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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletions by involved editor under claim of "close paraphrases"; Mkativerata

A colleague, Mkativerata, who is an involved administrator in respect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as defined by WP:ARBPIA, has today deleted variations of 2 sentences in an ARBPIA bio of Ilan Berman (3 times in half an hour).[1][2][3] Claiming that they are "close paraphrases". The 2 sentences were edited three times to seek to address his claims, and additional refs added.

Whether or not he may have been correct initially, certainly by his most recent deletion IMHO there was no merit to his claim. I'm concerned with the aggressiveness of his deletions, without talkpage discussion, especially given the ARBPIA aspect of this. I've myself opened up discussion of the issue on the article's talkpage, but not received any response there.

Perhaps an admin can keep an eye on this matter? I'm concerned that it is spiraling. I'm not asking for any other action as to Mkat. Full disclosure: In the past I've communicated concern to this editor about his behavior, and have felt that he responded aggressively and sought to exact retribution inappropriately for my having having voiced my view, so I am hoping that this is not a continuation of that, and that I will not suffer from retribution from him. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche is the subject of a long-running CCI that has uncovered a long history of copyright violations. I'm working through the CCI and I'm not going to be distracted by obstructionism. Working on a CCI requires the deletion of substantive amounts of a contributor's work. And I'm not going to be bullied out of it. And nor am I going to let the fact that I have declared myself "not uninvolved" in respect of ARBPIA stop me from removing copyright violations, being a non-POV matter. CCI needs whatever help it can get. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

My noting that you are "an involved administrator in respect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict" as defined by WP:ARBPIA is simply a reflection of what you have yourself indicated. Given the sensitivities in that area, and your being an involved editor, when you delete material such as the above under the claim that it is a copyright violation, and the claim appears baseless, that raises a concern that your "involvement" is an issue.

I agree of course that copyright violations should be addressed. Your most recent deletion, certainly, was nothing of the sort. You also failed to discuss the matter on the talkpage, despite making 3 deletions in half an hour. When unwarranted deletions are made by involved editors, that can perhaps be a problem. Involved editors can always alert other editors when they believe there is a problem, especially if it is not a clear-cut matter--I find it hard to believe that you felt that your last deletion, for example, was a clear-cut copyright violation. I'm not asking that action be taken against you. I'm simply asking for more admin eyes, as I feel you reacted with aggressive retribution in the past. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, in the Mkat matter now before ARBCOM, there are assertions of failure to communicate properly as well. As here, I personally don't believe that the asserted failure warrants sanctions. But perhaps it reflects a pattern. I do believe that communication is called for by wp:admin, and is important, in instances such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's possibly a copyright violation, it should be removed immediately pending peer review. There is no suggestion being made that Mkati is using copyright policy to game the system, which would be a problem. This would also be a problem if Mkati were ignoring some discussion that had already taken place, but the petitioner doesn't suggest that is happening. According to the complaint itself there is nothing here requiring administrative action. causa sui (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors can of course delete blatant vandalism. And I would extend that to blatant copyright violations. Mkat's most recent deletion was certainly nothing of the sort, however -- not a copyvio at all, and certainly not a blatant copyvio.

As with involved editors in wp:admin, by analogy, "administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor ... and disputes on topics". As WP:ADMIN indicates, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a stretch. Involvement is construed broadly so that we can discourage administrators from gaming the system to enforce their own positions in content disputes. According to your own account there isn't any reason to believe that that is what he is doing, and I don't understand you to be implying that either. If I'm reading you correctly, your argument is strictly procedural. Since it is a much bigger danger to include a copyvio than to remove a non-copyvio, it would be better to convince the interested parties that the edits aren't actually copyvios. Then we could move on. causa sui (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a stretch at all. WP:ADMIN clearly indicates the concern: "involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." Such is the case here. Repeated deletions, at an article in the ARBPIA content area, by an admittedly involved sysop. No credible claim of copyvio. Zero talk page discussion, while making the deletions. That this is being done in the highly sensitive ARBPIA area heightens concern as to the approach. There's no need to throw around an accusation such as "gaming the system to enforce their own positions", however apt it might be. Hopefully, the eyes of admins on this will help us avoid future problems.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. You violated copyright policies for years. Our policies now allow the "indiscriminate removal" of the information you added during that period. You are fortunate that I am not taking "indiscriminate removal" to the full extent to which it is allowed. Any editor can remove your information -- it has nothing to do with being an administrator, I am not acting as one, but even if I was, I will not hesitate to block you if you continue to disrupt the resolution of your CCI. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate removal should mean being fairly liberal in removing copyvios that are discovered from Epeefleche's edits, it does not mean removing information Epeefleche wrote just for the sake that he wrote it. That is disruptive. Silverseren^C 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does mean that. Policy is that "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically, once things reach the point of a CCI, all contributions by an editor are to be assumed copyvio unless proven otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems like it could be very disruptive though, especially when you're considering articles that other users have likely worked on and expanded afterwards as well. Silverseren^C 21:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of "assuming copyvios". We are talking about Mkat's deletions yesterday -- years (and 50-80,000 edits?) after I wasn't familiar with our copyvio rules. And the material Mkat deleted here was by no means a copyvio. His assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. Mkat wasn't "assuming" anything. He looked at the language and the source and made a completely unfounded assertion, without tp discussion, in his COI area.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, uploading copyvios is what is disruptive. That subsequent editors then rework the copyrighted content (making the Wikimedia Foundation a distributor of an unlicensed derivative work) that then has to be removed is disruption caused by the person who uploaded the copyvio, not the person who removed it. A lot of thought has gone into this and the legal implications of unlicensed derivatives combined with the high ratio of (effort to detect copyvios:effort to add copyvios) make wholesale removal of legally dubious content a cost of doing business around here. causa sui (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue here, above, involved Mkat hiding behind the dubious assertion of copyvio. I doubt an objective editor would find this -- his most recent deletion -- to be a copyvio. When an editor deletes material under such a dubious claim of copyvio, that could easily be seen as disruptive if it is part of a problem. He also failed to use the talkpage for discussion -- or even respond to discussion opened on the talkpage. That is also not good practice where one is deleting material three times in an hour. This is compounded by the fact that this matter is in the ARBPIA area, where sensitivities are heightened. And, of course, it is further compounded where (as here) the sysop is without question an involved editor. I've no problem at all with real copyvios being struck. But that's not what was at issue here at all, as you can see if you look at the diff provided.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My initial concern was prompted by the fact that Mkat: a) deleted material 3 times in half an hour; b) with a wholly dubious claim of copyvio (see his most recent deletion), c) failed to communicate via talkpage; d) in the sensitive ARBPIA area; e) where Mkat is an involved editor; f) without modeling best behavior as called for by wp:admin. I raised the issue here so others could keep an eye on this, and ensure that it does not inflate, as I've felt he has lashed out in the past when I've disagreed with him. I agree with Silver that Mkat's edits here were leaning towards the disruptive.

Mkat today appears to be reacting to my having disagreed with him, by seeking retribution. As background, when I first started at wikipedia -- many years ago -- I followed what I saw as wp practice; practice that was not in compliance with our rules. Not knowing our rules in this area, I did indeed make errors at that time, and years ago added some material that should properly be cited, revised, or redacted. I have years of editing since then, with tens of thousands of edits, and now that I have read our rules I've complied carefully with them.

But Mkat -- directly after I disagreed with him yesterday -- has now undertaken to delete in toto some articles I've worked on. Articles of Olympic athletes. As in this deletion of the Yves Dreyfus article today. And this deletion of the Vivian Joseph article today I can't see what he deleted, so I don't know whether some level of deletion is appropriate ; it may be. But certainly, I can't imagine that there is a need to delete such articles of Olympic athletes in toto. This is just this sort of retribution by Mkat that I was afraid of.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, this is what happens to serial copyright violators. I had to do it to User:Gavin.Collins. If it makes you feel any better, I'll do the next batch of content removal. If you could provide a list of all your copyright violations...but given the volume, I doubt you'd remember. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Elen -- as we discussed elsewhere, though it goes beyond what you were requesting above, I'm happy to and have now volunteered to look at old articles I created, and delete or fix copyvios where I see them. Hopefully that will not only help fix them up, but also allow us to focus us on the issues that prompted this AN/I.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very transparent modus operandi: file an ANI report and then claim that any subsequent action is "retribution". Then canvas (for which you've been blocked before) your mates who tried to prevent a CCI being opened ([4], [5]) under the guise of being neutral (soliciting the uninvolved Yoenit as well [6]). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. causa sui (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mkat -- you've not addressed the concerns I raised above about your recent deletions. Instead, you seem to be seeking to deflect the discussion. Weren't you an involved editor, deleting material multiple times, the last time (at least) clearly not a copyvio (though you claimed it was), who despite being an involved editor failed both to engage in talkpage discussion and to -- given your being an involved editors -- post the issue elsewhere so it could be addressed? Rather than seeking to engage in character assassination, over what happened years ago (and I don't have clear recollections as to edits from five years ago), and many tens of thousands of edits ago, when I did not know our rules -- let's focus on what you did the past two days. As to your accusation of canvassing -- are you serious? Take a look at wp:CANVASS -- that is an absurd and unwarranted accusation -- it does little for the conversation when editors make baseless assertions. That's not canvassing -- quite the opposite, it is what wp:CANVASS indicates is not canvassing. As to "M.O." -- let's be clear. You are the involved editor who under the baseless (certainly, as to the most recent edit) guise of copyvio deleted material in an area you are involved in, refused to use or respond on the talkpage. And now in retribution, immediately after I disagree with you at a wholly unrelated article, you delete in toto bios of Olympic athletes. I've no problem as I've indicated with copyvios being redacted. But the fact that your reaction to someone disagreeing with you is to do this is problematic -- surely, the entire articles are not copyvios, and surely, the fact that athlete x, from country y, won medal z in the Olympics of xxxx is not a copyvio ... yet you delete even that.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata began working on your CCI in January 2011. It's pretty obvious looking at the history of the CCI that what brought him to the article in question was resuming work on your CCI. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Epeefleche&action=history>) He had never touched that article before. It isn't wholly unrelated; it is in fact intrinsically linked to the copyright work -- midway down this section, and he had moved to the next article in that list before you ever disagreed at the other article. Given that Mkativerata's approach to the CCI now is the same as it was in January, it's hard to see this as retribution.

I have in one capacity or another worked on most or perhaps all of the CCIs we've completed. Your CCI has not had much progress yet, so you may not know, but blanking articles listed at CCI where any copying is found is common. This flags that concerns have been located. Reviewers are not expected to rewrite content, although of course they can. They've done a service simply by confirming the problem. Once the article is blanked, you have a week at minimum to work on it. (Anyone else may work on a rewrite, too.) If a rewrite that fixes the problem is not proposed, the article may be stubbed or deleted if the content added by the subject of the CCI is extensive. This is standard operating procedure for CCIs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Moon -- I think its pretty obvious that, in this edit that kicked off this discussion, Mkat was not doing "CCI work", looking at old edits. But -- hiding behind an unsupportable and baseless assertion of "close paraphrasing", deleting material written that same day, that was nothing of the sort. Moon -- tell me honestly: Would you have deleted taht language under the assertion of close paraphrasing yourself? There have been attempts by some to ignore this issue. There have been attempts by some to ignore that he was doing this in a COI area, that he was making repeated reverts without any talkpage discussion whatsover (and not even responding to talkpage discussion), and that he was doing this in the sensitive ARBPIA area. It is perhaps telling that some editors who have commented here in his support have completely ignored these facts, and ignored how this diverges from the strictures of wp:admin as to how an admin should behave.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this below, since in substance it ties into your last note. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Come-on people; let’s cease with wikislogans like If it's possibly a copyright violation, it should be removed immediately pending peer review. Even Wikipedia sometimes uses *real evidence* here at ANIs. “Close paraphrases” are not copyright violations by any stretch of the imagination nor do they constitute plagiarism if it they are merely a “close paraphrase”; the litmus test is stricter than that. Anyone who editwars under such pretense has no leg to stand on. Given that Mkativerata is an involved editor, he must abide by the 3RR and edit warring restrictions everyone else are expected to abide by.

  I note Mkativerata’s fine posturing like how he won’t be “distracted by obstructionism,” but there are only so many ways short pithy English-langauge sentences that are grammatically correct can be constructed. The proper test for whether close paraphrasing must also be accompanied by an in-line citation is paraphrasing very closely. It is irrelevant whether a collaboration between Zeus and Oprah “uncovered a long history of copyright violations” and this caused Mkativerata to role his eyes *extra-extra* far into his forehead, nor does it matter if these two editors hate each others guts, nor does it matter if Mkativerata postures with Great Determination®™© and speaks of overcoming obstructionism; the only relevant issue here in this ANI is whether Mkativerata’s serial reverting has a proper foundation. And that means the basis must pass the “Reasonable Man” test: Let’s see hard evidence one way or another as to whether the deleted text is a paraphrasing “very closely” and is deserving of having an in-line citation.

  It might also be interesting to see if we have an 800-pound gorilla in the room no one is talking about. Is this about a pro-Israeli editor and an anti-Israeli editor bashing each other, trying to make substantial changes to the message point of the articles, and are trying to justify their actions by hiding behind the apron strings of misapplied policies? Who is *really* doing what, and why? Is there *really* “very close” paraphrasing? If that’s the case (and I see no evidence yet that it is) are Mkativerata’s remedies (wholesale deletion of text along with accompanying citations) best serving the project(?) or is are his edits just POV-pushing under a pretense that can’t be buttressed with real evidence? Greg L (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A close paraphrase of a copyrighted work is indeed a copyright violation as an unauthorized derivative work. T. Canens (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can be, but not always. Paraphrasing a single sentence is out of a long article is generally fair use and thus not a copyright violation. A cited statement that is reworded from a single sentence of a source is, AFAIK, generally acceptable in any setting as long as it is cited. Academics do this all the time (summarizing someone's work by using a close paraphrase of a sentence or two of an abstract is extremely common). Hobit (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The blanking Epeefleche describes is typical procedure in copyvio situations, and you need merely to look in the history to find what has been blanked. As to what has been covered over, let's take the Vivian Joseph article. The major source says:

They finished in fourth place, but in 1966, the silver medal-winning German team of Hans-Jurgen Baumler and Marika Kilius were stripped of their medals after they were alleged to have signed a professional contract prior to the 1964 Olympics. The Josephs were then moved to third place and awarded bronze medals. In 1987, however, the German duo was officially reinstated by the IOC and the original results were restored; the Josephs, who had held the bronze for over 20 years, were moved back to fourth place and the USOC does not officially recognize them as medalists.

This is what Epeefleche placed in the article

They finished in 4th place. But in 1966 the silver medal-winning team of Hans-Jurgen Baumler and Marika Kilius of Germany were stripped of their medals, after they were alleged to have signed a professional contract prior to the 1964 Olympics. The Josephs were then moved up to 3rd place, and awarded bronze medals. In 1987, however, the Germans were officially reinstated by the IOC, and the original results were restored. The Josephs, who had held the bronze medal for over 20 years, were moved back to 4th place. The USOC does not recognize them as medalists.

The rest of the Joseph article contains similar copy-and-paste-with-a-few-words-changed blatant copyright violations and its blanking was both utterly necessary and required. If Epeefleche does not want this to happen, then the best course of action would be to actually work with the CCI to correct the problems that s/he admits exists, before they get blanked. A much more productive course of action. --Slp1 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, "I can't see what he deleted, so I don't know whether some level of deletion is appropriate; it may be. But certainly, I can't imagine that there is a need to delete such articles of Olympic athletes in toto. This is just this sort of retribution by Mkat that I was afraid of. BTW -- can you tell us what date that edit was added? Also, Mkat -- directly after I disagreed with him yesterday -- has now undertaken to delete completely some articles I've worked on on Olympic athletes. It stretches the assumption of good faith past the breaking point to think that the timing of his deletions is not accidental, but rather direct retribution. And it is hard to believe that there is not material capable of saving--without any risk of copvio whatsoever--along the lines of "Joe T is an American boxer who won a gold glove in boxing as a heavyweight at the 1976 Summer Olympics".--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try again. Mkativerata has deleted nothing. He has blanked an obvious copyright problem, and the complete history, including when you added the information is still in the history. Mkativerata has posted it on the WP:CP board where other editors and administrators will, in 5-7 days, process the listing, checking Mkativerata's claim of copyvio and acting upon it or not as they find appropriate. At any point, you could rewrite the articles to avoid deletion or stubbing. This was explained to you by Moonriddengirl in January, and it is clearly written clearly on the page blanking the articles. Please stop these disruptive claims of "retribution". You added massive copyright violations, and have done nothing to participate in the clean up. Somebody else obviously has to do it for you, and you don't get to obstruct the process by attacking the cleaners. --Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Very good. Thank you for providing the much-needed, hard evidence, Slp1. Indeed, that is not merely the “close paraphrase” that Mkativerata cited for his deletions but passes the “reasonable man” test for being what plagiarism states as requiring an in-line citation (very close paraphrasing). So why doesn’t someone (Epeefleche?) just add in-line citations to the paragraph? This seems to be an edit dispute where the content and thrust of the article is being changed by the deletion. If Epeefleche objects to that, why not add a citation? Greg L (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have a very serious misunderstanding of copyright issues. In-line citations will not solve this issue in any way. This is neither close paraphrasing nor plagiarism. It is a very clear cut copyright infringement. May I suggest that you read WP's policies on this matter? WP:COPYVIO.--Slp1 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What I actually understand and what you think I understand are two different things. I’m done with you today, too. Adios. Greg L (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism is pretty clear that adding an in-line citation to closely paraphrased content taken from non-free sources is not a solution; of "works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license", it says "They cannot be closely paraphrased for copyright concerns, but must be substantially rewritten in original language." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

But ... the edit that Mkat most recently deleted, under the dubious guise of copyvio, wasn't copyvio at all. The fact that he failed to engage in talkpage discussion, and did it in a sensitive area in which he has a conflict of interest, merely compounds the matter -- if there were even a gray area of concern as to copyvio, and for some reason he was opposed to talk page discussion, he could simply have posted his concern on the appropriate noticeboard so that an uninvolved editor could address it. But the main point is -- Mkat seems to be asserting copyvio where there is none, in an area where he has a conflict of interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is your opinion, not an objective truth, that there were not copyright problems with that revision. Your judgement on copyright matters have to be taken with a pinch of salt, frankly, given your history. --Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The above-indicated diff speaks for itself. Anyone can read it. One needn't rely on anyone else's opinion. And it is an objective fact that he has a conflict of interest in the ARBPIA area -- he admits as much himself.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If Greg L thinks close paraphrasing is "not copyright violations by any stretch of the imagination" and indisputably not plagiarism then Greg L's opinion on this matter is to be actively mistrusted. In fact, given the precedent of long-standing editors turning up at ANI and making such statements, it'd be good if someone took a fine-toothed comb to Greg L's longer contributions to confirm that this wasn't indicative of additional copyvio problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can’t understand what others write, then you ought not spout off as you just did Thumperward. I now know I can ignore the nonsense you write here. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

An ad hominem response to a serious copyright situation is not helpful. Actively suspicious, in fact. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just trying to bait me. Try looking in the mirror next time when it comes to ad hominem responses. You started it with your “actively mistrusted” bit and then jump up and down and cry foul when someone gives you a dose of your own medicine. Then you further tried to bait me by writing it'd be good if someone took a fine-toothed comb to Greg L's longer contributions to confirm that this wasn't indicative of additional copyvio problems, which is straight out of 6th grade. How the hell old are you?? Stop acting childish and attacking others and try reading what they actually write before spouting off with something half-baked; the operative point in my above point was the adjective “very”; that point was obviously lost on you. I’m done responding to you today since I’ve got your number now, fella, and it’s obvious you enjoy personal attacks and baiting (I’d sorta bother with an ANI of my own for that hogwash, but that would be lowering myself to your level). Why not find another venue at which you can be an ornery, miserable cuss? There is ample electronic white space to get the last word. Happy editing and goodbye. Greg L (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've little interest in being drawn into some interminable flame war, especially not with you. My comments were directed at that wider part of the community whose concern with copyright both in the hard legal sense of "we are liable to be sued here" and in the broader sense of "Wikipedia is best avoiding a reputation for a lax attitude to potential copyright issues". Your comment in defense of presented diffs showing at least the latter was troublesome. My experience in this area on WP strongly indicates that editors who make statements defending such things are more likely than average to have made such considerations regarding their own edits in the past. Your response to this was "I now know I can ignore the nonsense you write here", which as a rebuttal is seriously lacking. Forgive me for also not taking you at your word that you're disinterested in having the last word here when my current edit conflict indicates you spent at least five minutes editing this response in order to add the "ornery, miserable cuss" comment, a readaibly blockable personal attack only overlooked because there are bigger issues here (serious allegations of copyvio). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we just topic ban someone for refusing to work on their own CCI? Why isn't the same thing done here, especially since this CCI has now been around for about a year and Epeefleche has yet to help clean up the mess he created? T. Canens (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. It seems more appropriate to ban someone who still hasn't helped after a year, rather than ban someone who's CCI has just opened. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here are the two sentences in question (AFICT)

Source

In the new book "Tehran Rising," author Ilan Berman notes that the U.S. war on terrorism has inadvertently removed two of the major brakes on Iranian power in the region: Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq and the Islamist Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.

Wikipedia

He wrote in his 2005 book Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States that in displacing Saddam Hussein, in Iraq, and the Taliban, in Afghanistan, the United States had unintentionally taken away two significant checks on the power of Iran in the Middle East.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=36

I think that the "inadvertently" is arguable a WP:OR problem (though common sense probably applies). I think that there are only so many ways to communicate the idea of the sentence and this one would seem reasonable to me. But others, more versed in copyright issues, should probably comment. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if you think that this version is adequate, it is worth noting what Mkativerata first removed as a paraphrase.

What mkativerata removed

In his 2005 book Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States], Berman noted that the U.S. had inadvertently removed two major brakes on Iranian regional power: Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan

which is much, much too close to the original source. Epeefleche made incremental changes[7] [8] all of which which Mkativerata stated, I think legitimately, remained too close to the source, before arriving at this current. --Slp1 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Does making incremental changes to a copyvio until the wording is sufficiently different from the original make it no longer a derivative? INAL but my sources say "no". causa sui (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. Otherwise we should just delete, rather than fix, any detected copyright violations. Plus, a quote that short in a non-profit (yes it matters) is almost certainly fair use so the issue is fairly moot. I personally think the first version is highly problematic, the last was fine and shouldn't have been deleted. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you don't overcome close paraphrasing with a thesaurus. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't have anything better. Could you provide a way to say that same thing without being a close paraphrase? Or is it the attempt to say the same thing, in a single sentence, that was in the original, as a single sentence, that is a problem? (Sorry that sentence sucked, did I mention I don't write well?) Hobit (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If an editor lacks the skills to do it (and I don't mean that perjoratively), in-text attribution is a safe way around the problem. And does the sentence need to be in the article in the first place? If the sentence derives from one sentence in one source, it's probably not important. So yes, it can be the very attempt to say the same thing, in a single sentence, that was in the original, as a single sentence, that is a problem --Mkativerata (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe I understand your points, but I will disagree. There are times that a single sentence can and should be paraphrased from a source. Ignoring if this is such a case, I think that the (final) paraphrasing used is about as far from the source as it could be while still making the same point. Would "In his 2005 book Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States], Berman claims that by displacing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from the Middle East, the United States left room for Iran to fill the vacuum they left." be any better? Eh. Like I said, I think the final version was acceptable, but I agree the first was certainly not. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree w/Hobit. And my focus is, as well, on the third deletion that Mkat made (in half an hour, without talkpage discussion). I don't think that unwarranted assertions of copyvio should be used by a sysop, who is bound by wp:admin, and who is without question an involved editor, to delete material he doesn't like. Copyvio is a serious and important concern. But simply saying "I assert it is a copyvio" does not entitle Mkat to bludgeon other editors, where there is no copyvio.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what hobit says but would make the further point that we are dealing with here may not even be a close paraphrase of the source stated - that is if the source "Tehran Rising," by Ilan Berman contains a sentence reading

the U.S. war on terrorism has inadvertently removed two of the major brakes on Iranian power in the region: Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq and the Islamist Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.

then the first version is a correctly attributed quote. From memory epeefleche's CCI was mostly filled with examples like this where one secondary source correctly attributes a piece of information to another secondary source and this attribution has been closely paraphrased to wikipedia. The material being paraphrased in these cases does not begin to approach the threshold of originality required by law to assert a copyvio. That said in these cases our concern should be one of sourcing we should endeavour to cite the claim in the book rather than citing an article discussing the book as the latter is more likely to appear to be a copyvio even if it isn't. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This issue involves an article that has not received attention for most of a year, but appears to be being investigated as part of a CCI investigation.  However, the current dispute does not involve copyright violation, because we would not allow a copyright violation to be retained in the edit history of the article.  Instead, this is an editorial dispute over non-copyright-violating "close paraphrasing" by the target of the CCI investigation.  Regarding the initial recent edit to the article, the target of the CCI investigation does not dispute the concern of "close paraphrasing", and does not dispute the initial revert of the material, but instead seeks to restore the work product of the encyclopedia without the concern.  This is where the dispute begins, because the subject of this ANI review refuses to allow improvements to the encyclopedia, refuses to engage in talk page discussion, and on this ANI page escalates by threatening to use administrative tools.  This discussion can be resolved by reminding Mkativerata to discuss editorial disputes on the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not really an accurate understanding of how we handle copyright problems. We allow them to be retained in the edit history of articles routinely. User:Flatscan and I have just been talking about how that should be addressed. But even I only revdelete extensive issues. (And Mkativerata is more conservative there than I am: [9]) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating--Actually, there is nothing in Mkat's immediately prior edits to suggest that Mkat was looking at Ilan Berman as part of a CCI investigation. Nor did Mkat assert it. BTW, though Berman had not been edited in a year as you point out, Berman had just before Mkat's edits written a NYT article that brought him onto the radar screen. Second, I appreciate your bringing the focus back to the facts here. Finally, it was only after I differed with Mkat that he began deleting articles just now ... before I questioned his approach, he had not touched any articles that were part of the CCI investigation for many months. Immediately after I questioned him, he began vigorously deleting articles of Olympic medal winning athletes in total, not even leaving a stub.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is in response to this note and this one, as if I answer them separately I'm going to be doing a lot of repeating myself. :)

Mkativerata picked up working on your CCI (which is much appreciated, since nobody else has been doing it and your CCI was cited at AN a week or two ago as specific evidence that nobody cares about copyright problems) at 19:07 on 17 November. Before you edited that article, he had documented his change and moved on to the next article in line at 19:12 before you first "differed" with these two edits (at 19:16 and 19:18). I watch articles I clean for copyright problems routinely (although not always long enough, as yesterday I cleaned the same pasted content out of an article I cleaned up in 2008). If I disagreed with your rewrite, I would have left you a note at your user talk page explaining why after I reverted you, but, then, if I disagreed with admins actions related to my work, I would have left them a note at their talk page explaining why. I would not have opened an ANI without this step. I haven't looked at the text in question; I've been pretty much unavailable for CCI work myself for months. But the point isn't that Mkativerata may or may not have been wrong in his action. Sometimes there are good faith disagreements about what constitutes a close paraphrase. It happens. The point is that you are assuming a bad faith motive on Mkativerata's part (an agenda), and I do not see any evidence to support that. While Mkativerata had not done work on your CCI lately, Mkativerata has been a CCI regular in the past - this is why he is listed as a CCI Clerk. (Which just shows how out of date we are, since admins don't need to be...and that I really need to get User:MER-C some help here.) He's also been doing some much needed work at WP:CP. Sure, we can look at this in such a way as to suggest that he's been doing all this as some kind of smoke screen to allow him to press an agenda, but not without squinting really hard. :) WP:AGF says if we do any squinting, we should be squinting in the direction of assuming that people mean well.

In terms of avoiding distress, I'll offer you an idea: if you are unhappy with the way other people are cleaning up the CCI, why don't you do it before they get there? While you should not mark an article as resolved on your CCI, there is absolutely no reason that you can't put a note underneath the article title that you believe you have fixed it. Other CCI subjects have done this, and it can work well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Moonriddengirl. Her remedy (get in there preemptively to fix things) is more of a challenge than it is a solution I think Epeefleche will avail himself of. I think the best way for Epeefleche to handle Mkativerata’s deletions of his content is—rather than revert Mkativerata—to just revise the deleted text so it no longer appears as a “very close” (or merely “close”) paraphrasing of the original cited work. Thus, if Epeefleche perceives that the deletions had a POV-pushing effect, he can easily fix that problem by taking the time to address the plagiarism concerns. Mkativerata, for his part, can just make sure to leave pithy but accurate edit summaries so that Epeefleche clearly understands the true basis for the edits. Greg L (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That is good advice. Unfortunately, it seems that Epeefleche has shown little interest in collaborating with the CCI, which has made little progress in a year or so since it has been opened. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So if Epee is altering the text repeatedly to ameliorate the copyright violation, that's a good thing right? I'd imagine Mkativerata would, on reflection, agree that even limited cooperation from CCI subjects is better than no cooperation. Since the text has been adjusted significantly to the point that it no longer appears to be a copyright violation (demonstrating, by the by, how easy it is to avoid such a violation in the first place), and Mkat hasn't reverted it again, we're done here with this issue, yes?

And now the next issue: let's discuss (as with Richard Arthur Norton) if Epeefleche's activities should be restricted by topic ban to working with the CCI until his/her contributions have been fully cleaned. Nathan ^T 23:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Let’s be clear about something, Nathan. Epeefleche is a mature and highly educated editor; he’s not some sort of 16-year-old kid out to make trouble. Notwithstanding his education, he dicked up with some colossal plagiarism and he’s admitted that he screwed up. But part of why he keeps finding himself embroiled here at ANI is because he works in a controversial area: terrorist-related articles. That sort of area intrinsically brings editors with a pro-Israeli bias into conflict with those who have an pro-Islam bias (known, using the standard wiki-quoloqialism, as “POV-pushing where the respective parties have a hard time comprehending other’s worldview”). So…

I have a better idea. Rather than give a productive and mature editor the equivalent of an atomic wedgie (with a splendid public-humiliation tar & feathering aspect to it), we just sit back and watch how Epeefleche and Mkativerata collaborate on Targeted killing; Mkativerata just got through blanking the article for copyright violations. I propose we keep a keen eye for the sort of behavior that these two editors accuse each other of: Epeefleche’s alleged failure to revise very close paraphrasing, and Mkativerata’s alleged use of copyright violations as a pretense to POV-push. Let the sunshine of public inspection reveal the truth of the matter. Greg L (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Greg L's first two sentences. I don't think there's a need for any editing restriction. Fact: Everything I've seen Epeefleche create since the CCI started is copyvio-free. It's irritating in a way that the CCI remains on foot while Epeefleche enjoys full editing privileges, but irritation isn't a ground for an editing restriction. All I ask is that Epeefleche stays out of the way of editors trying to clean up the copyright violations. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we can move forward with that consensus: Epeefleche isn't uploading any copyvios since the CCI started; Mkativerata is using a blunt instrument to remove coypvios uploaded by Epeefleche in the past, but that is sometimes necessary; anyone distressed by this is invited to clean up coypvios in the CCI in whatever other way they see fit before Mkativerata gets to them. Resolved? :-) causa sui (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I had some trouble understanding some of the positions taken in this discussion. I found the urls and references in the diffs made it harder to see just what had changed between the versions. So I created a scratch page, in user space, where i could strip out the hidden material, and just use diffs to see how the text changed.

It is my understanding that ideas aren't copyrightable -- only how they are expressed.

We are all volunteers here. No one can force us to undertake a specific task. But, I think once we have undertaken a task we have a responsibility to see it through.

As an administrator Mkat is authorized to excise passages he or she thinks represent a problem. He or she did that here. Mkat edit summary said "Rm a couple of close paraphrases and fix a couple of quotes." -- I suspect most administrators wouldn't have thought any further explanation was necessary -- this time.

However their 2nd excision only said "remains a close paraphrase.. ." And their 3rd excision said "Synonyms and syntax changes do not change close paraphrasing. As a CCI subject you are treading on dangerous ground."

The contributor who made repeated attempts to rewrite the passage says they hoped for more useful feedback as to why their subsequent attempts were being excised. It seems to me that Epee's good faith efforts to draft replacement passages deserved more effort on mkat's part to explain what was wrong with the replacements. Am I missing something? Has mkat made any effort beyond those edit summaries to explain these excisions?

In particular, others have questioned mkat's third excision. I really don't think this thread should be closed without greater discussion as to why that attempted rewrite merited excision. I too don't understand why it was excised.

As I understand it, blocks and bans are not punishment, they are tools intended to preserve the integrity of the project. As I understand it contributors who return from a block, or who have had a topic ban, or other administrative condition agreed upon, should be entitled to the assumption of good faith, so long as they seem to have learned their lesson.

I was not aware that epee had been the subject of a CCI -- whatever that is. But he seems to have made good faith attempts to remedy whatever lapses he made in the past.

It seems to me that one interpretation of mkat's edit summary "As a CCI subject you are treading on dangerous ground" was that this may have been mkat's way of warning epee that he would be blocked if he made another attempt to draft a replacement passage. This really concerns me. I am really concerned when I see an administrator making a vague warning to a good faith contributor that they may block them in the future, when that warning doesn't clearly say what future behavior will trigger the block and under which policy they think the block is authorized.

This warning -- if that is what it was -- seems very problematic to me, if mkat can't offer a fuller explanation for the excision that accompanied it.

Included for your reading pleasure -- diffs with extraneous hidden material excised, so you can see more clearly, how the different versions varied. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

[10]	target of 'close paraphrase' claim
[11]	diff between target and version 1
[12]	diff between target and version 2
[13]	diff between target and version 3	If you only click on one link here, click on this one. It is the excision of this version that I think most clearly merits further explanation.
[14]	diff between target and current version

• I left a message on mkat's talk page asking mkat to explain more fully the reasoning behing his or her third excision. I asked mkat for the reasoning behind his threats to block epee. I hope they will return here and do so. Geo Swan (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Mkat did respond, briefly, on his talk page. His response was basically a repeat of his or her original edit summary. Since several people here have said they don't understand why epee's attempt the mkat excised in his third excision should be considered a close paraphrase, I really think a more specific explanation is called for. Several other contributors seem to have endorsed all his excisions -- including the third. Since mkat seems unwilling or unable to offer an explanation, maybe one of the other participants here who endorsed this excision can offer their reasoning for considering it a "close paraphrase"?

    Mkat's response also did not address my concern that the warnings they left for epee were unhelpful because they didn't layout which behaviors epee should avoid to avoid triggering the block, and they didn't help epee, or anyone else reading the discussion, which policy would authorize that block. Geo Swan (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

New blanking by Mkativerata in his COI area; Mkat's threat to block

Mkat admits he has a conflict of interest in the ARBPIA area. In deletions that triggered this AN/I, he ignored his COI. (His claim of "close paraphrasing" was highly dubious, but even had it not been dubious his correct course given his COI would have been to post his concern on a noticeboard, where someone non-involved could pursue it). Mkat was alerted to this issue.[15][16][17]

Mkat responded above: "I will not hesitate to block you if you continue to disrupt the resolution of your CCI." But -- I haven't been disrupting any CCI. That sysop Mkat would threaten me with a block, for reporting my concerns above, troubles me.

Mkat has just now, after the above AN/I discussion, gone 1 step further. Blanking the entire article targeted killing. An article that is clearly within his COI area. (which I contributed to significantly this past year).

As an aside, it is highly dubious that this 194-ref targeted killing article was a copyvio. And that Mkat's blanking of it was proper--even if Mkat had not had a COI.

Mkat is thus continuing to delete material in disregard of his COI. And of wp:admin. And he only began blanking articles I had worked on after our disagreement 4 days ago on 2 sentences in the Berman article -- before the Berman article, he had not blanked or deleted material from any articles I worked on for at least 10 months, as far as I can recall, but after I disagreed with him he engaged in the above behavior. That adds to the impression that his blanking here is part of a pattern of retribution. By an involved sysop.

I gather that Mkat is displeased I disagreed with him 2 days ago, as to what constituted a "close paraphrase". And as to his failure to use the talkpage for discussion. But I wonder whether his blocking threat and his article blanking here, especially given his COI, are what wp:admin had in mind.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are attributing motives when there does not seem to be one. Frankly, at this point I'm sorely tempted to just write a script that adds {{subst:copyvio}} to all the articles referenced in the CCI. You are also totally confusing conflict of interest and involvement. T. Canens (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, here is the explanation for my self-declaration of ARBPIA involvement. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So the entirety of your "involvement" is having endorsed two views in an RFC in 2010? Honestly, I think you are being overly cautious here. That makes the claims here even more spurious... T. Canens (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have demonstrated, with diffs, that Mkativerata picked up on your work on CCI and was continuing to work on your CCI before you objected to the first edit. It's true he had not yet blanked an article on this go-around; had Mkativerata never blanked an article of yours before or if blanking articles for further evaluation at WP:CP wasn't standard, you might have cause for concern. But Mkativerata's behavior here is no different than Mkativerata's behavior was in January (for one example of many: [18]). It is the same behavior he has brought to bear on other CCIs in unrelated areas (for one example: [19]), and it is the same behavior others bring to bear on CCIs, where blanking articles is one of the standard operating procedures. (We even have a special template for articles that are blanked without evidence where presumption of copying is strong: {{CCId}}.) I have no reason to think that Mkativerata is handling your CCI any differently than anybody else's CCI has been handled. Actually, I think blanking is likely more prudent than text removal at this point given your presumption of bad faith on his part. That way, he flags the problem, but another administrator will oversee any proposed cleanup you place in the temp space and work with you through any disagreements on whether or not content has been rewritten from scratch. I have myself taken this tack when contributors personalize cleanup efforts of their CCIs to help minimize any feeling that I might be subjecting them to unfair scrutiny because I don't like them or because I have a bias against their subject areas. (That said, I don't at all mean to discourage Mkativerata from removing or rewriting the content directly.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you're not doing yourself any huge favors here. You fail to mention in your complaint that Mkat first removed numerous specific examples of copyright violations, and only upon deciding that it was likely the entire article was suspect did he proceed to blank it. This thought progression is pretty clear and obvious just from the edit history. If you want to rescue the article, fix it. If you want to avoid having this happen to other articles of yours, fix them. If you'd rather go on working on new content and avoid any attempt to fix your past mistakes, just wipe your watchlist and start over. Nathan ^T 15:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nathan. As indicated above, I've volunteered to fix old copyvios. I'm more than willing to do that. As to the more immediate concern-- the targeted killing article -- I've asked Mkat (at the article talkpage) to indicate where he believes there are copyvios. That way, the community can discuss if they are in fact copyvios (as indicated by a number of editors now, the Mkat-claimed copyvio that spurred this AN/I was likely not a copyvio at all, and it may not always be the case that a claim is in fact correct). Once Mkat indicates what he believes are copyvios, that will enable the community to understand what is troubling him that he thinks requires deletion of the article. Editors will be better able then to either discuss (though it is unclear to me at this point what import even consensus disagreement with his view would have) and/or "fix" the text.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your text-walling on Talk:Muslim Arab Youth Association -- seven questions! -- is plain disruptive. Your demand at Talk:Targeted killing for me to identify each and every copyvio in a 130kb article you founded is even more so.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I came here from another users talk page where Epeefleche had left a message with a link to this thread in a section below a message I had left that user. As such I know little about this case other than what I haver read here.

@Greg L, I thought your tenacious defence of Epeefleche's behaviour over the introduction of the Targeted killing article was misguided, but there you are, it was a matter of opinion. To my surprise I find you here in this thread trying to defend the undefendable. Just out of interest can you provide a diff to the last time that you criticised anything Epeefleche has done, or vice versa? -- PBS (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed that Epeefleche opened this ANI and there are several points I would like to make: Epeefleche wrote above "Involved editors can of course delete blatant vandalism. ... not a copyvio at all, and certainly not a blatant copyvio." That statement shows that Epeefleche has no understanding of how much copyright infringement endangers this project. Blatant petty vandalism is annoying, but it does not threaten the project. Subtle vandalism that introduces libel that goes undetected for months does, and so do copyright violations if we are not seen to be using due diligence to prevent it and clean it up. This makes me wonder how likely it is that Epeefleche has seen the light and understands how much damage (s)he has done to the project.

I find this statement baffling "We are talking about Mkat's deletions yesterday -- years (and 50-80,000 edits?) after I wasn't familiar with our copyvio rules." Is Epeefleche stating the when (s)he wrote the Targeted killing article on 30 September 2010 (s)he was not familiar with the "copyright rules"? Or is it that there were no copyright violations in that article? If (s)he was not familiar with the "copyright rules" on 30 of September last year on what date did (s)he become familiar with them? -- PBS (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for block of Epeefleche

Almost two years ago, when Slp1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) raised copyright concerns with Epeefleche, she was attacked. When Wjemather (talk · contribs) filed a necessary CCI in December last year, he was attacked. Now I try to clean up the extraordinary copyright violations that Epeefleche has introduced, despite warning, over a long period, I am the subject of harassment, by virtue of this ANI and disruptive text-walling. Today the disruption has reached new heights, with absurd badgering (Talk:Muslim Arab Youth Association) and absurd requests (eg Talk:Targeted killing, asking that I specify all individual copyright violations in a 130kb article, when I have already given multiple examples in the article's edit history). This has to stop. It is plainly disruptive. The intention is obviously to harrass me with complaints and questions until I am driven away from the CCI. Epeefleche's intention to disrupt is evidence by his canvassing of others to participate here (evidence above). I'm calling for him to be blocked pending a discussion of an appropriate edit restriction to prevent him from disrupting his CCI.

The community has to get serious: does it support editors who do the hard work of removing large-scale copyright violations (and I'm acting as an editor in this CCI, I have not once used admin tools) or not? If Epeefleche is permitted to continue this disruption, the answer from the administrative corps would be an obvious "no". The CCI is less than 1% complete. It is part of a massive CCI backlog. Those who work on CCI need to be supported. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• The timing of this request is curious and is suggestive of rage and a personal vendetta. I just got through adding my 2¢ on Mkativerata’s talk page (∆ edit, here). Just 38 minutes later, he hit “Save page” on this request to block Epeefleche. The timing comes across as “Well then… eat this!” What I wrote there was exactly what I honestly feel about what is going on with him and Epeefleche. His escalation of this ongoing tit-for-tat seems to be an awful lot of wikidrama. I suggest he take a 24 hour wikibreak to cool down. Greg L (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The timing of this request seems suggestive of an understandable frustration to me. I am reluctantly forced to agree that something needs to be done. I have been trying to keep an eye on communication here, and I agree that the result of Epeefleche's "interactions" is disruptive. See [20] and [21], where he continues to imply that this is all being blown out of proportion. It took me 20 seconds to find that he had copied this bit of prose from the New York Times in the former: "'Allah Akhbar,' roared the crowd, offering spontaneous praise." Mkativerata identified other text. In the latter? Well: from the Washington Post, for example:

Extended content

Because executive orders are entirely at the discretion of the president, they wrote, a president may issue contrary directives at will and need not make public that he has done so. Under customary international law and Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, according to those familiar with the memo, taking the life of a terrorist to preempt an imminent or continuing threat of attack is analogous to self-defense against conventional attack. From the article (citations removed; they don't justify copying): Because executive orders are entirely at the discretion of the president, it concluded, a president may issue contrary directives at will, and need not even announce publicly that he has done so. Under customary international law and Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, according to those familiar with the memo, taking the life of a terrorist to preempt an imminent or continuing threat of attack is analogous to self-defense against conventional attack.

I found this through a quick google search. Mkativerata had likely already identified it and others in edit summaries. If Epeefleche had spent even part of the energy on rewriting his content that he has spent in trying to imply that there's nothing wrong with it, both those articles would have already been repaired. His insistence on fighting every step of the way is going to make his CCI impossible to conduct, and I don't see any reason to believe that he is going to be willing to collaborate rather than combat. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Epeefleche should help fix the copyvios. But if I correctly understand the interpersonal dynamics here, the process by which Mkativerata is blanking article content and then telling Epeefleche to keep clear while Mkativerata unilaterally fixes the articles is a bitter pill to swallow for someone who was the shepherding author of an article. We all have to struggle against WP:OWN tendencies when someone runs roughshod on articles we created and it takes extreme maturity to remain civil. But everything I see about Mkativerata’s approach to communicating with Epeefleche and others betrays an arrogance that inflames the situation. We just don’t need that in an admin and currently, the en.Wikipedia has no great process to reign in admins who react passionately. On Mkativerata’s talk page, Geo Swan left a lengthy and mature post (permalink) asking Mkativerata to explain and justify his latest actions and Mkativerata left a one-liner response that wasn’t much more than “The edit summaries speak for themselves.” Mkativerata seems to be taking this all too personally (perceives all criticism as a challenge to his authority and a personal affront) and has lost perspective as to what Wikipedia is about. It is not about wikidrama and is all about decompressing and communication rather than brute force and escalation. Greg L (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

<blink> How else is there to take a statement like "I can see I'm wasting my time with someone who has let power go to his head" than as a "personal affront"? Is it really meant to decompress and communicate? If so, I'm afraid you may have missed that mark. :/ That said, I don't agree with you that this is necessarily a response to your edit. Had he taken you to WP:WQA, certainly. This seems a natural result of Epeefleche challenging clean up efforts rather than contributing to them. Can you explain to me where you see Mkativerata unilaterally fixing articles or why you think that's what's happening? In the past, when Mkativerata has blanked Epeefleche's articles, he has listed them at CP and left them for another admin to handle. This is common procedure. On what do you base your conclusion that this time is different? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry Moonriddengirl, but I don’t agree with the apparent premiss of your posts here, which seem intended to paint Mkativerata’s dealings with Epeefleche as having been exemplary and his motivations pure as the driven snow. I assume that Geo Swan is an unbiased third party here. Am I wrong about that? But Mkativerata’s response to Geo Swan on his talk page (∆ edit, here) where Geo was asking him to explain himself amounted to “I don’t need to explain myself to anyone” and betrays that he perceives Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. And then his rushing here to post this request 38 minutes after my hubris to challenge his motivations and behavior was pure and childish “neener neener”. I find that claims of AGF and WP:SHEAR INNOCENT COINCIDENCE to be unconvincing after a modicum of WP:COMMONSENSE is applied. Those two just need to stay away from each other for a week. Greg L (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize that you don't agree; if you did, you probably wouldn't have left this message, much less the one at his talk page I linked above. The one you left at Talk:Targeted killing carries the same strong implication that you believe Mkativerata is rewriting Epeefleche's articles to include some kind of bias; I'm really curious as to why you think "Mkativerata is blanking article content and then telling Epeefleche to keep clear while Mkativerata unilaterally fixes the articles." Mkativerata offered yesterday before all this escalated to slow down on blanking articles to allow Epeefleche time to rewrite them (Full conversation). I just don't know where you got the impression that Mkativerata was intending to unilaterally fix these articles. The template with which they are blanked includes instructions for where to rewrite them; anybody can. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A block seems highly appropriate. Mkativerata has produced evidence of a long-standing pattern of behaviour by Epeefleche that involves attacking those who try to clear up copyvios. You don't even need to be an admin to help clear them up so all this stuff about being an involved admin is nonsense. We need to show support of those involved in the often thankless task of dealing with copyvios and help them protect Wikipedia by blocking those who seek to sabotage their efforts.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to say yea or nay to blocking but I think people ought to read: Talk:Targeted killing#Copyvio claim, look at Epeefleche edit history over the last 24 hours including the edits here and on the talk page of Talk:Targeted killing, and weigh up if Epeefleche is helping or hindering the copyright clean up. -- PBS (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Any admin may unblock when they are satisfied that Epeefleche will no longer disrupt the CCI. T. Canens (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens has again shown his bias. Extra hard on editors he is opposed to and kind of forgiving to the ones he agrees with. Shame that any rfc will get bogged down in filibustering, shenanigans, and complete ridiculousness (recalling an admin is like pulling teeth). Time fore TC to stop making blocks for editors he has had any dealings with in the IP area since he gives those he prefers leeway. Evidence shows that he is involved even if it is not actual editing.Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So the gang are moving on from claiming that the person who was fixing the CCI is an evil anti-Zionist who imagines blatant copyright violations when all that the original editor was doing was to try to ensure that poor little Israel was given a fair hearing to claiming that the person who made the block is one? Unfortunately this is not the only page where this ad hominem sophistry is going on. Time for ARBPIA++. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ARBPIA 3.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That this all started a mere 38 minutes after I had the hubris to lip off to Mkativerata for his blunt dealings with Epeefleche makes this seem particularly unseemly. Both editors (Epeefleche and Mkativerata) were giving each others public wedgies. That is human nature. But rewarding an admin for “being right” on the principle of fixing copyvio problems but being way-wrong with his interpersonal dealings with a hard-working editor until the conflict escalated to this looks really poor.

And I don’t know why everyone pretends to not notice the 800-pound gorilla in the room that underlies this whole fiasco. Epeefleche has complained that Mkativerata waters down articles that are critical of radical Islam. Epeefleche errs the other way. The root of the enmity between the two is a battle of POV-pushing and it seems to me that Mkativerata exploited Epeefleche’s copyvio issues to go and strip out parts of articles Mkativerata didn’t like. Epeefleche saw that and the battle was on. Greg L (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just too bad. I have no knowledge of the accuracy of your claim, but even if it is correct, a person who has introduced copyvio problems has to get out of the way when others try to fix it. The situation is pretty simple: Are there significant plagiarism issues? Does the community support those willing to clean them up? It looks like yes is the answer to the first question, while the second has received a yes from T. Canens and a not really from others. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Greg L, it is easy to assert that Mkativerata is "watering down" articles that are critical of radical Islam, but Epeefleche's complaining that it is do does not make it so. And the hypothesis that Mkativerata is pushing some kind of pro-Islam agenda doesn't fit into the facts that his evaluation includes articles like David Blu, Isadore Schwartz, Herbert Flam and Marvin Goldklang, which are remarkably clear of anti-Islam sentiment. A far more plausible explanation is that Mkativerata is doing what we all do at CCI; reviewing a cross-section of the contributors' work. Your assertion that "The root of the enmity between the two is a battle of POV-pushing and it seems to me that Mkativerata exploited Epeefleche’s copyvio issues to go and strip out parts of articles Mkativerata didn’t like" requires evidence. Your certainty that your post, 38 minutes before this ANI expansion, was the catalyst for this ANI expansion is puzzling, given that a far more plausible explanation is that Mkativerata began working on an ANI post which he completed at 2:24 right after working on a response at Talk:Muslim Arab Youth Association at 1:54 and 2:01. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's true that removing Epeefleche's contributions has the effect of watering down criticisms of Islam; that is a consequence of the sort of content Epeefleche has added. What is missing is evidence that Mkativerata is doing this as part of a pro-Islamic agenda (rather than an anti-copyvio one). Kanguole 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I could just as easily write Of course Epeefleche's attempts to restore text has the effect of restoring criticism of Islam; that is a consequence of the sort of stuff Mkativerata deletes. As you wrote, we need evidence to judge this. But as we also all know, a blow-by-blow, edit-by-edit discussion to analyze the truth of the extent to with each party is POV-pushing is beyond the scope of this ANI. Why? Because Epeefleche doesn’t have any leg to stand on given his copyvio issues. I’m not defending Epeefleche and the slant he brings to terrorist-related articles, I’m merely saying that it is clear to me, looking at the totality of what is going on, that Mkativerata is exploiting the correction of copyvio to POV-push and that’s obviously the root source of a lot of the friction between these two editors. Since I know Epeefleche, I am ruling out the possibility that he has recently succumbed to schizophrenia and is imagining things.

Dialing our Common-Sense-O-Meters to “100,” we also know that Wikipedia is a big place and everyone here is a volunteer. What would motivate an editor like Mkativerata to devote the tedious effort to clean up Epeefleche’s articles? To protect the project from a lawsuit? To do good for humanity? We all know that usually this sort of dedication requires a personal motivation and countering someone else’s POV pushing is the most common motivation—and it results in a lot of wikidrama here.

Now, this edit of Mkativerata’s, where he deleted text that began with He wrote in his 2005 book… and that introduction was followed with a close paraphrase is all the attribution required; since it is a close paraphrase and not an exact quote, it would be flat-improper to put quotes around it. Yet Mkativerata deleted even though the attribution was fully sufficient. I can scarcely see how that sort of thing does the project any good; Mkativerata thought he saw yet another thing of Epeefleche’s he could delete but stepped over the line in his zeal and got caught. It doesn’t take Dr. Phil to figure out what’s going on between these two and what their motivations are. It’s clear Mkativerata feels is in the right, as evidenced by his royally flippant response to Geo Swan on his talk page, when he left only a one-liner amounting to “I’ve said all I need to say about what I’m up to” when asked to explain himself.

I just want to see the interests of our readership best served. Epeefleche has had run-ins in the past when editors would change text that read like this: Another on the U.S.’s kill list is Anwar al-Awlaki (an American citizen who declared jihad against America) and change it to Another on the U.S.’s kill list is Anwar al-Awlaki (a conservative Muslim scholar). The latter one obviously does not focus on what makes Anwar al-Awlaki notable as judged by the preponderance of the RSs. We all know this sort of POV-pushing will occur a hundred times just today. Now, I’m not suggesting that what Mkativerata is doing is nearly that egregious; it is far more subtle from what I can see—but it is palpable and real, in my opinion. Wikipedia is a battleground for a tug-of-war between editors who have different worldviews and want to effect change in Wikipedia’s articles; that’s not what we want, but that’s the simple reality of a phenomenon that is real. I consider myself to be a middle-of-the-roader, where the proper balance in our articles should reflect the general tone of the RSs—I have a keen eye for that.

As for what Mkativerata does with these articles from hereon, the proof will be in the pudding when he’s done with Targeted killing and any other articles Epeefleche has had a hand in from this point forward. Epeefleche is blocked now. What with Mkativerata request here coming 38 minutes after I took him to task on his own talk page, indeed, my involvement certainly didn’t help Epeefleche; but then, Mkativerata coming here 38 minutes later had something to do with it and I think the stunt made him just look like he reacts in anger, which we don’t need on Wikipedia. So what’s done is done. The community is watching both these guys now, including me. Greg L (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the most likely explanation for Mkativerata's efforts to remove copyright infringements is that s/he is trying to promote a POV is absurd. There are many editors who do remove copyright infringements "To protect the project from a lawsuit" or "To do good for humanity". A little looking would have shown you that Mkativerata has done work on many other copyright investigations (see, for instance, this one, this one or this one). Making wild unfounded accusations about an experienced editor is not going to help your case. Hut 8.5 18:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You and I clearly don’t see eye to eye on this, Hut 8.5. The above linked edit-diff shows that my views of what Mkativerata is up to are not “unfounded” as you allege. Mkativerata has a lot of friends and they naturally come to his defense in ANIs like this against him. But nose-count of support does not explain away clear evidence. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree, OK? Greg L (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No-one's going to see eye to eye with you on this unless you can provide more evidence to substantiate your accusation of bad faith. I'm not a "friend" of Mkativerata and I have no prior recollection of interacting with him/her. The idea that putting a lot of work into cleaning up copyright violations is a good indicator of POV-pushing is ridiculous and downright offensive to anyone who does copyright work. Hut 8.5 18:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don’t mischaracterize what I wrote. For that, I think I am rather done with you today. Nowhere did I make an “accusation of bad faith”; POV-pushing comes not from bad faith but from a bias one can’t see in oneself. As for the personal enmity between those two and Mkativerata’s flippant and arrogant responses to Geo Swan when he was asked to explain himself: that is there for all to see in black & white on his talk page. You may make of the evidence in any way you like, but the evidence speaks to me clearly enough and I respectively disagree with you. Greg L (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This endless mudflinging about Mkativerata's motives needs to stop, Greg L. There is no sign s/he has bee editing in the PI area in any kind of one-sided way. He was and is in the right about removing obvious copyright violations and plagiarism, whatever the topic. Please stop, as you have been requested already. --Slp1 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The copyvio problem has become more pressing recently with the discovery of more and more serial copyright violators who previously had an excellent reputation. I don't know how many make an appropriate effort to help in the clean-up. Normally we only learn about those who are unwilling or unable to do that. I wonder if WP:COPYVIO#Addressing contributors is still up to date. I would prefer a clarification that editors who contaminated Wikipedia on a large scale will be blocked, and that the they can only be unblocked as part of a deal. And that such a deal will require that any other contributions to the project and its community must not exceed a certain percentage of their clean-up contributions until the problem is essentially fixed. Hans Adler 10:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Endorsing Tim's block - I would have done the same. Disappointing, as Epeefleche and an I had a conversation, followed up with a convo with Moonriddengirl, and we thought we had worked it all out. And I don't think GregL has helped his case one bit, unfortunately. Hopefully an agreement can still be reached - indef is after all not infinity - but Epeefleche would have to up the cleanup, and dial down the complaints. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • For filing frivolous, retaliatory complaints, and sticking with them beyond all reason, Epeefleche should be banned from complaining about any editors cleaning up his copyvio messes or otherwise obstructing their work. GregL needs to disengage from this area. His involvement is seriously unhelpful. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed. A community topic ban might allow Epeefleche to be unblocked and voluntarily add himself as a party to the new ARBCOM case I have created.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with block, at least until Epeefleche agrees to change his/her behaviour. Editors who severely and persistently violated copyright over a long period of time and on a large scale should only be allowed to edit if they acknowledge the scope of the problem and assist in cleaning it up. Not only has Epeefleche not done this, but he's actively harassing people who do the tedious, severely backlogged task of cleaning up. This is unacceptable. Hut 8.5 14:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, after looking through everything, I would have to support the indefblock placed, as it's become evident that not only are there more copyright violations than we originally thought, but Epee does not seem to want to fix them. These are serious issues for someone who has written a lot of articles. They're well-referenced so this is an easier situation for us and him to fix, but the problems are there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I actually agree with that, Wizardman. The sentiments of those here who support the block could be summarized as Why let him edit anywhere he wants when he shows no interest in helping on all the copyvios in his previous work? So I would propose that the community formally give him a probationary offer: That he can take any of the articles he has had a hand in and and clean it up in his userspace. Perhaps he can create User:Epeefleche/TK sandbox, fix the Targeted killing article there, and offer it up for pasting into articlespace. Since he had 200 citations in the Targeted killing article and knows it well, I suspect that is the one he would be most motivated to fix and do a good job of it. Then the community can go from there with how to further handle his probation. Greg L (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "I don't see the copyvio that is claimed as warranted deletion of this article. Would it be possible for you to indicate to the community which specific sentences you believe are copyvio?" (Opening sentence by Epeefleche in the section (s)he created called "Copyvio claim" on Talk:Targeted killing)). How can you read that and then suggest that (s)he should take the lead in recreating this article when (s)he is either being disingenuous (as (s)he was in your words "someone who was the shepherding author of an article" and therefore ought/must know better than anyone else what parts were copied), or is too stupid to understand the problem? As you are clearly in favour of such an article -- personally as you know but others may not, I think it is a POV fork of assassination and opposed its creation -- (see RFC on creation). Why don't you write a new short clean version of the article that you and others (including Epeefleche when/if the block is removed) can then expand? -- PBS (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• I also agree with this block. There is the long history of copyright violations, but really what is untenable is the disruption, filibustering, and harassment Epeefleche (and his mates) launches upon editors or administrators who dare to critique his editing. Mkativerata is the last in a long line. If it comes to any unblock, while I think it could be helpful if Epeefleche had to help out, my fear is that it will simple cause more problems that it solves. It may just be best to topic ban him from the whole area. In addition, I'd suggest being very careful about the terms of any unblock: I believe that when he was last unblocked from an indef, for canvassing, the unblocking admin came to regret the reduced terms that were finally agreed upon.[22]. Slp1 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Good (albeit unfortunate) block. His contributions are on balance very positive, but disputes are rarely handled cooperatively; and copyright infringement is an area where cooperation can't be considered optional. As in this case, the meatpuppetry that inevitably occurs in any dispute he's in always complicates things, though I don't know who is the actual meatpuppeteer. causa sui (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Don't take the bait, I won't. I always speak my mind and do what I think is the right thing. Period. Happy editing.Greg L (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• It seems there are two kinds of 'editing restrictions' being proposed: (1) a requirement to help clean the copyvios; (2) a requirement to disengage from the CCI altogether (I think that is the thrust of Jehochman and Slp1's comments). In my view, (2) is preferable: it would be nice and all for Epeefleche to help with the CCI, but he keeps being told how he can help over and over again and keeps on filibustering. The only way for Epeefleche to return to editing constructively is to just draw a line under everything he contributed before December 2010. I recognise that my advocacy of (2) will probably be seen be some as a way to avoid any scrutiny of my actions on the CCI. But large-scale removals are done by blanking, which necessarily involves review by another administrator. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Mkat, going by the interaction between the two of you at the Ilan Berman article, and here on ANI, I am sorry but I see epee as the one who made the most effort to be collegial, and I see you as doing a very disappointing job of explaining what was wrong with his attempts to provide alternate wording. You threatened to block him, multiple times -- without offering any clue as to what behavior he should avoid to avoid the block. That struck me as extremely unfair. And I am frankly very surprised to see you imply you tried to help him "over and over again". Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the block. CCIs are always tough on the individual targeted - let's face it, it's an accusation of dishonesty, and to have others going through and potentially deleting one's hard work is always going to be difficult for the person involved. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to approach such an issue and Epeefleche's approach – filibustering and obstruction – is most definitely wrong. A block was absolutely necessary to get him out of the way so that the CCI can proceed. What particularly troubles me about this case, though, is the way Epeefleche has engaged in overtly Islamophobic ideological conflict at the same time by accusing Mkativerata of "pro-Islamic" ideological bias in the CCI. It's one thing to disagree over content with an editor carrying out a CCI, but it's quite another to make seemingly baseless accusations against the CCI reviewer. In my opinion, if Epeefleche is to be allowed to resume editing he must retract and apologise to Mkativerata, as well as staying out of anything to do with the CCI other than responding to direct requests for information. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Should have been blocked ages ago for the I-P topic area tendentiousness and unrepentant battleground'ing. Plagiarism is a bright line that thankfully can't be ignored, and is why we have seen only a handful of fans and supporters protest the block, rather than the usual droves that show up to these things. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• If there are copyright violation and plagiarism issues, than there are no extenuating circumstances that matter. No overriding inside baseball concerns about admin behavior. No deals to be made. None. This is an encyclopedia project, and will not put up with that kind of dishonesty. Any other discussion is irrelevant at best and deliberate obfuscation at worst.--Tznkai (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to be that extreme on it. I don't support immediate zero tolerance. But a sustained effort to interfere with or object to cleanups by the original party exceeds allowable behavior. A week ago I didn't believe this case was sufficiently sustained to warrant a block or ban; by today, I believe it has. This is not unrecoverable but actual coperation going forwards would be an absolute unblock criteria as far as I am concerned, and i would reblock after any unblock if cooperation was not very open and constructive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock and allow Epeefleche to defend himself. I would like to hear his input to this thread. This forum is taking place without the input of the editor that you and I are speaking in reference to. I think that User:Causa sui has earned chastisement for peremptorily impugning those who would defend Epeefleche with his comment "…I don't know who is the actual meatpuppeteer". That is uncalled for, counterproductive, petty, unfounded, in poor taste, etc. Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I presume it to be a reference to Greg L's slavish support of Epeefleche. I don't think it's a case of meatpuppetry, more likely one of ideological sympathy. While Causa sui might have overstated the case, I don't think there's much doubt that Greg L's contributions to this discussion have been unhelpful. Indeed, as someone said above, they have probably harmed Epeefleche's case overall. If Greg L really wants to help, he should get involved in clearing up the mess that Epeefleche has left behind. Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Prioryman: more likely one of ideological sympathy: You nailed it. It is not slavish support for Epeeflech per se, but slavish support for principles and wiki-procedures that could be improved. Regarding If Greg L really wants to help, he should get involved in clearing up the mess that Epeefleche has left behind, Greg L doesn’t want to help with tedious copyvio issues of someone else’s making; I edit for intellectual stimulation by working on subjects I don’t know enough about. I have over a half-dozen patents on fuel cell technology and know PEM fuel cells inside and out. Yet, I haven’t even skimmed our Fuel cell article to see how many errors it has because I have no interest in being reverted by a 16-year-old kid who quoted Popular Mechanics and how “30 percent of autos by 2016 will be powered by fuel cells.” People would be utterly amazed at the misinformation RSs regurgitate from fuel cell companies who are in a perpetual search of the next government grant. In short, what articles I edit are selected to achieve a ‘two-fer” objective: 1) improve an article I found to be lacking and which didn’t provide me sufficient information, and 2) learn in the process of upgrading the article. No one other than Epeefleche should have to clean up Epeefleche’s copyvio problems. Frankly, the very first time he complained about how others were going about it, I would have told him “Tell you what Epee; I’ll give you 48 hours to clean up all the copyvio issues on [yadda yadda] article and if you fail to do so, I’ll do it and you can hold your peace if you are displeased with how others clean up your plagiarism.” But I also have issues with admins who I perceive as being *inelegant* in the way they deal with editors in situations like this. Greg L (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock conditions?

User:Epeefleche is requesting an unblock, User talk:Epeefleche#November 2011. I've made a proposal to him on the conditions under which I would be comfortable with his unblock and wanted to bring them here for review to see how others feel. Even if he agreed to my proposal, I would not unblock him without strong consensus here. It's a wall of text, but the terms I think might work are as follows (copied from his userpage):

I would support your unblock if you would pledge to stop slowing progress (1) by challenging (openly or by insinuation) the existence of the problem and/or (2) by casting aspersions on the competence or motivations of the people doing the work and would instead agree to focus (if you work on the CCI at all) on rewriting content from scratch. Alternatively, I would support your unblock if you were topic banned from the CCI - which would mean staying away from any article tagged as a problem until after it has been resolved and from the people who tag them in any venue. Because I'm never comfortable with silencing people, I would be okay in that case with your having one acceptable person to whom you can email, agreed upon by the community at ANI. This will avoid you becoming a target of an actual vendetta if somebody should choose to take advantage of your vulnerable position. Email to one neutral, designated person rather than on-Wiki communication would eliminate any unintended disruption, as public aspersions on a CCI volunteer in any venue may have a "chilling" effect especially if others are influenced by your accusations. If the person chosen for you to contact agrees there is an issue, he or she may raise it in an appropriate venue.

What do you think? Are you comfortable with (a) both, (b) either or (c) neither? :) If (c), do you have ideas of your own about how we can best get him back to work on Wikipedia and eliminate the problem? Or reasons why we shouldn't do that at all? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the above that he's not going to cooperate wither the CCI, but rather sabotage it. So topic banning him from all his CCI-listed articles seems the only practical alternative to a total ban or indef block. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I also support the topic ban as a first choice; I support the unblock conditions as the second choice. Kww's words here are telling. As I've said before (sorry) I don't think Epeefleche's involvement with this CCI is going to work at all. The terms of the topic ban would be crystal clear: (1) don't edit or comment about an article tagged by a CCI participant until the tagging has been resolved (eg by blanking or deletionremoval of the content concerned or deletion of the page); (2) no complaints or questions, anywhere, addressed to or about any editor working on the CCI. That is silencing, but (a) there is no right to free speech on this project; (b) it's plainly necessary in the circumstances; and (c) MRG has proposed an off-wiki mechanism by which Epeefleche can complain as a last resort if he really feels CCI participants are taking advantage of the topic ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I clarify here if by "blanking or deletion" you mean actual removal of the content as opposed to placement of the {{subst:copyvio}} template? The terms blanking and deletion have both been used to refer to the placement of the template and to the ultimate resolution after the week at CP, and I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page in the conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope! In addition, I should also make it clear that any participant in this CCI should retain the prerogative of not tagging an article but instead just excising the problematic content him or herself. For isolated sentences and paragraphs, that's much more efficient than blanking, tagging and listing at CP. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche is not at his computer and is unable to post to Wikipedia but has emailed me the following, with permission to post it on Wikipedia:

As I indicated to you, Elen, and M in our discussion on your talkpage even before the block, I'm happy to assist in the CCI in whatever manner (if any) others see fit.

I agree to whichever of your suggestions is deemed preferable. And whichever it is--I agree, as before, that the copyvios should be deleted (if not fixed). I think that your safeguard makes sense as well, for the reasons you state.

I've also placed this at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support the topic ban suggestion as a first choice. I'm a bit nervous of the current wording as it suggests that Epeefleche can make comments and ask questions after the material has been removed from article. This appears to be leaving a door open to disruption and arguing after, if not during, an article's cleanup. I'm also a bit concerned about the possibility of vicarious disruption by Epeefleche's supporters, but can't see an easy or appropriate way of dealing with this at present. --Slp1 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The trouble as I see it MG with your proposal is that it has lots of wriggle room for someone who has a mind not to act in good faith. We need the unblock condition to be binary and simple so that if any actions result in a new ANI it crystal clear to everyone (including Epeefleche), whether Epeefleche has or has not breached his/her unblock condition.

So basically I agree with what Slp1 is saying but I added one more condition when I wrote the following on Epeefleche's talk page in response to MG's proposal "I think it Epeefleche is to be unblocked he should not go any where near the articles that are being clean up, (s)he has been given months and months to do that and has been found wanting. I also think that there should be a moratorium on this editor creating or recreating any articles until there is a consensus at ANI that (s)he can do so. I suggest this because there is no evidence that Epeefleche has had an epiphany but rather the (s)he is mouthing platitudes under the duress of a block."

I also re-asked some questions which I had put to him/ before the most important of which is to clarify (her/his gnomic comment on this page), and explain at what date did (s)he become familiar with "copyvio rules?" I think this is important, because from the comments of some editors on this page this point is not clear, and if Epeefleche is found to have committed a blatant copyvio after that date, then the block should be reimposed immediately while an ANI decides what to do. -- PBS (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A word on plagiarism and copyright

Been following this. I find much of the discussion on Wikipedia about plagiarism to largely miss the forest for the trees, to be a playground for discussing whether "the rules" have been broken and arcane bits of law few here actually understand, rather than starting from the perspective of the overall health and quality of the encyclopedia articles you presume to be writing. George Herbert's rather charming belief that plagiarism isn't that big a deal expressed here (and elsewhere from memory) is emblematic of the mindset. I'm going to ignore copyright entirely (not because it isn't important, just because it isn't, in and of itself, relevant to the quality of encyclopedia articles). The real problem with plagiarism (whether a law has been broken or not) is that it almost always skews the tone and focus of an article. A newspaper article, written in a particular place by a particular person at a particular time (for instance) is suddenly placed in an omniscient, encyclopedic voice. The plagiarizer (epeefleche is clearly a serial violator, though far from the only one), never does a thorough literature review of a topic, takes a step back, then begins writing with an eye towards what consensus views are, where the controversies/disagreements lie, an overall holistic approach. Using public domain sources in this way is as bad for accuracy and quality of articles as using copyrighted sources. Sometimes the skewed article is simply the by-product of bauble-collecting exercises like DYK (the author doesn't really care -- or understand -- that the article is crap) and sometimes, as is the case with epeefleche, it's a byproduct of the fact that they're here to push a particular point of view (I cast an eye over the dreadful little targeted killing article before it was deleted). They are, in fact, trying to privilege some sources over others, to take a narrow and controversial slice of a topic and place it in that omniscient encyclopedia voice. It is this problem that volunteer editors should be focusing on as a primary issue, though of course that won't be popular because it requires editorial discretion and background knowledge. Much easier to ask the narrow question of "was copyright violated" and deal with nothing else. Deal with the copyright problems by all means. But don't kid yourself that even begins to clean up the real mess.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Is epeefleche a serial violator of copyright? If I have understood what he has written here he has acknowledged that he was a serial violator, early in his wikipedia career, but that he hasn't been a violator in years, hasn't been for violating copyright for tens of thousands of edits. Several people have drawn our attention to instances where he did violate copyright. But if all these instances are to edits he made a long time ago, prior to the CCI investigation into his editing practices, I think it would be best to stop referring to him as a serial violator of copyright, and refer to him as a reformed serial violator of copyright. Is his self-description correct? Or has he continued to demonstrate an on-going pattern of copyright violations, after a CCI investigation made clear his past edits were problematic? Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a redherring, but anyway. Geo Swan, you yourself have been looking at the Targeted killing article, and know that large chunks, if not the whole article, is a series of copyright violating very close paraphrases. It was created 13 months ago. The incident that launched the CCI occured 11 months ago. Epeefleche's claim that he did this only early in his career and hasn't for years, is simply not true. He continued on with his copy and paste with a few minor changes approach despite a warnings from me and Moonriddengirl in 2010, until the CCI started. After which, I gather, there was a significant change.

On the original topic, I'd agree with Bali ultimate, that there are other major issues here besides the copyright. Ones that unfortunately WP is very poor at sorting out. --Slp1 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncooperative editor has serious problems with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS

Wheres Dan (talk · contribs) is always using sources (most WP:FRINGE) from the 1800s which contain information that modern sources don't bother to reprint. Dougweller, Heironymous Rowe, and I have repeatedly asked him to find the information in modern sources to verify that the information is still accepted by modern scholarship. To date, he hasn't (or hasn't found anything), and I know I failed to find anything as well (even though it's his job to find that stuff, not mine).

• He has previously been blocked for various personal attacks, including refering to good faith edits as vandalism (in that case, while reversing WP:BRD after I explained it to him elsewhere) and calling Dougweller an antisemite.
• Here he suggests that a 1938 occultist source is an appropriate source for to suggest that historians think that the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio is connected to the unrelated deities Kneph (more on that later) and Ahura Mazda, and unspecified "Japanese and Indian traditions."
• Even after his previous block, he shows contempt for anyone not supporting his edits, and makes up imaginary editors to support him.

The few good edits he's made (like this), do not begin to outway the amount of following after he is going to require, as he does not understand cooperative discussion in the slightest, and twists guidelines to his own ends (such as reversing WP:BRD to insist that other people discuss his edits without reversion, reinterpreting WP:RS so that outdated, unscholarly, or fringe sources have to be countered).

This is a highly uncooperative fringe-pushing editor, who one admin has considered blocking indefinately. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Were you going to let us know who it is, or just keep us in suspense? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Meant to put that in the beginning. Editted in. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE has steps for liberal blocking of longstanding pushing of fringe sources. Trying to link a mound in Ohio with Ahura Mazda is definitely way fringe. If the editor has been sufficiently warned and can be shown to have continued afterwards (diffs, please, if you have them) then escalating blocks are definitely called for, in my opinion. Just need an uninvolved admin to do it. (And what was the more on Kneph?) DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion we have too much patience for this type of editor. There are obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues, and that should be enough for a block. Hans Adler 16:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ack, forgot that (should really finish my morning Mt Dew before I do anything). At Kneph, Wheres Dan continued to push fringe and outdated material, taking a 19th century source (which should have been removed) that conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna and turning it into the primary source for the article, and citing a metaphysical text by René Guénon for historical information.

The histories for the articles Tribe of Dan, Kneph, and Serpent Mound show nothing but continued reversions after being asked to not use fringe and outdated sources.

Wheres Dan has just cited several outdated and fringe sources that were previously removed, claiming that Dougweller approved of all of them because Wheres Dan included two sources Doug suggested along with the fringe material.

He is also being a hypocritical when it comes to sourcing. This demonstrates that he understands that 19th century romantic, reductionist, and religious material are not reliable sources for historical claims, but when ignores this when it supports his point of view.

Even if it weren't for the fringe issues, that his concept of cooperation is a bit one-sided seems reason enough to not want him on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And now he's reported me for edit warring (even though I have yet to violate 3rr and have reverted no more than he has), where he accuses me of acting out of a religious bias by taking a comment out of context (at first, he tried to accuse me of an anti-Biblical bias, which prompted me to point out that I'm a Baptist). As I've stated over at WP:3RRNB, I will no longer be nice about this, he is useless to this site and should be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement that editors of this persuasion are given way too much leniency here. The user has shown, per this conversation at Talk:Serpent Mound#Tribe of Dan Egyptian gods nonsense, that they either have WP:COMPETENCE issues or are on an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles. The user couldn't seem to understand the difference or wouldn't admit the difference between the armchair philosophizing of a historian (if you want to call an author publishing in "Rosicrucian Digest" in 1938 an actual "historian") in the early 1900s and the 100 years of peer reviewed academic archaeology that has taken place since that armchair historian wrote his book. They have also yet seemed to understand our policies on WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, and WP:RELIABLE. It's not our job to tell a person what to believe, but surely, we can stop them from serially inserting this] sort of nonsense into history and archaeology articles? Heiro 18:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since they've been blocked before, I've just blocked for a week for edit-warring at Tribe of Dan during which they overstepped 3RR as well as WP:COMPETENCE. I've pointed out both in the block notice, and also noted how they can contribute to this discussion. But frankly, if anyone wants to up it to indef, be my guest. Black Kite (t) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna" — where have I seen that before — Caesarion and WillBildUnion (talk · contribs). Maybe.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Wheres Dan is citing a lot of 19th century sources, and a lot of people (whatever their beliefs) who wrote about religion in the 19th century were kinda stupid (IMO more so than in eras before or after). He doesn't quite smell the same to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there are generally very serious, questions about the current reliability of sources from the era of the source in question. Having said that, I think that there probably is, to some degree, information of this type which is relevant to at least some article, maybe a spinoff, in wikipedia. We do rather often have child articles which might address or summarize previous opinions regarding a subject, and it rather often is the case that such older premises, for good or ill, are in some way foundational to current theories, of varying reliability. I think maybe confining the editor to relevant talk pages, until and unless there is obvious and poorly-defensible editing abuse there as well, might be the best alternative. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

*Ahem* I'm thinking it's time for an indef. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clearer about my previous remark, a sockpuppet of Wheres Dan has been found and indefed. The block on Wheres Dan is still for a week. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

More socks have been found. This guy knows what he's doing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wheres Dan after looking at the various contribs of the socks at the SPI, which go back for weeks and months even, I think my above mentioned suspicion that WP:COMPETENCE may not be the issue but that an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles may be. One of the accounts (User:Sourced much) seemed to be overly drawn to articles on Nazis, specifically attempts to white wash their reputations(see here). I would like to ask for an indefinite block or possibly a community ban for this editor. Would there be any support for this? Heiro 03:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find evidence of him using the socks to votestack, vandalise or commit other offenses, then the block can be extended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal

• I support a community ban on Wheres Dan and associated accounts due to the systematic and planned disruption of the encyclopaedic process by pushing FRINGE. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban as per my statement above. Heiro 03:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, as Where's Dan is too academically and/or ethically incompetent to be of help here. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, with regrets, based on editors apparent inability or unwillingness to abide by basic standards of good conduct. While it is possible that some of the material he seeks to include might be appropriate, his actions to support that material very clearly are not. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Serious competence issues, refusal to act collaboratively, and a preference for wholly unreliable, extreme fringe sources, and the use of sockpuppet accounts - we need to protect the encyclopedia. --NellieBly (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Many issue of this user. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Weird activity on fish stubs

This isn't a complaint, and it's not vandalism. I don't know what it is, but the editors won't talk about it, so I thought I'd mention it here. It's a bunch of SPA's editing fish stubs by pasting in what looks like term papers. Here are the three I spotted. It seems like a class project or something, given the sporadic and longterm nature of the editing. I also notified the fish wikproject:

1. Popeye Shiner by Lmb213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Etheostoma neopterum by Jkaitchu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Luxilus coccogenis by Jusabelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgetting for a moment whether they are term papers or not, what is the quality of the articles, in terms of content and references? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really random. At first it was super lousy, now some of them are improving, but they generally include a lot of off-topic material. Instead of being about the fish, they have sections like "recommendations for management". They could be turned into good articles, but they really need some guidance.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I just went ahead and deleted the entire "Management Recommendation" section in the Popeye Shiner article, and included a detailed edit summary. I don't have the time or desire to go through the rest of these articles, but if the others are like this one, there might be a big problem of an editor, or group of editors, though well intentioned, not writing articles in accordance with the NPOV policies. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 03:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The others are exactly like that one, and I'm sure there are some I haven't found. It seems that they're working off some kind of template. I left multiple messages for them asking them to tell their teacher to get in touch, but so far no responses.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If they won't talk, block them. It is possibly an unregistered school project or something like that done by people who are familiar with how we write articles here. That kind of stuff strays into WP:NOTHOWTO and the like.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't exactly block them. It's amazing how much they won't talk, though.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a temporary block for the accounts involved would probably solve the problem. It might seem harsh, but remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and there is clearly a threat to content; as alf said, we don't even know the full extent yet. After getting a block and decent explanation on the talk pages they'll probably get the message that wikipedia isn't the place to write a class project. Or the deadline will pass, they'll all flunk and the danger will pass. Happy days. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If these are good faith edits to stubs, blocks are grossly excessive. Correct deficiencies through the normal editing process — this should not be an ANI matter at all. I'm just finished watching an hour of Sue Gardner video before the UK Wikipedia Chapter, during which she touched upon the serious issue of Rogue Administrators. Tread lightly around new content creators!!! —Tim ///// Carrite (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Carrite. These appear to be good faith edits and I do not see anything here that would require a block. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 12:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No communication is a serious issue for any editor, new or old. It's very disruptive especially in the case of controversial edits. It's hard to miss people posting to your talk, even if you're a new user. that big banner is pretty obvious. While their edits may have been made in good faith, so were the attempts made to communicate with them and stop the disruptive behaviour. If they behaviour continues, and they don't respond, blocking is the only choice a responsible administrator can make. There is nothing else to be done with people who refuse communication.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? Are they reverting to a version with the bad content? Why can't you oversight them as an editor instead of getting out your great big disciplinary bit? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is not at all unreasonable to block the members of a badly done school project if you can't otherwise get their attention. Anyone who just dumps essays into article space and doesn't start communicating is fair game for a block. Hans Adler 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree. Blocking in this situation is excessive. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Reiterating Fifelfoo's point, have they edit-warred with anyone? If not, it would be interesting to see just what grounds there would be for blocking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• I recently made two fish stubs and was paranoid for a second I agree a blocking is not needed. There are other ways to get their attention before that, and it often takes me more than four hours to reply to a talk page message too. Not unreasonable for a seasoned admin, let alone a newbie. I don't think this ANI report was made with anything other than the best intentions, though. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I left messages on the article talk to try to get their attention that way. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Newbies may not understand how the talk page works. We need to be more patient, as long as they are not edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think blocks would be a bad, bad idea. I left a note here because I wanted advice on how to get them to talk, not because I wanted anyone blocked. If I'd known it'd get to this stage, I probably wouldn't have done it. But anyway, a big part of what editing WP can teach students is the sometimes contentious nature of collaboration, and they're certainly getting a lesson in that. My feeling is that their stuff must be due this morning, and their teacher will see what's been going on and probably get in touch and it'll all be OK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

They may not be communicating but it does seem like they are partially getting the mesage. For example User:Lmb213 self removed two of the more problematic sections [23] [24] which they had added back, I think because they were working on this externally and added the newest version. Also if you look at the edit history there, Lmb213 first appeared in 28 September and then did a small amount of of work until now which supports alf laylah wa laylah idea there's likely a deadline soon. Also this IP 216.96.195.102 once added content after Lmb213 appeared which looks a lot like the stuff Lmb213 has been adding so I think we can guess which university this project is for (unless it's a school not university project and the student was just there for research). Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems this isn't something new. Conasauga logperch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Yellowfin madtom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suggest it has happened before. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any indication that these accounts may be related to an education program. When the education programs started, this is what it looked like to me. They looked like SPAs adding term-paper-like material to articles that were common in some way. Failing/refusing/being unable to converse with other editors was an issue for some IEP students but not many. I'm not convinced that these accounts belong to students in an education program but the article should probably be checked for copyright violations if they haven't already. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah revert them first, and if they edit war with you, then block them. causa sui (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP address (216.96.195.102) provided by User:Nil Einne traces back to the University of Tennessee. --64.85.214.213 (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone else think "Weird activity on fish stubs" is the most surrealistic AN/I section header we've had in a while? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought something was fishy. Alexandria (chew out) 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Could be worse - could have been weird tasting fish sticks... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try not to take that as a challenge to come up with something surrealisticker next time...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I figured initially that fish stubs are something you would have with tater tots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Could have been weirder ... someone with a stubby and a fish ...? No more visuals, please. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy mackerel! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll have the fish stubs with a side of US Congress-defined culinary vegetables, please. LadyofShalott 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're Australian like me, in which case a stubby is a short 375mL beer as opposed to a long neck which is a tall 375mL 750ml beer. Hmmm is that a red herring I smell? --Blackmane (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This particular Victorian Aussie always called a 750ml bottle a longneck - stubbie was always the 375 ml, regardless of neck length. My $.02. Colonel Tom 09:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This Aussie *points at self* fails at typing about beer. I even struck myself out!--Blackmane (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Not even if it included a bicycle. Now, had the section header mentioned melting clocks or burning giraffes, then that might be considered Surreal -- but in a Spanish sort of way. -- llywrch (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo, disruptive editing after unblock

Stephfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked Sept 3rd for disruptive editing, but was unblocked late October after agreeing to work with a mentor on his talk page. This week, his problems have resumed, and he's been contacted by a slew of editors requesting that he work more productively. I notified his mentor when the problems began, and his mentor has been contributing actively to Stephfo's talk page, but to no avail. Recently, he's begun edit warring, making personal attacks, and slinging accusations of disruption and vandalism at other editors. I, his mentor, and other editors have requested that he stop editing until he can resolve these problems. He responded that he wasn't interested, and planned to continue editing anyway.

Please review his talk page for a small sampling of the issues. I'm afraid that, either due to competence, tendentiousness, or intentions, he's unable to contribute productively to the project, and is only serving as a disruption to the community. I feel that he may need to be reblocked.

Prior to bringing this issue here, I made my intentions clear, and asked him to reconsider, but instead of responding to me, he continued editing and then (presumably) logged off. For context, here's a previous ANI case, but most of his history is contained on his talk page (some of which has been deleted). I can provide more diffs if necessary. Notified Stephfo, Alpha Quadrant, Amatulic, and Dominus Vobisdu. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. note as I was allowed to do so, I will present my defence in new section.--Stephfo (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe the issue is due to the fact that he currently doesn't have a good grasp on several Wikipedia policies (in particular WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, WP:VANDNOT, and WP:NPA#WHATIS). Part of the problem is due to the fact that he appears to have a strong opinion regarding religion, creation, and evolution topics, resulting in further difficulty in remaining neutral when writing in these areas. Eventually, he may make good contributions in the area. I believe he needs to edit in other less controversial areas, where he can gain editing experience. I suggested he do this, but he continued to edit the in the topic. Before he is indefinitely blocked again, perhaps we could just try a six month topic ban from the areas of religion and creation/evolution. After that time period, he should have gained enough experience in editing and would have a better grasp on Wikipedia policies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern here is that he has previously said he will not do X or Y, and then has done X or Y. I am not sure that just a topic ban will do the trick. I may just be cynical, but, that is my opinion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(Stephfo has never specified gender, and for that matter neither have I for myself. For some reason I have always thought of Stephfo as "she" but I'll use "he" established by precedent in this section unless Stephfo feels the need to correct it.)

I was one of several admins who declined one of Stephfo's frequent unblock requests back when Stephfo was indef-blocked. I also supported Stephfo's unblocking.

Since then, Stephfo has made the mistake of creating disputes in controversial areas, activity which resulted in blocking in the past. For the most part (except for in Christian terrorism), Stephfo has adhered to the spirit of WP:BRD, in that he actively uses talk page to challenge reverts. Unfortunately, Stephfo's conduct on talk pages, while civil and polite, borders on tendentious, causing the patience of others to wear thin. Whether deliberately or through misunderstanding, Stepho has given the appearance of ignoring explanations, demanding clarification for answers that have been given repeatedly, as well as some amount of Wikilawyering.

There's a battleground mentality evident here, where Stephfo sees atheism or anti-Christian bias everywhere, and feels that it is proper to "correct" this, not by attempting to re-write anything neutrally, but to introduce opposing bias, regardless of whether that bias is non-neutral, relies on fringe theories, misrepresents sources, or otherwise quotes sources out of context.

I think Stephfo can become a good contributor to Wikipedia. Re-enacting the prior indefinite block would be a mistake. At this point, however, I support the view of Stepho's mentor (Alpha Quadrant) above for a temporary topic ban of areas in which Stephfo evidently has a conflict of interest, namely articles with topics that would be controversial to fundamentalist Christians (creationism, evolution, articles critical of Christianity, and so forth). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem I see is that the editor plainly doesn't have the English as a first language, but unfortunately has taken it as a personal attack that someone asked them about it. A good deal of the disputes seem to centre around not understanding what others are saying, and their own communications are not that great either. We could try a topic ban for a month - tell them to edit anywhere from architecture to zoology, but avoid creationism and intelligent design. I don't want to stop them creating articles - the notability hurdle seems to have eventually been got over, and they can always just use a sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything said so far. His contributions to Busch and Hartnett were good ones (even if one doesn't quite meet WP:N), and I'd hate to see those sorts of contribs go, sparse as they are. On the other hand, he has a major problem communicating which is divorced from the topic area, and which seems unlikely to ever be fixed. Whether it stems from a language barrier or (more likely) competence, Stephfo has consistently shown that he simply cannot work with other editors on even the most basic of tasks. That's a problem for a collaborative project. Frankly, I would rather see him topic banned until he gains an understanding of policy (or indefinitely if coming back is too problematic) but after all we've been through, I simply cannot fathom any possible resolution than an eventual block; if topic banned, I fully anticipate these same issues will turn up everywhere he interacts with another user, and we'll be back here in no time at all. I mean, look at the "Big Bang" dispute he had with Farsight. Farsight's explanation couldn't have been clearer, but Stephfo drove him off in frustration, demanding he clarify every minor detail. His primary contribution in any topic is to frustrate and drive off productive users everywhere he goes. That's not a negligible issue.

Maybe I'm wrong. The issue may be a language barrier, exacerbated by a strong opinion on the topic, and perhaps with extensive mentoring on a neutral area, he'll improve. Perhaps a topic ban is worth a shot. However, if we go with a topic ban, it needs to be broad ("religion, science, and controversial topics"), and there needs to be an understanding that 1) his behavior thus far has been inappropriate, and 2) if it continues on other topics, he will be blocked. I have reservations on even this, since Stephfo does not yet have an understanding there even is a problem, much less what that problem is, so I can't imagine how he's going to change, but if users are willing to work with him to improve, then perhaps we can salvage a few of his positive contributions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I can read Stephfo's native language (not perfect, but well enough to follow a discussion), and the problem has nothing to do with a language barrier. Wikipedia's problems with Stephfo predate his appearence on English WP. Before he came to English WP, he had been an editor on Slovakian WP as "Steffo" since April 25, 2011. (No outing here; Stephfo clearly identifies himself as Steffo [[25]]). He edits mainly articles related to creationism, and quickly gained a reputation there for being a POV warrior. He has been repeated warned by multiple co-editors that "Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It's not for making statements either of your political, religious or other views", and that his edits were disruptive [[26]] [[27]].

Stephfo's debut here on English WP involved expanding a stub that he wanted to use in a discussion on Slovakian WP. He was discovered, and the article was deleted. A copy of it and it's history remain on his user page: [[28]].

After that, he focused his attention on English WP, especially on the article on Intelligent Design, where his disruptive behavior led to a couple of blocks before he was eventually indefinitely blocked. As one of the main editors that dealt with Stephfo at that time, I can assure you that the experience was unpleasant to the extreme. He inserted highly POV material that was essentially OR and SYNTH based on unreliable sources, and when challenged, adopted a battlefield attitude that included abundant accusations of bad faith on the part of other editors. He engaged in interminable deadhorse arguments, ignoring the responses of other editors and repeatedly demanding answers to questions that had already been answered several times, or that were completely irrelvant to the topic.

Both content-wise and behavior-wise, his editing was vastly at odds with WP policies. He ignored repeated instructions to familiarize himself with WP policies, using them solely as a source of cherry-picked quotes taken out of context to support his own POV and behavior. He never demonstrated any interest in building consensus, and consistently treated anyone that disagreed with him as an enemy that was out to get him. He wasted huge amounts of his fellow editors' time in pointless deadhorse arguments and Wikilawyering. This is what led to his eventual indefinite block.

Stephfo appealed his blocks several times, during which he demonstrated that he did not understand why he was blocked, and placing the blame on other editors. Eventually, a sympathetic editor told him to find a mentor, and having done so, successfully appealed the block with their help.

After his return, Stephfo took his mentor's advice and avoided controversial topics like creationism for EXACTLY one month before returning to the article on Intelligent Design and resuming his previous disruptive behavior. In the discussion about a change he had made and was reverted, Stephfo wrote an astounding 31 posts in only 10 hours, which demonstrates that he barely took the time to read the responses of other editors, never mind to understand them. He repeatedly demanded answers to questions which had already been explained in great detail, and his posts and edit summaries demonstrated that he holds his fellow editors in very low regard, repeatedly calling their contributions vandalism, weird, odd, or just plain dishonest.

I've only peripherally participated in that discussion, but have been dealing with Stephfo on an AfD of one of his creationism-related articles. While his behavior there has been somewhat more civil, there still have been multiple accusations of bad faith as well as Wikilawyering. The most important thing, though, is that it is patently obvious that he does not yet understand what Wikipedia is about, and what the policies mean. Not even the core policies. And I have to conclude that he has absolutely no intention to ever educate himself in this matter.

He has ignored all warnings to cease his disruptive behavior, even those of his mentor. When it seemed that he had calmed down an tacitly agreed to stay away from the Intelligent Design article, he moved on to another highly controversial article on Christian Terrorism, where he is contnuing his POV warring.

I'm sorry, but unlike Amantulic and his mentor, Alpha Quadrant, I see no hope for Stephfo ever being a constructive editor here on WP. He is by nature first and foremost a contentious POV warrior, and he has come to WP in order to pursue his own agenda. Stephfo has amply demonstrated that he is a leopard that will not, and cannot, change his spots.

I believe the reasons he gave in his last block appeal and his month-long period of "good behavior" were not sincere, especially considering that that period of good behavior lasted EXACTLY one month. His behavior indicates that his agenda is fundamentally not comaptible with Wikipedia's mission, and that he has no intention of complying with WP policies. Most of all, there has been no improvement since before his block, and no sign that he intends to improve except for self-serving reasons.

I therefore recommend that he be indefinetely blocked. I would strongly object to only a topic ban, but if one is decided upon, it must include all religion-related topics, including atheism, creationism and all areas of science relating to creationism, including biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed. And it should be indefinite. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You agree that the problem is that he cannot maintain a neutral point of view on this topic. If a topic ban were imposed, would that not solve the problem? As you have said, Stephfo had a productive period of editing while away from this topic. Indefinitely blocking him therefore seems a bit premature. At this point, I believe a temporary topic ban may be imposed, if anything is done about this. I don't believe that we should rule out the possibility that that as he gains experience, he could learn to edit this topic area neutrally. If after the topic ban is lifted, and he goes back to the same behavior, it could always be extended to indefinite. If after the time period he does fine in the area, then we won't need to do anything. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Alpha, but, as I said, I don't believe in the sincerity of Stephfo's one month of good behavior. I believe that during that period, he was just biding his time and itching to get back to POV warring. That is why a temporary topic ban simply will not work. The second the ban expires, Stephfo will undoubtedly resume his bad behavior. Stephfo is here on a mission, and that mission is fundamentally at odds with everything that WP strives to be. There is just no place for Stephfo in a collaborative project like WP in my view. He is far too hot-headed, rash, hasty and hostile to work with others. Even if we topic-ban him, he is eventually going to get into a dispute with other editors on non-controversial topics, and he will behave then as he has had on controversial topics. Frankly, we have spent a lot too much time indulging him and giving him second, third and fourth chances, and now you want to give him a fifth? Even after he has ignored your advice as his mentor? There is no point in chasing good money after bad anymore. Sorry, but I don't see any baby in the bathwater. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have to agree with DV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen editors with far worse behavior, who received much lighter sanctions; WikiManOne/BelloWello comes to mind. Alpha Quandrant, Stephfo's mentor, has been working with him and can best appraise the situation. If Alpha has that much faith in Stephfo--it's good enough for me. It's occasions like these where we need to trust in the mentorship system: it's here for a reason. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring works only with editors that are able to restrain themselves and consult with their mentors before making any rash moves, and then to accept the advice they receive. Stephfo is either incapable, unwilling, or both. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Stephfo is currently ignoring his mentor's advice. I don't know how a mentor is going to help when he's being ignored.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently, he is following my advice. I told him yesterday to stop editing articles until this was resolved. He has heeded my advice, and has not edited since then. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask whether I have right to defend myself and react to accusations presented. Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do. Please post here if you wish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I propose a topic ban on Christian and science related articles, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. During this 6 months Stephfo is expected to work closely with their mentor so that the same behavior does not repeat when the ban is over. If the behavior resumes after a period of six months or if the behavior continues into other topics, then ban extensions and blocks are expected, respectively.

• Support as proposer. I share Dom's characterization above after being involved with the original editing disputes that got Stephfo blocked in the first place. Without a doubt, I have never personally dealt with a more tendentious or disruptive editor. I assume good faith on their part, in that I believe that they believe they are helping the encyclopedia, but results are results and the results are that this editor cannot seem to grasp nuanced WP policy or how editors are expected to interact. However, we have reason to believe that this editor can function in less controversial areas and so I believe that a block is unnecessary until proven otherwise. If s/he begins to act the same elsewhere then we'll know that it isn't limited to these articles, but in the meantime it's worth a shot. N^oformation ^Talk 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as a last chance to avoid being re-blocked. The emotions surrounding these articles make it all the more difficult for a new editor to get to know wikipedia policy. This will also allow the rest of the community to fully ascertain whether or not Stephfo is really interested in productive editing. eldamorie (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support with reservations: Based on what I've written above, it's obviously that I prefer an indefinite block. If a topic ban is decided upon, it must include all religion-related topics, including atheism, creationism and all areas of science relating to creationism, including biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed. And it should be indefinite. I don't think he will ever be able to edit in those areas contructively. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the topic ban as currently proposed, on Christian articles, broadly construed. Stephfo has been a good contributor to Christian articles that are non-controversial, such as Wilhelm Busch (pastor). Such articles don't invite POV-pushing, and Stephfo should be encouraged to continue creating such articles. I would support a ban from any topics that intersect controversially with conservative Christian beliefs, such as evolution, creationism, intelligent design, big bang theory, abiogenesis, molecular biology, terrorism, Islam, Muhammad, Buddhism, atheism, etc. — anywhere it's possible to push a Christian point of view, if such topics can be better defined. But an outright ban on any Christian topic does not seem reasonable for an editor who has demonstrated constructive activity in that area. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably too late to change it now that it has this much input. Should we start a new section and collapse this then? N^oformation ^Talk 22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems the revised proposal below by DV is agreeable to everyone. I still think "indefinite, until a successful appeal" is preferable, but it appears we're all divided on that point.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support: I fully agree with DV. The topic ban would need to be religion, creationism, and related sciences, and it would need to be indefinite. Stephfo would be free to appeal the topic ban after demonstrating his willingness and competence to contribute positively; comments like this indicate Christianity alone will be insufficient, and if the ban is a definite period, Stephfo is likely to just "wait it out" without improving at all. If he's going to come back to these articles, he needs to first demonstrate he can do so without disruption.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I would support a six month topic ban from Creation/Evolution topics and topics critical of Christianity, but encompassing the entire topic of science is way too broad. Under the current wording, he is banned from all types of science (literary, mathematical, social, etc.) I can't think of any articles that don't have something to do with one type of science or another. Even articles on companies fall within a type of science. Albeit, in a minuscule way, but with "broadly constructed", edits in the topic area could be interpreted as a violation. If we are going to make a topic ban, we need to make one that an editor can actually follow. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "all controversial religion-related topics, including atheism and creationism, and all areas of the natural sciences relating to creationism, including pertinent areas of biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed"? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable. It is broad enough to cover the topic area that is a problem, yet not too broad that it covers half the encyclopedia. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to get him to understand that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. If it's good enough for both of us, it should be acceptable to everyone. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose From what I have seen of User:Stephfo's edits, he is attempting to edit some articles in order to make them comply with WP:NPOV. Wikipedia Administrator User:TParis noted that "User:Dominus Vobisdu grosly violated procedure when he gave levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 warnings at the same time in this edit." I do not usually edit articles pertaining to Intelligent Design, etc. However, at one point in time, I saw a content dispute between User:Stephfo and User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:Noformation, et. al. and attempted to make a compromise in accordance with WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, I was strongly opposed by the editors there and left. I saw that User:Stephfo was trying his best to provide references and a version of the article acceptable to others. However, he was taunted by other users and was treated with disrespect. Rather that enforce this unreasonable topic ban, I would request that a Dispute Resolution regarding the matter take place, where a neutral user can mediate between the two parties here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This action is premature in the extreme. Stephfo's behaviour has changed: he has stopped edit warring and is using the talk page. In addition he is creating articles and thereby making positive and constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. As of Nov 24 he is abiding his mentors counsel. Look: I'm not saying he is a model editor. But just because certain editors have grown impatient with his verbosity is no reason for rash action. Considering he is no longer edit warring and is following his mentors advice I see no reason for drastic measures such as a topic ban. I emphatically urge that we give mentoring a chance. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Over the last few days, I have been debating whether or not a brief topic ban is needed yet. On one side, he is having trouble learning policy. Normally this would not be a problem. However, he was editing often contentious topics, where editors are much less forgiving of mistakes. Until Stephfo gains experience, it is likely he will continue to have problems with other editors in this area. With that said, there are not any issues that simply gaining experience editing can't fix. It is very evident that Stephfo is learning. He could continue to learn in this contentious area, but it will likely cause some controversy among editors who edit in the area. At this point, he isn't really doing anything that is blatantly disruptive. He is genuinely trying his best to edit in this topic area. While a topic ban would help him avoid controversy while learning policy, it may not be the best way to remedy this situation at the moment. I said above that yes, in the event a topic ban is needed, I would support. I am not sure a formal topic ban is needed at this point. My only concern is, if a topic ban is not placed, and another user takes this to ANI, how would it be handled? I am strongly opposed against a block. Given time, Stephfo has a potential to become a very good editor. Alpha Quadrant (alt) ^talk 17:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is good last-chance offer for a very disruptive editor. I agree with DV that the next block should be indefinite. Binksternet (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. advise what do you regard for very disruptive edits of mine and, if possible, provide the hyperlinks to the ones identified as such. Thanks a lot in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Add. “can you just back the hell off Stephfo”

As I was allowed to defend myself, I will try to use this opportunity step by step as soon as permission stays in force, even though having very limited possibilities as being on travel. I apologize as accusations are long, naturally my defense will most likely also be long, although I will try to do my best and partition it. First of all I’d like to point out that I see this ANI report in the context of following sentence: “can you just back the hell off Stephfo” [29] and this general trend at WP: [30] . I very much suggest those who accuse me of my bad English to help me with translation interpretation of this phrase, as I only manage to find Spanish explanation (I had only one semester of Spanish) and that mentions something about “a rather rude way of saying” something, possibly insult, what I would not believe my good-faith assuming fellow editor have anything to do with. I would like to say that I was participating on translation project for fund-rising (“ Your translations make the fundraiser great!”; [31]), but in light with these current trends at WP I stopped and currently I’m hesitant whether I should continue. Nevertheless, please free to judge myself independently of this fact and block me if you deem as appropriate. I”ll try to be brief:

• 1. Add. “Recently, he's begun edit warring”  Please note I was not edit warring but following WP:VAND advise: “If you see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove it. … With undetected vandalism, editors may make edits without realizing the vandalism occurred.” If you look at reason for deletion, it states: “this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead.” What is false reason in discrepancy with reality as I explained in my revert summary. Vandalism might seem to be too strong word, but I believe still the fact that user have not provided any other reason than false one fully entitled me to revert back. Imagine what most of the people trying to get me blocked here would do if I start remove their content by reasoning “this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead” even if it clearly would be there. Also Note: “Assess whether the edit was made in good faith or bad faith. If it is in good faith, it is not technically vandalism, ... If it is in bad faith, then it is vandalism and you may take the appropriate steps to remove it.” I evaluated it as bad-faith because in discrepancy with accusations the article body clearly contained this information in section “Christian attitude to terrorism” referred to as missing. Jess continues arguing that I’m allegedly edit warring but escapes discussion at talk page where the argument “I doubt you read edit summaries, if you would, you would find that there is a section named "Christian attitude to terrorism", it cannot be overlooked although I'm admitting it can be misunderstood” is clearly stated.
• 2. Add. “After that, he focused his attention on English WP, especially on the article on Intelligent Design, where his disruptive behavior led to a couple of blocks before he was eventually indefinitely blocked.”  Please note I’m not aware of any my activity on that page allegedly occurring there before my last unblock and this information is taking me by surprise. Anybody interested can verify in history of Intelligent Design edits.
• 3. Add. “Prior to bringing this issue here, I made my intentions clear, and asked him to reconsider, but instead of responding to me, he continued editing and then (presumably) logged off.” -> In reality I just went for business trip with no access to Internet.
• 4. Add.” I, his mentor, and other editors have requested that he stop editing until he can resolve these problems.” – As a matter of fact, I did stop right after reading his message about (although technically there might be one more later-stamped message given the fact I was involved in discussion and read message only afterwards) and Jess broke his word to put ANI report only if I continue editing: “This is one last request to stop… If you can't agree to do that, I plan to take this back to WP:ANI.”

To be continued later.

• 5. Add. “Now, the only correct answer to this post is "Yes, sir. I understand, and will comply". I'm not at all interested in hearing you protest, object or defend yourself anymore, nor is anyone else.” I’d like to ask dear administrators if someone would leave at talk page of theirs message like this, if their response would be “Yes, sir/Mr(s). Dominus Vobidsu, I understand, and will comply” [32]. Personally I would not deny anybody right to defend himself if we would have a dispute over any topic and I regard such denial for rude. I also had an encounter with DV after he was pushing the idea that he found “gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry” in one of my source ("I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC) ") but in fact refused to enlist what the alleged errors should be (“Would it be please possible to enlist the three major fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry you have managed to find in that text? Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)"). My reading of that non-collaborative attitude was (just my interpretation of attitude, not actual statement by VD): “it is not important if there are claimed problems, if I do not like it, I can state whatever I want and you have no choice but to accept it.” I wonder if it is encouraged at WP to remove article content by arguing that it contains errors but not stating a single one. Should I do the same and it will be accepted? I have nothing against VD, but experiences like this really make it hard to keep the rule on good faith and civility in mind when dealing with him. Nevertheless, I’m always able to excuse myself if I do anything wrong and I’m trying to do my best and ask for pardon if I might have harm him/her anyway. - just explanation why our relations and collaborations are so challenging.--Stephfo (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Beatles songs

95.29.146.1 (talk · contribs) and 95.29.146.240 (talk · contribs) and 128.68.192.41 (talk · contribs) and maybe others are starting to post links to a site which has recordings of Beatles songs. That seems to me like a copyright violation. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds very familiar. [33] [34] [35]. Quack quack. bobrayner (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I'm thinking the simplest solution might be to get the URL blacklisted, but I don't know how to request that. Maybe a passing admin could take care of it here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

They're being smarter this time and using archive.org backlinks. Can't blacklist that, we use that for dead sources in many articles. Tarc (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The fallback step, then, would be to semi the articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I highly recommend to revise this topic and block "Corbina" ranges; it's a long-term story in ruwiki and enwiki;it's a very persistent person... OneLittleMouse (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • He did it again: 176.15.148.251. Is there any abuse e-mail etc. on www.archive.org ? It seems to be useful to write a letter about this collection (but for me with {{babel|en-1}} it will be not easy...) OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • From archive.org's FAQ: "To report an item which violates the Internet Archive's Terms of Use, please send an email with the URL (web address) of the item to info -at- archive.org ". Part of the Terms of Use state, "In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law." --NellieBly (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• And again, now with WP:NPA violations... OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There's a obvious language barrier here, as from what I can gather from the past discussions, this person fully believes he has a legal right to stream Beatles songs from his website. No amount of discussion seems to dissuade that notion. Tarc (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Discussions about Beatles, copyright and WP:C also took place in ruwiki (here and other) and, as far as i know, on Creative Commons wiki, but this person seems to be WP:NOTLISTENING. OneLittleMouse (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• If everyone's okay with it, I'll e-mail archive.org with the list of files these IPs have been trying to upload. --NellieBly (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC) ETA: IP 2.93 has attempted to refactor other editors' comments on this noticeboard. --NellieBly (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A kind soul reverted that; I blocked the IP moments before your post here. I wonder, is there any point in blocking the other IPs mentioned above? Either way, that's for someone else: it's late. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and thanks to the kind soul too. I really don't think this is a language problem but a philosophical difference; it appears that the IP editor doesn't understand how copyright works, or as said otherwise doesn't believe that it matters. I'm going to propose semi-protection for the affected articles given the determination of the editor and the number of ranges he's using. I know nothing about rangeblocks (not sure even what they are), so I'll leave it to someone else to determine if a rangeblock would be useful. --NellieBly (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Have you attempted to contact the ISP to tell them that someone is violating copyright? Or perhaps you could contact Apple Records (or Paul, Ringo, Olivia, Dhani, and Yoko) and tell them someone is violating their copyright?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My intent is not to police copyright for Apple Corps but to prevent blatant copyright infringements from being linked to on Wikipedia. As a user of archive.org I'm also personally interested in ensuring that their terms of service are adhered to. I'm sorry if I did something wrong; please let me know if there was a better way to handle this. I'm not sure how to contact the user's ISP. --NellieBly (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you're doing just fine. I wouldn't want to police that kind of thing either. A range block (see WP:RANGE) is an option in such cases, but I'm not smart enough to see from the IPs offered here if that would be helpful in relation to the collateral damage. Semi-protection, in the case of determined serial vandals, is often the last resort, at least until the geeks come by and invent some clever filter--but I don't know if that's feasible here. Until then, we're whacking moles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And thusly, yet another case for Sign In To Edit is made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but that's heresy. Also, I've been dealing with problems caused to one or two (depending on your position) IP editors, who for whatever reason choose to stay anonymous. My Man Darax knows a few as well, and I keep running into a very positive contributor who keeps laughing at my half-assed attempts to get them to sign up. So I am firmly of two minds here. I hate having to semi-protect slews of articles, and no one likes range blocks, I think--but all of this is probably for another forum. Also, "thusly" is so old-fashioned that one wonders if you write your comments in longhand and in duplicate and then have a secretary type it in on a computer. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors who attempted to show the user why they were wrong, why they couldn't remove other people's comments that were not-supportave of their position (WP:TPG), and why their selective parsing of information volunteers have given them was not helping their case. I was threatened with "violations United Nations Civil Rights" multiple times when they tried to buttress their position. Hasteur (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Heh... How do you like this link from this diff? OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just reverted similar changes from 176.15.58.23 (talk · contribs). GoingBatty (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted another attempted addition from 2.92.32.167 (talk · contribs) on Ain't She Sweet. GoingBatty (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New section

Hello. All right and nobody makes illegal actions. I must create the account here? No problem. Simply the range of IPs, which I use, uses big number of people, via remote administration software. I do not want become sockpuppet. Can I be sure, that I am free of possibility to be blocked on such grounds? And else: can I undo last rollbacks, or you can do it self? And this is not violation of copyright, you know this not worse than me. This is: http://www.archive.org/details/opensource_audio . - 176.15.58.23 (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

• Eh, is this about the Beatles? Drmies (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I wondered. If you (176.15.58.23) are talking about "Beatles songs" thread above, I would move your comment there. Kierzek (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It obviously is, and they're still obviously not getting it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The articles are semi'd for a reason. Given that, it would be better that he not create a named account. Meanwhile, it looks like the entire Beatles songbook might need to be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked this IP, but unfortunately Bugs is probably right. I don't know these 'Beatles' that we're speaking of since my god is Kurt Cobain, so I won't be the one doing that. BTW, Bugs, I hate it when you're right. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Luckily for your psychological health, that doesn't happen excessively. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin confirm: how much collateral damage would there be if this guy were rangeblocked? --NellieBly (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC) ETA I've asked for page protection for the articles edited today (that I know of). If other editors are in agreement that semi-protection of the entire songbook is warranted, I'll ask for that. --NellieBly (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So far he's gone after just a few selections from each of the first two British editions of their albums. I think 6 or 7 songs overall. Maybe wait and see? (It's up to you.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I didn't notice that. Maybe I'll just watchlist a few random songs from each album and wait and see. After all, tomorrow never knows. --NellieBly (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought. On a hunch, I checked My Bonnie, and there's another IP sock that I had to revert. It seems like he does a handful and then switches to another IP. You might have to walk through the entire List of The Beatles songs to semi all of them. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

<--I blocked the socks and semi-protected a handful of articles (Ged did a bunch of them already). Next time you're right, Bugs, report on it after I went to bed please. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

How about I just call you at home and find out if you're still awake? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I just found more: Anna (Go to Him), Baby It's You, Please Please Me (song), and Boys (The Shirelles song) - that makes all the songs on the Please Please Me album. I'll request semi for these, then time for bed for me. --NellieBly (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• It seems part of this list already blocked on Archive (thanks), but not all. OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Excellent. That list covers a bunch of songs from, and prior to, their first 3 or 4 UK albums. It's worth pointing out that their recordings can be found on youtube also. And likewise probably copyright violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this list. I'm off to bed but will tackle it from both sides tomorrow. Thanks again. --NellieBly (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• What a freakin' nuisance. Thank you all for your efforts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Have we tried telling him in Russian that he is not allowed to post these? Because we cannot adequately blacklist archive.org because it has actual utility on the project.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He's at it again, this time as 95.29.151.123 (talk · contribs). More song-article semi-protections are needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've posted an English and (Google) Russian message to him that he is breaking our rules, just to assume good faith in that he has no idea what the hell he is doing wrong.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, it may be useful to set up an edit filter that prevents him from making his particular edit rather than blacklisting anything else.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He's an IP-hopper, so he probably won't see your good message. Meanwhile, the edit filter might work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't been blocked on this one yet.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Using yet another IP, he posted some gibberish on my talk page and another editor's. I would semi-protect those Beatles song pages myself, but I lack the authority to do so. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly related but I could be wrong

• 93.81.10.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Note for patrolling Admin, the above-mentioned IP has been quacking very loudly on both User talk:Baseball Bugs and User talk:Doc9871, can someone please put an end to his short miserable stint here... or better yet, CU to determine who the determined one actually is? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Most likely the Beatles guy discussed a few sections above. He's either incredibly dense or a total troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Smells like it. 93 has been "effectively indef'd" (1 year) per the NLT policy (and the please-don't-indef-IPs thingy): his English is atrocious (maybe he's running it through Google Translate) but the meaning of this is pretty clear. (And, to be honest, I'm leaning more and more torwards "total troll".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, he's pretty good with the gibberish: "Why do you fight with the celebration of the highest art in this sad world?" Somewhere in there, there's an English sentence trying to find its way out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Experience indicates that blocking him won't work, as he's a constant IP-hopper... from Russia, yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Bugs, you forgot to add... "with Love". --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• That reference occurred to me, but it's late at night and I couldn't come up with a snappy parody. How about, "All you need is from Russia with love"? (nyet) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)True, but the best we can do is Whack-A-Mole...bring your mallets! I'm surprised there's no "Wikipe-tan with mallet" image. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that should be silver hammers... umrguy42 15:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm ...Effectively and per NLT policy, 93 just screwed himself inside out... poor attorneys, they'd be out of job pretty soon if this carries on. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

His best line has to be the Yoda-style "Play in war of edits nobody will". --Blackmane (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, IP blocks you! Unfortunately the tool for examining contributions for a range of IPS located at http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/ is down, and has been for a while. I have contacted User:X! but so far no joy. Are there any other similar tools? --Dianna (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep - CheckUser. I've blocked 95.29.0.0/16 for a week and 2.93.89.0/24 for a fortnight. It's a spanner in the works but given the other IPs used it won't stop him completely. An edit filter is by far the best option. Patrolling admins - drop me a note on my talk page to investigate any further proposed range blocks, or to simply let me know of another IP. WilliamH (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

An edit filter is now in effect. The rangeblocks can still be left in place though. WilliamH (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Another variation?

Could someone please look at the contributions of Crazy1980 (talk · contribs) to see if this is another variation of the same issue? I don't have the appropriate software to play the .ogg files. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For sure it's the same guy, and he needs to be blocked and his junk removed. Minor correction to your link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. WilliamH (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Daicaregos & GoodDay

• Daicaregos (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• GoodDay (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

On the 19th Daicaregos left a message for me asking whether I saw user:GoodDay's editing on biographies as waranting a block[36]. I don't see it that way and recomended dispute resolution or here or ArbCom. Now while I agree that GD has (and I've crticized GD for having) a less than perfect atitude to others and a sometimes counterproductive last wordiness I don't see him acting in bad faith (and neither of these matters are blockable anyway). Let me underline here that I'm not defending or condemning GD's actions - I see this as a content dispute & using the block button would be inappropiate (see full discussion here[37].
A day after I refused to block GD, Daicaregos made this post[38] to WP:WikiProject Ireland which is a gross misinterpretation of my post here[39] and of the situation itself where GD only went over the 1rr limit (he did not make "a second (or a third, fourth etc.) revert within 24 hours" as Dai is suggesting I said see these diffs revert breach self-revert). This an attempt to attack me and is beng undertaken because I didn't block on demand.
There is a long running and obviously personally issue btwn Dai and GD but Dai's last post is unacceptable and demonstrates a serious battle ground mindset. I'd be happy with the post simply being striken but this wider issue (the interaction btwn GD & Daicaregos) needs eyes on it & needs de-escalation--Cailil ^talk 02:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One could argue that Daicaregos' post calls for a warning that WP:Discretionary sanctions will be imposed next time Dai makes a disruptive post like that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake, and he should be given a chance to withdraw it. He is a very good record on content and article creation compared with GoodDay who would try the patience of a saint. He went OTT in his response and frustration but I think Cailil is right, that conflict needs more eyes on it. When good editors get into that mindset the community needs to work with them if possible. --Snowded ^TALK 10:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree Snowded hence I'd be happy if it were striken, but Sarek is also right - Dai needs to realize that continuing in this vein is a cul de sac--Cailil ^talk 13:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

He is taking a wikibreak Cailil, I talked with him off line. He has had enough of the drama and he won't be the first good content editor to do that. --Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In fairness Snowded (and I relaize that Dai might have fallen prey to the red mist) that aint good enough. He can't use WP to vent and he can't go around misrepresenting the situation WRT ArbCom resolutions, their interpretation, and how sysops enforce them. Either Dai redacts his comments and we leave it at that or we will be forced to get formal regarding his violation of WP:POINT--Cailil ^talk 22:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he plans logging on in the immediate future. I'd suggest just deleting the comment but its obviously your call. You're one of the few admins who understands the wider context here and has taken action in the past when it was needed so I will trust to your judgement. --Snowded ^TALK 07:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments about GD

I've popped out of retirement for a short while to enable me to come here and make a point. Cailil, do you remember this conversation on your talk page.

:"Also, upon reflection, I wish to point out that Carson's assumptions about why I made the edits I did at the British boxing articles, are accurate. I was infuriated by the current results of discussion about the UK intro & second paragraphs & thus 'in a fit of anger', moved onto the British boxing articles - looking for a fight. Therefore, due to my inability to control my temper around these topics, I request that I be restricted from such articles - except for on my own talkpage". GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

::"Ok GD well if you feel you can't control yourself in this area stay away from it. I wont be placing a restriction (topic ban) on you by request, as that would be as inappropriate as blocking on request (see WP:BLOCK). Also if you see that your edits in an area are problematic and are willing to stay away such a sanction is rendered moot. Therefore I will ask you to agree to stay away from this area ("disengage") for as long as you feel necessary until you can control yourself. I would suggest 3 months of a holiday from the area. However, if you make another series of edits "looking for a fight" anywhere I or an another sysop will be forced to take action to prevent disruption to the project"--Cailil ^talk 19:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You see there that you have warned GoodDay that if he ever again looks for a fight you or another sysop will take action to prevent his disruption. Over the last few days you were shown GoodDay doing just that. Apart from the diffs that Dai showed you of his disruptive actions I should you this diff were I quote a line from the Scottish poet Robert Burns to GoodDay. Myself and GoodDay are certainly not on the best of terms but even then, I was a little surprised that he would go straight to the Robert Burns article and make his pov change to it. That was definately a dig at me and not something he would have thought of if I hadn't mentioned Burns poem. He was for sure trying to wind me up and perhaps start a "fight" as he would put it. What most surprises me is that after issuing him a warning for picking fights you could not see the same thing happening again. Remember, for a good while he denied picking a fight with Dai until his eventual confession you see above. Carson101 (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an OTT breach of AGF on your part, Carson. Do you have proof, that I was "looking for a fight" with you, making a "dig" at you & trying to "wind" you up? Also, what's with the cloak & dagger method? You come out of retirement to attack me & then retire again. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK does come into play eventually GoodDay. As per AGF you only need to assume good faith until you have been shown otherwise, and I think everyone has been shown time and again that you go around just to start trouble. You have quite the reputation of doing it so I think AGF has pretty much flown out the window at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're biased in these discussons, per our disagreements on usage of diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't mean I am not right. It those sorts issues that actually prove my point. -DJSasso (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't prooved Carson's charge, yet. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay is always quick with the AGF call maybe it is time he demonstrated good faith with his actions. Mo ainm~Talk 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Carson & Mo, let me remind you this thread is not defending or condemning GD it states that the interaction between he and Dai needs eyes on it. It is also about how Dai behaved with his last few edits - nobody has the right to do what Dai has done regardless of how angry they feel. Furthermore Carson it is stretching it to say GD was targeting you personally with the Burns edit (which by the way is beyond the remit of the RFAR on Ireland article names etc). Please take a step back and as has been suggested multiple times if you have an issue with how GD is acting open an RFC--Cailil ^talk 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And what about an eye on GoodDay and numerous other editors maybe an eye is need there also. Mo ainm~Talk 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a RFC/U on me, so please stop treating it as such. In truth, both Daicaregos & I shouldn't be posting here. He's on wiki-break, but I had to show up here - due to the 'pile on'. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mo tone it down. GD stop taking the bait. This is not a cage fight. Mo, Dai has been offered a very reasonable way to resolve the situation he created (simply redact/strike it) - if you want to help encourage him to take it--Cailil ^talk 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Dai was venting inappropriately - I don't see anybody disagreeing with that. But I also see and understand and have some sympathy for the underlying reasons that brought this about. It stems from "the problem with GoodDay". Sure, he's not a 10 on the Richter scale, but it's at least a steady 5 of constant opinions and commentary, not based on references to guidelines or policy, but based solely on GoodDay's world view and opinion. I have some sympathy for GoodDay - but he can't seem to help himself. I doubt if he fully understands the problem. I suggest GoodDay (and the project) would benefit enormously from being banned from making comments on any talk pages unless he refers to policy or guidelines, and the ban will expire when he has made an arbitrary number (20, 30, whatever) of such comments. The reasons is to help GoodDay and others understand that placing provocative one-liner comments on Talk pages, based solely on personal opinion, is easily misinterpreted. --HighKing (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good approach if it can be made to work. The frustration that many editors have with GoodDay is nothing to do with the content of his comments - it's to do with the fact that they are inevitably based on solely his own opinions, rather than on factual evidence; that he repeats the same opinions time after time after time; and (almost incidentally) that he frequently flips from one position to another. His individual comments are not necessarily unduly disruptive in themselves - it's the sheer weight of them and their repetitiveness, coupled with a patent inability to listen and learn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's provocation or not depends solely upon the reader and it is not always as provocative as made out by the same group of editors. A simple solution is to simply ignore GoodDay if you think it's provocation - no-one is forcing anyone to reply to him. If GoodDay is guilty of trolling with some of his proposals and comments, then surely his objectors are just as guilty or trolling with their continued jumping on the bandwagon to castigate GoodDay and campaigns for him to be topic-banned or worse. The continued lack of AGF and civility towards GoodDay warrant action never mind action on GoodDay.

However Daiceragos is guilty of uncalled for outbursts before that breach civility and AGF for example: this. I suggested he strike the uncalled abuse however he never did. - i think this is possibly irrelevant to this exact discussion so i'm making it small and striking it.

A simple solution is for Daiceragos (and the rest of the group) and GoodDay to ignore each other and not respond to each other unless it is purely civil and AGF and to the point on something to do with an article. If they fail then give them a block or topic-ban or something as a punishment. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Need assistance regarding a user who continues to troll Cung Le articles

Hi, I just wanted to know if you can help edit or help me contact someone regarding a specific user who refuses to acknowledge any proof that I have provided regarding a recent error by the UFC.

The specific user in question is Glock17gen4. His only evidence is a picture based on a mistake by UFC production, where MMA fighter Cung Le has already responded that he did not know about, yet Glock17gen4 refuses to accept that and continues to revert Cung Le's Nationality as a current Vietnamese national.

I have provided significant proof in both discussions at the UFC 139 and Cung Le's articles. Please take a look. Cung Le has acknowledged both his American nationality and his Vietnamese heritage (especially with the 3 striples flag which represents the fallen Saigon). I hope you can help. Both his website at CungLe.com and UFC.com profile describe him as a Vietnamese-American and he quoted as calling himself an American Wushu champion. Glock17gen4 seems to not understand the differences between Nationality and Ethnicity. He continues to only use that one picture as his proof. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am looking into this and hope to resolve this issue. Feel free to step in if necessary.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat

After being blocked for WP:3RR on a WP:BLP issue, User:Glock17gen4 posted this [40] on his talk page - followed by this [41]. I have indef'd per WP:NLT, but would appreciate review here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And following this gem, talk page access revoked... - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

Good block, let's move on. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. A user naming himself after a handgun[42] is to be watched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we have a winner. "U mad broe" <== Love the grammar. Ah, well, we be editing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Since when is "bro" spelled with an "e", like if Dan Quayle were texting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Footnote: he sent me an email complaining about unfair blocking, saying the legal threats were a joke, and wanting to "continue" quality contributions. I pointed him on his talk page to the unblocking email address. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hate Filled Personal Attacks by Anon IP

190.45.54.212 (talk · contribs)190.46.95.25 (talk · contribs)
Pretty obvious hate filled personal attacks coming from the above ips. Appears to have an interest in World War II articles among others. Recommend immediate blocks and monitoring. Obvious troll, cursing and swearing at other users [43]. -OberRanks (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked him for 31 hours. If this continues at other IP addresses, report those as well. --Jayron32 04:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

95.25 does not appear to be blocked yet. -OberRanks (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I only blocked the active IP. There's no need to block an IP which isn't editing anymore. --Jayron32 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, there is a problem here. One can say that the IP has been edit-warring, but it takes two to edit-war--or more, if there's tag-teaming. Kierzek's edit summary here, which I reckon is the first revert, accuses the IP of vandalism, and there is no justification for that: the IP made three edits, all explained in a summary, and all of them (in my opinion) improved the article. So they get reverted again and again, without explanation, and then break out the FUs. Well, they shouldn't, but neither should they have been treated like shit.

  [Edit conflict post-block:] Jayron, is the IP blocked for vandalism, for edit-warring, or for incivility? Do you think their actual edit was vandalism? And if not, is Kierzek reprimanded for a phony accusation of vandalism, which arguably led to this? Drmies (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The block was for personal attacks and gross incivility over a period of time. You could check the talk page of the most recent account, and the contribs of both, it is obvious this is not a noob, but someone with an intimate knowledge of Wikipedia's culture, policies, and behavioral guidelines. If you can make a case that you think this person is going to stop personally attacking other editors, feel free to make that case here, and then go ahead and unblock. If you have no reason to suspect his behavior will change if you unblock him right now, I would oppose undoing my block without consensus from other editors that it was incorrect. --Jayron32 04:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to go against you--the rant was unacceptable, yet understandable. I don't know this person and I'm not going to make a case that they won't do it again. I wanted to know what the precise reason for the block was, since OberRanks and Kierzek have not acted appropriately here, in my opinion. All the cussing (at least in relation to this article) came after unexplained reverts that claimed vandalism. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The behavior of OberRanks and Kierzek is yet to be assessed by me, I have no opinion thereof. Saying This to another user is never understandable. Being frustrated is understandable. Saying "fuck you, you cunt" to another user is not. Ever. One can be frustrated without doing that. --Jayron32 04:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the extent of the message I left on the blocked IP's talk page. Thanks for clearing it up: good-faith edits followed by unjustified revert followed by some edit-warring leading to inexcusable cussing makes for a convoluted mess, and I just wanted to know what made you press the button. Thanks Jayron, Drmies (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• OberRanks, please look at this in context. This was the first edit: there is nothing trollish about it, unless by 'trolling' you mean 'attempting and probably succeeding in good faith to improve an article while explaining the edit in summary'. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Reprimanding for a personal attack accusing someone of "trolling". Who's going to do it? Doc talk 04:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • (Signing off for the night after this) Any attempt at analyzing edits or reasoning with the ip address went out the window with this edit [44]. I think a "revert on sight" is clearly warranted after that kind of a deep vicious personal attack against another user. It should also be noted that KZ approached the user I think at least twice with warnings about behavior, trying to reason. The purpose of those ips is clear - to cause trouble. Let's not feed the trolls any further. -OberRanks (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
      • This IP's rant is really quite understandable. And if you don't see the contradiction inherent in "approached the user with warnings"--well, then I have nothing more to say to you. As for this accusation of trolling, that's total bullshit: the diff I gave above is productive, and none of you even tried to talk to the IP or gave them the courtesy of even explaining what was wrong with the edit--well, I can understand that last part, since there was nothing wrong with their edit. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Throwing around unfounded accusations of trolling is unfortunate indeed and should be discouraged. Doc talk 04:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I couldn't agree more; it's almost as bad as trolling. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, actual trolls... troll. They can't be stopped if that's all they want to do. But labeling someone a troll when they're really not one: I can see why you'd object to Ober's characterization. It all makes sense now... Doc talk 06:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple IP Addresses

There is a very long history of this particular editor getting into this same sort of conflict in different places. See the history of Ian Gow and Falklands War, for example. I've tried to help this editor -- see 200.104.120.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 190.163.3.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for some examples -- in particular User talk:190.163.3.204, and these two threads on my talk page: User_talk:Antandrus#Falklands_War, User_talk:Antandrus#Aggressive IP Editor. The pattern that happens again and again is this editor makes good edits, is reverted, often for no good reason, and explodes. Sometimes the reverts are reasonable; but not always. I'm quite certain this is the same person -- IP from Santiago, Chile, which changes every day or two. His comments are clearly abusive, but he's often treated badly; it's not entirely his fault. I would plead with people to make sure you give a reason for reverts -- particularly when the edits are clearly made in good faith. Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I counted a total of at least five ip addresses which can be attributed as coming from the same operator. It appears that nearly all of addresses, if not all of them entirely, have at one point been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. I think the first step this user should take in working well with others is to establish a permanent account. Rotating between ips and editing while blocked (see below) creates the impression of sock puppetry. -OberRanks (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Being treated badly by others is not entirely his fault. His reactions to it are, and calling people "cunt" is 100% his fault; no other person pressed the "c", "u", "n", and "t" keys for him, and no one else pressed the "save page" button when his personal attack was in the edit window. As I stated above, I can understand frustration. I will not condone his behavior in the place of frustration. We cannot remove his agency from his own actions, regardless of the antecedents to those actions. He freely chose to respond to that frustration as he did. Also as I said above, I have not reviewed the actions of any other editors here; if our IP friend was baited that may need to be dealt with seperately, but he will not be excused by me for his behavior regardless of what other misbehavior may (or may not) have been going on around him. --Jayron32 05:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guys I was on my way out and checked the thread once more - I can see why perhaps KZ and I appear to have acted a bit too quickly reverting without discussing first; my apologies for that. After reviewing the threads of the two other ips, though, seemingly run by the same person, this is indicative of a much more serious problem. Whoever is running these ips has committed numerous personal attacks and incivility against several users across a wide variety of articles over an extended period of time after numerous warnings and blocks. In addition, as the person is not establishing a registered account, we have multiple edits from multiple accounts, leading into a possible WP:SOCK situation. To avoid getting into a WP:INVOLVED situation (even though I'm not an admin), I wont file any more complaints or charges since it might look like a vendetta. I will leave this in the hands of others, but this does appear to be a problem which needs to be dealt with. Good night. -OberRanks (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As you noted, WP:INVOLVED is hardly an issue with non-admins. There's no vendetta either, for if they are disruptive then the disruption needs to stop. The IPs are all from Chile: that's something to go on. Keep digging... Doc talk 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hate-filled; yes. I fucking hate it when people falsely accuse me of vandalism, and of trolling. It is actually rather easy to distinguish what I do from those things. But people are too lazy, and too prejudiced. There is, it seems, no way of avoiding being accused of vandalism if you edit anonymously; the mere fact of being anonymous guarantees that someone will mindlessly and pointlessly revert your work, with an accusation of vandalism. At that point, in my now extensive experience, it makes no difference what your attitude is. This makes me very angry. Doesn't it make you very angry? Don't you think that's a problem that needs to be dealt with? If not, why not? 190.44.140.37 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how angry you are, WP:CIVIL is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Falsely accusing someone of vandalism - is that WP:CIVIL? 190.44.140.37 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, Assume good faith. Pundit|utter 01:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Who, me? I get falsely accused of vandalism and trolling, simply for trying to improve articles, and I'm supposed to assume good faith? I'll ask the question again: falsely accusing someone of vandalism - is that WP:CIVIL? 190.44.140.37 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not they have accused you falsely or not - somebody else's incivility does not excuse someone violating WP:CIVIL in return. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right that it doesn't, but (is this incivil?) one would have to be stupid not to think that there's a problem when incivility by registered and known users is ignored as long as it is directed toward IPs, who are pretty much treated as unpersons. It's as if incivility toward IPs is invisible even when its directly before our eyes. causa sui (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Right--well put. Templating with vandalism warnings is almost too easy, I think, and perhaps Twinkle should come with a mandatory class in WP:VANDALISM and other relevant pages. Funny--"don't template the regulars," and there's a couple of IPs that are more regular than some of the "vandalism fighters".Drmies (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing while blocked under another IP address

After being blocked under User:190.45.54.212 for a period of 31 hours, the same user has returned less than 24 hours later and is actively editing under User:190.44.140.37. This is now a serious violation of Wikipedia policy, editing while blocked and using a different ip address to circumvent said block. -OberRanks (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, if you have an opportunity to address the underlying issue, I think it fully appropriate to disregard bureaucratic procedure here. Do we really need to wait seven hours, or whatever it is, to get to the point? Blocking the IP now might conform to the "rules" but would be, in my opinion, idiotic.

Chilean anon has a point that needs to be addressed -- casual reversion of IP edits as "vandalism" when they are, in fact, good faith edits, is very harmful to the project -- particularly during a time when we are having a wicked hard time attracting new editors. Don't other people wonder why we are hemorrhaging editors, and new people aren't joining? Is it not possible that this is a key issue? Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned earlier how the reverts of the legit edits could have caused this user anger (indeed I self reverted the two main reverts I was responsible for)[45] [46], but the user is now using a second ip address to circumvent a block imposed for personal attacks, mainly calling another user a "fucking cunt". There is absolutely no excuse or justification for this type of behavior. -OberRanks (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK ... I think it’s important to get to the underlying issue here. Yes, the Chilean anon is abusive and incivil. It's obvious. Leaving that aside for the moment – consider why he behaves that way. Many times, in at least the past month that I've been watching, his edits have been casually reverted with either no explanation, or worse, with a "reverting vandalism" summary. Some of these cases have been bad indeed, including multiple warnings for the same obvious good-faith edit. Yet there is a call for him to sit out his block, apologize for his incivility, promise not to do it again, -- but no promise on our part to investigate the problem that made him angry in the first place.

Imagine this situation. A cop makes this mistake: he thinks he saw a guy committing a crime, grabs him, shouts "stop resisting! let me handcuff you!" and the guy, who has done nothing wrong (but maybe seemed to be doing something wrong, due to misunderstanding, poor visibility, -- or whatever), confused, surprised, shouts "WHAT?? what are you doing? who are you? what the hell? get the fuck off me, asshole!" It's a mistake to try to extort an apology from the non-criminal until the cop backs off and says -- "Oh. I'm really sorry. My mistake. Please, let me help you up." Then and only then, a well-adjusted adult takes a deep breath, and says to the cop -- "Thank you. I'm sorry I yelled at you." Falls into place; everyone goes away satisfied. I bring this up because I think the anon has identified a serious problem in the culture here, and we need to address it.

Once again, I'm not condoning his incivility in any way, I want to point out that he may have a legitimate reason to be angry, and that reason is something we need to address -- with more care on the vandal-patrolling for a start. Antandrus (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. I think the user should establish a registered account and begin the path towards working well with others and we should leave him be after that. That's not what this section of the thread is about. The ip from yesterday deliberately used a second ip address to circumvent a block. The blocking admin has been notified, this is a straight up enforcement issue of a standing block. I'll step back from it, then, since I don't want there to be an appearance that I am "out to get" this person. -OberRanks (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to say "amen" to Antandrus's comment, and add that the editor does not have to register for an account. While I think it is generally a good idea, making it a requirement has been rejected time and time again by the community. Implying that if only the editor were registered, we wouldn't have bullied him into anger is not helpful. LadyofShalott 03:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Antandrus, why don't you offer to mentor the guy? As for his circumventing the block, I leave that in the admins hands, but certainly something should be done. That and mentoring would be a start. Kierzek (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I also think we should return to the main issue that this is a block evading ip address actively editing while blocked. Another edit was just made [47]. By this point, whoever is operating that account is fully aware that they are blocked and is continuing to edit anyway. -OberRanks (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, some of us disagree with you that it's the main issue. Please, drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. LadyofShalott 04:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What the Lady says. What do you want, a range block so we can block every first productive edit that comes from it? Drmies (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OberRanks, this is an edit that makes the article worse, not better. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, you yourself wrote on the ip talk page..."When this is over, or you skip on to the next IP (but wait til the block is over or you'll be in more trouble)..." So, the fact he didn't, are you now saying it doesn't matter? Kierzek (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did--but I didn't say that I was going to make trouble for them. It's clear that there is more trouble now; they're not helping themselves, no, that's obvious. What I find funny (well, either comic or tragic) is that you revert a good edit, they revert you, OberRanks reverts them with an irrelevant edit summary, you modify again, and finally the IP again edits and produces a cleaner version. Now, we wasted four edits and countless electrons in the process, and why? Also sad: I think I was the first one to leave a humanoid message for them--I wish y'all had done that before. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No you weren't the first to leave him a humanoid message at all, several of us have tried and the response was to call us all a bunch of "cunts". You won't see messages on his talk page, as he'll usually remove them with an abusive edit summary. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of blocks and bans is not to punish people but to protect Wikipedia. The Chilean editor has arrived in this thread and seems prepared to discuss things. What is the best outcome for Wikipedia will be if we manage to retain all parties as editors with the IP understanding that swearing at other editors gets them blocked and that "he started it" is not an excuse and with the initial reverters understanding that accusing good faith editors of vandalism is counterproductive, gets them annoyed and increases the risk of their doing something which annoys you. Working out the exact expiry of the block is less important to the project than finding ways to try to prevent a recurrence of the initial situation and to do that it is better not to assiduously punish just one party while doing nothing against the other.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought mentoring was a good idea in the end, but I will not write further on this matter and will leave it to you guys. Kierzek (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, right now there is little we can do, only two things: block block block, or wait for the IP to communicate more productively. There is one more thing: urge editors to treat IP editors properly and judge their edits on their own merits. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion his edit made the article better. I disagree, but will not waste time over such edits. I am glad you spoke to him on his talk page as to the matter. Maybe you would like to mentor him? Anyway, I need to sign off. The real world calls (bed, actually). Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If they'll listen. I don't know about mentoring; I'm kind of a jerk myself. Oh, last week I was dreaming that I pressed "my contributions" in the middle of some adventure. Sweet dreams! Drmies (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm being inattentive: belately responding to Kierzek. I'm willing to help if there's some way I can. People who have long edit histories with dynamic IPs, never making accounts, are Wikipedia’s nomads – they’ve clearly made a choice not to have an account, and I respect that. I have a hunch he's too independent to want a "mentor", but I'd be happy to give advice any time he wants. My first piece of advice would be: design a polite "first response" to a faulty revert which you can copy and paste to that person’s talk page: that removes the risk of letting your anger get the better of you, and greatly reduces the risk of ending up on a noticeboard for the wrong reason. Antandrus (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Antandrus as we have discussed this guy's editing behaviour at length and I'm not surprised it has ended up here; I think you're missing a point. Whilst most of his edits improve articles, not all do. When his edits don't or for a good reason another editor disagrees with him, the response is always the same; he is rude, aggressive and abusive. He will not listen to other editors views or discuss things in an appropriate manner using the talk page. There is a fundamental problem with his behaviour and he has latched onto the concept of being reverting because he is an IP editor as an excuse for his behaviour. Fundamentally he seems incapable of working collaboratively, having been blocked several times for incivility I think the time has come to consider a range block here.

As regards the second concern raised by Antandrus that of the loss of editors, he may have a general point but in this case I feel this is not the fundamental problem here. I have earnestly tried to talk with this guy on numerous occasions and he reacts in the same way no matter how he is approached. You only have to look at history on Talk:Ian Gow to see that [48]. He would still be angrily railing at editors there if it wasn't for the fact Ian Gow is semi-protected. And I'm sorry but you're excusing his behaviour here, when it is blatantly unacceptable by community standards and by doing so you're effectively encouraging it.

But I will add my own 2c here, so many times you'll bend over backwards to assume good faith with a disruptive editor that it takes a long time before they're eventually blocked for exhausting the communities patience. I see a number of people doing that here, when he has already been given the benefit of the doubt several times - he just pops up again with a different IP sock. In the mean time you're losing experienced editors who end up fed up and frustrated when they're polite and patient with new editors, who respond with abuse, and then someone pops along with their favourite lecture about not biting newbies as wikipedia is not attracting new editors; you forget you're also losing experienced editors fed up with taking crap. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, "wee curry monster", you have not once tried to discuss anything. You started off with a false accusation of vandalism, and you did not waver from a position which assumed bad faith. You lied about my edits to try to justify your behaviour in reverting them. You never once made any serious attempt to discuss the article content, and instead you went stalking my edits, reverting them with such comments as "rv IP edits". You then have the gall to claim that you've tried to talk? Sick. 190.44.140.37 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure that User:Antandrus will corroborate the fact that I have tried to discuss your edits. On Ian Gow for example I pointed out you'd removed relevant and cited material, [49], you continued to revert on the basis we're all "dopey cunts" and were reverting you because of a "grudge". Nobody lied about any of your edits and there was ample justification for reverting your edits. Furthermore by your own admission you're deliberately uncivil [50] and I quote "I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely". You would appear to enjoy hiding behind an anonymous IP being gratuitously offensive and you're not an asset to the project but a liability. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The initial concern about how some of this ips legitimate edits were reverted out of hand was well warranted. I think both KZ and myself did our best to reverse those changes. But that isolated incident doesn't excuse the length of policy violations this user has committed. I was particular disturbed by the quote "I have no respect for the blocks that result from me being accused of vandalism, so I ignore them." I've said enough here, since I don't want to appear as going after this person, but something absolutely needs to be done about this. I believe the outpouring of support in this thread will only encourage this ip user to continue to commit personal attacks, circumvent blocks with multiple ips, and violate Wikipedia policy. -OberRanks (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, "wee curry monster", you never made any serious attempt to justify your stalking and reverting of my edits. Your best effort was "rv IP edits".

OberRanks, the second time you say "I've said enough here, since I don't want to appear as going after this person", it makes it obvious that you were not sincere when you first said it. Why, incidentally, did you refuse to answer a very simple question I posted to your talk page, with the edit summary "register, then we'll talk"?

Such wildly, absurdly false accusations of vandalism as I've received should result in a reprimand to the user making them, or better, a block. As it is, nothing happens, and people like "wee curry monster" get the idea that such behaviour is fine. A situation in which saying "fuck" is seen as so much worse than deliberately reducing the quality of the encyclopaedia begins to convince me that many editors have become divorced from the whole point of Wikipedia. 200.104.123.205 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You were not blocked for "false claims of vandalism", you were blocked for gross incivility towards another user by calling them several inappropriate names in at least two different edit summaries - a block you promptly circumvented by logging on with a different ip address. As for the original issue of reverting your legitimate edits, that's been explained and examined in detail above, and that matter is not worth repeating. What people are telling you now is to move on and work better with others. I think that's a very good idea. -OberRanks (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"I've said enough here, since I don't want to appear as going after this person"

Besides failing to go away when you said you would at least twice, you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. False accusations of vandalism and trolling (such as you made) are a very big problem. Attitudes of disdain towards IP editors (such as yours) are a very big problem. I think both of them are a much bigger problem and more damaging to a project whose aim is to create an encyclopaedia than a bit of bad language. I think people making such egregiously false accusation of vandalism as you did should be blocked. People who say things like "register, then we'll talk" should be blocked for a gross misunderstanding of one of the fundamental philosophies of wikipedia. You didn't get so much as a warning. So how about you move on and work better with others, regardless of whether they have a username or not? I think that's a very good idea. 200.104.123.205 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

IP, I'll grant you that IPs here are sometimes handled in a too harsh a way. That is bad, that should not happen. Some IPs indeed are long-term wikipedia editors moving around, and those should be cherished etc. However, everybody does sometimes make edits which are a net negative to a page, and such edits are sometimes reverted (sometimes with unclear revert reasons or not properly discussed), and editors who make them are sometimes wrongly accused of vandalism (and if that was too harsh, then I agree, that is a bad thing). You are, of course, completely free to point those editors to that, to initiate discussions of why something needs the change you propose (WP:BRD does suggest the reverter should start it, but it does not mean that you are not allowed to do it as alternative if a reverter does not do it ..), to warn such editors if it repeats, and/or bring such editors to an appropriate noticeboard.

There is however, no excuse for using bad language, no excuse to issue personal attacks, and there is no excuse to go into edit wars - let alone combine the two: history. Initiate discussion on talkpages (I see you participate in it!), ask others to come into the discussion, but do not keep reverting and calling names, because you do not agree with a revert, or with the way you are treated. Thát is also not productive. Let it at 'the wrong version' for some time and find consensus. And as I see that you are there the reverting editor over and over (I'm afraid even passing the bright line), ánd are calling names. I do think that a block on your IP is appropriate, and I do not think that it is then appropriate to keep editing using another IP - even if you turn out to be completely right that your edit is not vandalism, and that it actually improves the page.

I agree that the underlying issue is unnecessary biting of 'new' editors, and there is no excuse for that, but that does not excuse your behaviour either, IP. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, with which I agree almost entirely. But I don't think any of the reverts that were made were actually about article quality. They were simply an expression of unthinking prejudice. You say of false accusations of vandalism: "...if that was too harsh..." I find that "if" very offensive. It's not about "harsh", anyway, it's about simple honesty and the simple courtesy of not reverting without understanding the edit. If you get reverted by someone saying, for example "rv deletions" when you didn't delete anything, "rv vandalism" when anyone who actually read the edit could see it was not, or the classic "rv IP edits", you know you're not dealing with someone who has this basic courtesy.

Destroying a good edit with a false accusation of vandalism simply because you couldn't be bothered to read it properly is in itself vandalism. It is a deliberate attempt to compromise the quality of Wikipedia. As such, the 3RR doesn't apply if I revert such destructive edits. And yet, I have in the past been blocked without even reverting three times while a vandal who reverted four times received not even so much as a warning.

This casually inconsiderate and destructive attitude is a problem. What is going to be done about it?

A further problem is the editors who exhibit wanton disdain towards IP editors. Edit summaries such as "rv IP edits", or "register, then we'll talk" betray an appalling sense of superiority, derived apparently from the mere virtue of having filled in a form. This offensive attitude is a problem. What is going to be done about it?

I have asked many editors on many occasions exactly what led them to conclude so incorrectly that a particular edit was vandalism. I have never received a sensible answer; not even once. See OberRanks and his "register, then we'll talk" for a particularly risible refusal to discuss. So, some inconsiderate and unthinking editor is inevitably going to accuse me of vandalism, no matter how blatantly obviously my edits are not vandalism. Whether I'm polite or not, it will make no difference. And in fact, if I'd only ever responded in the timid and subservient way that you seem to desire, then this discussion here would never have happened, would it? So in fact, if I've managed to raise some awareness of the problem of lazy, unthinking editors reverting with dishonest claims, then my outbursts have had a positive effect. If anything's actually done about these problematic editors, it will be a miracle, but you never know. I'll say again, I think people making flagrantly incorrect accusations of vandalism should be blocked. 200.104.123.205 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, IP. That is in a way what I suggested. You seem to have brought this to the attention of such users - if they after that repeat it, you move on to warnings, or even to a noticeboard showing what is going on.

And what you describe is basically a WP:POINT violation, and that is not an atmosphere we should be working in - even when you are right. And if you call having articles semi or fully protected because of editwars a 'success' .. I beg to differ. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Can I make a few non-binding observations and then we close this joint? Pretty please?
  • Edits made by IPs should be judged on content
  • IP contributions are to be valued, not to be distrusted. (That much of the vandalism is IP vandalism is not relevant here. Much of what's on the street is dog shit, but I still will pick up the pecans and thank the tree for it.)
  • Editors should be (much) more careful when they're ready to say rvv and start slapping templates on IP talk pages.
  • Of course editors shouldn't go around cussing the hell out of each other.
  • IP editors should be listened to when they complain about the behavior signaled in this thread, and IMO ANI is the right place for it--and admins and others should not be afraid to use Template:uw-notvand.

Now, let's get back to work. Fender Stratocaster XII is wholly unverified and Samson Agonistes lacks a "References in popular culture" section. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Close it? The guy has come to ANI and lied and you swallow it, you're excusing and encouraging abusive behaviour and he'll go on his merry way continiuing to do exactly the same thing. I fully explained why he was reverted, I ONCE used the short hand rv IP edits - but then I'd already explained and he'd responded with abuse. Why should I continue to have to explain myself to someone who can't be bothered to be civil, no strike that, delights in being abusive.

He is block evading right now, he is unrepentant about being uncivil and you're talking about closing it. The problem remains, he is abusive to anyone who crosses his path, but he's left with the impression its OK. Yes blocks are not punitive but they're not being preventative here either.

And you're wondering why people are leaving wikipedia? For gods sake, wake up and smell the coffee. This is not about biting IP editors, people respond to the guy in the way they do as he is abusive, not because he is an IP. He is not a newbie by his own admission.

You're proposing to close it, with the underlining issue unresolved and an unrepentant abusive editor vowing to continue. Why should I bother with a named account anymore or following the rules? Why is there such a reluctance to tackle abusive and disruptive editors, people are leaving in droves because of this? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit war re linking at WP:BLPN

I don't have a dog in the hunt, but there is an edit war over external links in comments at WP:BLPN - see [51], [52], [53]. Admin intervention is obviously required. Hipocrite (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• - User:Jabbsworth - was in a content dispute at BLPn and he went and wrote off wiki content that is hosted on a non WP:RS and he is now repeatedly linking to it as though it has authority - a clearer attempt to game the project could hardly be found. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring - at a noticeboard none the less - is not behavior that contributes to a stable encyclopedia, regardless of how right you are or are not. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jabbsworth - is actually a block evading disruptive sockpuppet that has returned to his exact same previous disruption and should not even be editing - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel - Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, he's not. Jabbsworth is apparently the only account used by TickleMeister/Ratel, unblocked by Arbitor David Fuchs on 22 July 2011, with the comment "User has promised to edit solely from this account." Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob saw fit to remove content that was under discussion and to which several editors had partially agreed for inclusion. I merely gave a link to a page elsewhere on the web where the material under discussion could be read. Off2riorob removed the link, and removed it again. I think he should leave this sort of high-handed refactoring of other editor's comments to admins, no? Or is he a de-facto admin here? There are several admins patrolling BLPM, so why does HE have to do the adminning and editing of other user's comments? BTW, I am NOT a block evading sockpuppet. I was cleared by Arbcom to edit.  Jabbsworth  15:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Arbcom can have had all the details, you had no right to create an account whilst blocked and just like Webhamster you are still evading that block - anyway they did not give you permission to return to the exact same disruption on the exact same discussions and articles with the pretense of being a new user. Off2riorob (talk) 4:01 pm, Today (UTC+0)

You're second guessing arbcom now? Desperate much for a win? BTW, I am not Webhamster.  Jabbsworth  16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor who insists on linking to an external wiki is errant. Wikipedia does not support linking to external wikis for use as "sources." The external wiki, meanwhile, has material which is considered a WP:BLP violation on Wikipedia by every other current editor on that article (in fact, all "non-socks" for an extended period of time), so posting the link is essentially promulgating the WP:BLP violation - which is deletable in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's NOT being used as a SOURCE, as I've explained to you several times now.  Jabbsworth  15:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you stop linking to off wiki content that you have written yourself. You also did it in this diff in your SPI. Such linking to sources that you have written yourself hosted at locations that are not WP:RS creates a clear COI situation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

COI? In what way? I'm giving editors a chance to read the material in question, with clickable links, because you removed it from BLPN. It's a convenience issue. It's not meant to be an RS for anything, obviously. The diff link you left in its place was (a) unreadable and (b) full of dead links. Why don't you explain your high-handed deletion of my text, even after some editors agreed it was usable in parts?  Jabbsworth  16:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I left that detail on the BLPN at the time - you said, "If nobody objects"..."I will now put the material here for consideration" - As Collect and I objected and as the content had previously been removed for BLP concerns it is not recommended to repost it at BLP, a diff is recommended - which I left. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The rightness or wrongness of the underlying argument is not relevant. The problem is the edit warring. Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"I don't have a dog in the hunt," - give over. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP covers projectspace as well, and linking to documents which we wouldn't consider to be appropriate to link to in the context of a BLP is just as inappropriate in projectspace as it is in an article. If Jabbsworth were merely misinformed about BLP then so be it, but he's apparently got enough history on Wikipedia that he should be expected to understand what BLP entails. Off2riorob should likewise know that edit warring does nothing but create drama, and should have disengaged and taken it here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thumper, not with you, as I explained the link is for convenience (people cannot read diffs with any facility), and the material linked is all sourced separately. We can argue about the sourcing, but the material is in at least 3 published and as yet legally unchallenged books. It was also carried by WP for many months (years?0.  Jabbsworth  16:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP advises caution. If multiple editors are objecting to a given text because they believes that it contains content which is problematic under BLP (how long Wikipedia retained said text is irrelevant, by the way) then the correct thing to do is not to link to it. Going out of your way to do so, and then edit warring over it, was a very bad idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, but that leaves unanswered the issue of prejudice by omission. IOW, by removing the text from view, and leaving it in diff format (which many editors will not bother viewing), is prejudicial to my case. Moreover, the diff contained at least 8 broken links that I had repaired in the text I posted. I think forbidding a link to a sourced page elsewhere, that contain data printed in numerous extant books, may be carrying prudence to an extreme. Don't you?  Jabbsworth  16:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Find it in a reliable source, and link to that.--v/r - TP 17:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I could simply make a list of links to sources used in the deleted section (eg this one ) and allow readers to visit each source and decide for themselves. What would then happen is that the links would be deleted from from the page by opposing editors on BLP grounds (I've seen this happen before). So back to square one. Any other suggestions?  Jabbsworth  22:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TParis. There is nothing to suggest that SourceWatch meets RS requirements for normal wikipedia information much less anything involving BLP even if it is on the talk page. At least when I argued against using Stephen Barrett as a source I used reasonable language regarding the sources I did use which is why Off2riorob supported me in that case (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97). By contrast Jabbsworth, you are using a wiki article. That doesn't even meet the reliable source hurdle so obviously it is going to do a major crash and burn when dealing with a BLP so why on earth even try to use the thing?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a running MO for advocacy in past accounts. In the past, after crating a sockpuppet, an external link an offer was made to stop editing. The talk pages were peppered with links offsite or to copies on personal subpages (see Talk:Aspartame/Archive 5#Re proposed link). Inappropriate use of color, font size, and other means of weighting comments to make advocacy stand out on talk pages has been a running problem.

Not to get too far off-topic, but there is a long-standing practice justifying behaviors by accusing editors of COI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive652#Ongoing accusations of conflict of interest. Nothing has changed: [54] —Novangelis (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your comment is off-topic. But since you raise it, I made the offer to stop editing Aspartame controversy for a link to all the material you and a small cabal of editors were excluding, because it became clear to me that there was no sourcing, no matter how good, that would get that data onto the page. 'I ask readers to go to SourceWatch and read the page on Aspartame there.' 80%+ of the information on that page was vetoed by Novangelis and his cabal from a controversy page, fer heaven's sake, (Aspartame controversy) on grounds of "weight" or not meeting wp:MEDRS (despite being sourced from peer reviewed studies). You can use these reasons to exclude almost anything from almost any page, if you have enough like-minded editors teaming up with you. So in desperation to get the information to readers, and seeing that screeds of data were being excluded from the page by sheer bloody-minded stonewalling of me and numerous other editors (again, see the Talk page and especially the archives), I offered a deal on the link. Linking to subpages on wikipedia from a Talk page? No problem with that, not sure why you raise it. Using fonts and colors to emphasize points on a Talk page? Now this is a sin too? You are sounding desperate. As far as COI accusations, I'll let the data and Talk pages speak for themselves. Pretty blatant from my POV.  Jabbsworth  22:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who is in a position to use going away as a bargaining chip, pretty much by definition, must have reached the point of tendentiousness; anyone who does it right after creating a sockpuppet, more so. Prior spamming of personal versions after failing to gain consensus is pertinent to the current case, and the ongoing use of personal attacks as justification is against policy. The aspartame articles have been reviewed several times (1, 2, 3)and your unsupported COI accusations (never on the COI noticeboard) keep coming. The only (at least to my recollection) filed complaint offered no diffs and the only so-called evidence offered was that if you changed one letter and rearranged an editor name, you got "lobby". While the NPA violations are not the immediate issue of this thread, a long-standing history of non-collegial behavior is relevant.Novangelis (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see: Tendentious editing is defined as "a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole". Since you excluded literally hundreds of well-sourced facts about aspartame from the aspartame controversy page, you fit that description to a "T". According to wp:Tendentious editing, tendentious editors frequently "dispute the reliability of apparently good sources". Wow, that describes you perfectly. If the cap fits, wear it. Once again, I ask any admin to please go to SourceWatch and review the long and detailed page on Aspartame there, then reflect on why Novangelis excluded almost all of it from Aspartame controversy. This is one of the clearest cases of tendentious editing, on his part, that one could imagine.  Jabbsworth  00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The more likely resolution is that SourceWatch will end up on the blacklist if it's being used to circumvent our own content policies. In fact, consider this a final warning for linking to publicly editable pages as evidence or the like: you are plainly capable of understanding why this is inappropriate and yet have continued to do so over multiple accounts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please point me to the rule that states that Talk page discussions cannot point to publicly editable pages where sourced information is viewable. Thanks.  Jabbsworth  01:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The rule is WP:BLP. Disregard it if you like, but the fact that no one has supported your edits here should lead to the expectation that no one will support an unblock if the final warning above were disregarded. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP states "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics". The "elsewhere" refers to article space, not Talk space. If it also refers to Talk, and even User space, it should be made explicit. Secondly, several editors have supported, at BLPN, the inclusion of some of this material, so it is simply incorrect to say that "no one has supported your edits".  Jabbsworth  03:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, hold on, I now see a section called wp:BLPTALK. That's new, don't remember that one the last time I read BLP, which was a while ago. Ok, my bad, no more links to external BLPs. I'll simply supply the name of the site and advise readers to peruse the data there, and see if any of it is worth including.  Jabbsworth  03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and no one will think that a strategy ("simply supply the name of the site and advise readers to peruse the data there") would defeat the intent of WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, this is not a court of law, so quit wikilawyering the issue. It is allowable, prima facie, to give a verbal description of where material may be read. It's done every day on wikipedia, on numerous talk pages.  Jabbsworth  04:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

While I share you concerns, it seems a moot point in this specific case as a few users besides Johnuniq have mentioned the site in discussing potential COI problems.Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP has specifically mentioned talk pages since 22 April 2006. While this is not a talk page, I think it's clear anything that applies to talk pages is obviously going to apply to BLP/N. A section on non-article space has existed since 25 November 2007. Perhaps the more important thing to learn here is something similar to what Chris Cunningham said, if multiple editors are objecting to something you are doing you should give consideration to their concerns. As CC said, it doesn't matter so much what the specific policy says but if you haven't read the policy for 5 years or so there's even more reason you should be wary. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A simple direction to BLPTALK would have sufficed. Besides, the text "that is not sourced to a reliable publication" does not apply here. The sources, like books, are mostly solid. Jabbsworth  04:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The point you seem to be missing is 'mostly'. You seem to be linking to a page where some of the material may be okay, but most likely not all of it is. If you want to check the material and bring that which is okay here, that is far more likely to be acceptable, provided you have a resonable definition of what is okay. I'm quite sure BLP has never suggested it was okay to violate BLP provided part of your edits didn't violate BLP. Also if you sought clarification for the problem with your edits but everyone refused to give it then you might have a point. But instead you edit warred against something which had been explicitly mentioned in BLP policy since 25 November 2007 or 22 April 2006 and as has been said, you're an experience user so should know better. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, the exact prohibitions of link in non-article space specify "material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices" should be excluded. I could make a strong case that all of the material I submitted, and most certainly the general thrust of it (that the subject has been outed as gay by several people in press, books and magazines) is very solidly sourced. And it's certainly related to "content choice". So really, it's arguable whether BLPTALK even applies to this material.  Jabbsworth  04:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You're perfectly entitled to argue that the material is adequately sourced. That does not require directly linking to a revision of the article which contains such sources, and you know this. Wikilawyering over whether BLP covers this in the first place is not likely to work when there are evidently multiple parties with a more solid understanding of the present content of BLP than yourself. Now, if you're no longer edit warring over the link in question then I think we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood, and I've already issued a mea culpa, even if probably unnecessary, on the link issue, and won't repeat. Thanks. Resolved.  Jabbsworth  13:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Again you seem to be missing the problem. It's not okay if the 'general thrust of it' is fine. What we require is all the material is fine. BLP has never suggested that it's okay if some of the material is fine, it's always made it clear it needs to all be fine. If an editor posts a BLP vio in the talk page, it's perfectly acceptable for me to remove their entire post even if some of the material was not a BLP vio and relevant. Alternative in some cases the BLP vio may be removed or I can ask the person to remove the BLP vio themselves (and if they fail, then take action myself). BLPs vios on talk pages don't generally remain simply because some of what the person posted was not a BLP vio, unless the BLP vio is so minor that we ignore it. Even though the site is a wiki, modifying it so it complies with wikipedia's policy on BLP is clearly nonsense therefore the only option is to ban linking to the site.

And it's quite questionable if even the general thrust is fine let alone all of it, since the material on that wiki is clearly presented in a highly negative way. The fact that it is sourced is a moot point, you would not have been allowed to present the material on wikipedia talk pages in the way it was presented in that wiki in 2007 nor are you allowed now. So linking to the same material on another site as an attempt to get around BLP prohibitions was no more acceptable in 2007 then it is now. And it's quite questionable if all that material is needed for making content decisions either, a big chunk of it has been rejected by the community before and that site obviously does not present a case for why this was the wrong decision.

Furthermore, as a publicly editable wiki, there is no way you can guarantee that the material on the site will forever remain fine even if it is fine at the current time (which as I've said is questionable). While it is true links to news sites can change, this is far less likely to be a problem because if the news site is an RS it likely remains an RS even if it changes and for most news sites, the link will only change at most after a few days not months or years later (ignoring comment sections where it's generally accepted we ignore them), except to die, so it isn't a concern the way it is with another wiki. I've been working at BLP/N for several years and I can say what you linked to has not been acceptable at BLP for that time, no matter how much people tried to wikilawyer around whatever the specific wording at BLP was (and actually I can't remember anyone trying to make an argument like yours). Again, if you have material from there that you feel is not BLP vio, you are welcome to bring it here rather then expecting people to work out which in that mess of stuff which violate BLP on that site you're proposing for here. (Although to be honest from what you've said so far, I don't think we can really trust your judgement on what's okay under BLP.)

Nil Einne (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To summarize each "gobbledegook" said here, at the BLP/N and at the talk page: the current proposed content is against BLP policy and should not be included nor linked at any place. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"What we require is all the material is fine" All of it is fine. We may quibble about some of the sourcing, but the content itself is all accurate and valid and has redundant sourcing. Nothing novel was posted, no SYN, no OR, just extracts of books, magazines, and news sources, all making the same point and telling the same story, which is that the subject is gay (a topic deemed worthy of discussion in BLPs like Anderson Cooper). I suggest to you that rather than talk semantics and split hairs here, you surf over to the Matt Drudge page on SourceWatch and careful scrutinize the data there. Then raise your objections, if you still have any. Thanks. As to the community rejecting the material; well no, that's not what has happened. Editors at BLPN said that parts of it were definitely usable. The material was removed from Matt Drudge by Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) after it had been there for a long time and had a degree of consensus for its inclusion. It was restored by numerous editors since removal, but Collect reverted, many times (& now falsely accuses me of being the editors who did the restoring!) And as far as the immediate topic in hand, which is the objection to direct linking, that has been resolved (see my last comment). Not sure why you are beating a dead horse on that.  Jabbsworth  00:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack in conjunction with original research by User:Natty4bumpo

Natty4bumpo has attacked me here by claiming I adhere to "birther ideology". This is in conjunction with his efforts to add blatant original research at Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like you are jumping the gun. You should first ask politely for a retraction. If that fails, consider Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.--SPhilbrickT 16:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not accept SPhilbrick's suggestion. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You should reconsider. There is a reason those boards exist and if you chose not to use them, then the admins here will likely chose to ignore your complaint. Follow the process. Being called a "birther", at least from my point of view, is pale in comparison to the kind of personal attacks that would require a block without any attempt at dispute resolution.--v/r - TP 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As PAs go, this is very minor and recommend admins close this as too unimportant to waste any more time on. As for Jc3s5h, I recommend that you just ignore it. Sometimes it's easier to focus on the issue instead of getting side-tracked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

Thus keyed Natty4bumpo:

We can always take it to a real court if you like.

Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the equivalent of "so, sue me" counts as a legal threat. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--v/r - TP 17:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Especially as it was escalated very quickly to AN/I; Jc3s5h as you were advised above, the best recourse in these situations is simply to ignore comments like that. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat. As regards the "birther" stuff, is that a conclusion he jumped to, or do you in fact believe that Obama is not a citizen? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the State of Hawaii does not issue digitally signed birth certificates, so the only way for me to receive one is if someone sends me an official paper certified copy. I think the president has more important things to spend money on than mail out 300,000,000 pieces of paper. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hence you deny being a "birther", and the other guy just jumped to that conclusion because he didn't like getting his analysis zapped from the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Natty4Bumpo was editing that article rather tendentiously from what I can tell by the edit summaries, and is currently blocked 2 days for edit warring. He says he is washing his hands of that particular article, so if he sticks to it, perhaps the situation will ease up. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Shenanigans over at Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life

Over the last few months various IP editors have continued to add an iMDB goof to the article:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

And this one today:

• 7

There's been no attempt at discourse, not even after I started a discussion on the talk page.

So, does this count as vandalism? Disruptive editing? Or simply a content dispute? I feel that I've been reasonably courteous, but also wonder if I'm approaching 3rr, in spirit, if not letter of the law.

IP addresses informed.

Advice taken please. a_man_alone (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:RFP be a better place.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't really want to request page protection, don't think it's justified (yet) as there are generally lots of good IP edits. a_man_alone (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The information being added is unsourced. Check out Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Most IP editors aren't aware that talk pages exist until you leave a message for them. Many also are not aware of WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. I've left a uw-unsourced warning on the most recent IP's talk page. In the future, find an appropriate message template (do not use uw-vandalism unless their edit meets WP:VAN) and leave a message on their talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attack from IP 174.91.7.34 and 174.91.4.207

Resolved

 – Range blocked for three days. --Dianna (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am reporting several blatant personal attacks against me by these two IPs who are obviously the same person. Here are Diffs:

[55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

Need I say more? --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 19:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither of these IPs have edited for over five hours. Do you have any other diffs? They have probably already moved on to another IP, or may have stopped editing. --Dianna (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the editor got the point after I posted the final warning for personal attacks. Hopefully it has stopped. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 05:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. It continues. [63], [64] UGH--ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 05:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In future, bear in mind that a changing IP address per dynamic IP does not constitute sockpuppetry. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It does if they're pretending to be a different user each time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

IP Address Legal Threat

Does this not count as a legal threat? It's in relation to a number of IPs that have been literally applying a censoring black and red filter over words in the controversy section of the African National Congress article. This has led to the article being protected. Silverseren^C 23:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, I do believe that it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocked & reported to meta:Communications committee/Notifications Skier Dude (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That IP belongs to CERN. Another is in South Africa, and another is in Michigan. I think we've got some proxying going on.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That's why I didn't do an indef block, I tried a couple of searches and there were some odd results - didnt come up as a TOR but the port reports were a bit 'wonky' (for lack of a better term). If the legit CERN requests an unblock, I doubt there'd be any issue in doing so. Skier Dude (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

John Pike

Going to bed now. The following needs attention:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&curid=6768170&diff=462181024&oldid=462180137
• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=462189791

Hans Adler 01:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you need to stop labeling that living person repeatedly at multiple talk page locations on the en wikipedia as a torturer. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If I had wanted your opinion I would not have come here. Hans Adler 01:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You also are repeatedly referring to him as a criminal - just one minute ago on your talkpage after multiple warnings and requests to stop. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is obviously fair comment under the circumstances. Hans Adler 01:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It continues:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=462190040&oldid=462189947

Hans Adler 01:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He is doing it in a deliberate way repeatedly now - another one just now - Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just creating a new section on this incident here when Hans notified me that he'd created a new topic. Hans insists on accusing John Pike (the police officer in the Occupy Davis controversy) of being a criminal on WP:BLPN. Three editors (not counting me) told Hans that he couldn't say things like that about Pike. One noted the irony of violating BLP on BLPN. Hans persisted, impervious to the comments. I removed his comments per WP:TPO. He posted a protest and committed additional violations. I removed those. He reverted, and another editor reverted him. Hans then posted a message on my Talk page.

At a minimum, an admin should warn Hans that he cannot violate BLP just becauase he believes that a person's conduct is criminal.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it ok for Hans to repeatedly refer to this living person that has not been charged with any crime as a criminal and a torturer? Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Still awake (though not much longer), so here is a quick response. WP:BLPTALK says this:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate.

That sentence doesn't give you license to accuse people of being criminals in non-article space. See WP:TPO ("Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations."). Plus, the policy you cite allows someone to remove material in certain circumstances; it does not justify addition of material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob has been trying to win a POV conflict by the simple expedient of making the necessary discussion about the underlying facts for various editorial decisions impossible. Hans Adler 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Attacking a living person such as you have repeatedly been doing has got nothing to do with any content discussion I am involved in. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So you are not trying to move the iconic photo of the UC Davis project (which shows John Pike) out of the lead? You did not try to get John Pike off the John Pike disambiguation? Hans Adler 01:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

My belief that that picture does not represent the subject of the article in a due manner is no reason or excuse for you repeatedly opining about this living person is a criminal when he has not been charged with anything at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And it continues further:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Pike&curid=6018141&diff=462189590&oldid=461998071

The rationale for that link from John Pike is contained in the page history and in the discussion on WP:BLP/N. Hans Adler 01:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What has that got to do with you attacking repeatedly a living person by refusing to stop referring to them as a criminal and a torturer on the talkpages of en wikipedia? Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It has to do with the question how we deal with John Pike. And for that question it makes a difference whether he is an accidental target of media attention, a victim of a crime, or a perpetrator of one. There are different rules for these cases. Hans Adler 01:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

None of that is any reason for you to repeatedly refer to him in such ways - you need to back off this issue you are overly involved. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So? Whatever rules you're talking about presumes a verifiable fact. Here, it's you who've decided that Pike is a "perpetrator" of a crime. Such power you have.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans should be able to refer to that incident as constituting torture. Not being able to do that would constitute censorship. The BLP policy does allow for incriminating statements to be made in discussions when it is a relevant issue. The BLP policy cannot be used to shield BLPs from negative but relevant information. Count Iblis (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that torture is a crime in California? See Calif. Penal Code section 206. And to what issue was Hans's opinion that Pike is a criminal and a torturer relevant? It was mostly a rant. The original issue had to do with a disambig page for John Pike.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Count Iblis - where is it in policy to support your claim that, "The BLP policy does allow for incriminating statements to be made in discussions when it is a relevant issue" - Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes--Count Iblis, that is a ridiculous claim. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should also add that this was not a discussion about content on the Pike article; there is no Pike article. And even if there were, how could there be a discussion about whether to label someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime a criminal? The whole thing is ludicrous. The removals weren't intended to shield a BLP from negative information, but to shield a BLP from libel in the guise of a discussion - in other words, the opposite.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A person is a criminal if and only if they have been convicted of a crime. As far as I know the officer hasn't even been charged at this time, simply put on administrative leave. That may change, and if it does the situation would be somewhat different. In the meantime, if Hans Adler continues to blatantly violate BLP policy, a block may be necessary to remind him that what he is doing goes against black letter policy, which applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Other editors should be reminded that WP:BLPREMOVE allows the removal of such material without damger of being blocked for edit warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Iblis' statement, "Hans should be able to refer to that incident as constituting torture. Not being able to do that would constitute censorship", is totally out of whack with wikipedia's philosophy and purpose. We go by sourcing, not by the political and legal views of editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mixing up article space and talk space. When we have a widely disseminated photo of a very notable crime, it's completely ridiculous to remove it to protect the perpetrator, and if one can't argue that way on the relevant talk pages just because a few people here have the right-wing authoritarian blind spot for crimes committed in the name of the law, then we have a serious censorship problem. Hans Adler 08:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What valid source have you found that states it's a crime? (Your opinion and mine do not qualify.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You are begging the question whether I need reliable sources for that. In a talk page discussion, I do not. But of course they do exist. For example, AP quoting the senior counsel of the First Amendment Project: "[UC Davis police used] it as a torture device to force someone to do something, and that's exactly what the 9th Circuit said was unreasonable and excessive." [65] Or Jeff Norman, discussing in detail how a citizen's arrest of John Pike could work and what consequences it would have. [66] Given your known right-wing leanings you will likely try to dismiss these as left-wing, hence unusable sources. However, the issue here is whether I am allowed, in an internal Wikipedia discussion on editorial decisions, to say things that AP reported as having been said by a lawyer, and that someone on a left-wing mainstream site has said much more strongly. Hans Adler 13:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Right wing leanings? Where are you getting that from? I voted for Obama, and intend to again. Regardless, you can't violate BLP rules in either articles or talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, Baseball, I thought you were voting for Mel Blanc.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not violating BLP rules and I must ask you to stop claiming so. To quote from WP:BLPTALK: "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." The continued claims that I have violated BLP, never accompanied by comprehensible proofs because they are wrong, are beginning to amount to defamation. While I would normally never contemplate it, in the present context of mass hypocrisy I am seriously considering asking an admin to remove the defamatory comments. Hans Adler 22:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In your own words, "...obviously criminal behaviour. Hans Adler 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)". So lose your "defamation" nonsense. I, too, was appalled by the video of the cop pepper-spraying the protestors. But it is not wikipedia's purpose to advocate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my point about hypocrisy by completely ignoring my point about your own behaviour. Hans Adler 22:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I could also claim that you "defamed" me by accusing me of "right-wing leanings". But since your comment immediately above makes no sense, I have to figure that you're just angry about the pepper spray incident and that it's clouding your judgment. I'm angry about that incident too. Which is precisely why I'm NOT editing the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

This is not the first time that we've had drama over whether or not to mention (or to write an article on) a person who has attracted an intense stream of media attention for doing something nasty (or for being accused of it). On one side we have WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E; on the other side we have the obvious notability (plus these articles tend to attract many readers, and perhaps a few lazy journalists). There have been several previous cases and there will be many more in future; more Pikes and more Breiviks. Perhaps we need to hone our policies/guidelines here, so in future we can concentrate on improving encyclopædic content rather than bickering...? bobrayner (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

the way to solve this is to focus on the fundamental principle behind the rule, not the minutia. As I see it, it's DONOHARM. It is wrong of us to give undue prominence to negative things about non-public figures or minor public figures. The key word is "undue", and the key concept is the effect that WP has as compared to other sources. Once the responsible national press has given such prominence, we have to remember that they, not we, determine the prominence overall. With a few local news stories, we're the major player. With national coverage to the extent here, we're not. (I do not consider him a public figure in the sense an elected politician is. But he's not quite a private figure either: he was doing what he did in his official capacity. So the answer in this case is an article in his name is appropriate, and the picture is also. We're not the people responsible for widely disclosing the information--we're just following the sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

However, regardless of notability, if he has not been charged with any crime, referring to him as a criminal is, in fact, a BLP violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree about one point. This is an obvious case of WP:BLP1E, and in any case it would better to have an article on the incident if that is required. The details of his background as a soldier are not particularly relevant. Even a discussion on whether it's a good idea to give people a dehumanisation training abroad and then turn them into police officers could be done with a one-sentence mention of that background. And the discrimination lawsuit is completely unrelated and undue. Let alone his date or place of birth. Hans Adler 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel it's important that we refrain from characterizing any living person's behavior as criminal or as a crime. It's fine to state facts regarding the criminal justice process such as "suspected", "suspended", "indicted", "charged", "on trial", "convicted", "found guilty", etc. But it's not OK to call someone a rapist, torturer, or child molester, etc, who hasn't been convicted. This applies to any page in Wikipedia. While we tend to think of our articles as our "public face" - the reality is everything we write anywhere on Wikipedia is every bit as public as our articles, as a result BLP (or liable) applies in every wiki-space. Rklawton (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This makes no sense. You are applying much more restrictive criteria to an internal Wikipedia discussion than anyone normally does in a public forum. I would repeat everything that I have said on Wikipedia in the mainstream media in Germany, under my name, and would not be the least bit worried about possible legal consequences, and I would also do so if the incident had happened in Germany. I would not do so in the US, of course, because I know that the legal system in many places treats anything related to the problems caused by underpaid, underqualified police operating under a degenerated esprit de corps very unfairly.

There is a huge difference between saying "everybody knows that A has tortured students" somewhere on a talk page without giving any evidence, and giving the opinion that what A has verifiably done amounts to torture. This is exactly parallel to how I can say that because he authorised torture, George W. Bush is obviously a criminal. And in fact, a lot of opinion pieces in various places have said so. He has not been indicted yet. This is a clear free speech issue in the original, unperverted (i.e. not: porn, defamation and hate speech as free speech) sense. Hans Adler 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we have a separate thread on that? ;-)

I agree with you on many points, including "Should we have coverage of Pike?", but there has been fairly strong pushback against the "torture" label; if you want to argue that point here, it may derail discussion from the more abstract point that I raised above. bobrayner (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying our rules about BLP issues is a good idea. I think for article space there isn't much of a problem at the moment. Editors frequenting WP:BLP/N generally have the desirable level of maturity, but this was disappointing. We should clarify that Wikipedia will not invade someone's privacy for entertainment even if the press has done it before us. But I have found it impossible to explain the difference between notable children's names, dates of birth and schools, the amount of money paid for a house, comments on someone's buttocks etc. and genuine noteworthy information to a certain type of editor. Working out objective criteria for that would be helpful. Apparently we also need further clarification that BLP does not apply to talk pages in the same way as to articles. Hans Adler 12:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No matter where you do it here, calling someone a criminal when they haven't been charged with anything, is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I know, a policeman is never a true criminal. Where were you when I removed a terrorism category from the article on a non-terroristic act of sabotage committed by a legal American non-profit organisation? That was in article space and implied that certain named people were terrorists. (See my block log for pointers.) Here we are talking about talk space. Hans Adler 13:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a really difficult time seeing things your way here, Hans. WP:BLPTALK most certainly does not give the sort of exemption to BLP that you seem to be arguing exists for talk pages. It's not at all clear what positive purpose injecting our talk pages with such serious allegations does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this "You are applying much more restrictive criteria to an internal Wikipedia discussion than anyone normally does in a public forum" is such a non-starter, I'm surprised you would offer it. I don't disagree that many public fora would allow contributors to call people criminals, even though they aren't. But this isn't one of those public fora, this is Wikipedia, and we have rules. You are free to propose that our rules are too restrictive, and suggest alternative rules, but that doesn't seem to be your thesis—you seem to be arguing that such a claim is allowed under the rules here. It isn't. And I'm fine with that. I wouldn't call a person a criminal no matter what despicable act they committed, if they had not been convicted.--SPhilbrickT 14:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I refuted your "non-starter" nonsense before you even posted this. [67] A senior lawyer of a large American non-profit has said essentially the same thing that I did, and AP has reported the fact. "[T]his is Wikipedia, and we have rules." Precisely. And nothing in these rules says that this kind of fair comment isn't allowed outside article space, except when irrelevant to editing decisions or when the underlying facts for the comment are unverifiable. If you don't ever want to call out-of-control American presidents, police miscasts and other dangerous untouchable personalities criminals, regardless of what they do, then that is your personal choice, possibly influenced by an authoritarian upbringing. Other people make other choices, and you are not going to convince anyone with vague "we have rules" hand-waving, which essentially says: "I believe I am more powerful than you / have more influential friends than you, and can get away with forcing you to do what I want without any need for further justifications." As an academic, I am not used to being talked down to, and especially not in such a silly way.

By the way, you have come a long way from your cavalier approach to random out-of-context statements in BLP articles (on climate scientists) a year ago (see Talk:Phil Jones (climatologist)) to this extremism in combatting fair comment on violent people (in police uniforms) in talk/project space. How strange. Hans Adler 19:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In "moving forward", let's not forget that the issue here is whether Hans's conduct merits sanctions. At least that's the central issue for me. Although Hans himself started this topic, as I stated at the outset, I was about to begin a topic myself. What most concerns me is not just Hans's past conduct but his future conduct. He didn't seem to get it on BLPN, and he doesn't seem to get it here. His stubbornness in the face of many editors telling him his views are flat-out wrong is disturbing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we say that Bin Laden was a terrorist? That becomes a rather complicated issue with this interpretaion of BLP invoked here. Even more difficult, can we say that someone charged with a crime is a criminal as charged, if those charges are brought by e.g. Iran? Were the 3 hikers arrested in Iran spies?

Were the security forces in Bahrain guilty of toruture? A legitimate discussion, given the recent report, so you can imagine that some particular officials can be discussed in this context. Did climate scientists falsify data to promote global warming alarmism (which would also have been a criminal offense if true)? Of course not, but this was frequently discussed on Wikipedia talk pages.

With the possible exception of the hikers, no one would invoke BLP to close such discussions, so it seems to me that the interpretation of BLP used to criticize Hans here is fundamentally flawed. Count Iblis (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone has not been convicted of a crime, they cannot be labeled a criminal. That one's fairly easy. As to your question about "terrorist", I've wrestled with that issue and I try to dodge it (this, of course, in article space). It's easier just to stick to facts, so, for example, if someone has been convicted of murder, we can say they've been convicted of murder, but unless they've been convicted of terrorism (which, I believe, in the U.S., at least is a crime in and of itself), we should avoid it. The problem comes with the media bandying about the term terrorist and whether we then should use the term because, oh my, it's been reported in reliable sources. This probably requires an article-by-article examination, but my view is we should stick, not only to what's reported in reliable sources, but what's reported as facts, not as descriptors. As for your contention that "no one would invoke BLP to close such discussions", "no one" is a pretty broad statement, and I seriously doubt it's accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As our article on ambiguity says, in "rhetoric, ambiguity can be a useful tool." You know how to use it, apparently. "Labeled" strongly connotes calling someone explicitly a criminal in article space, whereas the context in which you use the word indicates that you are talking about how I called him a criminal in talk space. Hans Adler 19:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Each of your responses confirms your inability to grasp policies and guidelines, at least in this area. Your political/moral views appear to interfere with your capacity to contribute as a neutral editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans has been duly warned several times. I've posted the link to policy on his talk page twice. Hans' reply to this directly contradicted policy stating it was OK to state people committed crimes on talk pages as part of the editorial process even though policy says it isn't. There's nothing more we can do at this point. If Hans violates BLP again, I will immediately block him from editing. Rklawton (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that I have explained policy that you are misunderstanding to you, and given that there is obviously no consensus for such a block, I would suggest that you think of a less dramatic way of discarding your bits. Hans Adler 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully, other admins looking at the history will come to the same conclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few examples from the archives of Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. In each case it is clear that the references to criminality were about a group of identifiable climate researchers whose emails had been published illegally.

• "enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars"
• "dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants"
• "We don't know that yet. We also don't know how much of the consensus is built on the work of people who don't have a problem with criminal data destruction."
• "data as being exemplary of criminal activity--copyright protects no crimes. And you are still ignoring the 'whistleblowing' aspects"
• "presenting evidence of a crime using evidence taken without permission of the criminals is something where most prosecutors exercise prosecutorial discretion"
• "Exposing the crimes against the laws of the UK and against the normal practices of science was a justifiable act in my opinion"
• "If you publicly release evidence of criminal activity, I think that the law generally looks leniently on such cases"
• "In any case, the rights of the criminals who had their acts exposed should not be the top priority"

These are just from the first 3 archives, out of a total of 43 numbered archives and 7 special archives. There was nothing comparable in archive 4. I was going to continue with archive 5, but was distracted by finding an instance there of Sphilbrick defending the honour of the criminals who published the emails, in the same way that he is now defending the honour of the pepper spraying policeman -- around the same time that [correction: exactly one year before] he was arguing for the inclusion of misleading quotations in the BLP article on one of the scientists.

In general, on these archive pages (at least those I have viewed), it is very interesting to compare the laid-back way in which the claims of criminal behaviour by identifiable scientists were fended off with the frantic efforts to get euphemisms into the article for hacking and stealing of emails, which is still being examined by the police. The latter appear to me very similar in style to what I have seen here. The similarity is striking, given that those discussions were about article space while we are here talking about talk space, and given the contrast to the other side's relaxed reactions to the (ultimately disproved) claims of criminal behaviour. Hans Adler 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC) slightly expanded 19:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, Hans hasn't done anything wrong (and I see that Hans has just explained this himself better in his reply above mine). I don't remember there being any issues with talk page comments implying criminal behavior when it was a relevant issue, atleast when I was still editing such articles. This used to be only an issue when making edits to an article. If we were to consistently use the very narrow interpretation of BLP, that would severely hamper editing controversial articles. While I don't at present edit such articles frequently, I'm pretty sure this standard isn't actually applied consistently, leading to bias by selective censorhip. Count Iblis (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Hans's examples, but, to both of you: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Your accusation of "selective censorship" is silly. As the editor who removed Hans's comments, I did it because I became aware of it, which tends to be true for most edits I make. The articles that were indirectly involved weren't on my watchlist. I just read the topic on BLPN and acted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Selective censorship arises because people only invoke BLP selectively on issues they feel strongly about, not because there is a conscious attempt at censorship. And I don't think Hans' example can be dismissed as crap, even if it is in some sense "crap", because that article was the focus of many Admins and of Jimbo himself. There has been an ArbCom case about the CC articles and that article was also a primary focus in that case. So, this isn't like some article that has been edited outside the view of the community where any alledged lack of obedience to policies can be attributed to lack of community oversight.

We can thus conclude that editors are usually free to make comments like the one Hans made. Count Iblis (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What is that, the royal "we"? This will probably be my last comment because the discussion is going nowhere. Hans complained that in other instances comments about criminals weren't removed, but they were here. You called that "selective censorship". I cited something that is often cited for essentially the proposition "two wrongs don't make a right", or just because crap exists elsewhere isn't a justification for the crap that exists here. The crap is the BLP violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• This whole argument appears to hinge on whether police torturing or inflicting considerable pain on peaceful protesters who are not resisting arrest is or is not criminal, and whether we have to await conviction before describing activity as "criminal" on talk pages.
  In the topic area described by Hans, various editors called a scientist a "criminal" for discussing his intention to delete his own emails, when the relevant authority had decided not to even investigate whether any "criminal" deletion of emails had taken place as it was time-barred. Note that "criminal" in this case means that actual deletion of FOIA'd information can be tried in a magistrates court, and individuals can be given a fairly small fine if convicted. So, it's obviously fair comment to describe the policeman's conduct as outrageous and inhumane, but technically it's not criminal.
  Whether deleting such wording serves to inflame talk page discussions is an interesting question, as interfering with other editors' comments is very much frowned on. However, if this is considered appropriate I'll certainly be quicker to delete such wording in future. However, it does not seem to me that using such wording in a colloquial sense rather than a technically correct sense should lead to a block, and editors must remain free to discuss accusations which are well supported by reliable sources. . . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Seems to me you're making this unduly complex. In the issue here (not other instances in other places at other times), Hans baldly stated that Pike was a criminal. It wasn't sourced to anything - it was and remains Hans's abiding opinion. To the extent there might be some discussion by different sources about whether and when the use of pepper spray constitutes "torture", that is rather complicated and better suited for an article on torture or on pepper spray or in someone's graduate thesis, but not tacked on to a discussion of this particular officer and his use of pepper spray.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The point that Wheaton, senior counsel for the Oakland-based First Amendment Project, said that police used "it as a torture device to force someone to do something"[68] is something specifically related to the article, and should properly be discussed on the talk page. Hans is of course entitled to hold the view that such action should be criminal, but as Charles J. Key, a former lieutenant with the Baltimore Police Department who wrote the department's use-of-force manual, has described it as "fairly standard police procedure" then we have simply to accept that some regimes think such actions are normal. By the same standards, we should be careful about how we describe any abhorrent actions, no matter how outrageous they seem to us, if they're accepted by a despotic regime. So, better wording is advisable, but the point stands that the police behaviour looks outrageous from the perspective of many reasonable people, and that should not be obscured in the article. . dave souza, talk 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of sourcing about pepper spray and torture here though the mode of application was different in that incident. The issue with "criminal" is it has somewhat separate legal and moral meanings, and WP policy seems to be to reserve it for the strict legal meaning were the person was actually convicted in a court of law. By that standard we can't call 9/11 suicide pilot Mohammed Atta a criminal (they didn't find enough of him to put on trial), so we have to use other terminology. That seems a little silly, but it should be doable with a bit of careful phrasing. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP is not an issue where Atta and his gang are concerned. Calling him a "criminal" would be fairly redundant, as I can't think of any circumstances where his actions wouldn't be criminal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's dead it's not an issue, but your failure to think of circumstances does not override the proposed standard that an actual conviction has been secured. It astonishes me that the policeman's actions aren't illegal, but the world has many strange places. . . dave souza, talk 00:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I understand what you're saying, I disagree with at least parts of it. For example, whether to report on what Wheaton said in the article can certainly be discussed on the Talk page, but it is a violation of BLP rules for an editor to claim that Pike is a torturer. It is also unnecessary to the discussion. The issue is whether Wheaton's opinion is relevant, not whether it's true or universally held. I'm not even sure I "approve" of your use of the words "abhorrent" and "despotic", which also seem to express your personal opinion and do not advance a discussion of what is appropriate to include in an article. As to what outrages "reasonable" people, that's not really our concern. Nor is it our place to decide which people are reasonable and which are not. I also didn't understand your edit summary, but that's not a big deal, just a minor puzzlement for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If an editor presents reliable sources that Pike was acting as a torturer, then that discussion is appropriate on the talk page. In principle everything must reflect published opinion, not the views of editors, but there's always been reasonable leeway on talk pages to discuss how best to produce a properly sourced neutral article. . . dave souza, talk 00:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing this

Okay. So the original issue was Hans reporting another editor for blanking parts of his comments. At the very least, we have consensus that BLP supports this action. Hans has not continued to revert since then. As such, this doesn't seem to be a live ANI issue; there are certainly unresolved matters as regards exactly what is permissable under BLP outwith articlespace, but ANI is obviously a lousy forum for that. Any objections to closing this? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To explain what my objection is at this point would be too convoluted, so I'll go with no. :-) (Even this post was unnecessary, but what the hell.) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the state of the discussion. There is no consensus that BLP supports the blanking, just a small number of previously involved editors dominating the discussion, in particular Bbb23, who this report was about. This would be inconsistent application of policy to protect criminals who act under the guise of authority in the United States. No other country gets this kind of privilege here, and I have shown above that when editors call living people criminals on a talk page then that is usually suffered even if when it's hardly reasonable and part of a systematic, organised defamation campaign against scientists. Hans Adler 23:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What has global warming got to do with pepper spray? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look above, you'll note that editors have called scientists "criminals", which is the main topic of this thread. The argument is that we should not describe publishing science or misuse of pepper spray as criminal activities without a court conviction. . . dave souza, talk 00:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you require for consensus, Hans. By my reckoning, the following editors opposed what you did and supported the removal: Beyond My Ken, Baseball Bugs, Rklawton, Chris Cunningham, SPhilbrick, and Off2riorob. Now that Dave souza has clarified (for me at least) his view, I would say two editors agree with you: Dave and Count Iblis.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps these editors should clarify if they support mass removal of other editor's comments, as shown in the diff I've given below. That looks to me to be clearly disruptive, and would have resulted in sanctions in discussions on a more touchy topic. . . dave souza, talk 00:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a touchy area. But if someone commits a BLP violation, such comments are subject to removal. Ideally, whoever makes BLP-violating comments should see the error of his ways, and remove such comments himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• My view [expressed above] is that the action of blanking the word "criminal" is arguable, rather a novelty which may cause more disruption than help. It's questionable if BLP goes that far on talk pages, already we've seen an argument from incredulity that a terrorist's actions would not be seen as criminal in some places even without a criminal conviction, which effectively defeats the argument made for the blanking. Moreover, looking at this diff Bbb23 wasn't just deleting the word "criminal", but was disrupting normal talk page discussion by removing large chunks of the arguments put by another editor. That contravenes WP:TPOC, and should not be repeated. . dave souza, talk 23:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry at Francis Boulle

I suspect sockpuppetry at Francis Boulle due to numerous identical promotional/ PR-style edits at the page carried out by several single purpose IP addresses as well as by User:Greenfields65 (Also an SPA, bar creating a redirect page to francis boulle). However, I am unable to open a sock investigation (possibly because I am an IP user myself). 89.100.150.198 (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why would you think that Greenfields65 (talk · contribs) and Greenfields55 (talk · contribs) would have something in common? Seriously... True, there are a ton of IP edits--in fact, I think it warrants semi-protection given PR as well as BLP concerns (there's some vandalism as well), but that would take you, dear IP, out of the equation. I think you have a case, but I'd like to see what others are suggesting. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Agree, I hear some quacking, the IP's are sort of hit-and-miss, semi-protect per BLP would appear to be appropriate. Skier Dude (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, Gretchen Rossi, to name just another starlet like Boulle, gets a redirect, not an article--and Boulle doesn't have more coverage than she does (outside of the TV show, he made a website--great). I'm going to turn his resume/article into a redirect. If needs be I will semi-protect it; this person simply doesn't have the notability yet. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Spam only account

• topicguide.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• koreanacadamy.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• topikexam.wordpress.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Scsatyarthi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not a high volume account, but he's only made edits to promote some site, and despite talk on his talk page and reverts with edit summaries, he's apparently going to continue.--Crossmr (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• You should report it to WP:AIV, not here, then, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • They won't touch it over there; not enough warnings and/or actual vandalism, and no urgency to stop it. I reported an account once here and nothing ever happened. Good luck. Doc talk 09:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I've just issued a level 4 warning; next time they spam, feel free to report them to me and I'll be glad to use my banhammer. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I revertlisted the link, XLinkBot will keep a bit of an eye on this (until the account becomes autoconfirmed in the eyes of XLinkBot). I do agree that this is a bit thin for calling it a 'spam only account', but it does start to look like it - and though I hope that editors heed remarks made to them, I know that that hardly ever happens (obviously, that is especially true for spammers).

Regarding WPSPAM - most of those are just reports, there is by far not enough manpower to handle all that (and the same volunteers also keep an eye on the white and blacklists and on the external links noticeboards) - I could scream 'admin backlog' again, but I know that will not help either. Do note, that if it persists, and there is an old report, the chances of it being handled on a later occasion is then significant without too much discussion. Making sure that spammers ánd their links are reported (the link-tracking above does just that) and documented is a good beginning, it makes it easier to track things back to users. Warning the accounts with a {{uw-spam4im}} also helps (and XLinkBot also keeps that into account when reverting). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's a pattern of spamming and these are not legitimate sources for referencing articles then someone could add them to the local or the global blacklist. Night Ranger (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It used to be when an account was used for nothing but spam (over a year) we just blocked and forgot about it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Imitation username?

{{resolved|usernameblocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)}}

William M. Conway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like an obvious dig at William M. Connolley (talk · contribs), especially when you consider the edit history. It is almost certainly a sockpuppet account although checkuser has been inconclusive. What do others think? Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Could just be coincidence - Conway isn't an uncommon name, after all. But shouldn't this be at WP:UAA Just noticed the Scibaby connection. Keep watching? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look again at the edit history - the editor is editing an article that the real WMC is also editing. That looks deliberate, not coincidental. Prioryman (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear quacking. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If he really wants to confuse us, turning his link blue might be advisable. Paul B (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Usernameblocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:William M. Conway has now created William M. Conway (Not Famous) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while under a block for the first account. I have blocked the latter for block evasion (and the new username does not address the issues with the first username). Zzuuzz, you may want to further elaborate on the block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Lombrizsolitaria

Though final warned, keeps adding unsourced defamatory content to Eleonora Bruzual.— Racconish^Tk 13:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Shot across the bow fired. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good. Thanks — Racconish^Tk 14:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong Block review

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

I've just blocked MangoWong for 48 hours, for his latest in what I see as a long term campaign of thinly-veiled personal attacks and harrassment against another editor, User:Sitush. Sitush is one of a very small number of editors who have been working hard to improve our coverage of Indian topics, especially caste-related ones - they were originally horribly POV affairs, containing little more than the glorification of various castes, and now they are much better with neutral wording, reliable sources, etc.

In the course of this, Sitush and other content editors have been on the receiving end of quite a bit of abuse from various caste champions, pro-Indian nationalists, etc, a good few of whom have since been indef blocked. MangoWong has managed to get along by keeping his head just under the radar, thinly veiling his attacks, and being careful to avoid any individual attack that's been sufficiently egregious to warrant a block. But I think his low level of insults and insinuations has gone too far and constitutes harassment. Here are some examples...

• This is the final interaction that led to his block, in which he said "On caste articles, as soon as someone shows any objection to your edits, they are automatically "canvassed from orkut", "caste warriors", 'more than a caste warrior", "do not know English", "do not know policy", are dogs, stupid, tendentitious, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, unbalanced, has COI etc. etc. etc. and what not". Firstly, bringing up disagreements on caste articles is nothing to do with the article being discussed, and appears to be an attempt to personally discredit Sitush. The accusation that Sitush called people "dogs" and "stupid" is particularly despicable, as he has done no such thing. And the rest is a misrepresentation of actual events - there really have been lots of socks, etc, and it's all supported by evidence (eg SPI reports). I warned him only about the "dogs" and "stupid" slur, to which he responded "You may say that Sitush did not use the word "dog", but then, I may say that he made that insinuation through some other phrase" ([69]), which again is blatantly untrue. Anyway, please do see whole discussion - I've included these extracts here as the article is at AfD and may soon only be visible to admins.
• Unfounded accusation of "OR lies", "lynching" - [70]
• Unfounded accusations of "bullshit quality sources, OR, misrepresentations, synthesis, misinterpretations etc. for S***** fixation and other defamatory material. ... endless amount of ABF, incivilities, accusationmongering, argumentativeness" - [71]
• Unfounded accusations of "OR lies &/ synthesis &/ misrepresentations &/ unreliable sources &/ amateur sources &/ cherry picked sources &/ passing comment sources &/ off topic sources &/ misinterpreted sources &/ lead fixation &/ S***** fixation &/ defamatory material &/ undue material &/ sources with mysterious credentials", not specifically targeted, but it's clear who it's aimed at ("S*****" is "Shudra") - [72]
• Unfounded accusation of "massive obsession with inserting defamatory material about Indian castes" - [73]
• Unfounded accusation, "It is uncivil of you to keep asking people to leave WP. You don't own WP. Do you?", where Sitush has never asked anyone to leave WP as far as I know - [74]
• Unfounded accusations, "It is well known that you three (Sitush, MatthewVanitas and yourself) have been exercising an overbearing influence on the entire topic of Indian caste articles. You three have been acting in tandem on all these articles and have acted in tandem to obtain blocks and bans on hordes and hordes of eds who have tried to edit these articles" - [75]
• Throwing in "narrow minded colonial racist britishers" - [76]
• Further unfounded accusations, including that Sitush and others "operate on the principle -- "Any Tom/Dick/Harry writes a book, says something defamatory/palikuluing about an Indian caste, becomes an RS." - [77]
• Accusations of conspiracy - [78]
• Accusations of "trying to get blocks and bans etc. and doing various forms of armtwisting on anyone who has disputes on you" - [79]

The examples above are only going back a relatively short time, but it's been going on for a fair bit longer and there are plenty more similar examples.

On a number of occasions, he's been asked to take his accusations to ANI or can them - to put up or shut up. But he won't (eg [80]), presumably because he knows he won't succeed. In fact, you can see his opinion of ANI here - "The ANI is a completely useless place. It is stuffed with limeys who have written British-Indian history articles from a whitewased British POV and are committed to keeping it that way".

As it says at Wikipedia:Harassment, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. It seems clear to me that that is exactly what has been happening, and it has to be stopped.

So, I'd like to ask for opinions on my 48 hour block, and on whether any further action might be necessary at this stage (I shall now go and post notices on the Talk pages of people mentioned here). Thanks in advance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Been a long time coming. An expert in poisoning the well to the extent that a WP:POISON could pretty much be written based solely on his actions. The only real surprise is that he was afforded quite so much good faith. Given the extreme unlikelihood that a two-week holiday will have the expected correctional impact I'd up it to indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly justified. The links above and a look at MangoWong's contribs give one side of the story. When MangoWong was asked to illustrate Sitush's crimes, he came up with this which I do not see as remotely equivalent - nor even problematic in any way. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block considering the circumstances; though I very much doubt 48 hours will do anything to change MangoWong's behaviour to any degree that could be considered acceptable. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Boing, your lengthy explanation is appreciated, and I wonder if it'll show up in an RfC/U at some point. Also, what Chris said. And Kim. And Jezebel. Now let me look at my archive to see what vile actions have been taking place there. I will tell you one thing: I don't know how Sitush deals with all that chain-janking and still improves those horrible articles. I vote that we pay for him to get a JSTOR account, and that will save me some time as well, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think we could see an RfC/U coming from this before too long - though with the endorsement I've had here so far I don't think I'd hesitate to quickly escalate blocks myself now, should this behaviour continue. And yes, Sitush has shown amazing patience and dedication - I'd certainly support a JSTOR account too (I do miss the one I used to have access to when I was an OU student) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Trivia corner: JSTOR was not available when I was a student, but I did have access to a magnificent erection". - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block indeed. Too many a poisoning-the-well experts are let to do their "handiwork" when they stop just a hair short of obvious personal attacks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have been somewhat puzzled since MangoWong made the "dog" statement but I think that I have now found the connection. For the sake of clarity, given how bizarre it seems, within this series of ANI messages there are three which appear perhaps to be relevant.

...a failed SPI which caused pain to about half a dozen individuals. The initial comment in this section was an irrational threat. Unless someone can show that it is presently reasonable to block much/most of India.-MangoWong ℳ 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, diddums. I apologised. Some of those named were subsequently blocked for various reasons. Look, just drop this bone: there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That you apologized does not mean that it is sufficient to take away the pain you caused half a dozen people. That most of the others were subsequently blocked for various reasons only shows that you are expert in obtaining blocks on your opponents. just drop this bone That you think I am a dog only shows your severe problems with WP:CIVIL. there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. Whether or not the range is going to be blocked or not, I do look at the initial comment in this thread as a seriously intended threat.-MangoWong ℳ 05:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject was wrt someone suggesting blocking the 117.195.x.x range (!), then someone brought up what was at that point the only SPI I had filed that had proven to be "no match" & which involved MW. It is all a little distasteful, sorry, but I know that many at the time recognised the amount of flak being fired in my direction & that of a couple of others who were trying to straighten out some caste articles. I may be a "good guy" but I do not have the patience of a saint & will grrrr eventually. BTW, the ANI report in question led to the topic ban of User:Thisthat2011. I haven't been able to find the evidence yet but I am sure that the bone/stick phrase had been explained previously, & TT2011 both had used it and used it subsequent to my message. MW had been supporting, and then defending, TT2011 vigorously. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Around that time we were getting socks almost daily, and MangoWong was supporting just about every one of them and was being abusive to the people trying to clean things up - I think this particular SPI was justified, even if it proved a negative. But at least we probably now know where he got the "dog" thing from - from his own misunderstanding of English idiom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Weird defamation campaign

• threads on various admin talkpages
  • User talk:Qwyrxian - Enquiry ref: a blocked user unsupported accusations of WP:TROLLING, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:STALKING; "..User:DIREKTOR who has a habit of trolling, accusing and harassing editors. He did it to me and I very nearly got disciplined just for defending myself. I walked away, but Daneto is being stalked by DIREKTOR. If this has anything to do with his block, I can understand why Daneto has posted to users who have also been victimised by DIREKTOR."
  • User talk:DVdm - Nikola Tesla troubles unsupported accusations of WP:HARASSMENT; "troublemaker", "crazy person"
  • User talk:DVdm - Nikola Tesla issue "I'm not going to allow the likes of user DIREKTOR to get me in trouble! There's a history there, I'm sure you know it. He's at it again,"
  • User talk:Alpha Quadrant - User:DIREKTOR "I wish you to know I am grateful for your intervention and for not involving me by notifying me. Luckily I watch DIREKTOR every once in a while - without communicating at all - to see what he's doing. AQ, he's done this to other users!"
  • User talk:Master of Puppets - Admin's notice board, complaint unsupported accusation of WP:STALKING; "user DIREKTOR has been awfully quiet of late, and seemingly very nice. It made me nervous", "DIREKTOR is getting out of hand", "can you please help with this? DIREKTOR ought to be blocked for this", "can this indicate DIREKTOR is stalking me? If so, DIREKTOR may be stalking others. What a hassle!", etc.
  • User talk:Binksternet - Nikola Tesla help "DIREKTOR - causing problems"
  • User talk:McGeddon - Nikola Tesla "Why do you defend the actions of this troublemaking editor?" "DIREKTOR is well known for starting fights and then threatening to report people."
• threads on User talk:Djathinkimacowboy
  (difficult to bring forth since the user keeps deleting talkpage threads)
  • The User:DIREKTOR Factor a thread not intended for communication, but dedicated to attacking my statements in various ways.
  • Sakharov, Andrei, Russian physicist, and I do not think there is such a user here, is there? a thread not intended for communication, but used to imply I am a Stalinist Communist. "Hopefully you all comprehend what I am trying to say to you."
• other
  • [81] "I am tired of the virtually unchecked depredations of User:DIREKTOR. Let us hope Daneto can have a future here...but it's doubtful. He's been too hurt and I see this as becoming a blood feud if unchecked any longer."
  • User talk:Timbouctou - [82] "Have you seen User:DIREKTOR trying to imply that you are my sock?! Better watch him, T!"
  • [83] removed a barnstar I awarded with "garbage removal day!"
  • [84] "All you like to do is hang about and cause trouble when others make mistakes. I made a mistake, I corrected it, I am sorry about it and that is all so much more than YOU will ever do!"
  • [85] deleting my talkpage comment
• talkpage harassment
  • [86] "you are simply out of control. I sincerely hope you are blocked" "And now I am calling for you to be disciplined for your trolling, insulting and trouble-making"
  • [87] warning me by template to stop WP:EDIT-WARRING - when I had not even edited an article, much less reverted something(!)
  • [88] "May I suggest you meditate on your rudeness"

Believe it or not, I could go on and on, but I have work to do. This harassment and slander by User:Djathinkimacowboy has been going on for several weeks now, almost since User:Djathinkimacowboy joined Wikipedia on November 3. People I never even met are being canvassed and pestered by this user in an attempt to convince them I am some sort of "harassing", "stalking" "troll". Its amazing, you may not believe me, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong - but I've done nothing this person has kept accusing me of. I've neither WP:STALKED nor WP:HARASSED anyone, I've not WP:EDIT-WARRED, and I've done nothing that could even remotely be characterized as WP:TROLLING. We've had NO content disputes whatsoever. In fact, I've noticed User:Djathinkimacowboy's behavior for the first time when I requested that some other user apologize on Talk:Nikola Tesla - he posted a thread on User talk:DVdm with [89]

“ Oh, please come over and see the talk page. It has erupted due to the harassment by user DIREKTOR, who I understand is a troublemaker. Good thing it's protected! This stuff on the talk page is frankly garbage. Now two editors are over there dancing round the issue like crazy people. ”

A user that (at that time) joined a week ago "understands I am a troublemaker", and proceeds to call me names - without even having talked to me. That seems to me very suspicious and strange.
Personally I think this warrants sanctions, but I really don't care if he gets blocked or not - I just want to stop opening my watchlist and seeing he's pestering another user with his hostile, insulting, and slanderous nonsense of the above sort. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is something I am really beginning to resent. I claim my right to respond here:

1. This is getting out of hand - hence the reasons for my occasional warning posts.

2. This user is not being entirely straightforward.

3. I suggest to you that the above post tells you all you need to know about what this user does most of the time on Wikipedia.

4. I have left this user completely alone as I was advised to do. Does this user leave me or others alone?

5. I quote from the above: "I just want to stop opening my watchlist to see he's pestering another user with his hostile, insulting, and slanderous nonsense of the above sort." He opens his watchlist and sees what I am posting to other users?

And no one thinks that is alarming? Djathinkimacowboy 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, because if you think of how a watchlist works, you keep posting on the pages of people he has watchlisted for some other reason, probably because they edit in the same area and have previously exchanged messages. Why would that be alarming? Can I recommend you stop posting onwiki comments about DIREKTOR on other people's talkpages, they are about the contributor, not the content, and risk stepping over into personal attacks, and a couple of them look like running the risk of crossing into canvassing. If you want to discuss content - do it on article talkpages. If you have something to say about DIREKTOR, say it to him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced (as yet) that the user understands what's wrong with the above, and that he is about to stop any time soon. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

These two users each seem to bring out the worst in the other. Neither can bear to see a talk page post by their nemesis without responding in a sarcastic, combative or dismissive way. Each would find their life on WP much better if the other would leave them alone, but each is waiting for the other to be the first to back away. This is not to defend the sad litany of poor judgement on the part of Djathinkimacowboy which DIREKTOR lists above. Virtually all of those are indefensible (apart from Djathinkimacowboy removing a barnstar placed on their talk page by Direktor in what I can only see as a sarcastic manner). Options? Some kind of interaction ban between the two, perhaps? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Something preventing either of them from posting on other people's talkpages about these editors, putting their oar into discussions that other people are having etc etc. If either of them has a problem with the other, they can start an RfC/U and accept the consequences. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Kim Dent-Brown. For the record Kim, I don't write these threads on people's talkpages. I just sometimes notice them (since a lot of those people were automatically included on my watchlist) and respond to (some of) them. Its sort of like, "Djathinkimacowboy on Binksternet's talk? Not again...". I think its only natural to get peeved after reading some of the stuff above, and to try and prevent Djathinkimacowboy from convincing yet another user that I am, in fact, some sort of a troll account.

@Elen of the Roads. Exactly. Why in the world is this guy going around posting these sort of personal attack threads? If he has a problem with something - let him report me, or post an RfC, or whatever, and if he has some sort of content issue - lets have it on an article talkpage. Its weird its what it is. I'm not trying to get him blocked - he's new here, but will someone explain to him this isn't the way to go? All I'm trying to do is save myself the frustration at having to constantly see this guy's hostile slander and nonsense accusations all over Wiki.

Quite frankly, judging from the suspicious post I quoted in parentheses above - I think either he isn't a new user (which seems unlikely), or someone "recruited" him against me. You do not join Wikipedia with pre-conceived notions about people you never even met. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat.

User:Stevenklien has posted the following legal threat [90] on User:GiantSnowman talk page. He is on Holiday and as this is a legal threat thought i better report it.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stevenklien (talk · contribs)

No question it's a legal threat, and I've advised the user to retract it or he will be blocked. There is no compromise on legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I see he's been indef'd and also advised who to contact if he's got valid concerns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC Closure

Hello! It seems that the Wikipedia community has voiced its support of the proposition at this RfC, which has been open since 8 November 2011. Could an administrator please kindly close the RfC? With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

IP making dubious edits, refusing to cite sources

90.195.75.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) constantly adds unsourced information to various BLPs and other articles, mostly residences and birthplaces. Some edits are obviously dubious (made-up location on caption, fake citation), a couple of times they've changed what they're adding within a minute [91][92],[93][94] which looks to me like they're making it up as they go along. Has ignored multiple requests and warnings to cite sources. I'm sure it's one person using this IP throughout, and the same person has been making edits like this from similar IPs for months now (same false citation: [95][96]), also think it's the same IP editor I raised here. January (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld

This user has made threats toward me and accused me with libel and slander per user talk:George Ho#Posters. I don't know what else to do. --George Ho (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Just in case: User talk:George Ho (history · last edit). This person is making vicious messages toward me. --George Ho (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"This user has made threats toward me and accused me with libel and slander per ". Um, no rather I am getting irritated by your continous automated drilled spam messages like these every few minutes over images you could quickly repair/fix yourselves and nominating articles for deletion in quick succession like this and this without approaching me and asking to expanding them kindly. And yes if you continue to act in a purely deletionist fashion rather than doing something constructive I will not tolerate it and will makes things difficult until you start behaving like a decent wikipedian with positive intent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any libel, slander or threats from Dr. Blofeld at the link given. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Check Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs). This may help. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not checking a contribs list in case there's a threat. Post a diff, please? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've read it - where's the 'libel and slander' - ? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is not 'libel and slander', then it must be a threat from that user. The recent post in this section by this user shall prove any kind. --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ho, seriously you are causing disruption with your course of editing and your reporting of me here. Unlike yourself I am constructive . Perhaps if you started working with me and other editors to build the best possible encyclopedia we can instead of trying to delete everything things would be nicer for you. All you have to do is kindly ask for me to expand an article or correct an image. Spamming me and then ignoring what I have to say and causing trouble here is not doing you any favors. Regulars/veterans here do not appreciate being drilled automated messages in quick succession.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

More importantly; what one earth is this rant about. An AFD is supposed to consist of the rationale for deletion - not a rant about the person who created the page (same with the other AFD's I checked). Blofeld gives you some good advice; perhaps slow down and consider if there might be a better approach here than simply tagging - for example if a FUR seems possible for an image, you should consider adding it rather than tagging. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Is there an admin with the cojones to do the right thing and block User:George Ho? According to site policy, making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Our administrative procedures are fairly good at rooting out obvious and superficial incivility, but quite poor at dealing with people who wear down others through score-settling and the like. We need to fix that. And we may as well start here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd ditch the rhetorical questions and Wikipedia Review bullshit and ask for action Short Brigade. But maybe you "content writers rule the world" people can't interface with us "process, because we need it" people. Just saying. Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:DGG recently had trouble with him over something. The history of his user page implies he has a history of prodding and mass spamming. Yes Short Brigade Harvester Boris "wearing down through score-settling" is certainly an accurate description...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what have I done against you? I know the rules of copyright law of Argentina. If I have done anything to hurt you, I apologize for not notifying you about the laws. Look, you can stop accusing me of spamming if you don't have proof. One question: why does anything, including posters, qualify as photos? --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to keep excusing yourself. Learn the ropes and how things work and you'll understand. You sent me a series of automated drilled message with the same generic text with a deletion threat message at least 10 times in the last few days. I consider that spamming my talk page. I'll assume you are not a native english speaker, given that you appear to have taken what I said about you spamming my talk page as some kind of allegation of serious libel and slander against you. Yes, Argetine film images need sorting out with correct licences and need a massive amount of work but you are approaching the issue in the wrong way. WHy don't you go through the Argentine film images find those images which you find problematic and make a list at User:Dr. Blofeld/Argentine film images with problems and once done we can both try to sort the license and rationales out. OK? II'm on your side, but you are approaching me in completely the wrong way and reporting me here and creating AFDs out of spite are doing you no favours with me or anybody else here. Apology accpeted, now please show me you are a decent person and we can discuss how to address the image problems on your talk page. I've had enough for today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Don't come here often, so if I have this wrong, sorry. Am proposing that someone mentor George re: Afd/FfD and the like and that George makes an indication that he's willing to listen to the advice of whoever his mentor might be. We hope (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked him to make him stop - his last four hours edits were bad enough, but they seem to be all like that! I'm sure he means perfectly well, but he needs to stop trying to get everything deleted. Maybe a mentor would help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)