Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642

User:Kobutsu outing attempts

This user has attempted now twice attempted to out another editor as part of an external dispute between Zen Buddhists imported to the Eido Tai Shimano page and elsewhere. I did not notice the first outing (since oversighted) for about a week since it was on a user's talkpage, but left a warning that it was not to be repeated. Kobutsu has since made another attempt at outing (which has again been oversighted). I have blocked for 24 hours for what is an obvious attempt at harassment, but am concerned that the block should be for longer. Opinions please. --Slp1 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that you didn't notice the first attempt for a week and then the user made another one after your (very clear) warning, clearly it's a problem recurring over a much longer period than 24 hours; a 24-hour block is unlikely to do anything to stop the behaviour. I'd probably suggest a longer block, or even indefinite, until the user agrees to stop. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good advice. Perhaps others will weigh in too. I'll just add that the target User:Spt51 has not edited since the first attempted outing, suggesting that the harassment has indeed done its work. --Slp1 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Indef for outing, where it is used to chilling effect as in this case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I have enacted the indefinite block, and noted same at both editors talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and help, both of you. --Slp1 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Major personal attack

Resolved

 – Admin attention not required; possibly a civility issue, but templates don't have feelings so not a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A big personal attack here : [1] should he be blocked? --Addihockey10 07:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It was language directed against {{unreferenced}}. I believe that should the template post here indicating its offence at being characterized so, then yes, admins should take action as a personal attack. Until that happens, however, there is no personal attack here. → ROUX ₪ 07:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

^ Agree. The IP was attacking the tag, not a user, so I see no problem. By the way, you (Addihockey10) neglected to notify the IP of this discussion. Please do so now. Goodvac (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Also I have warned the IP and reverted the removal → ROUX ₪ 07:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought that something less absolute would ease tensions so i changed it to {{morefootnotes}} because that tag does acknowledge the existence of some references while still requesting improvements. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty uncivil and I think the IP probably needs to be more WP:COOL so as not to cause disruption to other editors, but clearly swearing at a template isn't a personal attack unless there's scientific evidence that wikipedia templates are alive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of an article

The article Starscream (other incarnations) recently had a deletion nomination and the decision was to merge it with the article Starscream (Transformers). Now today I see some editor just deleted the first page, with none of the content being moved at all to the agreed on page, blanking it completely, so people can't even access the page, with no redirect. Not sure if this is the place, but can someone undo that so a PROPER perge can be done. Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starscream (other incarnations). DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. Anyways, the result of the talk was a merge, not a delete. Blanking the page completely and removing it's history is a deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not readily understanding that. As I understand, that does break attribution. Perhaps the deleting admin (who wasn't the same admin who closed the AFD) should explain why it was deleted per WP:CSD#A10. –MuZemike 22:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored it into your userspace at User:Mathewignas/Starscream (other incarnations), so that you can work on merging content from there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, good point on the attribution history ... before moving it back, I'll let the discussion proceed further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please put it back where it belongs and let all the Transformers Wikiproject editors work on a proper merger. Mathewignash (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Starscream (other incarnations) was nominated for speedy deletion under A10 (content that's available in another article) and I saw the banner that the AfD had been closed as merge. I looked at Starscream (Transformers) and saw that the article had the same section headings as the "Other incarnations" article, so I thought they had been merged. I'm sorry, I didn't consider that we needed to keep the old article for its GFDL contribution history. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for helping fix the problem. I'd work on the merge now but I'm just walking out the door. Can someone restore the talk page? Mathewignash (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page restored. Favonian (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez

Resolved

 – Long term problem, RFC about NPA didn't work, nor did previous block for NPA, things getting worse with socking so indeffed. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

GabrielVelasquez has been engaging in harassment, personal attacks, edit warring, and sockpuppetry since at least 2008. After breaking the 3RR and filing a report against another user,[2], admin KrakatoaKatie blocked GV for edit warring on Nontrinitarian 23 January 2008.[3] A few days later, on 29 January 2008, John Carter filed two separate ANI reports on GV's disruptive and harrassing behavior on Nontrinitarianism, beginning on 27 January 2008.[4] The second report was filed on 29 January 2008.[5] Although there may be other earlier examples, it was at this point that GV began using sockpuppet accounts overtly, beginning with 142.132.6.8 (talk · contribs). John Carter noted the account in the latter report above. Looking at edits from GV and the IP, there is no question that the account is one and the same.

Cyclopia reported GV for disruption, harassment and personal attacks on Talk:Gliese 581 c approximately two years ago, on 1 October 2008.[6] This report led Cyclopia to file Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GabrielVelasquez on 6 October 2008. A statement of the dispute as summarized in the RfC, follows:

User:GabrielVelasquez has engaged in out-of-the-blue personal attacks, failed to assume good faith, tossed around several accusations of sockpuppetry and in general he is prone to aggressive, disruptive behaviour, making very hard for editors to proficiently discuss and edit pages of which User:GabrielVelasquez is interested, like Gliese 581 c.

The desired outcome of the RfC was a request that GV "should follow WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, or stop editing if he cannot avoid such behaviour." A subsequent Wikiquette report was filed by Gogo Dodo on 4 September 2009, and moved to ANI for further discussion by Ncmvocalist.[7] GV was warned about the personal attacks, continued to make them, and was blocked by Maunus on 5 September 2009.[8] Shortly thereafer, GV claimed to retire, but remained active. A year later, GV once again came to the attention of ANI when 208.87.197.82 (talk · contribs) showed up, and Jeffro77 reported him.[9] Toddst1 tagged GV's user page as a sockpuppet, but GV reverted.[10] In any case, GV did not retire, and when Gliese 581 g was announced, 24.78.166.69 (talk · contribs) showed up with the same modus operandi as all of the above, forcing the article to be protected.[11] Because of protection, 24.78.166.69 could no longer edit, so after two months of "not editing", GV showed up out of the blue, and in his very first edit, warns the opponents of 24.78.166.69 about edit warring.[12] One only has to look at the talk page and history of Talk:Gliese 581 g to see the same disruption by the IP and GV. Sockpuppet report still needs to be filed, but the consistent disruption since 2008 has not changed. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• This edit summary is enough to earn him/her a 2 week block as a repeat NPA offender. Feel free to extend to indef for socking. Toddst1 (talk)

Not really being aware of the history here I warned GV of undoing this removal of a personal attack and threat from one of the 24 IPs [13] after he was blocked (the warning was after he was blocked, the editing by his account was obviously not 02:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)) Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the socks and the severity of the NPAs involved, I'm changing my block to indef for socking and severe, repeated NPAs. After attmpting to address this issue at RFC, this problem is not going to be solved, and it's getting worse. Toddst1 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lehighton, Pennsylvania

Resolved

 – RBI Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

71.175.133.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I found [this edit] while on vandal patrol. Threat of violence? Legal threat? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look credible to me; just someone who thinks this is a worthy way of spending his time. Revert, block, ignore. The first two parts of that have been done already. Ucucha 02:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Str1977 & Parrot of Doom

Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To put it nicely, these two simply aren't getting along. I've been watching their fighting over the past couple of days, and it's becoming more and more of a problem, especially to editors who simply want to discuss changes to certain articles, not get involved in personal fights. The two main articles in question are two Pink Floyd albums, "Animals" and "The Division Bell" (though it is not limited to just those pages). These two don't seem to agree on anything, and the Str1977 recently started this discussion, a long rant which seems to be a cross between a discussion a personal attack. However, despite starting discussions on both pages, he has not stopped edit-warring. I personally see this as redundant. He opens civil discussions intended to avoid conflicts, and then continues to engage in those very conflicts. Parrot of Doom has responded aggressively, calling the accusations "bullshit" and the response "hilarious" His edit summaries have echoed this kind of sentiment, such as "better written my arse" and "just fucking pack it in will you?". Parrot of Doom's editing of certain articles has always often bordered on acting as if he owned them, and I'm not denying that I've had disagreements with him in the past, but his history as an editor clearly shows that he's made a vast amount of improvements to this encyclopedia as a whole. So I'm at a loss. I don't want to take sides here, so I hope this notice doesn't sound like a biased attack towards one editor or another. Getting myself sucked into the polarized fights on talk pages (or anywhere) doesn't sound helpful at this point. I'd really like this fighting to stop and I don't feel it's within my power to make that happen, so hopefully an administrator can resolve this issue. Thank you for your time. Friginator (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Friginator, for making a start.

I do agree with him that Parrot made a lot of valid and valuable contributions to many articles (and that only after having a quick look). But his achievements seem to have left him with the impression of ownership.

I have made several edits, mostly to "Animals" (the others are just formatting issues, though IMHO they do have repercussions on NPOV) but Parrot reverts basically everything I did, even minutae. I admit that I could have discussed matters at talk from the start but thus far this road has not yielded any positive results either. What I get is insult after insult (those were not responses to any attacks by me but what he did from the very start), no reply to some points while he at first seemed willing to at least have a look at some (but only some). He never did this thus far and for a while even refused this on a talk page formatting issue. But he still did so after I yielded to his demand. He usually blanket reverts everything. Even if he had agreed to something on a talk page (as he did to my compromise suggestion to spell out "United Kingdom" for its first appearance), he then simply reverted it, even making an extra edit for it.

I'd like this fightiging to stop too but how am I to react to things like "just fucking pack it in will you?" Yielding to such bullying is not helping Wikipedia.

I have desisted from describing the actual content disputes, as these are usually not welcomed at ANI.

Thanks for your patience. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. One more thing: while my tone was indeed polemical and, given Parrot's treatment of me, increasingly angry, I did not make any "accusations". That term was introduced by Parrot. My talk page posting almost entirely consisted of the actual content points. My impression of OWNership and the word "obstruction" in the header were the only two exceptions. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way is "just fucking pack it in will you?" bullying? You may (and others probably will) claim that it's uncivil, but bullying it is not. You and your friend have brought a content dispute here to ANI under the guise of something else. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that none of this is in the "guise" of anything else. I'm not sure what you're implying. I know next to nothing about Str1977's previous history as an editor, and "friend" is not really a term I would use to describe him. Friginator (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If he tells me what he did (the incivility of which is a matter of fact, not "claiming") and I yield, then it will be a bully getting his way.

The issue raised here by Friginator (with whom I have no previous acquaintance - hence he is not "my friend") are not about content but about behaviour. But what's it to you, Malleus?

Parrot by now has responded, on his talk page, apparently not bothering. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Very wise of him. Rather little of any real value happens here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it constructive, please. It looks like a content dispute turned nasty. Having had a quick look at Animals I can see merit in the edits of both parties. Great example of how quickly things can get out of hand when folks forget the pillar of civility. --John (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

... and come here crying to teacher. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malleus - I appreciate your ongoing advocacy of your personal beliefs regarding civility and Wikipedia, but I would like to remind you (again) that you do not represent the consensus admin or community opinions, who agree that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are important and need to be enforced. There is a difference between advocating for changes to those policies and/or enforcement and telling people in civility disputes that there is no issue, when community consensus would indicate there probably is.

Parrot and Str1977 - You both seem on first investigation to be constructive editors, outside of this dispute. Would admins issuing an involvement restriction on you two, just keeping you from responding to or talking to each other for a while, help things?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind you of something George. Your beloved civility policy is applied inconsistently and corruptly, and so the faux consensus you cling to to justify your mission is of no interest to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. "Would admins issuing an involvement restriction on you two, just keeping you from responding to or talking to each other for a while, help things" is simply insulting, treating grown adults like children. Now that's what I call incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

George,

on the contrary. Only dealing constructively with suggestions of the other can fix the problem. "Not talking to each other" is not a solution but actually - despite all the shouting - the problem. So, such a restriction is out of the question. That much is true in Malleus' cricitism (another part is true as well, but not as he intends it to be) but I can't help but wonder what business he has here. He's neither party to the conflict (is he?) nor an admin. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no restriction on random Wikipedians participating here. Community participation is encouraged; in this case, Malleus represents a tiny community fringe viewpoint that the whole idea of civility on Wikipedia is flawed and/or wrong and should be abandoned as a policy. But he's part of the community. We should not forget that he's there with that opinion (not likely 8-), nor allow that viewpoint to interfere with enforcing the working consensus policy.

Regarding an appropriate solution, in many cases we've seen that editors were able to just avoid each other and thus not antagonize each other. However, if you believe that the two of you can or need to cooperate on the articles, obviously that approach won't work.

I would like to see Parrot of Doom comment here. What, from his perspective, is causing the situation to go in the direction it's gone so far?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding each other would come naturally, given the experience, if the underlying problem was only solved. I know ANI is not for content disputes but the way Parrot simply blocks content edits he doesn't like has to stop.

And sorry, I cannot agree with what you said about Malleus at all. He is entitled to his opinion but should not disrupt any attempt to find a solution. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. Nobody comes here looking for solutions, they come looking for sanctions. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the only appropriate response is that you aren't a named party to the solution here, Malleus, and that you should take the meta-thread off to the ANI talk page and/or policy pages elsewhere. Poking at Str1977 isn't helping in any way. You had your say on the policy; you're now crossing the line into baiting them. Enough. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep your threats for someone who takes them seriously George, you know what I think of them. I understand that you don't like to hear the truth, but that's your problem, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked Str1977 to stay out of PoD's way; the latter is a good editor but has an unfortunate turn of phrase sometimes. With any luck, whether or not PoD responds here we can be pretty sure he has read it. I'd be inclined to archive this as long as nothing comes up again in the next while. There's a content issue here which needs attention in article talk, a possible user conduct issue which can be avoided by these two avoiding each other until they can be civil; what more needs to be said (or done by an admin), unless either of them is silly enough to keep making the content issue (which doesn't seem that huge to me) a personal one? --John (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

John, and as I told you, your suggestion is of no use as it boils down to Parrot simply having his way. As long as Parrot blocks content edits and ignores the behaviour issue, there is no solution. Ignoring the problem, as you suggest, will not make it go away. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there's a content issue which you could resolve if you handled it better; personalizing a dispute like this (as you did at the talk page) seldom leads to a productive resolution. If there's a long-term problem with PoD's behavior (and I am not saying there isn't), you need to file a RfC/U. Short term, avoid the problem by avoiding each other. While not perfect, this is as good as we will get I think. If either of you continues with this disruption, I'm sure someone will be along to block either or both of you as required. I really hope that isn't necessary. In terms of this noticeboard, I think we have done all we can do. --John (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words: nothing. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Before the interpersonal conflict went sideways, there was some productive talk page discussion regarding the content issues. That is not yet resolved. I don't know that either of you is obviously right or wrong on the content issue in question, and I think that discussion needs to happen before the right solution evolves.

Just because there was some abusive language does not automatically mean you win the content dispute. The merits still have to be discussed on that. If the abusive language is over, the content discussion has to resume. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

George,

despite the rocky start I was and am open to discuss on the talk page. Parrot has responded once (to some points) but then repeteadly refused to deal with me, even after I yielded to his demand to restore his "reply between the lines" format. The abusive language has been entirely his (unless pointing to WP policies is now considered "abusive").

I am still open to discuss but, according to John's neatly thought-out "solution", I am supposed to stay away from him, which basically confirms the ownership problem and leaves the content problems intact. It is the latter I am most concerned about. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's true then you're in the wrong place. The place to discuss content disputes is the content noticeboard. This is the place where you demand that sanctions be placed on your enemies. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you unable to read or simply unwilling, Malleus?

"As long as Parrot ... ignores the behaviour issue, there is no solution."

I came here for help regarding the behaviour so that discussion on content (which Parrot blocks) could move forward. It is the content why we are all here on Wikipedia, isn't it?

But I guess, you have been right about this place here: nothing really ever comes out of it as people are just uninterested. Wonder why they became admins in the first place. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As a community of mature people writing an encyclopedia, we don't deal in slapped wrists as such. I believe the content issue is being discussed more appropriately at article talk, nobody was hurt, and normal service on improving the article can be resumed. I call that a result. --John (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure the content issues are best discussed at the article talk page! Who said otherwise? But even now, they are not discussed: and not just with me - another editor also made an addition and was swiftly reverted, his point on talk brushed aside.

Nobody was hurt? You must be joking! Not only was I hurt but as long as there is no proper discussion and no correction of the false information, the project is hurt. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I view the civil discussion at Talk:Animals (album) as a good outcome. I am sorry your feelings were hurt and I hope you will recover from that in time. I also hope the calm and proper discussion at article talk continues. --John (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But discussion hasn't started yet over there. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

More Restoring Honor disputes

The article Restoring Honor rally was locked last month because of disputes over the Restoring Honor rally#Crowd size|crowd size section]]. The issues were discussed on the talk page and consensus was reached, despite a few loud editors in opposition. The article reached a relative calm a few days ago. However, two users who hardly participated in the talk page have walked in and reignited the same disputes and causing us to start all over again. For that reason I overhauled the whole section and compiled the estimates into a single table with references provided. However, these editors insist on beating a dead horse and adding undue weight to certain estimates. User:AzureCitizen has reverted my edits three times. I was unaware of that policy until another user alerted me to my own excessive reversion. Because the disputes have been unnecessarily reignited by editors who refuse to go back and read the archives and see that consensus has consistently been against their agendas for the article, I request that the page/section be locked until the issues can be resolved again, hopefully once and for all this time, or that the editors be blocked from the article for refusing to comply with consensus. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. In the future, you can take this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Good luck. You may want to get some outside opinions, by starting a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Jayron32 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Did your page protection not stick? Or have I suddenly been granted the rights to edit protected articles? Perhaps you meant "Semi-protected"? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The description of BS24 is basically completely wrong. He made changes without having any consensus in sight - in contrary, many objected to these changes, where she/he basically just deleted information she/he does not like. BS24 even didn't give any reason for his deletions, just calling it "overhaul". (BS24 has a history of wrong claim and accusations.) This is not acceptable. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate sanctions imposed on Triton Rocker and LevenBoy

I would like a review of the administartor's noticeboard recently filed by User:Cailil. First, some background;

The fight between Irish nationalists and supporters of the pro-British position is a continuing and seemingly intractable problem at Wikipedia, as it is in real life. At Wikipedia the problem shows itself as continuing attempts to remove British Isles from the encyclopedia, the possible fabrication within Wikipedia of British Isles naming dispute (at best this is complete WP:OR), the systematic conversion of Londonderry to Derry (agreed in the MOS, but ongoing and unnecessary conversions guaranteed to cause trouble) and most recently an attempt by a number of editors to effectively downgrade the status of Northern Ireland by removing references to it being a country - see recent edits at Giant's Causeway. It is within this context that we have the so-called BISE page where interested editors will suggest articles to have British Isles removed, and more recently, and to counter the removals, other editors suggest articles for inclusion of the term.

Two editors, User:LevenBoy and User:Triton Rocker, have recently been voiciferous in their objections to removal of British Isles from articles and have drawn the attention of, amongst others, the admin User:Cailil. Cailil has tried to impose a version of civility on the debate, which, due to the nature of that debate, is arguably inappropriate. When LevenBoy complained to Cailil about his actions [14] he was immediately blocked, with Cailil citing a previous "transgression" [15] (would Cailil have blocked LevenBoy if LB had not made the comment on his talk page). Cailil then went to AN/I to put forward a case for civility patrol (see above) and alerted LB and TR as here User talk:LevenBoy#ANi September 26, 2010. Note that at this point both Triton Rocker and LevenBoy were blocked and could not therefore easily answer the accusations. Further, LevenBoy was even blcoked from editing his talk page (reason here User talk:LevenBoy#"At the risk of being snipped". Cailil knew about this but did not open the talk page.

Cailil claims consensus on the expansion of sanctions. I see no consensus whatsoever, and given that the targets of the sanctions were effectively banned from commenting on them, the idea of consensus is somewhat lacking. The majority of those in favour of the imposition are protagonists in the British Isles debates themselves and can be identified as being related to the Irish nationalist side. Nevertheless, Cailil has imposed the sanctions on Triton Rocker and LevenBoy, as per this notice; User talk:Triton Rocker#Civility parole. When TR tried to comment on the sanctions on his talk page [16] and [17] he was instantly blocked from editing his talk page (and his edits were reverted) by User:SarekOfVulcan.

I suggest the above actions by two admins fall short of numerous policies such as WP:AGF. While both LB and TR have arguably been aggressive in the pro-BI stance, the impositions which they now face are clearly far in excess of what's required. Both TR and LB have also been the subject of a series of unfounded SPIs. TR is the only editor currently banned from editing British Isles terminology and is now serving a month-long block with no talk page access for what was clearly a minor and technical transgression of the sanctions [18], if indeed it was a transgression at all.

Note that sanctions were agreed against User:HighKing, one of the main editors, perhaps THE main editor, opposed to British Isles usage, but never enacted.

I have raised the issue at the above AN/I thread of the need for independent oversight of the British Isles-related problems. I drew attention to the fact that Cailil is from Ireland (see his user page) and as such, and with no disrespect to him, should not be talking up the position or arbitrator in this matter. I likened the situation to that of a referee at a rugby match and it drew the following bizarre response from another admin keen to arbitrate the matter [19].

In summary I believe the sanctions imposed Triton Rocker and LevenBoy are far too severe, they do not have consensus, and the whole issue should be overseen by impeccably independent editors and admins (which would exclude all those currently involved). I also believe there is a strong case for Triton Rocker's sanctions to be reviewed. There appears to be a definite attempt (implicitly and explicitly) to silence those editors who take a pro-British stance on relevant matters. LemonMonday Talk 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

comment British Isles naming dispute needs to be destroyed - this topic could be easily dealt with using a note in the lead of British Isles stating that "the term british isles is not commonly used in the republic of ireland,(refs) and is a politically contentious term in some(clarify) circles(ref) and in UK-repubRIE diplomatic relations(ref)" (or something). Or an article "British Isles (naming conventions)", to call it a dispute is overblown. That's all. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The matter at issue with the Giant's Causeway is not a "British Isles" dispute. It's much, much more amusing than that. We have "Irish editors" taking the position usually adopted by "British nationalist" editors: excluding a "constituent country" of the UK from an article lead or infobox and insisting on including only the UK appearing there. And to double the fun we see "British nationalists" trying to add a "constituent country" when they'd normally oppose doing so. I rather object to any editors being blocked or sanctioned when they were putting on such wholesome and family-friendly entertainment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support the blocks made by Cailil far to much time is being wasted dealing with editors who wont "get with the program". Mo ainm~Talk 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• This matter has already been discussed and consensus for the above sanctions on LevenBoy and Triton_Rocker was reached here on ANi[20]. In that last ANi thread I warned the LemonMonday account to stop conflating users' nationality with content position (as it happens I have not edited in this topic at all and am not involved except to enforce sanctions).
  The LemonMonday account has less that 150 edits[21] but has been active as a single purpose account involved in the British Isles naming dispute since late July 2008[22]. In fact an ANi thread in August 2010[23] resulted in a topic ban for LemonMonday being discussed but not implemented.
  This topic has wasted too much of the community's time already and pointy threads like this are not helpful--Cailil ^talk 18:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  Also for the record I blocked LevenBoy for incivility but not Triton Rocker. I brought the expansion of sanctions for the British isles probationary topic area here so that uninvolved admins could impose lesser sanctions where useful, and a harsher sanction of a full topic ban if necessary not just to 'punish' these two editors. Furthermore there is an increasingly disruptive level of sock and meat puppetry in the Troubles and British Isles dispute areas--Cailil ^talk 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• I am a little startled by Lemon Monday's statement above that "imposing a version of civility on the debate, which, due to the nature of that debate, is arguably inappropriate. " -- when this apparently refers to imposing a high level of civility. Where higher levels are most needed is precisely for disputes like this--the more intractable the dispute, the greater need for a very high standard of polite behavior, because of the ease at which they can escalate. I certainly endorse Cahill's actions. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the blocks and DGG's comment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment IIRC Triton Rocker is currently blocked for violating his topic ban, and access to his talkpage revoked due to extreme incivility/attacks. LevenBoy's block is based purely on incivility/attacks. Both blocks are valid to protect the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiiischiii and Talk:Lovejoy

User:Tiiischiii has added a list to Lovejoy, that is basically a trivia list, consisting of ... well trivialities based on either synth or no sources. User:MarnetteD has (in my opinion) correctly objected to this, and a discussion ensued on the talk page of the article. I only noticed this issue a few minutes ago, and added my opinion. However reading the discussion and checking the history, it seems that some refactoring of other editors talk comments has ocurred. I warned user:Tiischiii and in the process noticed user:MarnetteD has warned him once before. So I returned to the talk page of Lovejoy and it seems the refactoring has been part of a longer process of back and forth and perhaps because it is too late in the evening for me I have lost the overview of what really happened here. Some fresh eyes would be appreciated. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiiischiii has re-factored my talk page entries on at least three occasions and, in spite of three editors explaining why this trivia section does not belong in the article, has reentered it as both an IP and a registered account. I am trying to step away from this for the rest of the weekend but am posting here per the notice from Saddhiyama. I know that the content dispute does not need resolution here but the moving and changing of my talk page edits is bothersome, especially since the editor does not want to acknowledge that this should not be done. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This [24] was the 1st time my edits were re-factored. If you look at the edit history here [25] it is hard for me to believe that this was a cross posting as the change came more than 20 minutes after my entry. Also, the comment claiming that it was a cross post came more than 10 minutes after that. I am sorry that I do not have to time post more examples but I am headed out the door in the next few minutes. MarnetteD | Talk 23:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, I User:Tiiischiii reinstated some content provided by users User:Toyokuni3 and User:Timrollpickering on the page Lovejoy because I found it interesting and relevant. Under the guideline WP:TRIVIA it states: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all" as a central tenant, however the user User:Marnette keeps spamming me with this article, along with threats to revoke my account, and refuses to enter into dialogue. The page Lovejoy contains no in-line citations, so have tried to improve the page by adding a References section, improving layout, and re-prioritised ordering. I have found it difficult to make edits to the article, as any changes have been immediately reversed by user:MarnetteD and immediately posted multiple spurious spams to my talk page. Refactoring occurred genuinely in error, as user:MarnetteD has routinely ghosted and removed any contributions I have made to main articles or policed any contributions I have made to talk pages. I am new to editing wiki pages, is there any guidelines around systematic targeting/removal of my contributions by another user? I have suggested working collaboratively towards the improvement of the article Lovejoy, however the user concerned does not wish to enter into constructive dialogue and wishes only to make wholesale deletes to my attempts at improving wiki pages - while sending "account removal" scripts. Is there a point at which removal of my contributions without reading and refusal to enter into constructive dialogue is considered threatening or bullying behaviour? I am disappointed to find this entry here as I have continually referred to the Dispute Resolution process, and particularly wished to be treated with respect and in accordance to the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (top three boxes) as suggested, and as I have behaved. Tiiischiii 23.33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The section quoted in WP:TRIVIA suggests that we don't remove existing ones in some cases - we most certainly no longer add them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizer blanking pages

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AIV

 – This should be taken to WP:AIV if the vandalism persists after warnings. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• This user (User talk:Baeyo5) continuously blanks the Imortal page. Please someone do something about this. Thank you.--TwelveOz (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• If it continues, issue further warnings and if it continues after a final warning, report to WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome-vandal also given. How does the user follow the rules if he has never been given access to them? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But I dont think a user would ever need a rule to decide whether its a good thing or a bad thing to blank pages, its obviously bad. Thanks for the help! I'll be sure to send it to WP:AIV if the user continues.--TwelveOz (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's always best to assume good faith and ignorance, as BWilkins pointed out: before leaving a warning, you should leave a general note indicating the rule and why their edit was reverted, unless it's absolutely blatant bad-faith like libel or a personal attack etc. A template such as {{uw-delete1}} is an easy way to give the user a general note about blanking pages or sections, and you can continue sequentially through the templates until a final if the behaviour persists. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Though personally given that they had blanked sections and been reverted three times and that didn't give them pause for thought, I would probably start at a level 2 (no assumption of faith). The note you left was essentially equivalent to a level 3 template though (see {{uw-delete3}} for example), which shouldn't be a first warning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hungry generation

There appears to be a long-running content dispute starting to get a bit heated between two editors, Maharshi Balmiki and Tridib Mitra, with IP 115.187.38.171 now joining in. The two registered editors seem to have a bit of an ownership problem, and each of them adds meta-comment to the article itself - "I've fixed this now", "The other guy's version is nonsense", etc. I'm sorry I really haven't got time to look into this myself and try to get the combatants to talk, but I thought I'd better at least let people know it's happening as it seems to be hotting up a bit. (Just off to inform the editors involved). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All three participants now informed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by Darkstar1st

Darkstar1st has started to engage in deliberate and uncalled for talk page disruption at Talk:Libertarianism. I replied to the OP of a thread agreeing with his comment with the words "Just so". Darkstar1st collapsed it without explanation. I reverted, and he collapsed it again with the edit comment ""just so" has no relevance to libertarianism.". This appears to be a WP:POINT violation and possible retaliation for my having reported him for edit-warring on the article Libertarianism several days ago. Could some admin follow up with him please? Yworo (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We really need to have a list of his other disruptive behaviors regarding the topic of libertarianism. Like his creation of a WP:POV fork by at this diff turning a common redirect Libertarian to Libertarianism into a whole article reflecting the narrow view he has been trying to impose on Libertarianism for the last six months, most recently through continuing WP:Soapbox on his POV, ignoring of RfCs rejecting his POV, displaying obstreperous WP:Refusal to get the point. I can provide lots of diffs if people think it's relevant to expand this complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

the whole section has now been closed and hidden by an uninvolved editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Turning a re-direct page into a POV fork is disruptive. After three RfCs confirming that left libertarianism should be in the article, all of which supported inclusion, Darkstar1st created a new discussion thread, "left libertarian is the lessor well known, thus a minority and according to WP:NPOV should not be given as detailed a description or as much".[26] This discussion thread presented no sources and I and another editor removed it for soapboxing. Soapboxing has been an ongoing problems in the this article. Editors discuss what libertarianism means to them and refuse to use sources. TFD (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the redirect and distinguished the proper noun Libertarian, from the political philosophy libertarianism. This seemed to fix the problem as all 3 Websters definitions had their own page:

• 1. an advocate of the doctrine of free will, libertarianism (metaphysics)
• 2a a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action, libertarianism
• 2b capitalized a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles, Libertarian

Listing the suffix and redirecting the root, is opposite the dictionary. members of a Libertarian political party have very different beliefs than the current form of the article dedicated to the political philosophy. the article on "Libertarian" is #1 on google for the term "libertarianism" is is 2nd. my edit was reverted and the page now locked. ex: "green party: and "Green party" (from wp) There are distinctions between "green parties" (lower-case letters) and "Green Parties" (capital letters). Any party, faction, or politician may be labeled "green" if it emphasises environmental causes. Indeed, the term may even be used as a verb: it is not uncommon to hear of "greening" a party or a candidate. In contrast, formally organised "Green Parties" follow a coherent ideology that includes not only environmentalism, but also other concerns such as social justice, consensus decision-making, and pacifism. Greens believe that these issues are inherently related to one another as a foundation for world peace. The best-known statement of the above Green values is the Four Pillars of the Green Party, adopted by the German Greens since their founding in 1979-1980. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia cannot distinguish between upper and lower-case letters in the first letter of an article title. Therefore Wikpedia articles use the primary meaning for the article with a hatnote or disambiguation to the other meanings. All -ists are redirected to their -isms, which are either disambiguations or have hatnotes. This case is no different. The articles 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' should not have different subjects. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Now we must remember that the article covers both of those words. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing new, libertarian has been a redirect to libertarianism since September 2004. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

yet that would contradict your statement here: "Because Libertarian political parties are covered by the disambiguation page. This article is about libertarianism (little 'l'). Yworo (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)" since you also support merging the disambiguation page, do you still object to my adding the full Websters definition? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian political parties are also covered in the hatnote at the top of libertarianism. No need for the definition in the article. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Libertarian now protected indefinitely, after another editor put redirect back in place. At this diff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified

10:07, 3 October 2010 Anikingos (talk | contribs) m (20,002 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 89.191.104.43 identified as vandalism to last revision by 24.121.143.146. (TW))  ???

10:03, 3 October 2010 89.191.104.43 (talk) (19,898 bytes) (In references #26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud .) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

In references # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud. Article "Joe Nickell" in the Wiki has not of confirms or has not denied the content of article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. Therefore, # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) should be removed from references. Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified and not an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying that your edit being called vandalism is the incident here, I would propose that your edit (which removed a reference) appeared to be vandalism. I'm not sure, I don't use Twinkle. It appears the source you removed was actually the article by Joe Nickell, not the Wikipedia article on Joe Nickell. I see you have posted to the article talk page. That is probably the optimum course for you to follow. Regards Tiderolls 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've notified User:Anikingos of this discussion as well. Tiderolls 15:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the IP looked at our article and thought that was the source being used - it wasn't, Joe Nickell's name was just wikilinked. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry for the revert, but as it was explained, the edit appeared to be vandalism. But why would a revert come this far, if it was not vandalism, then you could just explain me about that and tell me why it is not vandalism and then i myself will put things back. It happens to me quite a lot of times. Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

After the clicking on Joe Nickell (at # 26) appears an article Joe Nickell (at Wiki), the contents of which are not linked to an article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. A wiki invites all users to edit any page, but I deprived of this possibility and charged with vandalism. If the reference to # 26 is principally important, this the reference should be putted in due order and probably should be take away my unfounded accusations. Thanks for discussion, IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:98.85.5.251

This editor has just been given a block for inserting false information into film articles. The problem though is that he operates under a range of IPs. The vandalism isn't immediately obvious: for instance he will alter the running time of the film, or change the name of the writer of Shrek 2. Virtually all of his edits under the various IP have had to be reverted by other editors, and it's nearly all the same kind, focusing on running times, films composers and screenwriters.

One of the other IP numbers has similarly received a block: Special:Contributions/98.85.15.134

There are other IPs though that have slipped the net, all making the same types of edits that were reverted by a mutlitude of editors:

Special:Contributions/98.85.5.180
Special:Contributions/98.85.6.163
Special:Contributions/98.85.15.85
Special:Contributions/98.85.79.132
Special:Contributions/98.85.96.24

Is there any mileage in a range block here or is the IP scope too wide? I wouldn't be surprised if there are other IPs out there I've missed, but would appreciate it if an admin could look into this case. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be Bambifan101. I will place long softblocks on all these addresses. If someone could update the LTA page, and any SPI page, in the meantime? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI report filed, and noted ip's blocked.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Missile article

User:Victory in Germany has changed long standing images on the missile article without consensus and is edit warring in an attempt to force their unilateral changes upon the article despite opposition to these changes. The user has been informed of WP:BRD but continues to edit war rather than seek a consensus. Unionin (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You want to bring this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Revdel review

This deletion I did does not really follow any of the criteria for redaction however I felt that this was an appropriate case, so I did it under WP:IAR. Because it doesn't fall under any of the criteria, I'm just posting here for a review of the deletion by any other uninvolved admin in the interest of transparency. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good action, well within admin discretion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, however it doesn't really make any sense to delete the block log entry but leave the user with an intact talk page and an entry in ListUsers. See also this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sinbad Barron sock yet again

He even admits it [27]. Causing major disruption, please block right away. Athenean (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged by someone else. I have declined an unblock request on the parent account (User talk:Sinbad Barron) due to the evasion, but people more familiar with the user can review by all means. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by Darkstar1st

Darkstar1st has started to engage in deliberate and uncalled for talk page disruption at Talk:Libertarianism. I replied to the OP of a thread agreeing with his comment with the words "Just so". Darkstar1st collapsed it without explanation. I reverted, and he collapsed it again with the edit comment ""just so" has no relevance to libertarianism.". This appears to be a WP:POINT violation and possible retaliation for my having reported him for edit-warring on the article Libertarianism several days ago. Could some admin follow up with him please? Yworo (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We really need to have a list of his other disruptive behaviors regarding the topic of libertarianism. Like his creation of a WP:POV fork by at this diff turning a common redirect Libertarian to Libertarianism into a whole article reflecting the narrow view he has been trying to impose on Libertarianism for the last six months, most recently through continuing WP:Soapbox on his POV, ignoring of RfCs rejecting his POV, displaying obstreperous WP:Refusal to get the point. I can provide lots of diffs if people think it's relevant to expand this complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

the whole section has now been closed and hidden by an uninvolved editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Turning a re-direct page into a POV fork is disruptive. After three RfCs confirming that left libertarianism should be in the article, all of which supported inclusion, Darkstar1st created a new discussion thread, "left libertarian is the lessor well known, thus a minority and according to WP:NPOV should not be given as detailed a description or as much".[28] This discussion thread presented no sources and I and another editor removed it for soapboxing. Soapboxing has been an ongoing problems in the this article. Editors discuss what libertarianism means to them and refuse to use sources. TFD (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the redirect and distinguished the proper noun Libertarian, from the political philosophy libertarianism. This seemed to fix the problem as all 3 Websters definitions had their own page:

• 1. an advocate of the doctrine of free will, libertarianism (metaphysics)
• 2a a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action, libertarianism
• 2b capitalized a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles, Libertarian

Listing the suffix and redirecting the root, is opposite the dictionary. members of a Libertarian political party have very different beliefs than the current form of the article dedicated to the political philosophy. the article on "Libertarian" is #1 on google for the term "libertarianism" is is 2nd. my edit was reverted and the page now locked. ex: "green party: and "Green party" (from wp) There are distinctions between "green parties" (lower-case letters) and "Green Parties" (capital letters). Any party, faction, or politician may be labeled "green" if it emphasises environmental causes. Indeed, the term may even be used as a verb: it is not uncommon to hear of "greening" a party or a candidate. In contrast, formally organised "Green Parties" follow a coherent ideology that includes not only environmentalism, but also other concerns such as social justice, consensus decision-making, and pacifism. Greens believe that these issues are inherently related to one another as a foundation for world peace. The best-known statement of the above Green values is the Four Pillars of the Green Party, adopted by the German Greens since their founding in 1979-1980. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia cannot distinguish between upper and lower-case letters in the first letter of an article title. Therefore Wikpedia articles use the primary meaning for the article with a hatnote or disambiguation to the other meanings. All -ists are redirected to their -isms, which are either disambiguations or have hatnotes. This case is no different. The articles 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' should not have different subjects. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Now we must remember that the article covers both of those words. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing new, libertarian has been a redirect to libertarianism since September 2004. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

yet that would contradict your statement here: "Because Libertarian political parties are covered by the disambiguation page. This article is about libertarianism (little 'l'). Yworo (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)" since you also support merging the disambiguation page, do you still object to my adding the full Websters definition? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian political parties are also covered in the hatnote at the top of libertarianism. No need for the definition in the article. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Libertarian now protected indefinitely, after another editor put redirect back in place. At this diff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified

10:07, 3 October 2010 Anikingos (talk | contribs) m (20,002 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 89.191.104.43 identified as vandalism to last revision by 24.121.143.146. (TW))  ???

10:03, 3 October 2010 89.191.104.43 (talk) (19,898 bytes) (In references #26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud .) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

In references # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud. Article "Joe Nickell" in the Wiki has not of confirms or has not denied the content of article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. Therefore, # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) should be removed from references. Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified and not an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying that your edit being called vandalism is the incident here, I would propose that your edit (which removed a reference) appeared to be vandalism. I'm not sure, I don't use Twinkle. It appears the source you removed was actually the article by Joe Nickell, not the Wikipedia article on Joe Nickell. I see you have posted to the article talk page. That is probably the optimum course for you to follow. Regards Tiderolls 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've notified User:Anikingos of this discussion as well. Tiderolls 15:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the IP looked at our article and thought that was the source being used - it wasn't, Joe Nickell's name was just wikilinked. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry for the revert, but as it was explained, the edit appeared to be vandalism. But why would a revert come this far, if it was not vandalism, then you could just explain me about that and tell me why it is not vandalism and then i myself will put things back. It happens to me quite a lot of times. Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

After the clicking on Joe Nickell (at # 26) appears an article Joe Nickell (at Wiki), the contents of which are not linked to an article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. A wiki invites all users to edit any page, but I deprived of this possibility and charged with vandalism. If the reference to # 26 is principally important, this the reference should be putted in due order and probably should be take away my unfounded accusations. Thanks for discussion, IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:98.85.5.251

This editor has just been given a block for inserting false information into film articles. The problem though is that he operates under a range of IPs. The vandalism isn't immediately obvious: for instance he will alter the running time of the film, or change the name of the writer of Shrek 2. Virtually all of his edits under the various IP have had to be reverted by other editors, and it's nearly all the same kind, focusing on running times, films composers and screenwriters.

One of the other IP numbers has similarly received a block: Special:Contributions/98.85.15.134

There are other IPs though that have slipped the net, all making the same types of edits that were reverted by a mutlitude of editors:

Special:Contributions/98.85.5.180
Special:Contributions/98.85.6.163
Special:Contributions/98.85.15.85
Special:Contributions/98.85.79.132
Special:Contributions/98.85.96.24

Is there any mileage in a range block here or is the IP scope too wide? I wouldn't be surprised if there are other IPs out there I've missed, but would appreciate it if an admin could look into this case. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be Bambifan101. I will place long softblocks on all these addresses. If someone could update the LTA page, and any SPI page, in the meantime? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI report filed, and noted ip's blocked.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Missile article

User:Victory in Germany has changed long standing images on the missile article without consensus and is edit warring in an attempt to force their unilateral changes upon the article despite opposition to these changes. The user has been informed of WP:BRD but continues to edit war rather than seek a consensus. Unionin (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You want to bring this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Revdel review

This deletion I did does not really follow any of the criteria for redaction however I felt that this was an appropriate case, so I did it under WP:IAR. Because it doesn't fall under any of the criteria, I'm just posting here for a review of the deletion by any other uninvolved admin in the interest of transparency. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good action, well within admin discretion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, however it doesn't really make any sense to delete the block log entry but leave the user with an intact talk page and an entry in ListUsers. See also this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of editing tool twinkle, edit warring, civility issues, etc.

Resolved

 – User has already been blocked 48hrs for violating 3RR and attempted IP socking Tommy! 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – His edit warring has been appropriately dealt with on its board and taken care of there. This post is about his abuse of the WP:Twinkle, and a request to get his use of the tools blocked. If this is not the appropriate board for this post, please redirect as necessary, but don't close this because a different issue on a different board was resolved. Disruptive editors aren't limited to one type of disruption, neither are they limited to one type of block. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User warned for Twinkle use. Everybody's happy. I hope. Tommy! 00:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Alacante45 is currently edit warring to protect his inappropriate edits to the Algae article.[29]

This user made an addition to the article of a number of tags and text that I felt were inappropriate.[30] I reverted his edits as the tags were not used appropriately. If the entire article is confusing, this should be discussed on the talk page in addition to placing the tag. I waited a while to see if he would discuss this situation, meanwhile editing one of his other tagging abominations. The "too long" tag is also not helpful on a high level article about a large topic. His additional text was added to a random sentence, but did not incorporate the remainder of the article and was unsourced. The article clarifies that cyanobacteria are an excluded group.

The user put a single warning vandalism tag on my talk page for removing his edits, rather than assuming good faith.[31] I will not be blocked for making an appropriate and good faith edit, and an only warning vandal tag is grossly inappropriate for my edit.

This user gave another single warning vandalism tag by mistake,[32] this time to a user who was actually reverting vandalism.[33]

All in all, it appears that User:Alacante45 does not have sufficient knowledge of wikipedia editing tools to be qualified to use WP:Twinkle, and I hereby request that he/she be blocked from continuing to use it. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrators can't revoke Twinkle rights; unlike rollback, which is a tool granted and revoked by administrators, Twinkle is a gadget that is activated by going to Special:Preferences, selecting "gadgets", and then selecting Twinkle. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a twinkle blacklist in User:AzaToth/morebits.js. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• FWiW, I blocked Alacante45 and another editor a few minutes ago (before this thread was posted) for a 3RR violation on algae. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably appropriate under the circumstances to have blocked both. Thanks for posting the information here. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems he is just a vandal, but adding subtle nonsense, rather than doing the sort of vandalism designed to attract quick notice and blocking.[34][35] --184.99.172.218 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well he's twice attempted to evade his block, resulting in it being extended, so it seems his remaining time here may be brief. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I assume he's going to hoist himself on his own petard soon enough, but do want to include sufficient details to get his twinkle use taken away asap to make it easier to revert him until he gets to his explosive finish. Assuming he gets back. Not looking good for this user name. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle use

I'm making this a subsection for clarity. Just want to comment that misusing Twinke to warn you heavily is not actionable to make him blacklisted. I am typing this because you undid my resolved above (and per my talk page). He's been warned accordingly, by me, and is now blocked anyway so any action now is not appropriate. In the future, however, yes. Dragging this on feels like beating a dead horse to me though. Tommy! 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't just misuse it once. He misused it a number of times, in a very short edit history, by inappropriately warning users that their article edits were vandalism, when they weren't,[36][37] by calling other edits vandalism that weren't,[38] and while edit warring on the algae article.

Twinkle isn't a granted. It's a tool that requires proper usage:

"Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or being blocked."

This user clearly doesn't understand wikipedia policies well enough to be using this tool, and it is pretty straight-forward to ask that the tool be taken away. It doesn't impact his editing, other than to slow him/her down, and this may be sufficient to make him think a bit while making the edits. This is WP:AN/I, and I would like administrator action and/or input. Your comments are adding nothing to the eventual resolution of the problem that I raised. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not aware of that misuse. However, he is still already blocked. I will warn him again on Twinkle misuse and that continuing to misuse it in the future will result in a blacklisting. Cheers Tommy! 00:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sufficient for marking this resolved, in my opinion. Thanks. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Glad I was able to help. Tommy! 00:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sinbad Barron sock yet again

He even admits it [39]. Causing major disruption, please block right away. Athenean (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged by someone else. I have declined an unblock request on the parent account (User talk:Sinbad Barron) due to the evasion, but people more familiar with the user can review by all means. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt

Wrong venue. Please move to the article's talk page

 – No issue here requiring administrators' intervention. Yet. Don't push it. Incredibly lame issue to be coming close to editwarring over.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

There has been an issue with three editors at the Theodore Roosevelt article concerning the coats of arms, with User:Beyond My Ken, User:Roux and User:DrKiernan. A fourth editor, User:Dmcq, agreed to their position with the requirement that all heraldic images should be historical, though this is not the policy found on Wikipedia nor the stance taken by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Opposed to there side is myself and User:Seven Letters, which we based our opinions upon quotes from heraldry book, visual images showing similar composition and heraldic traditions. I would like to also note that User:Beyond My Ken has stated he knows nothing of ehraldry, and that the other two editors have stated they are only slightly familiar.

The image is this, File:Coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak.png. There opposition is against the smaller shields at the bottom of the image because they are embellishments and ornature not part of the coat of arms itself. I have explained that there are many examples of coats of arms painted and drawn surrounded by corporate arms and other embellishments not part of the actual coat of arms itself, artistic license added to the painting or drawing. I have also explained that even if there are minor additions in an image (I used an example of a turtle sitting in grass, where the inclusion of grass does not mean the image could not be used in an article on turtles), that it does not exclude the use of an image when the major focal point is of the subject to be presented. For examples where embellishments are added are this 1893 example [File:Captain_Cook.jpg here], and more modern examples are here, here and here. With a composition more similar to the image in question, where smaller shields are used, are the works of Anthony Wood, a British artist who painted arms for the U.K Government, here and the Niagara Herald of the Canadian Government here, here and here. A heraldic author, Fox-Davies, writing in the early part of the 20th century, said of embellishments to heraldic displays, "Later came the era of gilded embellishments, of flowing palms, of borders decorated with grinning heads, festoons of ribbon, and fruit and flowers in abundance... The external decoration of the shield was carried to great lengths...." To counter these points, the opposing editors gave no sources or references. Apparently, all of these examples are dismissed by some measure or point, and that the real truth was theirs, and that there was no need or way to prove that with sources.

This seems to be mostly a case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with the editors also refusing to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability by refusing to reference their claims which are in dispute, especially in the face of the evidence I have provided in support of my claim. They have also continued to edit the article in spite of the ongoing discussion. Is there any way to resolve this issue, give weight to the references provided and require counter points to be equally referenced?

Thank you for your time, [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How is this not a content matter? This is not a matter with which I have great familiarity, but it seems to be being discussed at Dr.Kiernan's talk page and probably other places as well. I don't think it should be at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt: there are actually some important behavioural problems at play here, though Xanderliptak would need a mirror in order to see what they are. → ROUX ₪ 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Factual error: I have never at any time said I was 'slightly familiar' with heraldry. Beyond that... this is pretty clear forumshopping. The consensus at the talkpage is clear, Xanderliptak has himself stated that Roosevelt never used these embellishments (the extra shields at the bottom of the image), and this really is all rather nonsensical. Xanderliptak has also failed to mention his editwarring at Theodore Roosevelt. → ROUX ₪ 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Like Roux, I have no recollection of ever stating that I am unfamiliar with heraldry. DrKiernan (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't really know much about heraldry; I didn't even know Americans had coats of arms. With my admin powers, I could block someone, delete something, or protect something- are you asking me to do any of those things? Which one, and why? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Some Americans have legitimate coats of arms (e.g. many members of the Kennedy family, Bill Clinton, etc), though most labour under the misapprehension that there is a 'family crest' they can use. Eh. You could block Xander for editwarring (he was blocked for that last week, too) if you want, or for just being generally disruptive and not understanding concepts like 'consensus' and 'no original research,' if you want. I don't really see the point in doing so, but you might; a clear directive from an uninvolved admin to him about what exactly he is doing wrong might be useful, though. → ROUX ₪ 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)It's also worth noting that Xander failed to notify me, BMK, or DrK about this post. → ROUX ₪ 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'd like to note that none of the named editors, myself included, was notified by Xanderliptak about this posting. The discussions in which a clear consensus was established on this matter are here (Very long) and here. Those are content disputes, the only behaviorial question is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and what is arguably becoming disruption from Xanderliptak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with where to go to resolve issues. The opposing editors have objected to the painting in question because of the three small shields, claiming it against heraldic tradition based on their feelings and refusing to give references. I have met their objections with evidence and references, both in text and visually. However, they continue to ignore any and all facts presented to them in a reasonable manner, see ROUX's comment above. They are under the impression that as long as four editors vote against something without proof or evidence as to why, that it trumps two editors who have painstakingly sourced their position with more than ample facts. There surely must be a place where the facts could be considered, where the opposing editors can not simply hijack a discussion with endless ramblings and run-around until they tire out everyone and then claim victory. Please, go to the article over their concern over edit-warring. See the edit history where I have stated repeatedly to allow discussion to continue and run its course, where they make accusations without sources and edit without care. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"where the opposing editors can not simply hijack a discussion with endless ramblings and run-around until they tire out everyone and then claim victory" ...my irony meter just overloaded. Xander, simple question: have you got a reference supporting Roosevelt's use of these embellishments or not? → ROUX ₪ 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Heraldry. DrKiernan (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of forum shopping when I am seeking to resovle a dispute, you may want to refrain from psoting to all of the forums you guys tried to shop. Stop making this about you and let an admin direct on where a content dispute may be resolved, where facts will determine the outcome, rather than impulsive comments like "my irony meter just overloaded". [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Xander, it sort of looks like you're here at WP:ANI to try to make sure you win your argument. We don't do that, I'm afraid. No one is ignoring you or hijacking the article by holding the opinion that a picture of Roosevelt's coat of arms should be documentably the coat of arms Roosevelt used. They're just disagreeing with you. They're allowed to disagree with you, and it doesn't make them bad people. You don't have to keep your picture in the article until 'the discussion has run its course,' by which I gather you mean, until everyone agrees with you. It isn't worth getting blocked for edit-warring over that. If consensus comes to agree with you, the picture will go back in and stay there, and no harm will have been done. If consensus does not agree with you, the picture will not go in, and no harm will have been done. Don't let this become something that gets added to WP:LAME; just make your best case, cite your sources, use WP:DISPUTE for advice if you need to, and when the time comes, either win graciously, or lose graciously, and move on with your life. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Posting to all what forums? BMK asked for input, neutrally, at several locations and asked for discussion to be centralized at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt. You, on the other hand, took the dispute to DrK's talkpage. And now you have brought it here in order to end-run around the consensus. You also failed to notify the users you were discussing, which is not an optional step when filing an AN/I. You have also been, well let us say flexible with the facts. And again, simple question: have you got a reference supporting Roosevelt's use of these embellishments or not? → ROUX ₪ 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

@ROUX, you found this within minutes of me posting it. Why do I have to notify you of something you already injected yourself into before I could find the template?

@FisherQueen, they are attempting to replace an image of mine with an image of mine. This is not about whether or not I have my image in the article, either way it was decided an image of mine would be in. The problem I have is the inaccuracies they are promoting, and doing so without providing sources for their opinion whilst at the same time ignoring any and all information presented to them. I am quite familiar with heraldry, and I spend much time correcting errors about heraldry, so I do not particularity like editors who admit to know little to nothing of the subject undo work without citing sources for their reason, but instead going off incorrect myths they have heard about heraldry. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay... so, since I'm not involved in this actual dispute, and don't have the knowledge to contribute anything useful... what administrative action are you requesting? Do you want me to block User:Roux from editing, restore your desired edit, and then protect the page for six months while you make your argument and persuade others to come to consensus with you? I do, technically, have the power to do that. I wonder if I'd be sysopped for it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dunno if you can be sysopped for doing that... because you have to have been sysopped to do the block in the first instance. Perhaps you mean you might block Roux, resign your bits and then restand for admin on the basis of those actions...? Seems to be bit of a palaver, if you ask me - and I am the bloke who stood for reconfirmation of adminship. I suggest that you don't... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I mean desysopped, of course. I am already sysopped. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you could stop with the lie that anyone other than BMK has stated they know very little about heraldry, that would be just great. One notes you didn't mention User:Tamfang here, who has also pointed out that you cannot use the embellished version, and who arguably knows a hell of a lot more about heraldry than you do. We are promoting no inaccuracies. Indeed, we are trying to prevent inaccuracies--namely, the use of an unsourced image--from being included in the article. Third time, simple question: have you got a reference supporting Roosevelt's use of these embellishments or not? → ROUX ₪ 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Xander, you have to notify someone because the ANI editnotice clearly says "You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." Please don't tell me you didn't see the template listed right there.

In any case, I'm going to repeat what FisherQueen has said, which is for all of you to find somewhere else to argue (or just shut up altogether) as it seems no administrative action is necessary here.

My own view: consensus at the article talk page seems to lean in favor of excluding the embellished CoA. If someone wants, I can block everyone involved for edit warring and fully protect the pre-dispute version of the page. Otherwise, please keep discussion at the talk page as an admin isn't needed to jump into a content dispute here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the discussion has run its course. Xanderliptak doesn't like the course it's taken, which is why this is here. → ROUX ₪ 21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

@ROUX, I have been hired to create heraldic paintings by the American Heraldry Society to be presented to the U.S. Army's heraldry department, known as The Institute of Heraldry, which the director was "thrilled" to receive. I have also worked with individuals from Canada and England, where heraldic accuracy is an absolute necessity, and never have had an issue with my work. I have also had my work discussed on a few heraldry blogs, so I think my credentials are just fine when i speak on this matter. And no, I do not like the course you took on t other page; you demanded I povide source after source, which I did, then you refused to back up your claim with any source what so ever.

@FisherQueen, perhaps restoring the page as it was and protecting it would be a good decision, at least until they can provide references and sources to back up their position, and stop referring to their feelings on the matter. None of them needs to be blocked, though. I am sure they began this acting with the best of intentions, even if it has devolved since. Perhaps without the ability to edit the article, the discussion will calm down and return to civility

@ƒETCH, the notification is an issue? He found this in a matter of minutes, and posted the second reply. Notification is clearly not an issue when they got here that fast. And since when do facts not matter? Yeah, 4 v. 2, but those 4 have no sources and the 2 have many. It has also only been a day, usually discussions are allowed to take their natural course, not allow one side to call it ended because the numbers are suddenly in their favour. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You actually never provided the reference you were asked for. Again, do you or do you not have a reference showing that Roosevelt used those embellishments on his arms? Why do you refuse to answer the question? → ROUX ₪ 21:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be suffering from "expertisatiousness" - where your knowledge of a subject renders you unable to comprehend that the rules/policies of a different place apply to you in the same way as they apply to anyone else. If you want to contribute your knowledge to the project, and rest assured that the project wants you to just as much, then you need to do so within the limitations of that project. Appeals to authority do not work here, only reference to reliable third party sources. No ones unbuttressed opinion is more equal than that of any other, and referenced opinion - even if wrong - will prevail over uncited comment. Experts, however, do have one particular advantage; they should know where the best references are and be able to apply them.

As for letting other people know, regardless of the fact that they found out anyway, it is in the nature of participating on another site - their rules rule. You don't wish to abide the rules, then you cannot play. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but please see my opening paragraph where I gave textual sources and visual sources. I can also direct you to some books to read. The opposing editors are the ones that provided nothing, just "I don't know anything about heraldry, but I don't think that's right." . I have adhered to the rules here, I have sourced everything. I asked the other editors to do the same, and they responded with a no, they don't have to, because they know they are right no matter what sources I give. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For the last time: stop lying. Nobody has said anything of the sort. Your sources do not actually support what you say. Stop evading the question: do you or do you not have a source showing that Roosevelt used the embellishments you have added? → ROUX ₪ 22:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have explained why your references support your contentions. Other parties have explained why they believe the case is unproven. You do not seem to have provided a definitive authority in regard to this one matter, which is what Roux continues to request. Your expertise in being able to interpret your sources appears unsupported by independent third parties. I see only a content dispute, where the case for a change has not been made because the vital evidence supporting that change has not been presented. Should you supply that evidence, then the discussion may restart. Until then the status quo remains. (Roux, please would you stop with the use of the term "lying" - it degrades your position. Find a civil term, if you must make the implication,) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, I won't stop using the word that accurately describes what Xander is doing. He has been told multiple times that words he is attributing to others are factually incorrect. At this point, there are only two possible options for the behaviour: either he is simply not reading what is being written (clearly not the case) or he is lying about what other people have said. I will not be lied about, particularly when someone is doing so in order to sway a discussion which they have quite clearly come out on the minority end of. → ROUX ₪ 22:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources state and show (therefore is proven not hypothetical, but actually practiced) that external elements are fine, because they do not change a coat of arms. If I have a photo of a blue sky, I do not need a source that states the sky is blue in the photo. I have provided a source that states external elements do not alter a coat of arms. Then I showed visual examples of this practice, and ahve included images where shields are used to embellish a drawing, drawings doen by offical heralds mind you. The issue is whetehr or not shields may be used to embellish a coat of arms. The source says anything can be, and the images show shields are, in, fact used to embellsih drawings. So I am missing where there is a gap?

I am also confused as to how this even matters. No one claims the arms are painted with any error, just that the picture has the correct coat of arms and other things in the picture. So do a lot of other pictures, they have the subject photographed, and there are other elements that are likewise captured. We do not exclude those form use, nor do we spend unnecessary time to explain that. We do not take a photo of a building with crowds in front of it and post the caption, "The such and such building, with a blue sky in the background, and a scene of the city in the foreground, in line to enter the building is John, Jason, Mary, Joe, Jane..." [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What authority issued the letters patent for Theodore Roosevelt's coat of arms? Tiderolls 22:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a reference stating that Roosevelt used these embellishments or not? → ROUX ₪ 22:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

None, the Roosevelts are not British. Only British realms and those regions that take their influence from Britain (Australia, Canada and South Africa, for example) require letters patent. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me, then, that any alteration of the arms that Roosevelt represented as his would be a waste of time. Reporting that he used them, if supported by sources, might be notable but anything beyond that would appear to be speculation or synthesis. Tiderolls 23:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing that requires a patent, only British law (which includes a sort of 'processing fee' for the service), and is an Anglo-centric stance that any arms without patent are somehow invalid. More common families, noble families and royals have assumed arms without patent than have been granted arms. Even the Queen of Great Britain and the oldest noble titles of England and Scotland use arms that were never granted, and are quite proud to have used arms for so long they predate any law. The O'Donovans of Ireland, for example, take much pride displaying their supporters, much to the chagrin of the English heralds who often said they had no written right to use then, the O'Donovans countering that their arms were older than written right. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak.png

Xanderlipak's original image, including the disputed three shields at the bottom

Convenience break

I'm hesitant to post anything much, both because my knowledge about heraldry is, as I admitted, extremely limited, and also because this is a content dispute and should not have been brought here, but: it's my observation that Xanderliptak sees the three small shields, which we've been calling "embellishments" as, from a heraldic point of view, mere background, equivalent to additional ribbons or flourishes or other decorative items which it is within the heraldic artist's right to add to the image. He has proffered analogies comparing the shields to blades of grass in a picture of a turtle, or random people on the street in a photograph of a building. From a heraldic or artistic perpective, he may well be correct, I don't know, but the problem is that from the perspective of the coat of arms viewed as purely a visual image, those small shields do not in any way appear to be mere background, they appear, to the naive viewer such as myself and the vast majority of our readers, to be content, and therefore meaningful.

This is why, from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy, those particular embellishments need to be referenced, whereas the red and white flowers, or whatever they're called in heraldry, to the right and left of the shield don't have to be. Those appear, visually speaking, to be extraneous background, and it's unlikely that a naive viewer will think that they're a significant part of the coat of arms. The shields, however, with the stars and stripes and other visual allusion to TR's life, look (despite their size) important and significant, and Joe Q. Sixpack is likely to come away with the impression that the American flag is part of TR's coat of arms.

So it is is, I think, this clash between the heraldic thinking thaty Xanderliptak is committed to, and the more literal visual thinking of those concerned that Wikipedia be accurate and contain appropriate information, that seems to be the core of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But that would be akin to asking for sources that says lines form outside of a particular building, or that turtles will stand in grass. Part of the problem is heraldry is little understood, which has caused this problem. We can dumb it all down and make everything match people's preconceived (and often incorrect) notions, but that is not encyclopedic either. If anything, an image that people do not recognize initially as a coat of arms due to their googling of their "family crest" would incite curiosity and cause a person to investigate what they are seeing. That would lead them to the Heraldry and Coat of arms articles, where their knowledge would be expanded. The same reason we don't just say that stars are fireflies stuck in the sky, or rain is caused from angels crying, we do not conform to myths and legends we are told, we put forth truth, even if it is uncomfortable and unfamiliar to us. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have the same experience- as a person with limited knowledge of heraldry, I know it often appears on shield shapes- so when I see the shield shapes on that picture, I assume that they are the coat of arms, and that the flowers growing out of the top of them are the embellishment. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak; simply provide the source for your changes. If you could provde a source for the stars/fireflies analogy-that-doesn't-fit, you could make a case for adding that content. Do you have a source? That question is very familiar... Tiderolls 23:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

24.236.248.179

User:24.236.248.179 was making comments at the Gaza War article that were not constructive. They bordered on treating it like a forum and soapboxing while making accusations.[40] He was asked to raise specific issues but continued.[41] His response at an additional request was to make a comment in the middle of a stale conversation I had previousely started.[42] His response to another request on his talk page was to post a personal attack on my talk page.[43] His response to another editor explaining to him of this not being appropriate was dismissive. It would be appreciated if an administrator would provide him with notification of the arbitration case as detailed at Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement. I am under the impression that incivility is not blockable so doubt that is a possibility but a stronger warning seems necessary.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have issued a formal warning, and they have already received a friendlier one, and explained matters a bit. If they can provide concrete cited reasons for their concerns they can be addressed. If they continue to attack editors because they do not like the way the articles are presented then they can be finally warned and blocked if necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Response This is 24.236.248.179. You just left some stuff out. I did outline several issues, which you ignored. One of which was the massacre narrative section, which I said had only editorials and not concrete information like WHO reports, and I said it should have been deleted, not integrated into another section. You told me to go to the article issues page, which I did. You kept up bugging me. I ask for deletion of a section, outline why, and you ignored it. And it's not as if you're innocent of personal attacks either. On your own talk page I recall you saying "Who the f*** are you?" without the asterisks. I didn't put down or try to piss off the other editor either. I'm thankful for that editor's letter. It was a nice gesture. Of all the editors I've seen, so far you are the only one I've had an issue with. LessHeard vanU, please be sure to read this before you ban me, if that's what this response calls for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.248.179 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did say "Who the fuck are you?" In response to one of your a comment. I didn't think it was that bad but if you took offense to it I apologize. It pails in comparison to your comments and ongoing disruption. And no one said anything about banning or blocking you unless you continue.Cptnono (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And since you acknowledged being User:Jalusbrian, you have been warned multiple times about using the talk page as a forum. User talk:Jalusbrian#Please add to the discussionUser talk:Jalusbrian#See Talk:Coconut oilUser talk:Jalusbrian#Talk:MV Mavi Marmara‎.Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Response All right, then who are you to complain? I'm not offended, I laugh at you. I'm not disrupting anything. You blew me off on one page and then jumped in on my conversation with another guy. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't care about anyone's politics here unless they leave important info out. That was the deal with my first comment. In the second I clearly outlined wanting that section gone and you blew me off. The third was thanking someone else for backing what they said with facts, hardly a disruption. So where do you get off saying who the fuck are you to me and then crying to an admin when you get flak back? This is between you and me. You brought it on yourself.

There is a difference between responding to "Who are you" after disregarding talk page warnings with a snide comment and calling someone retarded. So yes, I made a inappropriate comment. As I have shown above, you have been asked to not use the talk page as a forum on at least 4 occasions yest you continue to do it. Calling someone retarded is the least of my worries.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

First, I have no clue who Jalusbrian or coconutoil are, if you believe nothing else I say, believe that I have never heard those names and don't know what you're talking about. Second, asking for a section change isn't using a page as a forum. Don't know where you got 4 from, the last ones have been at your talk page and here. Sorry, SineBot, I can't get the 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) to work.

oops looks like it does 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So you are not Jalusbrian? Then why do you care if I made a snide comment to him? It had nothing to do with you then. So back on topic, you were given suggestions on how to handle your concerns and where to address them. You then jumped into a conversation I had started that was not constructive. I posted on your user talk page why it was a concern and you responded by calling me retarded. So you have been given a warning by an admin. If you call editors retarded or anything similar or if you continue to misuse talk pages there will be a concern. Simply don't do those things and you should be fine. It is an easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so the comment was to him and not me? Well then it looks like there's 3 people who can attest to you being a self-righteous hypocrite: Me, him, and Nableezy. I like how good you are in front of admins but nowhere else. Drop the act. You don't fool anyone. This is between us. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"self-righteous hypocrite" I now believe a block is appropriate with continued personal attacks being made.Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Meaning you don't deserve blocks for what you do but the people who respond do deserve them. I don't think admins should listen to you at all. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor asked who I was and I asked who "the fuck" he was. Inappropriate. If he would have expressed concern the last thing I would have done is continued with that behavior. It was a stupid comment and nothing more. You on the other hand have not headed warnings and made two personal attacks in the last 24 hrs: "you are so freaking retarded" (in a section titled "Screw off" and "self-righteous hypocrite" Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• My impression of this is that neither party is entirely innocent, or guilty; collaborative editing here requires some understanding of the other point of view, especially on contentious articles and issues within those articles. In the absence of that, a third opinion can be sought, but meanwhile, insults don't help and I suggest that there is no reason for admin intervention here and both parties are advised to cool down. Rodhullandemu

I admit to being BITEY since I did not put forth the effort CordeliaNaismith did at the user's talk page[44] There was no harassment. I commented on a talk page I was previously involved in, a conversation that I originated, and the user's talk page. So can your advice to cool down be considered being "finally warned" as LessHeard vanU mentioned above? Calling another editor "retarded" and "a self righteous hypocrite" are in no way acceptable and this needs to be made clear. And a third opinion is not necessary since specific content has still not been addressed.Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, warnings have already been issued for the incivility, by LessHeard vanU, and for the avoidance of doubt, this may be taken as a final warning by any involved editor that incivility is just not what we are supposed to be about. Arguments over content get heated, particularly in factional disputes, but it is fundamental that we have neutrality here. That depends on the sources you choose to support a particular position, but there is still room to accept differences of opinion from those sources, and seek outside opinion here where such differences exist; however, incivility and personal attacks remains unacceptable; that's why I advised cooling down, on both sides. Apart from that, remedies under dispute resolution remain if you really cannot get it together on the relevant Talk pages. Rodhullandemu 02:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There are more indirect ways of attacking, like edit warring or harassing a person anywhere they go to get them banned. Both Nableezy and I can attest to you doing that. You aren't innocent of anything. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So take it to WP:WQA or cite specific diffs; otherwise, my advice above stands. Rodhullandemu 02:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I did specify what needed to be changed, the entire paragraph massacre narrative needed to be deleted since the sources were irrelevant. The harassment is something both Nableezy and I can attest to. You seem to have followed the both of us all over the place. And cool down was to both of us not just me. I wasn't going to post until you did, so point being I'm willing to shut up if you do. That's what Rodhull wants I think. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no horse in the race of middle eastern disputes; what I would like to see is that participants in the various articles in this topic realise that there are bound to be differences of opinion, and we should report those differences fairly and neutrally, without favouring one side or another. That's perhaps a counsel of perfection, but it cannot be without the knowledge and experience of involved editors that differences exist. However, pushing one side or the other has traditionally been castigated here as unencyclopedic. When it comes to content disputes, even severely polarised disputes, my personal preference is that editors would set aside their local perspective and realise that there is another point of view, and that needs to be dealt with constructively rather than argumentatively. That's why we have dispute resolution, and other venues. Rodhullandemu 02:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you completely understand the dispute. There is no difference of opinion on the content. I have been one of the leading advocates from fixing the "massacre" issue. I was the one who mentioned adjusting the section before the IPs comments and when another editor opened up a second discussion. I supported the move suggested by that editor and then adjusted it even further. So it appears that the IP and I agree to a large extent on content. Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Loansbreak again

I brought the problematic editing of Loansbreak (talk · contribs) here several weeks ago, but nothing was done about it. He continues to make changes to Indian subcontinent articles to change demographic numbers without sources. There is a full complement of edit warnings and even more on his Talk page, but he persists. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no recent warnings on the user's talk page (last one was 19 September), and it doesn't seem anyone has attempted to actually discuss the issue with the user on their talk page, either. This should be your first port of call before bringing it to ANI (twice). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Without even looking any further, I agree with Giftiger. You should try at all costs to discuss problems directly before coming here, and then use ANI as a last resort. Tommy! 23:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break!!!!! The guy is repeating the same activity that got him brought here in the first place, nobody did anything about it then except to repeat warnings that had already been on his Talk page, and now it looks like nobody is going to do anything about it now? The guy is clearly a sneaky vandal, he never uses Talk pages, he never provides sources, and yet he keeps changing numbers without explanation. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There are warning from four different editors on his Talk page. Are we all incompetent bad faith editors? Are we all at fault while this person who never responds to anything on his Talk page is the holy innocent? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. Now I'm being inundated with personal attacks on my Talk page. Is anybody going to deal with this editor, or is the unsourced, suspect editing just going to go on indefinitely? This is my last posting on the subject and I will no longer deal with his edits. You take it from here, or not. Probably not. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no recent personal attacks on your talk page. I have left a message on Loansbreak's talk page that leaves little room for ambiguity; let's see if the disruption continues. In the meantime, I understand your frustration, but please try to stay calm for just a little while longer. (Disclaimer: I'm not an admin.) Looie496 (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

When to use rollback

I left a note on User talk:Paralympiakos, asking them to be careful when using rollback; in my opinion, in this particular edit rollback was not used appropriately. The same applies here and here and here. In my reading of WP:ROLLBACK, good-faith edits should not be rolled back; in my opinion, what was reverted in these edits was in no way vandalism. Let me make two things clear: first, I have rollback myself, and I probably have erred more than once; second, I am not trying to bring Paralympiakos up on charges, since they make many good edits and are a positive contributor. However, I would like for someone from around here to confirm that their response on their talk page is not correct (unless I'm wrong--in which case you should tell me!), and to confirm or explain that to them. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this is an ANI issue, but yes, I do believe the policy is rollback should only be used on non-constructive edits including but not limited to vandalism. Non-admin opinion. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking my opinion, the entire rollback issue is completely pointless. In my opinion, every autoconfirmed user should get it, then we could just stop with all of this stupid bullshit about granting it like a reward and revoking it when somebody doesn't follow the arcane rules to use it. Look, all it does is save one mouse click when reverting someone. You can just as easily click the (undo) and then click the save page buttons and effect the same result. It's a complete waste of admins time to constantly have to police rollback's use, when not one edit warrior has been hindered by not having access to it. Total bullshit that we have to deal with this. That's my opinion on it. Policy is clear on its use, and Paralympiakos is probably usin g rollback against policy, but in my opinion policy is wrong in that it wastes time on a non-issue. --Jayron32 02:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear fucking hear. → ROUX ₪ 02:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an AN/I topic unless it is an Incident. I can't see how this would need administrator intervention.?...--Talktome^(Intelati) 02:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what qualifies as in incident with a capital I. Intelati, if it were so that misuse of rollback was taken seriously, we'd have at least an incident, I reckon. But my question was answered: it's against policy, but nothing will come of it. Jayron, I can't say I disagree with you on the IAR part--still, the bit in the guideline about not leaving an edit summary being impolite (and in case of the first diff I gave, a bit bitey) has some merit. I have seen some editors getting rollback removed, though, which made me extra careful myself. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

See two posts above "User:Kafziel and administrative abuse." that's an example of an "Incident." and the only reason I commented on this post is that it intreged me, but I have no problems with the current setup.--Talktome^(Intelati) 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The real issue is the lack of an informative edit summary and the fact that the default edit summary implicitly casts aspersions - and not anything about permission to use magic buttons "properly". The latter two reverts (to Michael Johnson (fighter) and especially to WEC 53 are bad because they're unexplained summary reversions that should have had an informative edit summary, but the reverts on Travis Browne and Brock Lesnar would have been done practically identically by anyone who encountered them, so the method of achieving those reverts is pretty immaterial. Paralympikos ought to be reminded that informative edit summaries cause a good impression and avoid extra work for editors who see them - and that's all that needs to happen at this point, in my opinion. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Johnson one is obvious vandalism. It's a fake bout and that's within even your rules of rollback. The Brock Lesnar ones are a pattern of nonsense edits and the user was warned. Rollback was best as it is vandalism. WEC was an accident, which as I've explained before, is because my browser pops upwards from time and time and I accidentally hit the button. Then, I've explained my view on the other edit. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) to both Drmies and Gavia immer: I am not sure that hitting (undo) followed immediately by [Save page] leaves any more informative of an edit summary. Assuming that an editor is repeatedly doing that to good faith edits, why is that somehow better than using rollback? --Jayron32 02:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't. The two acts are essentially the same (as is performing such an edit manually or via a script) and equally inappropriate. —David Levy 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is an ANI topic because admins are the ones to grant and take away rollback. Technically, this is a fine forum to discuss appropriate use of rollback. Still stand by my feelings that Rollback is a bullshit issue, but insofar as the system exists as it is, this is the proper place to discuss its use and revocation. --Jayron32 02:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've no opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the rollback guideline, but it's my belief that this editor doesn't understand them properly and hasn't been using it in accordance with them, so I've revoked the permission. We can discuss the relevance of WP:RBK on its talk page or another, more suitable forum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support--Talktome^(Intelati) 02:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm playing by the rules of rollback. It says that when a revert is self-explanatory, rollback can be used. It says "for example, vandalism etc", but that doesn't mean that it is limited to vandalism. Any sane person seeing a "tag: incorrectly formatted image" would easily know that it needs removing, so the change is just self-explanatory. If you disagree with that, then go and change the wording on rollback, so that people can't do what I did. As far as I'm concerned, I'm 100% right in what I did and this remove is farcical. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed that action was taken whilst I was away. It would have been decent of people to at least wait so that discussion could take place involving me. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please also see WT:ROLLBACK where I've asked that this farce of a discussion have some results. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not self-explanatory to the person who made the edit, which is exactly the point of using an informative edit summary. Reverting without an edit summary, whether with or without rollback, is a form of biting a newcomer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it really is. They put an image down in the form of a hyperlink and see it doesn't work. I'd say they'd know why I performed a rollback. As has been said above, it doesn't matter whether it is via rollback or undo, the result is the same, just with an extra, unnecessary click involved. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. They made a good faith edit. "Something" went wrong - the image they expected to see didn't appear! Why? Don't know. Then somehow the edit they'd just made disappeared as well - the redlink they'd just added (Valley Center,California) turned back into a bluelink (San Diego, California). What on earth is going on?! There's no explanation on their talkpage, no explanation in the article's history - nothing. Just a confused newbie. Constructive or well-intentioned changes should not be reverted without an explanatory summary, as it is impolite to the author of those changes. Your rollback was inappropriate. It did not help someone who needed help. TFOWR 13:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what then? Put that in the rollback summary! As I've said many times now with that quoted statement, I performed under the rules as they currently look. The sensible thing to do here would be to change the rollback policy/statement etc, revert the removal and chalk this up to misunderstanding/errors at the rollback page. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any errors at the rollback page. I believe the error is in your belief that your use of rollback was "self explanatory". It wasn't. TFOWR 14:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

So you see an image that doesn't work, followed by a rollback and you need that explaining to you? I'm sure you'd find it self-explanatory. Still doesn't explain why the rollback was removed without so much as a hint first. As I've said elsewhere, you're quick to defend IPs, saying that things should be explained to them, but what about me? As far as I was aware, I was acting correctly, but instead of having it explained to me, I have rollback taken away immediately. That's poor. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point: you don't provide an edit summary for my benefit, you provide it for the benefit of the poor soul you're reverting. And that is explained at WP:ROLLBACK - Constructive or well-intentioned changes should not be reverted without an explanatory summary, as it is impolite to the author of those changes. - and it is expected that editors understand that before being granted rollback. This is being explained to you, and when you've demonstrated that you understand it I'll have no problem with you being granted rollback again. TFOWR 14:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain, to a degree, that that IP would know that a redlink image would be removed. Fair enough about pointing them in the right direction. Like I say though, it would be better if it was reinstated now, considering it never should have been taken away. Notification is far preferable to "at any point". Paralympiakos (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out by other editors, if there is any doubt as to whether the reason for your rollback is completely self-explanatory, and the user is making a good faith contribution, it's a perfectly simple matter to undo the edit instead, giving the option of leaving an edit summary which would help the user. One of those edits was a red-linked image as the user had tried to insert a full URL as an image; it would have been a simple matter to undo it with an edit summary something like "Please see WP:UPLOAD and upload the image first, and make any test edits in the sandbox", and/or leave an explanatory note on the user's talk page. If you use twinkle as well, you have the option of rolling back multiple edits with an AGF edit summary. It's confusing and disheartening for good-faith editors to see their edits immediately reverted without explanation, when such an explanation would take a few seconds to write. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine. All points will be taken onboard for the future, but the removal of the feature is hardly going to help with learning. It can be disheartening for good faith editors to see edits immediately reverted, but by the same token, it can be disheartening for a long-standing editor to be treated like rubbish and have things taken away without a moment's notice. Still though, nothing has been done to reverse that action. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What would you do differently if you encountered the same situation and had rollback privileges? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

....the complete opposite to this time. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Browne edit, I've left the editor a {{uw-imageuse}} message. In my humble opinion, if rollback is used in situations like this, it's a good idea to leave a note on the user's talk page to explain why the edit was reverted. I don't think it matters whether the explanation is in the edit summary or user talk, provided an explanation is provided. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Custom summaries can be used with rollback. This script, importScript('User:Gracenotes/rollback.js'); added to your monobook.js file allows you to rollback a edit with a custom summary. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it on board, but I need the tool back first. I'm still waiting for Mitchell to reverse his actions, but I'm guessing he's being too stubborn. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling him "stubborn" for not restoring your access when at least four other admins and/or editors in good standing agree with its removal is not acceptable. It is uncivil and really just shows that you're getting way too heated over this. All the more reason not to restore it if you're just going to get this defensive and refuse to acknowledge your errors in case this happens again in future. StrPby (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Being "defensive" doesn't really have anything to do with my suitability for having the tool, now does it? That would be a vendetta coming into play. I've admitted I was wrong already. I misunderstood the contradictory rollback speech and made a mistake accordingly. I'll say for the final time, I'm not heated whatsoever. I'm calm, but I'd just like it reinstated, as I think it's wrong that it was removed. I've learnt, so let's move on. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this script could be directly incorporated into rollback. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me as though that would be as slow as undo. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, it is quite fast because you don't have to refresh the page. You can also perform a normal rollback, the script just adds a extra button. When performing a custom rollback it takes the exact same amount of time as a standard rollback, only it promps for a edit summary. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of Law and Order Offensive Party by User:Tiptoety

WP:DNFTT. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Tiptoety uses his admin's privileges to remove sourced information [45] in order to support the views of User:Miacek [46]. --78.53.44.188 (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC) No "admin privileges" were used in the diff cited. Tipoety subsequently semi-protected the article due to "excessive sockpuppetry"; the IP above seems to be another of these multiple socks. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC) WP policy allows editors to undo any edits by banned users. Nevertheless, what exactly is wrong with the IPs edits from a content perspective? The references seem to be in German - did they not support the term to which they were attached? The dispute on this article starts here: [47] - about a category. The article still has the text related to the category (without the references), so why was the category removed? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Tiptoety appears to have been involved at that article in a purely administrative capacity. Good on them for following up and monitoring after their earlier semi-protection expired. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I would still like some explanation of the content issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Is Dodo19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) banned, or merely indef'd? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Uninvolved comment. As Gimmetoo said, no explanation given if the edit is legimate or illegimate. This is the trouble of Wikipedia, Bugs just yells "banned?" but fails to provide proof or explanation! Wikipedia is very childish in this respect. Too bad. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I didn't yell "banned", I asked if the editor was banned. Because if he's actually banned, quality of content is irrelevant. If he's merely indef'd, then automatic deletion of his edits is not necessarily allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Quality of content is irrelevant? This is simply untrue. If a banned user improves an article you don't just toss it. We have IAR for a reason. If the encyclopedia is improved thats all that matters. -- ۩ Mask 22:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Banned users are not allowed to edit. Anything posted by a banned user is subject to removal, regardless of it's alleged quality. That's the rule. Such is not necessarily the case with a user who's indef'd but not specifically banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC) *Sigh*. Dodo is a faultfinding troll and massive sock puppeteer who is known for attempting to use every opportunity to launch frivolous 'reports' [48], [49] against his perceived enemies, often masquerading with ostensibly legitimate 'concerns' [50], [51]. In order to be able to act, he is keen on instigating edit wars, very often using argumentation based on WP:SYNTH [52] or sources that do not support the assumption he pretends they do [53]. As for the Law and Order Offensive Party, I no longer have that page in my watchlist, so I didn't notice Dodo's insertions. I was asked to comment on my talk page. Tiptoety probably reverted Dodo's IP edits for administrative purposes, as 1) the user is prone to enter POV material, even if sourced [54] 2) is known for falsifications, that serve one aim and one aim only: to provoke his foes into edit wars. It is definitely healthy practice to semi-protect the articles affected by Dodo's sock puppetry and to block disruptive IPs for some days. On the other hand, I agree that his references in that particular case can be included after some scrutiny by constructive users (I've only checked a couple of them, not all); whether or not the party now warrants the category Dodo's sock introduced, I'm not sure yet. It should be agreed upon on the respective talk page. If Dodo19 is not technically banned yet, I suggest we fix the issue now. Users like this are not interested in writing an encyclopedia, they come here only to poison the atmosphere and to disrupt. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Uninvolved comment. Miacek refers to "often masquerading with ostensibly legitimate 'concerns' ". If there are legimate concerns, they should be carefully considered. If they are not legimate concerns, then they are illegimate (bastard/bitch). The concern should be evaluated foremost, not an attempt to smear the editor if you cannot come up with an unbiased evaluation of the concern. That said, I am uninvolved and have not evaluated the original concern. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC) An insider comment: this was a case what I'd describe as an ostensibly legitimate concern that in effect amounted to harassment and caused some renewed sysop intervention that eventually led to the disclosure of his sock puppet farm. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Ok, the elephant in the room is the fact that an IP's first edit was at ANI complaining about a seasoned admin. Toddst1 (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay

Humaliwalay has been tendentiously editing the Lebanon article, pushing older, less reliable sources that give relatively higher estimates for the size of Lebanon's Shi'a population, and relatively lower estimates for Lebanon's Sunni population. This is particularly alarming in the context of the user's edit history, which shows a clear bias of minimizing Sunni material and bolstering Shi'a material (there was a previous ANI case about their actions on a since-deleted article titled Criticism of Sunni Islam). The editor has been asked to not add the controversial material until they can establish consensus for it, but practices a clear "I don't hear that" mentality, re-inserting it anyways, pushing their personal POV, and citation bombing the article (citing more and more older, less reliable sources to try to support their material). Uninvolved editors have chimed in on the original research noticeboard, the reliable sources noticeboard, and on the article's talk page discussion, explaining that Humaliwalay's sources are often inferior to those that are already being cited, and that Humaliwalay's use of those sources often constitutes synthesis and original research. Humaliwalay ignores these, piling up more and more source citations in the article which don't say what he's citing them for. I'm very much not interested in an edit war on the material, so I'd appreciate if someone can look into Humaliwalay's edit history and tendentious behavior. ← George ^talk 06:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Sources which I am citing are from PEW, Library of Congress and WHO's backed body EMRO all published between 2007-2009. Whereas George relies on one single source that too a study of year 2007 and claims the source cited otherwise. - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm confident an uninvolved administrator will take the time to review your edit and subsequent talk page discussion, and see the clear fallacy of your statement. ← George ^talk 07:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Still this matter is under discussion here [55]. User brought this here very hastily. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not an issue of content, this is an issue of behavior. You have been flouting Wikipedia policies, ignoring the advice of other editors, pushing through your biased point of view without establishing consensus. Myself and others have explained to you, repeatedly, that you should establish consensus before making your controversial edits. You refused. That is the issue. ← George ^talk 07:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack me by saying biased, I did not delete any of your claim, rather just inserted what I found by specifying them so that it does not clash with yours. Also as explained I have also deleted the word UN. And you call me Biased. Is this the way you should behave?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One very interesting thing I noticed after the User George accused me of being biased is that his citations are based on the findings of Youssef Chahid done in year 2005 and not 2007 which were reprinted by NOWLEBANON.COM here [56] in which it states that Shias are around 29% even less than the Sunnis. Where as the same source NOWLEBANON.COM in its latest release by its MD Hanin Ghaddar on April, 25 2010 states that Shias are demographically the largest sect of Lebanon here [57]. Nowlebanon.com does not prove to be as authentic and reliable as Pew Research Center and others. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What the hell kind of nonsense is this? I have never cited nowlebanon.com, nor have I cited Youssef Chahid, making your claim a complete fabrication. I cited the U.S. State Department, which gives a figure of 28% (not 29%). Fabricating such claims on top of your POV-pushing does not bode well. ← George ^talk 19:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bumping for more discussion before this gets archived. ← George ^talk 08:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yopie and his rollback right

Resolved

 – Editors recently blocked for edit wars have no need for rollback. Toddst1 (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The user is notified about the report:[58]

The user is not very proficient in English so that the only thing that he is able to contribute to the Wikipedia by is nothing more than POV reverting and he has been carrying out a certain type of reverting crusade on Wikipedia every day. Withal, he has recently been blocked for edit warring. And shortly after he had received the block, he commenced an appeal against the sanction in which he was warned about abusively using rollback tool in an edit war and he was said that this may entail the revocation of the rollback permission. [59] However, it is worth pointing out that this is an old problem and that this behaviour of him was first expostulated as far as November 11, 2009. [60] And in addition, there is a template on his user page that "This user reverts vandalism in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!". In other words, while reverting, one of his eyes blinks and of course his ability of apprehension of English written texts is very limited due to his poor command of the language. It is important to note that the user continued using rollback even after being warned in his aforesaid latest block appeal.[61] [62] It is also true that there are several other problems with him but they are germane to the ArbCom rather than here (e.g.wikihounding, personal attacks) and those I woultn't start to dissect right now. In my opinion, it would be in order to request Yopie to be bereaved of the possibility of using rollback.--Nmate (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors recently blocked for edit wars have no need for rollback. This user no longer has the priv. Toddst1 (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I know, that rollback is privilege, not right. But I feel unjust about my "un-rollbacking" for these reasons:

1. It was done without my opinion.
2. I was blocked for edit warring two weeks ago and I was informed, that "Using rollback in an edit war may lead to the permission being revoked". From this point I ceased with using rollback and continued only with Twinkle (with statement of the reasons)and of course, I´m aware of edit war. It was because as I understand, that I´m blocked for edit warring. As I understand, if I misuse rollback next time, I can be "un-rollbacked". But last two weeks there was not any misuse of rollback be me.
3. I was blocked for 24 hours for edit war 2 weeks ago and "un-rollbacking" is another penalty for same offence. This is unjust.
4. WP:ROLL says, that "Administrators may revoke the rollback feature or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used." There is nothing about "second penalty for blocking" and there is not persistent failure by me.
5. I feel, that reason for Nmate request is my comment in ANI [63], because he don't like user Iaaasi and I´m on side of Iaaasi. This looks, like I´m punished for expression of view on ANI.
6. Nmate request is on edge of personal attack and he clearly don't understand difference between Twinkle and rollback [64], thus his request seems be invalid.

Thank you for consideration.--Yopie (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff

Dilma Rousseff The admin locked the page unilateral without any vote or consensus to do that. --Ftsw (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There were numerous editors edit-warring over several items that involved WP:BLP concerns, with no evidence of moving towards consensus on wording or agreement on validity of sources. There is talk-page activity, which is good. But can't simultaneously edit-war on the article. Good use of protection in a form that is least BLP problematic and/or prior to current disputes. WP:PROT does not require a vote, a consensus, or any other prior notification. DMacks (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

...and note that after the article was protected, another admin re-protected for a longer duration. For what it's worth, this is a clear BLP vio, and fully justifies the protection in my view (there were several edits like this one). TFOWR 14:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And Ftsw has twice inserted this edit [65] at Israeli West Bank barrier (among other things, changing barrier to wall in the text and with an edit summary 'rvv pov'}. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, there's an SPI case open about Ftsw. Their edits are getting progressively more troubling. They just uploaded File:Barackobama.jpg, for example. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The user's third edit was a request to become an RfA candidate. Tiderolls 15:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

They're intimately familiar with policy, which makes their current conduct all the more troubling. TFOWR 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer (ThomasK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Thomaskh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)); I just pointed this out on the SPI page. And you're right, he's had more than five years to read up on policy. His previous RFA didn't go very well either. How do we feel about a range block on 188.23.0.0/16 and 93.82.0.0/20? There aren't many edits there that aren't his. Antandrus (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I should perhaps point out that we don't 'vote' or generally require consensus (at least before hand) for a page to be protected. If an admin feels protection is justified in accordance with our WP:Protection policy they are free to protect a page. Often this comes from a WP:Request for page protection but there is no need for consensus to request protection, nor for admins to grant it and if admins notice problems themselves, they don't need to ask 'permission' first. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• User:Ftsw (now indef-blocked here) is registered at de:wiki and being disruptive in exactly the same way over there, also anon editing using the same IP range. Are there any German-speakers willing to give them a heads-up? Or do we studiously ignore each other? Franamax (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Giftiger wunsch (talk) has a de-3 babel-box. I'll ping GW. TFOWR 19:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll see if I can figure out where to bring it up in my disjointed German ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I've given them a semi-literate explanation of the issue we're having. Since I'm not familiar with de.wiki policies, I've indicated the problem here (sockpuppetry and BLP vios) and pointed out the username and left them to deal with the details. The thread is de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen#Benutzer:Ftsw_im_deutschen_und_englischen_Wikipedia GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Right place, thanks for the heads-up. --Guandalug (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks GW. I was trying to use the Google Translator to follow it up and came across an edit summary of "JIMBO WALES IS AN EMPTY SUITCASE" or some such - I stopped around that point... :) Franamax (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
        • User Ftsw has been blocked indef on de:wiki as well. --Guandalug (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And now he's here: 188.23.64.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- I just declined the unblock request. Antandrus (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Gniniv / User:Terra Novus / "Novus Orator"

In mid-September a discussion relating primarily to User:Gniniv took place here at ANI (archive). Gniniv's declaration of retirement on 15 Sep appears to have cut short that discussion. User:Terra Novus was created on 18 Sep, and after it became clear that the account was not a new user (raising WP:SOCK concerns), he was asked to disclose to someone who he was, which he sort of did here, though as User:Carcharoth had no prior knowledge of the new account, this just caused confusion. (There's also this to confirm the link.) Terra Novus has said that he is making use of WP:CLEANSTART, but is continuing to edit some of the same articles [66], and the way his 3-day retirement cut short the previous ANI discussion leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I'm not sure what the best course of action is here - but it does not seem appropriate use of CLEANSTART, and the way both Gniniv's old signature was virtually unreadable and his new one is slightly misleading ("Novus Orator" instead of account name "Terra Novus") doesn't help matters. Perhaps the best thing would be for users who had issues with this user to start an WP:RFC/U. At any rate, the matter seems to merit an airing. Rd232 ^talk 13:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But if the old account came to community attention, or the topic is the subject of edit-wars and contentious editing, and especially if your old account was involved or your new account will be, then it may be seen as evading scrutiny not to disclose the old account. The principle is that clean start is not a license to resume editing in areas the community might need scrutiny or where scrutiny has happened in the past. It is intended for users who wish to move on new areas having learned from the past, or who wish to set aside old disputes and poor conduct.

Seems to be contrary to the above. As if he is evading scrutiny. Are the new account's edits in any way contentious as they were with the old? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

He was probably going to be banned from articles dealing with evolution, Creationism, etc, and he is still editing one of them, Jack Cuozzo. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with an RFC then, to continue the original proceeding as if the user had not retired. That way we don't clog ANI with it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot War

Mark Zuckerberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know if this belongs here, on the edit warring notice board, or somewhere else. Several bots keep adding and removing a language link to Zuckerberg's page. I tried posting a message to one of the bots here, but I guess the bot is ignoring me. When I looked at communicating with the bot's owner, that editor's pages were in French. Based on my lack of success with that bot, I didn't post messages to any of the other bots. When I did a Help search, I saw several archived threads (on this board, I think) about bot wars. I'm not sure how you stop it, though. As for the susbtantive issue, i.e., whether the link belongs in the article, so far it's 2-1 in favor. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with ChuispastonBot (talk · contribs). I have warned the bot's talk page, and its owner. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That was my assumption, too, because that was the bot that kept removing the link (see my partly serious, partly facetious comment). Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This guy does not get it

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

After looking in to the matter further, his/her incivility seems to be much more widespread [67], [68]. Given previous and recent blocks for NPA, I have blocked the editor for 1 week. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional input requested at an AFD

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

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

User:FellGleaming

FellGleaming (talk · contribs) is disruptively editing Challenger Deep and Mariana Trench in the middle of two different discussions about his poor use of sources, the first at Talk:Challenger_Deep, and the second at WP:NORN. Now, Slatersteven (talk · contribs) has showed up and started tag teaming for Fell and making blanket reverts.[69] After a discussion about Fell's edits began at Talk:Challenger Deep, I helped Fell find reliable sources for his claims because he was having trouble understanding how we use sources. No offense to Fell, but the user has a long history of misusing sources and not understanding basic policies and guidelines governing their use. It is not quite clear why this problem has continued for so long, but his poor use of sources resulted in an enforcement request warning in April.[70] The concerns expressed in that warning are the same here:

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

In any case, Fell didn't like the discussion on Talk:Challenger Deep and took this dispute to WP:NOR/N. Not liking the responses he received there, he began engaging in extremely WP:POINTy behavior, and duplicated the same disputed content[71] that was removed from Challenger Deep into Mariana Trench.[72][73] The result, is that FellGleaming is ignoring the concerns raised about his misuse of sources on Talk:Challenger Deep, and disregarding the problems raised with his use of sources on WP:NORN, and has now managed to copy the same disputed content into two different articles for no reason other than because he can. This is extremely childish and disruptive and with the addition of Slatersteven demanding that I prove a negative, and with Slatersteven supporting FellGleaming's disruption with tag teaming over disputed content, I think it's time for administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from FellGleaming

A short history of events:

1. Viriditas blanked a section of the article: [74]
2. After talk page discussion, Viriditas allowed restoration of some of the material, but would not allow a Berkeley Law of the Sea Institute (a group of legal scholars specializing in international sea law) to support the text that "nuclear waste dumping is banned according to the UNCLOSIII treaty. As of September 2010, the US has not ratified this treaty". I gave some additional sources for this, such as a NYT article. He still refused, on the grounds that none of these sources "were about Challenger Deep specifically". He also began making threats and personal attacks on the article's talk page ([75])
3. To seek conflict resolution, I took the issue to the No Original Research noticeboard ([76])
4. Another editor (SlaterSteven) saw the issue there, and responded by restoring the text Viriditas removed. (I note that this editor, rather than being a "tag team" helper, is an editor who has actually conflicted with me regularly in the past).
5. Viritidas responded by attacking that editor as well, and posting snarky comments to the editor's talk page: ([77]). He also began canvassing other users to search for complaints to use against me (See links from Collect).

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

I have already succinctly explained the problem in my original report, but I would like to clear up Fell's misrepresentation of basic facts. To refresh Fell's memory, I originally removed poorly sourced material from Challenger Deep[78] and placed it on the talk page per best practices.[79] This was done because the solitary source used, did not support the content. FellGleaming, without replying on talk first, quickly restored the material,[80] adding an unreliable source to Helium.com as his chosen source, a "peer reviewed citizen journalism website". FellGleaming then begin making a series of very strange claims on talk, arguing that "the Helium source is not being used as a WP:RS for a science claim, but merely to support that the location has been suggested as a waste repository." Fell began trying to reinterpret and reinvent the concepts of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR on the fly, so that they would support his edits. Because Fell was unable to find a reliable source that supported the content he wanted to add, I felt sorry for him and tried to help him out. I found the Hafemeister (2007) source[81] and Fell was happy.[82] However, things quickly devolved into Jekyll and Hyde territory after I helped Fell find a source. At this point, Fell began to go off on bizarre tangents, arguing that any reliable source is acceptable to use in the article, even one that is not about the topic. I calmly explained to Fell, that per the policies and guidelines, we generally only use topical sources, mostly to avoid original research and drawing conclusions that aren't found in the sources. As it stands, Fell will not accept this fact. So now, Fell has added the disputed material into two different articles, and continues to ignore the concerns raised about his edits on the article talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore. CANVASS per [83], [84]. I have not seen anything nasty from Fell Gleaming. Charges of "tag teaming" should be weighed carefully, and discarded as chaff. Absent any real charge, and considering the CANVASS involved, I suggest the first word I wrote is correct. Collect (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

There has also been no tag teaming. I made Two edits, one imidialty after the other [[85]]. I ask that this blatant mis-representation is withdrawn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

ONe making an edit you do not like (or restoring an edit you do not like) is not tag teaming (and I now belive this to be casued by the fact you cannot revert due to having used 3 reverts already, that you are attmepting to use this ANI to continue an edit war). Two I have answerd the questions, that you do not accpept the answers [[86]] (why this should be here) [[87]] (sources supporting the fact the nUS has not ratified the treaty) [[88]] (that the sectio with out the material about US nonratification mis-represents the situation) is not my problom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simple, but you need to understand the history. Cla68 is having a campaign to add as many facts to as many articles as he can, using Fred Pearce's book as a source. That is where this factoid came from [89]. See-also the next diff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The "smoking hot" edit war consists of my making a total of 3 edits in the past week: [90]. Ohiostandard, by the way, has been following me from article to article, misrepresenting sources with his edits, just as he did in this one [91], where he claimed it for "fidelity with what the sources actually say". The only problem is, they say no such thing. If he continues this pattern of harrassment and source misrepresentation (and continues to misrepresent my sex as well, despite repeated corrections to the contrary), I believe action will be necessary. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid.[92]

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

Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health.[93]

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

Note Viriditas already brought this issue to the NPOV NB [94]. The text Viriditas is complaining about wasn't even added by me; it simply was the prior version restored when I reverted out improperly cited material. Note that admin Mastcell at the NPOV NB agreed the claim was overstated. Further, given Viriditas has posted this to three forums, he seems to be forum shopping. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

To respond to John's many errors, (a) I am not under any "current Arbcom restrictions". (b) the grammatical error he refers to in Challenger Deep was not added by myself. It existed in the article prior to my first edit: [95]. In restoring a section which had been blanked, I merely did not take the time to cleanup the grammar. As to John's complaint on the nuclear article, I'm sorry I don't see it. I took a vague "scientists and engineers" statement and replaced it with the actual descriptions of these individuals, taken directly from their existing WP entries. Calling someone a "scientist" in a nuclear power article is not only vague, but somewhat misleading, when they are in fact a biologist commenting on nuclear issues. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have been trying very hard to work with Fell for some months now on articles relating to nuclear issues but recently had to abandon my efforts at Anti-nuclear movement in the United States, see [96]. This is the first time in my 3.5 years of editing that I have had to withdraw from an article because it became a battleground, see Talk:Anti-nuclear movement in the United States. I agree with John's thoughtful comments above ([97], [98]) and concur that something needs to be done. Johnfos (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Question: Can we consolidate this discussion and this one?: [99]. Here is my comment from that page: FellGleaming pursues a global warming denial agenda. He pursues his POV by attacking a series of related articles and, by removing support for a proposition in tangential articles, then go back to the main article and say that there is no support for the proposition in related articles. See also WP:COATRACK. For example, here is where he attempts to attack a bio article on climate change expert Joseph Romm by adding poorly sourced and unbalanced information [100]. He then tries to remove Romm's name from this article: [101] (see this: [102]) Full disclosure: I am a friend of Romm's. That's why I noticed FellGleaming's behaviour. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC) -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

You're actually trying to dredge up an edit [[103]] from more than six months ago into the current argument? And my "severe warning" was simply a no-sanctions message to "be more careful". I looked into a source already in an article, and used the exact phrase "leaked emails" from the source. Admin Mastcell decided it was "misleading" because I put the phrase half a sentence away from where the inline citation was, even though two other admins said it was without merit. In fact, the only reason I didn't appeal such a ridiculous conclusion was simply because there were no sanctions attached to it, just a warning to "be more careful" ... which I always am, anyway. And Viriditas is simply upset because he's taken me to three different noticeboards in the past week, without once getting the result he wants. On the first forum, he even went so far as to begin personally attacking editors who agreed with me. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My experience mirrors what several have commented on above. FellGleaming has an extremely aggressive editing style that makes it difficult to work cooperatively with him. He will argue a point over and over on an article's talk page, and when he doesn't get his way he deletes large swaths of material that he dislikes with a summary of "As per talk, deleting non-encyclopedic content."[104] His talk page discussions often employ an odd sort of circular logic that basically goes "the source that supports that statement isn't reliable, because a reliable source wouldn't say that" as in this example (note "BBB" should be "BBC"). This has been going on for too long, over too wide range of articles. Ideally FellGleaming would adopt a less aggressive and more cooperative approach on his own, but if not he should be given concrete incentive to do so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsuccessful enforcement request from April 2010

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

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

   After I challenge this,

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

   After my warning, below, then

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community Ban

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

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

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

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

• Support - I've tried to work with FG on many articles relating to nuclear issues, without success, and the POV-pushing and disruption has continued. Johnfos (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've seen plenty of caustic comments from this user. Enough. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature - RFC first, and see if FG can improve. Rd232 ^talk 21:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, sort of broadly per Ravensfire. The real danger here is that FellGleaming will see failure of the indef block proposal as vindication of his actions. Better to withdraw the indef block proposal and instead put him on notice that he needs to clean up his act, and that there are admins willing to step in if he continues on his current path. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As usual, draconian responses do not work. Moreover, the proponent is currently involved in an ArbCom case, and this may be seen as a way to sidestep the discussions there about both parties. Collect (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Editor has a poor record and does not observe neutrality, rs, AGF or 3RR, despite feedback from other editors and blocks. TFD (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, basically per Ravensfire. I do not think that the Wikipedia community has a great track record with civility paroles, though. I would support a global 1RR restriction with a discussion requirement (block length aggressively escalated) + sourcing probation (immediate indef if a source is substantively misrepresented). RfC/U might also help - I have seen editors recover from worse. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for a different reason. I do not know enough about this user to form an opinion of whether this editor is deserving of a site ban or not. I am opposing because they are involved in an ArbCom case. I think that the ArbCom case should be allowed to finish and see how any remedies and findings of facts which pass effect this user and whether their behaviour improves.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I am no fan of FG's editing, this is too much. A topic ban was proposed (below); the problem with that is that there are a number of topics where this editor has been disruptive. 1RR would be helpful, for instance, but perhaps an RfC is the way to go at this time. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Only recently experienced him as an editor. He appears knowledgeble on Wiki policy and open to consensus editing but can also comport himself agressively. Editing as an assumed "sceptic" CC editor, his survival skill alone probably warrants merit. Civility parole might help but a ban is, IMHO, way over the top. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - if he acknowledges there is a problem and comment. Wikipedia has difficulty with this kind of civil POV editor. In the debate we're having now, the struggle is to describe in concrete terms the behaviour pattern that would lead to a ban, although I think everyone more or less is agreed that he's been a net detriment to Wikipedia's processes, and with intention. I'm uncomfortable in this instance with a wholesale ban. FellGleaming is knowledgeable, and has forced some article writers to be very careful what they say about fringe theorists and BigEvilCorporations in a healthy way - in addition to blatant POV editing. Such subjects can be subject to attack, just as much as articles on Obama or Acorn. Of course, if he does not acknowledge that there is a problem with his approach, then I would reassess my view - and I would urge others to do so. That said, I think it's worth looking at this summary of his edits. Although the first two bans were two years ago, FellGleaming was not editing regularly again until April this year. Each time he has become more active, he's experienced blocks for edit warring. I support suggestions of an indefinite global 1RR, and, based on what I've seen him do, a warning about misrepresenting talkpage consensus (must not be done) and about his warning other users of breaking policy (wikilawyering) - only to be done in absolute cast iron cases (e.g. blatant vandalism (obscenities etc.), including both talkpages and usertalk pages. He can always ask an admin to take a case up for him if it's genuine. Looking at his edit history, I think it' a case of WP:ROPE.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mild oppose I have had run ins in the past with Fell. I do not see his actions as much worse then many others (inlcuding in truth the origional ANI poster). If he can demonstrate that he is able to learn from this experiance then I will oppose a ban. If however evidacen comes forward that he will not moderate his activities then this would change to Mild support.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mild Support I don't like to impose sanctions, but an editor who persists in pushing the same original research two years after it's been removed by consensus and two days after he's been warned to "exercise basic due diligence" in the use of sources, doesn't seem willing to operate within the Wikipedia framework. Given the scope of his problem edits, a topic ban won't suffice.SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC); revised 15:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Edits like this one, demonstrating an apparent unfamiliarity with WP:UNDUE, followed by this one, showing that the editor has at least heard of UNDUE, are a serious concern that there's an underlying problem (either with competence, or, more likely, with POV-pushing) that needs to be addressed. But that doesn't necessitate leaping to a community ban. Let's press on with blocks - we're only up to the 72 hours block stage at this point. TFOWR 15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Probably the most POV pushing wikilawyer I have known. I have known both wikilawyers and POV pushers but FellGleeming has taken these tactics across multiple articles and venues using every wikitactic available. To simply suggest there is a problem that needs to be addressed is an understatement and fails to look into this editor's history in a meaningful way. This editor is not here to improve wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Very belligerent user, and both competence and POV-pushing are issues. I encountered him recently on the CC case; see his defensive response to a warning I posted on another user's page (a user I see opposing a ban above; no surprise there, I guess), without even waiting for that user to do his own replying.[105] When I requested diffs for his accusations from FG, reminding him that "it is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation"[106], he fell unaccountably silent, so his character assassination had presumably been mere hot air. (I guess it's not only sources that he misrepresents.) I would like to see a ban, but one with a timelimit; sitebanned for three months sounds about right, IMO. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC).
• Not support, not oppose, but comment and learning toward mild oppose I had a very recent run-in with Fell where he passionately and belligerently pushed his point. He threatened to excise an entirely section (that was very well referenced) and clearly did not agree with the consensus. He brought the issue to another noticeboard without notifying anyone in the local discussion, despite being specifically asked to do so. His civil POV pushing is usually that, civil, but he sometimes makes accusations of bad faith, which is clearly against policy. I do not think Fell needs to be banned, but there ought to be an RfC/U on the issue to gain wider community input. Basket of Puppies 01:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Fell Gleaming is only one amongst many great contributors who have been shoved out of Wikipedia for not going along with the elitist majority POV that pervade Wikipedia's articles.--Novus Orator 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, for the sake of the timeline, this ANI report was precipitated by the failure of a previous report opened by FellGleaming at WP:NOR/N on 13:22, 17 September 2010.[107] "Novus Orator", real account name Terra Novus (talk · contribs), created their account at 05:26, 18 September 2010.[108] This noticeboard report was filed by me at 13:48, 18 September 2010.[109] Wikistalk results for the intersection of both contributors can be viewed here. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Alternative proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s interesting that both of these accounts make different edits on different pages, at the same time [[110]] [[111]] that’s some clever sock puppeting. I sugest that the 'evidance' is re-examined.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The two edits were made 16 seconds apart, at 2010-09-19T04:41:14Z[112] and 2010-09-19T04:41:30Z[113]. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Terra Novus has said that he's a former user who has a new user name, per "Clean start".[114] However he seems to be engaged in contentious issues. Perhaps it'd be helpful if he'd share his former username with a Checkuser or ArbCom member to make sure that he is following best practices.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to share my former name with a qualified Checkuser or Arbcom member..--Novus Orator 05:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Then please go ahead and do that, and ask the person to publicly confirm that you've done so. Rd232 ^talk 12:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Has this been completed?   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
        • User_talk:Carcharoth#Confirmation. Novus seems to have misunderstood though, and merely declared on Carcharoth's talk page that he is User:Gniniv. Rd232 ^talk 11:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Issues of "Clean start" aside, it appears that Gniniv had few editing overlaps with FellGleaming.[115]   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary of opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1RR proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Epson291

After using a verbatim, unattributed quotation from a source [116] ("Dominick suggested that Stewart, who is Jewish, is also a minority.", from [117]), I warned Epson291 [118] that such plagiarism was unacceptable. Unbelievably, his response was that he hadn't committed plagiarism because he provided a reference to the source from which the quotation was lifted [119], even though no quotation marks or other means were used to denote the direct copying of text. After I rewrote his plagiarized material in clear, original language [120], Epson291 proceeded to reintroduce the plagiarized sentence [121], changing the wording only slightly "Dominick suggested that Stewart, who is Jewish, is also a minority." became "Dominick then noted that since Stewart is Jewish, he is also a minority" (material removed from the original is in strikethrough, new language in bold). Given Epson291's repeated failure to adhere to common standards of academic honestymisuse of source text on Rick Sanchez, he's probablymay have added plagiarized material to other articles as well. Blocking his account would permit the damage to be stopped while his contributions are thoroughly investigated.Therefore I'm requesting that an administrator take appropriate action. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Excessively heated language rewritten by Peter Karlsen on 01:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Users who reject Wikipedia's attribution requirements for the verbatim copying of text need to be stopped, not negotiated with. Anything less than a firm response trivializes the seriousness of the offence: what we have here is no mere accident, but a user who insisted that he's done nothing wrong [122], then did it again [123], on the same article, with the same sentence from the source. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just the tip of the iceberg

It's unfortunate that Epson291's response above was unapologetic and refused to acknowledge that he'd done anything wrong. As I suspected, his plagiarism on Rick Sanchez wasn't the first instance, and, if he isn't sanctioned, it won't be the last. For instance, consider Yellowstone Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which Epson291 created. An original sentence from a Fox News Article: "Founded in 1999, the invitation-only club in the Gallatin Mountains counts Bill Gates and Dan Quayle among its 340 members." Now Epson291's version: "The club was founded in 1999, in the Gallatin Mountains and counts Bill Gates and Dan Quayle among its 340 members." [124] (provided without quotation marks or other indications of the direct copying of text.) Epson291, you have two choices: you can admit the extent to which you've plagiarized material, and devote an adequate amount of time to cleaning up the mess you've created, or I can open a contributor copyright investigation on material you've added to Wikipedia. Which option would you prefer? Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:BITE? Epson291 has been editing since December 2006 [125], and has over 14,000 edits [126]. Here's some more material that he plagiarized: He created Jewish Community Center of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Here are two original sentences written by a Jewish Community Center archivist:

"In addition, it has provided resources for individuals and families to express themselves culturally and physically, and it has changed its activities, directions, and locations to help meet the needs of the community. The JCC has also sponsored many activities for those people who are serving in the military during wartime and many holiday observances." [127]

Now Epson291's version:

"In addition, it has provided resources for individuals and families to express themselves culturally and physically, and it has changed its activities, directions, and locations to help meet the needs of the community. The JCC has also sponsored many activities for those people who are serving in the military during wartime and many holiday observances." [128]

(as usual, no quotation marks or similar are provided to indicate that text has been directly copied.) With all due respect Daedalus969, academic honesty is more important than being nice to editors who reject Wikipedia's standards in this respect. In none of his responses has Epson291 been at all willing to admit any wrongdoing or to improve his editing [129] [130]. Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

That's obviously a prior account of the same user: Epson291 takes credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on his userpage [131] (he does indicate other articles which he merely merged and rewrote, only "sort of" created, or "Created by Merging/Splitting other WikiUser's Content", but not this one.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Actually, per Wikipedia:Plagiarism,

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

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

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

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

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

With all due respect, a concession that you may have done something wrong only after an administrator threatens to block your account indefinitely [132] has to be taken with a grain of salt. If WJHC isn't your prior account, then why did you take credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on your userpage [133], even though you have a section devoted to "Articles I Created by Merging/Splitting other WikiUser's Content"? If you're willing to take credit for other contributors' work, then you're also going to have to take the blame. If WJHC is your prior account (your claim to have created Jewish Community Center of San Francisco is truthful), then you're going to be in serious trouble for copyright violations [134]. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— [135]

Perhaps this is because, contrary to DGG's assertion that "I see no prior warnings at any time", Epson291 did receive a warning [136] before his most recent addition of inappropriately attributed non-free text [137] (from [138], explained further in my initial report). Most importantly, after DGG observed that "This does not on the present evidence seem at all analogous to the major CCI problems we have been dealing with lately," additional copyright problems were discovered in Epson291's contributions [139]. Therefore, I still am willing to open contributor copyright investigation if necessary. However, since Epson291 states that he will take the initiative to remedy the problems himself [140], I am holding off for now. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Contributor copyright investigation opened

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

Resolved

 – Community 1RR imposed - see below.

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm, I thought usual practice in this situation was the venue changed to the arb case, with sanction proposals and whatever else going to /Workshop. As GWH put it (re arbcom) "if they're going to take it then they preempt."[141] My bad if I closed that page improperly (I see you have reopened it). It's certainly inappropriate to act as if there is some kind of turf battle between ANI and arbcom, if that's what you're thinking. If they're willing to handle this thing, it has structural advantages, and I don't see any problem with moving it there. They arbs are themselves, as the saying goes, uninvolved admins; they can handle it just fine. 67.122.209.115 (talk) —Preceding undated

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

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

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

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

213.6.27.118 and 213.6.11.49

Unresolved

I feel comfortable assuming this is the same user. User:213.6.11.49 was blocked for edit warring. A few days later User:213.6.27.118 made an argument for[142] then then blanked the block and appeal discussion on the 213.6.11.49 talk page.[143] That isn't a big deal but then User:213.6.27.118 made the same edits that got User:213.6.11.49 blocked.[144] Can an admin give them a firm warning about using the talk page and not edit warring?Cptnono (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Continues now to edit war break WP:3RR with different IP address [145] LibiBamizrach (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Four points I'd like to mention:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admin - User:Nyttend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some recent examples concerning image tags.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trolling

Please have a look at this post by User:AP1929. Bear in mind he has a history of personal abuse [146] [147] (e.g. "communist piece of shit" [148]) and that he was topic-banned from Yugoslavia related articles by FutPerf. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Please note the user continued to troll on my talkpage ("Long time COMRADE DIREKTOR!") [149] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

209.79.*

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

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

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

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

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

Abusive interactions from IP-hopping editor 79.116.xxx

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

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

Examples of abuse include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuous myspacing by User:ian.bjorn

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

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

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

Ongoing disruption by User:121.115.68.130 and User:Koczysz

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

Both are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheynhertz-Unbayg but in the meantime are causing a lot of disruption, not only in the creation of multiple inappropriate DAB pages but in repeatedly vandalizing the user and talk pages of editors who warn/revert them, e.g. [150], [151], [152] Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constant rudenesss

Resolved

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

KnowIG (talk · contribs) has a big problem with incivility, and has done for quite some time. In the last day or so he's managed to produce the following: [153] (which includes disturbing connotations of, "I don't give a stuff about BLP,") [154] [155] [156] [157] [158]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:TreasuryTag

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

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

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

User:Xanderliptak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both blocked

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat?

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why this happens

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Street View

Resolved

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

Situation at Google Street View:

1. - Google published a news release informing us of their update from September 30. It says that Brazil, Ireland and an island in Antarctica were added.
2. - I have updated the article accordingly.
3. - Someone added a few cities from Mexico citing no source for that.
4. - I removed it after I found a news piece from April - [159] that says that those Mexican cities were added then (thus contradicting the unreferenced claim of the user that the update happened in September)
5. - It got re-added. I put templates refimprove and fact. They got removed. I issued a warning for the removal of maintenance templates and placed them again.
6. - Finally in the edit summary I was informed that "you don't need references for something that has already been added" and they were removed again and again. To me that means absolutely nothing. If we follow that strange logic, I can now add that aliens are behind Google Street View and then because it has already been added no references are needed? Ridiculous. Someone just mentioned that it was supposed to mean that if it was added to the map not to Wikipedia, however the issue here is not whether those cities were added but when and the map can't tell us that.

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

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

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

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

Promotional edits at Skyy Vodka

Resolved

Skyyspirits (talk · contribs) has been editing Skyy Vodka, replacing the entire article with promotional material. [160] The new material ("The history of SKYY reads like the American dream.", etc.), seems to come from the distributor's web site.[161]. User was reverted automatically by XLinkBot for reference removal, and given an automatic warning. I added a conflict of interest template. No reply on talk page. User undid the XLinkBot revert. I reverted that. Skyyspirits is a new account with no edits to other articles. --John Nagle (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Sabbatic dis-information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, here is the text from User:Lulubyrd:

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked user socking through IP

Resolved

Tmhm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked one month for edit-warring, is now socking through this IP [162]. It's obvious it's him from this [163], and from the fact that it performs identical edits. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Single purpose account at Talk:Mike Cox

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

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

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

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

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

Personal threat

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

Wuhwuzdat on a CSD spree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll just throw out there that there are differences of opinion about some borderline CSD cases. It's fine to claim a tagging is wrong, but when two other people (the nominator and the administrator) clearly disagreed with your opinion about it, there is the possibility that your opinion about the borderline cases is not the standard-in-use. That said, I agree with DGG that a 13% error rate is on the high side (I can't do the same evaluation he's doing so I'm talking abstractly about a percentage over 10%), but I don't think that's enough to prompt special concern. Shadowjams (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Telling Me To Reverse Myself in Deletion Discussion

Resolved

"Can you please return to that discussion and change your comment" [164]. I don't think that's acceptable,is it? He seems to be overreacting for some reason about a benign photo,the first one I've put into Wikipedia, which has already been taken off the article I put it into. If deletion at Commons is appropriate, why does it matter if I still vote that it should be kept? You would think the consensus will be to delete so I fail to see why he would want me to change my vote. It feels odd,to say the least and maybe I am overreacting in which case,please, let me know. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

... and whatever happened to "discuss with the other person first on their talkpage"?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Gents, this was already resolved yesterday through civil discussion. No need to drag it on. –xeno^talk 13:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Need advice on sorting out history for Educational accreditation and Higher education accreditation

As an involved administrator, I am looking for advice on the best next steps for repairing the page history of Educational accreditation and Higher education accreditation.

Background is that an article named School accreditation, later renamed to Educational accreditation, existed for a long time and had a lot of backlinks. A month or two ago, someone decided that the topic of the article should actually be higher education accreditation, so they removed the content about accreditation of other levels of education and revised the lead section to describe the scope as "higher education accreditation." About 15 hours ago, another user decided to move the page to Higher education accreditation. About an hour thereafter, I saw that, thought "WTF?", boldly reverted the move, and asked the other editor to discuss it, but the other user simply moved the page back to Higher education accreditation. After I complained about the loss of the article title and content on the broader general topic of "educational accreditation", the other user created a brand-new stub page that now has the venerable title Educational accreditation and a boatload of backlinks, but almost no history -- and a talk page that is a redirect to Talk:Higher education accreditation. (Discussion of this is largely at Talk:Higher education accreditation#Narrow scope of article to post-secondary.)

I see this as being tantamount to a cut-and-paste move, except that it's a page-split in which the split-off page was given the entire history, instead of leaving that history with the "parent." I'm wondering about the best way to repair this. One option would be to leave the page history and the talk page at Higher education accreditation, and document its existence in the page history and on the talk page for the new Educational accreditation page. I think it would be best, however, to move the page history and the talk page from Higher education accreditation back to Educational accreditation. Since I am an involved participant, I would like another administrator to look at the situation and advise. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is to delete the newer article, move the article back to the old title, delete THAT one, then recreate Higher education accreditation with the edit summary "Splitting content from Educational accreditation per WP:SUMMARY" and restore the text in that article to just the higher education stuff. Revert the main educational one to the full version, with ALL levels, and when you are done, you will basically have the exact same article content as you do now (both articles with the desired text) but where the article histories lie with the correct articles. Make sure to note that, when you move the articles, something like "undoing awkward cut-and-paste move" for the move reason, so it is clear what you are doing. --Jayron32 04:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would note a couple of things. The Educational accreditation --> Higher education accreditation article move actually happened on September 28 (not 15 hours ago), and was noted at the talk page at the time. I reverted Orlady's reversion shorlty after Orlady did it, and pointed to that talk in my ES; Orlady was the one who acted without reviewing talk first.

My intitial move was premised upon changes to the article that were proposed on talk and made several weeks before that by a different editor. At the time of the move, the article was entirely about higher education. The editor who changed the scope to higher ed, did so by removing very, very little text. What is now the Higher education accreditation article had long been focused on higher ed with passing mentions in a couple of sections of non-higher ed accreditation.

I would suggest that the long edit history does actually belong at Higher education accreditation. The new Education accreditation article is a stub with blurbs for the two topics having their own articles (including Higher education accreditation). Where text was borrowed (as was the higher ed blurb) it is clearly noted in the ES. To go the other way, with the long edit history on the new short Educational accreditation article would be confusing and less accurate since that text is almost all new and presumably this stub will grow with a greater balance between the different educational levels that have to do with accreditation. If we are to keep higher education accreditation as a split/separate article (and nobody has suggested otherwise), the split would remove all but a few sentences of the former Educational accreditation, which itself has also been edited since the split. I don't oppose putting some sort of notation on one or both talk pages, but the talk now on Higher education accreditation (formerly the talk of Educational accreditation) should stay with the text it discusses. Novaseminary (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:She got nerv0us 'bout doing it

Resolved

This user is putting inappropriate material on their own talk page. They have been blocked indefinitely but I believe there needs to be more action taken. They are making derogatory comments on their page. Please check this out. Thanks!161.165.196.84 (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like its already taken care of. Thanks!161.165.196.84 (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed formal site ban for Kagome 85

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

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

Discussion may now begin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New sock

See here [165], posted to my talk by User:Sango 42 contribs. Heiro 11:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Akamal1947

Can someone check on this users edits? here I've left messages for them at their talk User talk:Akamal1947, and in edit summaries. I've been on and off here tonight, not really paying attention and have inadvertently gone past 3RR, for which I will take any consequences that are relevant. They're last edit here is pretty symptomatic [166] unreffed additions that I dont have the relevant knowledge to judge the accuracy of, removal of refs, etc. I have not reverted this one, I will leave that up to someone else. Earlier tonight, before they created this acct, they were operating as User talk:69.117.175.79 with these contribs [167]. Heiro 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Per this [168] and [169], user is once again making unreffed changes, some a little suspiciously POV, i.e. Hindu to Arab, etc. Last night the edits mentioned above were reverted here [170] by another user. Can someone else please have a look see, I'd rather not get pulled into an edit war with the editor. Heiro 10:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Also edits such as this [171] , [172] and [173].Heiro 10:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Britney Stevens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I've removed it. This series of sites (see links at the bottom of the pages) was widely spammed a while back. There is no way this is a legitimate site. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Did not see this thread before, just the 'zomg, think of teh children11!1!!' Good call, wont reinsert it. -- ۩ Mask 21:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Looking at the archives of Wikipedia talk:External links, I see that the "What actually constitutes an official site?" question has come up many times, such as Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 18#How to determine if a site is "official"? and Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 21#Official site? for just two examples. I wonder how many articles on porn actors and actresses in Wikipedia have bogus "official sites" drawing WWW surfers to some porn vendor because the person whose article it is does not actually have an official WWW page. … This discussion is better suited to the Village Pump, maybe. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Side note

Resolved

 – In future I'll send odd user questions to the help desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This may or may not be technically the same subject, but several of us got hit with this request today[174] in regard to this Britney Stevens. I haven't the vaguest idea how to answer these questions. Anyone else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I received that request myself; that's how I ended up looking at a porn star's article... No, honestly! The same user is asking people about Botswanan television show templates today. I don't think it's anything sinister. — Fly by Night (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, it's not sinister, just kind of weird and obscure. Speaking of which, why is that porn stars always have names like Brittany or Jenna or Nicole or such as that? How come you never hear of porn stars named Edna or Gertrude or Ernestine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They asked the same question at the help desk, a few minutes earlier. They've been answered, and I'm inclined to agree with Fly by Night - nothing sinister. A bit of patience wouldn't go amiss, however... ;-) (my porn star name is "Gertrude Dulle", and it worked for me!) TFOWR 09:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Patience is fine, and I like to try answering when someone asks me something, but those questions were out of my league. Most any name will do if it sounds unique, although guys named "Shorty" are probably at a disadvantage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant the help desk poster's patience, not yours ;-) All they needed to do was ask in one place and wait - they didn't need to spam you and other editors. TFOWR 10:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. It would be kind of funny if everyone who got spammed went to the user's talk page and posted precisely the same advice that was given at the help desk. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Paulo one

We've got a user whose Raison d'être appears to be posting nude pictures of himself in various articles. Since the articles in question vaguely pertain to image, I thought it worth posting here for a 2nd opinion. Rklawton (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This would not be the first user with this particular exhibitionistic behavior; I think the "If it's educational or informational content" rule of thumb would apply, which has at times in the past for some such users, but in general not.

I am inclined that in this case, not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Until now, I was under the impression that wikipedia would accept any free photo it could get its hands on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The photo isn't here - it's in Commons. Commons can do what it wants. What we have here is a user who wants to put his nude photo in our articles. Rklawton (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

To Bugs: Commons is currently working on restricting the acceptance of photos of a sexual or prurient nature which serve no educational purpose. Its a major Wikimedia priority, if you read the last 3-4 Signposts you can follow the developments. --Jayron32 03:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, as my next question was going to be whether commons has any standards to speak of. The answer, apparently, is "they're working on it." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, per WP:NOTWEBHOST, Wikipedia generally doesn't accept images that have no use to an article. Basically, if it's not getting used, we don't store it here. Commons is for that, and they're starting to regret it... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh, so much for my plans to store my family album on commons. Some of my relatives are already there. They're nude, but being rodents, they're covered in fur. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Infrequent but persistent vandalism

Resolved

I'm wondering about the best way to deal with a user who makes edits that are infrequent, but persistent vandalism. Specifically I am talking about User:Mrhi51, whose contributions have been identified as vandalism and reverted. This pattern has continued despite repeated warnings. Diff examples:

• Tommy Douglas Collegiate - [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181]
• Bethlehem High School (Saskatoon) - [182]
• Talk:Blairmore Suburban Centre, Saskatoon - [183]
• User:Polly - [184]
• Bastard - [185]
• China - [186] [187] [188]

Blocked indef as (essentially) vandalism-only account, no useful edits. Strangely the vandalism stopped in December 2009, and the only edit since then is a useless edit to a high school page. But still not an asset to the project. He can always convince us otherwise via an unblock request.  Sandstein  16:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Admins Please Assist with Tapioca Express Situation

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Best ANI Header Title Ever, btw. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just dropping in to bitch about not being notified. I must say the above complaint by FrosteaTheSnowman does contain one inaccuracy. I never removed any text from the article. The text was removed by IP 67.188.157.197. Admins can view the text removal here: [189]. My sole two edits to the article were to start the AFD and to return the AFD notice which had been removed. Otherwise, anyone can read the AFD and interpret the results, as based on the comments of the various users. --Jayron32 02:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Marking resolved, I don't think there's anything to do here. Any user is of course welcome to attempt to create an article on the company that asserts more notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the section header, I thought maybe it was a tapioca pudding fast food place. No such luck. The only "tapioca express" I ever heard of came when a nearsighted cook accidentally added ipecac instead of vanilla extract. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

FrosteaTheSnowman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Black Kite, you might want to sanction FrosteaTheSnowman for mass spamming (30+kb of nonsense each!) a couple of user on their discussion page. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I got a truckload of something, and unfortunately it wasn't tapioca. Frostea seems to have experienced a meltdown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Too bad it got deleted, it actually is a notable chain (~40 locations, most in california, there is industry and business press on it, its just not super easy to find it, and the article was not in good shape). Frostea's newb methods made things worse.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think his best bet would be to reconstruct the article in a sub-page under his ID, and submit it for review. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • See User:FrosteaTheSnowman/Tapioca Express. – ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Montanabw behavior

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

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

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

For days now this editor has been following me around to talk pages of other editors and a project,[190][191] making insinuations and accusations like the one Montanabw has made here (below). GTBacchus has tried to counsel Montanabw to stop doing this. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review the talk page and edit history of this anonymous user before any action is taken. I will not be able to develop a complete rebuttal for awhile. This is the second ANI she's filed since beginning to edit (the other was not me). Please also note this anonymous IP's edit history of making multiple move requests and disrupting at least a half dozen articles, as noted in my inquiry to the above user. I made a sincere inquiry of another user who got a little frustrated with this anon's behavior. I see no ANI here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Follow up For that matter, please feel free to review my talk page and the full context of the discussion with GTBacchus, which continued on my talk page, now that it's come up. Please also note these two links as well: [[]User_talk:Cgoodwin#With_ya.21|Accusing me of meatpuppetry]] (see also the following two topics on that page, both involving this anon) and ANI on User:KaySL (both of whom I have notified of this ANI thread) and I have also notified User:France3470, as that was the talk page comment that triggered this, User:GTBacchus has been notified by myself and anon 69.3. With the edit referenced above, I was making a simple attempt to build a case against this anon because I had encountered her elsewhere and was seeing a pattern of disruptive move requests. I saw that another user had gotten frustrated and wanted to see if they saw the same pattern I have been seeing. I think this is an experienced user with a block history attempting to game the system by logging in as an anon and manipulating other people into doing the same work of moving articles with minimal or no consensus and "scratching what doesn't itch." It's a waste of time and disruptive to the encyclopedia as a whole. However, I also realize that this user may be, however awkwardly, attempting to exercise a right to disappear, so I am currently hesitant to identify the named user whom I believe this to be. For now, I am content to allow this anon to only be evaluated on their behavior since they began editing about a month ago. Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Excessive move, disambiguation, and rename requests that are unfounded are disruptive, and especially when there is a tendency to be tendentious about them as this anon has been. I suggest, based on the pattern of behavior of this anon, that a CU is in order, as this pattern has been seen before from other anons and from user:Una Smith. Montanabw is a fine editor who has been harassed by Una (and anons that were, or were likely to be) Una before. It may not be Una this time, but that's not the way to bet in my view. If there's a block needed here, it's not of Montanabw, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GWH and I also think ANON IP 69... has this backwards, we should be looking at he more than Montanabw I think. ANON IP 69 seems to have an interest in medicine, animals (I see a lot of pig related edits), and move requests. This is eerily similar to User:Una Smith. I think this is bad faith nom and this and prior disruption warrants a block of ANON IP 69. — User:Rlevse • User_talk:Rlevse • 02:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that 69 recently changed Bladder from a redirect to Urinary bladder to an undercited article, and then went to change all the links to bladder to "urinary bladder", because of the existence of the gallbladder. This doesn't seem to match customary usage of the term. I note, though, that it ties it well with Una Smith's edit warring over suspension bridges. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Same anon that created an ANI thread on User:KaySL. Anon should be blocked for creating ANI threads on users who even think about giving the anon criticism, even if it is constructive criticism. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I was wondering if ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had come back to haunt us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• What ever happened to User:Una Smith? I see no editing since January, but no indication of a block or ban either. If I recall correctly, Una has/had a peculiar aversion to the concept of primary topic, but I always though the objection was genuine, based on solid work, primarily in the area of fixing links.

  Anyway, I recently closed 69's request to move Stockman to Stockman (Australia), in favor, much to the chagrin of Montanbw who opposed that move, but I see no merit whatsoever in this particular filing. I don't understand what the complaint is. Montanabw is free to follow around anyone, and make any comments he wants, as long as they are within WP guidelines and policy. I see no violation by Montanabw of anything here.

  However, filing this ANI seems frivolous and in violation of WP:HARASSMENT since it requires Montanabw to take the time and energy to defend behavior.

  I favor sanctioning anyone who files a frivolous ANI, though I'm not sure what the consequences should be. Perhaps a 24 hour block? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• 24 hours would be appropriate for this behavior since it has happened before by the same anon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Nod. Except that I really do think an SPI request is in order. This really gives off that certain vibe to me. If I were doing CUs myself this year I would already have run it. And if the SPI comes out the way I think it will, this activity warrants more than 24 hours. ++Lar: t/c 03:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've been notified that I was mentioned here, so here I am. I encountered this dispute on the requested moves talk page, where I reacted to Montanabw's posts that seemed to be personally directed against the IP editor and off-topic for the question at hand. By the end of our conversation, I suggested taking any concerns about the unregistered editor to an appropriate venue, rather than mixing speculations about her motives or identity in other contexts.

  It seems to me that you either try to collaborate with someone in completely good faith, or else you decide their behavior needs addressing, and you work on that. I don't think a mix of the two is constructive, because you can't collaborate with someone while alluding to potential puppetry, conflicts of interest, or other shenanigans.

  I don't object to a checkuser or a block if the community deems it appropriate. I just think that this issue of 69's behavior should be kept separate from specific editing or policy questions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how someone here asked, At one point, the behavior of Una Smith with page moves did result in a block: Block of User:Una Smith -- in fact, anyone concerned could review that entire talk page as it appeared that day, and the multiple discussions over the article Durham. There is a lot of similarity in tone and style between anon 69.3 and User:Una Smith. Oh, and just for the tone and tenditiousness, regardless of outcome, Born2cycle and GTBacchus respectively may want to remember these: Bird of Paradise , and Horse chestnut Montanabw^(talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment from KaySL - I realise I'm a little late to the party, but yes, this anon has proven to be both incredibly spiteful, completely over-the-top, and utterly unwilling to civilly discuss - or indeed discuss at all - their issues with other editors. I'm not going to comment on any possible sanctions being levied against them, but User:Montanabw has my full support against this ridiculous attack. KaySL ^talk 03:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked the IP for 48 hours, since I didn't realize that they came out on the wrong side of _two_ RM's they started on Talk:Bladder (disambiguation), and then started changing all the links _anyway_. This may take a while to clean up properly, and I don't think I'm awake enough to start now. Anyone else want to take a swing at it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Anon 69.3.72.9 has made inappropriate accusations against several editors of long standing and has been involved in excessive disruptive moves, disambiguation, and rename requests that are also unfounded. It is well and truly about time that they logged in under a Wikipedia ID. It is completely wrong that Montanabw, a good experienced editor, has to defend this frivolous ANI filing. If anyone is to be blocked it should be Anon 69.Cgoodwin (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought 'Lassietime' when I saw the section title alone. Someone do the CU and nail this down. The Buttermilk1950 sock was quite the nasty piece of work and I see the category is full of new socks. Una Smith never made my radar... until now. Montanabw is certainly not the problem, here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect ILT is too long ago to allow for checkuser comparison, but it's certainly time for a checkuser sweep of the current situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add, as I was involved at the Bladder (disambiguation) talk page, that I too have felt intimidation from user 69.3.72.9, to the point where I was confronted on my talk page about my comments regarding opposing their move request (see here). I admit that my comments perhaps were not as civil as I would have liked, but I'm afraid I got overly worked up over what I considered to be severly misguided actions. I have since retracted my rather personal remarks. Nevertheless I feel that 69.3.72.9 has been personal attacking, and intimidating any user who puts up any kind of opposition to their one man crusade. From what I can see Montanabw has been thrown under the bus for getting in user 69.3.72.9's way. I think it is quite clear that Montanabw is not to blame here; there is most certainly no injustice in trying to bring attention to disruptive behaviour. Though I believe I have never encountered this user before under any previous identity I will say that this user has an extensive knowledge of wikipedia policy and uses this to bully and force their personal POV. If further action is brought against user 69.3.72.9, I most certainly will support it in any way I can. -France3470 (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarek blocked teh IP 48 hours. I was going to do so for 72 hours. If the disruption continues, a longer block is fully warranted. Note, Una's edits are too old and stale for a CU. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I just ran through the recent contributions, and reverted any that I thought were inappropriate given the Talk:Bladder (disambiguation) RM discussions. There were a few that weren't clearly problematic, so I left them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've noticed this person has changed their IP twice over the past weeks: in early September they were on 69.3.72.9, then for part of 13 September on 69.3.72.174 and from then till now on 69.3.72.249. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall if ILT was based in the same state as those IP's apparently are. [The new ones geolocate to Arizona, the IP's connected with ILT geolocate to the eastern U.S.] Regarding subject matter, ILT was mostly interested in TV shows, not excretory systems; although he did have kind of a peculiar interest in athletic supporters. If that Una user comes closer to the duck test, that might be it. But disruption is disruption, be it a sock or independent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I've run checks in the past ruling out any technical connection between US and ILT. I don't see this behavior pattern as ILT either. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless ILT moved across country just to harass the OP, I don't think so either. It doesn't really matter that much - what matters is the IP's behavior. (Why anybody would feel bullied by an IP is hard to figure, but there ya are.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, this all is probably moot, but for the record, having dealt with the Buttermilk1950/ItsLassieTime problem at the rodeo articles, my take is that Una Smith and ILT are NOT the same person, but US and anon 69.3 are. US has a pattern of WP:ASK until she finds a similarly-minded person on a topic and "eggs them on" to do most of the actual work, which is similar to the pattern of anon 69.3 making multiple move requests for others, usually innocent parties like Born2cycle, to complete. The editing pattern of anon IP 69.3 (hundreds of edits over a few days to a week, then disappearing for a week or so, then back again with hundreds of edits within a few days, usually in a different area) also does fit with the MO of Una Smith, who did the same thing. The Arizona geolocation of the anon also fits, as US, though writing in a tone that suggests she linguistically and culturally has an east coast origin (See the long exhaustive spat over the pronunciation of chaps, here and here, where she argued vigorously for the east coast pronunciation) also claims to speak Spanish and has also exhibited a strong interest in things hispanic and southwestern (wreaking havoc with disambiguation at tumbleweed, and causing trouble with OR at hackamore and fiador). And of course, targeting me is also a classic MO of US that anon 69.3 has now emulated (sigh). I know that feeling a familiar rise in blood pressure at the style and word use of anon 69.3 isn't "proof" it's her, but I am absolutely convinced that anon 69.3 and Una Smith are the same person, that she is using the shield of an anon IP to evade her block history (for disruptive moves against consensus) and, by being unable to create new articles as an anon, has come up with a new tactic of getting other people to do her work for her. Also, over the past 2-3 years, (I first tangled with US in 2007 I've observed US tends to get people to the boiling point, they snap back, she files an ANI or two, loses, then vanishes for several months, so the timing of the anon from the date of US's last edit (and block) is slightly longer than US would normally be popping back up again, but appearing after a long absence is also part of the MO. It never occurred to me that taking long breaks could be a way to avoid an SPI... hmmm. Well, everyone, that's my two bits, do as you find appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My own summary of what others have said:

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

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

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

Ban enacted - I see the above discussion as a consensus for a community ban of User:Milogardner from the topic of Egyptian mathematics, broadly construed, which includes talk pages. The topic ban may be appealed in the usual ways. Any editor who believes that Milogardner has reformed can appeal on his behalf at any time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

The topic ban has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Onetonycousins incivility towards other editors

Resolved

 – Onetonycousins blocked

I would like to bring to attention the incivility that the following user User:Onetonycousins gives towards editors who post on their talk page anything that it appears they doesn't like. In their edit summaries they have three times labelled editors (me, and Number 57) as idiots.

Firstly they called me an "idiot bully" for warning them of the 3RR rule. ([192]) Then they called User:Number 57 an idiot just because they were pointed out that their continual reverts on a completely different article where wrong.([193]) They then also labelled the same editor an idiot once more after being served an incivility caution by them (Number 57) for calling them and me an idiot ([194]).

As a side-note outside of their talk page they have used explicit language in at least one edit summary - [195]. Excluding one letter for an asterix is still unacceptable use of vulgarity. Also labelling IP editors as "illiterate" is uncivil.

Onetonycousins has removed all three warnings/cautions they have been given in regards to 3RR and their incivility which means that they have read and acknowledged them all.

They have made lots of good contribuations to Wikipedia especially in regards to football in the Republic of Ireland, however whilst this is a minor case of incivility, it is incivility none the less, and i think a stronger message should be given to them to dissuade them making more uncivil edit summaries in the future.

Mabuska ^(talk) 12:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you switch from 3rd person singular to plural? Onetonycousins (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it make a difference? Are you edit warring? Did you call other editors idiots? These are the important questions.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed my grammer as it'd be wrong to use "him/his/he" when to be honest i'm not sure of the sex of the person. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are not important questions, they are the questions of someone with too much time on their hands. Grammar is the glue that holds a language together and is therefore important, like my question. For what it's worth, I'm not engaged in any war of any kind nor have I called another user an idiot. I may have randomly typed the word "idiot" into the edit summary of my talk page with reference to nobody in particular. The important thing to remember is that this is a complete waste of time. Onetonycousins (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

One does not "randomly" type, in four separate edits, the words "idiot bully boy", "Idiot", "Idiot" and "illiterate" into edit summaries. Such conducts violates our civility policy and is unacceptable. You are blocked for 36 hours.  Sandstein  16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else notice a name similarity to 2tuntony (talk · contribs), who, having roughly 2k edits, was found to be the sock of a banned editor? Let's also not forget they both have had civility/pa issues.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was also wondering that. And they could both remind you of Mk-something who was 2tun's sock. I'm not totally sure they're the same guy, but maybe a checkuser sweep is called for? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

MK is actually the master to that sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If I'm remembering right, he promised to do socking if he was blocked. Although many blocked editors have made that same threat, so I might have my facts mixed up. But do you think a CU sweep might be called for? Or should they wait until, or if, it strikes again? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you folks referring to user:Mk5384? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much similarity between the subject matter edited by Onetonycousin and 2tuntony/Mk5384. The former is almost entirely concentrated on Irish football, while the latter has a wider spread of interests, but football doesn't seem to be one of them a major one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalk results. While Mk5384 and 2tuntony have 66 articles in common, Onetonycousins has only 3 in common with 2tuntony: Home nations, Higher education and Football in the United Kingdom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming discussion archived...

The recent User:FellGleaming discussion seemed to reach a pretty clear conclusion, but was archived without anybody formally declaring it and adding the restriction to the appropriate log. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#1RR_proposal; could someone please take care of this? Rd232 ^talk 17:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2RioRob did on 10/3 ...

user talk note

Edit Restrictions page

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On first inspection, he also seems to have left after his block on the 23rd of Sept... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, that passed me by because of the way Off2RioRob's close was undone. Fine then. Rd232 ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attack

I ask the administrators to pay attention to user Yotna. The man insisted vandalize article without any explanation (or explained in French). When I tried to talk to him then he started threatening me and calling me a English fag. Here is the chronology of the conflict: Anonymous editor are added this conflict in a list of ongoing wars, [196], User:Yotna followed suit: [197], [198]. An anonymous editor without any arguments changed this article, and another editor argues its actions solely in French. Another rollback by Yotna with the arguments of the French [199], and another one [200]. He wrote me go to disscusion, but he wrote on the discussion page - Now YOU fag English gives your sources [201]. The man does not understand the principles of Wikipedia. For example another one article where he adds no free photos: [202], rollback by User:Nicolas1981 [203], and Yotna rollbacked his edition - [204], User:O Fenian rollbacked edition by Yotna [205]. I do not know how to communicate with this user after all the insults and threats that he inflicted. Administrators please help me in this matter.Sentinel R (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear me, I know my topic so I am going to suggest a simple little editor on this subject. Especially when I bring you to suitable sources. It's not my problem if you do not speak French, you have to do besides search on Google News if you do not believe me. Thank you. --Yotna (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you "know your topic" or not. If you don't source your edits, whether that be in English or French, then they are original research and will be removed. At least the "Amnesty" situation has some sort of source. I have protected the List page for a week. Sort things out on the Niger Delta talkpage and come to a consensus. If there is further edit warring over this blocking will be the inevitable result. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Revdel needed please

Resolved

 – Banhammer applied by Uncle G., diffs are gone --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[This] is likely an actual phone number in Vancouver and should probably be expunged. It was posted by 69.31.179.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

another one --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80‎

I would appreciate it if non-involved admins could keep an eye on the situation with the above editor.

The history is that the editor created Jonathan Doria Pamphilj - which was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Doria Pamphilj. This decision was upheld by the Deletion review at Wikipedia:Drv#Jonathan_Doria_Pamphilj (closed).

The editor then created a newly-titled article with substantially the same material at Prince Jonathan Doria Pamphilj, which I have speedily deleted - with a message left on their talk page saying If you recreate this again, I will consider blocking you from editing Wikipedia for disruptive editing.

During the AfD, the editor tried to close it as "consensus is to keep" when a second editor added a 'keep' recommendation (albeit with no rationale or justification).

I do not want to get involved further, as it might be seen as a conflict of interest, as the admin who deleted the original article, so if others could keep an eye on the situation (the editor has added comments to both the AfD and the DRV after they were closed as well) - and deal with the editor as they see fit.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note: User had been notified of this discussion-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this ring any bells with anyone else? I'm almost certain this title has come up before, with a slightly different title (the "pamphilj" is what set me wondering). Or was there an account who kept creating fake nobility articles? TNXMan 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't me - I haven't created any fake nobility articles. Prince Jonathan Doria Pamphilj is a real person, with a genuine aristocratic Roman title. I am, however, slightly frustrated at the way this is all being handled. My original article was deleted by users who argued that the subject was not notable. However, no properly argued justification or explanation was given, and the reasoning in my view was based on a misunderstanding (that the title was an Italian one rather than a Papal one, and hence not recognised under Italian law). Even if the subject was deemed not sufficiently notable in himself then the recommendation should have been made to merge relevant aspects into the main Doria-Pamphilj-Landi article; but this was not even looked at by the lead administrator before closure. JDP received coverage in several reliable and mainstream sources, and the coverage was not related to one specific incident. I tried to reassemble a new article trying to demonstrate that notability requirements and concerns have been carefully met. I don't mind accepting that the subject isn't notable; but to avoid making future mistakes I need someone please to explain why the notability criteria has not been met - it simply is not sufficient to say that it hasn't been and then leave it at that. I am editing in good faith, and would hope that administrators offer guidance about how to improve articles, rather than get caught up in process. I am glad that this has now been brought to the administrators noticeboard in the hope that someone will take a step back and determine what the issues are and whether there can be a satisfactory resolution.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

whether there can be a satisfactory resolution From a Wikipedia POV, it already has, the article went to AFD and was deleted, it was taken to DRV and the AFD upheld - unless significant has happened in the interim period (less than a week), there is nothing more really to be said. Administrators do not and cannot override community consensus on editorial matters, so if you are looking for someone to say "sure it's ok now" it's not going to happen. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anyone to say "sure it's ok now"; but am suggesting that the original reasoning was flawed. I suggest you take a look at the original discussion and the deletion and review and content yourself that process has been correctly followed. New evidence has actually come forward from another user and I suggest others also consider that. Otherwise I fear we get into a situation on making a decision whereby administrators simply back other administrators, and it all becomes rather circular and inward-looking (although I note you're not an administrator in any case). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read it and I can see no evidence that procedures were not followed. The only thing I can suggest is that you construct the article in your userspace and then get independent editors to review it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to Block IP address

Resolved

 – Wrong location. Please report vandalism at WP:AIV --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I'd like to request a block against 207.126.113.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 98.14.118.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for continuing to disrupt and vandalize the same article. I have removed their information nearly 10 times in the last two days.

Henchren (talk)Henchren —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

This is typically resolved at Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism. Thats where persistent vandalism is reported. I hope this helps, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Curiosly, 207 was blocked at 22:34, seemingly in response to this request. However, the other IP remains unblocked. So the question now is whether reporting it will do any good. It depends on which admin you get. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and report 98 at AIV. It's worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't block the other IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bugs, I gathered they're closely related after I've traced 207 to Louis Bacon's Moore Capital Management in NYC while 98 is traced to a sharedisp connection of Road Runner High Speed Online in Brooklyn. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I had seen they were both New York based. I just figured if it was worth blocking one for a month, then they should block the other one for a month. But they wouldn't do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing image uploading issues by WikiUni

Bringing this here for a second opinion. User has about 300 deleted images [206]. Has received multiple warnings about this, and has been blocked once (by me) for continuing to upload unused/useless images. Warnings are considered as "Removing derogatory remarks from a Wikipedia User" (see talk page edit summaries}. The ongoing uploads are simply of larger images (which are all about 600px X 600px & 200+ KB) of already existing images:

• File:Hilaryduff-acinderellastory.jpg - File:ACinderellaStory-Soundtrack.jpg
• File:Hilaryduff-santaclauslane.jpg - File:Santa Claus Lane album cover.jpg
• File:Hilaryduff-4everhilaryduff.jpg - File:4EverHilaryDuf.jpg
• File:Hilaryduff-metamorphosis6.jpg - File:HilaryDuff-Metamorphosis.jpg (worse image - has national release tag)
• File:Hilaryduff-hilaryduff.jpg - File:Hilary_Duff_second_album.jpg (slightly different colouring)
• File:Hilaryduff-mostwanted2.jpg - File:Hilary Duff Most Wanted.jpg

And another orphaned upload:

• File:Hilaryduff-dignity1.jpg

Also, some uploads have now been questioned about the validity of the licensing:File:Nelly-9607.jpg and File:O-Town-9504.jpg

With this many deleted images & uploading images that are going to have to be reduced to the size of the images that s/he is replacing, I would ask for options other than a long block for disruptive editing. Skier Dude (talk 04:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I got drawn to this as I got notified that File:4EverHilaryDuf.jpg was orphaned; the replacement has the national release tag and excessively high resolution. I've restored the earlier version. At any rate, I'm not sure what else we can do about this if we can't get WikiUni's attention and compliance with the rules concerning non-free content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Skier, I appreciate your not wanting to block, but surely an indefinite block, with it clearly spelled out that he has to respond to people in order to get the block lifted, is the way to go. It's a tactic I've seen used effectively before. Once the user starts to communicate, the block can be lifted. If they don't, well, maybe Wikipedia doesn't suit them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I orphaned a number of his uploads in this vein and informed him of such. I've restored the NFCC compliant images. If he reverts, or continues the patter, I strongly advocate a block. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• I have no objection to indef blocking this user. Rklawton (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions about multiple users

On the article Communist terrorism i replaced a self published source with a reliable one and cut the text back to match the book [207] The self published source had been added by User:AndyTheGrump who appears to be a fairly new editor. However after i had replaced the self published source with the reliable one User:Igny reverted the change. His edit summary leaves a lot to be desired as well. [208] It was of course not a blind revert as i had already said on the articles talk page that the use of a sps over a reliable one was against policy [209]. So i reverted IGNY saying this was already being discussed on the talk page [210]. However User:Paul Siebert then reverts the SPS back in removing the reliable source.[211] Paul then proceeded to make many more changes. I then reverted back to the last stable version which was when i had removed the SPS [212] calling wp:brd and again requesting these guys not to use self published sources. Then User:The Four Deuces reverts the SPS back into the article. [213]. I requested page protection due to these editors use of this SPS but due to numbers the SPS is now back in the article. What is an editor to do when three guys use sheer weight of numbers to insert a SPS into an article? If this is the wrong place please point me in the right direction, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I looked at several of the diffs, and found no obvious self-published sources. Can you explain which source you think is an SPS? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

marxists.org is a self published source and this one i have no idea but it was to a dead page [214] you can tell me Stephan as i think it is german? mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• - * - http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna by Karl Marx Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC) This was one, quoting karl marx from a karl marxs opinionated book is not very independent. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you are confusing the convenience link and the source. The source in the first case is an article by Marx in a German newspaper. This is a primary source, but not an SPS. The second link goes to an archive of primary sources, again few if any of them self-published. Use of primary sources can be problematic, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[215] There is nothing here about editorial control, hence my assumption it is self published mark nutley (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See above. The source is Marx article, not marxists.org. That's just one convenient place where the source is hosted. I host my scientific papers on my university website. That does not make them self-published, either - they remain published by AAAI, or ACM, or Springer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Read closer mark. "Translated by the Marx-Engels Institute". MEGA is a scholarly archive and research institute. marxist.org is _reprinting_ work first published by MEGA in MECW, Volumes 7 to 9. Admittedly whoever inserted it should have cited it fully, and while not SELF it is PRIMARY. But PRIMARY is fine for Opinion attributed where the opinion is established as relevant. Cite better people, I keep saying this at WP:RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You are both wrong, Transcribed for the Internet by [email protected] Which is marxists.org. With no editorial control that we know of how are we then to know if it has been done correctly? mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the original ref is provided, everyone, including yourself, can check it. Just go to your local library, take another English translation of this article and compare.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The extended quote from Marx has been added because the truncated version was misleading. Since Marx used to write in German, a translation of this work was taken from some self-published web site. Therefore, the Marknutley's claim is simply false: the source (the Marx's article in Neue Rheinische Zeitung) was absolutely reliable, therefore, the pretext for this revert [216] was absolutely wrong. Btw, upon meditation I restored the source (Valentino) that was removed initially[217]. After that, I checked other parts of this section and found that some of its statements are either unsupported by the sources (Lenin), or the sources are not reliable (Radzinsky). I also found that the article has many others problems of that kind, so its careful check has to be done to remove selective quoting and POV pushing.

In conclusion, I have to say that Marknutley's behaviour is a pure wikilawyering aimed to distract good faith editors from their job. Let me also point out that he does that repeatedly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PS Use of primary sources can be problematic only if some conclusions are drawn from them. However, since in actuality one truncated quote was replaced with its full version, there is absolutely no problems with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Mark was correct to remove and replace with more independent secondary citations. The reverting to the primary and marxist links seems pointy and detrimental to the article, we are looking to report what independent reliable citations report about notable issues and Mark moved the citations closer to that position. Reverting back was the problem.Off2riorob (talk)

(edit conflict)A primary source is a primary source independent of whether it was taken from the book of Benjamin Valentino or from Marx himself. We did not replace Valentino's opinion with the primary source, we just took a more extended quote from the same source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why finding a rs for the full quote is a problem here. (Igny (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Anyone with any skills of Googling could get this reliable source for the full quote of Marx

Issue of November 17, 1848 in Revolution of 1848-9. Articles from Neue Rheinische Zeitung (New York 1972), p.149.

So is the issue moot now, or we should discuss the disruptive behavior of marknutley now? (Igny (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

1) Yes. 2) Not here. Wrong forum. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was this filed at WP:ANI, instead of at WP:WQA or WP:RSN where it belongs? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This incident is yet another indication, that Mark Nutley has migrated his behavior in the climate change topic area to other topics. In the on-going climate change arbitration case a proposal was made to ban Mark Nutley for 6 months, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Marknutley banned. It was not getting much support in early September, based on the premise of a "limited scope of the problem." As the case is still open, maybe it would be advisable to ask the arbitrators to have another look at the reasons for opposing the proposed remedy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Waste o time Petri, look at remedy 3 on the list, i`m already down for a topic ban. Also can you point out were on the article in question i have been. uncivil, used bad sourcing, or any of the other stuff which has had me sanctioned in the past. Diff`s please if you wish to make accusations, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to make accusations and this is not the place to make them. I am just pointing those who may want to to the proper place. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, since mark nutley asks "...can you point out were on the article in question i have been. uncivil, used bad sourcing..." I'll respond by suggesting that people look at the talk page Talk:Communist_terrorism#Questionable_edits, where he tried to make out that 'communal terrorism' meant 'communist terrorism' in an article where of the three cases mentioned two were civil wars where political violence had been used by both sides (Greece and Angola), and in the third (Indonesia) the victims were the communists? It became apparent that the source cited [Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues By Gus Martin] made no specific analysis of 'communist terrorism' as a phenomenon at all. This seems to have been part of a pattern in this article, where doubtful sources have been cited, though Nutley has not been the only one involved in this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the source also have communist terrorist groups in it? If so then what is the issue? Many books cover many different aspects, this does not mean they can`t be used does it mark nutley (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

'What is the issue'? Mark, the issue is that you wrote this in the talk page, when asked by TFD to justify using a section of a book as a reference: "ideological communal terrorism is about communism is it not? What part of the list there is not about communist terrorism? All the groups named within it are communist". Not only was the section in Gus Martin's book not 'about communism' as I've shown, the 'list' you referred to later transpired to be from another source you hadn't even cited at the time. If that isn't 'bad sourcing', I don't know what is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it surprising that MarkNutley is misrepresenting and misusing sources. He has a history of doing this [218], and is soon going to be blocked or otherwise sanctioned for it. He's just carrying his disruptive behavior from climate change related articles to various political/historical articles. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What is this section doing on an administrators' noticeboard? It sounds like a dispute over use of sources. --TS 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was unsure were to post it tony, three editors were reverting in a SPS, i did actually say at the top there is this was the wrong place then tell me mark nutley (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, several people have explained that it's not an SPS. I understand how you came to believe it is, but it is, in fact, not one. Please do not repeat your mistaken belief over and over again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway. I think it does belong to the ANI, because the article is now protected as a result of Marknutley's disruptive activity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was your reverting of marks good faith attempt to improve the citations that resulted in the locking. There are single purpose users on that article and with apparent controlling issues, it seems mark ran into this wall. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

While there may be SPAs at the article, the three editors Mark butted are Paul, Igny, and TFD, who have been here for 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively, and have all edited over a wide range of topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wide range of topics, single issue, lets agree to differ, I see you as a single purpose editor, you might also disagrre with that. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I do. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See here for a relevant request, but apparently WP:WQA was a wrong place to discuss this issue as well. (Igny (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

side issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The OP lecturing someone on how to address him [219] is probably not the best approach at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Thats not lecturing him, i asked him to call me Mark or use my full name. How is that lecturing? mark nutley (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Without comment on the actual issues at hand, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that polite request. Use of bare surnames varies by culture and situation, and it is trivial to respect the user's wishes in this instance. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC) If someone doesn't like being called by their name, they should use a different name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC) WMC probably explains it best: "However, it just so happens that my username is also my real name. So you can if you wish refer to me by my real name. In which case the standard rules for polite address come in: if you don't know me, you use my surname and title, which is to say Dr Connolley. If you don't happen to know what my title is, then don't use the wrong one. Taking a flying guess is impolite. If you are on personal terms with me, you can use my first name, William. If you think you're on very personal terms, you might be tempted to use a contraction of my first name; this simply proves you are wrong. Don't do it. And just to be explicit, since even well-intentioned people somehow contrive to make this mistake, where I come from addressing strangers by their unadorned surname is not polite." (emphasis mine). Baseball Bugs, your remarks were unjustified. Mark's request is a simple one. It doesn't cost anyone anything to go along with it. Drama over please? NW (Talk) 21:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Perhaps Mr. Nutley should post a similar lecture on his own talk page? Sorry, but this is an issue, a "nannyism" issue. If you're in a dispute with someone, telling them what part of your name they are or are not to use, is not likely to be a step in the direction of resolving that dispute, with or without the "please" part. If a user doesn't like what he's called, the burden is on the user to resolve that problem by changing his own behavior, not by trying to manage the behavior of others. Maybe calling someone by his last name is impolite (though it's common practice in the USA), but trying to manage someone else's behavior in that way is also impolite. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Yes but there`s the rub, i`m not in a dispute with him, my only remark here about him was he is a new editor so his use of a poor source was not really an issue. I don`t want to create a lecture as i do not like to lecture people personally i`d be happy if we all just got along :) mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Trying to manage your own children's behavior is a good and essential thing. Trying to manager other people's behavior is not a good thing. If you've got specific rules you want to impose on how people are to address you, you could post them on your user page as Dr. Connelly did. And you should also accept it cheerfully and without comment when those rules are ignored. I've been called all manner of things here, and generally I ignore it, because it's not important. What's important is article content. Those are the only issues we should have here. Reality says otherwise, unfortunately. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Off2riorob. Re "Actually it was your reverting of marks good faith attempt to improve the citations that resulted in the locking." I checked the history. Marknutley's edits [220], [221] and [222] were just reverts of the attempts to provide an extended quote. Moreover, by this edit [223] I restored the previously removed RS, so currently the article contains both the extended Marx's quote and the secondary source that refers to it. Please, explain me what improvements have been made by Marknutley by his reverts or apologize.
I also strongly believe that your words "There are single purpose users on that article and with apparent controlling issues" are just an abstract notion, and they have no relation to the participants of this dispute. Please let me know if I am right. However, if you meant someone concretely, you should have some serious ground for making such accusations. In that case I expect you either to present your evidences or to apologise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment mark nutley is having a content dispute against me, AndyTheGrump, User:Igny and User:Paul Siebert. There is both an RfC and a requested move on this article. This is just an attempt by a tendentious editor to escalate a content dispute to an incident. (mark nutley is a global warming denialist and has wasted countless hours of editors' times on those articles and will soon be blocked and has now decided to work on Mass killings under Communist regimes, Communist terrorism and Libertarianism, which are all articles I was previously involved in.) TFD (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So not happy with implying i`m a nazi you now decide to call m a denier, real nice mate. Out of curiosity do you actually have a diff were i actually deny that climate changes? mark nutley (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not call me "mate". We are not in a pub in Stepney, and that type of speech lowers the tone of discussion. There is no discussion about nazism in this discussion thread and therefore it is unhelpful to raise it. (In fact I brought up the subject of your use of racial slurs for a minority group and you chose to retract it.) You certainly have a viewpoint on global warming that differs from the scientific community and have gallantly argued your position. Are you a denier? Maybe you think there is global warming but it is caused by sunspots. I do not know or care. The fact is that you have continually challenged the scientific consensus on these articles. promoting fringe views and acting disruptively. My worry is that you are now moving on to social sciences. By the way, why did you choose to join three controversial articles I was involved in, which had nothing to do with the only topic you followed before, global warming? TFD (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked you a question, were is your diff which shows i am a denier, if you don`t have one then strike the pejorative now. You imply i`m a nazi, you call me a denier, and now you have the cheek to ask me questions? But i at least will give straight replys, the only topic you followed before, global warming is wrong, look at articles i have created and you will find plenty which are not about CC. I found my way to those article via posts made here and at the RSN board. mark nutley (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And trying to escalate tensions with this [224] is not needed either mark nutley (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You should write grammatically and avoid colloquialisms. Your constant POV pushing against mainstream science on global warming is obvious and it is disingenuous to deny it. If you accept the science, then one wonders why you have had so many disputes with editors who only wish that the articles represent mainstream, rather than fringe, points of view. TFD (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How i write is kinda my business not your`s, you can understand it can`t ya? Have you struck the pejorative yet? And who ever said i accepted the "Science" it is possible to be sceptical of stuff don`cha know mark nutley (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's these sort of exchanges which raise WP:COMPETENCE issues. Notably, TFD said above "Are you a denier? Maybe you think there is global warming but it is caused by sunspots. I do not know or care." This you repeatedly refer to as a "pejorative" which requires striking. Rd232 ^talk 10:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Meh, in fact TFD's remarks were a weakening of his earlier remark above "mark nutley is a global warming denialist" (which nutley hasn't acknowledged). My bad - missed that somehow. Apologies, etc. Rd232 ^talk 12:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Request an Admin have a word with User:The Four Deuces

Over the last few hours TFD has so far said i ought to write grammatically called me a denier which i deem a pejorative says i lower the tone of discussion Told me how i ought to write said i lower the tone of discussion made a pointy remark had a swipe at my english All this on top of him implying i`m a nazi yesterday. Could someone ask him to stop trying to prod me mark nutley (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The prodding continues [225] mark nutley (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA is that way. And just above (23:47 6 Oct) you've "prodded" right back. Rd232 ^talk 10:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Community ban

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Marknutley_disruptive_behavior - disruptive behaviour in climate change topic, including misuse of sources, and ensuing topic ban
2. Similar behaviour in completely different topics (as per discussion above, and eg here), contra the explicit statement by an arbitrator in the Climate Change case "I strongly urge Marknutley to avoid repeating in other topic-areas the types of conduct he has displayed in this one."[226]
3. 5-day retirement [227] [228]

I would say it is increasingly obvious that the point is going to come where User:Marknutley is going to exhaust the community's patience and get permabanned. I'm just floating the balloon that this point has been reached now. Rd232 ^talk 01:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, an editor whom i had a content dispute with asking for me to be banned, how original. And there was me thinking i had done some good work today on WP:SCV but i suppose that counts for nought? And there i am discussing matters in a civil manner on the article talk page which lead to this. And i fail to see were in that article Talk:Communist terrorism i have been rude, misused a source in the article or misbehaved in any way. If i have please point it out mark nutley (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the content dispute is over. Nor was I really asking for you to be banned; certainly I wasn't actually making much of a case for it. I was merely explaining a very little bit why I think you very likely will be banned sooner or later because of the road you're going down, and asking whether the community thinks you have reached that destination. Any efforts by you to find reverse gear are of course welcome now or in future. Rd232 ^talk 07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And as an admin, should you not be commenting on what your mate has been saying to me all day and implying i`m a nazi? mark nutley (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the initial topic, a user Marknutley falsely accused me and two other editors in adding a self-published source, whereas in actuality the added and removed texts were, accordingly, the full and truncated versions of the same quote from the Marx's article. The exact reference to the original Marx's article has been provided, so the only objection could be that the new text has been taken from some self-published web site and therefore could be not authentic. However, it is easy to see that the new text was identical to the old one, and, in addition, new extended quote was identical to the Marx's text found in another reliable source [229]. In other words, there is no doubts that the added text was authentic and the translation was adequate.
I admit that Marknutley could not realise that initially, however, now, when his mistake has been repeatedly explained to him by several editors, it is natural to expect that now he has to concede that he was not right, apologise and ask the admin who locked the article to unlock it.
If Marknutley will not do that, he thereby will demonstrate that the community will have no reasons to assume his good faith any more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@Mark: Please link where they implied you are a nazi; calling you a 'global warming denier' is not even close.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[230] Given he has already pointed out several times that he believes i am anti communist this leaves but the one option to that question. And i consider denialist a pejorative as do many others. mark nutley (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is actually typical of mark's behaviour: he'll make a claim, and then expect others to follow it up for him; and frequently an effort to check up on the claim reveals a misrepresentation or misinterpretation. Rd232 ^talk 07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@MK: First, please properly indent your comment, if you are replying to me. Second, communism =/= nazi, so there is no way you can argue such a thing. Please retract your attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Perhaps you ought to read the thread to get some perspective [231] And when you account for the fact he has already said he believes i hate communists and then says mark nutley, if you had lived during the Weimar Republic, what party would you have supported? I already know, but would like to hear from you. TFD (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC) what would you conclude from that? He did not say i am a communist he implied i was a nazi. mark nutley (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not for the first time, comparing the facts with your presentation of them is unfavourable to you. The diff you provide shows i) a user saying "So all that Brownshirt violence against the communist party was just a love fest was it?" ii) you replying "Nope, just two ideology's slugging it out, but there is bugger all difference between them is there? Well apart from the body count i suppose " and iii) TFD saying "mark nutley, if you had lived during the Weimar Republic, what party would you have supported?". So in fact he did not imply that you are a Nazi, he implied, based on your vociferous anti-communism, that you would have been one of the millions of Germans who voted for the Nazis in the early 30s, had you lived during that era. A Nazi today is freakish. A Nazi then and there was, unfortunately, normal. In addition to which, you've furnished evidence to make the hypothesis non-absurd at least to the extent that any hypothesis about how someone might have behaved if they'd been born a century earlier can be non-absurd. Rd232 ^talk 10:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, please properly indent your comment, or do you want me to do it for you? If you were replying to me, it would be one more plus what mine was. Currently, it looks as if you are replying to yourself, given it has the same indentation as my comment. Secondly, don't get mad at me because I refuse to assume. I asked for a diff, and you supplied the diff. You didn't suggest that I read the thread; that isn't what you said, and that wasn't what I was looking for. I was looking for a diff that implied you were a Nazi. I don't see any such diff, so I suggest you just drop that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• absurd suggestion I see nothing warranting that at the moment I think an RFC/U is in Good order. I dont like the fact this user as been active for less than a year and i can find Several ANI threads that either where his behavior has been brought here for review, and even more where its about some one reacting to his behavior plus being involved in an Arbcom case is not encouraging either. There are definite issues her but until we look at all the behavior in RFC/U i can't support a ban right now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm only a little bit familiar with nutley, but from what I've seen the problems are severe enough and consistent enough and obvious enough that I thought skipping RFC/U was a possibility. An WP:RFC/U is probably the way forward though. Rd232 ^talk 07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Everyone should have a Fair hearing, I generally do not Support ANI Community bans unless there is extreme behavior and unacceptable behavior. Mr. Nutley is a recurring issue but he is not exactly what i would consider in need of immediate ban. He is not outing people, nor socking, or making legal threats, or any other such behavior. Being a Pain in the arse is not sufficent to need a ban implemented The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Everyone have a cup of tea. TFD has certainly "pushed buttons" abd MN reacts to having buttons pushed. Neither is Simon Pure on the topic if civility. And tea is much better than trout. Hat all this. Collect (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed - this thread is going nowhere, slowly. An RFC/U is almost certainly called for though - either now or in the near future. Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Potential Copyvio - Help Needed

User:1archie99 brought a potential copy-vio on the Full service (radio format)‎ (link to copyvio link is on the talk page along with a discussion) to my attention and I reverted the page. He later found from that same link that it is from "mashed data" but him nor I know what "mashed data" is and I am not sure if I should re-revert to a copy-vio or if the data came from us and was used on this link. Could someone help? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• You appear to have discovered an unlisted Wikipedia mirror that is not compliant with the project's free content copyright licensing terms, and that also, per Special:LinkSearch/*.museumstuff.com, is being erroneously used to circularly source Wikipedia content. (See User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources#Wikipedia mirrors.) Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• I believe "mashed data" refers to Mashup (web application hybrid). --Stickee (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle G - compare http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Cat with Cat#Physiology, for example, to see that they are grabbing content from us, not the other way around. They do credit Wikipedia, but they don't link to the specific articles copied, so they aren't meeting our licensing terms. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, good, I hoped that was the case, but wanted to make sure. I will revert my revision to the Full service (radio format)‎ page and this can be marked resolved. Thanks to everyone for the help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course, what is also needed is for Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks to be updated to include this mirror, so that later editors can quickly learn about this, and for people to go through all of the articles in article space that are apparently circularly sourced. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Revdel please

The user ian.bjorn (talk · contribs) posted his email on my talk a little while back, and I'd like the revisions containing it to be removed. The diffs are this, this, and all diffs in between. The reason I'm not requesting oversight of this is that since the user posted it himself, it's probably not quite that urgent. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that fits the criteria for redaction. Folks are welcome to post their own email on their user pages or otherwise out themselves. Do you have reason to believe that the user posted someone else's email? Toddst1 (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

oh, I just don't want some random IP spamming that email (lots of vandals view my talk during my huggle and igloo runs)Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless the user themselves requests it, I don't think it qualifies for revdel. By the way, revdels for privacy concerns are probably best requested from an individual admin, as bringing them here will only make the information even more public. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin closure requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings

After a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, the primary participants can not seem to agree on a resolution of the discussion. Admin closure is requested, but it is unclear where this request should be posted. If this is not the right place, please be helpful and repost in the correct place. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Copying & pasting of copyrighted text

Resolved

--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is about a user who I believe has copied & pasted text from copyrighted sources without using proper quotes, and claiming it was paraphrase, despite being warned several times about it on two different articles. Example 1 from article on James Monroe (also see talk page & user Rjensen's page)

"Monroe's governorship is best known for the violent suppression of Gabriel's slave conspiracy in 1800. There was no actual uprising, but slaves from Henrico and nearby areas plotted to burn the capital at Richmond, kill white slaveholders, and perhaps kidnap the governor."

Scherr's article

"James Monroe's governorship of Virginia(1799-1802) is best known for the violent suppression of "Gabriel's slave conspiracy" in 1800, in which freedom-seeking slaves from Henrico and neighboring counties plotted to burn the capital, Richmond, kill its white slaveholders, and kidnap Governor Monroe. The rebellion was quickly crushed, and over 30 blacks were executed in its aftermath. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001286103 See James Monroe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Monroe#Slavery

I cited this for copyright violation (though perhaos with the wrong tag) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&diff=384567076&oldid=384549201

Graeme Bartlett removed the copyright violation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&diff=384569936&oldid=384567076

Rjensen then undit the edit & reposted it - including the copyrighted text. He/she changed a few words & claimed it was a "paraphrase" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&diff=384646016&oldid=384645811

The talk page also reflects the actions, and Rjensen's refusal to correct the problems.

Example number 2 from article George Washington http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Washington#Last_paragraph_of_.27French_and_Indian_War.27_section

"most important, his experience in French and Indian War made him a believer in a strong central government and a vigorous executive. Forced to deal with destructive competition among the colonies, dilatory legislative committees, and squabbling, shortsighted politicians he had passed through an excellent dress rehearsal for the prolonged ordeal of the American Revolution." See the talk page where Rjensen even posts the original text directly from Chernow's book at 18:51, 6 October 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Washington#Last_paragraph_of_.27French_and_Indian_War.27_section

Compare that to what Rjensen added to the article:

"His experience in the British Army made him a believer in the importance of a strong national government, and a vigorous executive agency, and gave him the diplomatic skills necessary to deal with officials at the local and colonial levels." Orignial source "Chernow, Washington, (2010) ch. 8 Kindle location 2038"

Rjensen added this text to the article "Revision as of 09:38, 5 October 2010" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Washington&diff=388856631&oldid=388807667 He/she refuses to even admit there's a problem with plagiarism or copyright on the personal talk page, despite my attempts to show otherwise. In addition, other editors on the talk page say this person has pushed a POV inconsistent with the cited source, adding personal opinion. However, he/she accuses other editors of adding their own personal opinion, though he/she never presents any evidence.

I warned him/her of this on the Monroe article in Sept & again on Washington article over the past few days that 1) ""duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism and 2) his/her definition of plagiarism did not reflect that of the dictionary, and includes not only "ideas" but also "text":

"to copy (ideas, passages of text, etc) from someone else's work and use them as if they were one's own." http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=plagiarism&title=21st

I ask Wikipedia to review these problems and determine if in fact these actions reflect their policy. I'm leaving a message on his/her page in accord with the policy stated above. Ebanony (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hits a tough area. Facts as such can not be copyrighted, but "unique expression" can. The snippets given are not long enough to show anything more than common word usage, and do not have enough adjectives and adverbs to show unique expression. If the snippets were longer, that would be more probative, but it is very hard to state this is plagiarism at this point. Collect (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Even so, Wikipedia should have its own expression. I think the sections should be reworded even if nothing is brought against the user. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We have an essay on this which should be followed, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Now I realise that this is 'only' an essay, but it has been written by editors with considerable experience of copyvio on Wikipedia. So I would certainly classify at least some of the above (I haven't looked closely at it all yet) as copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I would class the language as unique: "best known for the violent suppression of 'Gabriel's slave conspiracy' in 1800" does not strike me as a common phrase or uncreative use of language. I believe the text is copyrightable, and I think copying would be clear to a court-appointed reviewer. Of course, if this is the extent of it, it wouldn't get there, because it's de minimis to be sure. That said, per policy non-free content should be completely rewritten unless it is plainly marked as a quotation per WP:NFC, and this would include unique phrases. Free content should be completely rewritten unless it is properly attributed per WP:Plagiarism, and this would include "apt phrases". Assuming this is the extent of it, I hope that Rjensen will take this on board and just more completely transform or attribute content. One or two of these is not a huge problem, but they can stack up and turn into one. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some difference in definition here, let me add that Wikipedia's definition of "plagiarism" extends beyond ideas into language. According to consensus, avoiding plagiarism requires not only citing a source, but noting when language is duplicated or closely followed. Standards and definitions of plagiarism do vary widely, and these situations are inevitable. Generally, it's a simple matter of noting to a contributor where the definition under which they are operating differs from the one the community at large has followed. I don't think this should require any high drama, as I don't doubt that's the situation here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issues are already resolved. The short text in the Monroe article was the extent of the first problem and it was simply dropped several weeks ago. On the second issue I have rewritten and expanded the section in the George Washington article so the offending sentence is gone and there is no problem, I believe. (Note that at all times the source was cited at the end of the sentence in question)Rjensen (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Then we should be all good. :) There's no question that your material was impeccably sourced; that's why I presume a difference in definition. I've run into it a number of times, including in working towards the guideline. It's a valid but different perspective. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Whilst it's true the Monroe problem was resolved, rjensen refused to correct the problem, and 2 other editors had to remove the text because he insisted on reposting it even after being warned about it, as I noted earlier; he then denied this was a problem on his user page today. So he didn't fix the problem, and it wasn't simply dropped. Further he cited a book written by Scherr, but the source he took the information from was the article whose url I posted - so it wasn't sourced properly anyway. Be that as it may, the problem was never one of citing a source at the end of a sentence, but of directly copying text & just changing a few words. This was likewise the case on the Washington article, as noted before, and it appeared to be a pattern.

A problem with definitions I would agree with, but that's what I've been saying all along, and my posts reflect such. He kept insisting plagiarism meant only "ideas" & not copying text, even though I posted wikipedia's policy that said otherwise. If the reviewers above feel this is settled, then I have no further comment here. Ebanony (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly right about what Wikipedia's practices are, and I appreciate your making sure that everybody is aware of those practices. Sometimes it does take a few rounds of conversation, and I have myself been in situations where I've found another voice pitching in can seal the deal. If all existing problems with following text are addressed now and the problem doesn't continue, then that matter should be resolved. If additional issues exist or occur, then further conversation may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in rereading this I noticed rjensen says "The short text in the Monroe article was the extent of the first problem and it was simply dropped several weeks ago." Such is demonstratably false, as that was the 2nd edit, not the more extensive 1st copyright problem, whcih was about 95% cut and paste. The copied text here:

Monroe's governorship is best known for the violent suppression of "Gabriel's slave conspiracy" in 1800, in which freedom-seeking slaves from Henrico and neighboring counties plotted to burn the capital, Richmond, kill its white slaveholders, and kidnap Monroe. The rebellion was quickly crushed, and over 30 blacks were executed in its aftermath.

Compare that to Scheer’s work:

James Monroe's governorship of Virginia (1799-1802) is best known for the violent suppression of "Gabriel's slave conspiracy" in 1800, in which freedom-seeking slaves from Henrico and neighboring counties plotted to burn the capital, Richmond, kill its white slaveholders, and kidnap Governor Monroe. The rebellion was quickly crushed, and over 30 blacks were executed in its aftermath. - source of work http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001286103

So contrary to rjensen's claim that it was only "the short text" that was copied, the earlier edit was more extensive, and was actually removed by a different editor (Graeme Bartlett so it's not just my opinion). See the talk page 0:02, 13 September because immediately afterwards he added part of that text again (which is above and the part he calls "the short text"), just changing a few words. The same happened in the Washington article, though he has changed the Washington article - again after refusing to do so until I removed the text earlier today. If rjensen makes the noted adjustments on future edits, then fine with me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Monroe#Slavery Ebanony (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuing disruption/ban avoidance by Sheynhertz-Unbayg

Following the report from 5 October 2010, the banned user's Sheynhertz-Unbayg sock 121.115.68.130 continues today: Special:Contributions/121.115.68.130. The IP is joined by User:Nevnapi: Special:Contributions/Nevnapi, another sock. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI is your best bet. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone at least do something about this IP now. Observe these edits in the last hour: [232], [233], [234] Observe his "response" to multiple warnings at User talk:121.115.68.130 – Voceditenore (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, has just been blocked [235]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IP vandal

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 year by Edgar181 (talk · contribs). Bencherlite^Talk 15:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:194.81.3.100's last couple of edits were vandalism or violation of rules or silliness. I spent about a minute doing some random checking and as far as I can tell, this account has been used ONLY to vandalize or make mischief (see this. It is an account registered to Esher College, and i do not know what to do. Surely a library computer, and free to any student. But apprently all the students at this little college are silly teen-agers. A block is pointless, I propose a ban. Let them read Wikipedia, and contribute when they grow up. A radical proposal, I now leave it to wiser minds to decide. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP continues to make frivolous and incomprehensible move requests

75.142.152.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has been making incoherent and often frivolous move requests and making other generally disruptive edits for months now, after repeated requests to stop, as well as a block.

This user makes little to no constructive contributions and is quite clearly not competent enough to edit productively. This user's move requests do nothing but waste the time of other editors and I feel an extended block is in order. --Sable232 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've encountered this editor before - they seemed to have a bizarre obsession with page-move requests. And white rabbits. RegentsPark (talk) has warned them about move requests, after I'd blocked them for disruptive editing, and Dpmuk (talk) has commented since then on further move requests. I don't know whether they're larking about, or lack competence. I don't really care. Any objections to a longer block? TFOWR 15:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me talk to him. There hasn't been much in the way of harm I don't think. JodyB _talk 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Go for it - you seem to be WP:AGFing but I seem to be in need of a nice cup of tea and some calming down... ;-) TFOWR 16:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

May be a massive fail on the horizon. Hope not. Tea sounds good. Think I will go get some too. JodyB _talk 16:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Stealing Angels

Jtoews12 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly copypasted copyvio info into the biography Stealing Angels. Even after multiple warnings he fails to get the point. 97.65.4.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may be the same user logged out. Someone please apply clue-bat. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bump. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That account has also uploaded a bunch of obviously professional photographs under a free license claiming they are the owner. Probably every last one is a copyvio [236] - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

He claims to have full rights to the material in the article. I have advised him to contact OTRS for verification. JodyB _talk 16:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Him having rights is not enough, has to agree to release the content under CC. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, that is what OTRS is for. JodyB _talk 17:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials is designed just for situations like this. Basically, the person needs to email [email protected], preferably something of the form that is here. Keep in mind that it must be made clear to the owner that 1) We do not allow "non-commercial" images, and 2) The owner cannot declare "for Wikipedia use only"; both of those break our CC-BY-SA license. –MuZemike 17:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That account is quacking like it is operated by the band's publicist. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

He may be gone, no activity since 23 September. JodyB _talk 17:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unconvinced the band is even notable, AfDd. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel request

Resolved

Matthew Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Please could the edit summaries from today's vandalism be removed? January (Cassandra 73) ^talk 17:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Gone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Books are actually not good references"

Per this diff, I think that Roger491127 (talk · contribs) is not interested in working within our community norms. Time for an enforced vacation, perhaps? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have any policy that allows for blocking an editor because he expresses his personal opinions on how best to use sources, even if his opinions are not supported by current policies.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That comment alone, stupid as it is (unless he is trying to refer to self-published sources but doesn't know that phrase), is not grounds for a block. Is it part of a pattern of disruptive behaviour? If so, please point to it...! Ta, ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Only if he forces his opinion on the community and violates our standards should we take any action. His comments are poorly worded and really do not stand up to reasoning but they are his thoughts. I will also notify him of this discussion. JodyB _talk 18:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Agree, I don't see a blockable offense in that comment. I could sign parts of it, considering that Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Chariots of the Gods? and Worlds in Collision were all published as non-fiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Almost his entire WP career since 2007 has been devoted to trying to correct the historical record on Gustave Whitehead, an aviation pioneer in the early 20th century. If you look at that talkpage, you'll see that he has been posting huge walls of text. Earlier, he complained about holding an WP:RFC about the amount of weight to place on Whitehead's work in the Aviation history article on the article's talkpage because the majority of the editors there were "partial".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For those of us who don't have the time and/or processing power to audit "his entire WP career since 2007" could you perhaps provide some diffs? ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you go to his contribs and select the "500" option, then go to "earliest" and see his earliest 500, you may detect a pattern in his topics of interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Or even easier, check the last week's edit history on Aviation history, with particular note to the edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Or start an RfC/U? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think an RfC/U might be appropriate. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so that explains his familiarity with the concept of an "agenda". In general, a user can theorize whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't necessarily start putting those theories into practice, such as reverting entries that are sourced to printed works instead of the internet (as we all know, the internet is much more reliable than the printed word.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just read over Talk:Aviation history (for the first time ever) and agree with Sarek that there is a disturbing pattern to Roger's edits. He has repeatedly posted giant walls of text on this subject (Whitehead's possible 1901 flight) that center on his own original research (interpretations of primary sources), with a distinct disregard for scholarly works. As one example, of the most recent posts, citing what appears (to my limited knowledge) to be primary sources and drawing an opinion: [237]. I'll leave a note on his talk page about proper sourcing and weight, but I doubt it will do any good. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Message describing key policies here. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the editor, but books cannot be presumed to be 'good references' in the same way that peer-reviewed journal articles can. Each book has to be considered separately on its own merits. In isolation, that statement is not a blockable or bannable action. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the same can go for journal articles, unfortunately. There's always the odd one that isn't a good reference. And some publishers, eg major university publishers, have the same status as peer-reviewed journals (IMHO of course). Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regents, you are absolutely right on this matter, but in general you're not helping the cause: there seems to be a distinct lack of calls of "admin abuse" these days. What made you all so careful these days? ANI is getting boring. Go block someone! Invent a reason! Block Sarek! Drmies (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right as usual. Though I could block you for not making personal attacks! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, don't block me, the good folks over at Wikipedia Review would enjoy that far too much. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You could always block yourself...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

From a purely historical sense, he's got a point - secondary sources that interpret may interpret wrong ...

From an encyclopedia sense - What he's doing is new historical research, not encyclopedic, and he shouldn't do it here. He needs a publisher or a website. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Years ago, we had wording in the No Original Research policy stressing the fact that one should look for books authored by experts writing in their fields of expertise, such as, say, academic books published by university presses. I haven't checked to see whether that recommendation survived the drastic rewrites that were done to the content policies since. But the point is a good one.

It's not quite the point that Roger491127 is making, note. Perhaps a trip to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is in order. Uncle G (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this Whitehead guy did create a working airplane by 1901, how come nobody knew about it? It had about the same level of cultural impact as Brendon the Bold's discovery of America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

how come nobody knew about it?!!! Obviously, it was a cover-up, a vast conspiracy. (Freemasonry? Illuminati? Trilateral Commission? We may never know.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if the current writeup is to be believed, there were occasional newspaper reports about his alleged exploits with his alleged airplanes. Curiously, no one seems to have found it necessary to photograph these important events or to promote them or to repeat them publicly - everyone was just supposed to take his word for it, as contrasted with the Wright Brothers, who took it public as soon as they could, and they photographed it. As far as the paper reporting them, keep in mind that papers in those days often reported on things with a "straight face" that they might think would evoke a laugh from their readers, like stories about people seeing elves and fairies and so on (or UFOs and Bigfoot and Mother Mary's image in a grilled cheese sandwich, nowadays). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. Good thing no respectable news outlet these days would do anything remotely like that. (Bites on end of finger and strikes a coy pose.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I mention the frequent sightings of the face of Satan in clouds of smoke? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand the situation, there are two issues here. The first is how to treat the frequent situation where there are competing, yet less-familiar, claims of having done achievement first -- which is what appears to be happening here. (And there are others: for example, I encountered, in a peer-reviewed journal nonetheless, a claim by an American sailor that he, not Sir Richard Burton, was the first Westerner to visit the East African city of Harar. The authors of the article simply note that due to various reasons his claim never was well-publicized, but there are plausible reasons to think he might have been first.) The proper way to handle these competing claims is to simply repeat the information (primary sources are perfectly fine for collaboration of facts which need no interpretation), & point out why the claim is not widely accepted. (In Whitehead's case, according to this version, he announced his achievement in 1935 -- which would lead any objective reader to question its veracity.) The second issue here is whether Roger491127 (talk · contribs) is actually working within our policies. If he simply wants to include a mention of Whitehead, & after having experienced resistance to this desire he's overreacted & now wants Whitehead to receive credit for being the first, he shouldn't be severely sanctioned. On the other hand, if giving Whitehead this credit has been his only goal from the beginning, then he does deserve, to quote Sarek, "an enforced vacation". -- llywrch (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Content removal

User:UltimaRatio has engaged in edit-warring as a means of repeatedly removing a relevant image from the Battle of France article [238] [239] [240]. Apparently the famous war photograph of German soldiers marching past the Arc de Triomphe is simply not acceptable to the user. He has removed it altogether from the article on numerous occasions and refuses to stop in spite of explanations and warnings [241] [242].

He is joined in this by User:Frania Wisniewska from frWiki [243] [244]. The whole thing frankly looks like a co-ordinated attempt to censor the photograph out of the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You're both at/exceeding WP:3RR. Don't continually war over it, leave it at whichever state it is in until discussion or a WP:RFC or WP:3O is filed. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I did stop, but this user is removing the image from the article entirely without any relevant rationale whatsoever, and very obviously due to his own (barely disguised) POV. This is imho very obvious POV content blanking. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1) In various article, generally in inappropriated places (nazis in Paris in the 21st century???) and without any form of consensus, Direktor replaced longstanding pictures by a picture representing Nazis parading in Paris.

2)I revert his edits, telling him that a consensus should be reached for that kind of changes.

3)Direktor replaced his version of the article, calling me a French nationalist… [245] [246]

4)As I don’t think this is a fair debate, I reverted his edit, asking for discussion [247]

5)Direktor replaced is version, threatening to report me for blanking the picture… So, here we are

Isn’t it hypocrite to accuse me to "censore" his picture while I was just reverting his blanking edits ?

During this week, the methods and the intolerable behaviour of Direktor, on the French related articles, were pointed out by many editors who tried to calm him down (see by example : [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], etc.)

Direktor's behaviour is disruptive for the encyclopedia. He doesn't respect Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Consensus12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimaRatio (talk • contribs)

The user called the iconic, widely-circulated photo "Nazi propaganda", as if he had beamed down from 1940. Removing it from the article was not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On 26SEP10, within 6 minutes, DIREKTOR put the photograph of nazis marching by the Arc de Triomphe in prominence in three articles:

• Battle of France
• Arc de Triomphe
• Paris

(1) Previous to this edit[253] by DIREKTOR on 26SEP10, there was no warring about this picture which has been in article "Battle of France" for many months.

A picture representing nazi soldiers marching by the Arc de Triomphe on 14 June 1940 does not belong as first picture of the article titled "Battle of France"; it belongs to the end of it, as the "Battle of France" did not begin with naz marching through Paris.

There are plenty of pictures available illustrating a "battle", not a march to end the show. For instance, photographs similar to those[254] [255]

Also, please note that out of 15 pictures (last count),

• 11 show Germans & German actions, including 2 of Germans marching in Paris with view of Arc de Triomphe;
• 4 represent:

1. English prisoners,
2. French General Gamelin,
3. French troops embarking on an British ship,
4. one crying Frenchman.

(2) Furthermore, on the discussion page of the Légion d'honneur article he has proposed to move to a translated title in English, Mr. DIREKTOR has, on several occasions, used outrageous terms against French participants, which prompted me to create section "Enough"[256].

--Frania W. (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Going back one year in the article, I see both images in the article. Please explain, Frania Wisniewska, why you repeatedly removed the second of these long-standing images one two times from that article. Uncle G (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

May I respectfully point out to you that the second image was not in the article at the date to which you directed me[[257].

It was added[258] on 30SEP10, exactly one week ago, by contributor Portillo.

I searched for it at an earlier date and, if it was there before, I have failed to see it.

The picture was out of place in the article & its caption totally wrong, which I mentioned in the edit summary. That picture is available in two Wikimedia Common files, one[259] with wrong caption, used by Portillo, the other correct, here[260], not used in article.

Regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Both pictures that are the subject of your edit warring are there in the article, one year ago. The picture added by Portillo is not the long-standing picture that you removed in those diffs and were edit warring over. The issue of competence appears to be rearing its head, here. If you are unaware of what your use of the undo tool is actually doing, you really should not be using it. If you are not properly aware of what changes to the article you are actually making in your edit war, you really should not be making them without applying more thought. You certainly should not be edit warring without thinking about what changes you are making, and merely using the undo tool reflexively and unthinkingly, as you apparently have been. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

I am at a loss as to your mention of "competence" and my lack thereof in the use of the undo tool, and fail to see the fairness in accusing me of edit warring, when the following should apply to DIREKTOR "If you are not properly aware of what changes to the article you are actually making in your edit war, you really should not be making them without applying more thought.", as DIREKTOR is the one who made the first drastic change, here[261], on 26SEP10. Also, when I reverted DIREKTOR on 01OCT10, the picture did not come back in the article because it had been removed previously and several other edits had been made in the meantime.

I am quite aware of the fact that both pictures - the English POWs & the Arc de Triomphe – with the English prisoners as main picture & the Arc de Triomphe toward the end of the article, have been in the article for a long time. However, may I point out to you that the "warring" was ignited on 26SEP10, when DIREKTOR replaced the English prisoners by the Arc de Triomphe as lead picture, with no consensus of any kind, no previous notice on the Battle of France talk page, not a word.

As I mentioned earlier, within 6 minutes on 26SEP10, DIREKTOR had put that photograph in prominence in three articles, and this was interpreted as provocation by several contributors, myself included, consequently, the Battle of France affair at hand cannot be separated from what has been going on at the Arc de Triomphe, Paris and the Légion d’honneur discussion page. Please refer to the first instance of DIREKTOR’s provocation on the Légion d’honneur page with this "nationalist POV" comment on 290CT10 [262], comment (either "nationalist" or "nationalistic") which has been repeated times & times again with other niceties.

Please, have a look at this on the Arc de Triomphe article:

• 30SPE10 [263]: removal by DIREKTOR of two pictures pertaining to the history of the Arc de Triomphe: the AdT itself, and the picture of aviator Charles Godefroy flying through it on 7 August 1919, then relegating the AdF with the French flag to the Details section, after the end of the article.
• 01OCT10: my reaction [264] with edit summary:"You simply cannot have the Arc with French flag+Tomb of the Unknown Soldier under marching naz : If this was an article on the United States, nobody would relegate Old Glory at bottom". Unfortunately, in my outrage I forgot to put Charles Godefroy back.
• 01OCT10: DIREKTOR's revert[265] with antagonistic comment "Deal with it".
• 01OCT10: a few minutes later, I reverted DIREKTOR [266] with curt "Yes, dealing with it".

In view of this, I find it rather unfair that I should be on the receiving end here for my supposed lack of competence, when DIREKTOR was the one to initiate a change he could not ignore would be controversial: the picture of the Arc de Triomphe with marching nazis having never been the lead image in any article, and the two in question having never changed place in the history of the editing of the article.

Regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• DIREKTOR's so-called "drastic change" was to simply swap the positions of two pictures that had been in the article for at least a year. That's a rather skewed definition of "drastic" considering that your and UltimaRatio's edits were outright removal of one of those two images, repeatedly, a far more "drastic change" to the article content. Your edit warring removals are these: one two UltimaRatio's edit warring removals are these: one two three. (I note, especially, the edit summary of UltimaRatio's third edit, there.) That you are trying to pass this off as competent use of the undo tool to restore the status quo ante on both of your parts, when it is clearly not any such thing, is exactly why your competence with editing tools is in question. You and UltimaRatio should not be edit warring, and you certainly should not be edit warring without even any thought as to what your edits actually involve. If you cannot competently reverse the simple place-swapping of two images, you definitely should not be edit warring with the undo tool. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Another point is that the complainant is mistaken when he argues that the infobox photo should somehow depict the beginning of the event. That photo is intended to be a good representative or defining moment in the event as a whole. Using the complainant's theory, the infoboxes for all the articles on world leaders would feature their baby pictures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but at least people would know they were cute at least once in their lives :o) mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

In all this brouhaha, it seems that my main fault consists in not having reestablished the photograph of the marching nazis when I reverted DIREKTOR. So ‘’mea culpa’’ for my incompetence.

Yes, what a cardinal sin compared to DIREKTOR’s activities at pages mentioned earlier, where he added that same picture without consensus, or at least a notification on the respective talk pages, and where he removed telling photographs at the Arc de Triomphe article. Then there is his incessant accusative needling of French contributors on the Légion d’honneur talk page, which has been totally ignored by Wikipedia administration which, I am more than certain, has monitoring teams overseeing the direction discussions are taking.

I am beginning to realize that I missed the boat when I did not report DIREKTOR days ago when he began on the path of irony & insults against French contributors. That is where my fault lies.

Regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)