Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

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

User:FellGleaming

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

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

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

Response from FellGleaming

A short history of events:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsuccessful enforcement request from April 2010

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

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

   After I challenge this,

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

   After my warning, below, then

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community Ban

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative proposal

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

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

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

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

Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

• Prior AN/I, from 2009, which failed in finding any error: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo
• 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: [37] 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, [38]. 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 [39]. 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 [40]. 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 [41]. I finally managed to successfully change the section title again so that it was not my user-name, [42]. Notice my statement in the edit history.

I reverted Stevertigo's article-edit. [43]. Stevertigo reverted my edit with his WP:OR, while sounding insulted. [44].

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 [45].

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 ---- [46], [47].

Time in physics ---- [48], [49]

Physics ---- [50]

Human ---- [51], [52] (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 [53] "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, [54]. 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, [55], 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 - [56], and here [57] 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. [58], [59]. And I agreed with him [60]. Next, Stveritgo, reverts Jim's article-edit [61], and then becomes argumentative on the talk page [62]. Notice how Stevertigo characterzes Jim's overall edting and attitude.

Stevertigo makes noises about participating in a discussion [63]. However, Stevertigo carried out this revert, without discussion [64]. 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. [[65]

On July 12 (before I arrived) Stevertigo did 23 unchecked edits in a row [66], cullimanting in [67] "rv polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese".

Other relevant diffs: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].

Ultimately another editor also got involved: User:DVdm. It was a long process as illustrated by the talk page revision history [75]. 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 --- [76], [77], [78], [79], etc., etc. There was also discussion on the talk page. It is not an overly long discussion [80]. 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) [81] , except he has not moved on. We (the editing team) established a consensus lead by August 9th [82]. 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 [83]. The total edits made by Stevertigo on that day were 23. I characterize the situation on the talk page here [84]. 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 [85].

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" [86]. 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. [87], [88]. I understand that he was desyoped. Also, very recently, he was topic banned regarding Obama articles (it looks like this year) [89]. 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 [90]. 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: [91]. After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, [92]. And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
• Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): [93]. The original has been restored.
• Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010) [94], and related discussion [95].
• Holocaust denial: Here: [96]. Reverted: [97] 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 [98]. This was subsequently reverted two hours later, after five or six more Stevertigo edits, [99]. However, it did not end there. Within six minutes, Stevertigo reverted back to his version [100]. This was reverted by another editor eight minutes later [101]. 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, 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 Zeit, 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: [102]. After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, [103]. And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
• Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): [104]. The original has been restored.
• Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010) [105], and related discussion [106].
• Holocaust denial: Here: [107]. Reverted: [108] 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). -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)

• 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)

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)

• 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 Zeit, 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 Zeit 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[109] 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 [110] "superseded remedy"). Steve Quinn's edits to Time are not perfect either ([111] 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.[112] 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 ben 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)

• 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: [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]. 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[123]) 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)

• 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)

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; 3 oppose

I list the editors in support of a block for some length of time. User:Modocc, User:SlimVirgin, User:Steve Quinn, User:Pfhorrest appears to support a temporary ban with caveats, User:Slrubenstein, User:Johnuniq, User:Tarc, User:Roux, User: Beyond My Ken, 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 [124], 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)

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.

• 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)

• Another issue is the "NONCE" tag, which was applied to the Time in physics article [125]. 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 [126], with a message on Stevrtigo's talk page [127]. 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)

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)

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)

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[128] 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)

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. [129] [130] [131] [132] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Hounding and off-wiki harassment by a WP admin? (User:KimvdLinde)

I have seen editors of sexuality pages receiving off-wiki harassment before, but I have never seen it coming from an admin, especially during a content dispute in which the admin is currently involved: http://heathenscientist.blogspot.com/ .

I am no stranger to controversial topics in sexuality, and I appreciate that there will always be editors and admins who disagree with me on one issue or another. However, for an admin to be reverting edits and issuing warnings on the one hand and then attacking me (and other editors) off-wiki is a clear example of what “creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith” (i.e., WP:HARASS). In fact, giving into one’s POV while editing and intimidating editors with admin authority behind it suggests grossly poor judgment.

I have had no prior interactions with User:Kimvdlinde, until this AfD discussion. She then began sending me off-wiki emails regaling me with her off-wiki experiences as a scientist becoming embroiled in academic disputes. She then began reverting edits of mine, but left unanswered my request to untangle a problem she had with the content versus me personally [133]. Still participating in the content dispute at pedophilia, she is now making off-wiki attacks against me and the other editors participating in the discussion.

(We can, of course, discuss the content of the relevant edits, but to avoid TLDR, I will hold off unless asked. For the record, however, the statements User:KimvdLinde makes in her off-wiki attack are inaccurate. Two final notes: I have acknowledged my off-wiki identity, so I do not fault User:KimvdLinde for using it in her blog. Second, although User:KimvdLinde uses a pen name in her blog, she also acknowledges her identity: She link’s her userpage to her personal page, http://www.kimvdlinde.com/, where she acknowledges that the heathenscientist blog is hers.)

— James Cantor (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The pedophilia article is suffering from serious issues, and in my frustration dealing with it, I wrote a blogpost explaining my feelings about the article. I have reproduced the blog post on wiki, because I stand by what I wrote. I will answer the unanswered question so we can take that one out of the equation.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Pedophilia article is only suffering from "serious issues" according to KimvdLinde and another editor. Sticking mostly to authoritative sources on a medical issue is not a "serious problem." Pop culture calling a sexual interest in everything under 18 "pedophilia" and people wanting that in the article as if it is a valid definition of pedophilia is the serious problem. As long KimvdLinde doesn't start sending me emails, I really don't care what she writes on her blog about that article or me. I am sorry that James feels harassed, however. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not harassment; it's the views and observations of a person. There isn't anything harmful or demeaning in the blog, and I speak as an Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless Kim redacted her original post, the "worst" I see that she said was that you do "not always know the limits of self-promotion", a statement she makes an effort to back up. That is mild criticism, not harassment. If I were you I'd either take it constructively or just ignore her and move on. She is just one person (admin or not) and if you feel her off-wiki criticism has no value, you are free to pay it no heed. -kotra (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether I believe her off-wiki attacks have any value; the question is whether editors/admins who feel frustrated enough lob off-wiki attacks is editing in good faith. A administrator acting in the best interests of WP would not intervene herself, but ask another admin to intervene; and would be answering questions on wiki about official warnings given on wiki rather than ignoring them and instead writing attacks about the warnee off wiki.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• - User:James Cantor should stop immediately adding his own self promotion conflicted articles. - I have watchlisted the user. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to invite anyone who wants to to watchlist me. However, by reading the pedophilia talkpage and its archives, for example, one will find that my suggestions for RS's that KimvdLinde faults me for providing were indeed posted on the talkpage and not the mainpage, and that the majority of my input for many months has been limited to answering questions posed specifically to me or referring specifically to me.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You added an external link to the sexual addiction article on the 11 September, to an interview with yourself,please don't do this again. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You leave out that I indicated my association with the EL on the talkpage, inviting others to review it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sexual_addiction#Disclosure.). You also leave out that I have made 100's of non-controversial edits to that page itself, not a single one of which has anything to do with me personally (I have not published any research articles on the topic), and not a single one of which has been contested by any other editor in the many months since I made them. (If my goal were to for self-promotion, I would not be using a very efficient method of going about it.)

Despite my asking it several times, no one has yet said that there is any problem at all with the content of the EL in question. The productive thing for an editor to do is read the EL, and either decide that the EL is relevant, informative, etc. and support it, or decide that the EL is irrelevant and delete it. For an admin to delete it and refuse to answer questions about the deletion, responding only with an off-wiki attach is not, in my opinion, appropriate (regardless of whether one believes that my own behavior was appropriate).— James Cantor (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not leaving anything out, you added it and that is unacceptable, as I said don't do that again, If you have the idea to add a self promotional external link to content conflicted to your editing here, open a discussion and allow consensus to arise and if there is a consensus on the talkpage to add your desired personally related interview then please do not add it yourself, allow an uninvolved user to add it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:COS says simply "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest." 24.205.45.49 (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for the link, personally in this case it doesn't appear to cover the issue, as cherry picking your own interview as an external link is not actually covered by that. Wikipedia is not written by experts and not read by them either. If users want to add their opinions and cites about themselves they would do well imo to discuss it well on the talkpage and as I said it would be a stronger position if they did not add it themselves. So called experts would do better by not editing in their field, they have a mountain of conflict of interest and as such are so involved to be unable to edit in that area in a neutral manner.Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

At least that clarifies that the disagreement is not about page content, but about one's POV about expert editors.— James Cantor (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave my thoughts on this above in this section. Really don't have much more to say about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider the comments in the linked blog to constitute either hounding or harassment, and I don't believe that admin interaction is required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the blog post does fall within Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki_attacks, and does a great deal to drain credibility from KimvdLinde. It is an incredibly petty thing to do. I have been driven to distraction by other people's behavior on WP, but I feel no need to do such a thing as create an attack page. Regarding alleged self-promotion James Cantor, I have always known him to ask first before incorporating any source he is an author on, and he has never added one over the objections of other users. When he one such suggestion], I suggested an alternative textbook source that fulfilled the same purpose, and we went with mine instead without any heated argument needed.Legitimus (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, everybody his opinion, but the facts show he inserted an external link of an interview of himself to an article, so your assertion that he always ask is incorrect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed true that for that article (sex addiction), which is only infrequently edited, I put the EL in myself and disclosed all the information on the talkpage, whereas for highly followed or disputed articles I do exactly as Legitimus describes. (And no one is saying that the actual EL I added was at all problematic.) If Kim (or anyone else) would like to start an RfC on me, then we can have that discussion properly. However, the question here is whether it is appropriate for an admin to disparage an editor off-wiki while engaging in content disputes with that editor on-wiki and while acting in her admin role on-wiki with the same editor (rather than ask another admin to intervene).

1. In fact, when I was asked to provide an opinion at the AfD, my very first comment included the disclosure of my relationships with the topic and with other editors. However, Kim immediately opined that I should not have revealed those conflicts/interests[134], only to have another admin opin that I was correct in including the disclosure.[135]
2. When I updated an editor's comment on behalf of that editor [136], Kim intervened to say I should not [137], again only to have the original editor say I was correct [138].
3. Moreover, Kim's not answering questions from me on the topic was not an isolated event: e.g.: [139].

So, after each of the above, when Kim decides to write an off-wiki attack about me at the same time as engaging me in content disputes on-wiki, and at the same time as refusing to answer questions about her admin actions on-wiki, it is perfectly reasonable for me to question Kim's decision not to pass off her admin role. That Kim faults me both for overhandling COI and for underhandling COI makes it reasonable to question if the goal here is really about COI at all or about an opportunity to just fault me for whatever she can find. It is not unreasonable for me to indicate that the appropriate thing for Kim to do is to let another admin handle issues she perceives with me.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 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)

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)

Conflict of interest, probable sockpuppetry, edit-warring

A new editor

, 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. [140]. 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)

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 ([141],[142],[143]) 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: [144] --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 ([145],[146],[147]) 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:

• [148] reverting to poorly formated version just for the sake of reverting
• [149] bios and "propaganda" accusations
• [150] 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)

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)

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[151]. 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)

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[[152]]. 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. [[153]] 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)

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)

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: [154] [155] [156] [157] [158], and especially: [159]. 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)

User:Protector of Wiki

Resolved

 - No admin action required. However: POW, tone it down - your reply to Michael Hardy was inappropriate, and comments like that are likely to result in a trip to WP:WQA. (And on a personal note: can you start referring to admins as either "admins" or "sysops"? "Mods" is just wrong). TFOWR 12:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen in his notice at the top of his talk page, Protector of Wiki (talk · contribs) migrated to the English Wikipedia only a month ago, after being blocked indefinitely from the Simple English Wikipedia for incivility (contribs log). Since September 10 this year, he has (mostly) been writing ALL CAPS in his edit summaries. He responded by telling that he will "[...]try to tone down his comments where possible", but yet after that he simply continues using all caps. He has attemped to spam his own talk page by putting a 1000 px large smiley image (reverted). Today, he wrote in an edit summary that Alpha Quadrant is rude. Only two days ago, he received an only warning for posting this comment. As can be seen in his block log at enwp, he has already been blocked one time, for posting this comment. I think all of this are cases of either disruptive editing, intentioned trolling, or he simply has massive temperament problems.

I honestly think at least a(nother) block is in order. HeyMid (contributions) 08:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties/admins may also want to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer#User:Protector of Wiki. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer request and some of general demeanour reminds of the "SMASH ALL VANDALS MUST DIE DIE DIE"-type vandal fighters they have sometimes around here. WP:AGF and WP:CIR are all very well, but perhaps PoW needs to take the initiative a little less easily and gel a bit more around here? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe PoW needs encouragement to be a little more collaborative and a little less abrasive, but I honestly don't see that they've done anything actually disruptive. The ALLCAPS is mildly irritating, but it does not appear to me to be hurting anything. Same goes for the ginormous smiley face. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"not your talk page! not rude at all! you are the one being rude!" It does seem a lot less "rude" without ALLCAPS, doesn't it? Edit summaries should be no exception: type like every other editor when composing them. He can "shout" in lowercase all day, and it's far less disruptive. It's one keystroke... Doc9871 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I just don't see the big deal. This is not worth sanctioning someone over. Reyk _YO! 09:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If that were the only issue sure, but users banned on other projects should be on a very short leash and should not engage in behaviour that winds other users up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal with just turning capslock off. That said: I'm quite surprised to see this up now, because he actually seems to be making a decent effort at being, well, tolerable. (Despite the "well, I'm still not going to play nicely" edit summaries.) Take for example, the AfD notification on his talk. I was suitably impressed by his response to it. To be honest, I think that he does have good intentions. This community attracts all kinds of temperaments who are just trying to help, and the most harmful of these aren't the kind like him. He doesn't need another block at this point. Just as long as he can start making less drama, he'll be a good counterbalance. sonia♫ 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty well sums up my impressions of this user. Reyk _YO! 09:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with sonia as well. In his defense, PoW was bitten by an admin no less before his arse comment. I've reviewed the article in question and found that PoW was clearly correct while Michael Hardy violated numerous policies in his defense of the article. Nevertheless, I'm troubled by PoW's ongoing defiance of all requests to tone down his/her behavior. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread is completely unnecessary. So he uses some caps, which I admit are annoying, but not block worthy. I see no reason for a block; agree with Sonia. Tommy! 12:33, 25 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Any Pakistani admins?

I just blocked Tariq babur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24h because he keeps creating content and articles about himself and his family members, and has not acknowledged or responded to numerous messages on his talk page or discussed any edits on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Oh, and there was the incident of removing the images from Muhammad, but that is normal. Perhaps someone with a language in common could have a chat with the user? Guy (Help!) 11:37, 25 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)
• 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)

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.

User:WikiDao using images with signature

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)

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

Radagast3 blocked for reverting copyvio removal

After warning Radagast3 (talk · contribs) twice ([160], [161]) 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)

(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)

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)

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

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 [162] 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)