Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640

User:Anupkb uploading many copyrighted image

Dear all User:Anupkb uploaded many copyrighted image claiming his image/wrong tag. Each times he tries to upload that kind of image. This is inform to admin.Please watch this user. Thanks.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 08:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor informed - as I was passing. a_man_alone (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Quantum666

This board is not a venue for dispute resolution.  Sandstein  11:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quantum666 (talk · contribs) I've got two conflicts with this user and if we not decide them now, there will be much more conflicts. First conflict is not hard. In the article about the city Karvachar (recent name in enwiki Kalbajar) he is deleting images, making vandalism and violating a rule of Wikipedia:Edit warring and 3RR, making three deletions: 1, 2, 3. This conflict is the easiest one. And now about the more harder conflict. The conflict is really more wiser than one article about the Agdam Rayon, where have took place a conflict. There were a discussion in the my talk page, but as I see he don't want to gain a compromise. He repeats his arguments on which I've already answered and don't give new arguments repeating old arguments. I think that the discussion is at a standstill as he is not going to have a compromise. About the problem (shortly). From the 1991 there are an independent Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), while Azerbaijan things that it is their territory. Azerbaijan doesn't control a majority of the territory of the NKR. According to the legislation of the NKR there are one administrate divisions, while according to the Azerbaijan legislation there are other divisions. Here is a conflict about the quantity of the population. In this territory before the last war was an all-Soviet census in 1989. Results are available in Russian in the official Russian web-site. There were also two other censuses. In Azerbaijan was a census in 1999, but as Azerbaijan don't control Nagorno-Karabakh, there were no census at those time. Other census was in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the 2005. The results can be found in the pdf file from the special web-page of this census (census in NKR in 2005) from the official web-site of the National Statistic Service of NKR. Three quarters of the Agdam rayon since 1993 is under the control of the NKR, while one quart is under the control of the Azerbaijan. According to the legislation of the NKR, Agdam rayon was abolished and included to the territory of three other districts: northern part to the Martakert district, western part (with Agdam) to the Askeran district and southern part to the Martuni district. Eastern part is under the control of the Azerbaijan. The problem is that Azerbaijan try to increase a number of population of the regions which has loosed in the war. They make falsifications for artificial increase a number of refugees. For this they are saying about a million of refugees and making falsifications on the state level. For example on the official Azeri web-site You can find an information about the population of this regions for 1993 which is more than during the census in 1989 from 20 to 30%. There were no any census in 1993 in this region at all and more than that there was a War and for 4 years of war it is impossible to have growth at all, especially in a quart. Even in the best region of the world it is impossible to have a growth of population for 4 years in 20-30%. According to his contributions he is actively making edits in disputed articles mostly having a conflicts with other users. He already has got warnings on his talk page but he continues his behavior. Please make something as he is not going to reach compromise and I don't want to participate in edit wars with him. Also I want to add that in ruwiki he has been already indefinitely blocked. I'll notify him just now. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC) The first incident of edit warring is from before my block of Quantum666 for another incident of edit-warring and is therefore probably not actionable at this point. Should edit-warring reoccur, please use WP:AN3. The second incident is a content disagreement that cannot be resolved by administrators, or on this board. Plese see WP:DR for several ways that you can take to resolve this disagreement.  Sandstein  19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC) I'll try to be patient and do not react to his actions, but if his contribution would not be more constructive I'll have to take the necessary measures. He spoils the articles relating to Armenia, adding a variety of dubious material which detracts from the appearance of article and I am very worried. Moreover, in recent years he had many conflicts with other users. I'm not going to pass other request on him now. Thanks, --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Please be mindful of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions, especially in view of your previous sanctions in this topic area.  Sandstein  19:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Quantum666 comments: 1. I made a mistake when was engaged in edit warring. As I have already explained I understood that it was wrong and I am not going to repeat my mistakes. Thanks Sandstein for explanations about my block. 2. I don't think that using words like making vandalism, he don't want to gain a compromise, They make falsifications, he is not going to reach compromise in Wikipedia is a good idea 3. Lionking hasn't answered none of my arguements and stopped the discussion at all. You can see it at his discussion page. And you will see that his description differs from the real matter of our dispute. 4. It's better to discuss disputed articles in details instead of saying he is adding a variety of dubious material. What exactly do you think dubious? I am ready to give you all necessary sources and explanations. 5. Lionking is givin only a part of information. I was blocked indefinitely according to my wish as I had decided to continue editing in English Wikipedia and to leave ruwiki. However I don't think discussing it here is a good idea. --Quantum666 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, really? I have waste a lot of time trying to get a compromise with You while You have done nothing. You repeat old arguments on which I've already give answers. I'm not going to repeat them You are able to read them by Yourself in the discussion. You've deleted all gallery of images from the article and You don't want to hear from me that it is a vandalism? At least it is very strange. Anyway everybody can read my talk page to be sure that I've answered on Your questions and You're repeating them. You're adding a templates about violating of NPOV to the Armenia-related articles if there are not enough about Azeri POV while You don't do the same with Azeri-related articles when there are nothing about Armenian POV. It is double standards. About Your block: "The Arbitration Committee took into the mind that a substantial proportion of the contribution of the participant in the space of articles represents the introduction of controversial changes or the conduct of war update. Given this, the Arbitration Committee decided to keep a perpetual lock on the account Quantum666 valid justification for the change to violation of the rules of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and account Absolutetruth block for 3 months. After leaving the lock on the party imposed a ban on the editing of controversial articles and restriction on editing the Wikipedia space for 6 months, as described in paragraph 3 of this decision." [1] So after a block in Russian wikipedia You are continuing Your contribution in English wikipedia testing Your luck here. So Your goal here and Your activity is understandable for me. I'm not surprising why You're deleting images from the article, avoid compromise and filling only one POV to the articles. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 1. I have already written about your understanding of "compromise" and I can repeat it again. The "compromise" you were offering is not a compromise. You cannot "exchange" edits that have no relation with each other (except their authors). You cannot write "the Sun is rotating around the Earth" reasoning it like this "my compromise is to let you add information about the Sun's temperature". 2. Once again: you haven't given any answer to my arguements 3. Deleting the newly added photos was reasoned and the real compromise is about to be reached after the discussion in which you unfortunately don't take part. However you reverted my edits twice without participating in the discussion and even didn't answer my request about your reverts at your discussion page. At least it is not polite. 4. Show me any article that you think violates NPOV and I will add the template if it really does. All my addings of NPOV flags were reasoned at the discussion pages but I heard no answer from you. You cannot solve the problem of POVing writing requests here. The only way is discussing and getting consensus. 5. Are you trying to prove that 3 months="indefenitily"? Or are you trying to say that I'm "a bad user in Russian Wikipedia"? None of these tries will help you to defend your POV in our discussion about Agdam rayon. As well as discussing the sanctions against you will not help me to defend mine. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 1.In my talk page I've written about compromise. I've proposed You some variants while You have chosen none of them and not proposed any real variants. I'm repeating that I can agree with You with deletion of Armenian name from the chapter while we should delete misleading information about the population in 1993 from Azeri unneutral source to the number of population according to the official all-Soviet pre-conflict census in 1989. You disagreed with me and continued Your behavior saying old arguments. We can't move forward if You don't agree with compromise and don't propose smth what can be acceptable for both POV. 2. You can read them on my talk page in some rows up of Your arguments. 3. It seems to me that You don't understand. Not polite it is when smbd delete all 8 images from the article without any discussion. And when smbd delete all images from the article - it is vandalism. I'm an author of those images but to the article added them other user. And by the way the discussion started user who added images. You continues deleting them. 4. In wikipedia there are a great amount of articles that violates NPOV, but You chose only Armenian-related articles. 5. Sorry, but unfortunately I know Russian not so bad and I understand what is written: ru: Арбитражный Комитет постановляет оставить бессрочную блокировку учётной записи Quantum666 в силе en: The Arbitration Committee decided to keep a perpetual lock on the account Quantum666 in force so it is not a problem for me to read what is written there. If You were a good user there You can not be blocked. And if You assumed good faith now You would work in ruwiki, but as You was blocked indefinitely You try to continue Your anti-Armenian contributions in English chapter of wikipedia, filling templates of violating NPOV, deleting images and filling anti-Armenian information to the Armenian-related articles. By the way, for a short period of time You've got here a lot of conflicts with other users. --Ліонкінг (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 1. Well, if you really don't understand that exchanging "name" with "population" is not a compromise you can ask someone else because being "anti-Armenian" I cannot convince you about anything. 2. Using colons doesn't mean answering. Read my arguements once again please. 3. Before accusing me of vandalism please read WP:CONSENSUS and write all your disagreements at the article's dicussion page. Reverting without discussion will never help you to prove anything. 4. They are also Azerbaijani related articles. Am I anti-Azerbaijani? 5. It's not necessary to apologize for your Russian. Could you please translate this text: Прошу бессрочно заблокировать данную учетную запись в связи с уходом из проекта. Сделано. Разблокировка возможна любым администратором, но не ранее 1 октября 2010 согласно решению Арбитражного комитета по заявке 589. Артём Коржиманов 20:40, 4 июля 2010 (UTC) I hope now you will stop discussing ruwiki here as you know very little about the matter and it has no relation to our dispute. If you won't we can continue discussing the sanctions imposed on you due to your contribution in AA topic. Should we? --Quantum666 (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 1. We are speaking about one article and there are two questions. As a compromise, in the first I agree to use only Azeri name and in the second to use only neutral number of population. I don't speak that in the first we should use only Armenian name and in the second also only Armenian. I purpose You a real compromise to gain a consensus, while You purpose to use in the first disagreement only Azeri name and in the second disagreement two databases: Azeri politically wrong number of population and a real number according to the census. If You want to gain a compromise, You should make assignments while now only I make assignments. 2. Ok, I'll do it again if it is really hard to find answers on my talk page. 2.1.Q:"The official site of Azerbaijani authorities is a reliable source to represent their opinion." 2.1.L:"there were no any census in Azerbaijan in 1993 this information can't be used. Azerbaijan just try to falsificate the real number of refugees, so after 4 years from the census the have added 20-30% of population to all regions which they have lost. Compare: in 1989: 131,293 inhabitans according to the neutral all-Soviet official census and in 1993: 158,900 (!) according to the unknown Azeri source. I'm sure that we shouldn't mislead the reader as the second data is very doubtful, it is unavaible to have such growth in theory and in practice." 2.2.Q:"You haven't shown any source confirming equality of territories of the rayon in Azerbaijan SSR and in Azerbaijan Republic." 2.2.L:"As I know a part of the territory of Agdam rayon is under the control of Defence Forces of NKR since 1993. But smaller part is under the control of NAA. According to the administrative division of NKR Agdam rayon was included to the Martakert, Askeran and Martuni rayons, so according the legislation of NKR there are no Agdam rayon. However a smaller part (without administrative center) is under the control of Azeri forces, if You're not sure, confirm it please." 2.3.Q:"We are editing differnt things. One is about name and another is about population. Don't try to axchange them. It is not a compromise. The only important thing is Wikipedia principles." 2.3.L:You can see an answer even here in the p. 1. 2.4.Q:"The article is not about the disputed territory but about the administrative division of Azerbaijan. Since Armenian is not the official language Armenian name has to be removed." 2.4.L:"partly it is under control of Azerbaijan, while the biggest part (including Agdam city) is under the control of NKR." If you would have even the slightest doing, you could read again my answer, but you decided to just talk to me about their case every time again. 3. I would not do it. It is the equal if I delete now all images from the article about New York and somebody else will be obliged to write on the talk page why this images shouldn't be deleted. You have no right to spoil the article or delete images from the articles, especially to do it without discussion. 4. No, You're not anti-Azerbaijan as You spoil only Armenian-related articles. For example You fill a template of NPOV to the administrative division of NKR (which don't recognize Azerbaijan) and never filled such template to any article about any administrative division of Azerbaijan. 5. Stop misleading. I've wrote already everything. If anyone want to check, they can look Your block list. (ru)"Yaroslav Blanter изменил настройки блокировки для Quantum666, истекает бессрочно (запрещена регистрация учётных записей) ‎ (учётная запись для обхода блокировки: Согласно решению по заявке 589)" (en)"Yaroslav Blanter changed the settings for blocking Quantum666, expires on indefinitely (it is forbidden registration account) (account to bypass the lock: According to the decision on the application 589)" --Ліонкінг (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 1.Once again: ask someone else uninvolved in AAconflict to explain the difference. 2. We have already started the discussion at your page so please continue there. Or you can go to the article's discussion page. I am not going to discuss it here. 3. Please go to the article's discussion page. I am not going to discuss it here 4. Please write your disagreements at the articles' discussion pages and I will answer. I am not going to discuss it here 5. So you cannot translate it? Good. Then I finish the discussion to avoid wasting of time. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC) I ask administrators to close the discussion as it becomes more and more absurd. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ліонкінг's signature

Resolved

 – Request made & declined. –xeno^talk 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if, in line with the relevant guideline, the OP could be requested to modify his signature. It's quite awkward when reading, if you don't automatically know how they're verbalised, to run across words like "Ліонкінг", i find; it slows down the process. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 03:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The signature complies with WP:SIGNATURE. Just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to force a change. Mjroots (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In my main page there are written that in English I'm Lionking. It is not principal for me in which language smbd apply to me. For example Quantum666 use English version Lionking and it is OK for me. But I use original Ukrainian Ліонкінг in all chapters of wikipedia and I'm not going to change this name. I think that it is better if signature and a real name's are equal, so I don't want to change my signature to not mislead other users who can mix up me with anybody else. For example, there are: User:Lion King, User:LionKing, User:Lionkingfan3, User:Lionkingmoviefan and others. Wishes, --Ліонкінг (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Verbalisation doesn't matter. There is no reason for it especially since reading is a visual activity and Ліонкінг is visually unique enough and distinguishable from any other sig. To communicate, if needed, copy and paste the sequence of the letters and reply to the editor. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, verbalisation does matter, very significantly, since we process things that are purely visual differently from things that we can speak. It's one reason why it's so very difficult to distingish one IP address from another and provide them with "identities" the way we do with account names. I understand why policy was changed to allow non-roman-alphabet account names, but for me, and obviously for LindsayH, dealing with them is quite a bit more difficult. Those with non-roman-alphabet-based IDs might think about altering their sigs for editing here to help others to "latch on" to them more easily, and vice versa for those with roman-alphabet-based IDs when editing in Wikis which use other systems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There are users, even admins, who sign using Chinese and Japanese characters. There are also others signing in Arabic and they never have been a problem for me. Same goes for those who use symbols in their usernames. The Artist formerly known as Prince did the same with apparently no problems. I don't see the issue really but I can't speak for everyone. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 09:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The guideline quoted in the OP says editors are encouraged to use latin characters in at least part of their sig. They are not forced to do so if they don't want to. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. By the way what is the OP? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 09:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OP stands for "Original Post," usually meaning the first post in a discussion. In this case, referring to Ліонкінг. I suspect this was supposed to be a sub-heading for the previous discussion, so I've modified it to be such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Hand for the information. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got much more of an issue with some editors whose latin character signatures are gibberish. This isn't a terrible problem although it can make it more difficult to distinguish signatures from those very similar. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This will be a problem for people who process written information by verbalising it, as they will indeed come to a screeching halt when they see a signature in a non-latin alphabet. I'm afraid unless someone tells me another designation, they all get thought of as "bleh" in my little brane (sorry, not very helpful I know). Not sufficient of a reason to enforce Latinisation, but it does make it worth putting a translation/transliteration on one's userpage, as Ліонкінг has done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reads like "Nioh-kihr" (neo-kerr) to me. Problem solved? –xeno^talk 14:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for me, yes. If I can associate that visual pattern with the sound "Nioh-kihr", it makes things much easier. And I agree with those above re: gibberish names. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it helps. Thank you, Xeno. May i just point out, gently, and leaving, that i didn't try "to force a change", nor did i mention that i didn't like the signature ~ actually i quite do; thanks for the feedback. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

State Farm claims

Resolved

 – if the editor agrees. We've both learned some new facts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Amartya ray2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

OK, I'm not quite sure where to take this, so I'll start here. We have this user who is alleging that editors of the State Farm Insurance article are engaged in a "conflict of interest" because the articles cites the State Farm website for some of its information. He posts a tag calling for expert review of the article, which is certainly reasonable and fair. But he also removes those company-based citations and then posts "citation needed" tags on them, making a bad-faith assumption about whatever State Farm's website might say. He also argues that the lack of what he considers valid citations should be a basis for deleting the article. State Farm is America's largest car insurer, so it's plenty notable and deleting it would be silly.

Ironically, the user was blocked himself last spring, for spamming, which might explain his motivation in attacking this article (it wouldn't be the first time a user has attacked a corporate article for just that reason).

Regardless, I'd like a ruling on whether it's appropriate to remove citations and replace them with "cn" tags; and whether it's appropriate to slap a COI tag on an article when the editor admits openly that he doesn't have time to investigate the details, and is expecting "the experts" to do that work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

While for the most part, this seems to be a content dispute, his better option would be to use {{Self-published}} or {{Primary source claim}}. I suspect he is misunderstanding {{COI}}. As per WP:SPS, self-published sources can be used in articles about themselves, but I would be inclined to think that "It is the largest automobile insurer in the United States continuously since 1942 and insures more cars and homes in the United States than any other insurer" might fail point 1: "the material is not unduly self-serving". Presuming this is true, more reliable sourcing should be locatable. And, of course, the company clearly makes WP:ORG. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that he re-posted the COI tag. More generally, is it appropriate to remove references and then post a "cn" tag? I would have thought the tag asking for review would cover it sufficiently. I still think this is a vendetta stemming from his short block last spring when he was spamming his poetry site. He hints at that when he talks about "if I were to post a website about myself..." in arguing that a corporation's website is automatically unreliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, having re-read this edit summary,[2] which specifically mentions his site that he was blocked for, that's a dead giveaway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My justification

Look folks, this is how this started:

I came across this article State Farm Insurance and found to my shock that almost every citation from it leads to statefarm.com! This is definitely not and obviously not NPoV and the website cannot be considered a reliable source at least so far State Farm Insurance, the article, is concerned!

Now, I therefore though it was my duty as an editor of wikipedia to raise this as a discussion topic. I was further flabbergasted to see that the article is already controversial enough and has even been recommended for deletion by a number of editors. My first reaction was to try and improve the article and therefore

1) Tried to find credible sources (other than statefarm.com) to justify what it already say. But failed to. This therefore led me to believe that the article was more of an advertisement for the company than a statement of facts, by and large.

2) As I was brushing through the article, I replaced some of the citations linked to statefarm.com with citation needed.

3) I also raised the issue in the discussion/talk page, as is visible.

Suddenly, the use who raised this issue (who I did not even know, before this point), Baseball_Bugs started sending me weird provocative and aggressive messages! I tried to de-escalate the issue but then his aggressions increased! He started reverting things from the article. Finally, he simply deleted the points i raised objections on and informed me that he is going to raise the issue here. In a sense, though i think this is not an issue to bother the admins about, I'm relieved that we can solve it with ur guidance. I seek ur protection!

I'm not interested in how an editor feels! I'm only interested in making sure that no one succeeds in making wikipedia his mouth peace. I did the same with Varun Gandhi!

I just read what Moonriddengirl wrote... I'm of the opinion that while more credible sources are being discovered, we need to delete the article any republish it at a later time. If you want, I'll contribute myself!

Regards, Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally, no, that's why I say {{Primary source claim}} or {{Self-published}} would be his better choices. I don't know that I'd presume this is pointed; he might simply have learned from his own experience that self-published sources are a problem and be trying to enforce that, though with an imperfect understanding of what constitutes a "conflict". (In case he stops by: a "conflict of interest" is a problem on the part of an editor, not specifically with the content. It's a behavioral issue and means that the contributor is not neutral, not that the text or sourcing are not. {{Self-published}} or {{POV}} may be better if you think the content is not neutral, but don't have any reason to suspect the editor who added it of being more interested in promoting the subject than documenting it.) Since it seems to involve only the two of you at this point, this might be a good occasion for a quick WP:3O. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moonriddengirl and would always appreciate a WP:3O Amartya ray2001 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, another editor has already weighed in on the State Farm talk page and has advised the editor that the COI tag is not appropriate. "Primary source" or "Self published" could be fair. I don't like the presumption that a major company is automatically going to lie about facts and figures. He even tagged the Barry Manilow reference, which is funny, as it's well-known that Manilow wrote the "State Farm Is There" song. Also, given the pointedness of his edit summaries, he's got no business calling me aggressive. He's apparently under the impression that if he changes something in an article, no one else has the right to revert it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't like presuming that companies are interested in promoting themselves? To me, this is perfectly natural. :) It doesn't even require lying, just selectively viewing facts, ala, "It's very true that we are the largest insurer of cars and homes...together. Of course, Company A insures more cars separately than we do, and Company B insures more homes separately than we do, but nobody sells more combo policies!" (And, of course, there may be no selective viewing of facts at all. But it's a possibility.) What is well-known is very cultural, I would imagine. I know that Barry Manilow wrote the "State Farm Is There" song, but I bet if we polled the readers of ANI alone, you'd find quite a high ratio of people who did not (and don't know many of his other jingles). His calling you aggressive is an entirely separate issue, and one you had not previously raised. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that companies promote themselves. But to assume they're lying without checking any facts is not appropriate. He's from another country and obviously knows nothing about State Farm. But that does not excuse his approach of tagging everything and then expecting someone else to do his investigative work for him. As far as being "aggressive", well, I challenged his actions, and he didn't like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't assume they're lying without checking; we just don't assume they're telling the truth. That's why we have the provisions at WP:SPS. It is standard procedure, you know, to tag items you have problems with on Wikipedia; the main problem here is that he has been using the wrong tags...including assuming misbehavior on the part of the contributors to that article. Had he used the proper tags, I don't know that there would have been any more issues. Hopefully, somebody would have replaced or supplemented the self-published sources and everybody would have moved on; the article and the project would have been the better for it. Aggressivness in editing is always unfortunate. Things go much more smoothly when people remember to be cordial. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(@ amartya ray2001) The company clearly meets WP:ORG. Suggesting that it be deleted until better sources are found is so beyond the pale that any afd you created would be speedy closed as keep. I have no objection to removing peacockery until we get better sources, but basic operations statistics taken from their own site can be trusted. Syrthiss (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the citation needed tags are a little absurd for the information given. I think the tags on the article should be removed and any concerns with the reliability of the sources should be taken to WP:RSN.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Now he's trying to push an NPOV tag on the article. He needs to label any citations he has a problem with, with the "better source" tag, as Moon indicated above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Syrthiss, if you notice, most of the article is peacockery. Though operational stats can be used (because they are audited), considering any other part of statefarm.com for an article on the same company is clearly unethical! You are admins and I shall respect your decision. Let us however make sure that we do justice to the millions of people who consider wikipedia as a reliable source. That, in my opinion, looks more like an advertisement page for the company than anything else. If you noticed, it appears to have been recommended for deletion before. I agree, the company is important enough to find a place in our website but can we allow advertisement?

NortyNort please read what I've written to [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss].

Look, I'm a passerby so far this article is concerned. I don't care what one says about the company! However, I do care about what people say about wikipedia as a reliable source of data. And to fill an article with citations from itself is beyond justification, in my opinion! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, it was requested for deletion by an editor with an agenda, and of course it was laughed away. If you want to make your point in the article, tag all the citations you disapprove of with the "better source" template, as suggested earlier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Those millions of people who consider Wikipedia a reliable source are, sadly, misinformed. I think Wikipedia is a fabulous resource, but they need to know its issues, some of which are addressed at Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. As far as promotion within the article, that can be repaired. The article is not unsalvageable by any means. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, with its "anyone can edit" philosophy, is by definition inherently unreliable. It merely serves as a summary, a guideline, that might stand alone or might lead to further research. As you said earlier, he needs to do the right kind of tags - and better yet, to do the actual work of improving the article, rather than expecting someone else to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl, the fact that the article is not beyond salvageable was my fist reaction too. To salvage it we need to ensure that neutrality is foremost in our mind. And do you think (a humble question) it will be fair to let statefarm.com talk about it in wikipedia? I would request an administrator to watch the page and help improve it. Look, I, as an editor will move on with other articles (I'm more interested in) and my own blog. It is sad indeed that we, as a part of the community, are failing to stop advertisements by large corporations! I would also request one of the admins to give a final verdict about the article. Many thanks Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fair to let statefarm.com source some of the material in that article, so long as the material meets these guidelines: WP:SPS. If material goes beyond those guidelines, additional or better sources are necessary. We don't have any evidence that statefarm themselves placed this content; plenty of articles use official sources to supplement information. I have myself used official sources to supplement information. For example, there's no reason at all to doubt the location of their corporate headquarters or the year they were founded. Not all information is contentious. I don't know what final verdict you want on the article, but as an admin I'll give this one: "It's not unusable; it could be better." That said, admins don't have any greater authority on that kind of thing than anybody else. :) (See WP:ADMIN.) There's nothing wrong with requesting that the article be improved, but it is important to use the right tags to do so. And helpful to be diplomatic about it, as people's feelings can be understandably ruffled when the quality of their work is challenged. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright Moonriddengirl, feedback taken... I'll vide WP:SPS and try to find time to improve the article myself. I'll keep in touch with you, since you know about the issue and helped resolve it a great deal, about making changes to this article, if not even others. But let's make sure that the article is neutral and of better quality. Furthermore, I'm grateful, you intervened. :) .. Keep guiding me! Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

He also continues to accuse the editors of deliberately acting on State Farm's behalf, which is a bad-faith assumption and needs to stop unless he has evidence (as he was told already on the article talk page). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

IP advocating suicide

Resolved

74.5.116.156 made this edit. Sounds like it's "encouraging" suicide. Bejinhan talks 12:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Tame, but blocked 2 weeks anyway. They'd received a final warning last week. –xeno^talk 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

24.180.106.119

24.180.106.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be on a wiki rampage. I have warned him about his conduct, but he insists on removing Nazi allegiance flags from WWII articles. I suspect it is blocked user JKGREINEDER who has been blocked for this and other things. Dapi89 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've explained the situation to the IP, and informed them of the consequences of continuing to remove the flags. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaand.....he's gone straight back at it [3] [4]. It appears blocking may be the only language he can hear in. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 48h, let's see if that makes a difference. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

IP trying to hack my account

Resolved

 – No security concern. Stickee (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I just got the following email from Wikipedia:

Someone from the IP address User talk:69.178.194.140 [a blocked vandal] requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "TomCat4680" is "(removed)". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org

Please stop this blocked vandal who is holding a grudge from hacking my account. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a hack. He simply press the "Email new password" bottom on the Log-in page. Unless he or she has access to your Email account (doubtful), he or she can't retrieve the temporary password. This happens all the time, even to me. He or she can't see your Emails, so there isn't a security risk. He or she can't get into your account. Your old password should still work. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'm pretty sure they don't have access to my email account. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore it. It's a long-term vandal. –MuZemike 03:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How come the IP talk page was moved to a different location? [5] - - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know but I noticed User:Ohnoitsjamie blocked him for 30 days for doing the same thing to him. I'd suggest an indefinite block. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

IPs cannot be indef'd - too high a risk of collateral damage. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 17:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding this situation

Having had this happen to me several times over the years I have always wondered why the "change password" function is open to being used by any IP editor? Is there some way that it could be protected from being clicked on by anyone other than the registered editor whose "my preferences" page it is attached to? Not being very programming savvy I don't know how easy/difficult this would be. Perhaps it could be included in a future version XXX update. Thanks to anyone who can educate me on this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think this is "change password" as such. This function is for people who have forgotten their password and are requesting a new one be e-mailed to them. Wknight94 ^talk 17:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not the "change password" option that's open to everyone (that would be silly), but the "recover my password" option from the login screen. This has to be open to anyone, because when you notice you need it, you will have been logged out, and maybe your laptop with the cookie on it is at the bottom of a lake or something. MediaWiki implements the "recover password" option in a very smart way - no "please supply your mother's maiden name from her Facebook page" nonsense - but the annoying emails come with the smart implementation. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So anyone can request a new password but only the person with access to the account's email address can see it? Makes sense. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. Plus, it never discloses the original lost password regardless, so even an attacker who compromises someone's email address won't get access to a password that might be used elsewhere. Apart from the unavoidable fact that the email has to be transmitted in plain text, it's really quite secure. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the explanation. The distinction between the "log in" page and the "my preferences" page is one of those things that I would never have thought of. It is a shame that disgruntled IP's can mess with registered users like this but we all put up with worse from time to time. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 18:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits of User: 124x247x221x146

124x247x221x146 (talk · contribs) has been constantly changing and blanking out sections of numerous airport-related articles without much / no explanation. This particular user is also engaged in several edit wars. If you refer to his / her talk page, you will find that there have been several warnings made. Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 12:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth taking a look at this. It is possible that (s)he has edited using that IP. I don't know, is (s)he allowed to have a username with his IP, but replacing the dots with "x"es? HeyMid (contributions) 13:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: In the future, please remember that you must notify any user you discuss by using {{subst:ANI-notice}}. HeyMid (contributions) 13:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments - I've informed Toyotaboy95 (talk · contribs) of the need to change his signature. I've also raised the issue of 124's editing earlier with Admin MilborneOne, having warned 124 and another editor over edit warring yesterday. The other editor has responded with positive discussion and has ceased engagement with 124 over their editing, which leads me to think that 124 is the problem. I've no objection to any other admin taking action here before MilborneOne replies to me, if they think such action is justified. Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is an edit warring issue, is there a reason we aren't at the edit warring noticeboard? Just wondering. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, def-initely... however, a block may not be justified now, since it appears he has calmed down. HeyMid (contributions) 14:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It appeared at first sight to be an edit war, but when one of two parties engages in civil discussion after a warning, and agrees to desist, then it looks more like one editor is editing disruptively than two editors fighting over an article. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In passing...

I thought Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and under some kinfd of injunction against pages like User:Abd/Sandbox where he constantly restates his side of everything as fact and refuses to accept anyone else's POV as valid? Guy (Help!) 07:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure his topic ban expired earlier this month per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_banned_from_cold_fusion_article. AniMate 07:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No ban (expired). No injunction relating to this. User:Abd/Sandbox? Eh? That page was used, and stands since Sept. 18, as a copy of Talk:Cold fusion, with all of my prior comments removed, and those of another editor, to measure edit volume in various ways. JzG, if you want to edit my Sandbox, fine. Say whatever you want! Permission granted. But bringing this to AN/I? --Abd (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI is an appropriate place for allegations of ban violations. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not for a ban placed by ArbComm. It would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. There, one is required to cite the ban, so time wouldn't be wasted with an expired ban. You can also look at WP:RESTRICT and see almost all current restrictions, normally including expiration dates. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But it remains inappropriate for you to be editing a restriction that was imposed on you by ArbCom (example). You should've left it to someone else who is not involved and specifically not the subject of the restriction - even if it was no longer in force. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? NCMV, what is the object of telling me this? Should I revert that change? If I just reverted without clear advice, I could be violating WP:POINT. I'll happily do it if you will confirm that it was truly inappropriate. Or, again, if I edited inappropriately, why didn't you, seeing that, revert it? I thought it would be, instead, helpful, to avoid the mess of someone thinking I was banned when I wasn't, and that this would help out with maintenance of that page. I thought that this was what WP:IAR required. Sure, if it had been controversial, I shouldn't have touched it with a ten-foot pole. But it wasn't controversial. Or was it? --Abd (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You are permitted to discuss a dispute in which you are an originating party, but it remains inappropriate for you to edit the restrictions that were imposed on you. Hopefully someone (who actually has the patience to deal with your level of clue, style of interaction and type of editing) will make you understand the problems with your general editing before further sanctions become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me translate this: the edit was good, but the editor is to be reprimanded for making a good edit. Does this mean that WP:IAR is dead? I have always understood that if an edit was uncontroversial, it didn't matter who made it, that COI and similar rules applied only to controversial edits. NCMV, it seems to me that you are, here, violating WP:POINT, making a fuss over nothing, to make a point about me. I hope that this is the end of that. --Abd (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Abd, I would say that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. But I do think you need to do something about your volume of comments on the Cold fusion talk page. You need change form "lecturing mode" where you play the role of a professor who needs to explain or convice students about something, to "collaborative research mode" where you play the role of a researcher who collaborates with other researchers. It is then ok. to point to a new article and explain in a few sentences what you think it shows, but it is up to your collaborators to pick up on that. You shouldn't be lecturing about the small details and present detailed arguments why you are right, unless they clearly indicate that they want such a detailed argument from you.

If people don't pick up on your comments, you can ask in one or two sentences why they don't find your point convincing. From the answer, you can see if it is worthwhile to continue the argument. But always proceed in a manner where you minimize the number of words you use. It is not difficult to let your collaborators do most of the talking. If you proceed in this way, it is easy to sense if in a particular case, a long explanation by you would be welcome. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the sensible advice, Count Iblis. I try to follow it. I cut way back on my posts there when asked to do so. However, there was some very striking news recently, the whole topic is heating up, and what's been going on there for years -- driving away many contributors -- is becoming very obvious, to those who know the sources. Most editors don't. So, it's tough. I'm looking for a mentor, by the way. No reasonable offers refused. --Abd (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the topic ban caused you to save all your enthousiasm generated by the recent news events over the last year for this topic :). But remember that Wikipedia articles should not report on the latest news. About mentoring, you could approach a few editors who you trust and who understand the problem that your editing style sometimes causes. Create a directory on your userpage on which they can give you feedback. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

code or tag problem: The Chocolate Soldier

Resolved

 – turned into a properly archived link. Amalthea 12:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This page won't let me fix the ref tags because of an oocities link (note that the oocities page linked is a good page transferred from geocities). The software won't let me fix the ref tag, even when I try to delete the external link first. Can someone please fix it? Thanks! The Chocolate Soldier. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I closed the ref tag and commend out the oocities link that is blocked. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:WikiProject External links/Geocities for background and what to do about this sort of thing. Uncle G (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Intention to mass-revert edits that changed geocities to oocities

Since this request is still making its way through the BRFA process, I intend to mass-revert the semi-automated edits made by Updatehelper (talk · contribs) shortly (having the net result of restoring the original Geocities links ahead of the Anomie's bot providing the waybacklink), to prevent the spam blacklist tripping up editors which potentially results in the loss of possibly useful source material. I will be marking the edits with the bot flag to mitigate the impact to watchlists and recent changes. If there are any objections to this, please make them known. –xeno^talk 15:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I recommend advertising this at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Dropped a pointer there. –xeno^talk 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this even a remotely reliable source? Who created this page and are they a published expert in the field?--Crossmr (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Geocities links were used not only as references, but you're quite right that many are used as references, and many (or most) do not comply with WP:RS. That's an independent issue though, the cleanup of those links is being worked on at WP:WikiProject External links/Geocities and should be discussed and organized there. Amalthea 11:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Task complete. 1395 reverts. –xeno^talk 18:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Aitna deletion

the page

• Biancavilla- in talk - discussion the vandal edit delete
• Aitna - is vandal delete

The pages and the edit are been cancelled with a series of ripetut vandalisms without a valid motive.This vandal writing that the pages are copyvio from a nonexistent Italian text. Please blok this vandal and your ripetute vandalism on his talk User_talk:Vituzzu,where he write only in italian.In it.wiki he is a problems for many user.

Thanks for your assitance - --Alpha30 (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandals don't have the right to delete pages here. Neither have Italian sysops one of which User:Vituzzu is. Aitna · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] was deleted by User:Kimchi.sg as copyvio. I've declined to restore it at WP:REFUND as not uncontroversial. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a long term - crosswiki copyvio issue: about 70 images deleted on the Commons and almost all text on it.wiki and en.wiki, trying to hide all that with a lot of lies on source and other users. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Commons have just blocked Alpha30 for 24 hours. TFOWR 14:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Aitna page is an edit and the text not exist.It isn't a copyvio.There is the edit in this page [6] was already delete from an italian User:Vituzzu,we see his talk its all in italian.He is a real vandal for the edit here [7] ,it's only an edit not a copy.The only image in it have been deleted. thanks for all --Alpha30 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Alpha30 has unwisely restored the Aitna article. I never saw the original version, so I don't know whether this version has the same copyright violation, but I know that someone should check this. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's the same copyvio. One, two. --Demart81 (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and salted for a month. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Outrageous attack

Resolved

 – socks blocked Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I object strongly to having my edits referred to as "terrorism". Please take the appropriate action, thank you. O Fenian (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This rediculous. O Fenian, has been involved in edit warring on the Giant's Causeway wp and has also made accusations of sock puppetry. Can this user please be blocked. I am fed up with this.Factocop (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made no accusation of sockpuppetry towards you, please do not make false allegations. O Fenian (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Factocop blocked 24 hours for the "terrorism" comment. Can someone take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City and see if he needs to be indefed for evasion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said in my evidence there, I did not add Factocop to the report and I do not actually believe him to be a sockpuppet of The Maiden City, although he has been seemingly dancing to whatever tune The Maiden City's latest sockpuppets have been asking him to. O Fenian (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that Factocop (talk · contribs) and Blue is better (talk · contribs) are one and the same. O Fenian (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone at the SPA has said that all the confirmed have been blocked up, but they haven't. I'm just off out so can't do it but can someone take care of it please? Case already archived I don't want them to slip under the radar. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Factocop and Blue is better are now indef blocked. Blue is better as a checkusered sock and Factocop per DUCk on The Maiden city--Cailil ^talk 18:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on template:nfl predraft

The template in question is constantly being edit warred over the style of presenting the feet/inches. Discussion on the talk page isn't getting anywhere, and I mentioned this at the NFL Wikiproject, but I still haven't had enough editors on the talk page to calm the "warriors" down. Should this be discussed here or on template talk:nfl predraft? — Timneu22 · talk 19:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is a disagreement about an extremely minor detail. The edit has been reverted three times in about the last 2 weeks. I don't see any need for administrator intervention here, so I think this discussion can remain at the talk page. Why not try getting a third opinion, starting an RFC, and/or posting a message to a relevant WikiProject to get more involvement in the discussion and come to a clear consensus? SnottyWong ^confer 21:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Biancavilla

User:Alpha30 added such a copyvio-patchwork three times, now as 87.19.96.147, also Aitna has been created twice with the same "technique". I don't know how en.wiki use to manage issues like this so I'm asking for admins' intervention. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Aitna has been "salted" (protected against recreation). By tradition, en.wiki will refer you to WP:SPI for allegations of sock puppetry, and by tradition at least one admin will ignore that and take a look at issues reported here. I'll be that admin, and take a look at 87.19.96.147. TFOWR 20:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Both editor & IP address informed of ANI. a_man_alone (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I revdeled the copyright infringing sections, and semi-protected the page for a month. If the ip's actions are found to be malicious (it is not obvious to me that they are), the page can be unproctected after the ip is blocked. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhm it's a really **big** range and the user is so used to change IP...--Vituzzu (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, semi-protection it is then :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Interactions between User:SlimVirgin and User:J Milburn are getting out of hand.

{{resolved}}Users have reached an agreement not to interact with each other anymore. As such, admin attention is not necessary. If interactions resume and get testy or out of hand, bring it back to ANI. Otherwise, move along folks, nothing to see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Struck/reopened, see below-DePiep (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)}}

Interactions between these two administrators are getting out of hand. There's a hell of a lot of heat developing here, and it's boiling over. Threats to report, personal attacks, accusations, you name it. This has spilled over into several places:

• User_talk:SlimVirgin#Your_campaign
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/J Milburn Bot 4
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_September_14#File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#Fair-use_images_of_the_Holocaust

and probably a lot more. I'm not recommending an interaction ban at this point, but it might be a good idea to ask both administrators to undertake efforts to avoid each other, at least for the time being. Would some other administrators please take a look at this? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am talking to SlimVirgin on her talk page about our interactions generally. I would be happy to keep this between the two of us, if she is. I don't think either of us want this here. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, what goes on between two consenting administrators need not be brought into the public spotlight unless dialog breaks down and they start flinging bodily excretions at eachother. –xeno^talk 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that picture in my mind, Xeno. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we've reached a conclusion of sorts- neither of us has any intention of interacting with the other any more, and we have had some discussion about the underlying issues. Perhaps this thread could be closed? J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Xeno agreed above that no admin attention was needed, so I will close it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The underlying dispute (on fair use) is generating a lot of heat, as seen in Talk:Battle of Berlin#Free equivalent of the Reichstag photo. I think if J Milburn or someone should open a centralized discussion on fair use of historic photographs. With all the concurrent discussion going on, each with only a few participants, it is likely to turn personal. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not sure how an intention to avoid eachother will help if the underlying dispute continues. –xeno^talk 23:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need some central discussion about Holocaust images. They are almost never free. Even when on the Commons, even when given us by the Bundesarchiv, they are not free because of their age, and because we almost never know who the authors were, or if we do know, releases aren't possible. Every so often an admin with strong views about non-free images will pop up (Rama last time, J Milburn this time) and try to have them deleted, always unsuccessfully so far as I know, leaving long discussions, RfCs, AN/Is, and so on in their wake. It would be great to get it resolved in general terms without the personal issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a general discussion about WWII images. Far fewer of these are free than people think, because changes to copyright laws in the last 60 years has generally extended copyright for everything. Having at one point had an interesting discussion with one of the guys who was originally involved in the policy (or so I believe), it is not meant to prevent the use of historic photographs because of copyright issues - something Paul Seibert has also picked up on in the Battle of Berlin discussion. The aim was to restrict the use of commercially available images of current events/people/objects by encouraging people to go out and make free alternatives - something that cannot be done for photographs from WWII.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the potential dispute is related to images of the Holocaust. While I appreciate the copyright related work J Milburn is doing on the 95% of Wikipedia content that is not included in the "actually usefull stuff", I can see problems arising on all images that are or could be labeled as {{Non-free historic image}}. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, Elen, as someone involved in the Battle of Berlin discussion, I'm going to totally agree we need some type of centralized discussion if that's the current thinking on things. The idea of NFC is to minimize the amount of nonfree content we use altogether, not only to encourage free photos of current things. This is a free content project, so we should always look to any possible alternatives (including prose alone with no image, existing free alternatives, etc.), before concluding that an image is so essential to comprehension of a subject that it's worth compromising one of our core goals (being free content) to include. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that many editors would find the position that we can't use Holocaust images because they compromise our non-free status to be a reductio ad absurdum of the non-free stance. What use is an educational project that won't allow itself to educate? Hence the need for the discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I struck the "Resolved" since the talk is continuing here afterward.

Which gives me the opportunity to chip in two questions, back on-topic. First: OP by Hammersoft: two administrators are getting out of hand. Why is it relevant that they are admins? Second, maybe they can do this among each other, but the list Hammersoft mentions has three out of four debates not in Userspace (And indeed, there are more). I recall describing how a discussion was spoiled by this. -DePiep (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do see some substandard cluefulness in some of J Milburn's participation, such as the BRFA (CBM's comments in it are correct) and that pedophile thread. J Milburn is certainly entitled to form any opinions s/he likes about pedophilia or any other topic, but per NOTFORUM and NOTFREESPEECH, Wikipedia is not a venue in which to debate those opinions. Re the WW2 images, SV is being a bit heated, but if she wants to propose adjustments to the NFCC policy regarding them, she's entitled to do that (I'm not convinced it's advisable). Re the SV-JM conflict, voluntary disengagement for a while is surely the simplest thing. If SV really wants to pursue dispute resolution she's going to need more evidence than I've seen so far (not that I've looked very hard, but I did click the diffs and looked over the BRFA). Anything like that should be done in a central place like RFC, not multiple arguments scattered all over the wiki. Right now what I see doesn't warrant formal remedies, but is enough to express a general view that both should ease up a bit. 66.127.54.226 (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that SV or anyone here wants to propose adjustments to the NFCC policy. What may be happening is that J Milburn is shaking the established status quo on historic photographs. What makes this worse is that the discussions are continuing on an on, as if one or both sides were stonewalling. In the protracted cases, I think that in the protracted cases J Milburn should just step away. If his point-of-view needs defending, I am sure Wikipedia has other editors that will defend it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri, you have made it quite clear that you do wish to change the NFCC, as you seem to be of the belief that "historical media" (whatever that means) is exempt. That's simply not the case. There is no reason "historical" media should be treated any differently to the things you don't care about in terms of non-free content- our policy applies to all non-free content. You sitting here and accusing me of "shaking the established status quo on historic photographs" is a little rich. You may not like it, but we do actually have a policy on non-free content, and non-free content is non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we change the NFCC, and neither is anyone else. What I am simply saying is that historic photographs is the locus of the dispute. I simple solution would be that you step back from the area of dispute and let others deal with the fair use issues – or that you at least pay more attention to the arguments of the people defending these photographs. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're not suggesting they are or should be treated differently by policy, why are you singling them out? J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, would you look at that?

As I made clear, I do not make a habit of watching this board, so, please, whether you're opening or reopening or whatever, notify me. I think this has to be said- SlimVirgin is a drama lover. She's not happy unless she's in the middle of a fight. I am very much the opposite; I do everything I can to avoid a fight, despite what SlimVirgin would have you believe. SlimVirgin's love of drama can easily be observed by her interactions with me- immediately after saying she wants no further interactions with me, she comes to this thread and talks about me (so, I guess that's our mutual no-interaction idea out of the window...). Despite being a long-time very active editor working in often controversial areas, you'll note that my appearances on the noticeboards have been very few and far between- yet, since starting my interactions with SlimVirgin, I have found myself here twice. SlimVirgin has made it quite clear that her issue is with me, personally, and not with my conduct- take for instance, her first reply to that damn deletion nomination, here. She for the most part completely ignored the NFCC, instead implying that I had an issue with, or was part of some campaign against, "Holocaust images". She also couldn't wait to bring up my participation in the discussion on paedophilia, because, obviously, that was so relevant. Take the bot discussion- she opens with "I don't understand bots and bot approval" and then goes on to oppose purely because it's me. She later used it as yet another place to attack my character, despite the fact I had just invited her to discuss it with me privately. She felt the need to bring up paedophilia and the Holocaust. I wonder if she could have thought of any worse things to imply? I think "private discussion" is a little boring for SlimVirgin, because where's the drama in that? SlimVirgin has a ridiculously jaundiced view of me, and she has made clear that it is her intention to wander around slandering me whereever I go, repeatedly threatening me with "taking it higher" unless I "change" to be more like her. She has even criticised me for not taking part in ANI threads and taking time off Wikipedia (something I did once) when, in the same breath, she accused me of seeking out drama and being the cause of a lot of it. (In response to some points made in this thread- 66.127.54.226, the paedophilia issue was relaated to Wikipedia, it was a discussion about Wikipedia policy, not some kind of discussion about paedophiles generally. Here is absolutely the place. Petri, the non-free content criteria, it may alarm you to find out, applies to all non-free content. Not non-free content in articles that Petri has not determined to be "actually usefull stuff", and not non-free content other than non-free content that someone has decided is "historical"). J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Milburn is a nice person. I can attest to that. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "historical" – Hmm, I do understand why some people may think they are speaking to a wall. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I find this a good description, concurring with what I've read from SV lately. Astonishing news to me is, that SV is an admin (SV can revoke me rights?). And in these elaborate discussions, no admin stepped in to restrain such a noise maker. Now, working forward constructively to improve Wikipedia, I propose a policy that can block a User (admin or not, but there might be levels), a User distrurbing a discussion from that discussion. Especially, since decisive discussions might be only seven days. Let's not reward the disruptors with a victory-by-distractions. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Block a user from disturbing a discussion from that discussion. Who gets to decide what "disturbing" a discussion actually is? And who gets to block them based on that decision? We don't block editors for civilly discussing an issue (devoid of personal labels like "noise maker"), even if they choose to filibuster. Seven days is too short, so silence the "noise makers"? I think not, good sir... Doc9871 (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution here is to ban Slimvirgin from interacting with or commenting about J Milburn anywhere on Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's far from the "obvious solution" to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@Jtrainor - that's not going to work, as it would prevent SV from participating in the very image deletion discussions that kicked this off. Although I do agree that walking away from each other now would help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this ANI thread with interest, but I am not familiar with the background discussions of the image files, and I am deliberately not going anywhere near them. So I have no knowledge of the merits of the arguments. I also haven't crossed paths with J Milburn that I can remember. But, having read J Milburn's description at the top of this sub-thread, I have an intense feeling of recognition. It matches exactly the pattern of SlimVirgin's conduct towards me, ever since I was a newbie editor and committed the apparently mortal sin of editing some animal rights pages in ways with which SlimVirgin disagrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Trypto is piling on because he too doesn't like to be disagreed with and takes it personally. His mischaracterizations are familiar and tiresome.-PrBeacon (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, none of that is true. You previously tried to raise this at WQA, and were told by uninvolved editors there that your characterizations of me are without substance. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That was a separate issue & your recollection is faulty or disingenuous. You have a long history of disputes with SlimVirgin which devolve into petty bickering since, when you lose the arguments on content and policy, you resort to snide and dismissive retorts. Much like others who disagree with SV, apparently. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually your claims at WQA were exactly the same thing. I'm sure disinterested editors here can judge for themselves the tone I use, versus the tone PrB is using. But I'm sorry that this thread, about the concerns raised by J Milburn, are being sidetracked by a pro-animal rights editor. The only part of what you said that is true is that I have a long history with SlimVirgin. It started when I was a very new editor, and was not at all as you described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that anyone cares: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Tryptofish bullying other editors on PETA article. WQA, as I described it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon is right. You've been doing it for years, and you've been asked many times to stop. You're now trying to keep this thread going when it's well passed its sell-by date, simply because it's about me. J Milburn and I disagreed about Holocaust images. We had a discussion on my talk page. We have moved on. There's no reason for you to try to involve yourself after the fact. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't expect you to agree with me, obviously. J Milburn said something here, and I endorsed it in part. My subsequent comments were reactions to other editors, not an attempt to prolong this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Doc9871: who gets to decide on disturbing -- well, such decisions are made daily, e.g. by admins. Disturbing edits, texts, behavior, you know. We don't block editors for civilly discussing an issue -- is what I said. Actually, I said it mirrored: block those who don't. Ah, and didn't I smell that good old you too argument. Always useful, I should note that one. -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• @DePiep: You speak of "admins" and "disturbing edits". Is utter crap like this "civilly" discussing anything? And then you reinsert[8] it after he removed this garbage, which is his right? On open invitation for all admins to "get a mind"? Good luck on that "new" policy you propose above: seriously. And yes, there's a "You, too" clause attached to all editors, even those that you feel are simply just making noise. It's called civility, and it's already a policy. Focus on the edits, not the editors, DePiep... Doc9871 (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about the situation, but I think Jtrainor's solution might be the best, or at least for a little while until things calm down. Elen brings up a good point, but there are other things SV can do in the meantime. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-interaction bans hardly ever work unless they're two-way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread should be moved here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what SlimVirgin's response is to being being called a 'drama lover.' -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Replying to the two posts directly above, it would be very unfortunate if this AN/I thread were to attract trolls, but let us be very clear that J Milburn began the thread by raising serious and appropriate concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It may help if they both sign up for an account at WR and talk things over there. My experience here at Wikipedia is that when two parties in a dispute start talking without the big community watching every exchanged word (and interfering), it often helps to resolve the dispute. SV can't do this own talk page as it is watched by so many people. Count Iblis (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I misinterpreted your previous comment to mean that you thought this discussion was becoming the kind of (fill in the blank) thing that some of us perceive WR to be. If instead you are suggesting WR as a good place to pursue dispute resolution, well, let's just say that external websites have no standing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Andranikpasha

I think such comments must be noticed by administrators.diff. The user's 3 month block has just finished and he is doing such things. I really don't understand it.--Quantum666 (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor informed - as I was passing by. a_man_alone (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue, I presume, is with the edit summary - "dirty azeri propagand"? I'd agree that that's not good. I'm unfamiliar with the editor or the topic, and hoping that better informed admins can weigh in - I don't really have time to look into this now. I have copy-edited the article a wee bit: it described the subject as a "terrorist" group, which it really shouldn't, per WP:WTA. The next sentence notes that several organisations believe the subject to be a terrorist group, and that's fine. We report what others say - we don't use words like "terrorist" ourselves, per WP:NPOV. TFOWR 10:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Although in this request I didn't mean disagreement with the edit itself thank you for your comment. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quantum666, you're using double standards. You must mention that I commented on your continuous POV-pushing, which I called a dirty azeri propagand. So you even do not reject that you know Wiki rules, you know that your edit is against WP:WTA, but you're pushing your attacking view again and again. Than if it is not a dirty azeri propagand, but what?? Are you a baby, who is just mistaken, or maybe you're not responsible for your behaviour, or what else? Andranikpasha (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And I have sources calling azeri army terrorist. If I made it terrorist in Wiki article, will you assume good faith? Andranikpasha (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Ppwrong

Resolved

 – Report actioned by Administrator Georgewilliamherbert

Need your urgent help with Ppwrong (talk · contribs). He keeps adding incorrect information and keeps edit warring. He confuses the Indian National Film Awards with the Rashtrapati Award, loading the Best Actor/Actress pages with false and unsourced names. I asked him to cite sources but all he does is citing Wikipedia pages, keeping his reverts, and above all, using personal attacks, calling me a racist for no reason and using capitals. He also simultaneously uses an IP account - 121.247.113.58 (talk · contribs) to add his false data. His edit summaries contain incorrect statements. The user was warned in the past for other disruptive edits and his IP has already been blocked. I don't want to revert him now because I'm sure he will keep reverting so I don't think it will make sense. Please help. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Tollygunge (talk · contribs) is his sock puppet. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Notified the user here. There does appear to be clear IP editing associated with this user, I have given a single issue warning for the totally unfair racist allegation the user made in this edit summary, as I have experienced the user has multiple issue that if they don't either start discussing or backing off an editing restriction may well be the best way to start them listening to general policy and guideline advice. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User is quacking more now creating multiple accounts User:Prem87 is a new one, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So is loud revert account creation quacking ok, and is this an OK edit summary.. GUESS UR NOT BLIND - GUESS UR A RACIST ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Investigating - applied 3 day semi-protection while I do so to stop the edit warring. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3 day anon-only block on the IP (I hardblocked but reversed myself to a softblock immediately, will deal with accounts 1 by 1). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

...Ppwrong blocked for 1 week for NPA, sockpuppetry, and disruption; Prem87 and Tollygunge indefinitely as sockpuppets. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Thanks for looking at this issue and for your Administrative actions Georgewilliamherbert. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed, plus about 4 other socks. –MuZemike 06:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Eversman

User:Jayjg suggest I post a notice. I'm following up on User:Eversman, whom I understand has a long history of mal-edits, his talk page regularly blanked, multiple blocks and much disruption. Since April 2010 at least he's been amending BLPs to state the people are practising Catholics and adding a "Roman Catholic" categories, based on their parent's religion, misquoting sources. Most of these hundreds of edits stand unamended, as far as I can see. He is still reverting attempts to modify or balance what is written as at Pierce Brosnan. He is still going strong. Please advise. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You should have notified him, but I've done that, and noted on his talk page that he never responds on his talk page. You might want to see WP:BLP which says "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This bothers me a bit coming so shortly after the notice, but it's hopefully a coincidence. 115.164.72.70 (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User Spanglej should have responded the issue of Pierce Brosnan on his talk page, where I have posted a message. And it is not true I have been adding a "Roman Catholic" categories based on the parent's religion, anyone can see that in every article I've changed. Also, I have not been been amending BLPs to state the people are practising Catholics, I have been adding info that they where raised Catholics and every time I have provided reliable reference. So, it is not nice that Spanglej is misleading the admins in hope that they will take actions against me. P.s. I don't have multiple blocks set against me, only 2 which all where made by User:Jayjg to whom you have made a complaint. So, another lie you have told. With regards --Eversman (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I think it is only to my concern what I do with my talk page. Anyone can see history edits of my talk page, so It is obviously that I got nothing to hide, but why I do it is only up to me.--Eversman (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes it is--but it's not in the cooperative spirit of the project. I've edited the article and explained myself in my edit summary and on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I have moved through the incidents procedure in the wrong order. I am new to this. I pursued the question too hotly, no doubt. I did raise this on the Brosnan talk page and other pages where edit wars are going on. My intention is not at all to mislead but to flag on-going conflicts and unremitting contravention of policy that is, in my view, compromising, hundreds of articles. From Eversman's talk page history it is clear that the issue of controversial religious classification has been on-going for years. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What issue of controversial religious classification that has been on-going for years? Every article I've changed has been reliable sourced and that is a fact that anyone can check. Please STOP with misleading the admins about my contribution to Wiki, it is not nice in anyway.--Eversman (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The key point is the part of the BLP policy referred to above: "... the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life ..." I'd suggest Eversman carefully consider whether their edits to so many articles are in accord with that. In BLP, it's not necessary to add a fact (or category) just because you can. A quick review of Eversman's contributions and edit summaries suggest that the key point above may have been missed. --RexxS (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My recent interactions with Eversman, on Talk:Pierce Brosnan, suggest that while we are dealing here with a somewhat obstinate user some of whose edits are not made out of concern for the correctness of BLPs. I don't think there's anything here that requires an administrator's oversight, though I am glad Spanglej gave the matter some public attention (and I must admit I have not gone through Eversman's edit history and so cannot judge the scale of these alleged BLP violations). I would appreciate some of the passers-by here to drop by Brosnan's talk for commentary, since that is the only place where Eversman is communicating about a specific edit they made; the opinion I gave there could be entirely wrong, and the community's input is valued as always. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

After seeing this edit and its summary I feel a bit differently--perhaps it is a good idea to not close this yet, and to let others weigh in. Should this be moved to the BLP board? Drmies (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Eversman has added Catholic categories, without evidence of practise as an adult, to around 700 pages since February 2010, in my estimation. These are in addition to unsourced adds to Jewish ancestry and other categories of ethnicity dating from 2007. Since June 2010, pages with Catholic category adds include Ross McCall , Jack White (musician), Megan Fox, Freddie Prinze, Jr., Simon Baker, Gerard Butler, Nicolas Cage, Nicholas D'Agosto, Matt Dillon, John C. Reilly, Ryan Murphy (writer), Ashton Kutcher, Heather Graham, Susan Sarandon, Brigitte Bardot and Tom Brady. There is a history of on-going edit wars over religious and ethic labelling. [9] [10] [11] [12] His two blocks were concerning this. He states "my source is for being raised Catholic and not quitting the church." And "anyone raised as a Catholic is a Catholic for life" . Thanks. Spangle (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is indeed troubling. I looked at the first three, and having found no evidence to warrant the categories, removed that information. I also raised the related issue of the categories themselves on the BLP board, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#.22Catholic.22_issues. I hope some other editors and some admins will look over this section and give their opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Spanglej, those two last diffs you gave, they misrepresent Eversman's words--anyone who looks at those edit summaries sees that they don't say what you make them say. I urge you to be more careful. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Apologies. My intention was to give the two diffs as evidence of edit-warring. Spangle (talk)
  • No problem, Spangle. Well, the discussion here and the remarks on the BLP board seem to confirm that the edits by the above editor are not in accordance with our BLP guidelines. It would be nice if they would comment here again, so at least we know that they know that we know, but that may be too much to ask. I don't think that administrative action is necessary at this point, but I do think that a block might be in the works if the editor persists in this behavior. I'll leave a note on their talk page; perhaps someone can close this discussion, unless anyone objects? Drmies (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for everyone's time and feedback. I have learnt a lot. Best wishes Spangle (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:76.3.211.68

This IP is being used to communicate threats such as "I want to kill you", and specific threats such as "You will not remove my crap again. If you do, I will find out who you are, go to your house, and kill you!!!" Likely a sock, and IP has received "final warning," but I am reporting here because the nature of the threats go beyond simple vandalism. -RoBoTam^ice 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that these edits were made five days ago. I'll leave the block up for now, but if someone feels it's unnecessary at this point, then go ahead and remove it. I'll go about revdeleting the threats, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Content of the three edits specifically noting death were deleted. I left the others as they seem to be your regular run-of-the-mill vandalism. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think two weeks is fine, even if the edits are five days old. Shouldn't be too much of a problem for anyone, really, especially if it is a sock IP. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a prude, but such death threats are normally reported to the authorities, trolling or not. Such stuff should come to the attention of law enforcement. –MuZemike 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit hard to report them to the authorities when it has been RevDel'ed? -Stickee (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why we don't RevDel evidence. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The threats are quite obviously Rev-deleted. The real question is why? It does no one any harm to see the threats in the history. This is just another completely unneeded use of revision deletion to censor the history when there's no need to. Buddy431 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that revdel is sometimes overzealously used. This is exactly the sort of thing that should stay in the history in case he gets up to any more foolishness in the future. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I will note that he also [threatens to blow up the planet Earth], so, y'know, probably safe not to take him seriously. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Regulate (song)

Someone has created a "hip" plot summary of this song, full of inappropriate language and original research. The "summary" is thought of as hilarious by various external websites who keep linking to it, and every time the non-encyclopedic material is removed, some "helpful" editor restores it again. The issue has been brought up repeatedly on the article's talk page, but the advocates for the removed language just dismiss the rest of us as tired rigid oldsters who are against "fun" edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was linked to this on one of those said external websites, and my response was, "On the one hand, I want to delete it because it's unencyclopedic; on the other hand, I don't want to destroy something beautiful." (Though, I'm not seeing any inappropriate language. Verbose wording, too much wording, but nothing inappropriate...) --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I consider "verbose meme" style grossly inappropriate, as being totally non-encyclopedic. This is Wikipedia, not The Onion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• While the other concerns raised may have merit, I don't think it's original research as it does not "[advance] a position not advanced by the source". It's simply an explanation of the lyrics in (frankly hilarious) verbose meme style. –xeno^talk 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of unsourced assumptions about plotline, character motiviation, etc. in the summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Did this editor write those "unsourced assumptions" himself, or do they come from the cite he references? Fell Gleaming^talk 15:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The "references" are primarily to the lyrics themselves, and to a footnote in which he explains the reasoning behind his original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is "someone" Cander0000 (talk · contribs)? Because xe's done the same thing at Boyz-n-the-Hood (edit, from a draft at User:Cander0000/Boyz). Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It's clearly intended as a joke. The old "let's apply clinical/academic language to the analysis of a gangsta rap song! Lots-o-laffs" bit. Cander0000 has been given a final warning for creating and restoring these synopses. Regulate has been protected; will protect Boyz in the Hood if the meatpuppets descend upon it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • A straight-forward non-interpretive plot summary does not require any additional references, as the song itself serves as reference. However, in this case, although labelled as a "synopsis", it's actually an interpretation of the lyrics, and, as such, requires a citation from a reliable source to be included in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection. This nonsense has been going on for several days now. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And is still going on... --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Verbose meme "synopses" in rap track articles

Baby Got Back has one too. If Wikipedia is being targetted with these then that needs to stop. By any chance are they being lifted from some external source? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually checked into this on the 'Regulate' one, but it appears to be original writing. The same user who posted it here on the 21st posted it to another site on the 23rd, and no instances exist before the 21st (at least none that I found in my searching). –xeno^talk 12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Targets thus far

• • Parents Just Don't Understand
  • Gin and Juice‎
  • It Was a Good Day
  • Baby Got Back
  • Boyz-n-the-Hood
  • Regulate (song)

All clean at the moment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore. Please see Talk:Baby Got Back! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned that a user who reinstated the Baby Got Back synopsis was issued a final warning in the absence of any previous warnings. As it stands they're clearly edit warring and have nearly violated WP:3RR (and it may well be appropriate to block them for that), but issuing a final warning for inserting original research, with little previous discussion and no previous warnings to the user, is being a little gung-ho, imo. I think it's a mistake to treat all of these synopses as equally invalid: I noticed Baby Got Back a while ago and while it's clearly at least partly intended to be humourous, it appeared to at least be accurate; is it not better to remove the colourful language and cut it down to a serious discussion of the content (and discuss it on the talk page), rather than simply removing it and then issuing warnings to anyone who disagrees? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a clear violation of WP:OR, and it's plainly disruptive. Actually, the joke goes farther back than the "verbose meme," per this Snopes article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a violation of WP:OR. But since when does inserting original research warrant a final warning and then summary block? As I explained at Talk:Baby Got Back, there are multiple reasons why its reinsertion may not even be a matter of bad faith, and bad faith shouldn't be assumed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In each instance I've seen so far, it would be naive to pretend that the user wasn't aware of the humorous intent, and was trying to argue for it on technical grounds in an attempt to have some fun on Wikipedia. I've already tracked down one case of someone crowing about how funny it was on their blog, then showing up on the talk page to argue for inclusion with a straight face. If there was a case where there was some doubt as to whether a reversion was in good faith, I would consider giving additional warnings, but otherwise, it's best to nip problems like this in the bud before hip hop articles become a "haha this is funny and they can't revert it on technical grounds" free-for-all. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive (good faith?) edits by JuanF7

This is my first time resorting to this action, but I had after the user possibly forced a pretty good editor to leave. Anyway, JuanF7 (talk · contribs) has, for the past two weeks, been posting a good-faith edit(?) (see here) onto a section in the AS Monaco FC page. After being informed of the criteria for the section two days into his good-faith edit on his talk page, the user continued to do this for another two weeks. About a week ago, he took his incorrect good-faith edits to other pages, most notably Boca Juniors, and ignored comments issued by Bocafan76 (talk · contribs), who has subsequently semi-retired, possibly due to the inability to limit this user.

The user has recently switched to using this IP, 85.227.187.119, to insert the same information he has constantly been told not to input on the basis that it is incorrect. I don't know what will be accomplished by reporting this user because he/she ignores talk page comments. Maybe a message and final warning will eliminate the edits. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a borderline argument, and either one of you could be right. If I understand it correctly, you're objecting to JuanF7's addition of players to the "Notable Players" section of various team articles, because the players he is inserting only appeared in a relatively small number of games (i.e. under 30) with that team. The argument is whether "Notable Players" means "players who made a notable contribution to this particular team" or "players who are notable (in general) who played on this team at any time". I'm not sure which one of you is correct, or if there is a precedent set elsewhere on Wikipedia for this argument. However, if there is no precedent, then I think you should try to start a discussion (possibly via an RFC) to find a consensus. Then, if JuanF7 edits against an established consensus, you'd have a much stronger argument to use against him. SnottyWong ^babble 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the consensus seems to be this, which was recently discussed at WikiProject Football. I've done what was recommended and the player JuanF7 wants to insert will fail to meet the criteria of at least 100 appearances. If he continues to make the edit, either with his user name or IP, certainly something must be done? — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a consensus as far as Argentine clubs is concern, also this user keeps on adding original research as far as nationality is concerned, exmaples: the nationality of Claudio Borghi in the Boca Juniors, Argentinos Juniors and C.D. O'Higgins articles to named a few. Also for the nationality of Diego Rivarola in the Santiago Morning, C.F. Universidad de Chile and C.D. Palestino articles, he was warned about not adding content with out a reliable source, but he decided to ignored each warning. It is frustrating to know that this user violated at least 3 policies (WP:NOR, WP:DISRUPT and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry) and administrators don't really care. Regards--Bocafan76 (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

New day same old original research Boca Juniors, Claudio Borghi. Do the administrators care? Doesn't seem like it, at least that's what it seems like it to me. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:213.6.11.49

The IP user 213.6.11.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back, falling again into the same editing-warring style ([13],[14],[15]) absolutely ignoring warnings and blocks discussed here earlier. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please also note this diff and the next section here. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The used has blanked his talk page, probably trying to hide the amount of warnings: [16] --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

it's my own page and i clean it all the time, this is not the first time i clean it anyways; at least i do not delete sourced and referenced information to promote bias and propaganda.--213.6.11.49 (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

this user User:ElComandanteChe is promoting bias and propaganda, and was caught deleting sourced and referenced information, such as that has happened at Rawabi's page, and their edits were reverted by other admins. I believe and an action should be taken against User:ElComandanteChe and others who violate wikipedias rules and morals to promote bias and specific agendas.--213.6.11.49 (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think my behavior is inappropriate and violates Wikipedia rules, please support your claim with diffs. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ElComandanteChe

This user ElComandanteChe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back, falling again into the same editing-warring style ([17],[18],[19]) absolutely ignoring wikipedia rules and promoting propaganda and bias, and deleting information that is sourced and referenced.--213.6.11.49 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Note to "213.6.11.49" its the same incident, keep it in the same heading. Thanks--intelati^(Call) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

To (Call: thanks for the note; i thought that i messed up thats why i changed it again, my bad.--213.6.11.49 (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

While I would note that there is a strong editorial reason to exclude the remark (it really doesn't elevate understanding of the issue at all) It's factually correct for a typical definition of 'correct'. The ICRC (Red Cross) was given the role of determinator in matters related to the Geneva Convention (Number 4 specifically for the purposes of this discussion) and ruled so, a ruling affirmed by the UN. Whether that was the correct call is a matter of debate, but the fact that it was so ruled is not really a point of contention. Here's an online conservative think-tank look at it: here. All in all this boils down to a content dispute, not ANI worthy. -- ۩ Mask 02:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not about content dispute, but disruptive behavior, edit warring and battleground mentality. Please see the previous discussion and the whole edit history of the IP. My point is that the IP learned nothing from the blocks. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that (talk) promotes bias and propaganda by deleting sources and references, and is trying to block every one who does not agree with their propaganda!

I believe that (talk) should be blocked for violating wikipedia rules and promoting bias and not objective and neutral information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.11.49 (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

More signs of disruptive and tendentious editing by the IP user:

• [20] reverting to poorly formated version just for the sake of reverting
• [21] bios and "propaganda" accusations
• [22] uncivil comments

I afraid WP:COMPETENCY applies here more than anything else. :--ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Some editors have discussed rationally specific ideas, but not this IP. For him, it is racist and biased if an article doesn't clearly note "illegal" with every mention of "settlement" and would dare to use "village" instead of or in addition to "settlement" in any mention, or to use any word less inflammatory than "confiscated", etc. Repeatedly blocked for it (I think there are two or three IPs in this pattern at this one's favorite pages). There may be some useful ideas (other editors have discussed and come to consensus wordings or at least better cites), but this IP's only role is as an edit-warrior. Good call bringing to ANI...it's a contentious article topic, so need additional/less-involved admin eyes to decide on possible further blocking remedies. DMacks (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And here comes the 3RR violation, just in time to prove the point. A clear case of WP:PBAGDSWCBY, lol. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a 1-week block for disruptive/edit-warring after I saw this even after he's received numerous warning and blocks for edit-warring. Pretty obvious reversion/blind objection to any edit by those who oppose his edit-warring crusade. That's the third time he's been blocked for edit-warring in the same set of pages recently...others are welcome to adjust the block length as they see fit. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And his response is pretty classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. DMacks (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Behavior, Various pages

This user has made various unconstructive edits to James Molinaro and some other pages that I have not been involved with. Seems to enjoy edit warring, has repeatedly added content that sounds like original research and refuses to cite it. Wm.C (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Note: This user has refused any and all discussion.

Bad Block Review.

Resolved

 – Blocking admin has agreed to unblock on his talk page. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A administrator has blocked someone under arbcom enforcement. However the arb motion he is enforcing is expired. Please remove block on Count Iblis Immediately. Please see motion five[[23]]. This was not renewed at all and was recently archived after a attempt to reinstitute it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Before undoing an admin action, I would like to see a response from the admin in question, especially the diffs of the actions which led to the block. It should be noted that the expiration of an arbcom enforcement does not absolve an editor of all wrongdoing, nor does it present a tabula rasa by which all past actions of a user are erased as soon as the arbcom enforcement expires. A user's past actions are always relevent to the institution of a block, irrespective of any arbcom enforcement. I'd like to see more than just one side of this before acting. --Jayron32 04:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't belong here, this is an Arbcom related block and any review should be on AE and not here. --WGFinley (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's expired it should be removed immediately. Let's not policy wank here. [[24]] is the motion ytrying to reimpose sanctions and failing dismally. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not policy-wankery to withhold action until hearing from all parties. The admin who placed the block should be heard from before we summarily undo his/her block. Have you (or anyone) notified them? --Jayron32 04:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the blocking admin is to whom I responded. I have attached a diff showing we are not under topic restrictions. I had tried on the admins page but was threatened with a block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC) WGFinley is the blocking admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the blocking admin has agreed to unblock, per his talk page. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. The system has worked. Thanks to all (including Wgfinley). Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Did it work? Did HIIB take it directly to the admin first, and when unsuccessful open a case here? Did the editor open an unblock stating that his AE case was over? If yes to either of the above, then yes, the system worked. If opening an ANI came first, or was intent to put pressure on the admin, then it's brutally non-WP:AGF, and against the system. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

HIAB admitted his impatience on blocking admin's talk, so while this report was premature, it was not a breach of AGF. —DoRD (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

By saying that the system worked I never meant that everyone involved worked flawlessly, heaven forbid; I meant that those in positions of power behaved responsibly and with integrity, listened fairly to the concerns raised and rectified the problem quickly and with minimum drama. Also, IMO, coming to ANI to pressure an admin to rescind a block is an iffy proposition at best. If the ANI report is ill-timed, badly placed and/or without merit it can easily turn against the editor who made it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Update on Audit Subcommittee

The Audit Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee, tasked to review and act upon concerns and complaints about checkuser and oversight activities received from the community. Membership consists of three community representatives elected by the community, who serve one-year terms; and three arbitrators, who rotate through this assignment for approximately six months.

In advance of the scheduled election/appointment of community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee, a summary of activity has been posted on the subcommittee's report page.

The community is invited to discuss this report, as well as preferred methods and terms for the selection of community representatives to participate in the audit process. The result of the discussion will inform the Arbitration Committee on how best to proceed before progressing to another election cycle.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) Cross-posted by NW (Talk) 20:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

An editor found me on Facebook to continue a dispute

An editor who is friends with Andrew Stewart Jamieson found me on Facebook to continue a dispute, which was about adding citation-needed tags to the Jamieson article. Apparently, Jamieson saw this and was quite upset that his article needed citations for some reason, and sent out emails to his friends to try to undo these edits and attack me. Anyways, one of the editors searched me out on Facebook, to berate me there as well. The editor is User:Seaghdha. For now, could someone please explain to him Wikipedia's policy about citing references in articles? And that a citation-needed tag simply drects editors to places where references usually would be required, and makes no implications to the facts of the statement? Every time I try to explain these things to him, Seaghdha gives me a response such as this: "Yes, my mistake. Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig." Thank you for your time. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Question - What was said that makes you believe that the person who found you on Face book, is the same editor whom you are reporting here?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Seaghdha edits an article about himself, Patrick O'Shea, and in the edit history of that article and in the photo info that appears therein, Seaghdha identifies himself as Patrick O'Shea. The man on Facebook that is harassing me is named Patrick Michael O'Shea and referencing the dispute between us. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Did this harassment occur before or after you nominated Patrick O'Shea for deletion? The tagging dispute started before it. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

He sent me the message on Facebook before I nominated his article for deletion, and has not referenced the afd to me on Facebook at all thus far. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I would ask this reviewed again. I merely tagged the article in question as needing sources because it had none, and User:Seaghdha took this personally, searching me out on Facebook and berating me, calling me a pig and more. He should be rebuked for this uncivil and malicious actions and have someone point out to him the policy on citing sources, since he refuses to believe me when I direct him to appropriate policy pages. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We can't do anything about Facebook. Just block him there and try not to interact with him here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalking other users offsite is an issue that we deal with here, though. It's generally frowned upon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:DePiep

I've had enough of this. See the history of my talk page. Could some uninvolved admin take whatever action they deem appropriate? T. Canens (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You beat me here. Well, You closed a DRV, and you noted four times that you tally !votes. So I responded on your Talk. You might not want to "dignify" with a response, but there is no reason to delete my posts.

By the way, how can one become an admin within 600 edits? -DePiep (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I mentioned DePiep's "tactic" here in an above thread[25]. Straight-up trolling with an utter disregard for WP:BLANKING, IMO... Doc9871 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

DePiep: he can do whatever he wants on his own talk page; he's decided he does not want to continue the dialogue with you, and considering the tone of your first comment, I wouldn't want to continue the dialogue myself. My suggestion would be to back off. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)re Doc: Prove or withdraw. -DePiep (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop." For you to continually reinsert it is disruptive... Doc9871 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the edit warring on you part to restore your comment on his talk page was unacceptable, DePiep. He's free to remove it if he wants to. You could've asked for a second/third opinion elsewhere, but by insisting on hounding his talk page, you've only yourself at fault here. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)re Tony Fox: If it's about Talk, why ANI involvement then? No facts allowed at all? -DePiep (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

re Strange Passerby: I restored (undid) my comment just once. Later posts each were different. Says for Doc too: your comment ("trolling", "utterly" huh) is over the top. Does not help me nor truth. -DePiep (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I know about trolling because I did it once, and was told what it was. Haven't done it since, and you really shouldn't either. I'd read it all, but from "What Is A Troll?: "It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution." Kind of like, "Apart from keystrokes, you have added nothing to Wikipedia. Despicable." Learn fast and hard, or learn hard... Doc9871 (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have given DePiep a warning against further harassing T Canen in respect of this matter, per the Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. If they don't withdraw immediately, I would suggest a 48 hour block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not supposed to talk about this any more. Left: the 600 edit question. -DePiep (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost right, and that is the point. I shall ignore, at my admin discretion, the 600 comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Some reading that might be of interest to DePiep: Wikipedia:Editcountitis. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna answer the 600 question. It's somthing wrong with the edit counter, as he has been making blocks and so forth for months before his first "edit", as shown by the counter. Buggie111 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing wrong with the counter: the admin in question has four different (legal) IDs he uses, as he carefully explains on his talk page. The edit counter does not combines the counts for these 4 IDs, and only shows the edits made by each specific name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's really a botched rename (or maybe not botched and just slow). If you use popups you'll see that I have 23k+ edits by Mediawiki's (also buggy) count; a lot of these edits have not transferred from my old name and the edit counter only counts edits under my current name. T. Canens (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Little Professor encouraging disruptive behaviour

Yesterday, Little Professor gave the Barnstar of Good Humour to User:Bad edits r dumb. The reason the barnstar was given was 'epic trolling lol kthxbye'. Bad edits r dumb then replied: 'LOLOLOL, ur funny, but i try not to do to much trolling, i just help the encylopedia and fight vandals thx'. Bad edits r dumb was blocked on the 23rd for disruptive editing (72hrs, see talk page for full history), so I removed the barnstar, as this encourgaes the behaviour the user was/is blocked for. I'm concerned about Little Professor's actions, the problem with Bad edits r dumb is ongoing. Acather96 (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit inappropriate to take this straight to AN/I. You might want to review the boldface type at the top of this page: Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. You have made no attempt to contact me about your concerns or discuss them with me.

I made a single edit to the User's talk page in awarding him a Barnstar for Good Humour (which in my view was warranted). You subsequently removed the Barnstar, and I have made not made an issue out of this at all - I have not restored the Barnstar or made any other edits to the user's talk page. If you think it was inappropriate for me to have awarded him the Barnstar in the first place, then feel free to come over to my user page and we can discuss it. If you don't get a satisfactory response then of course you can come back to AN/I, but otherwise I don't see the role for administrative intervention here. Regards Little Professor (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps AN/I was a bit premature, but I also strongly disagree with your opinion on the barnstar being warranted. Please review the user's "contribution" and the efforts to correct them that have taken place. They include improper warnings, warnings for no violation, reverting to vandalized article, incomprehensible communication, rude edit summaries, and more. Please tell me what is humorous in that? If you still find humor, then perhaps an RfC is more appropriate than AN/I (assuming you feel strongly enough about it) since you have chosen to not restore the barnstar. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone may want to take a moment to explain talk page guidelines and suggestions to Little Professor (talk · contribs), namely: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30], and especially: [31]. Those notes are also showing a pattern of seriously lacking understanding of important Wikipedia policies.   Thorncrag  07:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

While a couple of the edit summaries are misguided as far as vandalism and civility, the reverts are all on his own talk page, and can be removed by him per WP:BLANKING. It's can be annoying and frustrating to many, I know, but it's not against policy to do this... Doc9871 (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

One suggestion for Little Professor: though your edit above to User:Acather96's text was rather mundane (changed "He was blocked" to "Bad edits r dumb was blocked"), I believe you should familiarize yourself with the guidelines for (not) editing other people's comments on AN/I, as well as (though not at issue here) the proper way for redacting (your) comments or adding to (your) existing comments. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:WikiDao using images with signature

Resolved

 – WikiDao understands the issue, there's nothing more to accomplish here. Looie496 (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

While he is not using images in his actual sig, he is using them with it on the Reference Desk and his own talkpage. I have attempted to discuss this with him but he maintains (somehow) that he is not in violation of the relevant points of WP:SIG#Images. He is now edit-warring to keep the images in, while inexplicably saying that removal must be gained via consensus on the RD talkpage. → ROUX ₪ 20:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I was watching that discussion. I personally think you're overreacting here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually not. I tried to point out in a polite and friendly way that what he was doing was in direct violation of WP:SIg. He claimed it was not. I explained how it was, he refused to address the points raised (which generally indicates that someone knows exactly why they're wrong), so I removed them. It is a clear and distinct violation of the intent of WP:SIG#Images, most specifically avoiding the formatting issues and appearance of giving some peoples' comments more prominence than others. Please address the actual issue here. → ROUX ₪ 20:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes. And you're edit warring. These are not part of his sig, and looking back through his recent contributions, he doesn't usually add them. Hence, no violation of WP:SIG.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not, actually; after his latest revert to retain the images I brought it here. He is using them right beside his sig in a way that is directly against the spirit of the rule. In what way is that not a violation? Thought so. → ROUX ₪ 20:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please see also Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Not a WP:SIG issue. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have used the images only on one thread at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Numbers_Game and one thread on your own talkpage (User_talk:WikiDao#sig). I don't see that as a big problem, though if you started doing it all the time I certainly would say it's annoying, since it makes everything you write stand out from what everyone else writes. Also the other reasons given at WP:SIG#Images. I would support amending WP:SIG#Images to include situations like this where it's not hard-coded into a sig but appears as regularly as if it were. —Soap— 20:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered by them, but as a point of order he uses them more frequently than that - there are two on the RD talk page and that one thread on RD/H contains three images. To be fair, he's not the only one that does that, though. Personally, I'd prefer not to see them used, but I'm also not in favour of any kind of prettied-up sigs, so I recognize I'm kind of on the fringe there. Matt Deres (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding a few smileys to comments is not violating WP:SIG. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that I respect the spirit and the letter of WP:SIG#Images, and have made use of File:CVU.svg a total of only three times now, all of which uses I felt were relevant and supplemental to my written comments. I occasionally make use of some emoticons in my comments, especially the File:Gnome-* family of them lately, but I have never received a complaint before of ever having over-used them. If my use of those images in that way is a problem, I'd be happy to correct it accordingly per advice given here. Thanks. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

@82.44: Addding a smiley to a sig( such as :D, :), D:) is not violating WP:SIG, but adding an image is, for reasons clearly explained at SIG. I'm against this for that reason, and the fact that other new users might see this and think it's okay.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But he isn't adding it to his signature; he is occasionally adding an image to the end of his comments. This is not a violation of WP:SIG any more than occasionally using Template:resolved, since that also contains an image File:Yes check.svg. If he was doing it with every comment, then it would be a violation of WP:SIG, but he isn't. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On further inspection it seems the images are being used slightly more than "occasionally", but I still don't think it violates WP:SIG. They should probably reduce the frequency of their use a little though. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is boiling down to wikilawyering on WikiDao's part. Yes, it was only a couple times. Yes, no one cares. But instead of pointing out to Roux that it was only a couple times and wont be continuing and showing Roux he's making a big deal out of nothing, he ran around looking immature arguing what rules mean and what they say and edge cases and so on. No action needed, but a big growing up in terms of communication style for the editor would be recommended or this will start repeating on ANI more and more frequently. Collapsing Roux's comments in a box labelled 'Roux trying to make some sort of point or something.'? Really? Thought we were beyond 3rd grade. Just archive the comment next time if you think Roux's being something of a tard so you dont look like a... well, like you do now. -- ۩ Mask 21:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

@AKMask: please see User talk:WikiDao#sig. Note that I have throughout agreed to abide by consensus on emoticon use (whatever that may turn out to be here) and that I have never violated the "letter" of WP:SIG#Images nor have I used the same emoticon(s) or other image(s) next to my signature beyond what I presently understand to be a normal use of such images for that purpose. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:WikiDao#sig? You mean please see the section of your talkpage i was discussing in my comment? The one I was explicitly referring to with Collapsing Roux's comments in a box labelled 'Roux trying to make some sort of point or something.' ? Did you even read what I wrote? -- ۩ Mask 21:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get that far. I read "but instead of pointing out to Roux that it was only a couple times and wont be continuing and showing Roux he's making a big deal out of nothing," and figured you hadn't seen my talk page. Because I tell Roux there in my very first comment that I had not included the image in my signature, suggested that it was a "one-time use" sort of thing, and thanked him for his concern. I assumed you hadn't seen that. I then continued responding to Roux's points in that thread before deciding that no headway was being made and instead agreed to abide by any consensus on the matter reached on the RD talk page. Roux then raised the matter here, and here we are. Apologies again for not having read your comment more carefully. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, this should probably get moved to wikiquette. I don't yet have an opinion on whether this behavior violates WP:SIG#Images or is otherwise troubling, but I have noticed that WikiDao mountain-izes a lot of molehills. This in not the first time by far that I've seen him puff up some fairly wonky dispute over a more-or-less minor issue on the ref desks; a refresher on having a proper perspective might be useful. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea, Ludwigs2. I'd be happy to discuss your concerns about that further wherever appropriate (my talk page, at the RD talk page, ...?). Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are image smileys needed when you can use plain text ones? Images take longer from browsers to load, especially for readers with slow Internet connections. Those smileys are annoying anyway. We're an encyclopedia; the casual ":)" is fine, but please don't bother using those image ones much or at all. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an entire smiley template - {{=)}} - which I use all the time. it's a bit better (not to mention easier) because it sizes the icons correctly. Smilies are not themselves a problem (and are certainly helpful in those cases where they keep tensions down rather than increase them). can't be serious all the time.

And WikiDao - that comment was enough discussion for me, unless you're not sure what I mean. as long as you're aware of the issue... --Ludwigs2 02:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:PM800

I was patrolling WP:AIV and saw a complaint about the recent actions of PM800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), such as [32] or [33]. I have not had any previous experience with this user; please comment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User was blocked by HJ Mitchell for 24 hours. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 02:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

BravesFan2006

No idea what to do with BravesFan2006 (talk · contribs) anymore. He is continuing to add unsourced chart positions, even after a final warning that his content is unsourced. We had an ANI thread about him only 8 days ago and it went stale. I think we've reached a breaking point with this user. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BravesFan2006 (talk · contribs) has been warned 7 times by 3 different editors regarding adding unsourced/unverifiable content to articles, and even after receiving a final warning this user still refusing to abide by WP:CITE & WP:VERIFY. I think a temporary block is warranted to demonstrate that Wikipedia policy is not a joke and must be obeyed. Nowyouseemetalk2me 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

• I admit that I have not gone through this exhaustively, but while the editor's talk page has warnings and threats of blocks for adding uncited content, there are also posts from numerous other editors thanking BravesFan2006 for making the updates. After reading the old ANI discussion, his talk page, and some of the articles, it looks like: 1. The editor adds chart positions with citing them. 2. The editor leaves an edit summary that tells from where the position came 3. The references, when checked, do in fact confirm the edit 4. Other editors then come in and add the citations. Assuming all this is right, while the behavior is not ideal, and probably a bit frustrating for others working in the area, I don't see it as any to block over. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's not the country music peaks that are the point of concern, but rather the Bubbling Under Hot 100. He has never revealed his source for those. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

He in fact does not say where the information he adds is from, and half the stuff he adds (including the 4 examples TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) just gave) cannot be confirmed and are unverifiable. Nowyouseemetalk2me 19:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I, personally, have asked him maybe on different occasions on where he gets the Bubbling Under peaks from, however, he either never messaged me back and let me know, or he pointed to some forum thing that had nothing to do with charts that I could see just by glancing through it. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What, doesn't anyone have access to the chart? Our article states it's still published weekly. I understand it probably requires a subscription, but nobody has access to it? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you need one of their $9,001-a-day subscriptions to see the thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to drop a calm note on the editor's talk page, and will wait until they log on. I think the tone there has gotten a bit shrill. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck - he completely disregards his talk page. Nowyouseemetalk2me 20:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good luck with getting a response. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bump; I really don't want this to go stale again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I. Why isn't any other editors saying anything here? It's just myself, you (TPH), and Nowyouseemee. Only a single admin has voiced their concern on the situation...EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 15:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked through is talk page and he has stated once before the peaks come from the Pulse Music Board, which is a forum and can't be used as a source. Even another user has told him that he can't use that as a source. I do agree with everyone that something should be done so this doesn't keep on being an issue. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to look into wether I need to take admin action. Stay tuned. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I've applied a short block (31 hours). Since xe's fairly active, that should have quite an impact and I hope that will help the message sink in. If there's any further issues, feel free to drop me a line. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the blocking actions with regard to this user are completely inappropriate. By policy, blocks of this nature are to be imposed only when the editor's conduct "severely disrupts the project" by being "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interfer[ing] with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." I hardly see how adding imperfectly sourced information, whose accuracy no one has disputed, by an productive editor with a extensive track record of useful contributions, clearly acting in good faith, is "severe disruption." I hardly see how blocking such a user has any constructive impact on the encyclopedia-creating process. I certainly don't see how blocking such a user without even waiting a reasonable period of time for his/her response makes sense. Had the editor simply footnoted his postings with the chart name and the date, the practical verification problems would be the same, but the sourcing policy would be satisfied. This is really an issue over the form of sourcing, not the substance, a minor matter to which this response is plainly disproportionate and, in contravention of policy, punitive. [I originally posted this to Blood Red Sandman's talk page; at his suggestion, I've posted it here for broader discussion. I believe that Xymmax's initial position/actions, as described above, were more than sufficient to address the matter as it now stands.] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been over one month since he was first warned, and over one week since his last ANI, which is more than a reasonable period of time to respond. I believe this block is completely appropriate and justified, the only problem is I don't think 31 hours is long enough, he won't be on to update positions until they are released Monday afternoon. Nowyouseemetalk2me 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I promise you the block is intended to be preventative, not punitative (which is why I kept it short in the hope that nothing longer was needed). I won't comment on the rest, at least not for now; consider this a block review. I always welcome review of my actions here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this block may do some good. However, I think we will have to wait until somewhere between Monday and Wednesday to see how things shake up. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 03:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, as I said on your talk page, please reduce your signature size. Signatures are not supposed to use big tags, or something equal or larger.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed for RfC closure

Resolved

 – Closed. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't for a second pretend to be uninvolved/neutral in the matter, but WP:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) has run for more than the customary 30 days, the discussion seems (at least to me) to have slowed, and some other users have suggested it's time for closure. Therefore, I would suggest an uninvolved admin examine the RfC and determine whether/when it should be closed (and if it should be closed, obviously perform the closure and determine what the outcome is). Cheers, --Cybercobra (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

EaglesGolden changing "gay" to "homosexual" everywhere

Blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After some homophobic posts on Talk:John McCain, EaglesGolden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now changing all references of "gay" to "homosexual" in various articles. The sooner he's blocked, the less reversion work there will be. Also look out for sock StevenShowers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I see that, as of this posting, no one has attempted to discuss this with him: his talk page history shows that no attempt, beyond the initial welcome template, has been left on his page. While his edits are troublesome, we generally don't instablock unless there is obvious sock behavior or something like that. Any evidence in that direction, or another reason to block before even attempting to discuss the matter, would be helpful. --Jayron32 02:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Two experienced editors have tried to explain to him on Talk:John McCain that WP and the mainstream world use "gay" and that his reasoning is baseless. Repeating all of this on his talk page seems like an exercise in uselessness to me. But it's your call to let him carry on. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I didn't say he should be allowed to carry on. Other attempts to stop him should be used before being blocked. He has not, even yet, been notified of this discussion. Generally, it is a good idea to let users stop their own behavior. Lets try other methods to get him to stop before blocking, such as telling him that his behavior is being discussed at ANI (this is NOT an optional thing, and should be done by the OP if possible) and to allow him to answer for his actions before blocking. He should not be allowed to carry on, but that doesn't mean that blocking is the way to go at this minute. --Jayron32 02:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Remember you must notify users when reporting them here. --Stickee (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I did state at Talk:John McCain that I had taken this to ANI. I didn't do it on his talk page (my bad), but I see Stickee now has. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Here's some choice comments from only his last post: "I have never been to a homosexual pride parade, which is certainly an oxymoronic configuration of principles." "As soon as they return home, where they must live the other 364 days a year, away from this grand-standing support structure, they fall back into the thorn-like embrace of their guilt and shame ridden inner world, where they know they are different from the vast majority of people on the planet, and they are angry about it." "If they were told that there were a magic wand that could instantly turn them into a properly functioning heterosexual, without any effort on their part, and you asked them if they would want that magic wand to tap them on the top of their head, I believe that 99% of all homosexuals would say "yes". This is just common sense." This guy clearly is heavily homophobic (with the baggage that usually implies, considering how well he apparently knows the homosexual mind) and is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. --Golbez (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC) User warned that the next act of disruption will result in an indef block; StevenShowers blocked indef for socking. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Why is the act of changing the word "gay" to "homosexual" in the appropriate places considered an "act of disruption" by these administrators? By changing the word "gay" to "homosexual" is anything inaccurate added to the article? Is any error introduced? I don't think so. But if you change the word "homosexual" to "gay" you are adding a layer of propaganda fluff to the article, hiding the true nature of the movement behind a pretty mask, and that should be obvious. My actions go towards clarification and truth. Though perhaps it might be a little bit disruptive to the homosexual zealots who believe they own wikipedia, and can use it at will as their propaganda trumpet. From a larger perspective though, perhaps this kind of disruption in the patterns of error and deception, is a useful thing once in a while to raise the wikipedia standards up out of the rut of homosexual partisanship EaglesGolden (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC) You appear to be doing this intentionally just to make a point. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Having only come across this after seeing the edit summary on my watchlist, can I please state how offended I am by EaglesGolden's comments. Timeshift (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC) He's an ignoranimous. As I tried to explain to him on his talk page, "gay" is a slang term that's been around for at least a century. As for the magic wand, what most of them would probably wish for is to not be hassled by ignoranimouses. As for me, I'm already straight, so if I had a magic wand, I'd wish to find a wallet with a million dollars in it. Preferably just before meeting a supermodel or two or three. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I do not believe that Wikipedia is a place that should indulge bigotry of any sort. Why are we keeping him here? Yes, obviously I am biased because of the specific subject matter; I would say the same of anyone who was treating e.g. Jews, Muslims, atheists, or people who like the colour blue in this manner. Ban. → ROUX ₪ 03:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Apparently he hasn't technically broken any rules yet, although he's one step away from an indef. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Pardon my French, but fuck the technicality. Nobody should have to come here and deal with that level of repellent bigotry. If he were saying 'Heil Hitler' and 'we must fight the ZOG,' I would be saying exactly the same thing: Wikipedia is not a place that should be enabling, even if only tacitly through inaction, this kind of filth. → ROUX ₪ 03:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC) He's a troll. He won't be around much longer, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Whether you describe the word as slang or whatever, the bottom line is that the term "gay" inaccurately characterizes the underlying nature of the population in question. The only word that accurately characterizes the homosexual community, is homosexual. In terms of accuracy and truth, this is the term that should be used in any publication that has an interest in truth and accuracy. The firestorm that was brought on by changing this word "gay" to "homosexual" proves my point, that it is a propaganda implant, and that it is emotionally guarded by those who have a vested interest in seeing the homosexual agenda succeed. EaglesGolden (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I am going to hate myself for asking this, but how on earth does the word 'inaccurately characterize' anything? → ROUX ₪ 03:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I don't appreciate you speaking on behalf of my community, bigot, and your ridiculous conspiracy theories and "homosexual agenda" nonsense (let's not mince words; bullshit) only serves to expose you as the rampant troll that Bugs called you out as. Get a life and do something constructive rather than waste your own time and the time of everyone here. KaySLtalk 03:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Indeffed. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. T. Canens (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed what may be a sock at Special:Contributions/Twistermister. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Brucejenner, or "BJ" as I like to call it. It should have been obvious to us all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

PROD nominations by Are You The Cow Of Pain?, sock of indef-blocked user

Are You The Cow Of Pain? has been identified as the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, and the account has itself been indef-blocked. The account's contribution history shows a number of active PROD nominations. Several of the nominations appear to be sound, and at least one has been prod2-ed. On the one hand, contributions to deletion/DRV debates by such block-evaders are typically struck; on the other, if the PRODs are removed, the process page states they cannot be replaced by other users. Should the nominations be allowed to remain? Is it worth tweaking the PROD process to allow renomination in this circumstance? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If you object to any active PROD, no matter whom originated it, remove the PROD tag and give an edit summary explaining why. AYTCOP has been a prolific abuser of the PROD process, flagrantly PRODding things where similar PRODs had been contested in the past. It is entirely reasonable for you to go through and object to a PROD as "proven sockpuppet with an agenda", as far as I'm concerned. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be keeping an eye on this. Sockpuppet or not (and I'm curious because I don't see an SPI case anywhere that mentions Cow of Pain's name), this user had pretty good judgment when it came to nominating articles for deletion so I might just go and AfD the one I agree should be deleted if they are dePRODded. Reyk _YO! 05:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cow of Pain has been confirmed as a sock of Otto4711 by checkuser evidence, per Rlevse. A previous sock case is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

... and that is entirely proper process, Reyk. One sockpuppet doesn't prohibit other editors in good standing who happen to agree with him from endorsing actions that they find objectively reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk · contribs) contributions they seem mostly fine to me. The otto sock-puppet case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/Archive refers to action in 2007 and ended with , so I am going to let Otto4711 off with a firm warning. I'm not seeing any reason for given for yesterdays block of Otto is there evidence of recent abuse of sockpuppets?--Salix (talk): 07:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah all is revealed on Rlevse talk page. [34] editing each others sigs.--Salix (talk): 07:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned edits are supposed to be reverted. I'd remove the prods and note in the edit summary that since they were not legitimate to begin with, renomination is allowed. That could also be mentioned in the process page, but it should be obvious anyway; WP:BURO and all that. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the sockmaster is indefinitely blocked however, not banned. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems correct. Doc9871 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, if you agree with the PRODs, perfect; let them stand. A blocked user's edits (as opposed to those of a banned one) are not entitled to be rolled back / undone for no reason. A prod can be removed for any reason at all; if you disagree with a PROD nom, it can be removed regardless of who placed it there. If you agree, prod 2 it or just leave it. No special procedure applies to prods from blocked users. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cow of pain is/was a sock; the sockmaster block log is here. My advice is the same as before: the prods were not legitimate (block-evading socks should be considered banned the instant they are created, even if the sockmaster is not formally banned), so reverting them is not the same thing as contesting them. Therefore renomination is allowed. The reversion restores the status quo. You can even say "I'm removing this prod without objecting to deletion, so you can renominate per WP:CONTESTED" (which says "This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion"). Unless there's serious doubt that this is the right thing to do, then don't worry about parsing the rules too closely. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, "parsing" the rules would also mean "block-evading socks should be considered banned the instant they are created, even if the sockmaster is not formally banned." Where is this stated in policy? WP:BAN would include ban-evading socks, not block-evading socks (see WP:BLOCK as well). Where is the ban (not block) for this sockmaster listed? If he's just blocked (even "indef"), editors can't revert the socks like you could a banned user's socks. I could very easily be missing something, of course... Doc9871 (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AndresHerutJaim and images

User:AndresHerutJaim continues to add nonfree logos to articles. I left a message on the talk page but realized it was attempted once already User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Using fair use images as icons. He even reverted a editor who left a perfectly reasonable edit summary. This has been ongoing at Operation Rainbow. Other articles include[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] and multiple others. See Sep 25ths edits alone[43].

I do not know if the green flag is a fine replacement or not but it is not marked as a nonfree image. He has been given sufficient instruction and a warning on this and it needs to stop. It sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and puts an undue bureden on other editors to clean up.Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One admin has made a revert at one of the articles. Any of you guys feel like giving a warning or is that not the way it works?Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Devansh.negi flooding my email with spam

Resolved

Devansh.negi (talk · contribs) was indefblocked in April for repeated spamming. While I was still an admin (and I plan to go for my tools again sometime in the near future), I originally offered him {{2nd chance}}, only to retract the offer and shut off his talk page after he used a sock to insert similar spam. Well, today I wake up to find a large number of spam messages in my inbox from him. If someone would be so kind as to tweak his block to disable email, it would be much appreciated. Blueboy96 11:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a 'Country'

Resolved

The Giant's Causeway is in the country of Northern Ireland, a consituent country of the sovereign state known as the United Kingdom. Regardless of these well-known facts that are used in very many articles, a hard-core group of editors are currently intent on changing this basic geography within the Giant's Causeway info-box such that the country is given as the United Kingdom whilst Northern Ireland is relegated to a region. In no sense of the word is Northern Ireland a region and I have never heard it described as such. I cannot understand the motivation of the editors who are pushing this POV contrary to policy. I thought it was Irish nationalism, but this doesn't really fit the bill, other than to deny the existence of Northern Ireland as a country (not a State) in its own right. Could an uninvolved editor please look at this, and I would strongly urge editors/admins from within the British Isles to leave this one alone. Thanks LevenBoy (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.140.16 (talk)

Please could someone block this IP as a block evading sockpuppet, it is related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Outrageous attack and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So this is either block evasion by or blackmail of LevenBoy. (?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Or it's entirely possible than an IP saw a request on an editor's talkpage and assumed the best. A checkuser might be useful, but simply ignoring this might be even better. TFOWR 10:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe it is not LevenBoy, merely someone posting this message on his behalf as he requested on his talk page. You will see the involvement of similar IPs in the sockpuppet report. As for LevenBoy's message, this is merely forum shopping since discussion is going against him at Talk:Giant's Causeway#Northern Ireland is a country, where his inflammatory rhetoric has come up against many reliable sources refuting his claims. O Fenian (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's an IP sock of a different editor, and have blocked the IP. TFOWR 10:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have revoked LevenBoy's talkpage privileges for the duration of the block, since such santions are intended to stop accounts being able to contribute to the wider project and LevenBoy's request was a clear attempt to circumvent that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Spinoff question

Resolved

The UK does not have "provinces" as such. But in a general sense, what is the practical difference, if any, between the four countries in the UK vs. "provinces"; or "states" as the term is used in the USA? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well this is not necessarily the place.. but I'll try for a brief answer. The four countries have levels of independence - particularly Scotland - but there is still a lot of control from central parliament. In practical terms laws and legality are the same, taxation and public spending tends to be the major difference (to pick a random current example the Scottish parliament is apparently pushing for higher taxation on Alcohol) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Scotland has a completely different legal system than England and Wales. The Scottish Parliament has only existed for a few years now, but Scotland has always had a separate legal system. Not sure about Northern Ireland. john k (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not a historical nation, as it was part of a seperate kingdom/state that encompassed the entire island. Nor does it have a parliament, only the United Kingdom plus Scotland and the Isle of Man has those, but an Assembly as does Wales (which is a Principality - although it has had Kings, but so did some of the constituent Kingdoms that formed England. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

American states have far more autonomy than the countries of the United Kingdom (that article explains the situation well). The UK parliament has the ability to abolish or suspend devolution and restore all power to the centre if needed or simply over rule the devolved parliaments/assemblies, although such an act would sadly be politically difficult now. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that calling Northern Ireland a country is comparable to calling Florida or Bavaria a country (German and American states ('lander') have considerable rights of their own, comparable to NI, Wales, etc). I can't get my head around it. Florida, possibly Bavaria also, has inalienable powers that the US federal government can't take over, its own justice system, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a pretty insensitive remark. I think you should think that through once more. There is some historical issues that you seem to have forgotten about. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Government in its wisdom describes England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as Countries of the United Kingdom. When i first arrived on wikipedia i was not a fan of such a description, but they are very well sourced and today country is used more than province by many reliable sources for NI, although the case for using it for NI is obviously weaker than the other 3, but if they are countries today there is no reason Northern Ireland can not be described as one. Countries are not always sovereign states which is what most of us think about when we say country. This whole issue has been plagued with controversy, for example because of some insisting England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland be added to a List of countries which caused instability, the list ended up having to redirect to the sovereign states page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Province" implies the Province of Ulster, which is not the same as Northern Ireland, although there are obviously major overlaps. "Country" is problematic for Northern Ireland, too, though; before 1922 it was certainly all of Ireland which was a country, and to some extent it still is. john k (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's the way it's described by HMG, that's the way it's described and we use the word. Maunus, I think of Wales and NI as nations, not countries. I don't think that's insensitive or forgetting the history, but I'm clearly wrong about it. (I wouldn't call Texas a country even though it was an independent country at one point.} Whatever the words, the governmental structures are not that dissimilar. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not the choice between county or nation that is insensitive but the comparison to Florida and Bavaria. Florida and Bavaria are not historically parts of different nations that have been forcefully incorporated into empires inspite of widespread resistance from the inhabitants and that have violently opposed their inclusion into the state they are a part of as recently as twenty years ago. I know you were only referring to their similarity in degree of autonomy, but the historic context of the relative degrees of autonomy are very different and hence makes for an ill comparison.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea that Northern Ireland is a country is not particularly congenial to either Unionists or Nationalists, as I understand it. Nationalists consider Ireland to be the country, not Northern Ireland; Unionists generally view the United Kingdom as the country and refer to Northern Ireland as a province (referring to the Province of Ulster). I'd add that Bavaria's incorporation into a united Germany was quite analogous to Scotland's incorporation into Great Britain. john k (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside from gentle suggestion to read up on the history of Florida, I can only say that this is definitely not the place for a continuation of the same argument that is already found everywhere the word "Ireland" is. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The majority in each "nation" of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland supports the continuation of the union, that is what counts. You talk of forceful incorporation, but those "nations" forcefully incorporated too. The people of what is now England never voted for England to become a country, same goes for Scotland, Wales and yes there was not even a vote for a united Ireland. Most Nations in europe were all created through conflict or annexation at some point in their history. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that with the creation of Countries of the United Kingdom article, it was agreed that Northern Ireland was a country. It's been so long now, that I can't remember all the related discussions anymore. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That article explains the matter well. To me, it's fairly clear that from a practical standpoint, the four UK countries are "analogous" to states or provinces, in that they have separate governments and they are also under the "federal" jurisdiction of the British parliament. As far as Florida, etc., most any piece of land on earth could be said to have been obtained by conquest, so that's not really the point. Thanks for the info. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no comparison to the State of Florida, Florida was never a 'country' in the same way Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are. Ever listened to an American talk about the UK? It is England this and England that, apparently they don't even know that England does not represent the UK. The previous poster is correct when they state that the UK is a State within the European Union. The State is comprised of 4 countries just as the USSR before Russia was a State comprised of many countries which now have independence in many cases. Yes, Northern Ireland is a country and has been since 1921. Prior to that Ireland (as a whole) was a country within the UK having been annexed in 1801.--87.113.65.161 (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Florida has reserved sovereign powers that even Scotland does not, and the powers of the separate governments in Northern Ireland and Wales are even more limited. Texas was an internationally recognized country, so if you'd prefer to substitute Texas, we can do that. john k (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Two politician pages,.....in WP? Its out.

Resolved

 – Neither a copyright violation with text or image nor are hatnotes pointing at a politician or interwikilinks a problem. A 3rrr report has been declined as well. The only thing to see here is that User:Alpha30 is indef blocked at the Italian wikipedia because of copyright problems and attacks, and has brought similar edits and accusational tone here. I'll drop them a note.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The files Nicotera and Gerace are two pages in obvious copyvio from this websites ,with Political advertising .We see also that Wikipedia has a neutral position, the phrase "For the Italian politician, see Giovanni Nicotera" is out of WP:Project.The two pages have photos in infrangement of copyright [44] and no source loaded from it.wiki.The pages publishers are IP 79.43.196.128 and User: Vituzzu (a burocrater-problems on it.wiki) that are vandalism and IP blocking for User-problems.This is a very "serious problems". For they are request the infinitive block, for copyvio ,copyright infrangement ,unneutral ,false edit,false check-user,false admin in en.wiki as by IP as by the User.For these AIN , We see them in this discussion.The newpage patroller - --Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 22:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand the report, and I don't see any copyright infringements related to the site provided; am I missing something? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

i required the copyright infrangement..but the edits pages are out.--Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 22:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost too. I'm assuming something was lost in translation. Grsz¹¹ 22:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this is an attempt at retaliation for Vituzzu's having pointed out that Alpha30 introduced copyvios in two other articles. I only suspect it, though, because I can't quite be certain what Alpha30 is saying here. I'll notify Vituzzu, though, since Alpha30 didn't. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ec - Edits to this article suggest there may be some cross wiki issues which include copyright and Administrator Xymmax may have some more details. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If anyone speaks Italian, perhaps we can ask the user to explain their concerns in Italian and have someone translate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

the report in here is " no violation " for edits page .If it is right for you , the discussion will be closed now. Many thanks for your partecipation --Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Alpha, che cos'è successo di preciso? Se vuoi scrivermi in Italiano, sarò felice di tradurre per te. (Alpha, exactly what happened? If you wish, you can write in Italian and I'll be glad to provide a translation). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Terry Newton

I've made quite a few reverts on Terry Newton, and thought I'd ask for help and take a step back. This afternoon, Newton was found dead, but no source has yet been given for the actual date of death. Despite this, a number of editors have added today's date to the article. Could someone else (uninvolved) take a look at this? I've left messages on users' talk pages – as well as the article talk – but now anonymous users are starting to add the unverified date. Regards, matt (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's customary on Deaths in 2010 to add "body found on this date", and I see no reason why a footnote in the article could not make this clear until a DOD is established. Rodhullandemu 16:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The tag {{recent death}} is self-explanatory: information will flood into this article until it is "stabilized". Anonymous users have just started here, I'd wager... Doc9871 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1

T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1T1 (talk · contribs)

Could someone give this guy a sharp nudge with a cluestick, please? He's been uploading pictures since about the end of March with no free-use rationales whatsoever. He has at least a dozen warnings on his page about this and he's just not getting it. HalfShadow 17:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Gave an {{uw-ics3}} warning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

• Prior AN/I, from 2009, which failed in finding any error: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009
• Prior RFC, from August 2005, regarding problematic behavior as Administrator at the Vietnam War article, which became an Arbcom case and resulted in desyopping: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Stevertigo
• Prior RFA, 29 August 2009, which became an Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, which succeeded in sanctioning several editors on both sides, including Stevertigo, currently active (June 21, 2010), one year topic ban and editing restrictions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions

I have interacted with Stevertigo mostly on the Time and Punishment pages. On both these pages he has repeatedly inserted and reverted to WP:OR material & repeatedly "justified" his doing so on those article talk pages. It needs to be crystal clear to him that he is not at liberty to put his "conceptualization" (unsourced & frequently quite incomprehensible) into the lede (nor anywhere else for that matter). Stevertigo is capable of doing some good work, but his attention to WP:V is unpredictable--JimWae (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo continues a pattern of problematic editing across several articles. Furthermore, I state that this is not a content dispute. This is about replacing sourced, referenced, and cited material, with WP:OR. Stevertigo argues as if this is type of behavior (and this position) is valid on the talk pages of several articles. Several other editors are invloved. The articles involved are Time, Time in physics, Punishment, and, I think one other.

First encounter with Stevertigo, here: [45] where I removed WP:OR and replaced it with content supported by references already in place. Please see edit history statement. Next, User:Stevertigo, reverted this edit and replaced with the unsourced and unreferenced statement, [46]. In addition, it is mostly incomprehensible. Also, this part appears to be cited, but some other editor had placed the this template: {{failed verification|date=July 2010|reason=much of this, the part Stevertigo sourced to "moi" (himself) is very clearly not in citation}}.

On the talk page Stevertigo had created a new section, with my User-name as the section title [47]. He quoted my edit summary, and gave what may seem like a level-headed response. However, he just replaced my edit with original research and incomprehensible wording. Next, is my response [48]. Also I changed the name for the inappropriate section title. Using my name as the section title is an indication of focusing on the editor (me), and not on the content. It has the appearance of a personal attack. See edit history statement for my response.

My response on the article talk page has been removed, and the title reverted back to my user-name [49]. I finally managed to successfully change the section title again so that it was not my user-name, [50]. Notice my statement in the edit history.

I reverted Stevertigo's article-edit. [51]. Stevertigo reverted my edit with his WP:OR, while sounding insulted. [52].

I was unable to actually add my response to the section formerly titled with my user-name. I ended up placing my response in another section [53].

The lede is where Steveritgo desires to place his edits. In fact, in these several articles it turns out that Stevertigo desires to place his POV content in the lede:

Punishment ---- [54], [55].

Time in physics ---- [56], [57]

Physics ---- [58]

Human ---- [59], [60] (see also "Addtion to my complaint" below)

Time is illustrated by the above diffs.

This assertion is supported by the following statement on his user-talk page [61] "My focus has generally been on writing good ledes, which set the tone for the rest of the article."

Also on his talk page: I strive through a conceptually organised approach to craft language that deals with the essence and substance of ideas, [62]. This is linked to his own essay Wikipedia:Conceptualization. He created this page. The signifigance is that he has given priority to concepts which are not based on reliable soures or verifiablity, on article talk pages. Then the conversation can become mired in challenging his WP:OR conceptulizing with the need for deriving facts from reliable sources. Here, [63], he plainly states: "The concepts relevant to time are (off the top of my head)". Also, the section is entitled "Concept cloud".

There is also a collapsible info box which opens to reveal, a list of concepts, i.e.,

• reality
• physical, physics
• transformation, change
• etc., etc., with about 18 more "concepts" following these (inside the collapsible box).

Perhaps Stevertigo thinks editing is about gaining the high ground when insisting on placing unsourced and unverifiable material in an article, as he does here - [64], and here [65] It changes the intended dynamics of the editing process. This creates a battleground atmosphere.

Jim Wade removes Stevertigo's WP:OR statement. See edit history comments. [66], [67]. And I agreed with him [68]. Next, Stveritgo, reverts Jim's article-edit [69], and then becomes argumentative on the talk page [70]. Notice how Stevertigo characterzes Jim's overall edting and attitude.

Stevertigo makes noises about participating in a discussion [71]. However, Stevertigo carried out this revert, without discussion [72]. He appears to be using a guideline to gain an advantage. However, editing is not intended to be about gaining an advantage over other editors to place original research material in an article. The original research material is not supposed to be there. And if it is, then the thing to do is to remove it, and it should make sense to all editors involved. However, over the course of three or four articles, where editing with Stevertigo is involved, it has been a constant battle. He is adamant about placing WP:OR in the ledes.

Before I came on the scene, this behavior appears on July 12, 2010. This lede is similar to his lede of August 2 and after. [[73]

On July 12 (before I arrived) Stevertigo did 23 unchecked edits in a row [74], cullimanting in [75] "rv polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese".

Other relevant diffs: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82].

Ultimately another editor also got involved: User:DVdm. It was a long process as illustrated by the talk page revision history [83]. Outnumbered, Stevertigo finally moved on. To where? I don't know.

However, around this same time, other editors and I, had to deal with Stevertigo at Time in physics. It was another running battle of WP:OR vs. WP:V --- [84], [85], [86], [87], etc., etc. There was also discussion on the talk page. It is not an overly long discussion [88]. However, on the talk pages of both articles Stevertigo was sufficiently informed about using only sourced material. From his responses and his editing he refuses to get it, figithing obstinately to have his WP:OR leading the articles. Once again he was outnumbered and he moved on.

In the article Punishment the story is the same (a running battle between WP:OR and WP:V) [89] , except he has not moved on. We (the editing team) established a consensus lead by August 9th [90]. I thought Stevertigo had moved on. Much to my surprise, I discovered that on September 16 he had obssesively edited the lede 16 times in a row, 15 of which were on September 16th [91]. The total edits made by Stevertigo on that day were 23. I characterize the situation on the talk page here [92]. Jim Wade stepped in after 16 edits, and began to counter Stevertigo's WP:OR edits. I noted on the talk page that "it appears to be the same situation as when I stepped in over a month ago - Jim Wade doing his best to counter Stevertigo's unorthodox editing style. By the third Stevertigo edit, two sentenes were added, which were a creation not supported by any added references or those references already part of this article." The next edits were Jim Wade diplomatically countering Stevertigos edits. Ultimately, I restored the consensus lede established on August 9th [93].

I was still not intending to go to ANI. However, when Stevertigo made an audio version of sometihing which he describes as "To better illustrate the problems with your writing, I've made a spoken version of the introduction" [94]. He is refering to me and my writing. I have no problem that he made an audio version of anything, and placed it on the talk page. The problem is this is the same old routine - WP:OR vs. WP:V - only with an audio device.

I also need to expand this complaint to show that Stevertigo is not likely to alter is behavior a result of normal sanctioning. He has had some issues (conflicts) all the way back to 2005. Yet, five years later he still operating as if guidelines and policies do not apply to him.

Apparently, in 2005, as an administrator he unblocked himself four times, threatened to block users who disagreed with him, reverted a protected page, blocked a user for reverting him, and blocked another user for blocking him. He also blocked an admin who corrected his revert on a locked page. [95], [96]. I understand that he was desyoped. Also, very recently, he was topic banned regarding Obama articles (it looks like this year) [97]. With this Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Is this editing restriction applicable to only Obama articles, or to any article that he edits? Because, if it is general editing restriction he has violated this with this set of articles. I have a page that lists ANIs where some only mention his name, while others are issues related to his problematic type editing. Therefore, I will not provide that link, but I intend to go through it for a more complete picture. The 2005 incidents were started with edit warring in the Viet Nam article. So I would like to do a more complete investigation, including checking out some of his edit history.

Also, his most recent edits (2:37 September 19, 2010) were in the Physics article, Here he started the same pattern of inserting WP:OR material [98]. It was subsequently reverted within 24 hours. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I copied the following from an entry I created in the body of the article:

The following is a list of other articles, with diffs, where Stevertigo follows the same pattern delineated above. In other words, he comes along one day and inserts WP:OR into the lede. This is usually followed by a group of other editors having to contend with him to keep the original WP:V statement in place: ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Animal Rights: [99]. After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, [100]. And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
• Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): [101]. The original has been restored.
• Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010) [102], and related discussion [103].
• Holocaust denial: Here: [104]. Reverted: [105] on the talk page a section entitled with one of his favorite concepts: Conceptualization.---- 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses

Its 2 am where I am so I'll keep this brief. I have not read all of the material that Steve Quinn has presented, and having scanned it, it looks substantial. At first sight, I am myself almost convinced of SQ's thesis that I am a "problematic editor" and should go somewhere else. However I've been a "problematic editor" for some eight years now, AIUI, five years longer than SQ. I note that I have faced ANI's from people before and they typically consist of the same generalisms and inuendo, always failing to substantiate the points expressed. Note that that after the two or three pages of comment above, SQ's way of informing me of this ANI note was "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: (edit conflict) As I state on my userpage, one of my main focuses for years has been on improving the ledes to articles. Examples from the last couple days include my my edits to the war, militarism and rights articles. My issues with SQ became centered at the punishment article, after my rewrite of the lede (the first edits there in months), another editor followed me there after losing an editorial debate at time, and SQ followed suit. I have been trying to get the point accross to SQ that his way of conceptualizing a concept and introducing the topic (punishment in this case) lacked the kind of cohesion and substance that I think articles require. He talks about keeping a fidelity to the sources, and I have no problem with this point. The problem is that he sometimes apparently parrots the sources such that what is being written doesn't actually make sense. I recorded a spoken audio file of SQ's introduction to the punishment article (File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg) because I think when read aloud, the inherent inconsistencies (in SQ's conceptualization) become rather obvious, and this negates any value that blind sourcing brings. I was expecting SQ to respond on that article talk page, not here. I will of course substantiate my view of his writing with a point-by-point critique. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Two very quick points for Stevertigo - we don't rank editors by either edit count or time active on the project so that's not very relevant and the "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." is the standard notification template {{subst:ANI-notice}} so no foul there. One MAJOR point for Steve Quinn - admins are less likely to read long messages - can you summarise your problem here in one paragraph? Exxolon (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Exxolon, thanks for your suggestion. If I could I would. This complaint encompasses four articles, three talk pages, one user-page, and one essay page. Furthermore, there were three or four other editors involved. The admins are only human, like you and I, and it would be impossible, and time consuming, to sort through reams of editing, edting history, and talk page discussions. Hence, this compliant is like a road map. I use one article as an example of the editing pattern for all the articles involved. Then I briefly supply diffs for the other articles. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I interacted with user Stevertigo on Time in physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where, against talk page consensus, and against adequately sourced material, the user was pushing (in article and on talk page) apparent original research onto the lead.

The user's first edit on Time in physics was on 30-Jul-2010. At the point were Stevertigo had given up using the talk page (on (5-Aug-2010), he added his self-created nonce-template tag (Template:nonce), to the article, meaning essentially nothing more than "I don't like the lead and I want everyone to know." It was agreed on the talk page that this was highly inappropriate, so the tag was removed and the user notified. See also Wikipedia:Nonce_introductions and this request. Both comments were ignored without a comment a few days later.

A week later on 13-Aug-2010 the user made his most recent edit, essentially restoring his first edit as if nothing had happened before. This was prompty undone by Steve Quinn and nothing further happened.

In my opinion this was an example of problematic editing, and/but I assumed that the problem was solved at this point. I had not looked at the user's contributions since then, although it seems to me that this string of recent edits to Physics could be problematic, in the sense that they seem to be altering properly sourced statements with personal POV's. DVdm (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Adding to my complaint: On August 30th, in the article Human, Stevertigo began another campaign of inserting his WP:OR [106]. This was subsequently reverted two hours later, after five or six more Stevertigo edits, [107]. However, it did not end there. Within six minutes, Stevertigo reverted back to his version [108]. This was reverted by another editor eight minutes later [109]. As can be seen with the following diffs, an Stertivigo edit wars with at least four other editors, continuing until September 3rd anyway. It then appears to begin again on September 9th. Please see edit history. Also, a corresponding discussion took place on the talk page. I will send a notice to the editors involved in that recent edit war, so they may comment on this ANI, if they so desire. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved, in a minor way, in Stevertigo's changes to Human, I have to say that his edits resulted, on balance, in an improvement of the article. I haven't looked at much of the wall of text above, so I will note that Stevertigo does appear to have a communication issue - his original changes to the Human article were not clearly understandable, and his explanations of what he desired were also not clear enough. Nonetheless, he was correct that there was a subtle POV problem with the article, and his actions have reduced that problem, albeit with some difficulty. I would very much counsel Stevertigo to communicate his ideas clearly; the best exposition of your thoughts will be as plain as a grocery list and therefore just as understandable. I don't know how much of the above is caused by communications issues, but I hope that Stevertigo's ideas are getting a fair hearing regardless - though, again, I have barely reviewed the large amount of material above; it may be that Stevertigo is completely off-base and I simply haven't yet seen it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this. The issue here is probably best described as a personal dispute between SQ and I, motivated largely by my spoken audio file I made to clarify how unclear and unacceptable his writing is (File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg). -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have interacted with Stevertigo mostly on the Time and Punishment pages. On both these pages he has repeatedly inserted and reverted to WP:OR material & repeatedly "justified" his doing so on those article talk pages. It needs to be crystal clear to him that he is not at liberty to put his "conceptualization" (unsourced & frequently quite incomprehensible) into the lede (nor anywhere else for that matter). Stevertigo is capable of doing some good work, but his attention to WP:V is unpredictable--JimWae (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My association with JimWae was largely at the Time article, which he has shepherded for years. My issue was that his intro was too simplistic and didn't talk about the subject in its most general terms: Continuum, change. We debated it and worked it out, and though less than what I wanted, the article now has a proper introductory sentence. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, Stevertigo has made extensive edits to Human generally against consensus and pushing his own, somewhat unclear, POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My issues with the human article largely dealt with its skeptical tone, which as Gavia noted above, amounted to a kind of systemic bias. My approach to that article began quite differently than the resulting compromise: I wanted a very philosophical introduction that made clear the distinction between human being and an animal creature/organism. This set up a rift between philosophy and scientific oriented editors. What resulted was that the article lead now includes a passage referring to "person." The human article had not even contained the world "person" until I came along. To further my point, I repeatedly beat people over the head with this basic fact that what they thought was a perfect article hadn't even made the connection between human and the idea "person." I continue to, apparently. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't watch him or those other articles, but I do watch Human pretty closely, where, it's no secret, I have come to the conclusion that he's nuts. I wouldn't mind, because I feel confident that he's under control there, so I don't think anything has to be done about him. But again, I don't know what else he gets up to, you might want to keep an eye on him. But so far as Human goes, as I see it, the answer is not to humor him on the discussion page. Stop entertaining his suggestions, and you'll stop entertaining him. Then he'll get bored and go away. Where he goes; I don't know, but someone (not me please) might want to follow him and revert every violation he does without discussing it with him any more than the minimum and he'll either eventually get with the program and become a good contributor or quit and go start a blog or some such. So I don't know what you're suggesting be done about the problem, but my solution for Human is for everyone to stop humoring him and he'll go away. Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, the gist of your comment is: You think I'm "nuts" and that I should be stalked article to article (by anyone of your noble constitution) and my edits should be reverted "without [..] any more than the minimum" of discussion on talk. What part of WP:TRI don't you understand? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Adding OR is a long-term problem with Stevertigo. I can honestly say I have never seen him do anything else. There have been several discussions about this, including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009, but it made no difference. He turned at Animal rights not long ago wanting to add his own opinions about sentience to the lead, though it was clear he had no knowledge of AR or issues surrounding sentience; no knowledge of the sources, no effort to find any; see here on talk. He kept the discussion going—a discussion entirely about his personal views, with not one reference to a source that I recall—from May 3 to May 24. His posts are often difficult to respond to, because it's not clear that they mean anything, e.g.

First of all there is a clear definition of sentience, that does not consider simply that sense = sentience. Yours is an argument that belongs at the sentience article, perhaps. To say that a major fulcrum of an animal rights argument, that sentience equals sense (why not just say "sensing"), and that all sensing creatures are sentient, is "taken for granted" is simply a POV. Animal rights activists have had a difficult time at the sentience article as well, where they argue for a lower consciousness definition of "sentience" that defies all other definitions that go beyond merely sensing. And yes, I understand there are some unusual scientists who argue for animal equality/personhood.

At some point we may need to bite the bullet and start applying blocks, or perhaps go to ArbCom, because he's harming quite a lot of articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. This editor has been a problem for years, and shows no signs of improving. An arbitration case may be the best option. AniMate 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing here since 2002. If someone has a problem with my edits, they can always put forth their best argument, and I am more than happy to put forward mine. If SQ and other's here want to sticky this ANI and keep it going, fine.

I've dealt with these kinds of things before (WP:ANI/SV), and I'll point out that these typically act as magnets for complaints of little substance, and ultimately end in failure to achieve their goal of limiting my editing. Ive said it before, I welcome any ANI, RFC, Medcom or Arbcom case regarding any specific edits I have made.

SlimVirgin, no stranger to criticism for her editing patterns, states that I am "harming quite a lot of articles." It should not be difficult for her to give us a list of articles which I have supposedly harmed.

As a final note, its usually quite clear that people who use the terminology of WP:DISRUPT such as "problematic editing" are using such terms as minced oaths in place of the word "troll" (now that "troll" is regarded as pejorative and unacceptable). Still, their arguments are generally baseless, and reduceable to namecalling. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had run-ins with Stevertigo elsewhere, leading to a protracted Arbcom case, and this seems to fit an ongoing pattern of disrespect and poor interactions, and rather quirky content positions - basically iconoclasm with fangs - summed up best in the observation that this is not 2002. Wikipedia is much more consensus-driven now and gives deference to rules, process, collaboration, and civility, not the idiosyncratic efforts of groundbreaking editors to shape the Internet to their vision. If you're going to edit articles on important subjects like "time", "human being", and such, you have to respect that the many hardworking editors who regularly work on these articles have achieved a consensus as to the basic subject of the article, and not take it upon yourself to single-handedly reframe the article to fit your personal beliefs about the nature of things. Whereas deciding what time is may have been appropriate in the early days, today a bold edit is to add news of a labor lawsuit to an article about a local restaurant chain. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You know Wikidemon, that even though weve had our differences, I respect your opinion. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the goodwill is nice. There's no disgrace in being an early trailblazer having some difficulty adjusting to a later era of trail-minders. I would say the same of Jimbo. His infrequent edits sometimes create interesting conflicts. For what it's worth, here is the beauty article as of October, 2001. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I resisted commenting here for some time - Stevertigo will accurately say I stopped assuming good faith on his part some time ago. It did not start that way. When Tigo first started editing wikipidia I gushed good faith. That was a long time ago when he insisted that the article on antisemitism say that it is hatred of Arabs. everyone tried explaining that this was not so. This was long before NOR but his method of argument then was simply to use a dictionary definition that Arabic is a semitic language Arabs = semites, anti-semite = anti semites, anti-semite = antiarabs. Today tat would clearly violate NOR. After editors finally convinced him that the anti semitism article would not say that antisemitism = anti-arabs, he started to create articles on things that didn't exist except in his mind - editors had to explain to him what a "neologism" is and eventually we reached agreement that articles should not be on neologisms. A year or two ago I admit I lost all patience when he started editing articles on Hebrew names that indicated that he really did not understand Hebrew. His MO was: edit to install his opinion, wait to hear all the objections, and then start parroting the objections on the talk page, so editors who showed up late thought he knew what he was talking about. The fact is I have never seen him make a valuable contribution to an article. I admit/affirm right now that I am sure he has made valuable contributions to some article, it just is inconceivable to me that an editor can be active here for eight years without making at least a few good edits, if only the laws of chance apply some have to be right ... don't they? Nevertheless, the fact remains: Stevertigo is at best a nuisance and at worse an insidious POV pusher who thinks Wikipedia is his own little cafe table where he can bloviate with a couple of bottles of wine and a sophmore or two who might be seduced by his ignorant blather. I am not criticisimg Stevertigo, for all I know he is a swell guy, I am commenting only on his behavior. Once people catch on he just moves to another Wikipedia article. The more editors we attract, the sooner people at any given article figure out he is just making stuff up or really does not represent what he has read accurately. Alas, as we attract more editors, we also increase in articles, and there are more places he can run off to where no one knows his MO and he can push his POV or invent stuff again. I wish this would stop. But an univolved editor needs to do the right thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, he's plowed through animal rights and antisemitism topics as noted above, along with quibblings over Holocaust denial and the ever-charming Obama and socialism MfD. It's hard not to see a pattern here. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And Beauty and God and Time, and a host of other articles where he feels his personal opinions have to take priority. It has been going on for eight years, and I think we really need an admin to step up and be willing to act. I would suggest at a minimum a ban on changing leads; on adding content unaccompanied by a reliable source; and on adding sourced content that violates SYN. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this calls for Arbcom. Tigo is a classic disruptive editor. That is not name calling (although Tigo recently attempted to rewrite that guideline ... gee, I wonder why?) He boasts of having been the object of numerous complaints in the past, in his response to this thread. He mistakes Wikipedia's ample patience for encouragement. We should not mistake his smugness for righteousness.

Okay, I found the "neologism" my mind had blotted out. After days at the antisemitism talk page, with several knowledgable editors doing triple lutzes trying to explain again and again why his edits were what would later be called NOR, in error, and violating NPOV, Stevertigo wrote a whole new article here, on a term of his own invention, whether in spite or the product of a bizarre logic (HAL 0001 with some weird virus) I do not know. I invite - no, in this evening's loneliness, I beg - you all to take a stroll down wikiwackiness memory lane, and follow the link, and anostalgicize with me. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That diff was from Februray 2003, before the Iraq War got started. It was also before Arbcom and even the Civility principle were established - something that Anthere and I cobbled together. Remember that the Civility principle came about in large part due to accusations of "anti-Semitism." I can recount more of that history if you like. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But your editing hasn't changed since then, which is the point of this and previous threads. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think my editing has improved. I think yours has also, as has Slrubenstein and others amongst us second-wave editors. Perhaps you can attempt to be objective, and give us a list of those articles which you say I have 'harmed' by editing them, along with a brief description of how I have 'harmed' them. Since this 'harm' is something you claim to be inherent to my editing in general, you can look at some of my most recent edits - in fact I will put forward an example: the War article lead is largely mine. You can compare the before and after versions and tell me what 'harm' I have done. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've been watching this unfold since SQ posted the link to here on Talk:Human, and I'm not really sure I have much worth saying since my impression of Stevertigo is pretty neutral... but I guess a neutral opinion will at least dilute all the negative some?

My interaction with Steve (hereafter meaning "Tigo", not SQ) has predominantly been over at Rights, where most of the talk page is our ongoing (on-and-off) discussion about revisions to the lede of that article from over the past few months. While I don't find Steve's contributions there to be especially productive, he hasn't been particularly disruptive either. His views do seem a little... I don't know if I'd say "idiosyncratic" since I'm not entirely sure what his views are, so I'll say "poorly formulated". He seems to strongly want to include something in the article, but it's often difficult to tease out what exactly that something is. But, he has been civil and respectful of my criticism of his edits on the talk page, and has not edit-warred about their inclusion, but rather refined his position and compromised, and the article has genuinely improved in some minor ways because of this process.

Over at Talk:Human I saw pretty much the same process play out, except that people's reactions to Steve were less patient than mine have been at Talk:Rights, and Steve seemed to respond understandably negatively to that more hostile reaction; and even that minor hubbub settled down quickly enough. So overall, I don't think he's a particularly problematic editor; any harm he does to articles is usually minor and easily corrected, and he seems to respond positively to people who are clearly knowledgeable on the subject calmly stating why his edits were reverted/adjusted and asking for clarification on what point he's trying to make.

The only real complaint I have is about his style of editing piecemeal (e.g. many edits to a single page in a row within a few minutes of each other, instead of previewing and rethinking the edits until they are to his liking), because I have my watchlist set to show all edits, not just the most recent, and that kind of editing floods my watchlist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Theres a wikien thread about "little edits or big edits" which relates to your issue. An interesting point someone made is that editing contentious articles is best done in small edits, with each edit labeled with a specific comment. Non-contentious articles can be edited in larger strokes. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to this at your (Steve's) talk page since it's a bit tangential from the subject here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment I have only met with Stevertigo a few times at Talk:Language and Talk:Linguistics. My impression is that he is a very creative person with a very wide scope of interests. Unfortunately his creativity does at times conflict with presenting data in a conventional and neutral way as Stevertigo seems more interested in reinventing and redefining the topics he work on - a process I believe he refers to as "conceptualizing". This often leads to Stevertigo introducing neologisms and non-standard terminology into the articles with the result of obscuring the topic rather than clarifying it as I believe is his intention. It can also be difficult to reason with him using sources as he seems to rely more on his own reasoning and intuitions of how best to define and describe topics. I don't know if this merits administrative action, but I think it would at least be valuable if Stevertigo is informed that his editing styles alienates other editors and is not generally seen as conforming to the desired pattens of behaviour in encyclopedia writing, the aim of which it is to present existing knowledge in a conventional form - not produce or redefine existing knowledge - If he chooses to change his behaviour as a result of being told of how others view his it that will be even more valuable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Maunus' comments, and I'll note here that in retrospect, looking at his version of Language (most of the current version), I have to admit his version is quite strong and in certain ways an improvement over mine (viewable here). But I think the point should be made, and I think Maunus will agree, that the article would not be what it is without my critiques on the talk, and my proposed version which attempted to be as high-level as possible.

It is moreoften the case however that my writing is of higher level than that of my opposition, as looking at articles like Punishment will show. In contrast with what Steve Quinn is doing, which is to try and make his editorial critiques into behavioural ones (ie. this ANI), Maunus stood his ground and kept putting forth incrementally improved candidates until I conceded that his approach to the subject was superior. I was more than happy to leave that article alone for the simple reason that it had been improved, through process of debate and refinement, to a satisfactory level far above what had been there before. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't share that understanding of how the language article developed, and I certainly don't think that the lead version currently there is mostly my version. I also remeber trying to stand my ground but failing - I became so frustrated with your way of arguing that I left you and Andrew Lancaster still going at it and finally nothing came out of it and the lead that was there to begin with was left standing. Trying to read the debateon the talk page archive 3 I can't even read what happened because of the way your formatted the discussion by cutting statements and lead versions into pieces and organizing them by numbered points in a very odd system. To me it was a very alienating experience - even moreso than reading the Human article.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• What about sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions, in June 2010, which appears related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. To wit (as they say): " Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Stevertigo exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Is it because of these sanctions that you are so adamant about having discussions pertaining to neoligms, and non-starters, which turn out to be generally WP:OR and WP:POV? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No Steve, its it not. It is my general intent to improve the quality of articles I encounter out of my own interest. What I do is actually read articles, starting at the top and working my way down until I'm satisfied I've learned something about the subject. If its acceptably well written, I leave it alone. If its not, I edit it starting from the top. Remember it was you, along with JimWae, who followed me to the punishment article after we had resolved debates at the time article (a debate in which JimWae notably lost to me, and in which you were of occasional help). If you (and JimWae) had not followed me around to punishment - an article you had no prior interest in (in fact it had been months since anyone else had edited it) - we would not be having this discussion. Since you did follow me there, going out of the way of your normal editing pattern, I was fully in my rights to react to your reverts and removals. It was you and JimWae who chose to make that article a battleground, and it is quite clear that you did so to be adversarial towards me. This is what we call WP:HARASSment. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other articles, with diffs, where Stevertigo follows the same pattern delineated above. In other words, he comes along one day and inserts WP:OR into the lede. This is usually followed by a group of other editors having to contend with him to keep the original WP:V statement in place: ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Animal Rights: [110]. After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, [111]. And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
• Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): [112]. The original has been restored.
• Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010) [113], and related discussion [114].
• Holocaust denial: Here: [115]. Reverted: [116] on the talk page a section entitled with one of his favorite concepts: Conceptualization.---- 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo writes above that "my writing is of higher level than that of my opposition." This shows a lack of insight that explains why the problem persists. The fact is that all these topics (beauty, truth, rights, God) require research and education. No one can write about them off the top of his head, which is what Stevertigo tries to do. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - that is very insightful. I believe you have described the issue in a nutshell. Bravo. Too bad this does not become an A-HA! moment for him. He's too busy starting from the top down, etc., etc.. In any case, if I have a reccomendation for sanctions, where do I communicate this? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This would be the place to make suggestions and ask for community support. Or there's WP:AE for ArbCom enforcement if you want to focus on the 1RR sanction or whatever it was. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Animal Rights: Steve Quinn wrote: "After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image" - The caption she mentions related to the concept of anthropomorphization. SlimVirgin happens to be an animal rights enthusiast who at times allows her biases to inform her editing of articles. See for example her edits to the Person article, attempting to overgeneralize the concept of "person" to include animals. She relented at the person article, hence that introduction is largely my own. I decided to give it up at the animal rights article, and it still I think bears the marks of pro-animal rights POV.
• Rights: As Pfhorrest said above, he and I are working at the rights article, and all of my edits to that article have been constructive and, to some degree or other, incorporated into the article. The current version is about 40 percent my own writing. SlimVirgin, once again, is talking about something she doesn't know anything about.
• "Holocost denial" [sic]: This was a heated debate over a technical issue with the definition and scope of "The Holocaust." I found it interesting to note that until the sixties, "The Holocaust" was not confined in definition to just Jews, but it applied to another 11 million non-Jews who were murdered by the Nazis, albeit not in the same systematic way. I simply suggested that articles that refer to the Holocaust not assume the more common definition. I argued that on any article that mentions the Holocaust, it was POV to promote the narrower definition to the negation of 11 million other victims. Incensed editors reactionarily slandered me as a bigot, and began an ANI as a referendum on my editing. It went nowhere, and instead of talking about recent issues editors started listing edits from 2003 and earlier - readers can look at the closing comments at that ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009). -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to step in, as a completely uninvolved non-admin who has never interacted with any of the participants in this thread, but who nonetheless reads AN/I avidly because it's entertaining. In my opinion you are going to find it almost impossible to effectively manage this editor. Any restrictions on editing the opening paragraphs of an article will have to include spelling corrections, punctuation etc, which would be draconian and wouldn't work. There would also be the problem of defining the opening paragraphs; everything before the list of contents, or including the list of contents and the first paragraph of the first section? The first paragraph of each section?

Any restriction to inserting original research will flounder on the definition of original research. A total ban would struggle to find broad consensus; and unlike the chap last month who communicated only in ludicrous hacker shorthand - I forget the name, he supposedly had RSD - this editor (a) engages with his opponents (b) does so within the boundaries of civility.

Selective blocking from certain articles will not work because the scope of the editor's genius is vast; he will simply go elsewhere. A ban on reverting will not work because the editor can simply rewrite his opinions in broader or alternative terms and present them as a fresh edit, rather than a revert.

The ideal solution would be to give the editor a Wikipedia of his own that he can edit to his heart's content; perhaps the big articles on significant topics could have a /stevertigo subpage that is only visible or editable to himself. Perhaps that would keep him happy. It seems to me that this is his ultimate goal; a world of his own. But of course this is not possible. It will be interesting to see what you come up with. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's problem editing is unfortunately not limited to opening paragraphs of either articles or sections. See, for example, this OR extravaganza, which he dumped in the human article with a cleanup tag. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

section break 1

• Another comment. I just noticed this, where I asked SV about his using a second account Cymble (talk · contribs). He replied that he doesn't use socks in the sense that I should be concerned with, and pointed to WP:SOCKS#Legitimate uses. To my two followup questions I never got an answer. DVdm (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment To check how well the Obama-related sanctions have been working, I tried to check Stevertigo's edits since 2 August 2009, the date the amended sanctions went into effect. He's done almost no editing in Obama-related articles since then, so in that sense the sanctions worked, but it means we don't see how well he edits those articles within the constraints. From 21 June 2009 to 2 August 2009, when wider sanctions were in effect, he made just a handful of 30 mainspace edits (compared to 180+/month averaged over the rest of 2009). I also checked his most frequently edited articles in post-2 August 2009 period. Those are: Punishment (95 edits), Time (61), Zoroaster (50), Being (47), Human (44), Universal reconciliation (31), Person (26), War (26), Freedom of religion (24), Animal rights (23), False messiah (23), Time in physics (23), Claims to be the fastest-growing religion (21), Euthanasia (21), Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) (21), Sin (20), Abstraction (18), Fundamental rights (18), Many-worlds interpretation (16), Assisted suicide (15). I think it casts some light on the situation that these are mostly articles of rather wide philosophical scope, which can therefore be magnets for vagueness and OR. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Most frequently edited pages (all namespaces) in past 90 days: Talk:Human (164 edits), Talk:Time (163), Talk:Punishment (113), Punishment (95), Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case (86), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (85), User talk:Stevertigo (72), Time (59), User:Stevertigo (51), Human (44), Talk:Many-worlds interpretation (43), Talk:Time in physics (31), Universal reconciliation (31), Talk:Jesus (30), War (26), Talk:Rights (25), Freedom of religion (24), Talk:Universal reconciliation (24), False messiah (23), Time in physics (23), User talk:Steve Quinn (22), Claims to be the fastest-growing religion (21), Talk:Dark matter (19), Talk:List of messiah claimants (18), Template:Universalism (17), User talk:Newyorkbrad (17), Many-worlds interpretation (16), Talk:Language (16), Wikipedia:IPA/Introduction (14), Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (14). 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm spending a little more time looking at the ~July 2009 edits during which Stevertigo was under wide 1RR restriction, because restoring that restriction has been proposed here by me among others. Stevertigo's editing slowed down a lot during that period, for whatever reason. The edits I do see aren't all that great. If anyone cares, another bogus template {{Skymine}} (deleted but appears to refer to WP:BSM, another neologism) is inserted in Social identity here. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions

Other comments are still welcome above. In this section, I would like to begin proposing sanctions that are considred appropriate to the issue. Feel free to propose sanctions, and others may agree or oppose.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• The same disruptive editing has gone on for years (seven or eight years), without regard for guidelines and policies. This type of editing has created conflict, and edit wars, again for years. It has affected both editors and articles. I propose a total block from at least six months to one year. If when he returns Stevertigo picks up where he left off, then an indefinite block, would then be appropriate. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support a block of any length for now to get the message home and prevent further damage. And when he returns I would suggest a ban on adding any content not accompanied by a reliable source that clearly supports the material he adds. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Propose that Stevertigo embark on an ambitious new project befitting of his big-picture thinking, with the resources and community support needed to pull it off. Further propose that Stevertigo and the rest of us do our best not to clash in parts of the encyclopedia where incrementalism is the norm. Isn't there a way we can stay out of each other's way? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest he voluntarily hold himself to WP:1RR, try harder to explain himself more clearly in discussions, and tone down the boldness just a tad. More than anything, the problem seems to be one of communication (based on my experience at Human). --Cybercobra (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Spoken Wikipedia|topicon=no|RD250XJZizp4.ogg|2010}}

• Response (to Wikidemon et. al.) - This is all really centered at the punishment article. Neither Steve Quinn nor Jim Wae showed any interest in that article until they lost a previous editorial debate with me (at the Time article), and followed me there. Its a clear case of harassment, and if we go to Arbcom that's one of the things they will find. I would prefer that Steve, Jim and I go back to the punishment article, assisted of course by others here, and work out our differences there. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, unfortunately, your problematic editing at Time, sometimes misconstrued as simply being "bold", drew scrutiny of your edits at the Punishment article by me and at Universal Reconciliation, where you recently added unsourced and dubious content, and yet kept reverting to keep it in the article despite my revert and the ensuing discussion. Apparently, this is a continuing and relentless disruptive pattern of adding unsupported original research on your part, and which has been done repeatedly despite protests on numerous pages for you to take care not do so. --Modocc (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing "problematic" about it. The article lacked a generalized introduction, and I produced one that was sourced, and was accepted by the majority. Those that argued against such an introduction lost the argument. As for universal reconciliation, that article has suffered for a long time due to ambiguities about its meaning and scope. User:In ictu oculi has at least a good sense of how it should look, eventually, and I leave that article to him. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You're being punished for editing the punishment article? This is rich. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I figured this is rich too, the irony of it all. --Modocc (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, unless I overlooked something in the history of the article Time and talk, your "generalized" versions that you presented (and placed in the lede) were repeatedly incorrect and unaccepted as anyone following that article could attest, so your claim that any were somehow sourced and supported on talk is a distortion. The only lede version that actually put your issue to rest was the sourced version I placed on the article, as pointed out by SQ at the beginning of this thread. If you have a problem with any lede, start a discussion by all means, but to repeatedly thrust unsupported content into article space to "fix" such problems can be disruptive, and is the reason why you have drawn attention elsewhere and here, as well as possible sanctions. Your "opponents" are only of your own making, and this is supposed to be a collaborative effort that is respectful of policies and editors and is not a battleground of wills, as you continue to frame this. --Modocc (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Modocc, the version people eventually agreed with was a single sentence that came before the previous introductory sentence, which was sourced to the American Heritage Dictionary entry. Even though that was the only dicdef, out of ten dicdefs cited, that mentioned "continuum" and "change", it was better by far than the others, because it was high level. I did not approach that article adversarially. JimWae had been sitting on that article like an egg and took undue offense at every suggestion to generalize the lede in the way I was eventually successful in doing. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the content of the "Punishment" article. This is not a content dispute. That is how a previous ANI got sabatoged, and the editors lost their focus. There were sanctions imposed on Stevertigo and the other editors, but nothing like a block. I will have to review it to see what the outcome was. However, keep in mind that is how a previous ANI veered off course, and Stevertigo would like to take us all there. For his part Stevertigo cannot back up a word he is saying with diffs that would demonstrate anything other than inserting WP:OR into any of the articles mentioned in this entire thread. The issue is his WP:OR vs. WP:V. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We were talking about the time article, Steve. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Stevertigo, far more than one dictionary mentioned the continuous nature of time, and a continuum is a gradual change. Thus the current lede is supported by most of the sources, but as far as I can tell, none of your suggested revisions and arguments prior to that addressed these sources properly and instead your edits were focused on your own misguided conceptualizations. I consider the lede improved now and you were instrumental in drawing the attention needed to accomplish that, nevertheless, that does not excuse the disruptive editing then or elsewhere as pointed out time and again. As such, everyone knows that this wiki is ripe for improvement, however it should be done with the available sources and not OR. That you continue to sidestep this problem of unsourced OR is in itself a sign that you still do not understand the consequences and harm done to both content and the editing environment, even if only temporary in either case, and why sanctions should be imposed. --Modocc (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will take your good advice to heart, and discard the accusation of original research. Original writing is not original research, and in fact its required of us. If an editor parrots the sources, often what happens is their writing is a mess. On the issue of CITE, some here rejected my edits to the human article, even though it was sourced in twelve different places. So, to the accusation of OR, I say 'false.' If people want to make this a referendum, I welcome a formal inquiry. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, at the very least, a formal ban, as suggested by SlimVirgin, on Stevertigo to not add significant content on any articles without supporting sources, as well as a formal 1RR limit. --Modocc (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A "formal ban" would require going to Arbcom. Its not difficult to convince people of an informal ban, but it would lack the legitimacy or standing of a formal ban. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If consensus decides for a block that is legitamte and has standing. ---- 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't; the Community has imposed plenty of formal bans without ArbCom, and wouldn't hesitate to do the same here if it became necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course we do not have to go to ArbCom. Stevertigo boasts he has been here since 2002, don't you think he knows about community bans? Of course he knows. The very fact that he pops up making this silly claim that we have to go to ArbCom is a good example of the kind of disruptive editing that justifies the ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose a complete ban on editing, but perhaps some kind of restriction or warning enforced by threat of temporary ban, e.g. after any one revert of an edit, consensus must be established on talk before any further edits to that article, else a temporary ban? (Perhaps with exceptions for typos/spelling and obvious vandalism?) Steve already seems to behave within those bounds where I've interacted with him, so I don't think it would be a problem for him to do so elsewhere if he hasn't been there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is a pretty bad WP:RANDY issue going on here. Stevevertigo's edit[117] cited by Mgiganteus1 was quite recent and is just ridiculous. I leave the question of bans to people more knowledgeable about the problem, but (as a separate suggestion), mentorship might be helpful if some qualified editor has any interest in taking it on. Another suggestion is to expand the existing arbcom restriction from Obama articles to all articles, as Arbcom originally considered (see [118] "superseded remedy"). Steve Quinn's edits to Time are not perfect either ([119] should use secondary sources instead of a dictionary, and should leave out the trademark symbol per WP:MOSTM if the dictionary is cited), but those are minor quibbles compared to Stevertigo's serious issue. Note to Stevertigo: formal bans are issued at ANI all the time.[120] All bans can be appealed to arbcom, but they don't have to be issued by arbcom. 71.141.90.138 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that "science" section was proposed by someone on the talk page, and I cobbled that together in 5 minutes just as a way to start the section with something. In no way did I expect that material to endure, just to put something on the page.

I don't know what you mean by "Randy in Boise" except to say it must be a pejorative. How much such pejoratives mean I will leave to the experts, but seeing as how you and I have never interacted before, such a comment is uncalled for and must be regarded as a DBAD violation. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That WP:RANDY is a perfect description. Thanks for that User:71.141.90.138. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• When you read what I have to say, please keep in mind that I don't watch any of those articles other than human, so everything I say is taken from the perspective of someone whose interactions with him are those you can see in the history and talk page there. If you check those, we've got it under control. His gunk gets reverted almost instantly and the article has improved slightly in how clear it is about things like it's relationship with the article person. Also, it gets more eyes on the article, which is a good thing. I think if certain others would just not drag out conversations with him past the point of realizing you're not talking to a rational person, then he's not dangerous to the article. Something less than banning him might be better, just a mentor to keep an eye on him and point out his logic problems in a short way, as I try to do, would be better if possible. Wikipedia can handle post-modernist babblers, no problem. At least the article Human can. If anyone wants to "mentor" him to see how other articles I don't watch react to him, that's not as harsh as banning to my mind. You can't fool Wikipedia when it's well-watched. Chrisrus (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was successful at getting "person" inserted in the lede - something you say is a "slight" improvement. Regarding the human article, I like what Maunus just said on the talk page about its current state: "I just came by here from the ANI thread and took a look at the article: A very alienating experience. Seriously. It looks likle the article was written by Aliens. I don't think I can think of a better way to do it right now though." Thanks. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, we noticed that; kinda wierd, isn't it. I describe it as a report by Dr. Phlox for the Denobulans. It's just the way an encyclopedia about humans ends up sounding. Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Propose: a revert restriction of some kind (1RR/wk/article, unless reverting actual vandalism perhaps). From reviewing (don't think I've ever spoken to the chap) the thing that is causing the major problem is edit warring to keep the unsuitable/unsupported portion of his edits in articles. If he could stop doing that, it would be helpful. Others can then evaluate that portion of his edits that are actual improvements, as it does seem that some are.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Propose an indefinite block/community ban. He has been around since 2002 and his pattern has not changed at all in eight years, despite every other editor asking him to change and explaining why. He does not do research, his "conceptual" approach is a euphamism for his substituting his own personal logic for research, it violates NOR, it violates NPOV, the web of his interests have some clear focal points that suggest a mild but clear POV-pushing campaign. He is a bad example for newbies and suggests we have practically no standards. All evidence suggsts to me that Stevertigo deserves his own blog. No evidence suggests to me that he belongs at Wikipedia. Tigo, have a blog, and may you prosper in the blogosphere.Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Harsh but fair. It really is time Stevertigo learned, but he doesn't even seem to understand the problem. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block as in preceding proposal. While an initial three month block might be tried, we have ample evidence that only an agreement for this editor and Wikipedia to part company will be effective. Johnuniq (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Not sure of an indef but if that is the way this leans I wouldn't be too broken up over it. The last time it was a 2-week timeout, so perhaps one more escalation (1-2 months) before the big barrels hit? I don't know what this place was like in 2003, perhaps it was more of a blank canvas for original thought and concepts. If it was, it is not anymore, and this user is either unwilling or unable to play well with others. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't support any sanctions that involve loss of editing privileges for Stevertigo - I do think he is here to improve the encyclopedia. I'd support 0RR or mentorship if that was proposed. If Stevertigo were to wish a mentor to help him communicate better and move towards a kind of behaviour that is more within project norms, I'd be willing to attempt it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Where does Stevertigo acknowledge that he is doing anything wrong at all? He continues to defend his bahaviour. What good would a mentor do? --JimWae (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think he is actually receiving criticism gracefully in a few of the exchanges above (when its offered in the right spirit), but of course mentoring only works if the proposed mentee agrees that he would benefit from a mentor and takes menotirng seriously as a way to grow as an editor.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I can believe he's here to improve the encyclopedia but he may also have a WP:COMPETENCE problem. Whether it's deliberate or not, he is unusually hard to reach. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Propose 0RR + mentoring. I've encountered Stevertigo here. He inserts himself here pretending to have more expertise than he in fact has. In itself that wasn't much of a problem (it happened there only once), but this AN/I discussion shows that there is a systemic problem with this editor. The mentoring agreement should be a flexible topic ban. The mentor allows Stevertigo to edit; in case of problems he/she can demand that he not edit certain topic areas. The 0RR can be relaxed for specific topic areas if the mentor feels that this is possible. Count Iblis (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• The only way mentoring would be useful is if Stevertigo were required to submit every edit in every namespace to said mentor and require approval before proceeding. Anyone want to take that on? *crickets*. Ergo, banning is the only real option here. → ROUX ₪ 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I appreciate the fact that some here feel like I've stepped on their toes over the years. As I have done before, I apologize for any errors of my own fault. I appreciate Steve Quinn's request (on my talk page) that I be conciliatory here, and will consider any suggestions he has. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a good move towards reconciliation would be to also recognize that peoples feelings of stepped-on toes is due at least in part to aspects of your behavior that you can (and hopefully will) change so that they will not get that feeling again. Secondly stepped-on toes is not the biggest issue that is being laid out here, rather that the important concern is that people find your approach to writing articles to be detrimental to the encyclopedia. That is the concern that should make you concerned and ask yourself, 'what is it I am doing wrong?' and 'how can I change that?'. We have an encyclopedia to build and you have an important role to play in that project if you are willing to take advice from your peers when they express concerns about your approach.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, and hope that they can be sorted out in arbitration. The fact is that Steve Quinn and JimWae followed me from the time article, where they lost the argument, to the punishment article, where their interest was not in the article itself, but in my editing. This meant:

1. that their issues with my editing were premeditated, coming from the time article,
2. that their interest in the article was fabricated, being interested more in me,
3. that because their interests were not in the article itself, their edits to that article were bound to be sloppy (as one can hear in the spoken audio version above)
4. their adversarial approach toward me on that article was harassment.

I respect the constructive opinions of everyone here, and will take any good advice to heart. But they were wrong to be adversarial and make our article disputes a personal matter, and other disgruntled editors from my past are wrong to come here looking for late retribution for past encounters. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ask the person above to sign the post. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is interested there is a request for arbritration initiated by someone else - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Stevertigo ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah. It was initiated by me. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Um, if the guy has been here for eight years and no one can recall a single constructive edit he's made, why is allowing him to stay even up for discussion? How will the project benefit from his continued participation? AGF has a limit, and it is surely less than eight years of disruptive editing. --LordPistachio ^talk 06:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know about edits, but I know at least three times where Stevertigo has identified problems with an article in that it was either badly written or did not do full justice to the concept it was treating. I think that is valuable.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe it's because most editors are more concerned with making constructive edits, & not with what other editors do? (I consider that a good thing, for the record. No one appreciates a busy-body looking over their shoulder.) If you define "constructive edit" as excluding comments on talk or policy pages, & WikiGnoming, then I admit that I wold be hard-pressed to come up with a constructive edit for countless editors whom I consider useful & vital to the project. And I write all of this without it being intended as a defense of SV's behavior, just an explanation why he's been tolerated for so long. -- llywrch (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• I made the WP:RANDY comment further up. I just looked at a random sample of 10 of Stevertigo's last 500 mainspace edits (as of earlier today). I would say 7 or 8 were constructive, 1 or 2 had good intentions but minor problems, and 1 (the second-to-last on the list) had significant problems (it was in the context of a small but bogus edit war). I don't want to take up a lot of space with a detailed analysis, but the edits I looked at were: [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]. From this I would say the majority of Stevertigo's edits are constructive and useful, though I haven't seen any that I'd consider great (e.g. edits that add high-quality content of substance, preferably with good sourcing). Of course this sample is inconclusive about the totality, since the issue (according to SLR[131]) is a long-term pattern of lower-intensity disruption. As an outsider never involved in those articles, I mostly see cluelessness in Stevertigo's interaction style with other editors. His edit warring today over the name of the arb case he filed is especially self-discrediting. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• I appreciate the comments. As far as the RFAR goes, it comes in large part due to the voting here, being based largely in hearsay and old grudges, in support of an "indef block or community ban." You on the other hand did something novel which was to familiarize yourself with my recent editing history. I greatly appreciate academic honesty whenever I see it, and I will take your cautions regarding the RFAR to heart. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef block or community ban. I found Slrubenstein's argument above to be convincing. I believe it's possible that Stevertigo has been here so long that he has not kept up with the difference between the kind of material which might have been considered acceptable in creating an encyclopedia ex nihilo, but is no longer acceptable in shaping and molding a more mature product. (For instance, I recently came across this – not by Stevertigo – the very first state of the article on The Bronx; it stood for quite a while, but would be reverted immediately today.) His apparent inability to recognize that times have changed, and to adjust his editing to match, is an indication of a certain lack of Wikpedian competence. The editor should be blocked or banned until such time as he shows an appreciation for the policies and content requirements that have developed in the 8 years since he first signed on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• On what basis do you, someone whom has never encountered me in any editorial issue before, or any issue before period, come to the conclusion that I need to be banned? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, a quick look at the title of this section will verify that I am not the subject of this inquiry, you are. Rather than engaging in this kind of combatitive remark, you'd be best advised to put your energy into providing the community with some answers to the questions that have been raised about your behavior, something which you have, so far, managed to avoid doing. (Besides, if we had had previous editorial issues, I presume you'd be discounting my opinion because I'm "involved"; but here, you want to discount it because I'm not involved.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• And SV: this is rather nonsensical, don't you think? Since when do we evaluate editors on the basis of their edit counts? And what do edit counts have to do with one's ability to read complaints, evaluate evidence and make judgments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The current issue is the editorial debate at punishment. Any wrongdoing on my part there has yet to be discussed or established here. It is precisely because of the generic focus on my "behavior" here, complete with anecdotes from seven years ago, that I've had to take recourse at RFAR. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, your statement is totally incorrect, and rather disconcerting, in fact. The issue under discussion here is not the editorial dispute at Punishment, but your behavior, which is why blocks and bans are under consideration. Please stop attempting to derail redirect the conversation. As I told you on your talk page, your attention would be better put towards making explanations to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(cutting in) Its quite easy to turn everything into a behavioral dispute, let ghosts from years past creep in with info, and take sides. Its much harder to look at things as an editorial dispute, and then regard the behavioral issues with neutrality. That's why I was one of the first to suggest the formation of an Arbcom back in 2003, and that is why, regardless of all the dirt you can find on me, I have referred to matter to Arbcom. This ANI is still at its core an editorial dispute between I versus SQ and JW, otherwise its just a bunch of senseless accusation. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Propose 4 month block Somehow Steve has to get the message that it is inappropriate to insert his own unsupported "conceptualizations" into wikipedia articles. I see no indication from him that he will not continue to insert his "conceptualization" (often incomprehensible) into lede paragraphs & lede sentences. I see no indication he sees any need to have use sources, nor to not misapply "supposed" sources. Some community response to his behaviour is called for. Making someone else responsible for him is not the answer - Steve needs to take responsibility for himself, so a block of some significant duration seems to be the most appropriate. If, during that 4 month block, he expresses a sincere intent to change his behaviour, the ban could be shortened AFTER other respondents here have had input. --JimWae (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support 4 month block SV's most recent behaviors do not indicate SV has changed his positon to any degree. I agree a community response is called for. I support a four month block with the above perscribed conditions.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment I think a 4 month block inadequate. I might support a four month block IF, upon completion of the block, someone took the responsibility of mentoring Stevertigo. Perhaps Maunus, who raised this possibility. Blocks and other actions are NOT punitive, they are rehabilitative. A block will give him time to study with some detachment how other editors work effectively, but mentoring is also necessary to help ensure he can function productively after the block ends. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions tally

Other comments are still welcome in any of the above sections.

Below is a tally of the proposed sanctions, supported, or opposed.

Should the community impose sanctions, or should the community simply allow an administrator to impose sanctions (based on the ANI thread). Please weigh in. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Total block (for a length to be determined) - 10 support; 4 oppose

I list the editors in support of a block for some length of time. User:Modocc, User:SlimVirgin, User:Steve Quinn, User:Slrubenstein, User:Johnuniq, User:Tarc, User:Roux, User: Beyond My Ken, User:JimWae, User:JzG says harsh but fair.

• Editing restriction - 2 support
• Mentoring - 2 or 3 support
• 0RR - 1 or 2 support
• voluntarily hold himself to WP:1RR, try harder to explain himself more clearly in discussions, and tone down the boldness just a tad

Steve Quinn (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the community has full rights to impose sanctions [132], and when determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not "support a temporary ban with caveats"; I oppose any ban at this time, and suggest in its place, if any action is necessary, editing restrictions/0RR backed by threat of a future temp-ban if he violates those restrictions. --Pfhorrest (talk)

Note that User:Pfhorrest is referring to an error in the tally above (no negatives?) and yet it was removed without indication, leaving Pfhorrest's comment orphaned. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, yes, I should have left a comment on this page, which acknoweleged the tally for Pfhorrest was moved from support to oppose. There is, however, a comment in the edit summary that reflects this. But, yes, a message here would have been nice. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Other issues

I feel that there are still several other issues, which have not been addressed.

• One is the 1RR restriction imposed as a result of the Request for Arbritration/Obama articles. This a sanction for edit-warring. The limitation is to one revert per page, per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. (here) and (here scroll down the page). If this applies to articles in general then this 1RR rule has been violated.
  • Steve Quinn, the arb remedy says very clearly "Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles". The 1RR doesn't apply to non-Obama-related articles. The wider version under "superseded remedy" is, as it says, superseded.[133] 67.119.2.101 (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The sheer number of accusations that I violated a prior Arbcom ruling had almost convinced me. Thank you for getting the facts straight. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry to say, I am not convinced. I do acknowledge that the IP 67.119... has demonstrated a high degree knowledge about how Wikipedia works. I still intend to inquire as to whether or not this is a general sanction, once the un-involved Admin is available. The available documents on this matter are confusing (imho). And I don't which is the current sanction, to tell the truth. However, the fact that you (Stevertigo) didn't think the sanction was in place says to me that it probably wasn't. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• The other issue, brought up by User:DVdm is sock puppetry. DVdm asked for Stevertigo's legitmate reason for using a sock puppet and recieved no reply. Link here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't use sock puppets. I may occasionally use a different name on Commons or another project, and if I forget to log out, my edits here will have that name. That's what happened here. Your deep concern for my alleged sockpuppetry should be commended. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I ran a checkuser and I'm following up with Stevertigo and ArbCom about any use of undisclosed accounts used by Stevertigo. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Another issue is the "NONCE" tag, which was applied to the Time in physics article [134]. This is a tag or template which has no standing on Wikipedia. It is a made up tag. The tag points to an essay WP:NONCE. An editor, User:DVdm removed the tag from above the lede of the article [135], with a message on Stevrtigo's talk page [136]. Both User:DVdm and I were misled into believing that this was an authentic Wikipedia tag. The WP:NONCE page is an essay, authored and edited by Stevertigo. The tag is still at the bottom of the page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I see other problems - how can you get a word like nonce and use it in a novel way, make an essay and apply it to and then make a template to tag articles in namespace? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to find out which articles are tagged with this {{nonce}}-tag? DVdm (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DVdm: Currently, there do not seem to be any articles tagged with that template, but you could have seen which ones were by going to Template:Nonce and clicking on the "What links here" button. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was a comment here about this "Nonce" essay - that it is now up for deletion. In any case, yes it is now up for deletion. Is there a link to the deletion discussion or this up for "speedy" ? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_26#Template:Nonce
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nonce introductions

67.119.2.101 (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment concerning uninvolved admin section below Only because some emphasis is being placed on Stevertigo's long tenure with the project, I think it only fair to point out that his time has not been without controversy, since he was the subject of an ArbCom case, as a result of which he was de-sysoped, and is currently subject to an ArbCom-imposed editing restriction. If his time with the project is a mitigating factor -- and it should be -- these should also be considered as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to repeat my general apology to all concerned. I have been contributing here for eight years in good faith to the mission of Wikimedia's projects, and I understand that everyone else here does as well. But please do not fault me for not accepting all the accusations thrown my way. I appreciate the good work that Steve Quinn, Jim Wae and others do. But this ANI should be a way to solicit help in resolving an editorial dispute (at the punishment article), and should not be some general kind of referendum on my so-called "behavior". Again, I express my wish that we resolve this matter without going toward extremes, or by expressing any more bad faith than we already have. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As long as you refuse to acknowledge that the community has moved well past the specific editorial dispute on the Punishment article to a general appraisal of your editorial behavior overall, your "apologies" are hardly going to ring true. After all, you can't apologize for what you don't even admit is under discussion!! This matter is not going to be resolved on the basis of one article, it is only going to be resolved on the basis of your recognition of the community's concerns, and some assurance from you that you understand those issues and are resolved to change your way of editing. Failing that, the likelihood is that there's going to be some kind of sanction against you, either from this discussion or from the ArbCom case you opened. It may be a topic ban, or a reversion restriction, or a block or a ban, but there's clerarly going to be something come out of this, and you will not make it go away by waving your hands and pretending the discussion is about something else.

Please show us that you understand what is happening here, and that you are willing and able to deal with the problems that are being brought to your attention, and stop maneuvering around trying to manipulate the situation to your advantage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, you said earlier that you based much of your "ban" vote solely on the recommendations of Slrubenstein. Is that true? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that, and, again, this is not about me, this is about your overall behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You said you found "Slrubenstein's arguments above to be very convincing." Given that you and I have never run into each other, I took this to mean that much of your view was shaped by Slrubenstein. Note that his comments do not come in a vacuum. Slrubenstein on occasion has a problem with making pejorative remarks toward me, and I was wondering if these would be "very convincing" in a different way. Do these kinds of things contribute to his "overall behavior?" And does not his "overall behavior" have something to do with how you regard his opinions? Does the fact that I did not pursue formal action against him mitigate your concept of my "overall behavior"? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have never had any problem at all making pejorative remarks towards you. I have however criticized your editing whenever it has violated NPOV or, more often (and almost universally) V and NOR. As you admit, you have been doing this for eight years. Fortunately I am able to describe a sonsistent pattern to the many who have not been around as long (and yet somehow have contributed far more than you). But I think I am just summarizing; many others have commented on different examples of your tendentious editing and contempt for research. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(cutting in) I have you on record referring to me as an "antisemite", among other things. Such pejoratives cannot be tolerated. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Stevertigo: I suggested last night on your talk page that you should read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT -- have you had a chance to do that yet? If not, you should probably do so.

I don't believe the community is interested in your attempt to probe my thought processes – except in so far as they may shed light on your behavior and your attitudes – the community has raised questions about your editing behavior, which you have managed to dodge and weave around, instead of providing straght-forward answers. In as much as your attempt to muddy the waters by making this about me, rather than about you, is a distraction, I'm going to withdraw from the discussion, in the hope that you will take the opportunity to do the right thing, stop maneovering and manipulating, and answer those questions. Given your comments in the past 24 hours, I'm not optimistic about that happening, but perhaps you'll see your way clear to doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand you want me to be conciliatory. I appreciate that, and I am. But consider also my point of view: One day SQ, JW and I are working together on an article - agreeing even on a merge between my version and theirs - and the next I find they've opened up an ANI page. At the same time, they don't want to

confine the discussion to the article at hand, they want to open up a referendum on my "behavior" at which any old editor can interject with commentary, tidbits from years ago, or support for some draconian measure. Consider all that. Now tell me what must I do to prove that I am sufficiently conciliatory? How can I do so in such a way that would overcome the negative votes from those editors who are here only for one purpose only. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Being conciliatory would include 1. recognizing that aspects of your behaviour has estranged a rather considerable number of editors with whom you need to be collaborating. 2. stating that you will take steps to change your behaviour to minimize this problem in the future. 3. stopping trying to defend or justify your past behaviour and attacking other editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator reviews of Stevevertigo community responses

I am creating this section for uninvolved administrator reviews of the Stevevertigo community discussion above. Please see WP:AE for examples of how this is typically used. Please do not comment here if you are either involved (and commenting above counts) or are not an administrator (though, you are welcome to comment above if you are not an admin).

On first review, Steve Quinn seems to have counted accurately and established that there is a numerical ( 10 to 3 ) support and qualitative support for some sort of block or ban, plus support for other alternate sanctions as second or third choices. We have had 72ish hours for the discussion to run if I am counting correctly. Under our normal community sanction process any uninvolved administrator could now step in and decide the consensus.

With that said - this is a longtime contributor, we didn't have that many people respond, and there seems to be some significant dissent as to whether Stevevertigo's contributions are hopelessly and irredeemably not OK within the Wikipedia framework or whether some form of limitations or mentoring or some such may preserve his ongoing positive contributions while mitigating or eliminating ones seen to be negative.

I am creating this section for uninvolved administrators to consider and work on seeing if we can determine a good way to resolve the question of irredeemable or not.

Pursuant to that question, I have asked Steve on his talk page to comment on his thinking behind one of his recent article forks ( Human being forked off a former redirect for Human ). If there are other examples people would like to focus clarifying discussions with Steve on, please post the articles or diffs (recent preferred, 3 months or less) which you think illustrate problems with Steve's behavior. We've seen some of those above, which Steve has partly discussed above. If uninvolved admins want to follow up more on any of those, please feel free to list them.

I am aware that another uninvolved admin could chose to short-circuit this given that we've passed the minimum threshold for doing so; I would like to request that people inclined to do that give us some time to work on the questions first. He's been here for years and years. If you feel that he's doing something disruptive right now, feel free to issue a short term sanction while we ponder longer ones. If not, more discussion here will not hurt. He's not setting the encyclopedia on fire. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevevertigo response to uninvolved administrator section

Your rational approach is appreciated. To comment a bit more in detail, the human being stub I created in the context of editing the human article, as a workspace for a philosophical rewrite of the article. I did not suggest it as a fork, nor did I expect it to stand for more than a few days, rather I kept it as an example of what an article on that subject might look like if taking a general, philosophical approach (Wikipedia is a work in progress). The human article is not necessarily about human beings but about the human species as a scientific concept. One editor remarked that reading that article was like reading something written by aliens. I happened to agree: Taking an anthropological view of the subject human only gets us so far. For example, the article didn't even mention the word person before I came along - a fact which alone was enough to discredit the views of editors who had rejected my proposed changes outright, or else had considered the article to be pristine. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is "enough to discredit the views of editors who rejected your proposed changes outright", Steve. You seem to be indicating a profound lack of understanding for and respect for Wikipedia's core value of consensus, here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing action

I recommend closing this thread without action, now that a request for arbitration has been filed, and it looks likely to be accepted. The volume of evidence here is substantial, and not amenable to the drive-by reviews that matters typically receive on this board. Careful consideration of the facts is needed. Rather than placing a ban, and then having it appealed to ArbCom for review, it makes more sense to let the request for arbitration proceed. Stevertigo, you would be wise not to edit the articles cited above until your case has been heard. Any sort of questionable editing while the matter is under active review would likely damage your position.

Somebody else can hat this if there are no objections. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by anon user who changes IP adresses

After the first entry of this topic here, that nobody paid attention to, the same anon user with one more IP address began his disruptive editing in more articles than previously. His new IP address is 79.107.12.248 (talk · contribs) and the articles of his interest are Piraeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), ISAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Port of Piraeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Attica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Salamina (city) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Basketball in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His edits are always the same. Any help with this? - Sthenel (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If they see you referring to them as a manic in your edit summaries that probably doesn't help. I have reverted them all apart from the one on the basketball article at the moment, though admittedly I don't understand the content dispute we nevertheless shan't have an edit war. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The content of the dispute is described in the old entry. He constantly renames the Athens urban area to Athens-Piraeus urban area. He cannot admit that the urban area of the capital is called "Athens" and not "Athens-Piraeus". His main point is to present Piraeus as a separate city, a separate urban area, totally distinct form Athens, thus the urban area of the capital should be called Athens-Piraeus. Reverting him isn't a solution, btw he has already reverted you. He is the Pplatis (talk · contribs), edit warring as anon user to avoid being blocked. Could I list him for suck puppetry? Could it help since he changes IP addresses every two days? - Sthenel (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, if by using these IP addresses he or she is creating the illusion of added support for one particular argument. He or sheis not circumventing a block because the main account is not blocked. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

SGGH Continuously Sthenel and his friend (Sv1xv) breach the rules and repeatedly we have discussed for this problem without can refute my ringing arguments and the official references. There isn't Athens urban area, Athens metropolitan or Athens urban area of the capital etc where included Piraeus urban according to laws (ΣΡΑ, ΝΟΜΠ, 3852/10, 21/1987 etc) of Greece State.--79.107.12.248 (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't know what "(ΣΡΑ, ΝΟΜΠ, 3852/10, 21/1987 etc)" means, use something more easily understood. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Laws, decrees of State and sources from official website of Prefecture Piraeus etc with regard to Piraeus urban area, Athens urban area, Athens-Piraeus urban area etc. Sv1xv creates problems in the Greek wiki to other authors from his behavior often. --79.107.12.248 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you cannot call "friends" the editors that don't agree with you. Secondly, don't take segmentally texts that serve your opinion, since the official state defines the Athens urban area and doesn't include any separate Piraeus urban area in the censuses. - Sthenel (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have put him in inverted-commas. Νot precisely, the official state determines according to laws, the double name Athens-Piraeus when he makes report in the basin Attica. --79.107.12.248 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can avoid an edit war in the mean time, ask WT:GREECE to weigh in with a judgement, or WP:RFC if you want to. I would advise the WikiProject first. Don't edit war in the mean time or an admin will just deal with that for what it is. Seems fairly clear cut to me. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added an official source (National Statistical Service of Greece (2002). Στατιστική Επετηρίδα της Ελλάδος 2002 (PDF) (in Greek). National Statistical Service of Greece. p. 54. The table includes the urban areas of Greece, officially defined by the National Statistical Service of Greece, powered by the Ministry of Finance of Greece. The municipality of Piraeus and its greater area belong to the Athens urban area or Greater Athens (Πολεοδομικό Συγκρότημα Αθηνών).). This government agency is responsible for the Greek census, and it's the only service that defines officially the urban zones of Greece and their components, to perform the statistics accurately. I'm pretty sure that he's gonna revert them. He won't discuss anything, he has a long history of edit warring, he is the only one who supports his POV, and he doesn't accept either plain facts. He did the same in the Greek wikipedia, until he was blocked. - Sthenel (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless he can quote and link from this law he cites, that seems fairly conclusive. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Other names are also used to refer to the Athens urban area from time to time, but he uses the one version he wants in order to stress that Piraeus shouldn't be treated as a suburb of Athens, since he lives in Piraeus. Additionally, he refuses that Piraeus is the port of Athens since the ancient times (a plain fact), he tries to favour his town Piraeus and his favourite team Ethnikos Piraeus in the A1 Ethniki Water Polo. All these versions of the articles are sourced, stable and have never caused any problem since they are widely accepted. He is the only editor who causes so many troubles in these articles. He did remove for one more time the sources describing it as vandalism. - Sthenel (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Law 3852/2010 The regions and municipalities of State reports:

The Periphery Attica (does not says Periphery Athens or Periphery capital) includes 8 sectors: Prefecture Athens has the regional unit Athens where included from 4 units Athens, central unit Athens, south unit Athens, western unit Athens.

Prefecture Piraeus has the regional unit Piraeus includes 2 sectors the regional unit Piraeus included municipalities Piraeus, Nikaia, Rentis, Agios Ioannis Rentis, Keratsini, Drapetsonas and Perama and regional unit Islands Argosaronikou.

Prefecture Anatolikis and Ditikis Attikis.

Η μητροπολιτική περιφέρεια Αττικής και...Metropolitan Periphery Attica (does not says Metropolitan region Athens) as Metropolitan region Thessalonikis, Metropolitan region Patras etc.

It was published FEK 26 - 06.03.1987 Law-Determination of regions of Country and Presidential Decree (51) Periphery Attica

MINISTRY OF LAND PLANNING OF ENVIRONMENT

Land-planning Organization-article 11-5/2009:...Χωρική Ενότητα Λεκανοπεδίου / Πολεοδομικού Συγκροτήματος Αθηνών–Πειραιώς - Territorial Unit of Basin/Urban Athens-Piraeus urban area or Greater Athens-Piraeus.

article a 5/2009:

3.a) Metropolitan Centres:

• The central region of Athens
• The central region of Piraeus.

...The metropolitan region of Piraeus recommends the Southern Gate of Urban of Attica.

--79.107.12.248 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't mess the administrative divisions and terms such us the Periphery of Attica, Athens Prefecture, Piraeus Prefecture or any other regional divisions, different names (Urban Athens, Urban Athens-Piraeus, Urban Attica), false and incomplete translations, in order to arrive at the conclusion you want. The State and their services don't recognise any Piraeus urban area as a separate entity either in your sources (you just play with the names), or in the official census results where the urban zones are clearly defined, listing the cities that belong to each of them. So stick to the official statistical source which lists the urban areas and their population and don't try to perform the original research that you've made as a fact. - Sthenel (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You interpret as usually error and remove rules. Find sources and proofs for those you say! Metropolitan Centres(Μητροπολιτικά Κέντρα), Χωρική Ενότητα Λεκανοπεδίου / Πολεοδομικού Συγκροτήματος Αθηνών–Πειραιώς - Territorial Unit of Basin/Urban Athens-Piraeus urban area or Greater Athens-Piraeus. --79.107.12.248 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who misinterprets. I've tried to explain to you privately what your sources say, and it's not close to what you wanna prove. I use official data, an official document provided by a public service which proves exactly what I'm saying. I'm not trying to find a way to contradict it and make new agglomerations which are not listed in the state's statistical archive, by collecting scattered stuff. When in the census results there are 2 agglomerations, I have no reason to make a third one because it's my town. - Sthenel (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism rollback

Resolved

 – Blocked by Cirt, Rollbacked by Cirt and The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Could I trouble someone to hit the rollback button on 64.34.172.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? They were blocked as another proxy being used by Lysdexia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but were prolific enough while active that I'd really rather not revert everything by hand if a one-click solution exists. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Of the ones that can be rolled back, only one was actually a bad edit and had already been rolled back or reverted. All the early ones on there are just sensible typo fixes and the like as far as I can see. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that user banned from wikipedia, or only indefinitely blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure that's really her? I don't think there was a formal ban, anyway, she just sort of disappeared. —Soap— 20:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous IP (72.254.128.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), in use yesterday, had signed as "lysdexia" in several talk page edits before being blocked as a sock and open proxy by an administrator. This one showed up several hours later and reverted cleanup on a dozen or more articles the previous IP had edited (and only made edits to those articles). I'd argue that passes the duck test for being the same user as the previous IP, at minimum.

Cleanup already seems to have been done, so rollback at this point is a non-issue. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nair

User:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar and few others are removing link to polyandry among Nairs. The historical practice of polyandry among Nairs is a widely notable issue and please see the discussion page for a number of highly reliable references I have put forward. These users dont have an argument why this link shouldnt be there, they just remove it without explanation. I have added the link back in. I am just drawing the attention of some responsible users. Thanks. --CarTick 22:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior at AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunting (House), where User:Colonel Warden took it upon himself to revert my bundling of 24 episodes of plot summary. On the talk page, they claim confusion and the appearance of impropriety; if you look at the AfD, you see that the request for bundling these articles came from participants in the discussion. The good Colonel is already accusing me of edit-warring after I reverted their changes once, so I don't feel so bad about coming on this board crying like a baby. Seriously, I need someone with more weight than I have to judge this: I don't see how an editor should be allowed to disrupt an AfD process in this fashion. Drmies (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• The matter is explained at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hunting (House)#Scope. Adding numerous articles to an AFD partway through seems improper and so I reverted. Drmies just repeated his bold edit. I started discussion on the relevant talk page. Bringing the matter here now forks the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think the solution is pretty obvious. Let the Hunting one run its course alone, meanwhile nominate the other 23 articles as a mass nomination. Reyk _YO! 11:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• It might be more sensible to wait for the first discussion to be completed so that it would form a useful precedent for the other cases. Multiplying discussions so that they take place in parallel is not efficient. Do I now have to repeat this comment at the first discussion which was started at the talk page. You see the problem? Colonel Warden (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• You said yourself that the first discussion was tainted by a sockpuppet, and yet you want to use it as a precedent for the others? Nah. Bundle them all and discuss them properly. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. It is clear that some participants wanted the bundling, and just as clear that the editor objected. It is reasonable to want the full period of time if one is going to look for sources in an attempt to save individual articles. I'd see how this one plays out, find out if others accept the book as a reasonable source, and nominate the others if it appears the community agrees in the deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • And the objection by this one editor, their unilateral action, is OK, and undoing the work I did--which I was asked to do--is just fine? Drmies (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say it's "just fine" - there's a battlefield mentality revealed that I'm not keen on - but I would say that it very much is the nature of a wiki to have one's work undone by others. The editor has a tenable reason for his action, IMHO there's no admin action needed here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It's precisely that battlefield mentality that brings me here. I did not think that such an edit would be OK in the first place, I did not think that someone could mess with and disrupt an AfD discussion like this. I am disgusted by it, but I seem to be the only one, so go ahead and close it. Colonel, nice work. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
        • To be honest, I kinda get where Colonel is coming from. Adding other articles to a nomination once the discussion is already underway is a little bit dubious because someone acting in bad faith could easily do that with a discussion that's heading for an overwhelming delete on the last day, and get stuff removed on the sly. It does seem pretty unfair though that you are copping all the criticism for doing what several other editors asked you to do. Look, most of the work of setting up the mass nom is already there in page history so you can quite easily create a bundled discussion for the other 23 articles. I don't think we'll see any procedural objections to that. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Realizing I'm going to get in trouble for this, I find some significant irony in someone complaining about their work being undone when the work they did was trying to delete significantly more work from others. Maybe it's just me that finds that irony verging on being worth a giggle. On the more substantive matter, I agree that bundling after a discussion has already started is inappropriate in general. Hobit (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
          • What's ironic is that I have over 21000 edits in article space (you have 700). I know a thing or two about creating content. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Don't think that's ironic. Sad on my part I'll accept. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Well... as an AFD is intended to run 7 days, there is a sense of "rush to delete" when other articles are bundled into a discussion after it has been going on for a few days... and specially after editors have already commented on the one original article nominated. And too, editors trying to improve the one, might now feel besieged by the many. Best to un-bundle, and let the AFD on the ONE run its course, and bundle the others (as they are late-comers to the table) in their own AFD. Or too, there might be a gentlemen's agreement to extend a mass-bundled AFD for an additional two weeks to allow good faith addressing of issues in so many articles at once. Always a tough row to hoe, with mass nominations, no mater what the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• I already !voted at the AfD, so I'm involved, but I agree that bundling mid-AfD is not OK. If you want to bundle a nomination, do it properly. But... what about a selective merge to the episode lists? Did you even consider this, per WP:BEFORE? Deletion is a blunt tool to be used as a last resort. And have you done a check for sources for these episode, to see if they really are not notable? As I commented at the AfD, the fiction deletionists are Wikia's best friends. Jimmy'd be making much less money without their dedicated work to drive readers that way. Fences&Windows 23:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

IP adding broken interwikis

121.54.29.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked a few times (twice by me, once by Rich Farmbrough) for various disruptive edits, mostly addition of bogus cleanup tags and addition of interwiki links to articles that don't exist. He has lots of warnings on his talk page but doesn't respond to them, and the moment his blocks expire he starts up again. He just got off his most recent block and again added a bunch of links to nonexistent interwiki articles. (The bulk of his other edits in the time since his block are annoying but not disruptive: adding {{Persondata}} with linked dates that shouldn't be linked.) Anyway, I blocked him for now just to buy time to discuss this here and not have another big mess to clean up later.

Any suggestions on what to do about this IP? Would just a really long block be sufficient? I'm not going to put a like 6- or 12-month block on him myself as I'm already involved enough. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

After his block ended he came back and rapidly screwed up over 50 pages, mostly replacing redirects with entirely unrelated articles (here is an example). Since no one responded here, I assume no one cares, so I went ahead and blocked him for a year. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Spoken version of the article Punishment.ogg

Why is File:Spoken version of the article Punishment.ogg located in the upper right hand corner of this page? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg that's linked, which is a redirect to the file you mention. It appears to be related to the sprawling discussion about Stevertigo above; probably someone needs to use an inline audio template instead of whatever they're presently using. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Or just put a colon before the "File" portion of the name. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an inappropriate template. I have put {{tlx}} around it. Hans Adler 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Johnadonovan making legal threats

Resolved

 – Blocked. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Johnadonovan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making legal threats (all in caps) on his talk page and on the talk page of Royal Dutch Shell which is in the breach of WP:LEGAL. Bidgee (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess this is the guy who created Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns and the Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell and similar one about enviormental concerns with Royal dutch shell? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep its him, appears to be several more article he has created that I was unaware of. I dont see much hope for this guy, POV warriors are never good for business add the copyright infringement on top of that and its clear this guy is not here to work on a neutral collaborative encyclopedia. Support an indef-block or an RFC/U to further evaluate wider conduct problems The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:M12390's personal attacks, bias and racism

The user User talk:M12390 has been repeatedly warned on his pages on issues concerning MQM, Altaf Hussein, and Imran Farooq. It seems he has an agenda he's POV-pushing. On the page I fould him on for a recently deceased person (Imran Farooq), 2 editors (one of which was me) have inserted content that is sourced (after a discussion with another fellow who considered it uncited, but we duly found sources) and he removes it saying it is "irrelevant." In addition to his bias he has gone and first WP:NPAed the other editor (User talk:Saqib Qayyum#Why are you hell bent in highlighting the "Muhajir" background of Imran Farooq?) and then at my own page (User talk:Lihaas#A Lahori CANNOT be neutral about Karachi) (which came AFTER i warned him about personal attacks). He once again resorted to the same behaviour when I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (this after plenty of notices on his page and he still doesnt seem to understand):

"Any unbiased researcher would soon learn that Lahoris in particular and inhabitants of cities on the GT Road (Peshawar -> Islamabad -> Lahore) cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Check this out. According to the Daily Mirror "Within minutes of the death of Dr Farooq - a leading member of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement which means United National Movement - websites in Islamabad were awash with claims he had been assassinated or killed by his own bodyguard.""

And yet again the user has continued to resort to ad hominem attacks and inserting his POV as to why something should be in or not: [137] and [138]. And more Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_talk:M12390. These threats to refrain from editing a page because a user is from X or Y is racism by any stretch of the imagination and certainly doesnt foster a positive atmosphere on wikipedia.

Furthermore, he has also removed all his previous warnings, in case they are missed: [139](Lihaas (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

Lihaas you ARE a bias contributor. For some crazy reason Lahoris just cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Some downright hate it (except for the money, of course). It is a sad and unfortunate truth. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Lahoris injecting their totally biased angles and conspiracy theories on Karachi-based people and entities. However, it is not acceptable to pass yourself as an unbiased contributor. You are not!!! M12390 (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable ad-hominem attack here. Can we get a block? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. 72 hrs. He agreed on AN to keep cool and then immediately made a bunch more personal attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

As an aside, the controversy on said page is being dealt with on talk between the other 3 editors.(Lihaas (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC));

TonyTheTiger

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

---

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been causing some controversy with the WikiCup. It's kind of a complex situation, but basically he's been borderline uncivil these past few days. Here is one of the gems [140]. You can find more at WT:CUP, WT:DYK#Michigan basketball overload, part 2 and User talk:White Shadows#Where you at. Hit me up if you need more. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 23:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/I is the Wiki equivalent of 911 (or 999, whatever). I can't get very excited about borderline uncivil. Talk to the guy, if you think he is out of line.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My Michigan basketball overload outburst was related to misreading a response, for which I have already apologized.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Was the nasty e-mail days later also an "outburst" as a result of "misreading a response"? The issue at hand is that your drive for "rewards" seems to be impacting negatively upon many content review processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking to him seems to produce only rather nasty e-mails.[141] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of racism are hardly "borderline uncivil", but whatever. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Would have to agree. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stuck that part. My bad. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to delete the cup I think, or change it to prose kb so that microslicing stub GA/DYKs won't get anywhere. In any case if this continues people may take it as seriously as a golde medal won by an East German/Communist Chinese "female" swimmer YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the "reward culture", but one editor should not bring the entire program into disrepute, while tying up content reviewers with ill-prepared noms, and then disparage the very people who have to review the excesses. It's disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting rather tired of him coming to my talk page and raising hell just because I disagree with him. (Excuse my French) I don't think we need to delete the Cup just because of one editor though.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

White Shadows, there's really no need for such intemperate language. I'm so shocked my fucking monocle fell out. Nev1 (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm just not that used to cussing. I felt I needed to justify my use of the word as it's very rare for me to do so on this site.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Time for a doping ban then, or underarm incident YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, he took the drug indadvertedly. Perhaps it was in his asthma medication?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that a RfC like the one proposed on the WikiCup talk page is the best course of action. However, I may very well be wrong....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony is a great contributor, but when I've handled GA noms he's put forth, he seems to lack time to actually make non-trivial improvements when they are requested. As long as he's not harassing other editors or harming the processes, his rewards-orientation is fine. When Sandy says there's a problem, I'm not convinced that everything is OK with his drive. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• While there was indeed a serious problem with Tony's editing, a lot of that is already a few days past. I fail to see how an ANI post by someone who (as far as I can see) has had no involvement in the actual disputes is helpful in resolving these issues. In fact, it has probably only provided a venue for people to repeat the same points they already made. DC's way of notifying Tony also leaves something to be desired. Ucucha 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Those comments on my talk page are only a few hours old Ucucha.....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • There is a problem here, but it needs to be dealt with via an WP:RFC/U (unless the disruption continues, in which case, admin intervention may be needed since it seems TTT is driven to win this "competition"). It seems TTT has caused similar issues at FAC, GAN, DYK, and possibly other content review processes as well. I also suggest that WikiCup needs to find a way to discourge this kind of reward-seeking disruptive competitive behavior. FAC addressed the problem by changing the nomination instructions to prevent multiple, ill-prepared nominations [142] [143][144][145] (TTT frequently brought back the same nominations after they were archived, without making changes, was combative with reviewers, and his nominations have recurring issues [146]) that were adding to the backlog and reviewer burnout, but every content review process should not have to adapt processes to prevent abuse of reviewers, who get nothing for their work. And, when we have a "contestant" alleging that a FAC delegate is "putting people up" to things, FAC's reputation is tarnished by this competitive drive. The kinds of behavior TTT is showing have no place on a collaborative project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • SG, I rarely if ever agree with you but I think that RFC is the best option, for the whole of the Cup. I don't want to see it deleted but some major changes need to take place to keep this from happening.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • @Ucucha: I'm not sure why me posting here is a bad thing (besides my notification, which was borderline). I haven't been libeled or harassed like Sandy and WS, but I still feel his actions have had a negative impact in several areas. I also did the GA review of one of his articles and like Jclemens noted, he left me to make minor changes I requested, without even responding to them. @Sandy/WS: I'm not sure what an RFCU would hope to accomplish, besides an admonishment. I would support an RFC on the WikiCup itself though, after this one finishes. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • If TTT is causing broad issues at a number of content review processes, and an RFC/U supports that, his participation in those processes could be limited or restricted. (We've never had to do this before, but I've never encountered issues on this scale.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A new problem, that requires a knowledgeable image person. Just as DYK was flooded earlier, there are now numerous "Valued Picture" awards on TTT's talk page, but when clicking on the "Source" URL for several of those images, I get dead links. And, due to lack of reviews and the process being flooded, Valued Pictures is passing them with lower consensus than in the past. There may be image policy issues there, but we need an image person to look at them. TonyTheTiger has flooded the Valued Pictures Candidates page (I stopped counting at 30), as he did DYK with substandard nominations, and it doesn't appear the images are being thoroughly checked for conformance with image policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

They give points just for freaking nominating them, you've got to be kidding! Grsz¹¹ 03:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And one editor (Spongie555 (talk · contribs)) is pushing them through; could someone look at them for compliance with image policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You know...points for nominating. What utter bullshit. I uploaded File:BarbaraGittings in Phaldelphia 1969.jpg (clearly not spelling it right when I did) after several communications with Kay Lahusen and the Lesbian Herstory Archives. I'm the one who got permission to upload it and did the OTRS legwork. Oh, screw it. Let's just create some stupid ugly award and put it on his talk page. Let's just band together and say what a superior human being TonytheTiger is and never question his prolificness in editing ever. Let us stand in awe of his mighty testicles and wait for him to bestow drops of wisdom upon us, because only someone so showered with so very many points from the WikiCup and awards could be such an honorable human being with integrity far surpassing the sour lot of the rest of us. That is clearly what this business means to him. If we acknowledge it, maybe he'll stop. --Moni3 (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good fucking god... Can an uninvolved admin please archive this thread? We all know that no administarative actions are going to happen here - the next steps are already spelled out: RFCU on Tony if necessary, RFC on the WikiCup if desired. The former issues are up to Tony to rectify, and some of us are trying to deal with the latter, but everyone running around stirring up drama is not helping anything or anyone. Resolute 03:46, 27 September 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.

Content dispute has escalated into tendentious editing

Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs) wants to add trivial, and he hopes defamatory, content to the Katie Couric BLP article. His attempts were reverted by several editors. In talk page discussion here, the vast majority of editors rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the NPOV Noticeboard here, where all but one editor also rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the WikiQuette Noticeboard here, where he was again informed that his proposed content was trivial, undue weight and tabloid-ish. Now he is dismissing the consensus input from numerous editors, calling them a "mob" (see this edit summary), and he has chosen to edit war instead. His comments in his edit summaries, (...I am not going to repeat the explanation. Find it.) and (Discussion is over, no one contested my last statement for over a MONTH.) indicate a reluctance to resolve the dispute through discussion. A bit of help in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• User:Hearfourmewesique notified of ANI discussion involving him.

OK, let's put this in proportion:

• Trivial – this word is being flung around like monkey feces, with no actual solid proof to it.
• Defamatory – it's a video depicting Couric making fun of the Palin family, as reported by multiple reliable sources, not a picture of her breasts exposed in a third world tabloid.
• Vast majority – this article is a fan club; there is not a single entry that counters the constant appraisals of her character and work that this article entirely comprises of.
• Mob – it's wikilinked to WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, again with the fan club issue.
• Undue – we are talking about one sentence of somewhat negative reporting within an article that's entirely biased in Ms. Couric's favor and tenaciously guarded by the "mob" I was referring to earlier. This is a technique that seems to have been well developed on Wikipedia: get enough supporters and anything can be achieved under the pretense of consensus. Luckily, User:Drrll (the one in "all but one" that Xenophrenic mentioned) has enough common sense to understand my point, as opposed to any other editor that has been "swarmed" by the myriads of comments that were intended to flood mine and Drrll's.
• My comments – those are my two final comments after sweating bullets over extensive explanations of the validity of my point, being repeated over and over again until I got to that point (of simply instructing Xenophrenic to start listening to me, instead of exhausting me with these techniques). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is strong support on the talkpage that the content has no actual value in her life story, user Hearfourmewesique is not listening and has been replacing the addition anyway, this has resulted in the article being locked. There is a consensus against the user and he should listen to those voices and when the article is unlocked in a couple of days if he again readds it against consensus, that would imo be disruptive editing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A look through Hear4's contrib list indicates that when he veers into political articles he's trying to paint certain people a particular way, and his "fan club" comments above are par for the course when it comes to editors who want to violate the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...and here we are with the politics: you find whatever you can to try and make me look bad at any cost. Your "look" can be summarized in Couric and Michael Moore, to the latter's article a concise and neutral paragraph being added, with multiple reliable sources, on an issue that wasn't covered before I added that paragraph. Unless you can prove that I want to violate BLP intentionally, I will interpret this as a personal attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So just what was the point of adding a lengthy blurb about how Michael Moore supposedly supports the idea of a mosque on Ground Zero? Do you think his article also reads like a "fan club"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly??? Wow man, I though you'd be wiser than that, being a veteran here and all... read the sources, he's proudly "shouting it" on his website! Having said that and the issue being covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, it should be in his bio. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So, does the Moore article read like a fan club article? I don't think so. And like pundits such as O'Reilly and Hannity, he thrives on controversy. Meanwhile, your continued attempts to make a mountain out of the Couric-Palin molehill skew the matter. That video didn't come out until long after the election, and there is no end of people who made fun of Palin in public, at the time, so the fact that she did so, in private, is nothing unusual and is undue weight in the article. As far as a "personal attack"... well, I merely read what you wrote earlier, and as a "veteran", I saw that it fits the pattern of many, many editors I've seen here who complain when they aren't allowed to put their negative trivial stuff into an article - for example, as with the siege of the Palin article during the fall of 2008, which I helped to defend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your position that you can add anything you want that you can find a citation for it the problem you are having. We are writing the life stories of living people and we should use editorial judgment as regards what has value in their life that is worth adding, if you find yourself in a minority that the content you desire to add is worthwhile and noteworthy that is the time to start listening, not the time to suggest all the people that disagree with your position are members of the article subjects fan club. Off2riorob (talk)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Far more important in the grand scheme of things is that despite all the initial hype, Couric and CBS News have yet to make a dent in their ratings deficit - a fact which actually is stated in the article. I wonder if a "fan club" article would be likely to mention that fact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "lengthy blurb" is a short four-sentenced paragraph (just finishing the Moore thought). As for Couric... this might seem trivial, but none of you are considering that it's an indication of her being biased against Palin, a fact which influenced the interviews, prompting Palin's supporters to see it as being from the most negative perspective ever. Declining ratings are nothing compared to that. Nowhere is Coric's personal agenda mentioned anywhere in the article. She's not a neutral reporter and this is a clear influence on her work, which is seen by millions of people on a daily basis. Is any of that mentioned in the article, even when supported by multiple sources? No. So... yes, it's a fan club that happens to mention poor Ms. Couric and the declining ratings she can't raise... sniff sniff and sad puppies.

P.S. Just for the record, I happen to agree with her on the Palin issue; I believe Palin is one of the most incompetent political candidates the US has seen in years. On the other hand, I'm not a TV reporter and I'm not influencing masses of people based on my wording. Again: all I want is for the article to be a bit more balanced. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs. If you don't understand that, or cannot understand how your editing has taken on that quality, you should not be editing the article at this time. Please consider this a final warning from an uninvolved administrator to cease and desist. NW (Talk) 18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. WP:GREATWRONGS is a specific instruction to "only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources". I have supplied seven, and Drrll supplied one more, making it eight. Final warning? It's the first time we interact, pal, chill out.

To BaseballBugs, per WP:OSE, the fact many others were making fun of Palin at the time doesn't make it OK and/or trivial for Couric to have done that as well. Besides, she didn't do it in private, she was reading the script at her stand, with the camera being aimed at her; she just thought the camera was turned off. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear what Palin had to say about Couric also, but that wouldn't mean it belongs in the Palin article. Also, a fact being verifiable is not a ticket to inclusion in an article, it's merely a minimum standard that must be met before it can be considered for inclusion, especially on a BLP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Hearfourmewesique actually believes he has some damning "gotcha" content here, as evidenced by his mistaken assertion that Couric "thought the camera was turned off". In fact, Couric asks and is told that they are filming during the first 24 seconds of that video footage, and she even does the customary 3.. 2.. 1.. sound-check countdown before launching into her read-through, which she promptly interrupts with the exclamation, "Where the hell do they get these names?" There is actually nothing defamatory about that video footage, and Couric wasn't "caught" doing anything other than learning for the first time about people with names like Trig and Track that live at the far fringe of our nation, eat mooseburgers, hunt caribou, and leave 90% of Americans scratching their collective heads and asking: WTF?

When, in an effort of compromise, I left the trivial content in the article, and expanded it a bit to describe just what Couric was making fun of, Hearfour reverted those edits, too. Apparently, too much information for the reader ruins the "we caught Katie doing something baaad" aura he was trying to push, and shows it as trivial. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mountain-out-of-molehill stuff. A lot of Americans wondered the same thing. Maybe she could have asked a softer version of that question during the interview. Like the time Jay Leno asked Frank Zappa why he named his son "Dweezil". Frank's answer was, "Because I wanted to," and that was the end of that discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record I'd like to reply to a point made by Hear.. It appears he is claiming that the incident shows Couric's bias and provides context for the infamous Palin interviews that came after. The sources do not support this -- they merely remark on the trivial details already mentioned. Anything more is from (unreliable) Palin supporters with a grudge. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you're claiming that Palin supporters are unreliable – because they're Palin supporters? Why would they even bother getting upset unless something in Couric's portrayal of Palin wasn't all kosher? Have all Palin supporters unanimously decided to scapegoat Couric on an empty basis? Your logic has more holes in it than a bagel factory at 5 AM. Most of these sources point at the fact that the interviews followed shortly after the video was shot, and were seen by some as an extensive smear campaign. Yet I'm the one accused of a smear attempt because I'm stating what's covered by several press outlets... huh? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not stopping

We could do with some eyes on talk:Michael Moore#Religious view missing, where the same editor is having difficulty understanding basic guidelines. Wikispan (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring on multiple articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kumar ldh

This is first time I m adding/notifying here. From last 2-3 days there is disagreement between me and user kumar Idh on Sabudana_Khichadi editing, can be found on my talk page User_talk:KuwarOnline#Sabudana Khichdi, I trying to explain him with wiki guidelines like WP:Original,WP:RS,WP:Verify, WP:NICE etc, while replying to his comments. He is reverting my edits see 1, 2, so I did 2-3 time(reverting his edits) but I dont want continue doing that as we all know what is 3RR. He is removing all the reference and adding his own personal view(without single reference) which clearly violates WP:Original, now the article not having a single reference, I added some reference like expressindia,dnaindia which can easily qualify WP:RS and prove that Sabudana_Khichadi is usually prepared in Maharashtra ref1,ref2, I dont have any problem if he provides good reference to his claim made on article. I tried to explain him and even ask to read WP:Original, I thought it will help him but now he it taking personally see his comments on my talk page. Well I dont have any problem if somebody points my problem, I will happily correct it, but he is taking it personally, and following my past edits to point of problems some time foolish like this one history1 history2, just to show me wrong he is adding template COI to category template, I wasn't aware of creating categories will ever qualify for COI, even the template says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". Still he added to Category:Companies based in Gurgaon which was created by me. see kumar contributions which can show he is targeting page created by me, I would apologizes if I posted this early to notice board, or I should have wait for more or something but I just wanted not to go for edit war. My concern is just that revert his edits unless his provides reference to his edits. thanks KuwarOnline ^Talk 21:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I have been invited here I would simply like to present my point of view. Here are few of my observations:

• There is no credible/authentic information that proves that recipe in question is exclusive to Maharashtra. Citing numerous references doesn't prove this. I have provided the user links which can prove that recipe is not limited to Maharashtra but to other parts of India too. A simple Google search is sufficient.
• The user have been simply copy pasting information from websites. Just one example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GTL_Ltd&diff=prev&oldid=386986130. User has simply copy pasted content.
• When there already exists a page "List of companies in Gurgaon" with much more exhaustive information then why is there a need to have a separate page "Category:Companies based in Gurgaon"?
• The contributor has never paid attention to grammar.

If all of above qualifies as quality contribution to Wiki, I will be forced to question Wiki policies. If I had taken all this as personal, I would have been the first one reporting KuwarOnline. In fact I left message on user's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KuwarOnline#Grammar_.26_content_copying) asking him to pay attention to what he contributes. The content posted by user has also been questioned by other contributor and user's response shows his arrogant behavior. There is no rule on Wiki that says I need to provide references to prove that sun rises in east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar ldh (talk • contribs) 07:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have added "Sabudana khichadi is an Indian dish. It is usually prepared in Maharashtra and as well as state like Gujarat, North Indian states" to article see old version I don't know how kumar is interpreting to what he says that only/exclusive to Maharashtrian dish?. The sentence I have added clearly says its Indian dish and usually prepared in Maharashtra and other states too. Again I say if kumar has good reference to article, I dont have problem.
• About copy pasting, I still not able to understand may be some admin can explain me. As every sentence of the GTL Ltd has its own source.
• About category I dont want to explain may be some admin/editor explain him, As I m tired being explaining. He simply dont understand difference between category and article.
• About grammar, see my talk page he is accusing me for grammar mistake e.g "its not chilli its chili", "there is nothing as chilli powder\green chilli pieces, it is red chili powder", "in "chilli powder\green chilli pieces" isn't correct, it should be "chilli powder/green chilli pieces" etc see history author of the article added it, still he blaming to me, this shows that how he desperate to prove me wrong, now he is making false claim to just show me wrong?
• About my behavior, please go through my talk page, let me know how it qualify for arrogant behavior. I will surely comply if I got genuine inputs from editors/admins.
• Kumar says that other editor also pointed about my grammar, e.g. "you wrote "sentence" as "sentance" " but the editor didn't know that how to see history of page before blaming to someone. see DLF History, which shows what I did. for more please see my talk page and DLF Limited history.
• Again, the whole point is just revert kumars edits (history) and let him know where he can improve on editing(follow wiki guidelines), so future edit wars like this wont happens. KuwarOnline ^Talk 10:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one way to cover both points of view on Sabudana Khichadi is to keep the first section just about what the dish is and then include a sub-section about preparation in Maharashtra without mentioming the word usually. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

hmm sounds good to me. KuwarOnline ^Talk 16:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No one would have been bothered if KuwarOnline had paid attention to what I have been saying. Secondly, I will not take blame about getting personal. Its really saddening that a bit of advice, I have been very polite to KuwarOnline, to polish his skills sounded him insulting. I am not interested in wasting my time here but I would like to ask KuwarOnline to

• pay attention to whatever he is contributing, specially grammar, it is only going to help him.
• must talk to other users before reverting changes that if there was any specific reason for changes
• its OK to accept your fault, in fact only brave has heart to accept fault

Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar ldh (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• About grammar, I already explained in my above comment, now I don't have any simple world to explain than above comments
• See the comments on kumars talk page User talk:Kumar ldh#Sabudana Khichadi‎‎, didn't I notified with reason why I reverted? with wiki guideline. I dont know how people can lie to this extend.
• fault? I already commented above if any genuine comment received I will comply. But till now whatever kumar said is all lie, you can follow my above comments where I given all links which can prove how kumar is lying and diverting topic nothing else, we are discussing here about edit on Sabudana Khichadi‎‎. KuwarOnline ^Talk 16:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

KuwarOnline, I have better things in my life to do. Your grammar needs correction. I am not talking about your contribution to Gurgaon article. It was a general comment. You are taking it as a personal comment. Better skills are only going to help you not me. Secondly, I can not keep pointing to the fact you have never ever provided any reasonable, leave authentic, source for your edits. You simply keep reverting changes citing Wiki guidelines. I am not more going to reply you but to some admin. And you please do not call me a liar. Thanks for contributing to Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar ldh (talk • contribs) 09:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks my friend, but let me know where I was wrong I will surely correct it. But till now whatever you pointed was done by some body else wasn't me. Just check history of the page compare my edits if you find anything please let me know, I will correct it. If you say my grammar needs correction its perfectly fine for me but you need to point where I was did wrong so I will know that your not just talking based on your assumption, You cannot just say anybody what you think unless you have some proof, other wise it would be called baseless accusation. About reverting, everybody in wikipedia has full rights to reverts edits if edits not adhere to wiki guideline. Same thing you did here history, you added all based on your experience/point of view/personal analysis etc, unless you provide authentic(in ur word) reference it will violate WP:Original. I m not calling you lier intensionally but whatever happened till now shows it was lie or ignorance/wrong allegation etc. If you say somebody that you did xyz thing you need to have proof for that, in wiki you have history of every edits, so you can shows link here where I or somebody's wrong edits to prove your claim/allegation. Anyways whole point here is about your edits on Sabudana Khichadi which violates WP:Original in my point of view, may be some other editors/admins can check and comment. Thanks KuwarOnline ^Talk 12:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers photo needed

1. I think for article of little known actress Alexandra_Powers a photo is needed. IMDB has one that could be used for the article. Here's the link: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3291650048/nm0694490 2. Also, a photo is needed for Julie_Kavner who is the voice of Marge_Simpson. IMDB has a one at this link:http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1859230464/nm0001413 Please let me know about those 2 articles for needing photos. Thanks!Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those photos are acceptable. Both are living persons which mean we can only use photos with a free (unencumbered) license. -- ۩ Mask 04:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. If the living individual were in a position where it were dangerous or impossible for any reasonable editor to produce a current photo, a fair use image should be acceptable. Incarcerated or reclusive drug lords as an example. However in this case, these individuals don't really fit that criterion.--Crossmr (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why the rule says something about "reasonably" possible to get a free photo. Obviously, if someone is in the slammer for life, that would be difficult. Unless his cellmate had a digital camera and internet access. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask at WP:Requested pictures. This page is for incidents requiring administrative attention. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing

In Talk:Libertarianism, Xerographica has been asked not to soapbox by User:Born2cycle, User:North8000, myself and others.[147] Despite this, Xerographica posted the following on Talk:Libertarianism:

Request for Critical Thinking

1. Are conservatives libertarians that are socially conservative?
2. Are liberals libertarians that want more than a minimal government?
3. Are anarcho-capitalists libertarians that want to abolish government?
4. Are anarcho-capitalists anarchists that support capitalism?

Xerographica (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An editor collapsed this discussion but Xerographical opened a new thread.[148] This is disruptive editing and I request escalating blocks to put Xerographical on the right path. TFD (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite repeated general, personal, page wide and mediator given warnings the disruptive effect of soapboxing continues, it has continued despite deleted and hidden threads. Administrator intervention is required to enforce basic elements of NOT where community discussion, warning and informal mediation are not working. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the primary soapboxer has also been extremely uncivil and has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks. This user has been warned about their attacks no less than 13 times without any blocking action having been taken. Yworo (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe's continuing incivility

Resolved

• BlueRobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite a week long block following an RfC/U for incivility, BlueRobe continues with incivility and personal attacks, even after receiving multiple notifications and warnings.

Here are the recent notifications and warnings, which have just been removed by BlueRobe without reply. (I'm told this is not accurate, they did respond to some... to reject them).

• 19 September
  • warned by myself
• 21 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo
• 22 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo
  • warned by Jrtayloriv
• 23 September
  • warned by myself
• 24 September
  • warned by Marknutley
  • warned by FellGleaming
  • abuse4 warning from Fifelfoo
  • warned again by Fifelfoo
  • warned by Jrtayloriv
  • warned by Lawrencekhoo
  • warned again by Lawrencekhoo
• 25 September 2010
  • warned by Born2cycle

Yworo (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a second RfC in progress at the moment. However from the comments on BlueRobe's talk page s/he is not actively seeking a block --Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen of BlueRobe, the user appears to be actively trolling by intentionally being rude and insulting to try to turn factual discussions into arguments. In a AfD I started, he jumped in without having read the AfD (at least judgine from his comment), then went on to call me an "angry freak" [149] when I moved a comment by him to the bottom of the place to be able to answer, claimed that I'm "ranting and raving" [150] instead of answering my question why a copy of an article should be kept, and made rather insulting insinuations about my motive for nominating the article [151]. I don't know if BlueRobe is intentionally trolling (which I suspect) or just unable to control himself, but whatever the case, he is clearly a disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at those warnings tells me a long block is needed; BluRobe simply refuses to listen despite over 9,000 warnings. Some might try a month but I really despair. That's not on, and I don't think this user will ever learn to control xyrself or cease trolling, whichever it is that needs to happen. I therefore propose an indef block of BlueRobe. Who's with me on that? Shall I get blocking? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Only two prior blocks, with the longest one being for a week? A month next, and no indef yet. He's arguably acting like a "dick", but escalating blocks are preferable, IMHO: at least to demonstrate to everyone that blocks are meant to be "preventative" and not "punitive". Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well. This is why I raised it first. I don't see any danger of this not repeating, but ho hum. Month-long block coming right up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As an involved user on the receiving end of personal attacks; can we list compulsory counselling/mentoring after a block as an element of the block? I don't see why we should lose the editor. Individual oversight and interaction training may save the editor for the betterment of the encyclopaedia in the long run. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can find someone willing to volunteer, that's fine by me. If it does no good it can do no harm. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are we wasting our time with incremental blocks? There is no requirement for it. It's not like this is a long drawn out problem that has cropped up from time to time. This is an on-going escalating situation that only started a little over a month ago and he's already got his third block. This user has had plenty of chances in the last 37 days to change his behaviour and hasn't shown one ounce of interest as far as I can tell.--Crossmr (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that incremental blocks not only show a measure of fairness and procedural precedence that should be applied to all blocking situations, but also helps gives less "leeway" when editors go for "blocking from the hip". There is no requirement for it, but assuming good faith in a broader sense is a policy. I'm not a huge fan of "one short block ---> community ban". There is a measure of justice, even on WP ;> Doc9871 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Consideration of context should be a significant component of a fair process. Randomly shooting somebody on the street is a different situation than shooting an intruder. The context of the libertarianism talk page is not the same context as nearly every other wikipedia article. This is readily discernible by the fact that among all the incidents reported on this page, only one is for soapboxing. BlueRobe's behavior was merely a reflection of numerous underhanded tactics that certain editors have used to suppress opposing viewpoints. Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't assume good faith blindly when there is evidence to the contrary. there is plenty of evidence to support him not changing at this point. Plenty of users have attempted to get through to him and he hasn't changed his behaviour. He's had 2 blocks already and an RfC, so there is no "blocking from the hip" here. plenty of time and effort has been wasted already and he's thrown in back in the faces of everyone. This wasn't one short block and then a community ban. There were 2 blocks, an RfC, and several AN/I threads.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is out of context. Marknutley and Errant are the only relatively objective editors who partially understand the context...you can read their views here...and... here. I say "partially" because to fully understand the context you have to look through all the archives. Personally, the only reason I'm here is because the article on libertarianism was saying that libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism. The bold edits I initially made were quickly reverted. When I noticed that another editor had been patiently trying to reason with the anarchists here's what I wrote..."Wow. I just looked through some of the discussion on this page...you should be nominated for sainthood. Are you an elementary school teacher? Or do you work with the mentally challenged?" (Archive_16).

Obviously BlueRobe, unlike Darkstar1st, is not a contender for wikipedia sainthood. He's a nominee for an editor that has made a completely disregarded Herculean effort to correct a very biased article. This is nothing more than a failure of wikipedia. How so? After I asked Darkstar1st if he worked with the mentally challenged I asked this question..."But at this point...isn't there some higher wikipedia power that can step in and kick the anarchists off our page? There's a disambiguation page so there's no logical reason that they should be allowed to continue to confuse the issue." Basically, the article on Libertarianism is the equivalent of an anarchist Google bomb and wikipedia has done nothing to correct the problem...other than cater to the anarchists by removing an editor that has tirelessly worked towards covering each viewpoint in proportion to prominence. Xerographica (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

A while back, someone created a blog on Blogspot under my name, in an attempt to discredit me by linking me to NAMBLA and communism: [152]. I informed the administrators about it, and we decided that the best solution would be for me to post a disclaimer on my talk page, which I did: [153].

Now, however, a newly registered user (User: Fairness4all, who is also a possible sockpuppet of User: TPCFanFor Facts, User: Sinekyre or User: FactsRFun2, all three of them being single-purpose accounts that have identical POV and editing styles, and only edit Political Cesspool-related articles), has posted a snarky comment on Talk: The Political Cesspool in which he asks me "By the way, "Mason", when are you going to update your Blogspot blog?" [154]

This leads me to believe he is probably the person who created the blog in the first place; the blog itself is so obscure that I doubt anyone but its creator (and me, of course) is even aware that it exists. Since the blog itself is a blatant, severe personal attack, I think an admin ought to block Fairness4all until he takes the blog down. Perhaps someone should do a checkuser on him to see which of the above accounts are sockpuppets of his, so they can be blocked too. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What happens outside wikipedia is not wikipedia's problem. That said on the grounds of being sockpuppets they could/should be blocked after due wikipedia investigations. (and not to mention, a warning/block for personal attacks)(Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

It's not clear that they're socks - Fairness4all was actually created over a year ago [155], the others are newer. Seems likely that they're all fans of the site and discussing something elsewhere, but only one of them did something somewhat hostile.

We could checkuser them, but it's not clear if there's grounds for it right now.

If there are further issues on-wiki that rise to the level of personal attack, or they appear to be advocating for the site in some disallowed manner here, we should definitely intervene. But so far it's not clear that any of them (or all of them together) have done anything wrong.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fairness4all has now been blocked by another administrator. —Soap— 15:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Systemic bias by Editor Varlaam

Editor Varlaam appears to be using Systemic bias in editing some Africa-related film articles by changing the Manual of Stye (MOS) of the articles. He has unnecessarily added a flag icon template into the infobox of this article (Template:Infobox_film discourages the usage of flag icons), and also added a currency Wikilink into the infobox_budget section of this article. WP:FILM's goal is "to standardize the film articles in Wikipedia" - the currency data field in the infobox_budget section of film articles (e.g. here) is not wikilinked, thus the addition of a currency wikilink with this explanation in the edit summary is not in adherence with the standardization goal of WP:FILM and suggests systemic bias. I've asked Varlaam to revert his edits but he has decided to ignore the issue. To avoid edit war, this issue is brought to this board. Could an administrator please look into this? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold um horses, Amsaim. Disagreeing with a diktat of Wikiproject Films is not the same as systemic bias. As far as I can see, he has done two things - he has put a flag in an infobox, which I presume offends some edict of the film project re keeping infoboxes tidy, and he has wikilinked to the Nigerian naira, which I for one would find useful, as it is a less well known currency (lets face it, most currencies outside the dollar, yen and euro are less well known!). For that, you have dumped a wodge of text on his talkpage accusing him of systemic bias (do you even know what this means??) and reported him to ANI. I see no attempt at discussion anywhere. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hint, systemic bias would be converting all the currencies in the film infoboxes into dollars, so there was a standard comparison against the Hollywood box office. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This certainly is a novel way to avoid an edit war: ask an editor once to revert a change you disagree with so as not to "cause" one, and if they don't and ignore you, it's straight to AN/I. Whatever happened to Bold, Revert, Discuss? This report seems a bit "much"... Doc9871 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And accusing them of "systemic bias" for one edit. Cracking :) Recommend Amsaim closes this now, before thatfootballerwhoshallnotbenamed comes into play. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags and POV pushing

User:JCAla, a heavy POV-pusher, not only fills articles with his own personal anti-Afghanistan POVs but also keeps removing tags. [156]. I warned him many times but he keeps removing the tags and giving nonsense reasons.--Jrkso (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, probable sockpuppetry, edit-warring

A new editor Dcahole (talk · contribs), whose username could be interpreted as "Dc" (the initials of my username) + "ahole" (asshole), is edit-warring about the conflict of interest tag I added to Men's Health (magazine). The magazine is published by Rodale, Inc.. One of the main editor is a Rodale Inc IP, so the connection seems somewhat obvious (as does the required clean-up). I have opened a sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Healthy2010. If an admin could take a look at that, I think several issues could be addressed in one fell swoop. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the conflict of interest tag because this editor won't specify why it is needed, what clean up has to take place, what is wrong. I'm adding some sources myself which do support the content. I don't know know who the other editors are but the content they are adding looks like what should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, it looks like you just created your user account today. Can you explain the meaning behind your username? Also, can you explain why you created a username today and then made your first edit to remove the COI tag on Men's Health (magazine) one minute later? Have you edited this article as an IP before? SnottyWong ^comment 21:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I find this situation highly suspicious, on the edge of breaking WP:AGF, but not quite yet.

I have endorsed the SPI and running a checkuser (though that's just advisory, random admins don't have authority to order one done).

Dcahole, I second Snottywong's questions. Please clarify your username, and your connection to the article.

If you are at the magazine, and disclose it and agree to work within our conflict of interest policy and avoid personal attacks on Delicious carbuncle in the future, we can probably avoid serious sanction. If that's the case, I urge you to self-disclose soon.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cahole is an Irish name and i have only read the magazine a few times. Dcahole (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My yahoo user acct is nycahole171. Having lived there and been one. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cahole is indeed an Irish surname. Thanks for clearing up that potential source of misunderstanding. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, what brought you to the Men's Health article, and why do you feel so strongly that the COI tag should be removed? SnottyWong ^spout 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am Irish, lived here all my life, and I've never come across the surname Cahole before. Neither has the phonebook for Dublin, Ireland's largest city. [157]. Just sayin' Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my name is not popular enough, it works fine for the purpose and no one in my family has ever complained of it. I have never contributed to this article before and was looking at it - refreshed my screen - and the Conflict of Interest notice splashed across with nothing in the article suggesting any problems. At invitation I asked the editor to explain what was wrong with the article and they threatened to open an investigation. Go the f%^$ ahead. I am gobsmacked at the hostility shown both towards myself and the other editors accused of somehow causing problems. If they are associated with the magazine they are adding content that would in every way help an encyclopedia, I am stunned at this progression which feels much like a witch hunt. I have no clue who they are and I have no association with them. I do have a problem with self appointed guardians of knowledge beating away those who are here to explain more about the subject. Do you want people to improve articles and update them or does hostility and suspect of every new user help things? Sorry for the brashness however this whole turn is upside of reality and hostile at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been adding sourcing as requested on the page and I think it has helped, am I forbidden now or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

hi dcahole, as an independent observer, i can assure you that not all new users are "picked on". there are just some pertinent questions which people would like answered, don't take personal offense to the questions. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, let me apologise if you have been offended by any of my actions or words. And let me say that I am sorry for your unfortunate surname, which has doubtlessly made you a target of ridicule and the butt of jokes. I added the COI tag at 19:08 23 September. Your first edit was at 10:45 24 September. It is odd that you "refreshed your screen" and that notice appeared. Similarly, the message I left on the talk page was well before your first edit. I fear that there may be caching problems involved and will be contacting technical support. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My name is not unfortunate nor has it ever been ridiculed. Cheers for the new set of assumptions that are also insulting. Now that I've asked you several times to clarify what if anything is conflict of interest in the article please explain what you thought was conflict of interest and needed all this? Dcahole (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, sorry, I thought I had answered your question in as much depth as necessary at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Healthy2010. Again, I'm sorry if you found anything insulting in what I wrote - I was only trying to be sympathetic towards someone with an unlikely surname. I think you may have misjudged my assumptions. I try to assume good faith with experienced editors (say, just for example, User:Tastes bad actually), new editors like yourself, and even with IP editors, like User:71.139.5.184, to pick one completely at random. Happy editing, as they say! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory conclusion?

Without meaning any disrespect to User:Timotheus Canens who closed the sockpuppetry case, I don't think we have addressed any of the issues which caused me to bring this here in the first place.

• The COI tag is no longer on the article despite a Rodale Inc-controlled IP making promotional edits such as this.
• The Rodale Inc IP remains unblocked despite, in my opinion, some fairly overt promotional editing. As is customary, the checkuser involved did not explicitly connect the IP to the other two accounts, but the behavioural evidence should have been enough to connect them (again in my opinion).
• The article is worse than it was when this started, thanks to the efforts of Dcahole, who has added more drek to the article rather than remove bare links in the body or trim the external links. There are currently 22 external links and 48 references.
• Dcahole is yet another sockpuppet of an experienced editor who has a grudge against me. I have tried to deal with this through private channels but the results have been less than satisfactory. A rangeblock of 71.139.0.0/19 would put an end to this with minimal collateral damage, should anyone be interested in resolving the issue quickly and quietly.

Perhaps someone would like to take a second look at any or each of these issues? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is dire, reads like an advert - I've made a start, some additional hands would be useful. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cameron. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Radagast3 blocked for reverting copyvio removal

After warning Radagast3 (talk · contribs) twice ([158], [159]) to stop reverting me when I replaced copyrighted material (specifically, quotes from the New International Version of the Bible) with public domain equivalents (specifically, quotes from the World English Bible and the King James Version), I have now blocked him for 1 month. The article primarily affected is New Wine into Old Wineskins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it's happened today now at all the articles in the "Canonical/New Testament" section of {{Parables of Jesus}}. —Angr (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked. As far as I can see, you've edit warred to use quotes from your preferred version of the Bible, and then blocked your opponent. That's appalling behaviour. Copyrighted material is allowed to be quoted in Wikipedia: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." (Wikipedia:Non-free content). I can see from your user page that you don't like fair use, but your preference for public domain doesn't give you a right to force the debate by blocking your opponent. I will leave it to other to consider sanctions against you. Fences&Windows 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor form this. Using admin tools to advance one's own agenda. Should this person continue as a sysop? MtD (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if the user had been blocked by an uninvolved admin, a month block for edit warring (which usually warrants a 12- or 24-hour block), is like shooting a gnat with a railgun and with the additional context, it seriously calls into question whether or not User:Angr can be trusted to use the bit responsibly and constructively. I'm inclined to believe that this user should be desysopped. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

F&W, it's allowed when we can't use free content to do the same thing. The quotes serve the same purpose and are unencumbered. While the unblock was a good idea, id like for you to clarify to the user a bit here if at all possible so they dont dive back into the same dispute. -- ۩ Mask 22:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you're confusing image policy with the general policy for text. Any text, copyrighted or not, can be quoted in small amounts, as long as it's clearly indicated that it is a quote, and the source is clearly identified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. its NFCC, Non-Free Content Criteria, not image criteria. We pull excerpts of song lyrics off userpages all the time because we dont allow fair use in userspace. We trim quotations frequently to qualify in articles. We dont really argue whether they deserve fair use status because there aren't alternatives to be used. There no freely-licensed Harry Potter to quote from, just the copyright-encumbered edition. There is a free alternative in this case. Please read through our policies as well as Foundation Directives. -- ۩ Mask 23:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how Angr's clearly corrupt behaviour is dealt with. My guess involves carpets and sweeping. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This probably wasn't the best way to have approached things, but calling for a desysop is a bit over the top, and Fences&Windows unblock was inappropriate. This use of copyrighted material is not permissible, because copyrighted material can only be used if it is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material, which, since there are public domain translations of the Bible available, can only be held to be true if the discussion is specifically about the copyrighted text.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An admin edit wars on a grey area of policy and then blocks his opponent for a month - that's a bad block, full stop. Any block by an involved admin is a bad block and should be reverted. My unblock was entirely appropriate, we should never excuse abuse of admin tools. I'm not calling for desysopping, but at least an acknowledgement of why Angr should not have blocked Radagast3 is required. Fences&Windows 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The New International Version translation of the Bible is one of the two most common Bible translations used in English, along with the King James Version. Using a less-common translation is a POV issue; so is universally preferring the King James over the NIV, even if done with the best of intentions. In a great number of cases, discussing the actual text given in the NIV is going to be a part of a proper encyclopedia article. So long as it isn't gratuitous use of copyrighted material, limited fair-use quotes are not only acceptable, but encyclopedically essential. But in any case, blocking with instructions to prefer a Bible translation that nobody actually uses for religious purposes over one that they do is a serious, serious matter. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Its needed when illustrating differences between translations, not for general use. Please see The Five Pillars. We are Free Content. Anytime we add content encumbered with restrictions it represents a failing of our goals and needs to be done only when there is no possible way at all to give the information BUT with encumbered content. -- ۩ Mask 22:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course - we are a free-content encyclopedia. However, in order for use to fulfill the "encyclopedia" part properly, we need to reflect the texts that are actually being used. It's profoundly unfortunate that the NIV is not free content, but in many cases it can't be substituted for, because choice of Bible translations can be a serious POV issue, and the sane way to avoid the issue is to use a common translation, and preferably more than one, rather than using one translation or adding an obscure one that happens to have nice copyright terms. It's not an easy issue, by any means - but he original block under discussion was very poor. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The important thing to note here, is that whether to use a very relevant, non-free source, or a less relevant free one, is a matter for discussion, and edit warring was inappropriate by both parties. But what was vastly more inappropriate, was that one of the parties to the edit war abused their admin tools to remove the opposition, and giving a completely disproportionate block in the process. This isn't the place to discuss the content issue; the issue which concerns ANI is the behaviour of the involved parties, including the misuse of the admin tools by User:Angr. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When Angr first raised this issue (and I didn't realise he/she was an admin until I was blocked), I encouraged a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. I'm not sure there really is an issue here: most Bible publishers allow "fair use" quotes (the practice to date, which I've been following, has been to quote a range of different modern versions, and to restrict the amount quoted in any one article -- my belief is that use of, for example, the NIV across the whole of Wikipedia falls within Zondervan's limits for non-commercial use without written permission). If there is an issue, we need a centralised debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible covering (1) under what circumstances copyrighted Bible versions can be quoted, (2) how many verses can be quoted in an article, and (3) which are the preferred Bible non-copyrighted versions to use. Such a debate should lead to a clear "Use of the Bible on Wikipedia" policy, which editors could then be pointed at and encouraged to follow. In this case, Angr appears to be advancing a strong pro-WEB agenda (and to a lesser extent, of the KJV), which also includes changing standard templates leading to the multi-version BibleGateway site, and using Argumentum ad baculum fairly forcefully. Like Gavia immer, I'm concerned about the single-handed conversion of the whole of Wikipedia to a version which is not widely used and which is not respected by scholars. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If they allow people to use it for some purposes its no dice, generally. We freely redistribute for any one to use for any purpose. Putting restrictions on that means we dont use it except under fair use, and we dont use fair use when a freely available alternative is available. It can even be a crappier illustration of the concept then the encumbered one so long as it still allows understanding. -- ۩ Mask 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For anything other than brief excerpts, we use a free version. Because this is a free encyclopedia. See WP:NFCC#1. Block was poor, but Angr is correct in his viewpoint about which should be used. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to edge back into content matters, but I think that actual usage outside Wikipedia is the best possible neutral measure of what "allows" understanding, and so the invitation to use a particular, uncommon translation as a way to avoid being blocked is a big part of what's wrong here. The King James Version, of course, is out of copyright and in common use, but relying on only one translation when others are also common can violate neutrality. I would much rather see a guideline on how and where to make minimal use of copyrighted Bible quotes than a ban that hurts our encyclopedic purpose. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to us, this is a Foundation Directive. From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy :

Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,"

1. All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.

2. In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

Bolding is mine.-- ۩ Mask 00:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to say that the World English Bible or KJV serves the same educational purpose as a Bible translation that scholars actually use? john k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One topic of debate is what constitutes a "brief excerpt." That's currently accepted, but Black kite appears to be suggesting that the brevity restriction should be interpreted more strictly. I'm fine with that, in principle, but any change to Wikipedia practice needs to be discussed and communicated. Any necessary changes to Bible quotations need to be done carefully and with regard to context, not in a single-handed sweep. The existing sweep has caused all kinds of problems, such as in Parable of the Leaven, where the quotation from the inaccurate WEB translation (using "yeast" rather than "leaven") contradicts the (sourced) explanatory text of the article, and indeed also the article title. I would appreciate some clarity as to whether I'm going to be blocked again if I fix that problem. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Radagast, read my comment above for depth, but the quick version is no community discussion will change this. With a work like the bible, which has versions both under copyright and free from it, we have a directive, from the foundation, that simply does not allow us to use works under copyright when a free version exists. Period. End of story. This is one of the few things that the guys who run this show actually felt the need to lay down the law on. -- ۩ Mask 00:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, there are some cases where copyrighted versions must be quoted, such as when discussing differences between translations. We need a policy that articulates the limits on such uses. If there is a directive to apply "fair use" guidelines more strictly (and I think, given the wide interest in this topic, that clarity on this would be a good idea), then we need discussion on which public-domain translations to use. Again, I am concerned about errors being introduced into articles by an administrator advancing an agenda for one particular translation. I'm also personally concerned about the question: will I be blocked for fixing article errors, even where that involves replacing one public-domain version by a more accurate public-domain version, given the context? -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly your first example is one where fair use is reasonable (as long as the excerpt s minimal), but otherwise WP:NFCC#1 is very clear - "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." So if you're quoting from an unfree translation where the free version communicates the same content, you need to use the free one. That's something that isn't negotiable. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC x3)We agree! Looking at differences between works derived from the same source, regardless of the copyright state of the works, would not be possible without excerpts. You wont get any arguments there. What this whole thread is about though is if the point of the section or article isnt about differences, but just the thing itself, you just flat out can not use the copyrighted work. If the article needs the parable, you get it from the free work. If differences between translations is a major bone of contention in the academic world for a particular story or parable, and there are reliable sources that discuss the difference and commentary about why and what the differences mean, then by all means use both, and illustrate why that is important using said sources. I'll be the first one to thank you for improving the project and I imagine every else will join me. -- ۩ Mask

This is a policy discussion and does not belong on ANI. Please take it elsewhere. Note also that NFCC says: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." That is, NFCC#1 would not appear to apply to text. But again, that's a debate for elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

-

While I disagree with your reading of NFCC, I just want to point out that NFCC is our mirroring and explanation of the Foundation's directive. It's useful in the abstract but go read the Foundation Licensing Policy I linked earlier for the authoritative text. -- ۩ Mask 00:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this is the policy you meant, I still disagree. They speak of uploading files, not quoting text. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think you do when you save an edit on the wiki? You're uploading a file. Thats why we can use diffs, it looks at the difference between the two files. You dont think you just magically think of what you want to contribute and the computer displays it for you, do you? -- ۩ Mask 00:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's what they mean, the policy is vague to the point of being useless. It's certainly not a file before you upload it, so you could argue it's not "uploading a file" even with that reading. They mention media several times; they never mention text. The summary is clear that it's not text. If they mean text, they should say text. Until that happens, I will continue reading the policy as if I were a human being and spoke English. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content about this issue. Evil saltine (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask that again: for the two verses quoted in Parable of the Leaven, the public-domain KJV is a more accurate translation than the public-domain WEB, according to the scholarly sources cited in the article. Will I be blocked for replacing one by the other? -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing? Yes. Yes you will. Comparing and contrasting from both editions, with commentary in the text, cited to reliable sources? No. -- ۩ Mask 00:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, missed the switch from NIV to KJV. KJV is unencumbered (in the US anyway, where our servers are. I believe there's still a Crown Copyright on it in the UK). That would be fine. -- ۩ Mask 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly something that needs debate and consensus, but accusations of bad faith on either side are unacceptable. It's reasonable for an admin who sees edit warring on copyvios to block, though of course it should normally not be someone involved in those edit wars. But we have claims above that it would be appropriate to desysop even if he were not involved, so what's going on here? A month is extreme, I agree, but blocks can always be lessened or lifted, as this one was. I'm not familiar with block policy for copyright violations; if the general consensus is that this was out of line, then proper procedure can be explained to Angr. But the accusations that he is pushing some sort of sectarian agenda are baseless: There's no reason not to take him at his word that his choice was motivated by the KJV being dated and the WEB version being free and convenient, and that the block was to protect WP against copyvios, which many of us here see as a threat to the integrity of the project. (Though I agree with Radagast in this case.) — kwami (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The blocking admin was clearly in the wrong and as far as I can tell has not apologized. First he was involved, second this is a gray area of NFCC (what makes for a "brief verbatim textual excerpt" is unclear) which makes the block highly questionable, and third the block was way too long. In all seriousness at the least that acknowledgment of error is needed. If that's not forthcoming I'd say a desysop is appropriate as it implies Angr doesn't think anything wrong was done and that is uncontroversially not the case. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My own view on the underlying matter is that all short bible quotations should appear in at least the KJV as well as the most accepted modern translation. All discussions of translated bible passages inherently involve the question of the accuracy & intent of the translation & so will always meet the NFCC criterion for being essential to the discussion. A stricter interpretation of NFCC in this particular context is inappropriate to the fundamental mission of both NPOV and WP:V. Verifiability can only be attained by using the most accurate version available. (And the intent of the copyright on the NIV is a special case, intended to protect the right to publish the Bible as a whole or substantial part, but to encourage its use otherwise--not considering it in this instant is unwarranted hype-legalism. But this is really for elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The necessary action here on this board is how to deal with the inappropriate block in an ongoing interpretation dispute. This is a debated copyvio at worst, not an unquestioned copyvio where an admin can use his tools even if involved. The proof that the block was inappropriate was, as mentioned, the grossly excessive length. there are always dozens of tother admins available, and I don;t think any other would have blocked for such a period. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• TL;DR, but I think it's clear that: a) the blocking admin was an involved editor, and should not have been the one to make the block. It should have been discussed here first. b) A one-month block for edit warring by an involved editor is clearly wrong when a regular warring block is 24 hours. This is unacceptable, and is using a block to further one side's position in a content dispute. c) NFCC applies to all content, no just images; it is however a grey area. d) The unblock was correct, and does not constitute wheel warring since the blocking admin brought it here for discussion — which, albeit late, was the right thing to do; and e) calls for desysopping are a bit far-fetched at this point, unless this has occurred more than once. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Short short version: Bad block, good unblock, no desysop (live and learn). Policy and guideline discussion elsewhere. Saionara. --Jayron32 01:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with that assuming the blocking admin acknowledges the issues and ideally apologizes. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• It may have been in error, but the original block was indefinite. In other words, banning someone from Wikipedia. This is not just a bad block, it's an appalling block. We could have lost a good editor, and I hope Radagast3 isn't turned away by all this. Please don'tsweep Angr's poor behavior under the carpet. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't quite understand how one can have a copyright on what is supposed to be God's word. Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The copyright is on the translation into English, not on the original biblical text in Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, it is impossible to apply the non-free content criteria to text in exactly the same fashion as to images. Apart from the issues raised by (for example) quoting a line of poetry or prose, one must bear in mind that even in summarizing the plot of a copyrighted novel or play or film, we are making an implicit fair-use claim. In doing so, we hardly ever think that we are using non-free content, much less apply the NFCC to such content, but that is just what we are doing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NYB: Your general comment is spot on, but I don't believe that the specific instance you cite, i.e. summarizing the plot, actually involves fair use. Copyright covers the specific implementation of an idea -- the actual words used, in the case of text -- and not the ideas themselves, including the plot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, copyright does not only cover "the actual words used". Even if there is no verbatim duplication of the copyrighted original, infringement can be found if the new version follows so closely on the structure of the original that copying is clear ("non-literal similarity"). See our article on substantial similarity and its sources for more. In terms of plot summary, these are indeed derivative of the original under U.S. law. See here for more. But I'll leave it at that, as this is wandering afield. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And back to the topic, this was a very bad block. I see it was originally indefinite, then half an hour later it was changed to a month. It was against an editor who has never been blocked before. There was no emergency that I can see requiring any kind of block. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The block was terrible but if it only happened once, desysopping is excessive. Admonishment about WP:INVOLVED is more standard. Desysopping is for repeated, persistent cluelessness, or (in some cases) really over-the-top breaches that this doesn't reach. Re NIV: that is not a free license. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Welp, Malleus was right once again. Admin abuse gets swept under the carpet and ignored. Good job, everyone! Skinny87 (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and sarcastic comments are considered very constructive on ANI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't being ignored. It's being called 'terrible', 'a bad block', etc.. Do you really think one bad block is enough to de-sysop? If it turns out to be part of a pattern from Angr, then he probably will be desysopped. What do you want done? Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with the "admin abuse" characterization completely. I don't know Angr's full history, but I have been involved in a recent and continuing content dispute with him over an image I uploaded... and he has been nothing but courteous, even when I boldly reverted him, knowing full well that he was an admin and could have blocked me because I'm just a regular editor. He could have reverted me, but he assumed good faith, and we're still in negotiations. I think a reprimand of some sort is in order in this case: but consideration of desysopping is premature, IMO. Angr: please speak up again here, since the boomerang has come back from your filing this report... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The stylish way forward would be for Angr to voluntarily resign his admin status and ask for community reconfirmation via WP:RFA. Groomtech (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the silliest thing I have ever read on here. And this is where I read the Starr Report, so that's saying something.-- ۩ Mask 14:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If Angr honestly believed that there was a copyright issue, then he had a responsibility as an admin to revert it. His better choice would have been to ask another admin to look into it. But editors like Groomtech, who apparently think there is a constitutional right to edit wikipedia freely and without any rules (as suggested on his user page essay), are way over the line in calling for Angr to give up his adminship due to one mistake. (It had best not happen again, though.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all what I say, but scarcely relevant to this discussion, so if anyone is interested they should perhaps read it for themselves. Groomtech (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to think it was inappropriate for me to be the one to block, because I was somehow "involved". My only "involvement" was to remove the copyvio and replace it with a free equivalent. I only "edit-warred" because Radagast3 continued to revert my removal of it ([160], [161], [162], [163], [164]). If this had been a content dispute, of course I wouldn't have done the block myself. But it wasn't a content dispute, it was a matter of a user clearly, flagrantly, and shamelessly reinserting a copyvio into an article, even after having been warned not to. It is no different than if I had replaced a copyrighted publicity photo of a living celebrity with a freely licensed photo, and he had persisted in reverting to the copyrighted image. I have no problem with the unblock as long as Radagast3 understands and agrees that quoting from the NIV (or any other copyrighted Bible translation) is unacceptable at Wikipedia, except in places where the specific wording of a particular translation is what's being discussed (e.g. at Isaiah 7:14). —Angr (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it was a bad block; blocking by an involved admin is always bad, and an indefinite (or even month long) block is way too long for what's essentially an edit war over a gray area in copyright policy. Buddy431 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of short passages from the NIV in Wikipedia is not a copyright violation. john k (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

However that may be decided, it is clearly not indisputable copyright violation--as is proven by the fact that we have here editors in good standing disputing it. This is not like vandalism--there is no immediate harm in asking someone else to look at it. You may have thought at the time it was indisputable, but do you now understand that it was not? Do you now agree in like circumstance where your interpretation of content may be reasonably disputed, you should not be the one to block? DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if when people are talking about a "copyvio" they mean "copyright violation under U.S. law" or "violation of some rule made up by wikipedia which has little to do with copyright law." If the latter, I have no idea if it is a violation of a wikipedia rule. It may be; in that case, the rule is stupid, and ought to be changed. I think that, in general, the rules have not been interpreted in such a rigid manner, but that used to be true for pictures too. I suppose it was inevitable that a rule designed to stupidly prevent us from using pictures we wouldn't get into legal trouble for using is now being used to argue that we should be stupidly prevented from using fair use quotations from a copyrighted work that won't get us into legal trouble. Angr: on what basis is it up to you to judge that Bible translations are interchangeable and that one version will do just as well as another so that fair use isn't in play? This is a judgment call, not a cut and dry rule, or at least it should be. john k (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's clear now that Angr refuses to acknowledge his error. I don't think he should continue as an admin. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the situation with an admin misusing the bit should be analogous to that of a user failing to following editing policies. That is, we don't usually indef someone for a single offense, so similarly, we shouldn't de-sysop for a single admin offense. Similarly, while we prefer that people apologize for and admit their errors, we usually don't require them to do so (because reasonable people, acting in good faith, interpret policy differently). Thus, we don't even need Angr to admit error, we simply need Angr to understand that continued use of admin tools in a way that does not match consensus will eventually lead to de-sysoping. (Side note: I, too, think that Angr was in error, with the block length at least. With the issue of being involved, it seems to me that if Angr honestly believed the problem to be one of copyright infringement, being involved is essentially irrelevant, as that is an exception to the normal rules (much like an admin can block a vandal that they themselves have been reverting). This is not to say that Angr has permission to continue to act this way, as consensus right now seems fairly clearly against the block and length, but that just that a single offense doesn't instantly lead to an "indef-block" (i.e., de-sysoping). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Actual NIV license...

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

---

Since I happen to have one handy, it says:

"The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses, without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible, nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted."

No claim of fair use applies: any reasonable (as per above permissions) NIV quote in Wikipedia has the express permission of the publisher. The vast majority of other Bible translations have similar clauses. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place for the discussion, but I don't see how you can claim that's a free license Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• JClemens, don't forget that we require more than that from our content, and it needs to be available under a compatible license or it'd be considered non-free: our content, given correct attribution, may be used or refactored by anyone, for any purpose, including for commercial purposes. The NIV license doesn't permit that, so it's not free. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the King James version is subject to a perpetual Crown copyright in England. Groomtech (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But not in the US, where the wikimedia servers are and whose copyright law Wikimedia is subject to. -- ۩ Mask 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not what the Foundation resolution says. " in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed " 92.233.49.8 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That 'predominantly' means something like this. The US has more then 4 times as many pageviews as the next highest country (which isn't England. It's Germany. England is number 4 on the list. The note is primarily for informing users of other language wikipedias that the servers are in the US and must follow that law, not just (for example) the user having to follow Romanian law, which they presumably know. Thats why the US is explicitly mentioned. -- ۩ Mask 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

92.233, note that in your own quote, it says and, not or. As the servers are hosted in Florida, US copyright law must be followed. In addition, copyright law for countries where many users view the material are also important. That means if it's permissible under the copyright law for one of these countries but not the US, it's not permissible. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But that is exactly what I'm pointing out. In addition, the law of England imposes a copyright on the King James version. (Logical and is symmetric.) So it's not permissible. 92.233.49.8 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, got logged out there. 92.233.49.8 was me. Groomtech (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Per WP:C: "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." (Though it notes there as well that we try to respect the laws of other countries, so German Wikipedia follows Germany's more restrictive standards--what the "Exemption Doctrine Policy" being quoted refers to--and we don't hold all content from nations with which we have no copyright treaties public domain.) Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. For example works of the US federal government are in the public domain in the United States and widely used on Wikipedia, but they may not be in the public domain outside the United States." Wikipedia:Public Domain: "Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation, its legal body, are based in Florida, United States. Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States. For re-users of Wikipedia content, it is the laws of their respective countries. In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain."(footnote omitted) We try to note content that may not be public domain in other countries (for instance, see the image templates Template:PD-old and Template:PD-US), but we do accept them if they are PD in the U.S. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to treat this text like any other non-free text content. The danger of operating under that permission, were we so inclined, is that we are not publishing one article, but a collection of millions of them, and the risk that we'll go above 500 verses seems high. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that each page is a separate publication. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think we are a compilation, just like any other encyclopedia. (And in terms of practical reality, we are a single website, in spite of multiple subpages.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using the NIV at all, and we should only use the KJV for its importance to the English language. If we want to discuss what the Bible actually says, we should use the NRSV or a similar scholarly translation, and such usage ought to be valid under fair use. john k (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your POV and you're welcome to it. The NIV has been the predominant translation in protestant America, and probably some other English-speaking countries, for 30+ years. A lot of Christian homiletics, hymnody, and other related disciplines have been directly tied to the NIV over that time, and replacing the specific translation with a different one is simply not equivalent. There was a bigger fight over proposed inclusion of gender-neutral language in an NIV revision than there ever was in the NRSV--why? Because by and large, people who have a "high view of scripture" don't use the NRSV. It is absolutely a scholarly translation--it is commonly used in Biblical Studies, but rarely or never in Evangelical worship. Each translation has its place in Wikipedia's coverage of Christian topics. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NIV loses to KJV on cultural impact, and loses to NRSV on scholarly credibility. If we want to talk about what the Bible is actually saying in the original language, we should use the NRSV, which is about as close as we have to a translation that tries to do that (it is not completely successful in that, imo, because it has a pastoral purpose as much as a scholarly one, which is why you get stuff like the gender neutral language, but it's still better than any other major translation). If we want to talk about cultural impact and that kind of thing, I'm sure there are contexts where the NIV would be useful, but the KJV is more influential by a level of magnitude. NIV is kind of a distant second in both categories. john k (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that on the larger issue, I don't think that copyright issues should prevent us from using the NIV or NRSV when appropriate, that I think it is usually appropriate to use a more recent translation than the KJV (although in many cases we will want to give the KJV as well), and that I think that a translation of such dubious provenance as the World English Bible should not be used at all unless reliable sources can be found which vouch for it. john k (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with this. KJV has been around for 400 years, and has thus been referenced by a larger body of work. You'll also need KJV to discuss new religious movements that splinter from Christianity. NIV is more currently socially referenced in some places as mentioned above, and is likely the best balance between popularity and comprehensibility. NRSV is used in academic circles. Beyond that, there are probably 20+ other translations that are in use--ASV, RSV, NASB, NLT, TEV, REB, Jerusalem, New Jerusalem, Amplified, NCV, come to mind without stopping to think too hard--which may be appropriate for specific commentary in particular situations. For example, if we're dealing with a difficult or contentious passage like Malachi 2:16, the plethora of ways that different translations render the same passage into English is itself comment-worthy. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 27 September 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.

Soapboxing

In Talk:Libertarianism, Xerographica has been asked not to soapbox by User:Born2cycle, User:North8000, myself and others.[165] Despite this, Xerographica posted the following on Talk:Libertarianism:

Request for Critical Thinking

1. Are conservatives libertarians that are socially conservative?
2. Are liberals libertarians that want more than a minimal government?
3. Are anarcho-capitalists libertarians that want to abolish government?
4. Are anarcho-capitalists anarchists that support capitalism?

Xerographica (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An editor collapsed this discussion but Xerographical opened a new thread.[166] This is disruptive editing and I request escalating blocks to put Xerographical on the right path. TFD (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite repeated general, personal, page wide and mediator given warnings the disruptive effect of soapboxing continues, it has continued despite deleted and hidden threads. Administrator intervention is required to enforce basic elements of NOT where community discussion, warning and informal mediation are not working. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the primary soapboxer has also been extremely uncivil and has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks. This user has been warned about their attacks no less than 13 times without any blocking action having been taken. Yworo (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe's continuing incivility

Resolved

• BlueRobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite a week long block following an RfC/U for incivility, BlueRobe continues with incivility and personal attacks, even after receiving multiple notifications and warnings.

Here are the recent notifications and warnings, which have just been removed by BlueRobe without reply. (I'm told this is not accurate, they did respond to some... to reject them).

• 19 September
  • warned by myself
• 21 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo
• 22 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo
  • warned by Jrtayloriv
• 23 September
  • warned by myself
• 24 September
  • warned by Marknutley
  • warned by FellGleaming
  • abuse4 warning from Fifelfoo
  • warned again by Fifelfoo
  • warned by Jrtayloriv
  • warned by Lawrencekhoo
  • warned again by Lawrencekhoo
• 25 September 2010
  • warned by Born2cycle

Yworo (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a second RfC in progress at the moment. However from the comments on BlueRobe's talk page s/he is not actively seeking a block --Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen of BlueRobe, the user appears to be actively trolling by intentionally being rude and insulting to try to turn factual discussions into arguments. In a AfD I started, he jumped in without having read the AfD (at least judgine from his comment), then went on to call me an "angry freak" [167] when I moved a comment by him to the bottom of the place to be able to answer, claimed that I'm "ranting and raving" [168] instead of answering my question why a copy of an article should be kept, and made rather insulting insinuations about my motive for nominating the article [169]. I don't know if BlueRobe is intentionally trolling (which I suspect) or just unable to control himself, but whatever the case, he is clearly a disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at those warnings tells me a long block is needed; BluRobe simply refuses to listen despite over 9,000 warnings. Some might try a month but I really despair. That's not on, and I don't think this user will ever learn to control xyrself or cease trolling, whichever it is that needs to happen. I therefore propose an indef block of BlueRobe. Who's with me on that? Shall I get blocking? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Only two prior blocks, with the longest one being for a week? A month next, and no indef yet. He's arguably acting like a "dick", but escalating blocks are preferable, IMHO: at least to demonstrate to everyone that blocks are meant to be "preventative" and not "punitive". Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well. This is why I raised it first. I don't see any danger of this not repeating, but ho hum. Month-long block coming right up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As an involved user on the receiving end of personal attacks; can we list compulsory counselling/mentoring after a block as an element of the block? I don't see why we should lose the editor. Individual oversight and interaction training may save the editor for the betterment of the encyclopaedia in the long run. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can find someone willing to volunteer, that's fine by me. If it does no good it can do no harm. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are we wasting our time with incremental blocks? There is no requirement for it. It's not like this is a long drawn out problem that has cropped up from time to time. This is an on-going escalating situation that only started a little over a month ago and he's already got his third block. This user has had plenty of chances in the last 37 days to change his behaviour and hasn't shown one ounce of interest as far as I can tell.--Crossmr (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that incremental blocks not only show a measure of fairness and procedural precedence that should be applied to all blocking situations, but also helps gives less "leeway" when editors go for "blocking from the hip". There is no requirement for it, but assuming good faith in a broader sense is a policy. I'm not a huge fan of "one short block ---> community ban". There is a measure of justice, even on WP ;> Doc9871 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Consideration of context should be a significant component of a fair process. Randomly shooting somebody on the street is a different situation than shooting an intruder. The context of the libertarianism talk page is not the same context as nearly every other wikipedia article. This is readily discernible by the fact that among all the incidents reported on this page, only one is for soapboxing. BlueRobe's behavior was merely a reflection of numerous underhanded tactics that certain editors have used to suppress opposing viewpoints. Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't assume good faith blindly when there is evidence to the contrary. there is plenty of evidence to support him not changing at this point. Plenty of users have attempted to get through to him and he hasn't changed his behaviour. He's had 2 blocks already and an RfC, so there is no "blocking from the hip" here. plenty of time and effort has been wasted already and he's thrown in back in the faces of everyone. This wasn't one short block and then a community ban. There were 2 blocks, an RfC, and several AN/I threads.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is out of context. Marknutley and Errant are the only relatively objective editors who partially understand the context...you can read their views here...and... here. I say "partially" because to fully understand the context you have to look through all the archives. Personally, the only reason I'm here is because the article on libertarianism was saying that libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism. The bold edits I initially made were quickly reverted. When I noticed that another editor had been patiently trying to reason with the anarchists here's what I wrote..."Wow. I just looked through some of the discussion on this page...you should be nominated for sainthood. Are you an elementary school teacher? Or do you work with the mentally challenged?" (Archive_16).

Obviously BlueRobe, unlike Darkstar1st, is not a contender for wikipedia sainthood. He's a nominee for an editor that has made a completely disregarded Herculean effort to correct a very biased article. This is nothing more than a failure of wikipedia. How so? After I asked Darkstar1st if he worked with the mentally challenged I asked this question..."But at this point...isn't there some higher wikipedia power that can step in and kick the anarchists off our page? There's a disambiguation page so there's no logical reason that they should be allowed to continue to confuse the issue." Basically, the article on Libertarianism is the equivalent of an anarchist Google bomb and wikipedia has done nothing to correct the problem...other than cater to the anarchists by removing an editor that has tirelessly worked towards covering each viewpoint in proportion to prominence. Xerographica (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrkso

User Jrkso keeps edit warring at. He has been blocked for edit warring recently and just removed that from his talk page. I have ask him multiple times to make his point through discussion not to edit warring but he keeps going with misleading edit summaries for the last reverts. I am stopping here and i am soon offline so i would appreciate if somebody could have a look at it because i think the article Afghanistan should doubtless have a section about the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). IQinn (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Both have violated 3RR. Jrkso's been blocked for that before. I cannot find a diff of Iqinn being told about the 3RR rule. Anyway, both editors have stopped edit-warring and are now discussing on the talk page, so a block is not warranted. A neutral voice might help.--Chaser (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I have not violated 3rr. That's ridiculous, not all of my edits are reverts. Please have a better look before you throw false accusations.--Jrkso (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have. From WP:3RR, "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word." Without looking too closely, all 4 of your edits today at least removed the same information that begins with "These steps have been reciprocated so far with an intensification of bombings..." You can argue that the first was simply an edit, but the next 3 edits "reverted" the restoration of that material. --Onorem♠Dil 15:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok the first may be considered an edit and the last two should be counted as one because I was adding new info and some how (probably due to me being very frustrated at the time) I didn't notice the number of my reverts. I think I did 2 1/2 reverts, I'll try to becareful next time. Anyway the problem should be over with me and IQinn although he is still POV-pushing.[170] Thanks.--Jrkso (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

A while back, someone created a blog on Blogspot under my name, in an attempt to discredit me by linking me to NAMBLA and communism: [171]. I informed the administrators about it, and we decided that the best solution would be for me to post a disclaimer on my talk page, which I did: [172].

Now, however, a newly registered user (User: Fairness4all, who is also a possible sockpuppet of User: TPCFanFor Facts, User: Sinekyre or User: FactsRFun2, all three of them being single-purpose accounts that have identical POV and editing styles, and only edit Political Cesspool-related articles), has posted a snarky comment on Talk: The Political Cesspool in which he asks me "By the way, "Mason", when are you going to update your Blogspot blog?" [173]

This leads me to believe he is probably the person who created the blog in the first place; the blog itself is so obscure that I doubt anyone but its creator (and me, of course) is even aware that it exists. Since the blog itself is a blatant, severe personal attack, I think an admin ought to block Fairness4all until he takes the blog down. Perhaps someone should do a checkuser on him to see which of the above accounts are sockpuppets of his, so they can be blocked too. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What happens outside wikipedia is not wikipedia's problem. That said on the grounds of being sockpuppets they could/should be blocked after due wikipedia investigations. (and not to mention, a warning/block for personal attacks)(Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

It's not clear that they're socks - Fairness4all was actually created over a year ago [174], the others are newer. Seems likely that they're all fans of the site and discussing something elsewhere, but only one of them did something somewhat hostile.

We could checkuser them, but it's not clear if there's grounds for it right now.

If there are further issues on-wiki that rise to the level of personal attack, or they appear to be advocating for the site in some disallowed manner here, we should definitely intervene. But so far it's not clear that any of them (or all of them together) have done anything wrong.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fairness4all has now been blocked by another administrator. —Soap— 15:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of behalf of User:BlueRobe

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

---

I am making a request on behalf of BlueRobe over his one month block. The blocking administrator has said he supports the proposals laid out for the unblock.

• 19 September
  • warned by myself Does not appear to be a PA, certainly uncivil but it needs context, it was in response to this [175] Having an editor carelessly saying it would be better to just delete your proposal is going to get under your skin
• 21 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo Certainly a caustic remark, [176] However it was borne out of frustration over the insertion of an obviously anarchist group The Workers Solidarity Movement into the article.
• 22 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo This is not a warning, it is a request to refactor a comment from a previous warning
  • warned by Jrtayloriv This is not a warning, it is a response to a previous warning
• 23 September
  • warned by myself Definitely an unneeded comment, telling an editor to sod of is not on, but again a comment born of frustration in being told that his talk page contributions are just OR and have no substance.
• 24 September
  • warned by Marknutley This one was certainly another PA [177] But again it is sheer frustration which is causing it.
  • warned by FellGleaming This is the same as my one above, do two cautions for the same thing count as one?
  • abuse4 warning from Fifelfoo Was in response to what looks to me like a mild joke, i would not call it a PA and not a level 4 template one [178]
  • warned again by Fifelfoo Again another warning which does not appear warranted to me, [179]
  • warned by Jrtayloriv This is not really a warning as such, it is a comment in a thread from one of the warnings given above
  • warned by Lawrencekhoo This is also the same as the warnings above. He has been warned three times for the same offence? Is it any wonder he got frustrated?
  • warned again by Lawrencekhoo This is a duplicate diff, Same as the one directly above.
• 25 September 2010
  • warned by Born2cycle This is in response to BlueRobe saying get a life freak a definite PA but taken in the context of a constant stream of warnings (some for the most trivial matters) will lead to these sort of response`s.

From what I've seen of BlueRobe, the user appears to be actively trolling by intentionally being rude and insulting to try to turn factual discussions into arguments. In a AfD I started, he jumped in without having read the AfD (at least judgine from his comment), then went on to call me an "angry freak" [180] when I moved a comment by him to the bottom of the place to be able to answer, claimed that I'm "ranting and raving" [181] instead of answering my question why a copy of an article should be kept, and made rather insulting insinuations about my motive for nominating the article [182]. I don't know if BlueRobe is intentionally trolling (which I suspect) or just unable to control himself, but whatever the case, he is clearly a disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This one is quite interesting, the first diff which Jeppiz says Blue calls him an angry freak [183] has no such comment in it. The second Diff, Ranting and Raving [184] yes he does say that, but then again if an editor had moved my comments (a breach of TPG) and then said BlueRobe now claims to have read the nomination, which is great a clear provocation, given the opening comment from Jeppiz to BlueRobe [185] and his second [186] Very clear provocation from Jeppiz and it is little wonder BlueRobe responded in kind

Results of diffbomb

All in all the above diff bomb which was dropped on ANI is not quite what it was made out to be. A lot are duplicates and some are not as uncivil as made out to be. Some are the result of extreme provocation and a lot of the personal remarks are down to sheer frustration. I e-mailed BlueRobe and told him i would appeal his month long block if he gave his word that he would refrain from further personal attacks on other editors. He has given his word.

Proposal

As blue has given his word he will refrain from further personal attacks on other editors i ask his block be lifted with the following conditions.

• He accepts a 1R restriction on Libertarianism to prevent any further edit warring or perceived edit warring. Time period to be decided on this by you.
• An interaction ban (of sorts) User:Yworo User:Fifelfoo User:BigK HeX and User:The Four Deuces be requested to not post on User:BlueRobe talk page, this is to help fend off further antagonism. If they feel BlueRobe has made inappropriate comments they post on my talk page and i will mediate the matter.
• This will give Blue the chance to prove his worth, i believe he is an intelligent person who is not used to wiki and is letting his frustration get the better of him. An unblock now while the RFC/U is running will give him the chance to show he can contribute to the project in a constructive manner. I am of course taking him at his word that he will remain civil, should he break his word the one month ban can of course be reset.
• I will also offer my services as a mentor to BlueRobe and try to help him along. mark nutley (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments From The Community

• oppose - I have little patience for 11th hour changes of hearts. He had plenty of chances to alter his behaviour before being blocked. He can serve out his month if he wants to prove he can change.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without comment on BlueRobe, I am not comfortable with a resolution placing Marknutley as 'mediator' or 'mentor' between a troubled user and the rest of the community. Marknutley has far too much recent and ongoing difficulty in constructive interactions with the community to fill this role. He is himself currently under a community-imposed civility parole ([187]), among other restrictions (summarized, along with conduct issues, in this open Arbitration finding). Marknutley also seems to have a poor grasp what constitutes a personal attack (see this spurious warning to another editor, given in response to this comment). It is of particular concern that this sort of error is being made in the same area where BlueRobe edits. Finally, Marknutley is not an administrator, and lacks the technical ability to restore BlueRobe's block if there is trouble. Requiring that problems be channeled through him is a recipe for failure. While Mark's intentions are good, he needs to demonstrate that his own house is in order before he tries to help other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

TOAT that was not a warning, it was a request to withdraw an accusation of disruption made towards another editor. I fail to see how trying to defuse a potential argument can be deemed a concern? mark nutley (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't have a firm grasp of what constitutes a personal attack, which suggests strongly that you probably shouldn't be the one monitoring any sort of civility parole. As I said, your intentions are good, but you haven't demonstrated the skills to be an effective mediator. Your response here – which seems to entirely miss the point of my remarks – cements that perception. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- BlueRobe's latest bunch of RFCs/ANIs should make it clear that a block was warranted. Even if mark nutley were neutral in this dispute (and he's not), he'd be the last person that I'd pick for mentoring, due to his long history of incivil behavior and POV-pushing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- If he's repentant? he won't mind serving out his block. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose BlueRobe has not only shown poor interaction with other editors, but is unwilling to accept that articles must use reliable sources and that synthesis is not allowed. I find it indicative that BlueRobe will not change by his including editing restrictions on other editors as part of the conditions he is willing to accept. I have only posted to BlueRobe's talk page three times. Two times were to complain about templates he placed on my talk page (one accused me of vandalism) and the third was a polite mention that he had reached 3RR for the day. mark nutley's poor history of interaction with other editors as evidenced by his many blocks make him a poor choice for mediating. TFD (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The interaction restrictions are not BlueRobes conditions, they are mine. He had no part in writing the proposal. The point of the interaction restriction is to help defuse the situation mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 27 September 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.

Systemic bias by Editor Varlaam

Editor Varlaam appears to be using Systemic bias in editing some Africa-related film articles by changing the Manual of Stye (MOS) of the articles. He has unnecessarily added a flag icon template into the infobox of this article (Template:Infobox_film discourages the usage of flag icons), and also added a currency Wikilink into the infobox_budget section of this article. WP:FILM's goal is "to standardize the film articles in Wikipedia" - the currency data field in the infobox_budget section of film articles (e.g. here) is not wikilinked, thus the addition of a currency wikilink with this explanation in the edit summary is not in adherence with the standardization goal of WP:FILM and suggests systemic bias. I've asked Varlaam to revert his edits but he has decided to ignore the issue. To avoid edit war, this issue is brought to this board. Could an administrator please look into this? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold um horses, Amsaim. Disagreeing with a diktat of Wikiproject Films is not the same as systemic bias. As far as I can see, he has done two things - he has put a flag in an infobox, which I presume offends some edict of the film project re keeping infoboxes tidy, and he has wikilinked to the Nigerian naira, which I for one would find useful, as it is a less well known currency (lets face it, most currencies outside the dollar, yen and euro are less well known!). For that, you have dumped a wodge of text on his talkpage accusing him of systemic bias (do you even know what this means??) and reported him to ANI. I see no attempt at discussion anywhere. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hint, systemic bias would be converting all the currencies in the film infoboxes into dollars, so there was a standard comparison against the Hollywood box office. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This certainly is a novel way to avoid an edit war: ask an editor once to revert a change you disagree with so as not to "cause" one, and if they don't and ignore you, it's straight to AN/I. Whatever happened to Bold, Revert, Discuss? This report seems a bit "much"... Doc9871 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And accusing them of "systemic bias" for one edit. Cracking :) Recommend Amsaim closes this now, before thatfootballerwhoshallnotbenamed comes into play. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Six-minute block of TreasuryTag by SarekOfVulcan

Thread retitled from "A six-minute block really is just taking the piss...".

I mean come on, seriously? SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) blocked me at 15:03 for a petty non-3RR reversion against an alleged consensus – with which they were anyway slighty involved [188] Within two minutes, I proposed a perfectly reasonable compromise. Then Sarek unblocked me at 15:09.

So aside from the conflict-of-interest issue, I think it is absurd that I was blocked when a decent 'ceasefire' was so transparently within reach. So this either smacks of a poorly-thought-through block which almost immediately proved un-necessary, or a cool-down block designed to push me into making a compromise; and, as we all know, cool-down blocks are not allowed.

Sarek suggested that I refer the issue here for wider input. Note that I am not asking for any sanctions or any particular result other than the fact that admins in general, and Sarek in particular, should not be so trigger-happy with the block button where compromise is just around the corner. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So, it looks like your "reasonable compromise" was actually proposed by Sarek, and you ignored him and continued edit warring. Then after he blocked you, you started to behave and abided by the compromise... seems like a good block. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm... can you provide a diff of Sarek first proposing the compromise? Because I'm fairly sure that that is not what happened. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So your diff proving that Sarek first proposed the RfC actually took place 12 minutes after I first raised the prospect of an RfC on this issue, did it? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See below. Either way the compromise was discussed before the block (not after as you suggest), but you choose not to do that, and instead to keep edit warring. After the block you suddenly seem to become reasonable and comply with the compromise. Then come here trying to make it look like Sarek is the one being unreasonable. It appears like the block is what made you actually file an RfC and stop edit warring. The block made you stop edit warring, so it was a good block, imo - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, it was proposed by TT, and I said I didn't think he'd get the result he expected, but he was welcome to try.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Either way, he didn't actually do this until after the block. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Rule #1: protect first. TT took it upon himself to break WP:3RR and is unapologetic about it. This ANI report will generate far more heat than light. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  At no stage did I "break WP:3RR" – seems you're generating the heat! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing, though no one comes out of this smelling like a rose. Suggest we close.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"...against an alleged consensus"; there you go - good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fairly ropey as arguments go, but no more so than I expected... ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Point of order: The block was 24 hours, later commuted resulting in a block of six minutes total. Admittedly a bit of pedantry, but this should be made clear as the (current) section header is ambiguous. –xeno^talk 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• What is the point of blocking someone for something they say on their own talk page? Exactly what disruption does that prevent if you aren't protecting it or blocking them from editing the same? Was TreasuryTag behaving inappropriately to some degree? Probably. Was this a good block? Not particularly. Should SarekOfVulcan be desysopped over it? No. --B (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Um, the original block was for edit warring on Flesh and Stone, not for anything he said on talk. And WP:NPA applies on all namespaces; hence, the second block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  While it's true that no personal attacks applies to user talk pages, a block alone doesn't stop a user from making personal attacks on his or her user talk page. It's analogous to the police arresting a drunk and then leaving them in the custody of a liquor store. --B (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) This particular section concerns a block for edit warring; you appear to be talking about the more recent block, one that the editor isn't really disputing at this point. –xeno^talk 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good block: TT was edit warring, and a six-minute block convinced them to discuss rather than continuing. I'd say that's about the most efficient block I've ever seen. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

Moved here from AN - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like a proper investigation to be done(though I don't think it's likely to happen given my past experiences with this site)as the user Higgys is accused of being associated with a past account I had, Kagome_85. This account, Higgys, had nothing to do with me and was in fact made by another user which no investigation was done on this particular user, and this user is Blackmagic1234, who made a new account Mousykit but is no longer using it. The account Higgys was made to harass another account I had, after I stopped using the Kagome_85 account and made a new acount, Kagome_77, which the user Higgys harassed me on. I believed that you could make a new account as long as you did not use the old accounts, which is what I was doing. The user Higgys did accuse me on my Kagome_77 account of vandalizing the Kathleen article, which I had done in the past, and the Ruby Gloom article, which I never vandalized. I would like the accusation of the account Higgys being associated with my account Kagome_85 to be removed, as it was NOT an account of mine, and it was used to harass me with, so why would I make an account just to harass myself with? And the only reason I am pointing out about Blackmagic1234 and his new account Mousykit being Higgys is that what I said in the Kathleen article this user would only know, as at the time this user was someone I knew in person and thought was my friend, and the fact that I would randomly get a message one day on the account Kagome_77 that I was using by the user Higgys saying I made vandalism edits to the Kathleen article(which I had made in the past), however, I do not vandalize anymore, sice I am now more mature and not as stupid. So please remove the sockpuppet accusation of me being associated with Higgys since I'm not and I know probably many people would say they aren't associated with any accounts that vandalize but I'm making a different point: I'm admitting to the fact that I had used OTHER accounts to vandalize, however Higgys was not an account of mine, it was an account created by another user in order to harass me with. 142.177.43.186 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how you choose to not insult people here, as you did me on my talk page, when I told you I got CU confirmation the account was created by you. It isn't just IPs CU's look at, it's also behavior, user-agents(your internet browser), editing times(when you log on and start editing), and so on.

Also, you are wrong on our policy regarding alternate accounts. If your prior account was blocked, and you created this new account to get around said block, then that is block evasion. If you do not wish to be blocked, the proper course of action is never to evade, but to request unblocking on your original account.

Lastly, the CU confirmation did not use any old accounts for the link, but one you recently created. Mousey2010 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), to post a harassing message on your ex's new account's talk page(that they used to try and get away from you) over and over and over again(this time with Mousey). It linked the Mousey account with your Higgys account. No other past accounts were compared. It is quite obvious Mousey was yours.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threats

Resolved

 – Bearian (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to get some opinions on this edit and this edit, both on this article. These accounts may also be related. Are these legal threats block-worthy? My opinion is "yes", but I've been editing the article in question, so I will step aside for another admin to evaluate. TNXMan 18:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty clear legal threat and I've indef'd both accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

They look like legal threats to me. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags and POV pushing

User:JCAla, a heavy POV-pusher, not only fills articles with his own personal anti-Afghanistan POVs but also keeps removing tags. [189]. I warned him many times but he keeps removing the tags and giving nonsense reasons.--Jrkso (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a checkuser around?

Resolved: Editor granted temporary IP block exemption. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to address questions meant for a checkuser, so I'll do it here: I recently put up a block on an editor for WP:3RR violation on the IP. Another editor has shown up in the autoblock. You can see the threads at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Block of 217.157.202.160 and User talk:FunkMonk#Unblock request for background. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you need a list of all CheckUsers at the English Wikipedia, they can be found here. HeyMid (contributions) 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Two users fighting

Resolved

 – User:Endofskull has warned editors against further flame wars. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

173.79.0.63 and Heavydata seem to be fighting. If you look at their user talk pages, it seems like both of them are flaming each other. I seems to me that both of them should be punished. Endofskull (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Too early to report them here - drop a couple of NPA warning templates on their talkpages; if they stop, then great, and if they don't then bring it back here or perhaps AIV. No criticism to you for wanting to sort this out, but there are a couple of steps you can try before bringing out the big guns. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I removed the ANI notice, and added a personal attack notice. If it happens more, then I'll bring it back here. Endofskull (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, probable sockpuppetry, edit-warring

A new editor Dcahole (talk · contribs), whose username could be interpreted as "Dc" (the initials of my username) + "ahole" (asshole), is edit-warring about the conflict of interest tag I added to Men's Health (magazine). The magazine is published by Rodale, Inc.. One of the main editor is a Rodale Inc IP, so the connection seems somewhat obvious (as does the required clean-up). I have opened a sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Healthy2010. If an admin could take a look at that, I think several issues could be addressed in one fell swoop. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the conflict of interest tag because this editor won't specify why it is needed, what clean up has to take place, what is wrong. I'm adding some sources myself which do support the content. I don't know know who the other editors are but the content they are adding looks like what should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, it looks like you just created your user account today. Can you explain the meaning behind your username? Also, can you explain why you created a username today and then made your first edit to remove the COI tag on Men's Health (magazine) one minute later? Have you edited this article as an IP before? SnottyWong ^comment 21:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I find this situation highly suspicious, on the edge of breaking WP:AGF, but not quite yet.

I have endorsed the SPI and running a checkuser (though that's just advisory, random admins don't have authority to order one done).

Dcahole, I second Snottywong's questions. Please clarify your username, and your connection to the article.

If you are at the magazine, and disclose it and agree to work within our conflict of interest policy and avoid personal attacks on Delicious carbuncle in the future, we can probably avoid serious sanction. If that's the case, I urge you to self-disclose soon.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cahole is an Irish name and i have only read the magazine a few times. Dcahole (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My yahoo user acct is nycahole171. Having lived there and been one. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cahole is indeed an Irish surname. Thanks for clearing up that potential source of misunderstanding. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, what brought you to the Men's Health article, and why do you feel so strongly that the COI tag should be removed? SnottyWong ^spout 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am Irish, lived here all my life, and I've never come across the surname Cahole before. Neither has the phonebook for Dublin, Ireland's largest city. [190]. Just sayin' Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my name is not popular enough, it works fine for the purpose and no one in my family has ever complained of it. I have never contributed to this article before and was looking at it - refreshed my screen - and the Conflict of Interest notice splashed across with nothing in the article suggesting any problems. At invitation I asked the editor to explain what was wrong with the article and they threatened to open an investigation. Go the f%^$ ahead. I am gobsmacked at the hostility shown both towards myself and the other editors accused of somehow causing problems. If they are associated with the magazine they are adding content that would in every way help an encyclopedia, I am stunned at this progression which feels much like a witch hunt. I have no clue who they are and I have no association with them. I do have a problem with self appointed guardians of knowledge beating away those who are here to explain more about the subject. Do you want people to improve articles and update them or does hostility and suspect of every new user help things? Sorry for the brashness however this whole turn is upside of reality and hostile at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been adding sourcing as requested on the page and I think it has helped, am I forbidden now or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

hi dcahole, as an independent observer, i can assure you that not all new users are "picked on". there are just some pertinent questions which people would like answered, don't take personal offense to the questions. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, let me apologise if you have been offended by any of my actions or words. And let me say that I am sorry for your unfortunate surname, which has doubtlessly made you a target of ridicule and the butt of jokes. I added the COI tag at 19:08 23 September. Your first edit was at 10:45 24 September. It is odd that you "refreshed your screen" and that notice appeared. Similarly, the message I left on the talk page was well before your first edit. I fear that there may be caching problems involved and will be contacting technical support. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My name is not unfortunate nor has it ever been ridiculed. Cheers for the new set of assumptions that are also insulting. Now that I've asked you several times to clarify what if anything is conflict of interest in the article please explain what you thought was conflict of interest and needed all this? Dcahole (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, sorry, I thought I had answered your question in as much depth as necessary at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Healthy2010. Again, I'm sorry if you found anything insulting in what I wrote - I was only trying to be sympathetic towards someone with an unlikely surname. I think you may have misjudged my assumptions. I try to assume good faith with experienced editors (say, just for example, User:Tastes bad actually), new editors like yourself, and even with IP editors, like User:71.139.5.184, to pick one completely at random. Happy editing, as they say! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory conclusion?

Without meaning any disrespect to User:Timotheus Canens who closed the sockpuppetry case, I don't think we have addressed any of the issues which caused me to bring this here in the first place.

• The COI tag is no longer on the article despite a Rodale Inc-controlled IP making promotional edits such as this.
• The Rodale Inc IP remains unblocked despite, in my opinion, some fairly overt promotional editing. As is customary, the checkuser involved did not explicitly connect the IP to the other two accounts, but the behavioural evidence should have been enough to connect them (again in my opinion).
• The article is worse than it was when this started, thanks to the efforts of Dcahole, who has added more drek to the article rather than remove bare links in the body or trim the external links. There are currently 22 external links and 48 references.
• Dcahole is yet another sockpuppet of an experienced editor who has a grudge against me. I have tried to deal with this through private channels but the results have been less than satisfactory. A rangeblock of 71.139.0.0/19 would put an end to this with minimal collateral damage, should anyone be interested in resolving the issue quickly and quietly.

Perhaps someone would like to take a second look at any or each of these issues? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is dire, reads like an advert - I've made a start, some additional hands would be useful. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cameron. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Radagast3 blocked for reverting copyvio removal

After warning Radagast3 (talk · contribs) twice ([191], [192]) to stop reverting me when I replaced copyrighted material (specifically, quotes from the New International Version of the Bible) with public domain equivalents (specifically, quotes from the World English Bible and the King James Version), I have now blocked him for 1 month. The article primarily affected is New Wine into Old Wineskins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it's happened today now at all the articles in the "Canonical/New Testament" section of {{Parables of Jesus}}. —Angr (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked. As far as I can see, you've edit warred to use quotes from your preferred version of the Bible, and then blocked your opponent. That's appalling behaviour. Copyrighted material is allowed to be quoted in Wikipedia: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." (Wikipedia:Non-free content). I can see from your user page that you don't like fair use, but your preference for public domain doesn't give you a right to force the debate by blocking your opponent. I will leave it to other to consider sanctions against you. Fences&Windows 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor form this. Using admin tools to advance one's own agenda. Should this person continue as a sysop? MtD (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if the user had been blocked by an uninvolved admin, a month block for edit warring (which usually warrants a 12- or 24-hour block), is like shooting a gnat with a railgun and with the additional context, it seriously calls into question whether or not User:Angr can be trusted to use the bit responsibly and constructively. I'm inclined to believe that this user should be desysopped. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

F&W, it's allowed when we can't use free content to do the same thing. The quotes serve the same purpose and are unencumbered. While the unblock was a good idea, id like for you to clarify to the user a bit here if at all possible so they dont dive back into the same dispute. -- ۩ Mask 22:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you're confusing image policy with the general policy for text. Any text, copyrighted or not, can be quoted in small amounts, as long as it's clearly indicated that it is a quote, and the source is clearly identified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. its NFCC, Non-Free Content Criteria, not image criteria. We pull excerpts of song lyrics off userpages all the time because we dont allow fair use in userspace. We trim quotations frequently to qualify in articles. We dont really argue whether they deserve fair use status because there aren't alternatives to be used. There no freely-licensed Harry Potter to quote from, just the copyright-encumbered edition. There is a free alternative in this case. Please read through our policies as well as Foundation Directives. -- ۩ Mask 23:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how Angr's clearly corrupt behaviour is dealt with. My guess involves carpets and sweeping. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This probably wasn't the best way to have approached things, but calling for a desysop is a bit over the top, and Fences&Windows unblock was inappropriate. This use of copyrighted material is not permissible, because copyrighted material can only be used if it is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material, which, since there are public domain translations of the Bible available, can only be held to be true if the discussion is specifically about the copyrighted text.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An admin edit wars on a grey area of policy and then blocks his opponent for a month - that's a bad block, full stop. Any block by an involved admin is a bad block and should be reverted. My unblock was entirely appropriate, we should never excuse abuse of admin tools. I'm not calling for desysopping, but at least an acknowledgement of why Angr should not have blocked Radagast3 is required. Fences&Windows 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The New International Version translation of the Bible is one of the two most common Bible translations used in English, along with the King James Version. Using a less-common translation is a POV issue; so is universally preferring the King James over the NIV, even if done with the best of intentions. In a great number of cases, discussing the actual text given in the NIV is going to be a part of a proper encyclopedia article. So long as it isn't gratuitous use of copyrighted material, limited fair-use quotes are not only acceptable, but encyclopedically essential. But in any case, blocking with instructions to prefer a Bible translation that nobody actually uses for religious purposes over one that they do is a serious, serious matter. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Its needed when illustrating differences between translations, not for general use. Please see The Five Pillars. We are Free Content. Anytime we add content encumbered with restrictions it represents a failing of our goals and needs to be done only when there is no possible way at all to give the information BUT with encumbered content. -- ۩ Mask 22:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course - we are a free-content encyclopedia. However, in order for use to fulfill the "encyclopedia" part properly, we need to reflect the texts that are actually being used. It's profoundly unfortunate that the NIV is not free content, but in many cases it can't be substituted for, because choice of Bible translations can be a serious POV issue, and the sane way to avoid the issue is to use a common translation, and preferably more than one, rather than using one translation or adding an obscure one that happens to have nice copyright terms. It's not an easy issue, by any means - but he original block under discussion was very poor. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The important thing to note here, is that whether to use a very relevant, non-free source, or a less relevant free one, is a matter for discussion, and edit warring was inappropriate by both parties. But what was vastly more inappropriate, was that one of the parties to the edit war abused their admin tools to remove the opposition, and giving a completely disproportionate block in the process. This isn't the place to discuss the content issue; the issue which concerns ANI is the behaviour of the involved parties, including the misuse of the admin tools by User:Angr. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When Angr first raised this issue (and I didn't realise he/she was an admin until I was blocked), I encouraged a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. I'm not sure there really is an issue here: most Bible publishers allow "fair use" quotes (the practice to date, which I've been following, has been to quote a range of different modern versions, and to restrict the amount quoted in any one article -- my belief is that use of, for example, the NIV across the whole of Wikipedia falls within Zondervan's limits for non-commercial use without written permission). If there is an issue, we need a centralised debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible covering (1) under what circumstances copyrighted Bible versions can be quoted, (2) how many verses can be quoted in an article, and (3) which are the preferred Bible non-copyrighted versions to use. Such a debate should lead to a clear "Use of the Bible on Wikipedia" policy, which editors could then be pointed at and encouraged to follow. In this case, Angr appears to be advancing a strong pro-WEB agenda (and to a lesser extent, of the KJV), which also includes changing standard templates leading to the multi-version BibleGateway site, and using Argumentum ad baculum fairly forcefully. Like Gavia immer, I'm concerned about the single-handed conversion of the whole of Wikipedia to a version which is not widely used and which is not respected by scholars. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If they allow people to use it for some purposes its no dice, generally. We freely redistribute for any one to use for any purpose. Putting restrictions on that means we dont use it except under fair use, and we dont use fair use when a freely available alternative is available. It can even be a crappier illustration of the concept then the encumbered one so long as it still allows understanding. -- ۩ Mask 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For anything other than brief excerpts, we use a free version. Because this is a free encyclopedia. See WP:NFCC#1. Block was poor, but Angr is correct in his viewpoint about which should be used. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to edge back into content matters, but I think that actual usage outside Wikipedia is the best possible neutral measure of what "allows" understanding, and so the invitation to use a particular, uncommon translation as a way to avoid being blocked is a big part of what's wrong here. The King James Version, of course, is out of copyright and in common use, but relying on only one translation when others are also common can violate neutrality. I would much rather see a guideline on how and where to make minimal use of copyrighted Bible quotes than a ban that hurts our encyclopedic purpose. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to us, this is a Foundation Directive. From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy :

Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,"

1. All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.

2. In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

Bolding is mine.-- ۩ Mask 00:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to say that the World English Bible or KJV serves the same educational purpose as a Bible translation that scholars actually use? john k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One topic of debate is what constitutes a "brief excerpt." That's currently accepted, but Black kite appears to be suggesting that the brevity restriction should be interpreted more strictly. I'm fine with that, in principle, but any change to Wikipedia practice needs to be discussed and communicated. Any necessary changes to Bible quotations need to be done carefully and with regard to context, not in a single-handed sweep. The existing sweep has caused all kinds of problems, such as in Parable of the Leaven, where the quotation from the inaccurate WEB translation (using "yeast" rather than "leaven") contradicts the (sourced) explanatory text of the article, and indeed also the article title. I would appreciate some clarity as to whether I'm going to be blocked again if I fix that problem. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Radagast, read my comment above for depth, but the quick version is no community discussion will change this. With a work like the bible, which has versions both under copyright and free from it, we have a directive, from the foundation, that simply does not allow us to use works under copyright when a free version exists. Period. End of story. This is one of the few things that the guys who run this show actually felt the need to lay down the law on. -- ۩ Mask 00:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, there are some cases where copyrighted versions must be quoted, such as when discussing differences between translations. We need a policy that articulates the limits on such uses. If there is a directive to apply "fair use" guidelines more strictly (and I think, given the wide interest in this topic, that clarity on this would be a good idea), then we need discussion on which public-domain translations to use. Again, I am concerned about errors being introduced into articles by an administrator advancing an agenda for one particular translation. I'm also personally concerned about the question: will I be blocked for fixing article errors, even where that involves replacing one public-domain version by a more accurate public-domain version, given the context? -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly your first example is one where fair use is reasonable (as long as the excerpt s minimal), but otherwise WP:NFCC#1 is very clear - "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." So if you're quoting from an unfree translation where the free version communicates the same content, you need to use the free one. That's something that isn't negotiable. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC x3)We agree! Looking at differences between works derived from the same source, regardless of the copyright state of the works, would not be possible without excerpts. You wont get any arguments there. What this whole thread is about though is if the point of the section or article isnt about differences, but just the thing itself, you just flat out can not use the copyrighted work. If the article needs the parable, you get it from the free work. If differences between translations is a major bone of contention in the academic world for a particular story or parable, and there are reliable sources that discuss the difference and commentary about why and what the differences mean, then by all means use both, and illustrate why that is important using said sources. I'll be the first one to thank you for improving the project and I imagine every else will join me. -- ۩ Mask

This is a policy discussion and does not belong on ANI. Please take it elsewhere. Note also that NFCC says: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." That is, NFCC#1 would not appear to apply to text. But again, that's a debate for elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

-

While I disagree with your reading of NFCC, I just want to point out that NFCC is our mirroring and explanation of the Foundation's directive. It's useful in the abstract but go read the Foundation Licensing Policy I linked earlier for the authoritative text. -- ۩ Mask 00:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this is the policy you meant, I still disagree. They speak of uploading files, not quoting text. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think you do when you save an edit on the wiki? You're uploading a file. Thats why we can use diffs, it looks at the difference between the two files. You dont think you just magically think of what you want to contribute and the computer displays it for you, do you? -- ۩ Mask 00:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's what they mean, the policy is vague to the point of being useless. It's certainly not a file before you upload it, so you could argue it's not "uploading a file" even with that reading. They mention media several times; they never mention text. The summary is clear that it's not text. If they mean text, they should say text. Until that happens, I will continue reading the policy as if I were a human being and spoke English. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content about this issue. Evil saltine (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask that again: for the two verses quoted in Parable of the Leaven, the public-domain KJV is a more accurate translation than the public-domain WEB, according to the scholarly sources cited in the article. Will I be blocked for replacing one by the other? -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing? Yes. Yes you will. Comparing and contrasting from both editions, with commentary in the text, cited to reliable sources? No. -- ۩ Mask 00:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, missed the switch from NIV to KJV. KJV is unencumbered (in the US anyway, where our servers are. I believe there's still a Crown Copyright on it in the UK). That would be fine. -- ۩ Mask 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly something that needs debate and consensus, but accusations of bad faith on either side are unacceptable. It's reasonable for an admin who sees edit warring on copyvios to block, though of course it should normally not be someone involved in those edit wars. But we have claims above that it would be appropriate to desysop even if he were not involved, so what's going on here? A month is extreme, I agree, but blocks can always be lessened or lifted, as this one was. I'm not familiar with block policy for copyright violations; if the general consensus is that this was out of line, then proper procedure can be explained to Angr. But the accusations that he is pushing some sort of sectarian agenda are baseless: There's no reason not to take him at his word that his choice was motivated by the KJV being dated and the WEB version being free and convenient, and that the block was to protect WP against copyvios, which many of us here see as a threat to the integrity of the project. (Though I agree with Radagast in this case.) — kwami (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The blocking admin was clearly in the wrong and as far as I can tell has not apologized. First he was involved, second this is a gray area of NFCC (what makes for a "brief verbatim textual excerpt" is unclear) which makes the block highly questionable, and third the block was way too long. In all seriousness at the least that acknowledgment of error is needed. If that's not forthcoming I'd say a desysop is appropriate as it implies Angr doesn't think anything wrong was done and that is uncontroversially not the case. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My own view on the underlying matter is that all short bible quotations should appear in at least the KJV as well as the most accepted modern translation. All discussions of translated bible passages inherently involve the question of the accuracy & intent of the translation & so will always meet the NFCC criterion for being essential to the discussion. A stricter interpretation of NFCC in this particular context is inappropriate to the fundamental mission of both NPOV and WP:V. Verifiability can only be attained by using the most accurate version available. (And the intent of the copyright on the NIV is a special case, intended to protect the right to publish the Bible as a whole or substantial part, but to encourage its use otherwise--not considering it in this instant is unwarranted hype-legalism. But this is really for elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The necessary action here on this board is how to deal with the inappropriate block in an ongoing interpretation dispute. This is a debated copyvio at worst, not an unquestioned copyvio where an admin can use his tools even if involved. The proof that the block was inappropriate was, as mentioned, the grossly excessive length. there are always dozens of tother admins available, and I don;t think any other would have blocked for such a period. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• TL;DR, but I think it's clear that: a) the blocking admin was an involved editor, and should not have been the one to make the block. It should have been discussed here first. b) A one-month block for edit warring by an involved editor is clearly wrong when a regular warring block is 24 hours. This is unacceptable, and is using a block to further one side's position in a content dispute. c) NFCC applies to all content, no just images; it is however a grey area. d) The unblock was correct, and does not constitute wheel warring since the blocking admin brought it here for discussion — which, albeit late, was the right thing to do; and e) calls for desysopping are a bit far-fetched at this point, unless this has occurred more than once. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Short short version: Bad block, good unblock, no desysop (live and learn). Policy and guideline discussion elsewhere. Saionara. --Jayron32 01:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with that assuming the blocking admin acknowledges the issues and ideally apologizes. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• It may have been in error, but the original block was indefinite. In other words, banning someone from Wikipedia. This is not just a bad block, it's an appalling block. We could have lost a good editor, and I hope Radagast3 isn't turned away by all this. Please don'tsweep Angr's poor behavior under the carpet. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't quite understand how one can have a copyright on what is supposed to be God's word. Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The copyright is on the translation into English, not on the original biblical text in Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, it is impossible to apply the non-free content criteria to text in exactly the same fashion as to images. Apart from the issues raised by (for example) quoting a line of poetry or prose, one must bear in mind that even in summarizing the plot of a copyrighted novel or play or film, we are making an implicit fair-use claim. In doing so, we hardly ever think that we are using non-free content, much less apply the NFCC to such content, but that is just what we are doing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NYB: Your general comment is spot on, but I don't believe that the specific instance you cite, i.e. summarizing the plot, actually involves fair use. Copyright covers the specific implementation of an idea -- the actual words used, in the case of text -- and not the ideas themselves, including the plot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, copyright does not only cover "the actual words used". Even if there is no verbatim duplication of the copyrighted original, infringement can be found if the new version follows so closely on the structure of the original that copying is clear ("non-literal similarity"). See our article on substantial similarity and its sources for more. In terms of plot summary, these are indeed derivative of the original under U.S. law. See here for more. But I'll leave it at that, as this is wandering afield. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And back to the topic, this was a very bad block. I see it was originally indefinite, then half an hour later it was changed to a month. It was against an editor who has never been blocked before. There was no emergency that I can see requiring any kind of block. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The block was terrible but if it only happened once, desysopping is excessive. Admonishment about WP:INVOLVED is more standard. Desysopping is for repeated, persistent cluelessness, or (in some cases) really over-the-top breaches that this doesn't reach. Re NIV: that is not a free license. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Welp, Malleus was right once again. Admin abuse gets swept under the carpet and ignored. Good job, everyone! Skinny87 (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and sarcastic comments are considered very constructive on ANI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't being ignored. It's being called 'terrible', 'a bad block', etc.. Do you really think one bad block is enough to de-sysop? If it turns out to be part of a pattern from Angr, then he probably will be desysopped. What do you want done? Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with the "admin abuse" characterization completely. I don't know Angr's full history, but I have been involved in a recent and continuing content dispute with him over an image I uploaded... and he has been nothing but courteous, even when I boldly reverted him, knowing full well that he was an admin and could have blocked me because I'm just a regular editor. He could have reverted me, but he assumed good faith, and we're still in negotiations. I think a reprimand of some sort is in order in this case: but consideration of desysopping is premature, IMO. Angr: please speak up again here, since the boomerang has come back from your filing this report... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The stylish way forward would be for Angr to voluntarily resign his admin status and ask for community reconfirmation via WP:RFA. Groomtech (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the silliest thing I have ever read on here. And this is where I read the Starr Report, so that's saying something.-- ۩ Mask 14:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If Angr honestly believed that there was a copyright issue, then he had a responsibility as an admin to revert it. His better choice would have been to ask another admin to look into it. But editors like Groomtech, who apparently think there is a constitutional right to edit wikipedia freely and without any rules (as suggested on his user page essay), are way over the line in calling for Angr to give up his adminship due to one mistake. (It had best not happen again, though.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all what I say, but scarcely relevant to this discussion, so if anyone is interested they should perhaps read it for themselves. Groomtech (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to think it was inappropriate for me to be the one to block, because I was somehow "involved". My only "involvement" was to remove the copyvio and replace it with a free equivalent. I only "edit-warred" because Radagast3 continued to revert my removal of it ([193], [194], [195], [196], [197]). If this had been a content dispute, of course I wouldn't have done the block myself. But it wasn't a content dispute, it was a matter of a user clearly, flagrantly, and shamelessly reinserting a copyvio into an article, even after having been warned not to. It is no different than if I had replaced a copyrighted publicity photo of a living celebrity with a freely licensed photo, and he had persisted in reverting to the copyrighted image. I have no problem with the unblock as long as Radagast3 understands and agrees that quoting from the NIV (or any other copyrighted Bible translation) is unacceptable at Wikipedia, except in places where the specific wording of a particular translation is what's being discussed (e.g. at Isaiah 7:14). —Angr (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it was a bad block; blocking by an involved admin is always bad, and an indefinite (or even month long) block is way too long for what's essentially an edit war over a gray area in copyright policy. Buddy431 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of short passages from the NIV in Wikipedia is not a copyright violation. john k (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

However that may be decided, it is clearly not indisputable copyright violation--as is proven by the fact that we have here editors in good standing disputing it. This is not like vandalism--there is no immediate harm in asking someone else to look at it. You may have thought at the time it was indisputable, but do you now understand that it was not? Do you now agree in like circumstance where your interpretation of content may be reasonably disputed, you should not be the one to block? DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if when people are talking about a "copyvio" they mean "copyright violation under U.S. law" or "violation of some rule made up by wikipedia which has little to do with copyright law." If the latter, I have no idea if it is a violation of a wikipedia rule. It may be; in that case, the rule is stupid, and ought to be changed. I think that, in general, the rules have not been interpreted in such a rigid manner, but that used to be true for pictures too. I suppose it was inevitable that a rule designed to stupidly prevent us from using pictures we wouldn't get into legal trouble for using is now being used to argue that we should be stupidly prevented from using fair use quotations from a copyrighted work that won't get us into legal trouble. Angr: on what basis is it up to you to judge that Bible translations are interchangeable and that one version will do just as well as another so that fair use isn't in play? This is a judgment call, not a cut and dry rule, or at least it should be. john k (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's clear now that Angr refuses to acknowledge his error. I don't think he should continue as an admin. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the situation with an admin misusing the bit should be analogous to that of a user failing to following editing policies. That is, we don't usually indef someone for a single offense, so similarly, we shouldn't de-sysop for a single admin offense. Similarly, while we prefer that people apologize for and admit their errors, we usually don't require them to do so (because reasonable people, acting in good faith, interpret policy differently). Thus, we don't even need Angr to admit error, we simply need Angr to understand that continued use of admin tools in a way that does not match consensus will eventually lead to de-sysoping. (Side note: I, too, think that Angr was in error, with the block length at least. With the issue of being involved, it seems to me that if Angr honestly believed the problem to be one of copyright infringement, being involved is essentially irrelevant, as that is an exception to the normal rules (much like an admin can block a vandal that they themselves have been reverting). This is not to say that Angr has permission to continue to act this way, as consensus right now seems fairly clearly against the block and length, but that just that a single offense doesn't instantly lead to an "indef-block" (i.e., de-sysoping). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Actual NIV license...

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

---

Since I happen to have one handy, it says:

"The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses, without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible, nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted."

No claim of fair use applies: any reasonable (as per above permissions) NIV quote in Wikipedia has the express permission of the publisher. The vast majority of other Bible translations have similar clauses. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place for the discussion, but I don't see how you can claim that's a free license Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• JClemens, don't forget that we require more than that from our content, and it needs to be available under a compatible license or it'd be considered non-free: our content, given correct attribution, may be used or refactored by anyone, for any purpose, including for commercial purposes. The NIV license doesn't permit that, so it's not free. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the King James version is subject to a perpetual Crown copyright in England. Groomtech (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But not in the US, where the wikimedia servers are and whose copyright law Wikimedia is subject to. -- ۩ Mask 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not what the Foundation resolution says. " in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed " 92.233.49.8 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That 'predominantly' means something like this. The US has more then 4 times as many pageviews as the next highest country (which isn't England. It's Germany. England is number 4 on the list. The note is primarily for informing users of other language wikipedias that the servers are in the US and must follow that law, not just (for example) the user having to follow Romanian law, which they presumably know. Thats why the US is explicitly mentioned. -- ۩ Mask 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

92.233, note that in your own quote, it says and, not or. As the servers are hosted in Florida, US copyright law must be followed. In addition, copyright law for countries where many users view the material are also important. That means if it's permissible under the copyright law for one of these countries but not the US, it's not permissible. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But that is exactly what I'm pointing out. In addition, the law of England imposes a copyright on the King James version. (Logical and is symmetric.) So it's not permissible. 92.233.49.8 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, got logged out there. 92.233.49.8 was me. Groomtech (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Per WP:C: "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." (Though it notes there as well that we try to respect the laws of other countries, so German Wikipedia follows Germany's more restrictive standards--what the "Exemption Doctrine Policy" being quoted refers to--and we don't hold all content from nations with which we have no copyright treaties public domain.) Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. For example works of the US federal government are in the public domain in the United States and widely used on Wikipedia, but they may not be in the public domain outside the United States." Wikipedia:Public Domain: "Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation, its legal body, are based in Florida, United States. Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States. For re-users of Wikipedia content, it is the laws of their respective countries. In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain."(footnote omitted) We try to note content that may not be public domain in other countries (for instance, see the image templates Template:PD-old and Template:PD-US), but we do accept them if they are PD in the U.S. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to treat this text like any other non-free text content. The danger of operating under that permission, were we so inclined, is that we are not publishing one article, but a collection of millions of them, and the risk that we'll go above 500 verses seems high. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that each page is a separate publication. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think we are a compilation, just like any other encyclopedia. (And in terms of practical reality, we are a single website, in spite of multiple subpages.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using the NIV at all, and we should only use the KJV for its importance to the English language. If we want to discuss what the Bible actually says, we should use the NRSV or a similar scholarly translation, and such usage ought to be valid under fair use. john k (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your POV and you're welcome to it. The NIV has been the predominant translation in protestant America, and probably some other English-speaking countries, for 30+ years. A lot of Christian homiletics, hymnody, and other related disciplines have been directly tied to the NIV over that time, and replacing the specific translation with a different one is simply not equivalent. There was a bigger fight over proposed inclusion of gender-neutral language in an NIV revision than there ever was in the NRSV--why? Because by and large, people who have a "high view of scripture" don't use the NRSV. It is absolutely a scholarly translation--it is commonly used in Biblical Studies, but rarely or never in Evangelical worship. Each translation has its place in Wikipedia's coverage of Christian topics. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NIV loses to KJV on cultural impact, and loses to NRSV on scholarly credibility. If we want to talk about what the Bible is actually saying in the original language, we should use the NRSV, which is about as close as we have to a translation that tries to do that (it is not completely successful in that, imo, because it has a pastoral purpose as much as a scholarly one, which is why you get stuff like the gender neutral language, but it's still better than any other major translation). If we want to talk about cultural impact and that kind of thing, I'm sure there are contexts where the NIV would be useful, but the KJV is more influential by a level of magnitude. NIV is kind of a distant second in both categories. john k (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that on the larger issue, I don't think that copyright issues should prevent us from using the NIV or NRSV when appropriate, that I think it is usually appropriate to use a more recent translation than the KJV (although in many cases we will want to give the KJV as well), and that I think that a translation of such dubious provenance as the World English Bible should not be used at all unless reliable sources can be found which vouch for it. john k (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with this. KJV has been around for 400 years, and has thus been referenced by a larger body of work. You'll also need KJV to discuss new religious movements that splinter from Christianity. NIV is more currently socially referenced in some places as mentioned above, and is likely the best balance between popularity and comprehensibility. NRSV is used in academic circles. Beyond that, there are probably 20+ other translations that are in use--ASV, RSV, NASB, NLT, TEV, REB, Jerusalem, New Jerusalem, Amplified, NCV, come to mind without stopping to think too hard--which may be appropriate for specific commentary in particular situations. For example, if we're dealing with a difficult or contentious passage like Malachi 2:16, the plethora of ways that different translations render the same passage into English is itself comment-worthy. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 27 September 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.

Soapboxing

In Talk:Libertarianism, Xerographica has been asked not to soapbox by User:Born2cycle, User:North8000, myself and others.[198] Despite this, Xerographica posted the following on Talk:Libertarianism:

Request for Critical Thinking

1. Are conservatives libertarians that are socially conservative?
2. Are liberals libertarians that want more than a minimal government?
3. Are anarcho-capitalists libertarians that want to abolish government?
4. Are anarcho-capitalists anarchists that support capitalism?

Xerographica (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An editor collapsed this discussion but Xerographical opened a new thread.[199] This is disruptive editing and I request escalating blocks to put Xerographical on the right path. TFD (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite repeated general, personal, page wide and mediator given warnings the disruptive effect of soapboxing continues, it has continued despite deleted and hidden threads. Administrator intervention is required to enforce basic elements of NOT where community discussion, warning and informal mediation are not working. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the primary soapboxer has also been extremely uncivil and has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks. This user has been warned about their attacks no less than 13 times without any blocking action having been taken. Yworo (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe's continuing incivility

Resolved

• BlueRobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite a week long block following an RfC/U for incivility, BlueRobe continues with incivility and personal attacks, even after receiving multiple notifications and warnings.

Here are the recent notifications and warnings, which have just been removed by BlueRobe without reply. (I'm told this is not accurate, they did respond to some... to reject them).

• 19 September
  • warned by myself
• 21 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo
• 22 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo
  • warned by Jrtayloriv
• 23 September
  • warned by myself
• 24 September
  • warned by Marknutley
  • warned by FellGleaming
  • abuse4 warning from Fifelfoo
  • warned again by Fifelfoo
  • warned by Jrtayloriv
  • warned by Lawrencekhoo
  • warned again by Lawrencekhoo
• 25 September 2010
  • warned by Born2cycle

Yworo (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a second RfC in progress at the moment. However from the comments on BlueRobe's talk page s/he is not actively seeking a block --Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen of BlueRobe, the user appears to be actively trolling by intentionally being rude and insulting to try to turn factual discussions into arguments. In a AfD I started, he jumped in without having read the AfD (at least judgine from his comment), then went on to call me an "angry freak" [200] when I moved a comment by him to the bottom of the place to be able to answer, claimed that I'm "ranting and raving" [201] instead of answering my question why a copy of an article should be kept, and made rather insulting insinuations about my motive for nominating the article [202]. I don't know if BlueRobe is intentionally trolling (which I suspect) or just unable to control himself, but whatever the case, he is clearly a disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at those warnings tells me a long block is needed; BluRobe simply refuses to listen despite over 9,000 warnings. Some might try a month but I really despair. That's not on, and I don't think this user will ever learn to control xyrself or cease trolling, whichever it is that needs to happen. I therefore propose an indef block of BlueRobe. Who's with me on that? Shall I get blocking? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Only two prior blocks, with the longest one being for a week? A month next, and no indef yet. He's arguably acting like a "dick", but escalating blocks are preferable, IMHO: at least to demonstrate to everyone that blocks are meant to be "preventative" and not "punitive". Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well. This is why I raised it first. I don't see any danger of this not repeating, but ho hum. Month-long block coming right up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As an involved user on the receiving end of personal attacks; can we list compulsory counselling/mentoring after a block as an element of the block? I don't see why we should lose the editor. Individual oversight and interaction training may save the editor for the betterment of the encyclopaedia in the long run. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can find someone willing to volunteer, that's fine by me. If it does no good it can do no harm. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are we wasting our time with incremental blocks? There is no requirement for it. It's not like this is a long drawn out problem that has cropped up from time to time. This is an on-going escalating situation that only started a little over a month ago and he's already got his third block. This user has had plenty of chances in the last 37 days to change his behaviour and hasn't shown one ounce of interest as far as I can tell.--Crossmr (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that incremental blocks not only show a measure of fairness and procedural precedence that should be applied to all blocking situations, but also helps gives less "leeway" when editors go for "blocking from the hip". There is no requirement for it, but assuming good faith in a broader sense is a policy. I'm not a huge fan of "one short block ---> community ban". There is a measure of justice, even on WP ;> Doc9871 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Consideration of context should be a significant component of a fair process. Randomly shooting somebody on the street is a different situation than shooting an intruder. The context of the libertarianism talk page is not the same context as nearly every other wikipedia article. This is readily discernible by the fact that among all the incidents reported on this page, only one is for soapboxing. BlueRobe's behavior was merely a reflection of numerous underhanded tactics that certain editors have used to suppress opposing viewpoints. Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't assume good faith blindly when there is evidence to the contrary. there is plenty of evidence to support him not changing at this point. Plenty of users have attempted to get through to him and he hasn't changed his behaviour. He's had 2 blocks already and an RfC, so there is no "blocking from the hip" here. plenty of time and effort has been wasted already and he's thrown in back in the faces of everyone. This wasn't one short block and then a community ban. There were 2 blocks, an RfC, and several AN/I threads.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is out of context. Marknutley and Errant are the only relatively objective editors who partially understand the context...you can read their views here...and... here. I say "partially" because to fully understand the context you have to look through all the archives. Personally, the only reason I'm here is because the article on libertarianism was saying that libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism. The bold edits I initially made were quickly reverted. When I noticed that another editor had been patiently trying to reason with the anarchists here's what I wrote..."Wow. I just looked through some of the discussion on this page...you should be nominated for sainthood. Are you an elementary school teacher? Or do you work with the mentally challenged?" (Archive_16).

Obviously BlueRobe, unlike Darkstar1st, is not a contender for wikipedia sainthood. He's a nominee for an editor that has made a completely disregarded Herculean effort to correct a very biased article. This is nothing more than a failure of wikipedia. How so? After I asked Darkstar1st if he worked with the mentally challenged I asked this question..."But at this point...isn't there some higher wikipedia power that can step in and kick the anarchists off our page? There's a disambiguation page so there's no logical reason that they should be allowed to continue to confuse the issue." Basically, the article on Libertarianism is the equivalent of an anarchist Google bomb and wikipedia has done nothing to correct the problem...other than cater to the anarchists by removing an editor that has tirelessly worked towards covering each viewpoint in proportion to prominence. Xerographica (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)