administrators can already do this without recourse to this motion. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) "Civility patrol"??? Does that mean that WMC will have to do around patrolling for violations of civility? C.f. my comments about incompetence above. jps (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) As per Tijfo098, this seems to me to be what would happen anyway though with some degree of judgement required by an admin as to whether a particular incident merits just a warning or an immediate block. Just like with anyone else, we don't need specific consensus to say they can blocked for incivility and I don't think it is a good idea to say that any uncivil comment can result in a block because I think in some cases a warning might be more appropriate. Adambro (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Let's not encourage civility blocks. Until incivility raises to the level of outright harassment, other responses are better. Jehochman Talk 21:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Agree with Jehochman - I'm dealing with real harassment now and this isn't even close. KrakatoaKatie 22:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Hah. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Sock wave I would very much appreciate it if some of the editors whining about alleged or trivial infractions would also help patrolling the climate-related articles from the permanent influx of obvious SPA socks. See e.g. Special:Contributions/Staterii, Special:Contributions/Melktoast, Special:Contributions/Fendi99. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Nobody cares about stuff like that. In fact Arbcom (or at least Risker) came out strongly on the side of Scibaby in the Climate Change decision. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Moving forward Wikipedia is on a downward spiral. We now have artificial civility issues, topic bans for experts etc. etc., while the encyclopedia itself is rusting away as Stephan Shulz points out above. The only way this is going to change is for editors to violate any measures taken to enforce such non-issues. So, Admins should unblock William right now, regardless of consensus and William and other topic nanned editors should violate their restrictions. Admins should unblock them against consensus for topic ban violations. That will destroy the ridiculous ArbCom system that exists right now. Only then we can build a better system; we can only move forward by first having a Bastille Day here on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Request This thread having lost its entertainment value and deteriorated into the usual tired arguments, can we now put a hat on it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC) No. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC). Dang. Are you sure? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Yes. I've only just gotten started with the personal attacks.[108] Bishonen | talk 01:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC).