Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 27 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 16 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 96 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 56 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 46 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 37 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 11 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	4	4
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	14	32	46
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Category:Online-only games

(Initiated 26 days ago on 19 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 302 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Helene#Split out Florida?

(Initiated 14 days ago on 30 October 2024) Discussion seems to have run its course and needs closure.72.36.119.94 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Toadspike. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 14 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio

Nola Darling (Music Duo) is a blatant copyvio. Tell me why it should get to rot in C:SD for more than 12 hours. Isn't a copyvio something we should, you know, be kinda QUICK about?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. —EncMstr (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hammer, be glad you're not tagging Commons images for deletion as copyvios; I've often seen a gap of several days between when I tag an image as a copyvio and when it gets deleted or challenged. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is under G12 of the criteria of speedy deletion becuase there is copyrighted information. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we figured that out when it was deleted two days ago. Did you have a point in there somewhere? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs), one of our most prolific editors with over 100,000 edits to the mainspace, turns out to be a prolific copyright violator as well. At first, I noticed that two very recent articles, Job Male and August Howard, were copyright vioolations, and speedy deleted them (and noted this on his talk page). His only reaction was a request for userfication at my talk[1], and after I refused on the talk page of Fuhghettaboutit, who refused as well.

Meanwhile, I did some spotchecks of other contributions, and found worrying trends of copying or too close paraphrasing of sources, and of excessive quoting of (copyrighted) sources. Not sure how to proceed, I started a discussion at User talk:MER-C#Advice on whether a CCI or other action is needed, which was joined by User:Moonriddengirl (both probably our most active and well-versed copyright violation investigators). I learned here that there already was a CCI about Richard Arthur Norton's images at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822. After they checked my findings and made some additional checks, a new CCI, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 was set up. This, while only barely started, revealed further copyright violations strectching from 2006 to 2011, and (when using older sources) failure to properly attribute things. But considering that Riachard Arthur Norton created or expanded many, many pages, and that even that lenghty CCI only lists his largest additions, and not many smaller ones, this appears to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Bad as all this is, I wouldn't have brought it here if there was any indication that Richard Arthur Norton sufficiently cared about the problem and would give some help in cleaning up the older violations, and some realistic assurance that no new problems would occur. However, apart from the two requests for userfication, Richard Arthur Norton has not made a single reply to either the talk page discussion or the CCI, and has not attempted to check any of the pages on the CCI. All he has done is immediately recreate any pages that are deleted or blanked (recreated without the copyright violations of course, or he would have been blocked by now), indicating to me that all he cares about is having the information on Wikipedia, no matter if it is done by violating copyright (or attribution rights).

I don't believe that an editor who creates dozens (hundreds?) of copyright violations over five years or more, even continuing after a CCI is opened for his images, and who gives no indication at all of caring about the problem and of being willing to work on it (reactively and proactively), should be left around any longer. If someone believes strict mentoring has a chance and volunteers for it (and Richard Arthur Norton accepts), then that might be a solution. Otherwise, I suggest an indefinite block (not a time-limited one, as long as there is no indication that this will stop). Fram (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

having interacted with Richard in the past, I'd be interested to see his response to this. Yes he is one of the most prolific editors so fully understands WP rules. One thing I'd note is he never ever admits he is in the wrong, and plays fake innocence when presented with evidence of wrongdoing or gross incivility or clear bad faith assumptions especially of inexperienced editors.This stubbornness is reflected in his non ability to reply on this copyright issue. He knows it's wrong but still continues. This is not in WP spirit. I don't think Richard can be mentored, he is too proud and stubborn for that. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the Libstar is not the most objective person. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles William Floyd Coffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Davis Ticknor (New Jersey) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krebs Pigments and Chemical Company where he was nominating almost every new article I created over a short period of time a few weeks ago. All were kept with almost total support. I would like to think that he is objective, but he appears to have some antipathy toward me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Kind of supporting Libstar's point, this is nothing new. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Is he autopatrolled? --Kittybrewster ☎ 10:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled status revoked. Bencherlite^Talk 10:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with LibStar that I have doubts that Richard will work well with others in addressing these problems. I began working with Richard after his first CCI was requested, and LibStar sums up the attitude I have encountered well. I assumed at first that he may be hostile due to the way in which copyright problems were approached (see these, threads), but by the time he filed this complaint about CCI processes realized this may not be situational. He brought a complaint against the editor doing the heavy lifting at his CCI for not giving him notices when files were tagged for problem, even though I had twice explained why notices are not generally given in CCI ([2], [3] - in the second instance, I even asked him to let me know if he'd like notices, but he never said a word about it until launching his vitriolic complaint about the CCI cleaner at ANI). During that conversation he referred to the CCI as "harassment" and made false accusations. (I've never touched that image) It seemed from that certainly that he's unwilling to work directly with those attempting to do mop up. I believe Richard takes an adversarial stance to others, and I think his userpage may reveal part of the problem, where it says, "Every Essjay on Wikipedia thinks they are an expert on copyright law, and knee-jerk delete everything and anything." As Mkativerata points out, I tried to explain the issues with text to Richard months ago, but he evidently paid no more attention to that than he did any of my other efforts to work with him. (ETA) I don't believe I have ever seen Richard proactively work to address any problems with his uploads or edits unless these were tagged for deletion or removed by others, and (as the ANI complaint I linked above shows) he seems strongly instead to believe that others should clean up after him. I'm not sure he understands the seriousness of this issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Its very frustrating when the four images of me used on my user page get deleted. The current image of me in Sweden was tagged for deletion twice. The argument was that if I appeared in the photo, I could not have taken the image, and therefor I cannot claim a copyright. That is the frustration when everyone is an expert on law. While some images needed an updated license tag and others needed the newest FUR template and a longer FUR, most images were kept. Over 500 images were tagged as violations by Treasury Tag after he and I argued at an AFD. Those included images I took, or images that were from the Library of Congress and in the public domain. Most of the images that were deleted just needed an updated license or an updated FUR template and could have been saved if I was notified on my page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the work can be frustrating. It is frustrating for all involved. However, with respect to notices, you were explicitly asked to let me know if you'd like notices, even though these are not the norm at CCI (as you knew [4]; [5]), but you never responded. Instead, you launched an unfair accusation at ANI against a good-faith user trying to help make sure that the images were all sorted and straightened out. We have tried to be accommodating. I have tried to be accommodating. The lack of communication makes that quite difficult. There is cleanup to be done; it would be great to have you part of that, in both CCIs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Question Is copyright a problem for him other than images? If so, I fear that Fram is right. If not, why can't we ban him from uploading images? I don't see a reason to get rid of a good editor of text if he is one. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. It has recently been verified that Richard has been violating copyright policies with text he has placed on Wikipedia from 2006 to the present day. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Another problem with his images was his refusal to use FURS - he would add the template, but without any content. I did (as you'll see from the exchange Moonridden girl added diffs to) accidentally delete images of himself for which he had provided no licensing information so I assumed they were not free, I also spent many happy hours writing rationales for images he had uploaded, which he refused to do. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In the past I was using a text based rationale for FUR, until I was shown the newest FUR template, which I now use consistently. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Richard has edited Wikipedia since being notified of this AN discussion, but has not replied here. The case for an indefinite block appears strong. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've poked him [6] to try again to get some sort of response. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If he continues editing without response here, I'll indefblock him myself later today. The further in I look the worse it gets; unacceptable on all levels. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Give him 24 hours. --Kittybrewster ☎ 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As people point out things that need to be worded differently to avoid copyright infringement, I am making the changes. Please continue to point out things that you feel are too close to the source document and I will change the wording. Some sources that on first assumption appear to be public domain by age, or by government creation and not eligible for copyright protection, or seemed like uncopyrightable facts, can be incorrect on my first look and closer scrutiny is always welcome. I will be more careful to paraphrase and cut down on long quotes or enclose them in quotation marks. I will also work to use more sources per article, a single source, even when paraphrased and reworded can still have the same look-and-feel as the original material. Most obituaries are a chronological list of facts and even when reworded will still retain the same look-and-feel, unless disparate sources are combined. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you've created a gigantic problem, this does not seem to be an adequate response. How about offering to work through the CCI item-by-item and do the fixes that Moonriddengirl would recommend? There are 660 entries in Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just the first page, I'm afraid. There are actually 6,539 articles involved. If nothing else, it would be fabulous if he'd go through to identify which of these were splits or merges and make sure they are fully attributed. (There are plenty of other ways that he could help substantially lighten the cleanup work there.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats quite a big ask and I dont think RAN should be under any preasure to do that unless he wants to. Its simplistic to say RAN created this mess. RANs learning period was years back when community norms were much more concerned with sticking closely to sources and avoiding OR - concerns which conflict with the need to avoid copyright infringements. Part of the reason for the mess is the way the project has evolved. Most of us are volunteers and ought not to be accountable for not keeping up to speed with changes in policy, even less so if we failed to anticipate future changes. Blocks in these cases should only be needed if someone keeps creating further problems once policy has been explained. Clearly RAN has got the message about the need to avoid copyright infringement and will be more careful in future, plus up to a point he's willing to help fix previous issues. We are very lucky a talented scientists like RAN spends so much time improving our content, please dont risk making him want to leave the project by pushing too hard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you've read through all the material here. Richard was well aware of the need to avoid copyright infringement and has been notified of this repeatedly throughout the years. He was told as recently as December of last year how to avoid these issues (given a clear example of the problem and pointed to several documents meant to help him learn to avoid them), and yet on 3 November 2011, he produced this:

Extended content

August Howard: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Source He was a public affairs officer of the National Council of Boy Scouts of America from 1928 to 1970. In 1934 he founded the American Polar Society for people involved or interested in polar exploration and research. Mr. Howard was a public affairs officer of the National Council of Boy Scouts of America from 1928 to 1970[...] In 1934, Mr. Howard founded the American Polar Society as a forum for people involved or interested in polar exploration and research. Job Male: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Source Job Male was born in Somersetshire, England on August 24, 1808. He came with his parents to America in 1816 and worked as a toll collector on the turnpike between Jersey City and Newark, New Jersey. He worked for the Union Ferry Company to build their ferry houses in New York and Brooklyn from 1838 to 1845. He was the superintendent of construction for the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company from 1853 to 1859, and built their docks, ferry houses, and depots at Jersey City. He was a member of the board of education in Jersey City from 1803 to 1807. For twenty years, he was a director of the Hudson County National Bank and president from 1873 to 1878. Job Male was born in Somersetshire, England on August 24, 1808. He came with his parents to America in 1816 and began to earn his livelihood by attending the toll gate on the Turnpike between Jersey City and Newark. [...] He was employed by the Union Ferry Company to build their ferry houses in New York and Brooklyn from 1838 to 1845. He was the superintendent of construction for the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company from 1853 to 1859, and built their docks, ferry houses, and depots at Jersey City. Mr. Male was a member of the board of education in Jersey City from 1803 to 1807. For twenty years, he was a director of the Hudson County National Bank and its president from 1873 to 1878.

Besides the explicit explanation I left him in December of last year, he had been told in October of last year. There are more. (Some of the human notes I see in a casual scan of his talk page history: June 2010; December 2007; July 2007. There are others, and there are plenty of CorenSearchBot notices, not all of which may be accurate but each of which offered him a link to the copyright policy. I see copyright concerns being raised with Richard (text and images) at least as far back as 2006.

To say that Richard should be excused from assisting with cleanup for not knowing policy is, well, simply extraordinary. People may in fact be required to help clean up as a condition of continuing in such cases, as per Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used." I would much rather Richard help with the cleanup voluntarily. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just today, i.e. after the CCI started, you made this edit: [7]. Your full text: "One of the largest food recalls in United States history.". The sources text: "one of the largest food recalls in the nation’s history". That doesn't give me any confidence that you really understand (or care about) the problem at all. Fram (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You cannot copyright that fact. You either are "one of the largest food recalls in United States history" or your are not. Facts cannot be copyrighted. While some of my earlier edits used too much text as fair use and sometimes I have applied government public-domain to quasi government organizations incorrectly, this is not an example. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fram, how many different ways are there to state that something was one of the biggest food recalls in US history? I don't think that edit is problematic, especially given that he links to the source and includes the quote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Fram, please read the section 'What is not plagiarism' in Wikipedia:Plagiarism. It makes exactly Sarek's point: the advice on fairly direct copying of simple sentences being allowable as long as one includes a cite also seems applicable to copyright concerns. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

<ec>*I'm not a great content editor, and I must say these copyright discussions are part of why I've been leery of doing much in the way of significant edits in mainspace. That said, are we really claiming that is a copyright problem? It's pretty clearly fair use and it's certainly clearly cited. Would "This recall was one of the largest in the United States" have been acceptable? Does the fact that he included the exact quote in the cite matter? I did look at RAN's contributions and saw some serious problems (large amounts of text more-or-less taken word-for-word). But I really don't see a copyright problem with the quote you give. It's well within fair use. And I'm not sure where the line of "not being too close" falls for such a short bit of purely factual text. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat sympathetic towards Hobit's and RAN's position here. I also think there are two issues. A the past and B the future. I suggest we lean heavily on Moonriddengirl's views on this. What I don't like is the failure to recognise and respond to the problems. --Kittybrewster ☎ 19:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Attorney/expert help needed? Does an attorney need to evaluate the alleged violations here? I see everyone talking about obvious copyright violations, but when I looked at the August and Male examples at User_talk:MER-C#Advice_on_whether_a_CCI_or_other_action_is_needed nothing tells me that slight changes to the few sentences of sampled text from a source for the article is actually going to be considered a copyright violation. When I write articles I personally try to avoid any 'copying' at all, but frankly sometimes there is only one or two good ways to relate basic facts. This is an art, not a science. If whole paragraphs are lifted word-for-word (though single paragraph attributed block quotes are surely fine), I agree that is likely a problem. When I research articles on historical events, you often see how the various authors who wrote on a subject over time all relied on many of the same original sources (as well as any subsequent sources which predated their addition), and you see how they do the same basic thing as is alleged to be a problem in RAN's August and Male examples, i.e., fragments would seem to come directly from the original sources. But the ultimate product was not the same due to minor changes. Of course, it was almost impossible to catch such activity in the pre-Internet age, I suppose, but it is far from uncommon. Also, when one endeavors to alter text by simply dropping in potential synonyms and reordering of phrases, sometimes you change the meaning of the original sources in unintended ways, and thus introduce error in your product. This is also seen in scholarly writing, where you can tell that the subsequent author clearly relied on a prior source for a particular fact and then made clumsy word substitutions to make it sound different when ultimately the intent was to convey the same exact piece of information. E.g. if I wrote, "Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809 in a log cabin in Kentucky." Now go look around and see how many sources say the same basic information. In fact, the same exact text appears here [8] in a book (lucky me, I hoped that would happen!). I could rewrite the sentence to say "In 1809, in a log cabin in Kentucky, Abraham Lincoln was born." But that's just bad writing. Or I could say "Abraham Lincoln entered this world in 1809 in a log cabin situated in Kentucky." Also not as good. So my point here is we need to be reasonable and calm in doing this examination, and apply the same standards that apparently apply to writers outside Wikipedia. If anyone can find examples where RAN wholesale used identical paragraphs word-for-word, I would like to see that because that is wrong. But to extent there is agreed to be a problem, I will help volunteer to correct any problem articles. Because I am armed and dangerous with a thesaurus and the passive voice.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your help would be certainly much appreciated. :) But I'm afraid that direct copying is not the only way to infringe copyright. Minimally altering text so as to create a derivative work is also potentially a problem, as the right to authorize derivatives is reserved to the copyright holders. Wikipedia's copyright policy requires that content be written from scratch, aside from directly marked quotations used in accordance with WP:NFC. This is the same standard applied to all of us. Certainly we may sometimes find ourselves producing text similar to that used in other sources; the problem comes in as the amount of taking increases. One sentence that coincidentally resembles something in a book one has not used is not likely to be marked as a problem. Multiple sentences that follow closely in language and structure on the accessed source are. For example, it's unlikely that Richard inadvertently produced a list so similar to this one (which most definitely predates us). The greater the proportion of this content to the article or the source, the more likely we are to have a problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well this certainly sounds like a legally grey area where most editors are not competent to judge anything outside clear wholesale copying. If we over-enforce U.S. copyright law, we are affording more protection than that intended by the U.S. Constitution, which stifles the free exchange of information. If we under-enforce, I guess at some point we are risking legal action. Frankly, I highly doubt in a million years that any of the content RAN works on would generate more than a gentle request to amend if he did do something wrong. As to the (somewhat concerning, I admit) list example, for instance, he made minor modifications but essentially adopted a list of key dates. One might argue that the significant events on that list are obvious and not copyrightable. So, though there may be some problems here, I hope editors don't make this into a drama-fest against RAN as if he's destroyed the whole project or something.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We do routinely over-enforce U.S. copyright law. This has been written into our policies since well before I became involved with copyright cleanup. WP:NFCC notes that policy is constructed "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." For one huge example, we are a non-profit organization and could accept content licensed for non-commercial use, but we don't, because this is inconsistent with the mission of Wikipedia to generate free content that can be used by anyone, anywhere. Furthermore, this is built into the model to the point that we do not have the option to change this by simple consensus; this is a Board level decision.

Whether or not content constitutes copyright infringement is a legally gray area; it is highly subjective. But Wikipedia's copyright policies are a bit more clear: information taken from copyrighted content must be written from scratch except for brief and clearly marked quotations used transformatively. (I think anyone arguing that list was not copyrightable would be way off base and can explain why, but this is probably not the best place for it. If you want to know more about copyright in lists, please drop by my talk page.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional detail. Clearly you are well-versed in these issues!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've still got the OrphanBot code from the first time RAN's images came up on AN, if anyone wants me to run it. --Carnildo (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• I would strongly oppose an indefinite block for such a dedicated and knowledgeable editor. Edison (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And how do you suggest that we solve the mess he has created? He is clearly not interested in actively helping to cleanup up after himself, and with admins basically supporting him like you did here (we shouldn't delete a massive, 7K identical copyvio because the subject is notable? Notability is irrelevant for copyvio discussions), this isn't likely to change. Being dedicated is no excuse for severe policy violations stretching five years back. Opposing a suggested solution is fine and good, but perhaps you could offer an alternative instead? Fram (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have cooperated fully and changed the wording where it has been pointed out, and rewrote the four articles where the wording was too close to the original referenced source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of "cooperated fully" differs apparently from that of most other editors. You have recreated articles that were deleted or blanked as copyright violations. You have not checked or corrected a single instance otherwise, you have not asked how you can be of help, you have not asked how you can avoid further problems. You are not cooperating at all, you only replied to this when you were threatened with an indefinite block. There are thousands of pages that need to be checked, and you haven't done a single one of them. What you are doing is damage control, not cooperating. Fram (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Side discussion about RAN's moves

Moved to a separate section so as not to distract from the bigger issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is may be a slight aside but it adds to the mix. Last year I noticed and undid this user's move of Willie Hoppe to William Frederick Hoppe with no explanation. This was not a close call. Willie Hoppe, known almost exclusively by that name, is one of the more dominant figures in sports of the twentieth century (though sadly many of you may not know of him today). When I moved it back I left a note on Richard's talk page which was not responded to. I now see a dispute on the talk page with Good Olfactory about his many poor moves. Having just taken a quick survey of his move log, this user appears to have moved a vast number of pages with little or no regard for our naming conventions, and yet at the same time seems to be aware of them. For example, here he moves Thomas J. Scully to Thomas Joseph Scully specifically citing the common naming policy. After being reverted he moved it back, again citing common names and says it "is the commons name in the most reliable sources, take it to talk page if you disagree". Normally you might think the users are just looking at different sources but the margin here is so wide that this just appear to be a lie: Google Books and News Archive combined return 3 results for the moved title and about 48,000 for the original title. Spot checking, I just moved William Weaver Bennett back to William W. Bennett, which suffers from a similar overwhelming disparity when checking reliable sources for the common name. This user has over 5,000 page moves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem with that. Good Olfactory blocked me when we each decided on a different name for an article. His argument is that moves must be discussed at WP:RM, yet he does not use WP:RM as can be documented on my talk page. In this case when you search for "William W. Bennett" you pick up all the other people with that initial like William Wallace Bennett and William Walden Bennett and William Woods Bennett. In each case we are both arguing what is best under commonname policy which suggests to rely more heavily on what other reference works use rather than a Google search which picks up everyone with that name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree with that but it should be discussed on the talk page where bold is contested and this issue seems peripheral. --Kittybrewster ☎ 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)While this problem is subordinate to the copyright violations one, and I'm wondering why you chose to answer to this one first, I still wanted to point out that this (fairly non notable) person gets 9350 Google hits for "William W. Bennett" Teaneck[9], and "William Weaver Bennett" Teaneck gives, well, 6[10]. Normally I rely more on Google books and the like, but due to the non-notability of the person, comparing 1 and 2 hits is meaningless. Fram (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Richard, I'm sorry but that doesn't even begin to pass a smell test. Nothing I've seen leads me to believe you are not smart enough to know how to do the most basic due diligence. Here you make a positive assertion that one name is more common than another and move a page based on that. Do you really need me to point out that on an amended search, as compared with the three total results for Google Books and New Archive for the name you took action on, a search of Google Books for <"Thomas J. Scully" "New Jersey" democrat> returns 1,140 results? What about the other moves? As for your dispute with Good Ol’factory, I have not looked at any other page than yours, but from what I see, you don't have a leg to stand on. He's taking action on these utterly improper moves to revert them and asking you to use WP:RM before making such moves in the future. As a party reverting your unilateral and patently bad moves, he does not need to use WP:RM for his reverts, as you argue. This implicitly equates the unilateral move with the revert. They are not equal acts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL! You've made blatantly incompetent insinuations that RAN has been lying. Then you make sweeping judgements about a complex dispute while admiting you only looked at Richards talk. And you have the gall to bleat about due diligence! Jesus wept! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The evidence speaks for itself. If you have something of actual substantive to say, as opposed to snarky assertions, I'll be happy to address that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tried working with RAN on the moves issues and have come to conclusion that one of two things must be true: (1) he does not understand WP:UCN and there is no perceptible chance that he will figure it out any time soon; or (2) he understands WP:UCN but chooses to ignore it after many, many requests and several blocks. I honestly don't know which is the case. For a long time I thought it was probably just a confusion issue—a more hopeful version of (1)—but now I'm leaning towards (2). When he states that "Good Olfactory blocked me when we each decided on a different name for an article."—well, that's just a blatant misrepresentation of the facts behind that incident. He either does not understand at all why he got blocked or yes, he is lying. Take your pick. And to suggest that I need to use WP:RM to reverse his controversial moves to the status quo ante is near the height of either stupidity or chutzpah. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We all have the best interest of the encyclopedia as our goal. As I have argued early, I have been giving more weight to the most reliable sources such as how the name appears in other reference works such as their official congressional biography for congressmen. A simple Google search for "John Smith" picks up all the people with that name, but when you search "John Aloysius Smith" you find just the one in question. In that way Google searches can give skewed results. I am not moving articles to nonsense names or moving J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. I have very rarely opposed someone moving the article again to what they feel is the best name, and have not overridden, that I am aware of, a !vote taken to decide the best name. If deciding the best name for an article was easy Wikipedia would have a program that did it automatically. But since there isn't an automated naming program, good people will always disagree on the best name. As in the examples on my talk page, what we have are two people deciding the best name, and one cementing their choice by blocking me. For example: User:Good Olfactory has trouble here deciding on a name change for an article I moved. He moved the article on Andrew F. McBride saying "moving back: it looks to me as if he is most commonly known as "Andrew McBride"; the initial was not and is not now commonly used" He then moved Andrew F. McBride to Andrew McBride (politician) and then moved Andrew McBride (politician) to Andrew F. McBride (politician) and then finally moved Andrew F. McBride (politician) to Andrew F. McBride. If article names were easy to decide and clearcut Good Olfactory would not have to move the article multiple times. What we have in this example are two people using their best judgement to find the best name for an article using the same resources and coming up with different answers, but one has the ability to block the other and cement in their choice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a complete mischaracterization of the situation, and I think you know it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I guess he needs to be prohibited from making page moves until he satisfies the community that he gets the point and will abide by consensus. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pages moves is a minor tangent - If he isn't prepared to help at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 he should be banned immediately . Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the page move issue is minor when compared to the copyright violation issue. When it's all rolled up together, however, it makes a convincing case for an indefinite block until he figures things out or chooses to do so, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the page move reverts earlier this year were done solely because the original page move had been made by RAN.  These are ad hominem reverts, and do not by themselves provide any information about the quality of RANs moves.  I tried researching one of the moves, and it was far from simple to get a clear answer.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

topic ban?

Obviously this is a wide-ranging set of issues. Given the scope I wonder if a topic ban on creating articles and performing page moves is in order so that the problem at least does not get any bigger. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• - User:RAN should be banned from any further content additions on en wikipedia and picture uploads until he has assisted in resolving his previous copyright violations. When he has resolved those he will have a clear understanding of where the en wiki policy line is and moving forward won't create the same issues. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Question What would that leave him to do, besides removing his own copyright violations? Not a criticism: I just want to know what (if anything) you'd like him to be able to do besides cleaning his own past problems. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Vandal reverts, discussion threads and suchlike would be no issue, but no content additions or uploads at all while working with the copyright investigation until its all resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Makes sense to me. I thought it useful to have the clarification, because someone might construe "content additions" to include adding significant chunks of text to a discussion or un-blanking a page that a vandal had attacked. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment anyone noticed that Richard still refuses to admit any wrongdoing. if people want to give him a chance to continue on the future, there needs to be full admittance of a range of improper practices and an acknowledgement this will never occur again. Until we get this unambigious guarantee from Richard, how can we trust him in future? LibStar (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the Libstar is not the most objective person. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles William Floyd Coffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Davis Ticknor (New Jersey) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krebs Pigments and Chemical Company where he was nominating almost every new article I created over a short period a few weeks ago. All were kept with almost total support. I would like to think that he is objective, but he appears to have some antipathy toward me that leads him to harass me with nominations like these. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Question for Richard Norton Richard, in the interests of knowing where you stand. Would you be willing to admit that you have deliberately flaunted flouted WP rules despite repeated warnings especially relating to copy violations and page moves? And in doing so, would you be willing to cease all such violations in future and respect warnings from other editors for future transgressions if they occur? LibStar (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Did you mean "flouted" when you typed "flaunted?" See [11]. There is a difference. Edison (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

agree, my mistake and I have corrected. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I would have to say in this case that both words are appropriate descriptors. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • On the other hand, Wikilawyers are noted for "flaunting" guidelines and policies in discussions, to the distress of Wikianarchists. Edison (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with Off2RioRob unless Moonriddengirl proposes this. It does not incentivise RAN to cooperate or help. I would like her to propose a schedule of constructive things for him to do, including acknowledging past transgressions and an apology to the community for de-dusting. Don't rub his nose in his stuff because it won't benefit the pedia. Alternative may be that we lose an editor whom some might prefer to keep. Kittybrewster ☎ 01:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Users come and go - but their copyright violations remain. Perhaps your his wiki friend and don't want to hear what MRG said - seems to me to have been quite clear as to the seriousness of the violations from User:RAN - Personally I doubt if he can survive and carry on adding content while the copyright team trawl through his copyright violations over the next months - and why should he if he is not prepared to help them. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  No I am not his wiki chum; I think we have never rubbed noses. But I don't think he is a vandal and I would like to keep him aboard to help in the de-dusting. I think blaming him and finding fault will not help much. But he needs to take responsibility for past deeds and what happens from now on. Kittybrewster ☎ 01:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  A copyright violator or even someone that just either doesn't understand or refuses to accept the projects copyright policy is on another level from a vandal - copyright is a legal issue. If he is not to be blocked he needs to be banned from adding any content at all until this and his previous violations are fully resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  So we need him to stay with us, constructively helping to launder the doilies. Without pay. And even lawyers eat honey; it encourages them. This is not about crime and punishment. I have 3 questions. 1 Is MRG prepared to work with him and create s plan for the past and the future? 2 Is he prepared to agree to it? 3 Will the community buy it? Kittybrewster ☎ 02:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  I don't want to weigh in on whether or not he should be topic banned at this point, but I do want to say that I would be happy to try to help Richard work within our approach to copyright. Particularly in images, he's done some excellent work finding rare and usable materials and getting them online, and it would be great to keep him as a productive contributor. I can also draft some suggestions for how he could help with the CCI, since this is going to consume a lot of time from other volunteers. I don't have time to monitor or work with him closely, though; I am only able to work on Wikipedia as a volunteer generally for an hour or so in the mornings and weekends at this point, and I'm trying to keep up at WP:CP as well as pitching in at WP:CCI. Prior experience mentoring prolific contributors with similar issues suggests it can take quite a bit of time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose both measures as extremely premature. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment towards Richard - Massive copyvios, image issues, refusal to acknowledge the issue... this could be you. In fact, if you don't bust your ass to fix this, it probably will be. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• General question about WP:CCI. For example near the top there I found Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Epeefleche, right next to the one for RAN, in the other column. The investigation appears pretty old and rather stalled. But the user in question seems to be happily editing elsewhere. Is this how CCI usually works? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Editors who have been subject to a CCI and are not blocked are informally "on probation" (so to speak), any more copyvios will typically result in an indef block. The stalled investigation is a direct consequence of the lack of manpower in this area. MER-C 08:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Seconding this. There are a few cases where editors were blocked at or just before the CCI started, but it is separate from the CCI process which is only about cleaning up past mistakes. They've either been blocked by consensus at AN or ANI or by ordinary admin intervention. I have blocked several editors who continued violating copyright policies after the CCI began, as by this point people are well informed of the issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment even as we speak Richard's belligerent I know best attitude continues. [12]. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the Libstar is not the most objective person. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles William Floyd Coffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Davis Ticknor (New Jersey) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krebs Pigments and Chemical Company where he was nominating almost every new article I created over a short period a few weeks ago. All were kept with almost total support. I would like to think that he is objective, but he appears to have some antipathy toward me that leads him to harass me with nominations like these. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Like I say there, two people deciding the best name for an article. One has the power to block the other, the one with blocking power always wins. That isn't community consensus, or winning the argument by force-of-logic, it is winning the argument with overwhelming force. If the rule is we should be using WP:RM for moves, then set an example by using it too, when you do not like the name of an article I created. Editors respect other editors that follow the rules they are enforcing. The examples there are well documented. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  When did he rename an article you created, RAN? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Lib, anyone paying a little attention knows you loathe RAN. E.g., User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Barnstar. So its comical to see your glee in this thread.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• This thread should come to a definite result. So far four editors appear to support a topic ban while one is opposed. The situation can't go on forever as it is now, with the copyright people struggling to keep up with RAN as he creates more problems. RAN has made no concessions, criticizes those who see a need for cleanup, and seems oblivious to the damage done. One editor, User:ASCIIn2Bme has opposed a topic ban as extremely premature. I hope he will explain what further steps have to occur before the situation becomes mature. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban until, with RAN's assistance in rewriting, the whole mess of his CCI is cleaned up, and he then understands the line between copyvio and non-copyvio and commits not to make further copyvio contributions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose any form of ban. In various recent edits including to this board RAN has clearly conceded there have been issues, displayed a good understanding of what he need to do to avoid further infringements, and said he is willing to help with clean up efforts. The mutliple comments in denial of this blatant fact seem a little surreal, to put it politely. Suggest closing down this whole thread and giving him time to consider whether he wants to actively assist with the CCI or just help with individual articles as others point out the need. RAN is far too excellent an editor for us to risk losing by not showing due consideration and respect. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "said he is willing to help with clean up efforts." He only came here after being threatened with an indef block, and hasn't helped in cleaning up the problems one single bit so far. All he has done is recreate copyvio-free versions of pages that have already been deleted or blanked: this doesn't remove a single copyright violation he created: finding and removing these is left to others. He doesn't even suggest to help with this, or ask how he can be of use in the CCI, he only paid some lipservice to not continuing the problems. Whether he is an excellent editor or not is debatable, he certainly is one of the most prolific and good at finding sources; but that doesn't excuse the five or six years of continued copyright violations, even after this was repeatedly pointed out to him in the past; and neither does it excuse his total inactivity in the correction of these problems. I have another suggestion: we indef block him until he decides that "he wants to actively assist with the CCI"; if he decides that he doesn't even want to that, he has no place here. How about him showing a little bit of respect for our policies, and helping out with solving problems he created without the need to apply extreme pressure like blocks? What is there to consider for him? Fram (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I came here when you wrote on my page you were going to block me for making the corrections asked of me. You were using the fact that I was correcting articles as evidence of some sort of bad faith. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Feyd would have us believe Richard is some babe-in-the-woods who made an innocent mistake. That is obviously not the case. The more experienced an editor is, the more they are expected to be aware of important policies like those on copyright infringement. This has been going on for years and involves thousands of articles that will now need to be checked and scrubbed or deleted. That is not ok, and a user who created such a huge problem should not be treated with kid gloves. The topic ban would obviously serve a preventative purpose as it would stop him form continuing to create infringing articles as he obviously either does not understand or does not care about WP policy on copyright. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

When did it become a "huge problem"? I have agreed to rewrite the 6 instances pointed out to me, out of almost 120,000 edits. I agreed that the timeline should be removed, and that I should cut down an fair use content, and put in quotes anything that is 100% unchanged from the source material. As Wikipedia rules on fair-use have changed and been tightened so has my writing style. What would a topic ban serve? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules on fair-use have not changed or tightened since my note to you last year. Yet you created two articles on 3 November 2011 that were speedily deleted as copyright violations. The comparison text is included in collapse box above; I'm not sure how to perceive that as changing and tightening your writing style. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well said. It is RANs attitude that makes it necessary to impose a topic ban. He is unwilling to even admit that he has been simply ignoring copyright policy despite the fact that he has been aware of it for years and has been advised specifically about it before. Asking him not to ignore the policy clearly didn't work, he won't even admit that is what happened, so a topic ban is the next logical step. If the message still doesn't get through then its time for a block. Hopefully nobody (besides Feyd) is fooled by his innocent/ignorant routine, which falls in the realm of WP:BALLS. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. The fact that this has been pointed out to RAN before and yet he continued to violate copyright makes this a lay-down case, in my view. That he continued to create copyright violations after earlier warnings demonstrates that he either completely disregards copyright policies or that he does not have the competence to comply with them. Either is more than a good enough reason for a topic ban of this kind. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• I would reluctantly support a topic ban for this editor. He has been around a long time and knows Wiki policies very well. The copyright abuses are staggering and shocking. Topic ban him until we can trust him. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• The copyright investigation has not investigated much. It also started on November 8. What other copyright violations has RAN made since then? In Epeefleche case, the investigation started roughly a year ago, and still has not made much progress either. I don't see what's the pressing emergency here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Call it topic ban if you wish but at least informally, it should be made clear that RAN's sole priority should be cleaning up his mess. So yes, I want RAN to avoid any page move. Not because he can't make one without creating conflict but because he should be working on the much more serious, much more pressing issue of the copyright violations. I frankly find it quite annoying that RAN's contribution to the AN thread is so focused on the page moves issue. If this thread was about page moves it would be on RAN's talk page, not on the administrator's noticeboard. Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• I greatly appreciate and respect the time and energy RAN has put into this project, and have no doubt that many of his additions to the 'pedia are fully within policy. However, priority #1 has to be analysis of existing content for copyright compliance; allowing more content to be added while the existing concerns remain unaddressed is simply unacceptable. As such, I absolutely support a topic ban on content addition until the CCI is complete. In the meantime, let's leave him unblocked to allow him to revert vandalism, add supporting RS references, correct errors, and (ideally) help resolve the CCI himself. Once the CCI is complete, then this prolific editor can return to work adding content, with an improved appreciation of the copyright policies we all must adhere to. 28bytes (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support a temporary topic ban on new uploads/new content creation (if RAN's in a copyvio hole, then he needs to stop digging—or even risking accidental digging), but also firmly support RAN remaining unblocked as long as he's cleaning up the copyright messes he's made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• support topic ban and one month block in light of the far from satisfactory responses from Richard on this issue, and his continuing attitude to even concede wrongdoing. An enforced wikibreak is essential to make sure Richard understands the gravity of the issues. Lastly, this is the very last chance for Richard, further violations should be immediate indef block. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the Libstar is not the most objective person. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles William Floyd Coffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Davis Ticknor (New Jersey) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krebs Pigments and Chemical Company where he was nominating almost every new article I created over a short period a few weeks ago. All were kept with almost total support. I would like to think that he is objective, but he appears to have some antipathy toward me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard, this ANI is about you not me. could you please advise others if you have deliberately flouted copyright rules for WP. and that you have done this despite repeated warnings? And in doing so, would you be willing to cease all such violations in future and respect warnings from other editors for future transgressions if they occur? still waiting if you'll actually reply or just ignore? LibStar (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As proposer of the topic ban I must say I don't see any point to heaping a one month block on top of it. The goal of the topic ban would be to stop the problematic edits, so no purpose would be served by blocking as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

agreed, I've changed my statement. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. MER-C 02:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As people point out things that need to be worded differently to avoid copyright infringement, I am making the changes. Please continue to point out things that you feel are too close to the source document and I will change the wording. Some sources that on first assumption appear to be public domain by age, or by government creation and not eligible for copyright protection, or seemed like uncopyrightable facts, can be incorrect on my first look and closer scrutiny is always welcome. I will be more careful to paraphrase and cut down on long quotes or enclose them in quotation marks. I will also work to use more sources per article, a single source, even when paraphrased and reworded can still have the same look-and-feel as the original material. Most obituaries are a chronological list of facts and even when reworded will still retain the same look-and-feel, unless disparate sources are combined. I have made over 120,000 edits and so far 8 edits have been pointed out to me and corrected as quickly as possible. Banning me from creating new articles will just end the collaboration with the Library of Congress. After the page move controversy I stopped editing which only resulted in no public domain images from the LOC going into articles by me, and no new entries for those people in the images. Even the best editors can disagree to what is an infringement, for instance Fram says that writing: "One of the largest food recalls in United States history." and "one of the largest food recalls in the nation’s history". doesn't fall into the non-copyrightable fact category. Good editors will disagree. If it was clear-cut a bot could determine what is an infringement and what isn't, and what is fair-use of attributed text and what isn't fair-use. If Fram was correct [https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22one+of+the+largest+food+recalls+in+the+nation%E2%80%99s+history%22%22 then 3,659 of the 3,660 instances online would be an infringement. -Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

We should also be deeply concerned with the quality of your prose if you incorporate public domain material wholesale, or paraphrase sentence by sentence and closely borrow. Many, if not most, of your articles will need to be rewritten from scratch to survive the rigorously requirements for encyclopaedia quality at FA or A classes. Close paraphrase has been considered a knock back issue at Military History A class for some time now, and the duplication of "look-and-feel" and the absence of disparate sourcing are deep quality concerns for any article you've touched. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That RAN isn't writing class FA or A articles isn't really something to be deeply concerned about at this time in my opinion. Direct quotes from cited public-domain sources is, I think, not a copyright problem (though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Hobit (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrase and structural paraphrase amount to plagiarism—even when the text is Public Domain; a misconduct against the encyclopaedic process but not against copyright law. Similarly large scale quotation to the point of structural significance, even when the original work is PD, approaches plagiarism. Close and structural paraphrase can also amount to copyright abuse, but my concern here is to note that the behaviour demonstrated has impacts on the encyclopaedic project beyond copyright. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You may note that Wikipedia migrated the entire Congressional Biographical Directory over as well as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica at points in the past. If people are presenting those sources as their own thoughts then that is plagiarism. If the citation template is used then Wikipedia is not offering it as original writing and it is not plagiarism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work" is a pretty standard definition of plagiarism. If he's not citing the source, I agree we have a plagiarism situation. But if he is citing the public domain source and using a close paraphrase, that is neither an issue of copyright violation or plagiarism (as it is commonly defined). I think doing so is certainly non-ideal (better to quote directly and make it clear if the PD source's style is to be used), but again we don't chastise people for close paraphrase in the case (AFAIK). Hobit (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Question for Moonriddengirl Do you support a topic ban? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I know I'm slow, but I have not yet completely decided. :) If called to commit now, after his puzzling statement yesterday that he has evolved to address changes to fair use policy when he had not addressed a problem pointed out clearly to him almost a year ago, I would say I do support a topic ban. This is particularly the case because fair use policy has been stable as regards these issues for years and Richard has been notified by both bots and people of our policies regarding text since 2006. It leads me to worry that he either does not understand the problem or is not as open to correcting his behavior as he sounds. :/ Too, the fact that he has thus far resisted bringing his own work up to standards concerns me. The reason we have CCIs that have been open for over a year is that we have a very few people working them; it is time consuming to clean up behind copyright problems in the best case. With dead links and print sources (we've already found copying from one book) as well as dubious sourcing (such as this, although I'm unsure whether those are inappropriate links or actual sources) or no sourcing at all (such as this), this is not the best case. This one is going to take a while. Willingness on Richard's part to proactively and responsibly clean up after himself (rather than waiting for other contributors to sort out for him when he did it wrong) would certainly be a big show of good faith. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. I'm going to stop waffling. Yes, without some compelling reason to reconsider, I support a topic ban. Although I am still convinced that Richard has a lot to offer, at this point I am concerned that he either does not understand or does not respect our copyright policies. As Rob points out, some time working to clean up these issues will make sure that he has no misunderstandings moving forward. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Richard and I are talking via email about cleanup processes in CCI. Moving back to neutral pending outcome of that conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral per MRG.. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support the topic ban. Richard doesn't seem to acknowledge or understand the seriousness of the issue, at least not well enough to be proactive in addressing it. He has stated a willingness (of sorts) to assist; a topic ban allows him to focus his efforts on the CCI, while not foreclosing the possibility that he may return to normal editing in the future. Nathan ^T 19:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban, but if and only if it's just until the copyright investigation is over. If someone continually causes a lot of work for other users, they really should be obligated to help clean up the mess rather than continue to go on their way. But further action should only be needed if there's continual flouting of copyright guidelines.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is way too open-ended. If it had a clear means of ending the ban (who decides when it's all cleaned up?) I might be okay with it (depending on the who/method). I've looked over the problems and only seen a handful that are really troubling. That's not an excuse, but I do (currently) think this is being blown out of proportion. A serious problem yes. And if there are significant problems again, a full ban might be reasonable. But for now, as long as RAN focuses on cleaning things up, I'm fine. Hobit (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Either we support the CCI team, or we don't. Telling a bunch of volunteers that they need to suck it up for an editor who was indef blocked in 2006 for copyright violations would be telling the CCI crowd that we do not value them or their work. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• I was looking at the this with a view to close it, but I thought it might be better to comment. I do Support a topic ban, but similarly to Hobit, I would feel uncomfortable with the open-endedness of the ban as is. I would suggest that if Moonriddengirl can create the "schedule of work" or a "task list" that she would expect from an editor who is in good faith trying to clear up the mess. If RAN shows that he is then following that schedule, I would have no problem with him appealing the topic ban. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• That's a good point, given that CCIs can remain open for quite some time. This weekend I hope to get some time to look through Richard's CCI more deeply, and that may help determine the best ways that Richard could contribute. I already know that one of the best things he could do is identify when he copied content from one article to another. His attribution habits there have in the past been haphazard. Sometimes he has mentioned the copying and sometimes not. If he could look at the articles in the list and determine when content has been copied from another article, making sure that attribution issues are repaired, he would save reviewers the needless work of evaluating those edits (like this) for copyright problems as well as honoring his contract with other users to attribute their text (which is not public domain, of course). While copyright violation policy permits for blocking users until they identify the sources from which they've copied, I don't really think that's a reasonable request in a case like this, because I think that there's very little chance Richard would know what source he copied from in 2006. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose  If RAN won't cooperate with Moonriddengirl, then Moodriddengirl should make a proposal.  The current proposal doesn't seem to be results oriented.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• SUpport topic ban. RAN has caused a massive problem and is being coy when confronted with it. A topic ban to stop the disruption is appropriate. Reyk _YO! 10:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems to be blatant harassment of a good faith editor. Warden (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

good faith?continually violating copyvio despite repeated warnings is not good faith. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Going through 6,500 + articles could take RAN years if his heart isnt in it. If hes not allowed to do the work he loves until the CCI is finished, he'll very likely just leave. Wikipedia isnt the only project competing for the services of talented content creators like RAN. There are plenty of other projects where anyone is free to create content, many of them give more authorial independence than we do and even allow one to earn an appreciable revenue stream. (Albeit youre doing less of public service contributing to the other projects as they have less readers). Granted, RAN was slow to recognize copyright concerns, but now he's clearly done so , its seems best not to risk a ban. If there are any new clear transgressions of the sort MRG detailed above, then of course he can be topic banned or even perma-banned - please dont think anyone here is denying that copyright concerns are serious. For now he should be left to help with the CCI at his own discretion. The loss of an editing titan like RAN would be equivalent to the deletion of hundreds of GA class articles, please lets not risk it! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"The loss of an editing titan like RAN would be equivalent to the deletion of hundreds of GA class articles" what a ridiculous assertion. Continual copy violation destroys the integrity of WP. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Feyd, may I ask why you think Richard has no responsibility to ensure that content he has added is legally usable under our licenses? I am encouraged by Richard's more recent comments here (the one you linked above doesn't reassure me much considering that he followed it up by claiming that he had altered his practices to meet changing fair use standards when (a) fair use standards for text have been stable for years and (b) he demonstrably had not), but I don't really understand the position that others should have to do this work with his helping if he feels like it. Helping to clean up from copyright problems isn't some kind of punishment; it protects the project, our articles, our reusers and other editors from issues that arise when copyrighted content has been introduced to our work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, actually I do think the most ethical choice is for RAN to actively cooperate with the CCI to whatever extent you're happy with. But thats just me, no one has the exactly the same ethics. What Im against is RAN being banned from the work he loves doing until hes completed what could be a very lengthy and arduous CCI. There's some grey issues here that Im going to send you a quick email about, as it might be problematic if I write frankly on here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll look for it in a bit. I'm glad you mentioned it, as I don't typically check that email very often. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Close please

Looks like we have a pretty firm consensus here. As proposer it would be inappropriate for me to do the close, if an uninvolved admin or other user could step in close it, and inform RAN of the result that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• There is no firm consensus here - just a typical ANI lynch mob. Please take the matter to RFC/U if it seems to warrant more attention. Warden (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

really despite a long record of copy violation and ignorance of several attempts by several editors to correct Richard, one should not be examined in a ANI? consensus seems pretty strong here. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite so Colonel, this is starting to look like a witchhunt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree. There are serious problems where large blocks of text were copied with minimal changes. These need to be fixed and RAN should be helping, both to identify problems and to fix them. I do think you made a good point that an article creation ban might push RAN away. And, as noted above, I think that the CCI process is too open-ended to base a topic-ban on. But it's not a "witch-hunt" if there is an actual and serious problem. Hobit (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion has weight Hobit, but our article on witch-hunt says, "The term 'witch-hunt' since the 1930s has also been in use as a metaphor to refer to moral panics in general (frantic persecution of perceived enemies)."  RAN has long reported being Wikihounded.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Name-calling against either "side" isn't helpful. We have a fairly large number of opinions; it would be useful to have need someone else offer an opinion about what the balance of those opinions is. This is a standard process. Saying that the other "side" is engaging in a witch hunt is not only unhelpful, it's going to convince the closer that the name-caller believes his "side" is the losing side. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I am already going through my articles and repairing article splits with the newest template, and I am changing wording that is too close to the original or uses too long of a quote. I can see that my earliest articles made some errors where I treated information from quasi-governmental agencies as de facto PD-US-gov where the question is still open to debate. I am removing larger quotes from those articles or enclosing them in quotation marks. If you want you can look at my most current style of writing such as Krebs Pigments and Chemical Company or Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard, I just want to be clear for everyone: will you commit to help with evaluating the CCI and to collaborating to correct issues either with older articles or with your practices? If you will, again, I would think this a very encouraging sign of good faith, and I would support your being able to also work in other areas while you do so as I can understand that being restricted to working only on this might be demotivational. What is most important to me here is that any outstanding issues be cleaned and that we make sure that all processes and practices are clear so that you can continue contributing without future concerns. I'm happy to that end to work with you if you have questions or concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a future topic ban appeal with copyvio cleanup diffs of (say) 75 articles would have some legs. MER-C 04:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I puzzled as to why the ARS crowd is coming out to support someone who is a serial copyright violator. Don't see the connection, but thanks for the typically overblown hyperbole. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep the ARS use the same tactic of "no consensus" to avoid action against their friend Richard. The case for " oppose" topic ban is very weak indeed. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User Durneydiaz

Durneydiaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created an innumerable number of articles that fall outside guidelines. Someone ought to decide whether the user should receive special counseling or a final warning.    Thorncrag  18:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

When you look harder, most of his articles are OK. He's working through http://www.bdfa.com.ar to add football players that have the required notability. Some patrollers are not noticing that bdfa (or the other site he uses) is always provided as a reference but not an inline citation, which is not necessary in these stub articles. His communication skills seem totally lacking, but he's not actually churning out BLP vios, and his subjects do seem to meet the standard of notability required for footie players. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Deterence

There was already a discussion of this user soapboxing at WP:ITN/C, a month ago. The user does not seem to have gotten the message, as the soapboxing ([13]) and incivility ([14]) continues. Pantherskin (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

See also this one week old warning [15]. Pantherskin (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• FFS, you're still trolling through my history, over 2 hours later? Get a bloody life, you pathetic twat! Deterence ^Talk 12:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the above earned Deterence a 72 hr break from the project. Hopefully it's a deterrence. Pantherskin, please remember that incidents go on WP:ANI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2011 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open

Nominations for the 2011 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now officially open and will run until Monday 21 November at 23:59 UTC.

• If you are interested in running for the Arbitration Committee for 2012 and meet the requirements for candidacy, please go here.
• If any other editors are interested in coordination, please go here.

–MuZemike 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Subtle and polite request.

I have not notified the other party because I don't want to offend him. He has done nothing wrong.

Editor Saddhiyama made a revert to a discussion page (List of Riots). He is using Twinkle and I think he made two reverts when he intended one.

I went to his personal page. His english is much better than my hindustani, but MAYBE someone could encourage him to get more experience before thinking a fairly innocuous (by MY standards) was a personal attack and removing it from the talk page.

I don't want to do it because I'm not much of an editor and REALLY don't want to start something.

I hope this is a legit matter for you folks.Aaaronsmith (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

He didn't use twinkle, and he didn't revert [16]. He removed your edit, and Sine Bot's edit signing your edit. The article talkpage isn't the place for snark about other editors. This board is for issues affecting administrators generally. To request an administrative action, use WP:ANI. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this thread, Elen. I remember that I did consider posting a friendly message on Aaronsmiths talk page, linking to WP:No personal attacks. But I noticed the messages on their talk page going back to 2008, and gathered from that that it was probably an experienced editor, who probably already knew the basic policies, and that it was just a simple case of tempers flaring in a heated dispute (which happens to the best of us), and that my edit summary would be sufficient for the editor to know they should probably cool off a bit before replying again in that particular dispute. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick admin assistance on a non-controversial page move

need to move Florida Marlins to Miami Marlins. Can't do it myself. Team officially changed its name a few minutes ago. Some are simply redirecting, which I revert because page history has to move with the article.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done by MuZemike, I filed the request on IRC. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 02:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock discussion User:Kci357

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Although there is some scepticism over whether Kci357 will return as a productive editor, there is no consensus to keep him blocked. Floquenbeam points out, "in cases where there is no consensus either way among the declining admins ... the default should be to unblock". As such, I will unblock Kci357 presently, on the understanding that he will be swiftly reblocked if he returns to past behaviour. Worm^TT · (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Kci357 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well over a month ago, Kci357 contacted me asking about an unblock. Since then, I have been in discussion with him, and I did explain that I couldn't simply unblock him, but I did talk to him about what he could do to receive an unblock. In my talking to him, I do believe he is sincere about wanting to contribute constructively if he is unblocked. I have the following points to mention:

1. Kci357 has told me that there will not be any socking.
2. He has promised not to edit-war, and instead, he will discuss in future.
3. He knows that there will be plenty of people watching him if he does slip, and another chance after another block is very, very unlikely.
4. I e-mailed the original blocking admin, Fox, and he is okay with an unblock. However, since Kci357 has had unblock requests declined since then, I've contacted a couple of the admins declining those requests rather than overrule them.
5. There hasn't been any strong agreement with those admins to unblock or keep blocked, so now I'm starting a discussion here, with Kci357 being okay with me doing that.

Personally, I don't see the harm in giving Kci357 a second chance. If he immediately goes back to the behavior that got him blocked, he will just be reblocked, and I will be very disappointed after the all discussion I had with him. If he is unblocked, keeps his promises, and edits constructively, then a positive outcome will have been achieved. Acalamari 10:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Acalamari did contact me, as one of the admins who had declined an unblock. To me, the editor just didn't get it. It was so bad, that his talkpage access was removed. Apparently, it was restored to allow the editor to, in his own words, make his unblock request - which he has not done. Although I WP:AGF, if the editor cannot follow WP:GAB, cannot express his own request sincerely, cannot show that they recognize their behaviours that led to the block (and later talkpage locking), and relies on others to express these things on their behalf, I'm not sure that the editor has either the sincerety nor WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest, I would say the odds of this working out are almost zero, and I wouldn't unblock myself. However, in cases where there is no consensus either way among the declining admins, I strongly feel that the default should be to unblock, not leave blocked. I don't see any irreparable harm in deferring to Acalamari's judgement and giving it a try.

  Assuming that the sock tag on his user page is correct (and behavioral evidence leads me to think it is), you should also make it a condition for unblocking that he not abuse the reference desks. Needs to be on his absolute best behavior every edit he makes, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with BWilkins on this. If the user is not sufficiently competent to explain for themselves why they should be unblocked and must resort to doing it by proxy I can't see any benefit to unblocking them. A look at the few edits they have made on their talk page since access was restored re-affirms that feeling. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam says above "I don't see any irreparable harm in deferring to Acalamari's judgement and giving it a try" and that's pretty much how I see it as well. Let's give him a shot, and if it doesn't work out, it's simple enough to reblock. 28bytes (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I do accept the concerns here, especially given Kci357's short editing history, talk page, and blocks (I'd have no problem with a condition in an unblock for him to keep away from the reference desks, too). I thought of all that myself, but then I thought again that in cases like this, the unblocked editor is always watched, and with one wrong move they're blocked again. It goes without saying that I'll be someone watching him.
  • As for Kci357 not requesting the unblock himself, he contacted me just before the time his talk page was unblocked, and I think the reason he has not requested anymore unblocks is because of him discussing his block with me (I also told him that I would do the contacting, as I have done). If anything, I consider it a good thing he hasn't posted more unblocks, but that's just me.
  • Assuming he is unblocked, it would be very embarrassing for me and an error to have helped if Kci357 did get himself reblocked, but again, I'm hoping he won't do that. Acalamari 17:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Acalamari: giving an editor a chance is a worthy goal, and should not result in your embarrassment no matter the outcome. There is just no way to get a realistic vibe from someone typing. It's hard enough to do it in person and humans are much better at that than constrained mediums like this.

I say unblock him, and reblock on the first significant violation. Lesser violations like etiquette and guideline confusion can be ignored or for any interested editor to educate. He has been warned adequately. It should be quickly apparent if he will be a benefit to Wikipedia or a time waster. —EncMstr (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unarchiving as this was archived without resolution. 28bytes (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock on the basis of a rope.

• If he is found socking, then a week-long block should do; if a second sock is later found, indef block.
• If he engages in an edit war, he will be warned the first time, but blocked immediately for a short duration the second time.
• If unblocked, they must display competence and cooperate. If a similar situation arises again, instant-indef block.

HurricaneFan25 14:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't quite agree to that pattern of blocking. A new sock? Indef, done, finit. Edit-warring would typically continue a pattern of escalation, as required. It's admin's reading of the situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if a new sock appeared, that would be a blatant return to old behavior and clear grounds for an indefinite block, so I agree completely with Bwilkins. After reading Nil Einne and Brammers' comments, if Kci357 is unblocked, I definitely think an RD ban should be one of the conditions, too. Acalamari 20:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No comment on the unblock request but just as a note, this user's problems stretch back further then the Kj650 account. They are the same as Thekiller35789 and had a whole host of other identites which were never blocked, they tended to give up on accounts after they got enough complaints and another easily recognisable account would appear. They were annoying on the RD, but the far bigger problem was their tendency to remove source info or add stuff to articles without sources, apparently to better reflect theirPOV. However for a while, it was low level enough that those of us who recognised it couldn't really be bothered persuing it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• As an RD semi-regular (lurking if not posting), I agree with Nil Einne's points. I tried to interact and guide some of the user behind Kci357's other accounts, receiving one reply to a questioned, unjustified removal of article content. To the best of my knowledge, I can't remember any other successful interaction attempts, which has left me with a rather low opinion of the user in question. Some of the accounts were quite sharp in their interactions with people who undid the unexplained (and very messy - sentences left hanging, words chopped in half) deletions of article content. The user had a habit of posting an unusual mixture of questions about carpentry, building codes and internet gore videos on the ref desk, and never seemed satisfied with the response, continually asking for clarification when a clear and concise answer had already been given. It has been demonstrated time and time again that this user is not interested in engaging with others, taking care in their edits to the mainspace or being beneficial to this project in any way. He's been given enough rope in the past to rig a man-o'-war. I don't think any benefit will come from an unblock, but if the problematic behaviour returns then a swift – and final – indef has all the justification it needs. Brammers (talk/c) 23:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for resolution

I've pulled this one back from the archive a second time... could an uninvolved admin close this one way or another? It seems to me the general consensus is pessimistic about the chances for success but willing to cautiously toss some WP:ROPE with an unblock since re-blocks are cheap, but as I've commented to that effect myself I obviously can't close it. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please delete copyvio pictures

A picture File:Kanishta-.jpg has been deleted twice from commons, see articles history. Please delete this copyvio--Musamies (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Camw (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect for deletion

Please delete Talk:Theophosostic counseling/Archive 1 under G7. I'm making the request here because my reason for deletion is too long for a template, and I'm using my public-computer sock account.

Off2riorob created the page as an archive for Talk:Theophostic counseling, but as the page history will show you, he almost immediately moved it to Talk:Theophostic counseling/Archive 1, because "Theophosostic" is a typo. Off2riorob has since come to believe that it should be deleted, so he's left a request for deletion on my talk page. This should be enough for an author-requested speedy. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Further research needed on subject

Wasn't certain where exactly should go with this new found information. Mainly because the info comes from a forum discussion, which is, saying the least unreliable, however after seeing that the voice artist Joan Gerber's page is lacking a lot of things(sources, updates, infobox), decided to bring this discussion to Wikipedia. After vandalism on another famous voice artist's wiki page was made earlier figured it be a much better idea to discuss the information here as opposed to on her wiki page or talk page, out of respect to the person and her relatives, in case info turns out to be false. Here is the information on the Toon Zone Forum [17] (which doesn't appear anywhere else on the internet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHillbillies (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussions on the content of the article do belong on the talkpage for the article. If there are serious issues surrounding the biography of a living person, then the BLP noticeboard is a good place to head (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD needs closing

WP:Articles for deletion/Azarbaijani Kurds was first nominated on 19 Oct. Because it wasn't initially listed on the logs, it stayed for a while; it's now been over a week since it was listed on the daily logs. Would some uninvolved admin please put that discussion out of its misery? LadyofShalott 00:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, there's still a debate going on, and the article has been moved around a couple of times, and only today we saw some sourced improvements. Maybe leave it open for a little longer? It seems it has attracted some editorial attention after this notice here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the recently added references don't support the text cited, so I don't think the article got any better. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please protect Montel Vontavious Porter?

There's a concerted attack coming from Twitter to add nonsense to the BLP Montel Vontavious Porter. Could somebody semi-protect for a while? It's at RFPP, but we probably should nip this in the bud. The Mark of the Beast (talk)`

Somebody, please? I'm dealing with the BLP attack by myself. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP again

Lots of RFPP requests currently; any admins about that could help by doing some? (Not that admins are completely needed, but regular users can't protect pages) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 03:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Working. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I took care of the vast majority of current requests, but the one for Francis Poulenc is a bit beyond my depth. Someone might want to take care of that before it blows up into a full-on edit war. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Buckshot06 threat users in Kazakhstan topics

• User:Buckshot06 banned users whithout any serious reason; He doesn't allow to make edits!! 95.56.150.140 (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)