Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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 2012 (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, 26 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/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/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)

My experience with Epeefleche after releasing his previous indefinite block was that I regretted unblocking him. One of his first actions was to demonstrate that he didn't understand that the actions that lead to his block were a problem.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is this being made so complex? It could be solved as simply as providing Epeefleche with a list (it can even be the start of a list) of articles that have been proven to contain at least one plagiarized passage without attribution—not a mere list of the article’s he’s created. Then the community imposes a condition for being an unrestricted editor: He must correct one article per week. If he can’t do at least that, it seems perfectly reasonable to have him indef-blocked. It makes no sense to me that others should have to go clean up his mess; particularly if Epeefleche is then going to complain about how the editor most interested in fixing his articles isn’t going about the clean-up properly. This approach will bifurcate the intermingling of copyvio cleanup with POV-pushing issues; the two are distinctly different matters where the latter one resolves itself on its own with time via the normal tug-of war between editors debating via edit summaries and actual discussion (*sound of audience gasp*) on discussion pages and arrival at a consensus. Greg L (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Greg L You are more familiar than me with this case, but didn't that boat sail back in December 2010 when the good ship Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Epeefleche was launched? AFAICT, at the start of the investigation a complete list was generated, and there was a lull in the investigation into that list between January 21 and 17 November during which time Epeefleche could have cleaned up all the articles where (s)he had breached copyright. If Epeefleche had been done that, then there would have been nothing for anyone else to find and delete and the investigation would have been closed months ago without a trip to ANI which Epeefleche initiated. -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't cleaning up articles which are known to be copyright violations. That isn't very difficult. The problem is finding the articles which are copyright violations in the first place. That's the only area where Epeefleche may have special expertise because s/he may be able to remember if the text was copied from anywhere. Besides if something is known to be violating copyright then we have to remove it as soon as possible, not have it sit around for months until Epeefleche deals with it as part of the quota. Hut 8.5 00:55, 27 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 warnings from me and Moonriddengirl in February and March 2010 - until the CCI started in December 2010. 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)

Yes, I did look at the targeted killing article, and the five excisions mkat made, as "close paraphrasing", prior to nominating the article for deletion, as containing too many copy violated passages. The article did contain passages that violated out copyright policy. And I looked at the article's revision history, thinking about confirming or refuting whether epee had originally been responsible for those copyright violations. Maybe there is a tool that can trace who is reponsible for a particular passage -- *-if so I am not familiar with that tool. I decided not to do that check. The revision history is long. If, for the sake of argument, epee did introduce the copyvio material, but did so prior to the CCI when he was brought to an understanding of copyvio, is his responsibility for those copyvios relevant in a discussion for blocking him in November 2011?

While epee made the largest contribution to the article, five other contributors made 75 edits between them. Do you know that they weren't responsible for the introduction of some of the copyvio material into the article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a tool. It is called WP:WIKIBLAME. All of the copyright infringing material noted by mkativerata was introduced by Epeefleche here. But this is another red herring. Epeefleche has not been blocked for introducing the material; he has been blocked for disrupting the cleanup of the violations. And frankly, you are not helping very much either, because you are asking other people prove to you things that you could figure out for yourself with a bit of time and effort. --Slp1 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to GeoSwan, it's important that people making these kinds of accusations have done their homework and can show evidence to support them. The informal and disorganized nature of the AN/I "dispute resolution" format (if you can call it that) seems to be a benefit in that it is not bogged down by bureaucratic procedures. But it's a double-edged sword in that the disorganized format means there's no predetermined high-visibility area where petitioners can lay out the evidence and where everyone else can expect to find it, as there is at WP:RFC/U. tl;dr: The price of a quick, to-the-point and informal dispute resolution process is that you sometimes have to repeat yourself. causa sui (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Slp1, I spent a bit of time and effort", I spent far more than a bit of time and effort looking into this. I am not at fault, have nothing to apologize for, for not being familiar with WP:WIKIBLAME. Since you have used it, doesn't it show that all the copyright violations epee was responsible for were prior to the CCI investigation?

  As for what I should or shouldn't be able to figure out from the record -- I don't see the record supporting what you and others have asserted, namely, "Epeefleche ... has been blocked for disrupting the cleanup of the violations."

  When I look at Mkat's repeated unexplained excisions on November 17th, I see Epee spent an hour making good faith attempts to address Mkat's concerns. This was not disruption on Epee's part.

  Every contributor, from the barest newbie, making their first edit, to the most experienced administrator, with a million edits under their belt, is under an obligation to hold themselves accountable for their edits. None of us should make an edit we don't think we can explain.

  Another thing the record shows is that Mkat was unable or unwilling to offer a meaningful explanation for their excisions on November 17th. I suggest the record shows Mkat's attempts to explain the excisions since then have been contradictory. I remain concerned that their reasoning is not based on policy.

  Another thing the record shows is that -- instead of supplying a meaningful, helpful explanation Mkat left a very troubling threat to block Epee. We entrust administrators with certain extra powers -- to be used accountably, responsibly, and whenever possible in an open and transparent manner. Mkat's threat to block failed to be accountable and responsible on two grounds: first, mkat failed to be explicit on what actions Epee should avoid to avoid the block; second Mkat failed to point to the policy that would have authorized the block. Frankly, I am very concerned that would have justified blocking Epee for making an additional good faith attempt to supply alternate wording that wasn't a "close paraphrase".

  So far none of Epee's behavior seems disruptive to me. What should a good faith contributor do when they encounter an administrator who issues vague threats to block them, threats they seem reluctant to explain? I suggest initiating a collegial note on ANI is among the options.

  I understand that CCI volunteers are frustrated with Epee. But, I don't agree that anyone has offered any diffs to demonstrate that Epee has disrupted the CCI process. Haven't all the problematic diffs offered here dated back to prior to the CCI investigation? As such I suggest they are irrelevant if Epee is complying with our policies now. I don't agree that the questions Epee raised about Mkat's exisions at Ilan Berman were disruptive. Rather, I think it is important that the validity of those excisions be explained, and Epee's questions about the excisions, both on the article and here at ANI were completley justified.

  To the extent the block imposed on Epee is due to those participating here taking at face value Mkat's assertions that Epee's questions about his or her actions were disruptive I suggest that this was an invalid, unjustified block. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughtful post, Geo Swan. That precisely summarizes my take on this. Greg L (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

GS I think you are confusing copyright violations with Epeefleche tactics over the clean up process, when you write "Haven't all the problematic diffs offered here dated back to prior to the CCI investigation". Epeefleche had most of this year to clean up his/her own mess and chose not to do so. Since another editor has started to investigate the list, rather than co-operating, the tactics Epeefleche has employed is to generate fear, uncertainty and doubt over the good faith of the person who has restarted the clean up process after a lull of 10 months. I am not sure why you think differences are needed to show Epeefleche's behaviour. Epeefleche's initiation of this section "Deletions by involved editor under claim of "close paraphrases"; Mkativerata" is one example, another is the initiation of the the section Talk:Targeted killing#Copyvio claim. Both section headings are indicative of the tone and content of Epeefleche's comments on the clean-up process. This behaviour seems to be a continuation of the same tactics shown when the case was first opened. That is why Epeefleche's current block is in place.

As to your second point: By its structure the CCI investigation only looks at edits from the time that the diffs are added to the CCI investigation, therefore the process will only show up diffs prior to the start of the CCI investigation. At the moment there is an assumption of good faith that Epeefleche has stopped adding copyright material, (in this section no one has mentioned that they have done a systematic survey of Epeefleche's edits since the historical survey was done in January (If anyone has then it would be helpful if they would share their findings). If it had been shown that Epeefleche had over the last few months systematically breached copyright through close paraphrasing, or had blatantly copied text from copyright sources, then the debate would not be on what terms Epeefleche could resume editing, there would almost certainly be a consensus for a long block. -- PBS (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I'm going to try to take Causa sui's advice that information may have to be repeated on this board, so here goes. You say that you "don't see the record supporting what you and others have asserted, namely, "Epeefleche ... has been blocked for disrupting the cleanup of the violations."". The evidence is above in the section entitled "Request for a block", including mkativerata's request, which includes several diffs, and the comments that following including Tim Song's comment on blocking "Blocked indef. Any admin may unblock when they are satisfied that Epeefleche will no longer disrupt the CCI." It is also clear from Epeefleche's blocklog and from the block notice on Epeefleche's talkpage. S/he was not been blocked for the copyvios or plagiarism. S/he was not blocked for disputing mkativarata's edit on Ilan Berman. S/he has not blocked for bringing this to ANI. S/he was blocked for 4 days later for failing to hear what experienced, uninvolved editors were telling and particularly forthe actions on Talk:Targeted killing and Talk:Muslim Arab Youth Association. The block was supported 14 editors (including multiple administrators and one arbitrator) and opposed by 4, including yourself. You may not find Epeefleche's behaviour disruptive, but the bulk of editors clearly do. --Slp1 (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce confounding and clarify potential copyvios

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

---

Proposal:  Mkativerata is directed to make separate diffs for each potential copyvio found, and to include in each such diff the words "potential copyvio".

Rationale:  This proposal is in reference to this diff.  The associated edit comment is, "Rm a couple of close paraphrases and fix a couple of quotes."

1. There was no functional need for Mkativerata to merge these four edits together.
2. Identifying the material as a "close paraphrase" has left ambiguous if other editors should consider the material to be a potential copyvio, or a non-copyvio close paraphrase.
3. There are different copyvio cases to be argued for the two different close paraphrases.  The second of the close paraphrases has been identified as a close paraphrase of a close paraphrase, and stuart.jamieson, in supporting Hobit, states regarding the second close paraphrase, "The material being paraphrased...does not begin to approach the threshold of originality required by law to assert a copyvio."  So it would have helped the analysis had the second close paraphrase not been combined with the first close paraphrase.
4. Here is an effort by Geo Swan to sort out the confusion that has resulted from the confounded diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as it would needlessly slow down and complicate the CCI and is out of keeping with CCI practice to begin with. The presumption with editors in Epeefleche's position is that all of their content is problematic. CCIs are intended in part to avoid having to invoke the provision of Wikipedia:Copyright violations that would result in the presumptive deletion of everything he's added by at least making an effort to identify when articles are problematic. Standard practice on finding copied content from a CCI contributor in any such article is to assume that the rest of the content he added to the article should also be rewritten, not to say "Oh, he copied these four sentences. Let's see if the other two are okay." If edit summaries are confusing to other editors, a better summary might be "removed per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Epeefleche" as this includes in its second paragraph directions for contributors who want to help fix the issue or are confused as to what the issue might be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Semi-support I agree with the underling premiss behind this proposal. But I think it amounts to arguing about where best to put the tourniquet after someone steps on the land mine; I’d rather steer clear of the land mine. I think there are better ways to avoid the conflict and the resultant wikidrama, and I’ve proposed it, above. Epeefleche made a mess and has left it to others to fix it all. IMHO, the proper way to get on with what is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby for us all is to make the restoration of Epeefleche’s editing privileges contingent upon his cleaning up his past articles at a certain rate—perhaps one a week or something like that. Greg L (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose requiring editors working on massive CCIs in a massive CCI backlog to jump through bureaucractic hoops. Maybe Unscintillating can try doing some CCI work to see how unworkable this idea is. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose LOL—as if the CCI people don't have enough work to do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per MRG and John. causa sui (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per MRG, John and my minor experience (compared to those such as MRG) working on copyvio issues. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unworkable bureaucratic wonkery. 04:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  So is it fair to say (with the exception of MRG who has commented regarding the edit comment) that those opposed are in favor of confounded edits and ambiguous edit comments?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's fair to say that this isn't a question that should be dignified with an answer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose pointless complication of CCI work. The original edit summary was quite clear. MRG's suggestion of linking to the CCI might help; some editors might view it as a sort of branding, but it might be worth noting that the removal is happening under CCI rules. But the notion that identifying a copyright problem ought to open a lengthy negotiation over incremental fixes to the text is not just an unreasonable burden on CCI investigators; it also won't fix the copyright problem. Filling the history with a series of small steps from the original text to an ostensibly different version merely records the proof that the text is a derived work. The only way to fix it is to remove the text and write a replacement from scratch. (Nor is it reasonable to expect a CCI investigator to do the second part of that.) Kanguole 12:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as a needless complication for people trying to get this work done and counter to existing policy and practice. Hut 8.5 17:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

'Oppose WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY especially the mention of instruction creep. The CCI project has a huge backlog and jumping through hoops is lower priority than fixing theft of copyright. Of course, if those who support this proposal were to show as much interest in dealing with the backlog as complaining about those doing the work, the CCI project might eventually be able to afford the luxury of being able to converse with obstructive POV-pushers. Epeefleche had plenty of opportunities to help fix a problem of which (s)he was the primary cause but seemed more interested in making trouble.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Trying to comment on this proposal in detail might not be good for my blood pressure, so I won't. Hans Adler 17:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The imposition of this sort of petty restriction (which will get pushed onto other editors as well) will merely discourage anyone from trying to clear up problems in case they too get attacked as well by the original offender or their supporters.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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)
• Support - per all the reasons given above. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse The weeklong block may have been appropriate at first, but if he's creating socks to push fringe theories it's obvious we don't need him. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Should this now be closed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Wheres Dan hasn't even been notified, as far as I'm aware (at least I don't see a notice on his talk page). No, don't close this yet; even if WD ends up being banned, he should at least have a chance to defend himself. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 03:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I've notified him. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 03:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      • This was opened at least six days ago. What took so long? causa sui (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

He was notified of the discussion that started this one at User_talk:Wheres_Dan#ANI_notification. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:22, 27 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" ([23]), 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" - [24]
• 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" - [25]
• 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") - [26]
• Unfounded accusation of "massive obsession with inserting defamatory material about Indian castes" - [27]
• 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 - [28]
• 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" - [29]
• Throwing in "narrow minded colonial racist britishers" - [30]
• 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." - [31]
• Accusations of conspiracy - [32]
• Accusations of "trying to get blocks and bans etc. and doing various forms of armtwisting on anyone who has disputes on you" - [33]

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 [34]), 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)

Sitush, is that what she said or are you still talking about that toe of yours? Drmies (talk) 15:49, 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)

Yes, but this is partly why I have raised the issue. I might be committing wiki-suicide here but I do have a sometimes ridiculously honed sense of what is morally right/wrong. The entire systemic bias issue does, of course, include idiomatic phrasing & allowances have to be made for this. In my case, I ask when I do not understand/need clarification - examples of which MW has disparagingly referred to in the past being "straw man argument" and "Krishnaji" - but others may just jump in. If you look at it from this POV then MangoWong's comment makes a little more sense. At the extreme was a misunderstanding that appeared to cause them to connect "Bedside manner" to an accusation of User:Fowler&fowler somehow suggesting a pornographic connect - long story.

The problem is that the semantic obfuscation/wriggling that MW frequently exercises (as appears in part to be hinted at, for example, in the thread here) makes it clear, to me at least, that s/he does in fact have a reasonable command of the English language/idioms etc. MW can wikilawyer for [name your country here]. Also, MW was supporting TT2011 throughout this entire episode and therefore will have seen explanations of the term & that T2011 used it. I was just being open in declaring this situation. I do not know for sure that it is even the "accusation" to which MW was referring. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush and Fowler and Fowler contributions go much beyond cleaning out articles , they are audacious onslaughts on previous content and content provided by other editors . Their presumption to higher erudition is misplaced , and arrogant as I have noted in my attempts to discuss his/her deletions of cited content in particular. In fact its sad( but exceedingly dexterous !) how it can be missed , to see how successfully Sitush along with Fowler and Fowler and several others can work in conjunction to turn an article on its head , concurrently and minutely examining content to retain and delete as per his/her frame of things , from an article and also horrendously miss glaring facts needing the same inspection . It would be completely inappropriate to see MangoWango blocked , but not surprising Intothefire (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...you might want to be careful, as your comment is nearly a personal attack itself. In a certain sense, though, you are correct--Sitush and F&F often do make strong "onslaughts" against previous content. That's because so much of the content in the topic area is unverified, non-neutral, or verified by sources that don't meet WP:RS. Our policies say that we should aggressively change, trim, and re-source such articles. MW can be good at this activity--he has done good work before--but he has gotten into a pattern, primarily with Sitush, of attacking rather than discussing, and of making strong claims of inaccuracy and poor sourcing but without showing a willingness (in some cases) of actually demonstrating those claims. It's especially disconcerting when MW says that a given source is terrible, that it shouldn't be in an article, but then refuses to go to WP:RSN to actually discuss the issue and get outside involvement. Couple that with the personal attacks, and we're where we are today. If you want to contribute constructively in the field, you'd be much better off not following MW's example. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I dont see the right to unilateral removal of properly cited content or removal without discussion as policy endorsed by Wikipedia , and I dont see Sitush or Fowler and Fowler having a special privilege to arbitrate validity of good or bad cited content without cogent reasons or discussion. See Deletion of cited content and citations from articles by Sitush
• I also dont see justification for deliberately false reasoning provided for changes on articles.See Discussion on Talk Jat page with Fowler and Fowler.Qwyrxian your Admin interventions on articles and talk pages in my interactions with you where Sitush and Fowler and Fowler have been aggressively engaged could have been more constructive albeit if they were more balanced and thorough .Sorry the ban on Mangowong instead of the restraining on Sitush , Fowler and Fowler and Mathew Varitas is a classic example of bad judgment Intothefire (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...I won't draw this out unnecessarily, but all editors all have the "right to unilateral removal" of material that is improperly cited, that is uncited, or that is cited to unreliable sources. See WP:V. Of course, if others disagree, they shouldn't edit war...but once an issue has been discussed, and the other party refuses to attend to any form of dispute resolution, removal is the correct choice. And just to clarify, I did not block MangoWong, nor would I ever do so outside of a clear emergency (and then I'd seek review afterward). Nothing, though, prevents me from commenting on the actions of other admins. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian , your response is general , whereas I have provided a specific link to Deletion of cited content and citations from articles by Sitush as well as Discussion on Talk Jat page with Fowler and Fowler , if you are defending Sitush and Fowler and Fowler , then please respond in specific reference to diffs provided and content thereon , Mangowong is hung on specific charges of bothering Sitush , so its only fair that specific instances of Sitush and Fowler and Fowler edits are put up to the same level of specific editorial inspection otherwise we have a witch hunt here. I may know little on the subject , but I know enough to see how these two along with and several others have really bothered various editors and I am willing to provide many more specific instances .Although I have myself been the recepient of a warning from Mangowong , I see the ban on him here is absurd and shallow , with justice really miscarried whereas the hammer should should have clearly fallen elsewhere. Intothefire (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Intothefire, MangoWong has not been banned but rather has been blocked for 48 hours. He had previously had a 24 hour block in July, and the nature of blocks is that they tend to become longer if the contributor continues to make similar infractions of policy etc. I think that if you want to raise issues regarding my conduct or that of Fowler&fowler then probably you should start another thread. NB: Fowler&fowler is not contributing at the moment due to real life issues & so discussion of his actions may be tricky. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol ,Earlier when I was having a discussion with you Qwyrxian said you were going to be absent , now you say Fowler and Fowler is going to be absent so discussing his edits is tricky, .I find this musical chairs syndrome tricky . No this block is completely misdirected but emblematic . Intothefire (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate the support here folks, thanks. I was a little wary due to the sensitivity of some India-related articles, so my block was quite lenient and I possibly went further than necessary with the amount of evidence. But I feel confident now to impose escalating blocks should the same behaviour continue. And if anyone has any dispute with any future admin actions I might take in this area, I am always open to discussion and will be happy to respond to any civil approaches - and will fully cooperate with any discussions here on this board, or in any other relevant forums. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean, you want to be adminning those caste articles which Sitush will be editing? MW ^ℳ 02:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as I don't use the admin tools over a content issue that I have taken part in. And it's nothing to do with Sitush specifically. I have been providing admin supervision of a number of India-related articles for some time, and have acted against a number of editors whose behaviour is contrary to Wikipedia policy, sometimes egregiously so - socks, personal attacks and harassment, etc. And I will continue to do so, whoever they are and whomever they attack. Anyway, if you have a complaint about my actions, or anyone else's, you have been told a number of times what you should do - make an ANI report, or start an RfC/U, and have the admin corps/community decide -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as I don't use the admin tools over a content issue that I have taken part in. Does that mean you can be an admin on a content issue you have not participated in, even if you have otherwise been editing other content in the same article?-MW ^ℳ 15:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what it means. As I've told you before MW [35], just because someone has edited the same article as you have, it doesn't mean they are too involved to block you for personal attacks. Your habit of accusing people of making this attack or that, without providing supporting diffs, can certainly lead to your being blocked by any admin. I suggest you try to understand this. --regentspark (comment) 16:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please allow Boing! said Zebedee to answer the question. The issue you are clarifying is different from what BSZ is saying. BSZ is not talking about performing admin actions "in case of PA". BSZ appears to saying that it is OK to perform admin actions on content issues that BSZ has not edited, even if BSZ has edited other content in the same article. Clear?MW ^ℳ 16:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:INVOLVED. If you ever believe you see me violate it in my admin actions, raise a report in the appropriate venue. Over and out. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it true that you and Sitush are from the same country, and live within 50 km of each other? That you have been supporting Sitush through and through, and the caste articles have been in flames ever since you two took to them? That you have claimed the right to be an admin in a caste article (Kurmi) after you had edited it (incidentally, to reinsert a misrepresentation which I had deleted) ?-MW ^ℳ 02:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to make a case of admin abuse out of this issue is not going to work. Particularly in cases involving POV pushing in articles related to groups of people, admins are welcome to follow the case and take action as required. It is often necessary for some admin involvement to occur because completely uninvolved editors find it too hard to get up to speed with the complex back and forth. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Other admins have been doing their stuff on these articles, btw. Examples include User:Drmies, User:Salvio giuliano (who issued you with your first block), User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:SpacemanSpiff, User:C.Fred. I stress, those are just examples, and to my certain knowledge not all of them live in the same country as myself. I guess that I now have to notify all of those named. - Sitush (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, just to make sure that it doesn't appear we're involved, I won't say hi to you in the pub tonight. Also, these accusations on MangoWong's part are making my wife suspicious. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that you seem to have acknowledged that both of you are from the same country, would you like to clarify whether you and BSZ live within 50 km of each other or not?-MW ^ℳ 04:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? You are being rude and, yet again, assuming bad faith. Location is not relevant, as should be obvious from the list that I have already provided. However, if you or anyone else wants to call on me and share a cup of tea then you are more than welcome. Carry on like this and you may find yourself with a break that would facilitate such a visit. - Sitush (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: right after returning from a block for well-poisoning (with strong support), MW turns up at the ANI thread for said topic and begins trying to pin INVOLVED status on the admin who blocked him based on evidence-free insinuations of meatpuppetry? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Davshul, disruptive editing

Davshul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly, massively vandalised 2011 in the United States and other 2011 in "other country" articles.

I have pointed out on several occassions, to no useful end, that all these articles are part of the parent 2011 (a well-policed article), and that the change he keeps making needs to be cleared there first in the talk section, Talk:2011. Instead he has gone to the talk section for the actual article, Talk:2011 in the United States with useless discussion that he knows in bad faith that no one but me will ever read since the discussion there is poorly read, and most likely, completely never read.

As per Wikipedia:Recent years#Article body - individual dates are linked.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that it is also bad faith editing to claim someone else is editing in bad faith? Leaving headings like "notification of bad faith edits discussion" on the user's talk page doesn't help either. No comment on the actual dispute, just an FYI.--v/r - TP 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

what are you talking about?, the posting mechanism here said i was supposed to notify him--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and generally that is done with a heading that says "AN/I Discussion". That isn't a free license to accuse someone of bad faith.--v/r - TP 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

i have changed it--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@70.162.171.210: I see nothing in the history of this dispute except your repeated characterization of Davshul's work as "vandalism" or "bad faith" or "disruptive". I don't see where any of his work is any of that. What you should do, rather than calling his editing what it is not, is to instead seek discussion on the article talk pages. If you believe that the discussion does not have enough participation from neutral parties, then see WP:DR and choose a mechanism there (such as WP:3O or WP:DRN) to get extra attention. Using perjorative terms to describe someone's editing doesn't help you "win", it merely makes you look like a bully and is unlikely to result in a positive outcome for you. Instead, speak to and about others in non-confrontational terms, use existing mechanisms for dispute resolution, and have the patience to understand that disputes may not be resolved instantly; it may take some days for enough people to comment to allow for a reasonable consensus to arise. --Jayron32 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Davshul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has finally in good faith attempted to justify his vandalism of year in country articles in an appropriate location (not just some talk page that no one ever reads), why he did not see fit to write anything here is beyond me to explain towards "his good faith", his comments are on this talk page Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Date linkage in subpages.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, let me make this clearer. Don't call his edits vandalism. Continuing to do so is unlikely to go well for you. Which is not to say that his edits are necessarily going to be best for Wikipedia. But if you keep calling his edits vandalism, it just makes you look bad, and thus you'll end up making your position in this dispute look bad. If you genuininly believe you are correct, stop using the word vandalism, because it is clear that you don't know what it means. I am quite interested in seeing the right thing get done here, and if your position in this dispute is "the right thing", I will be quite upset if you screw that up by calling his edits vandalism if they are not. I have not idea which side of the dispute is "right", but as so often happens, the "right" position gets clouded by "wrong" behavior. Calling vandalism things which are not vandalism is a bad idea. Instead, convince people you are correct. --Jayron32 04:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Supporting what Jayron32 is saying here. Vandalism is when a user makes a change with the sole intention of messing up the project, usually for their own entertainment. This is vandalism. If there is a chance that the user is trying to improve the project, you should assume good faith and discuss your disagreement with them, like this: "I noticed you were making edits to 2011 in the United States and other articles. I disagree with these edits. Could you explain their purpose?" Dcoetzee 05:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

i have been informed that the word "vandal" is too harsh --- i will withdraw it but not anything else said.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

70.162, I invite you to read our article on vandalism, WP:VANDAL, so you know what we at Wikipedia mean by the word "vandalism". It's not that the word is "harsh" (which quite frankly smacks of you saying we're too delicate for The Truth), it's that it's the wrong word. It's inaccurate. There is no requirement for an editor to discuss his edits to an article at some special centralized talk page, and expecting an editor to do so in advance - and calling his edits "vandalism" when he doesn't defer to your wishes - is unproductive and disruptive. (Note: as the editor is an Israeli-based Jew and the Sabbath has just begun, it might be best to timestamp this (I don't know how) to give him time to respond after the Sabbath ends.) --NellieBly (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving blocked for 5 days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the anon is correct as to the guidelines. Although there are errors in WP:LINKING, the RfC authorizing the change in the guidelines specifically exempted timeline articles. It's not vandalism, but it is unhelpful and distruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly true: However, the way to be right is not to accuse people of things: It is to engage them in conversation, convince them you are correct, and if you cannot do that, then bring in neutral parties to evaluate the dispute. Accusing people of things that they did not do makes you lose. If you lose, and your position was the correct one, then Wikipedia loses. That's why you should not behave that way, ever. --Jayron32 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

my method may have been wrong but i have been trying to finger in the dike against the flood i knew would come --- if only i had been listened to at the begining the massive list below would now not exist ---

User:Davshul has made changes to all these articles:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1969_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=461606429
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=461609054
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_the_European_Union&diff=prev&oldid=461611386
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461639619
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=461643558
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=461646189
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=461930100
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Northern_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=461930248
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=461554952
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Romania&diff=prev&oldid=461604489
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=461605345
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461504010
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461504240
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461506025
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=461554109
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=461554262

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the following comments.

• First, may I commend and thank NellieBly for her/his observation and suggestion (and thank The Bushranger for the his/her response) postponing the archiving of this topic to enable me to see the latest comments and respond.
• I had not participated initially to this discussion, since following the comment of Jayron on November 22 (in which he/she pointed out, in no uncertain terms, that my edits were neither "vandalism", "bad faith" nor "disruptive", and that anonymous user (Anon) who initiated this discussion was giving every appearance as a bully and that, if he felt that my edits were incorrect, there were various mechanism open to him, but this was not one of them), I had nothing further to add and believed the matter to be at an end.
• The edits made by me on were supported by three other users on 2011 in the United States and two other users on 2011 in Canada, who each undid the reversions made by Anon. It should be noted that Anon's revertion on 2011 in the United States were totally in contravention of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#The three-revert rule, four of such reversions taking place within a single hour on November 20. Furthermore, none of the edit summaries gave any indication to discuss the matter, and appeared to be based upon Anon's believe that only a regular editor of the page was entitled to edit it (such as "cool that you suddendly (sic) show up here having never contributed to this article and make wholesale changes to it -REVERTED"- "let the war begin - thou i think that any admin you get to look at it will see you as a vandal", etc.). The fact that Anon was even allegedly relying on any guidelines was only mentioned for the first time as an edit summary to his reversion of November 21, over 16 hours after he had commenced his reversions.
• I still believe that the guidelines quoted by Anon do not extend to the Year in Country series. However, although the various edits made by me were still in place, and there appeared to be no outstanding challenges, I opened up a second discussion on the issue, on Wikipedia talk:Recent years, (as the initial discussion, also initiated by me, on Talk:2011 in the United States, was alleged by Amnon, as stated above, to be "useless discussion that [I] knows in bad faith that no one but [him] will ever read..". Amnon responded to the new discussion with another wave of accusation of vandalism.
• The discussion, both here and on the various Discussion pages, has now been joined by Arthur Rubin, who states that although "there are errors in WP:LINKING, the RfC authorizing the change in the guidelines specifically exempted timeline". I do not consider that this is the place to discuss whether or not the dates in question should be links. However, I find it hard to believe that had the guidelines intended to initiate a change in the format of hundreds, or more probably thousands, of articles (there are alone currently 236 in the Year in the United States series and 313 in the Year in Canada series), would require users to rely on an extended interpretation of the guidelines or upon some historic RfC (which I have not been able to locate). The first line of the guidelines specifically states that it applies to "year articles (e.g. 2009, 2010)", there is no mention of it applying to sub-articles and indeed much of the guidelines has no application to such sub-article.
• I have now been editing on Wikipedia for some years, having created many articles (including a number in the Year in Country series) and have at all times endeavored to comply with Wiki guidelines. I would add that I have also put in a great deal of effort in order the ensue that articles are presented in an organized and consistent format and, in this respect cannot see why, say, the 237th article in a series should be presented in a different format to the 236 earlier articles, without, at least, some comment on the Discussion page or even in an edit summary. However, I was and am, as clearly demonstrated by me, willing to discuss this matter in an organized manner.
• One point that I find somewhat alarming and surprising is that Arthur Rubin, who appears to be an experienced editor, should have chosen yesterday unilaterally to revert my edits in 2011 in the United States whilst the whole issue is under discussion in several forums.

There are a number of further points that I had intended to make, but unfortunately this response is already longer that I had anticipated it would be and, unfortunately, I have a number of commitments, apart from Wikipedia, that take up my time, including th eneed to earn a living. Davshul (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You apparently weren't involved in the massive rewrite of WP:LINKING#Chronological items; if you were, you would probably have noticed that the the guideline exempted "intrinsically chronological articles", and there is no discussion as to whether "year in country" articles are "intrinsically chronological". I cannot see any rational interpretation in which they are not. If the guideline doesn't apply, then you're left with consensus on the article, which, at least in 2011 in the United States, is clearly in favor of linking. I cannot agree with the anon that you are a vandal; but I can agree that you are disruptive; I suggest you revert all the unlinking edits you've made against custom in "year in country" articles; or, at least, do that before doing any other unlinking. I find it difficult for any any of the bots and macros that I have access to relink only the appropriate links, so it may be necessary to revert to before your edit, thereby losing potentially valuable information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

since you already did some of the revert work Arthur then now you can see why i was aggressive from the begining

1-the guy who made all the those massive changes - will he revert the work - of course he wont - so it is left to others to do the mind numbing effort of syntax changes
2-does the guy care that others will have to now hunt down all those same massive syntax changes - it appears not --70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I note that Arthur Rubin has brought attention to the guidelines WP:LINKING#Chronological items, which exempted "intrinsically chronological articles" from the general guidelines against linking. These guidelines, on at least two occasions, give clear examples of what is meant by this expression, stating "Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items." Note: no reference to subpages and what all these intrinsically chronological articles have in common is that they are all part of a series in which all other pages in the series contain such linkage. This is not so in the case of the Year in Country series, which do not full within the definition of intrinsically chronological articles and where earlier years are not linked. I note that, as a second line attack, Arthur Rubin now brings up the issue of consensus. I must admit that I had not considered the question of a small group of users reaching a consensus not to apply guidelines. However, as the general guidelines are not to link, there should therefore have been a discussion and consensus before the linkage look place in the first place, which there was not, and any such discussion should take into account that all earlier articles in the series were unlinked. If there is no consensus, then the default is not to link. The mere fact that my edits on 2011 in the United States were immediately supported by at least three other users must indicate that there is no consensus to link. Although I may have been hasty in not giving some notice on the Discussion page of my intention to make these changes, I believed, and still believe, that I was applying Wiki guideline. I would add that of the 36 pages currently listed in 2011 in Year in Country series, 25 appear never to have had linked dates, and which certainly does not show any consensus to linkage. Furthermore, as regards the edits made by me, in several instances, the pages included both linked and unlinked dates, and my edits brought consistency to the pages in question. Davshul (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Contrary to the anon's assertion, "subpage" is not the relevant criterion. It's "intrinsically chronological articles". Are you willing to argue that 2011 in the United States is not "intrinsically chronological"? Furthermore, the examples given of "intrinsically chronological articles" is obviously not intended to be exclusive, as it doesn't even have examples of a number of classes; November 27; November 1998 (generally deprecated, but new articles are still being created); 20th century; and 3rd millennium. I don't see why 2011 in the United States would not also fall in the category. As I pointed out in one of the other threads, years before 1990 or so have been unlinked, contrary to the guidelines, by an ambitious bot or bot operator. That doesn't mean that the dates shouldn't be restored. I haven't checked the history of all of the yyyy in the United States articles, but if mostly unlinked after 2009, consensus, rather than the frequently misinterpreted guideline, should be the primary factor in whether the links should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The return of Michael Paul Heart

Main account (most often used):
Michael Paul Heart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Old socks:
Tillie Jean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
BenjaminDavidAharonDvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
DrakeProf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Brian D. White (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
DrakeProf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
71.214.251.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log  · WHOIS · RDNS · trace · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Latest sock:
LittleOldManRetired (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous AN/I threads (both initiated by MPH socks)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#Misconduct_at_.22Ark_of_the_Covenant.22
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#Outraged

I don't think I've ever seen a sockpuppeteer who does a worse job of covering his tracks or seems to be more delusional about believing that he's fooling people than Michael Paul Heart. He basically suffers from two rather unusual obsessions. The first expressed itself by turning tachash into this bizarre morass of original research, novel synthesis and personal opinion. The second was an intense need to edit a picture caption of the Ark of the Covenant to say that the picture was wrong, wrong, wrong because the rings that the staves go through should be located at the feet of the ark, not higher on the sides (I kid you not). His inability to convince anyone that he was improving the article resulted in this jeremiad of a parting message. Of course his decision to "walk out of hell" didn't stop him from creating half-a-dozen socks to continue arguing for his POV and initiate specious threads on AN/I attacking other editors for cleaning up the messes he left.

That looked as if it had all died down, but MPH actually kept at least one sock in reserve LittleOldManRetired (talk · contribs). While MPH was making accusations with his other socks, this account (created on May 4th, before Tillie Jean (talk · contribs) had started an AN/I thread) was innocuously editing a few unrelated articles until Oct. 9 when he went seriously to work on Tachash. To see the result, take a look at the article's history from then to today. And just to make sure no one could possibly miss who was doing this, he also did this (reverted by me, restored by him) at Ark of the Covenant, letting us all know that those rings should be in the feet, the feet, the feet, feet, FEET of the ark. I guess he thinks he can convince the community that there are actually two people alive nutty enough to share his obsessions. I have tried and I cannot make myself believe it.

Today Drmies (talk · contribs) reverted his um, work at Tachash, and he, naturally, reverted back So here's what I think should be done.

Option one - Do an SPI, find any other undiscovered socks he may still have, block them all and ban him from Wikipedia. He's never been anything but trouble to the project and he's never going to be. No amount of lying or being caught at it seems to be enough for this guy. He's variously claimed to be a Catholic, a religious Jew, a college Professor and I don't know what else. I realize his other accounts are probably stale, but we have the IP he was using and it should be easy to check. (I don't think this is outing, he basically outed himself by sockpuppeting so obviously).

Option two - Same SPI, same block of his accounts, but leave one live - Michael Paul Heart (talk · contribs), then topic ban him from Tachash, Ark of the Covenant and anything else having to do with the Bible. Personally, I think option one is a lot more justified, but I mention this just in case anyone wants to give him an eighth chance to edit honestly. Since he's never done anything but sockpuppet and lie to the community non-stop, I don't think he deserves it, but I present it as an option. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support community ban. This kind of disruption has to be prevented, and I would be concerned that an editor known for original research, falsifications, and extreme fringe beliefs will take those tendencies to other topics if banned from editing one specific topic. A formal, clearly spelled-out community ban is useful to other editors (especially non-admins); I use WP:LOBU often enough, and I'm sure other editors do as well. (This is why I'm very much against letting a "de facto ban" be the status quo.) --NellieBly (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: editor has just created article The Tachash (animal). --NellieBly (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban - second chances are good, third chances even, but there comes a point where the foot must be put down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, and would suggest SPI/checkuser to look for sleepers (it wouldn't be fishing, as we do have a genuine new sock and he has used sleepers before) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban. This is a troubled individual. We can probably add User:Hermitstudy to the above list. As Michael Paul Heart, this editor would occasionally let "other people" edit from his computer, like his mother, and his scary Marine friend. Tendentious to be sure. Although MPH's version of Tachash here, at 211900 Kb, is a work of art i.m.o. (not an encyclopedia article, but a work of art no less) The Interior (Talk) 15:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  That's what really makes this kind of sad - on having a skim read of that version, it looks like a very impressive piece of work that may well deserve to be published somewhere (probably somewhere where there can be proper peer review), but it's absolutely not appropriate for an encyclopedia article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support a community ban, though grudgingly, I guess. This editor was the bane of my existence for a while, and when Steven J. and others came to aid on Tachash it was a great relief. I don't like topic bans or community bans, but I think we have no choice here: the level of delusion (I borrow the term from the nominator of this thread) is so high that, in my opinion, no amount of coaching, mentoring, or supervising can prevent further disruption. Sock puppeteering in a basically good-faith but obsessed editor is a terrible thing--just look at their comment on my talk page, "only the nonsense OR submitted or inflicted by Hermitstudy and Michael Paul Heart was not included." Having to call some of your own hard work "nonsense" just so you can keep other parts of it, that's not good: a ban is probably the best thing for Wikipedia and for the editor. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Request - Could someone do whatever is necessary to initiate checkuser proceedings and flush any possible sleepers? I'm sorry, but I'm just not familiar with the formal proceedings on how to do that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• CheckUser comment: There is nothing to report concerning LittleOldManRetired, and all the previous socks are  Stale. WilliamH (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

AWB usage suspended for Waacstats

Resolved

 – mistakes acknowledged and misunderstandings cleared up. You all go good now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have edited Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and commented out Waacstats from the list of users. This should prevent Waacstats from using AWB until it is decided what to do about certain problems that have occurred recently.

• On 14 Nov. Beyond My Ken warned Waacstats: "Lotfi Zadeh is an electrical engineer and computer scientist, he is not an 'artificial intelligence researcher'". I am not sure if that one was done using AWB as it does not include AWB in the string in the edit but other edits made by Waacstats with AWB don't always do so.
• on 19 Nov. Wizardman You're spelling "baseball" wrong ... (20:24) Again, it's baseball rather than "basebeall" (20:41)
• on 26 Nov. PBS. People who lived in the British Isles before the Act of Union 1707 were not British. So the change you made to William Heveningham(1604–1678) is not correct. [The article] says he was an English politician in the first line and the stub is {{England-politician-stub}} so how did you come to the conclusion that he was a "British politician"?

I then went to see how many articles Waacstats might of edited incorrectly and was surprised to see that Waacstats was editing 10 a second, so I pulled the plug, rather like hitting the stop button on a bot.

I have let a message on Waacstats's talk page:

suspended your AWB usage], for two reasons the first is that this talk page show that you have been careless on at least 3 separate occasions this month. But more worrying is that despite being warned about carelessness, you are making 10 edit a minute. There is no way in that time you can check the that changes you are making are correct. In your last 50 edits from

• 08:28, 26 November 2011 m Didier Boulaud ‎ (→References: Add persondata short description using AWB)

to

• 08:32, 26 November 2011 m Francis Hillmeyer ‎ (→References: Add persondata short description using AWB)

The minutes (28 and 32) my well bot be full minutes:

• 28, 8 edits
• 29, 10 edits
• 30, 11 edit
• 31, 10 edits
• 32, 10 edits

(I've miss counted by on there are only 49 edits there)

I conclude that you have broken at least the first two of the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use. I will follow this post up at WP:ANI, the suspension is like a bot stop, it may be on refection that you can have the privileged back very shortly it depends on the consensus but as an administrator seeing your caress edits on three separated occasion in less than 2 weeks I am not willing to let you change 10 pages a second while a consensus is reached at ANI.

OK what is to be done. This is the first AWB case I have dealt with so some guidence would be appreciated by my (and I suspect Waacstats). If the consensus among informed opion is that I have been over hasty with the suspension then someone can reinstate the line (and reverse the suspension) without waiting to here from me. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course nobody should edit war, and I'm all for shutting off AWB if someone is mis-using it, but Lotfi Zadeh is in fact an AI researcher. He was even recently inducted into the IEEE's AI hall of fame, per his biography. He is best known for work on fuzzy logic, which is an AI topic among other things. See also his CV which describes more of his AI work. I don't think BMK's warning was appropriate. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

IP 67 is correct, Zadeh lists "Artificial intelligence" on his faculty page as an area of research (something that I don't recall having seen there before, but I could well be mistaken.) Given that, I'm on my way over to the article to restore "Artificial intelligence researcher". I;ve extended an apology to Waacstats. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally am also not all that worried about the edit rate. He seems to be keeping it around 10 per minute which is the standard do not exceed threshold for AWB use. The typos do worry me a little though and would suggest they use more care when editing.--Kumioko (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what one is doing. For example if is changing a category name from one to another and only making that change then little to no checking is needed. But changes like this need to be done much more carefully, because one has to check place and dates and probably categories. Also discussion will have to take place if a person was born in England but died in Great Britain, are they British English or both? -- This type of change can not be done at 10 a second. In the case of the article on Humphrey Edwards the mistake may have been made because the article is listed under "British politician stubs" (which is wrong). The point being that a the responsible thing to do is to weigh up the different pointers and then make an informed decision, one can not do that for this type of change consistently once every six second and be in any way sure that the changes made are correct. It would be useful if Waacstats would explain his section criteria for the articles he chose for this change and explained why it went wrong. Perhaps then we can work out how (s)he can safely use AWB without the collateral damage. -- PBS (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As Beyond My Ken points out above they have since changed the description back to AI Researcher and I would like to say that my edit to that article was not done with AWB. Also with regard to the others, the misspelling of baseball was a genuine mistake and once I realised what Wizardman was on about I went back and corrected the misspelt edits I had made before continuing with the rest of the list. I admit that the run I did on British politicians was badly judged and I wrongly assumed that anything in Category:British politician stubs and it's stub cats could be described as a British politician and assumed that the Category:English politician stubs and Category:English MP stubs were much the same as other English stub cats and that there would be no problem calling them British, I accept that with hindsight this was completely wrong and I should have had more care. I have learned from this and it is obvious to me now why no-one else has attempted to remove this particular backlog, as it will almost certainly mean manually editing a further 680,000 articles+ but then I always liked a challenge. Waacstats (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WaacstatsI have re-enabled your AWB privileges. It takes time for the page to load and save using AWB, you must have been hitting the save button without checking the changes you were making, so in future check your changes before you sav. -- PBS (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism campaign involving fake references

Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk · contribs) is an agenda editor and edit-warrior who has been part of a small but pertinacious group pushing ideological positions of certain fringe groups regarding French royalism. He was edit-warring in support of Emerson 07 (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked for revert-warring and also had several apparent sockpuppets blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emerson 07). Most recently, Mophon joined Emerson in edit-warring with this and this edit. In these edits, he inserted an alleged reference to support a contentious BLP claim: "Prutkov, Kozma (2010). Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne des Maisons Principales de l'Europe. Montréal. ISBN 1925-5594. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)". This is apparently a fake, made-up reference.

"Kozma Prutkov" is a fictional writer made up by some satirists in the 19th century. There exist neither a book under the given ISBN, nor a book with this alleged title. There is a website calling itself "Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne" (noblessemoderne.com), but its content pages are deadlinks. References to this alleged publication appear to exist only on several Wikipedia editions in several languages, where they all seem to have been inserted during the last few months by suspicious royalist agenda accounts, especially Rapportroyal (talk · contribs) (sp-wiki: [36], fr-wiki: [37], en-wiki: [38]

Making up fake sources to bolster a POV agenda is one of the most serious forms of vandalism. I suggest an immediate indef-block of both Rapportroyal and Mr. D. E. Mophon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OT: Thanks for introducing me to the word "pertinacious" - it's a great word -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Vandalism+lying+general dickery= indef? You get my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. Making up references, esp. book references, is a stab to the heart of RS and AGF. Mophon will be blocked; Rapportroyal inserted the same reference again after being urged by the boss not to do so: also indef. Fut. Perf., as thanks for your tenacity you get to take Kozma Prutkov (talk · contribs) as a sock. Congratulations. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good idea to indef anyone connected to this behavior. This is not to be tolerated. --Jayron32 18:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• indef away - this sort of behaviour is a complete no and we should waste time with people who think it is acceptable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good blocks and I'd suggest WP:BAN immediately as well - this sort of thing is something that should be 100% zero tolerance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good blocks indeed and I'd support a ban for this guy. Inventing references is, in my opinion, the most grievous vandalism possible. There is not an iota of good faith to be assumed. WilliamH (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Retracted per the developments; however, editorial standards must apply - don't cite something you haven't read/verified. WilliamH (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• aupport and is anyone tipping off the other projects?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Heiro 23:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

*support Neither excusable nor forgivable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• support I hold with those that favor fire (but have they been notified of this discussion)? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Continued icey support: I know enough of bad sourcing practices to say that gross incompetence when translating wikipedia pages and a failure to read the source you're inserting in an article would suffice for disruption. It is exactly the same conduct as deliberately inserting bad sources in the first place. If you haven't read it, don't cite it. ISSN 1925-5594 returns nothing in Ulrich's by the way. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Given the subject, would the guillotine be too strong a solution? Einar aka 01:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock – With regard to Mr. D. E. Mophon I have the articles where these disputes have taken place on my watchlist so have seen the dispute but have not involved myself in it. I think with respect to Future Perfect at Sunrise they have grossly exaggerated the case here, Mr. D. E. Mophon made just a single edit on two different articles and as such they have been branded an 'edit warrior', ridiculous. And with that single reference, the Kozma book, it appears they made an honest mistake, the other references being very real and legitimate. I can’t see how an indefinite block for an honest mistake is sustainable and just. I would encourage people to read Mr. D. E. Mophon's explanations and unblock request and think again. It's sad the user has been condemned to an indefinite block on the basis of an exaggerated case and before they had a chance to respond here at ANI. - dwc lr (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock per dwc lr above. While I have disagreed with D.E.Mophon, including on the articles in question, I also think that this is a case of jumping the gun. The worst offense of which s/he is accused is having fabricated a source when, as near as I can tell, s/he simply copied the (admittedly fake) source from another article where it had been used to substantiate a similar point. But there is no evidence I've seen which suggests that D. E. Mophon actually created that source or knew it was fake. Although his accuser rejects all of D.E. Mophon's cites in support of the contention that Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou is Head of the House of Bourbon for one reason or another, in fact several of them are sources I would have thought acceptable, and cumulatively they make a case in support of the point the accused believes is defensible. My own search for reliable sources on this point does not substantiate that the man is indisputedly referred to as Head of the House of Bourbon, but I was frankly surprised to discover that fact (the real dispute is over the claim that Louis Alphonse is "rightful" claimant to the throne of France which is, indeed, highly contested and generally rejected even in monarchist circles, except by the small but staunch Legitimists). His claim to be Head of the House of Bourbon (or of the entire Capetian dynasty for that matter) is admittedly self-proclaimed, but since it carries no legal implications it is not generally disputed (being a matter of pure genealogy) although, I've now learned, not generally acknowledged either. In any case, this block for this infraction is overkill, and I think that the accuser, understandably frustrated by the edit-war, has mistaken sloppiness driven by over-zealousness for deliberate falsification of sources. FactStraight (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block – have come across Mophon before, and he's open to discussion, without being overly a POV-pusher. Also, a quick Google of the supposed "fake title" shows it to be in use on 5 or 6 different articles, each a different language Wiki. Are you going to find each editor on each wiki who cited them, or use Mophon as a witch hunt example? Also, why is this here, instead of WP:RS/N? Suspicious sources should be properly investigated before laying into the editor with accusations, and blocks. Only one editors word has been taken for granted here, and Mophon has not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself here, due to a hasty indef block. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Editor has placed an unblock request and a lengthy explanation on their talk page. An uninvolved admin is invited to have a look. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Mophon's explanation has merit. Block was too quick and too harsh. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block/Support immediate unconditional unblock As per the above comments, the block was done way too quickly, and without waiting for any type of proper response from the editor. Their comments have merit, and they should be unblocked immediately, with an apology. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block/ban, largely because we don't have the technology to nuke this sort of vandal from orbit over the internet yet. There is no way to AGF about falsified references, particularly falsified BOOK references. rdfox 76 (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Misinformation, accidental this type of edit does not constitute "vandalism". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct Marcus. If there was an established history of such things, then one could make a case that they are a vandal, but a single act of a good faith error not does a vandal make. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 06:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock. I have noticed this user during clean-up of various BLP-related royalty cruft, which he generally opposed, but never in a disruptive way as far as I can remember. I am convinced that he merely added an existing though unreliable source under the impression that it is a reliable source. If we assume the worst, it would have been the conscious pushing of an unreliable source for a not particularly problematic BLP claim. Add to that the manner in which he asked for an unblock (polite and constructive; one really must read between the lines to see how angry he must be), and I think an unblock is absolutely justified. Hans Adler 08:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment How do you accidentaly use a source you have not checked?Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The funny thing is that the fr-wiki page fr:Louis de Bourbon (1974-), from which he said he got those references, wasn't even using the "Prutkov" reference to support anything related to the claim in question, but was listing it merely as an unspecific "further reading" entry [39]. So, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to not being aware of the fraudulent nature of that reference as such – and I'd be inclined to grant him that –, his claim that it supported the specific proposition in question is still something he must have simply made up on the spot, and knowingly so. (In fact, I now find that on the rudimentary website that is this alleged book's only reflection out there [40], on the few content pages it actually offers, it seems to be supporting the very opposite of the contested proposition, as it lists that other guy as the "chef" of th "Maison Souveraine" of Bourbon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• To whoever is interested: please see my comment on editor's talk page. With thanks to the editors here; Hans, your comment was helpful and constructive and I agree certainly with the tenor of your message. Whatever happens, I hope the editor will take some of the commentary here to heart, esp. Fut.Perf.'s last note. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Astrology discussion snowing

There has been discussion at WP:FTN, on Talk: Scorpio (astrology) and elsewhere about a template that has been added to all articles on astrological star signs that some of us consider to be unencyclopedic because it involves repeating the same chunk of information in each article, some of that information being poorly sourced.

I commented at length, and I think patiently, on the question, and suggested that WikiProject Astrology was the place to sort out whether the template was encyclopedic or not.

On 24 November, User:Zachariel (Zac) notified members of WikiProject Astrology of a discussion. To be fair, he did post on the WikiProject talk page, saying simply "Need for discussion of issues has been put to WP:Astrology project members". He didn’t post about the discussion on WP:FTN where this was under consideration or notify me or anyone who had contributed at FTN. I had explained that I wasn't going to join the project but would contribute there from time to time.

My first impression was that Zac’s notification of individual editors had been very selective. I posted in a new section on the WikiProject talk page to say there was prima facie of vote-stacking. On investigation, it does turn out that he notified each member of the project. It has taken me hours to sort out who was and wasn’t a project member, or notified, mainly because so many listed project members are inactive, and several have changed their usernames. Most listed haven’t edited anywhere on the encyclopedia for years, some are blocked, and he himself is still listed under his previous username.

Zac also notified three people who aren’t project members. User: Ihcoyc, User:Lighthead and User:Prof.Landau. The last of these has not been editing for a long while. I don’t know why the other two were notified.

What may be of concern is that since the discussion was opened, in the last three days, five new members have joined the project: User:AxelHarvey, User:Dwayne, User:Logical 1, User:Robertcurrey, User:Ken McRitchie.

Zac introduced the discussion with a very long post, containing his own interpretation of my view, using only one of the three examples that I had given as typical.

Then various editors snowed in to support his position. They include three of the five new project members: User:AxelHarvey, a few minutes before joining the project; User:Robertcurrey, commented on 24 November, added his name on 26 November; User:Ken McRitchie, commented on 25 November, added his name on 26 November.

Most of those commenting in the thread declare themselves on their user pages as professional astrologers or writers on astrology, or are easily identified as astrologers active on the Internet.

I see few arguments that address the actual question: whether a WikiProject should recommend a template that involves repeating the same text across a number of articles.

Would you please advise whether this amounts to vote stacking? Any other advice about how to move forward on article quality would also be appreciated. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been following developments off and on through an editor I have worked with the past who's involved (User:Bobrayner). It appears that the Astrology project has been trying to add questionably sourced content to articles; the discussion in question would allow that questionable content to stay. Bob, who has a history of removing questionably sourced content, attempted to remove the questionably sourced content, but was reverted by Astrology editors. I feel that the content in question needs to be discussed in a full community noticeboard where editors not involved in the Astrology project but familiar with verifiblity and reliable source guidelines can weigh in Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is unsurprising. Robert Currey recruits editors from offsite to meatpuppet for the pro-astrology point of view.[41] This is a serious problem, and I suggest that discretionary sanctions be applied liberally on these articles. Involvement of the larger community via RFCs has also been effective in limiting the damage this behavior causes. Skinwalker (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How does this get moved forward to resolution please? An RfC is already open on Astrology. I have raised the issues on talk pages, on RSN, FTN and now the WikiProject. Non-admin users who are willing to wade in to try and sort the mess out, by improvement to the articles, quickly become seen as "involved". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno...you started this thread. Skin, it sounds like you feel that Robert Currey should be blocked for meatpuppetry Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, it's practically impossible to get support for a meatpuppetry block - even in patently obvious cases. I think RFCs and topic bans are more tenable and effective solutions. Skinwalker (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Template:Zodsign1? That is an odd template William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

An RfC is a good step, though I don't see one active on the Astrology talk or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology related to this template (to get one active such that the community notices it, you need to use the instructions here). So, open one of those. I'm going to accompany that suggestion with a non-partisan warning that the next person or people I see revert-warring on Template:Zodsign1 is/are getting blocked for edit-warring. Having an RfC open, if one indeed is, does not give anyone license to revert anything to their preferred version. This is not directed at anyone in this thread in particular, but at everyone involved in this entire thing: the warring is going to have to stop, now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am not formally a member of the astrology project, but I have done some editing on astrology related pages. My take on this is different. There is a large body of available public domain text that's recognized by astrologers as significant and authoritative, including works by Claudius Ptolemy, William Lilly, and Alan Leo. This material is available for wholesale import and updating, and meets all the usual tests for being a reliable source. I'd like to be more involved in updating and expanding the pages with information from these sources, but the pages have been lawyered to death by the "sceptical" contingent. A large number of editors, including a number of IP editors, remove content willy-nilly, and post dismissive messages claiming that astrological sources are from an "in universe" perspective, as if astrology were a fictional subject. The template's an attempt to respond to one recurring cavil, concerning the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Smerdis here. There are reliable sources for the description of astrology, both ancient and modern. This is a separate issue from whether astrology is a pseudoscience: even if it is, it is only correct to describe astrology and its history from the sources the field itself considers reliable. I have observed some of these sources rejected by overactive skeptics. For a long time we did not have a good historical picture of Gnosticism: due to the elimination of "heretical" sources, we had only the descriptions written up by Gnosticism's opponents. A full description of astrology and its terms must be done from its own sources. Scientific analysis of its claims should certainly be included, but the basic description can't be restricted to such modern scientific criticism. That would defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia. Yworo (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I would like to clarify that I have commented on the Astrology Project discussion six times since August and being on my Watch List it is of interest. I did not add my name to the list of members of the project originally as nothing seemed to be happening and I considered that further highlighting my interest would be used against me as indeed it was today with Itsmejudith's comments. When Zac made this proposal and others followed, it felt appropriate to add my name.

Second, Skinwalker - this is the third time you have accused me of meatpuppetry or recruiting editors using this same link from March. Anyone who reads the public link, which I have not taken down, will see that I was not recruiting editors and if anything, advising people to follow the WP rules and not to go to the Astrology Page to edit war simply because other editors had been banned. As far as I know no one became an editor as a result of those comments on a Facebook page and I challenge you to find a WP editor. If you feel that there is a case against me, then you should go through the proper channels and I will answer it. It is time to put up or shut up. I believe it is quite wrong to take advantage of the fact that an editor does not have the protection of being anonymous to dredge up external information in an attempt to make something out of nothing. Robert Currey talk 23:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Both of you are involved editors, at least as involved as I am. I already raised the primary source nature of ancient, medieval and early modern writers. There is extensive historical research on these periods, and that's what we should be using. Having articles restricted to modern scientific criticism is just a red herring. We are talking about history here. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the sort of lawyering that gets in the way of building these articles constructively. Whether you label Lilly, Leo, or Ptolemy as primary or secondary sources is should be a matter of indifference. They are treatises. Their texts are recognized by astrologers as foundational authorities. All of them write as the presenters of an established tradition, not as doing original research in astrology. If you object that astroiogy is a pseudoscience and doesn't use empirical methods, you don't get to complain that the authorities consulted are out of date. The main focus of an article on Scorpio (astrology) ought to be "What does astrology say about Scorpio"? When you have reliable public domain material that we can adapt easily, we should grab with both hands. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, go on, use the Ptolemy, then. Of course you're thoroughly familiar with it in the original ancient Greek. You've read all the relevant literature in Classical Arabic, Latin, Old French and Middle English. Of course you have. Itsmejudith (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Meatpuppetry is a valid concern. One of my attempts to cleanup astrology articles was very swiftly undone by an editor who created their account earlier this year, during the previous campaign of ballot-stuffing and meatpuppetry by astrology editors, and who has only made a handful of edits since then - turning their userpage and talkpage into bluelinks, and then voting in astrology-related polls... bobrayner (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  Meanwhile, we have all too many articles which look like [42]. When I try trimming some of the cruft or doing some minimal rewording so it's presented as "Astrologers believe that..." rather than a statement of fact, I'm usually reverted by an astrology editor on the pretence that the content is backed by some imaginary or manufactured "consensus" or that there's no justification for cleanup. Sometimes even blatant fiction gets reverted into articles; content that's incompatible with even schoolkid physics, but the text looks nice to an astrologer... Personally, I would be happy to see a historical subject presented neutrally, but quite often astrology articles fail to do so. bobrayner (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything I've read here and on the project page suggests to me that wikiproject is rogue - either via POV-pushing or straight forward incompetency the main people involved in it seem to blundering around with no idea what a wikipedia article should be - that template they created and all thought was a great idea is a disgrace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the project should be disbanded, then. It sounds like a POV-pushing CABAL Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's reminding me of WikiProject World's Oldest People, which was used for maintaining a walled garden (with accompanying off-wiki canvassing, outing threats et al.) until there was an ArbCom and bannings.

I'm going to open the RfC on the template as suggested above. The discussion is spreading out over multiple forums at the moment. Thank you all for your attention to my post. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For info, I did open an RfC but someone else took the template to Templates for Deletion. Which I could have done all along, had I thought. Looks like it will be deleted there. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of the misinformation placed above, some clarifications are in order.

Itsmejudith, who opened this, was the one arguing most strongly that the contested content should be put to the Wiki:astrology project members for evaluation, and that the astrology project members should create agreed guidelines for a consistent approach towards structure and content of this set of articles. She first suggested this on 19 November. I agreed in principle and hoped she or someone else would initiate it. Due to time pressures, it was with reluctance that I initiated it myself, after a period of delay, in order to satisfy her arguments that this was the right thing to do (see also here and here).

She now says:

On 24 November, User:Zachariel (Zac) notified members of WikiProject Astrology of a discussion. To be fair, he did post on the WikiProject talk page, saying simply "Need for discussion of issues has been put to WP:Astrology project members". He didn’t post about the discussion on WP:FTN where this was under consideration or notify me or anyone who had contributed at FTN. I had explained that I wasn't going to join the project but would contribute there from time to time.

This is simply not true. The opening comment of my astrology project post - given with working links - was this:

There has recently been a lot of discussion about the Scorpio (astrology) page. The concerns have been discussed on the talk page of that article and on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. They relate to the structure, content and sources used for all the 12 zodiac signs...

I also kept Itsmejudith and the other editors who had contributed to the previous discussion fully informed. Posting several times on the Scorpio-talk page (where this was being discussed) that I was making a post on the Wiki:Astrology project members and inviting their comments there – see this, this and this.

Itsmejudith was perfectly aware of the situation (see here) and I have no understanding of why she chose not to comment herself in the place where she knew it was being properly evaluated, following her suggestion – especially after she took it upon herself to define the astrology project tasks and principles by inserting – without any prior project discussion – a list of rules, purposes and goals for the astrology project (see the series of six posts she made starting with this).

She now implies “Zac’s notification of individual editors had been very selective. I posted in a new section on the WikiProject talk page to say there was prima facie of vote-stacking.”

There was nothing inappropriate and my procedure was this: I contacted the members of the project by using the list of members advertised on the project page and the ‘what links here’ list of users who demonstrate their membership by displaying the project membership box on their user pages.

As Itsmejudith acknowledges, most of these are clearly out of date, but I am not able to establish which these are so I contacted them all without any attempt to be selective. She says I notified three people who aren’t project members. User:Ihcoyc, User:Lighthead and User:Prof.Landau. Actually, though the account is almost certainly dead, Prof Landau’s name is listed on the project’s membership page, and Lighthead was also listed as a project member – (he de-listed himself after I issued the notice). User:Ihcoyc, the only editor not listed as a member, was known to me as one of the few editors who had contributed content and news recently to the astrology project pages, and who I felt would expect to be treated as a member because of his obvious involvement with project concerns – see this, for why that was failry obvious logic.

She also states:

What may be of concern is that since the discussion was opened, in the last three days, five new members have joined the project: User:AxelHarvey, User:Dwayne, User:Logical 1, User:Robertcurrey, User:Ken McRitchie.

Why should this be of concern? There is a high profile discussion currently taking place across several pages, asking editors to demonstrate a willingness to be part of a working team for this project, so quite naturally some have been reminded that the project is still active and in need of contributions. Equally, Lighthead, similarly reminded about the project, chose to delist his membership.

So the situation is this: I was urged to get the astrology project members involved, and did that to the best of my ability. The person who argued most strongly in favour of that happening chose not to contribute, despite being fully informed and requested to do so. Having seen that the use of the template found unanimous support, she now wants to suggest that there was something inappropriate about the process.

The notice at the top of this page states “You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion”. The accusation directly concerns my activity, with the suggestion that I was selective in who I contacted in order to engineer deliberate vote-stacking. Yet I know of this ANI report only because I have just read the short and rather vague notice on the astrology project page – one that I missed yesterday and might easily have missed today.

I would like to have Itsmejudith’s involvement scrutinised since I believe the fragmentation of discussion has been highly disruptive. Already this ANI thread and has elicited negative responses, which then influence the new RFC, based on unfair representation of the problem, alarmist suggestions and the unfounded declarations that the disputed content uses unreliable sources – this is not the case as other editors (above) have tried to explain. The purpose of the Astrology project discussion was to centralize discussion so that all criticisms could be looked at, understood, with proposals suggested, guidelines created, and any difficult issues referred to appropriate notice boards as these were identified. Instead blanket criticisms (many of which have no substance) have become scattered again, so no one knows now the correct place to engage in meaningful evaluation and debate.

So far, the astrology project members have clearly supported the notion that some sort of clarification of the sign-identification issues needs to be included upon every page, because there is too much confusion on issues that are quite easily explained and are fundamental to the understanding of the topic. The project needs time to evaluate whether modification of the content is necessary and to agree the guidelines on how to improve the quality of all the 12 pages - so that they are offering information on the history, mythology and technical issues connected to the astrological use of the zodiac signs. Nothing can move forward while-ever there is uncertainty over where to evaluate and formulate consensus over these issues. To create an appropriate environment of rational debate I hope the administrators here will approve of the astrology project as the best place to work through all the issues systematically, and that requests for comments should be directed to the astrology project pages where the issues are being explained in full and proposals for solutions can be explored in full. As previously explained, all contributions are welcomed there, whether they come from editors who identify themselves as members of the project or not -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish

Has made a number of PA’s against WebHamster This has resulted in a wikiquete discussion [[43]] in which MarcusBritish has made a number of highly confrontational comments, and sees this as some kind of a battle in which you are either an enemy or a ally [[44]]. He has accused me of saying things I have not said [[45]]. I don’t think the user is generally a problem, but in the subject of WebHamster he has a highly aggressive battlefield mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So in short, what you're saying is – "if you want a blocked user banned outright, you should be blocked". And you question my mentality? You do realise that I'm more than willing to push this type of reaction through ArbCom and throw your attempt to question my integrity into the firing line, I hope. Wasting you time, trying to make a name for yourself Ste. You stand in middle-ground, making false indications that you support one opinion, then another, but in reality you're luring people. There is nothing here worthy of ANI interest. It took EIGHT years to get Webhamster blocked, and he still has people toadying to his every desire. Where do you thing that puts you, apart from clear as mud sycophancy to ANI, Hell bent of pushing your own POV? Laughable liberal wish-wash. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am here because more then one user has said your commeents about webby oversteped the mark, and you response is this attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't take "the mark" of a BNP supporter as a reliable. You're as petty as it gets. Your motives are not above suspicion. In fact I suspect you're looking for retaliative action because you "can't win" with your unassisting remarks at WQA. Don't know why you bothered in the first place, your entire history there did not have anything to do with the aims of WQA. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's being accused of being a BNP supporter? Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Political affiliations (which have not been demonstrated in any case) seem tangential to this conversation. I'm concerned such comments fall foul of the no personal attacks policy, in which "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is given as an example. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, what views? He's not said anything of value that can be discredited – he's simply a general, all-round WP:IJDLI kinda guy who doesn't know how to make a stand, and makes petty arguments and vague rebuttals, all in the form of a storm in a teacup. To be even more to the point, this isn't even his argument, so why he attempted to make it about him is beyond me. Perhaps he was bored. He certainly bores me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Slatersteven supports the BNP is irrelevant to this discussion, so why you brought it up in the first place is unclear unless you wished to discredit him. And the assertion is unsubstantiated, considering the strong views the party provokes it is unwise to level such accusations. Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I just say; over the last couple of days you two have done basically sod all except argue about this topic... There is a level of maturity in simply walking away from a confrontation and finding something productive to do. No one has to have the last word here. But what we could do is divert this attention into writing some article content. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As both times [46] it was in direct reply to a post by me the target is logicaly me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yo, Brains. This.is.not.about.you. You.are.not.the.subject. Stop.trying.to.become.the.center.of.attention. I.do.not.find.you.interesting. Your.desire.for.revenge.is.transparently.obvious. Drop.the.stick. — And use a spell-checker for Pete's sake, they are free, and come in-built in browsers like Firefox. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The issue is not whether the user should be banned, but that it is inappropriate to use terminology such as "prime nut," and "the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour." to advance such a case, and to accuse anyone taking exception to those personal attacks as being in some sort of collusion. Gerardw (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is supporting Webhamster in overturning a block, which had a ~65% pro-block consensus, the question of your motives, COI, or bias leaves me to conclude that you will say anything to contradict me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been on the receiving end of some of Marcus's vitriol, sure. But I don't see the need for administrative action here.

  Now, the above accusation (in response to Gerardw) is really in bad faith, and I'm sure Marcus would say something similar about me: "you don't support a block so you're partial"--which of course works both ways: Marcus supported a block so he's not partial? Come on now. "Liberal wish-wash" is nonsense; Marcus, you'll have to live with the fact that people disagree, and that it's not always for political reasons, and that your argument is self-defeating.

  There's a bit more--besides accusations of partiality, there was some nonsense of 'all of us' Hamster defenders being a club of regulars at Hamster's pub in Manchester or something like that, which isn't just in violation of AGF but also extremely silly. I mean, really--geolocate me, or, if you really don't want to put your money where your mouth is, give me your address and I'll send you a postcard from Alabama.

  Anyway, I don't want to compile a laundry list. I think that Marcus's behavior left a lot to be desired, but I don't want another editor blocked as a result of this mess. I hope Marcus sees that not everyone in the community feels as he does, and that ruffling feathers is not always a good thing. No action please, if Marcus keeps his cool. Or finds it. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A touching example of floccinaucinihilipilification, from Drmies, there. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call you unimportant. I'm sure someone loves you. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I'd double-check your definition of flocci— there. I didn't mean me. Rather, the situation itself. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry: I bow to your vision--"Wiki is currently the "land of the blind" in which I have one eye." Drmies (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you actually know what that means, and can apply context, then do so. Otherwise it's just a meaningless quote without any form of interpretation. Nor is it any of your business for the time being. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps MarcusBritish needs a block for his general behaviour (uncivil, NPAs) over the last days. But more urgently, I don't think he is the right person to be adressing WQA discussions, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Editor is following my edits and canvassing. WQA responders should be patient, helpful, not disrespectful. In his second post to that discussion, he states "To me it sounds like paranoia,[...]", which is not the kind of response anyone should give at a WQA discussion without some very good evidence to back such an opinion. The rest of the discussion isn't much better, berating the initiator for using old posts and diffs ("holding grudges is counter-productive.") then when he presents recent diffs replying "Stalking lasts for months, is a malicious act and usually subtle." Well, perhaps that's why he posted these old diffs you didn't like in the first place... Perhaps the complaint by the initiator is utterly baseless, I don't know, but the manner in which MarcusBritish is addressing it is extremely negative and not really what one would expect when one comes to get some "wikiquette assistance". Fram (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time for WQA but his posts there are clearly unsuitable given the rationale behind it's existence - likely to inflame rather than solve any problems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

UK Independence Party

Could we have some admin eyes over on above article new user repeating the edit war of a recently blocked editor and don't know how to fix the image which has now been changed to a nazi flag Mo ainm~Talk 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Englandstruth (talk · contribs)...yeaaahhh...no agenda that's obvious there... (also, I've notified them, since this is clearly the user in question)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Any commons admins around want to block commons:user:Xijky? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Also changed the photo of Nigel Farage to Hitler. *sigh* --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 20:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • And now Xijky is re-blocked here and blocked on commons. That's the Nazi flag sorted. Back to any other issues... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi I just corrected information on the page, I never changed any pictures. To point out I am a paid up member of the civic nationalist and libertarian party called Ukip, not the right wing one in the article, I attempted to rectify the article and put correct descriptions in and they have been blocked and now I am being threatened with being blocked.

I would think that Wiki being an encyclopaedia for information about many subjects, Wiki would at least want to have the correct representation of a subject rather than one written by many Non Ukip supporters. Conflict of interest? Not from my corner.

Sources I can cite are the website, the manifesto and policies which show the party is a Libertarian, civic nationalistic, and centralist party. (Englandstruth (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

What do third party RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We're having a lot of problems with political parties at the moment - the UKIP article is a disaster zone because of people trying to push their own POV. Respect Party is also in trouble, massive edit wars going on too. More editors/watchers would be handy doktorb _words^deeds 20:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that, but people are welcome to verify me from my FB page it is open so not in breach of any data laws: https://www.facebook.com/groups/133900563380335/ That is a ukip page I run promoting ukip and the Ukip Blog site.

My POV may be bias towards the party, but in my defence you would not ask a mechanic about a plumbing article, Meaning who better to post about Ukip than either a supporter or member of the party.

Cheers for your comments. (Englandstruth (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

That's funny. Tell us another one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, let's play horse. I'll play the front...you just be yourself. Leaky Caldron 21:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Neigh. So, are you going to cop the same attitude at Bushranger? Or do you only attack us peons? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• If you are affiliated with the party, it'd be a very good idea for you not to edit its article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As noted farther down the page, any user with "truth" in its name is usually destined for "consequences". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of you seem to have a bad attitude and seem to think your actions or comments are clever, well they are not. Why should it be wrong for a member of the party to edit, putting correct information from the website is not a crime? I chose my name because I am English and prefer the truth, not lies. I have noticed that the page has returned back to its previous state of misrepresentation of the party, while you are using a copyrighted logo. I feel that this is wrong as parties like the right wing English Democrats get to edit their page with obvious abandon. Why have some of the editors have it in for Ukip and a placing biased information on the article? Answer: They are anti Ukip. To allow this misrepresentation to carry on is just showing wiki is not looking for real articles or for factual articles, this either to appease the establishment parties in the Uk or it is to appease the egos of some on here.

You are either going to be a representative of the facts or not, if it is the latter then you become a joke.(Englandstruth (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

It doesn't mater whose party they are, if they're editing a topic they are associated with, they need to either be netural or they need to cease and desist - and that applies to everybody, you, them, everyone. (And that "copyrighted logo" can be used under WP:FAIRUSE.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The UKIP is right-wing, and that's what reliable sources already cited in the article testify to. GiantSnowman 18:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What reliable sources? Oh the two Labour professors and the Liberal democrat one, yeah they are credible sources. Really, your attitude. I am a member and I am not right wing. I am an Ex Labour voter. The Bushranger, the Logo may be allowed to be used under fair use rules, but false representation of the party while using it is not. And by copying a pasting from Website and rectifying untruths is not being neutral then, Shall I post up lies like who ever is calling the party a right wing populist party? Libertarianism and civic nationalism are not right wing, if you think they are, that makes you very left wing.

(Englandstruth (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

Reliable secondary sources classify the party as right-wing. The party itself says it is not, perhaps, but secondary sources trump primary sources for statements such as that. And fair use can either be used or it cannot; the content of the article is irrelevant to whether or not fair use is valid. That said, if there is cut-and-paste as you claim, that is a violation of copyright. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ducky socks, page protection

I'm sure this report would be rejected at SPI for being ducky, so I'm putting it here, plus a request for page protection together. Korean language has had 5 accounts try to insert the same unsourced fact over the last few days. The account names all have a similar style, staring with "Korea":

• KoreanInfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koreankorea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KoreanInfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Korearesearchteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koreanpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They've all been trying to dramatically increase the amount of Korean speakers in the infobox.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Errr...why would it be "rejected for being ducky"? A CU might be declined because  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, but a simple SPI report? No. (also,  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me all blocked for deafening quacking) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Also found:
• Ask1korean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koreanresearcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KoreanResearchCenter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the oldest account
  • - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • SPI page - if additional socks appear, they should be reported there and we'll see about protecting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• And now we have Korean1peninsula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with more of the same. Both Koreans and Korean language have been semi-protected for a week. the IP has been blocked, so hopefully that's the last of him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In the past, we've brought ducky socks here rather than open SPIs on them, I guess things have changed a bit.--Crossmr (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

(Moved here from WP:AN, since the complaint is about a specific incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

This article is impossible to work on. Any attempts to fix the obvious POV-pushing of having endless quotes taken from propoganda sources, contrasted with no attempt to explain the arguments for the mainstream view, or against the fringe claims (except for a couple trivial attempts in image captions), are met with rudeness, obstruction, and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT to ridiculous levels.

In particular, William M. Connelley's behavious seems to be straight out trolling, including having launched (so far unsuccessful, at least) attempts to try to find out my real name in revenge for me disagreeing with him.

This page is pretty much pure propaganda, it being on Wikipedia at all is a sign of Wikipedia's failure - we really need a page consisting of quotes from fringe propaganda?! The editing environment is intentionally made as awful as possible, in order to drive any mainstream editors off. It basically survives by having global warming deniers camp on the page, and shoot down any mainstream editors who come by before they can get organised. 86.* IP (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why I don't follow those pages anymore. They're trash.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm.. William M. Connelley is anything but a "global warming denier". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to the contentious nature of the content, what did you honestly expect? It is an article about fringe theories, after all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed the bit where (allegedly) problematic behaviour is considered OK in articles on controversial topics. It's not. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

He has not proved that there has been problematic behavior and he has posted something that is the opposite of what is known to be true (William M. Connelley is a climatologist and is being accused of being a global warming denier). 86.** appears to be in the minority of the consensus on the talk page and appears to be coming to WP:AN to try to sway a growing consensus against him, and there are misconceptions by 86.** throughout this page and this one.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, WMC is trying to violate my privacy, and, in this issue, is pure troll. I'll provide links in private if you need proof. Forgive me if I don't want to link half-arsed speculation about my identity, lest it gives someone a boost towards violating it for real. I'll also point out that I may be a minority on the talk page - because the rudeness and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT makes it very hard for anyone to stay there that doesn't agree with everything - but that a majority of people in the last AfD voted for it to be deleted, so it would appear a majority of Wikipedians as a whole think it has severe problems. See poisoning the well for what Ryulong is doing. 86.** IP (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well this seems to be a merely baseless attack against someone who is part of a separate majority opinion from you. If you expect us to believe that these issues exist, you should at least post direct links to examples of it happening, barring the WP:OUTING issues.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You'll forgive us if, in the absence of evidence, we reserve judgement—particularly given that this isn't the first time in recent weeks that you've made spurious complaints about this article and this editor.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive725#William M. Connolley and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

At this point, it may be appropriate to consider restrictions on 86.**'s conduct under the discretionary sanctions provisions applying to climate change topics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How on earth am I supposed to link to the outing issues while avoiding linking to them? That's all WMC does as direct attacks on me. There's some examples of him seemingly intentionally missing the point or being very rude, e.g.

Are the only secondary sources available "journalists"? If so, I expect the quality of them varies a great deal. If people have been categorised by well-known science journalists writing in good mainstream publications, that would seem to fit our criteria for good secondary sources. Any academic sources on philosophy of science, sociology of science, etc. would trump those, but I doubt if many are available, will have a look. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but: you've been commenting here for quite a while. Isn't it about time you actually found out about the sources? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you did an academic literature search before starting editing? I find 91 results in WoS for "climate change" AND (sceptic OR skeptic OR denier). Some look to be refereed journal papers. Starting to go through now, will take a long time. Would you like to try alternative search terms? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(from the talk page)

But I'd need to quote hundreds of these to show a pattern, which is impractical.

86.** IP (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to suggest that you email the Arbitration Committee with the supporting evidence showing WMC's attempted outing. That would both preserve your privacy and allow for them to investigate. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that William M. Connolley was ever notified about this discussion, so I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate. I don't know how much more clear the notice could be. I will AGF and assume it was an honest mistake that he was never notified. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't posted here originally, it was moved here, and was intended to be general. I can't help it if people make this about a particular person, when I wanted to discuss a general problem. 86.** IP (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You say you wanted to discuss a "general problem", but your comments put forth a claim of being "outed" by William M. Connolley, which you make in the second paragraph of your original post. Whether that claim is made on WP:AN or WP:AN/I is irrelevant, once you advance a specific charge against a specific editor, you should notify them of the thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough, Ken. Don't muddy the waters by turning this around onto 86.**. Try to assume some good faith, alright? 76.16.72.26 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's hard to know what 86.** IP is complaining about. Because he seems not to be a new editor, he has been repeatedly asked to clarify whether he has had former named accounts (e.g. by DGG, Itsmejudith, WMC, Colonel Warden). He started editing from a range of IPs geolocating to Edinburgh in September, with edits to Ayurveda. A long discussion took place on User talk:Itsmejudith. [47] His repeated postings about this and related articles here and elsewhere are unhelpful and are now becoming disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Side note: Many BT IPs appear as geolocating to Edinburgh/Scotland including IPs from Northern Ireland so I wouldn't use geolocating to say much. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he simply requests more eyes on the article, that's all. His outing issues should be between him and ArbCom via private email. Let's archive this thread and move on, ok? 76.16.72.26 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You've only got like 5 edits here. Why is this important to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, there do not appear to be any outing issues on-wiki. If, as he says, 86.** IP happens to have had a previous account, trying to identify that account does not constitute WP:OUTING. (Colonel Warden I think suggested at one stage this could be an alternative account of User:Shoemaker's Holiday.) The frequency with which he posts on exactly the same topic here, on WP:AN and on WP:FTN is excessive. Many aspects of his posts are not quite right, including his use of the word "trolling". WP:AE under WP:ARBCC might be what comes next, or at least a warning. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I got the idea that it might be Shoemaker's Holiday from a suggestion of WMC. It seemed fairly clear that this was a tendentious editor returning under a new account. My first guess was that it was ScienceApologist or perhaps one of the editors banned from this topic area by arbcom but WMC's guess seems quite plausible, given that that editor has a history of editing the article in question. Anyway, given the arbcom sanctions on this topic area and the alacrity with which Scibaby socks are driven off, I am surprised that 86 has been allowed such a free rein. Warden (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Diffs like these [48] [49] on the article talk page from 2009 are quite similar to some of the postings of 86.** IP. Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not my guess; someone posted it to my talk page. But those diffs are quite suggestive. But does anyone care, greatly? SH isn't banned or anything, AFAIK William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have noted here earlier that I warned 86.** IP (talk · contribs) for edit warring in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article in response to this report. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, in response to your question of me having "5 edits" and "why this is important to me", please read WP:HUMAN. Thank you. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to BMK for notifying me of this discussion. It is hard for me to know what to say: as has been pointed out, 86 has totally misunderstood my position. For whatever strange reason, 86 has taken up a campaign against that page, to the point of being disruptive. Perhaps he should be encouraged to find other interests. Someone suggested to be the 86 might be User:Shoemaker's Holiday (aka AC) and who knows, this may or may not be correct. 86 is evasive when asked, as already noted William M. Connolley (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

86 has been edit warring at the page and is touchy about that, too [50]. The page falls underARBCC; can some admin not give 86 a warning under that? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This topic (= conflict of opinions) is a tough one for Wikipedia because the "question" itself is not one question, it is a POV-selection-of-the moment variable question. (E.G. is man having some effect?, is man having a significant effect? are variations we see mostly from man, mostly from nature, or a good mix of both?, which effects count as effects?. Also, even for the questions where the minority view is the smallest, it's a minority view, not a fringe view. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See, again this is why I don't don't even bother with these articles any more. It's just a bunch of POV pushers trying to win the hearts and minds of the mass population. Geesh, get a grip, all of you. In reality, nobody gives rats ass what any of you think about global warming. Its just a bunch of hoo haw, wrapped in tin foil, and sold to the sheeple as gold plated ear rings. People are smarter than you all think, so whatever voodoo science goes in or out of these articles is just a waste of space in my opinion.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shall we close this thread and be done with this? What is the admin intervention that is being requested here? 67.175.159.127 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Admin intervention? The user account 86.** IP might be blocked or topic banned for canvassing, incivility, disruption, sock-puppetry, edit-warring, tendentious editing and violation of Arbcom sanctions. Admins might also take a look at the user account User:Jabbsworth which openly admits to being another sockpuppet and which has now started editing this article. They seem to be the banned sockmaster Ratel. Warden (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jabbsworth, I was cleared to edit by Arbcom. Thanks. I have no sanctions on this article, and did not have in my other accounts. I have not edited article space here either.  Jabbsworth  01:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

According to J's talk page, he is User:TickleMeister, who is indef'd for socking William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See section below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The original poster should be allowed the chance to comment. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously.I complain about attempts to violate my privacy, so unfounded, evidence-free speculation gets repeated to a wider audience? And apparently, I'm the one at fault? What the hell? 86.** IP (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your "complaints" were without merit, since linking you to other wikipedia accounts is not outing. No information that is not publicly available on wikipedia has been mentioned. In those circumstances it is unclear what you mean when you write "violate my privacy". Perhaps, since you have already mentioned that they exist, you could disclose which named accounts you have previously used. That might help clear up matters. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In the space of two months, 86.* has raised this article at its fifth AfD (Result: Keep), AfD Review (Result: overturn to No Consensus), at the Fringe noticeboard several times, on Jimbo's page(!) [51], and now here. I've asked him/her several times to contribute to the discussion, which he/she's done to a limited extent. 86.* has made a couple of relatively constructive edits to the article in the last month. Most recently 86 was warned for reverting article tags three times in quick succession. In the circumstances I find the reference in the original post to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is rather rich. I would have thought a reminder of the general sanctions, and that Wikipedia is based on discussion and consensus building, not appeals to authority, would certainly be appropriate. --Merlinme (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that IP***86 isn't a sock but is probably a previous user returning. I encouraged him to set up an account, which he did, and his contributions to Ayurveda-related articles have been useful. In regard to this article we all need to work harder to get consensus. IP***86 needs to spell out the points he objects to and to realise that it isn't really a climate-change-denial position being promoted here (ironically it might at first sight appear to be, but on further inspection it's not). I need to look up the sources I said I would. And some of the page regulars who know who they are need to drop the WP:OWN and be more welcoming to policy-minded, science-friendly editors coming new to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you are a policy-minded, science friendly editor coming new to the article who's willing to making constructive edits to the article and contribute constructively on the Talk page; I've seen precious little evidence 86.* is. Catching up after the weekend, I noticed 86.* had reverted three times on the page, which is the first time a single user's done that in a long time. I left him a polite notice on his Talk page. Since leaving that note, I've discovered that he's raised his concerns again at an inappropriate venue for content disputes, having made essentially zero further attempts to engage in the article page discussion. I then discover that he had previously received the 3RR warning from an admin... which he removed from his Talk page. On top of the groundless accusation against WMC included in the original complaint, without even informing WMC, I'm afraid I've rather lost patience; "launched (so far unsuccessful, at least) attempts to try to find out my real name in revenge for me disagreeing with him" is a ludicrous distortion of the truth. It's clear from 86.*'s user page that he's not a newbie; someone suggested to WMC that he might be User:Shoemaker's Holiday, to which WMC's response was mainly mystification. WMC then asked 86.* if he would clarify any previous accounts used, to which 86.*'s response was to delete the request from his user page. --Merlinme (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Side issue?

76.16.72.26 (talk · contribs)
67.175.159.127 (talk · contribs)
Oddly aggressive editing by the above Illinois-based IP series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like closing the discussion with "Needless drama" and not signing the close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

TickleMeister (talk · contribs)
Jabbsworth (talk · contribs)
The one is a self-admitted sock of the other, as noted by WMC farther up the page. I've asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to come here and explain what's going on with that user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I know is he admitted the socking but was given a second chance by Arbcom's ban appeals committee, after promising to stick to a single account [52]. I now topic-banned him from the Aspartame topic (under "Pseudoscience" discretionary sanctions) because he was relapsing into the same sort of disruptive behaviour he had shown as TickleMeister a year ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Should he not be obliged to provide a link back to the old account? It seems wrong to have to reply on admin-memory. For example, you've just topic-banned him, but you couldn't have done that without a prior warning, which was given to an old account. Similarly, the arbcomm block memory (and unban discussion) is lost without a link back William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

One would think. And if he's not interested in creating that link, maybe someone should create one for him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by IP

Resolved

 – Blocked 6 months and talk page semi'd for 1 month by Jayron32. Talk page access revoked by MuZemike.

• 109.144.227.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I had warned this IP for this, which was followed shortly by this. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. --Jayron32 05:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Indef? For an IP? (Or is that just the template you used?) LadyofShalott 05:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Answering my own question: it's a 6-month block. LadyofShalott 05:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the template says "indefinite". I only blocked for 6 months, but the person behind the IP is considered to be under an indefinite block for NLT issues. This is how I usually handle NLT blocks of IPs: I cannot block the IP forever, but the person cannot return to Wikipedia under the cloud of a legal threat, so he/she is to stay away indefinitely, or at least until the threat is redacted. Its a bit of a compromise I do to jive NLT policy with blocking policy. --Jayron32 05:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page abuse

And now we have this.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page revoked. –MuZemike 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

IP is static

Is the picture changed from the fact that this IP is static?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's static, and there's static. We don't know that the exact same person will be using this IP at any point in the future, even technically "static" IP addresses don't necessarilty sit on the same computer for eternity. The goal is to stop disruptions now. If problems fire up in 6 months, then in 6 months we can block again. It ain't no thing... --Jayron32 05:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd that this IP is in the UK and is complaining about American subjects being deleted.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's an expatriate. Ironic, no? Doc talk 06:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious (speaking of the IP). Let's WP:DENY.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny thing is, how he's so sure there were no prods when he can't see the deleted content. Protip: they were. Thank you, Mr. Troll, and enjoy your WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Static? Isn't it an Openzone address? In which case I think it quite likely that another person will use it sooner or later... (Although, looking at the registrant details, there's a slim chance it might just be somebody from Adastral Park messing about... no? BT is a rather bureaucratic beast; "NO U LOL INTERNET" is rather uncharacteristic) bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism on limited article topics from dynamic IP /15 block

Hello, I am quite concerned about the contribution for IP addresses which I believe to belong (at the time assigned) to the same user. I begun to notice similar disruptive contributions from similar IPs on articles around the BBC TV series Merlin, which all belong to the same block 110.32.0.0/15. They mostly change episode titles, add nonsense or information from other pages, like Narnia etc. Because of the similar style they drew my attention, first I tried to revert and issue warnings, but they seem to be ignored like warning from other users, as there came edit after warnings. I requested a protection for Merlin (series 4), and other articles were more targeted. Now I investigated into the article histories and user contributions. Which lead to a long list of ongoing vandalism. I found that some other articles were vandalized in the very same manner earlier, so I added them too.

Extended content

IP Activity Article from to edits/diff reverted/warned by 110.33.15.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-08-05T23:06:17 2011-08-06T07:33:39 List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes 2011-08-05T23:06:17 1 JamesAlan1986 / — List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes 2011-08-06T07:33:39 1 Status / — 110.33.27.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-08-20T09:14:47 1 Black Yoshi List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes 2011-08-20T09:14:47 1 Black Yoshi / — 110.32.245.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-09-08T07:14:23 List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes 2011-09-08T07:14:23 1 Wtmitchell 110.33.3.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-10-11T07:23:58 2011-10-12T06:59:34 Merlin (series 4) 2011-10-11T07:23:58 1 — Merlin (series 1) 2011-10-11T07:38:50 1 anon / — Merlin (series 2) 2011-10-11T07:43:40 1 ClueBot NG List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes 2011-10-12T06:59:34 1 Black Yoshi 110.32.241.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-10-14T06:54:09 Merlin (series 4) 2011-10-14T06:54:09 1 Ochristi 110.32.232.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-10-17T20:53:53 List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes 2011-10-17T20:53:53 1 Black Yoshi / — 110.32.232.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-10-27T06:52:30 Merlin (series 4) 2011-10-27T06:52:30 1 — 110.32.238.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-10-30T03:41:26 2011-10-30T03:50:54 Merlin (series 4) 2011-10-30T03:41:26 2011-10-30T03:43:41 3 — Merlin (series 1) 2011-10-30T03:50:54 1 Frickeg / — 110.32.244.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-11-01T06:34:36 2011-11-01T07:19:56 Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-01T06:34:36 2011-11-01T06:41:08 3 Frickeg / — Merlin (series 1) 2011-11-01T07:19:56 1 Frickeg 110.32.226.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-11-07T05:52:07 2011-11-07T05:56:07 List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes 2011-11-07T05:52:07 2011-11-07T05:56:07 2 Black Yoshi / — 110.33.6.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-11-09T07:01:03 2011-11-20T03:49:25 Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-09T07:01:03 2011-11-09T07:10:46 2 Ochristi / — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-10T05:50:43 2011-11-10T06:03:40 4 — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-11T08:30:03 1 — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-13T01:07:30 2011-11-13T01:31:21 3 Cwmxii / — List of Merlin episodes 2011-11-13T05:17:52 1 — List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes 2011-11-13T08:29:12 1 Black Yoshi / — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-14T06:08:09 2011-11-14T07:53:24 8 DarkProdigy / — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-14T21:44:24 2011-11-14T21:47:43 3 Ochristi / — List of Merlin episodes 2011-11-15T06:05:57 1 Andrewcrawford / — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-16T05:39:13 2011-11-16T05:50:22 4 — The Chronicles of Narnia (film series) 2011-11-16T06:10:34 1 Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-17T04:58:06 1 — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-18T04:41:42 2011-11-18T04:56:02 3 RickyBryant45324 / — List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes 2011-11-18T05:34:11 1 Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-18T08:06:36 2011-11-18T08:15:30 2 Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-18T23:03:24 2011-11-18T23:16:03 4 Merlin (TV series) 2011-11-18T23:39:50 1 Trut-h-urts man / — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-19T22:48:37 1 — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-20T00:07:33 2011-11-20T00:10:11 2 — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-20T03:39:19 2011-11-20T03:49:25 4 — 110.33.22.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-11-21T05:26:30 2011-11-21T09:06:44 Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-21T05:26:30 2011-11-21T05:58:15 5 — List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes 2011-11-21T07:07:22 1 Black Yoshi / — Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-21T09:04:06 2011-11-21T09:06:44 2 — 110.32.230.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-11-21T22:07:41 2011-11-22T07:41:09 Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-21T22:07:41 2011-11-21T22:12:15 2 Ochristi Merlin (series 1) 2011-11-22T06:08:59 2011-11-22T06:23:24 3 Cwmxii / — List of Merlin episodes 2011-11-22T07:17:31 2011-11-22T07:22:46 3 Hergilfs / — List of Merlin episodes 2011-11-22T07:35:15 1 ClueBot NG Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-22T07:41:09 1 Jim1138 110.33.13.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-11-23T05:45:00 2011-11-23T09:04:52 Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-23T05:45:00 2011-11-23T05:56:26 2 — List of Merlin episodes 2011-11-23T08:08:07 2011-11-23T08:10:11 2 Cwmxii / — Merlin (series 1) 2011-11-23T09:04:52 1 Yossiea 110.32.248.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-11-24T06:47:43 2011-11-26T05:05:09 Merlin (series 4) 2011-11-24T06:47:43 2011-11-24T06:53:37 2 Alice Troughton 2011-11-25T05:37:27 2011-11-25T05:47:33 2 Ochristi Merlin (TV series) 2011-11-25T06:01:35 1 Ochristi Merlin (series 3) 2011-11-25T23:32:33 1 Ochristi Michelle Ryan 2011-11-26T05:05:09 1 Varlaam 110.32.245.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2011-11-26T10:23:38 2011-11-27T06:51:44 The Chronicles of Narnia 2011-11-26T10:23:38 1 Hvn0413 / Walter Görlitz Merlin (series 3) 2011-11-27T01:08:13 2011-11-27T02:39:39 8 Trut-h-urts man Merlin (series 1) 2011-11-27T05:22:56 1 Ochristi Merlin (series 1) 2011-11-27T06:35:34 1 Ochristi List of Merlin episodes 2011-11-27T06:51:44 1 Ochristi

Alice Troughton and Michelle Ryan are involved with the Merlin series, therefore became a target.

I really hope I can reach someone here, who can do something about that. Thank you so much in advance. Ochristi (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, wow! Yeah, any admins active on the board today wanna take this one? Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 16:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as the range is concerned, there would be way too much collateral damage for a rangeblock. The vast majority of the IP edits from the range are legitimate. (Well, half of it; the other half has too much data in it for the checkuser tool to easily analyze.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

IP making dubious edits, refusing to cite sources (unarchived)

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 [53][54],[55][56] 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: [57][58]), also think it's the same IP editor I raised here. January (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've unarchived this as there were no comments last time and it's continuing. Since then the IP has added this which I have previously removed twice as unsourced, and this which I think is dubious (I attempted to source it and couldn't find anything). January (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've seen this phenomenon with other IPs in other ranges. It's very difficult to combat as it generally comes from multiple IPs (perhaps the same person) and hits a broad spectrum of articles. In addition, the false information edits are often mixed in with some constructive edits. Diabolical. Short of range blocks, I don't know what can be done. It essentially attacks a vulnerability in the Wikipedia editing structure.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the single IP at 90.195.75.220 (talk · contribs) has over 120 edits, I've blocked it for a month for disruptive editing. If he jumps to a new IP we'll just have to keep watching. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Phoenix and Winslow

Despite frequent requests to stop such behaviour, Phoenix and Winslow has been continually referring to and misrepresenting a past dispute with me in another article as a means to discredit not only my comments but those of other editors who support me in the unrelated Ugg boots article and the current noticeboard discussion regarding that article.

• WLRoss
• Phoenix and Winslow
• Bilby
• Daveosaurus

Several of the edits in question [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] and [65]

The most recent instance was on an admins Talk page yesterday where it was particularly inappropriate.

Bilby took the matter to the Wikiquette assistance board [66] on October 11, where Phoenix and Winslow was advised to strike out the comments and refrain from further mention of the previous dispute. Phoenix and Winslow did not post in reply but a SPA anon who always supports Phoenix and Winslow’s edits did “in his voice” and not only repeated the accusations but made further accusations that had previously been discredited on another board. Phoenix and Winslow ignored this request to stop the behaviour and continued bringing up the dispute.

I have posted asking Phoenix and Winslow to refrain from bringing up the past dispute to discredit me here and here.

Daveosaurus has posted asking Phoenix and Winslow to refrain from making these personal attacks here. On Phoenix and Winslow’s Talk page. And again here.

I'm not sure if this is the correct board but I would be grateful for any assistance to resolve this. Wayne (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with user 46.196.33.96

Hello, I have a problem with user 46.196.33.96. This user has changed things in the article (Ben Gurion Airport) without any proof (and these things are not true...). I wrote to him twice and i asked to give his evidence on the talk page of value but he didn't answer me and continued to change. I put my proof today on the talk page of the article. I'd love if you do something about it --Friends147 (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's an open thread on the talk page. If the IP doesn;t respond in a reasonable timeframe, feel free to revert referencing the talk page. There's no point going to ANI on the very first revert. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I spoke with an admin and he sent him a warning. --Friends147 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mughal Lohar

(unarchiving as unresolved)

I'm reviving this thread concerning the behaviour of Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've been attempting to engage him in conversation about his unexplained image changes and removal of sourced content [67], and my efforts have been met with allegations of racism [68], [69]. I see from this user's talkpage that they have a history of non-communication, copyright violations and sockpuppetry, among other problems. It would help if some users here could keep an eye on him. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be calling you racist - he's suggesting that the image in question is a "racist depiction", as far as I can tell -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zebedee ... nobody is being called a racist, however, the WP:OWN, WP:PUFFERY, non-WP:NPOV and slow-WP:EW has led to a brief block ... apparently his second this month alone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good call -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you may be right. I didn't want call him out for personal attacks because I wasn't quite certain of his intent. I figured other sets of eyes would see it, if it was there. Thanks for taking a look. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for further block or ban

I am taking a short break from my Wikibreak to comment here and to ask for further action. There have been problems with this editor for some time, from copyright violation to failure to communicate to his even when told not using proper references (no details of books, just links, sometimes to snippets). He's been asked to use edit summaries a number of times, for instance, and still doesn't. I suspect he is still inserting copyvio but this is not always easy to check. Please also take a look at my talk page - it's complaints there that have brought me out of my break to ask for more action. Certainly if he doesn't respond here and satisfy editors that he is going to change his ways I'd go for an indef ban until he does. I'd be happy to have his block lifted so that he can discuss here if he agrees not to do any article editing fur at least the duration the block was supposed to last. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got suspicions about some of the phrasing in his Siege of Bijapur article (i.e., that it's copyvio), but he seems to be tweaking things just enough that it can be difficult to trace. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I was concerned that bare URLs were being used in, for example, Muhammad Shah which pointed to google search snippet view for a rather generic search term; and I am not convinced that the snippets support what he actually says in the articles. Nor is it easy to see to which particular statements an end of paragraph reference refer. Two articles recently created also either point to a generic google books snippet view, or simply to the entry for a whole book, without giving page numbers. Thanks again and sorry to disturb your break, eric. Esowteric+Talk 15:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And despite being asked to follow our guidelines for copying from other Wikipedia articles, he continues to copy and paste without attribution (and he uses other articles as sources). Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Snippet view example: In Aurangzeb, this edit diff introduces a Google Books snippet view for the very broad search phrase "aurangzeb" in the book. There are 91 results and no page number is given.

This is used to support the sentence: "Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, Aurangzeb's elder sister Raushanara Begum appropriated his seal to ensure that he would not involve himself in any possible war of succession."

I could not find anything like this in the snippets. A narrower search for the word "seal" does not appear to yield something that will support the above sentence (unless say, the word seal occurs again, further down the same page).

Page 50 and page 153 come the closest:

p50: "Her younger sister Raushanara fell out of favour with their brother Aurangzeb because whilst he was ill she took over the Great Seal and signed decrees in his name."

p153: "During the crisis sparked by Shah Jahan's illness, Raushanara apparently appropriated Aurangzeb's seal to ensure that his seal was on all decrees, to establish him as his father's legitimate successor."

What Mughal Lohar writes could well be correct, but it is not at all easy to verify. It could be that he's initially searched for (say) "aurangzeb", then carried out a different search, but not adjusted the reference's URL accordingly? Or I could be getting this wrong. Regards, eric. Esowteric+Talk 11:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) I suspect there is some block evasion going on as well [70].--regentspark (comment) 13:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's him, mainly due to the differences in geolocation between this and known IPs. This one also actually tries to communicate primarily via the talkpage, which Mughal Lohar seldom does.

In any case, he's fresh off his block and reinstating his preferred versions to Suleiman the Magnificent and Aurangzeb, again without discussion. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see post-ANI entry on his talk page, about what to me is a bizarre use of snippet view. Esowteric+Talk 19:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC) diff for ease of reference

Few mentions show as snippets. Maybe there's a random element to what snippets are returned? Esowteric+Talk 19:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still laughing about the nuts and prostitutes. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice on use of Google book search by Jayen466: I asked an experience editor, Jayen466 about the use of snippets, and this is what he said on his talk page:

"It's often possible to find a text match in a Google Books search which is shown as bold text in the Google Books search listing. However, if you click on the search hit and the book has snippet view only, the snippet shown will only be the nearest one available to the relevant passage that Google Books found. Sometimes you're lucky that your search string is in a displayable snippet, sometimes not. Generally, it doesn't make sense to link to a snippet display if the snippet doesn't show the relevant text. The book may well contain a relevant passage on that same page though. However, there is another thing that has to be said: if you haven't got the physical book, and you don't have a Google preview spanning several full pages in context, it is quite risky to add anything to a Wikipedia article just based on having seen a snippet, either in the Google Books search listing or in snippet view. Context may be all-important (the book may quote a discredited theory, or you may fail to realise that the whole passage is intended as humour, etc.). So it's not a way of working that should ever be used, except in the most straightforward cases (like finding a birth date in a reputable dictionary of biography with snippet view). These days, Amazon (linked to from Google Books) has Look Inside enabled for many books. Using both Google Books and Amazon in tandem is often worthwhile. --JN466 20:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)" Esowteric+Talk 09:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked him indefinitely (which is not a ban, it's simply a block that can be lifted at any time. I've no problem if anyone wants to unblock him, but he really does need to start communicating better and I don't see any other way to get him to do this. He also needs to stop this type of use of snippets and sources. I hope that people will copy any responses on his talk page to here (I really am trying to keep by Wikibreak and wno't be around in any case, contact me by email if vital). Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Block seems fine, though you really should leave a note on his talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd I wrote one something went wrong. Done now. Dougweller (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User requests unblocking: Hi, Mughal Lohar requests unblocking: "i honestly didn't know anything about the snippets law." Can someone handle, please? Esowteric+Talk 10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, he has previously been advised at least twice about the problematic nature of the Google books snippets, both on his talkpage five days ago and on the Arangzeb talkpage two days ago. I'm not sure "I honestly didn't know" is a legitimate defense. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My mention of snippet view verifiability is probably detracting from the real issues, which have yet to be addressed, actually: slow edit warring, lack of edit summaries, uncommunicativeness; etc. Could be that the user doesn't quite know what's expected of him now, re unblocking? eg a statement recognizing the issues and a commitment to rectify?Esowteric+Talk 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's been spoken to repeatedly about all these issues, as well as the importance or reliable sources. He certainly should know what the problem is - I just don't know if he understands that he needs actually to listen to what others say and learn to work in a more collaborative way. Nothing he's said yet indicates that.Kafka Liz (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request. I agree with Kafka Liz: the editor does not seem to have taken in at all what others have said. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin required

To close an RFC at occupy wall street The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo, disruptive editing after unblock

Unarchiving as it was not closed - can an uninvolved admin have a look?

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)

I will try to challenge you, please explain why you deem an article on Christian terrorism as NPOV -balanced, I suggest to perform a survey within project Christianity members whether they support your assumption that given article is neutral in respect to Christian views on given topic, if they will agree with you, I accept your point, otherwise you should accept mine that article is really biased. I do not know single Christian who would hold such views as presented there and it is not true that I break NPOV rules, I never ever deleted opposing opinions AFAIK but always have tried to balance them in line with NPOV policy.--Stephfo (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to engage in content disputes. Furthermore, it does not matter whether Christians feel a topic is non-neutral from their religious perspective. This is a secular encyclopedia. Being offended by some content due to your personal religion is irrelevant to editorial decisions about article content. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:34, 28 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 [[71]]). 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 [[72]] [[73]].

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: [[74]].

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)

On the other hand, when you reopened the topic of my past blockage, I regarded for tendentious approach the requirement that I should understand the 5 voices calling for inserting reliable source presented at the article talk page on one occasion as an consensus against inserting such document, and strange assertion that inserting this university source that 5 people called for was finally used as 1st reason for my blockage, because this insertion was in fact allegedly going against some hypothetical consensus, although it can be demonstrated that 5 people called for such insertion. --Stephfo (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

See this is exactly one of the main problems with your editing: I cannot understand even vaguely what you are trying to say above. I regarded for tendentious approach the requirement that I should understand the 5 voices calling for inserting reliable source presented at the article talk page on one occasion as an consensus against inserting such document[...] is not how English speakers communicate. Ultimately, you have to be able to communicate in English that people on en.wiki can understand. All the good faith in the world means nothing if you cannot have a succinct, concise conversation. N^oformation ^Talk 02:29, 28 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)

• Support. This is I think the last hope for this user to show (s)he can become a more constructive editor. I also agree that if there will be another block it should be indefinite. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose  The adversarial back and forth of the lengthy argumentation taking place at the AfD for John Hartnett, along with the excessive length of six months in the proposal, shows this proposal is not about improving the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You should take a look at Talk:Objections to evolution and see if it changes your opinion. I imagine that if you were on the receiving end of those conversations you'd be supporting a topic ban as well. N^oformation ^Talk 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support; this kind of pov-pushing wastes other editors' time and goodwill; it should be stopped for good. bobrayner (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to avoid need for something more permanent. The editor needs to take some time to read and digest the many comments on many talk pages from a wide section of the community, and needs to work on expressing themselves in comprehensible English. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Improper Venue All proposals of this nature must be made on WP:AN only. Magister of Destruction (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of topic bans get passed here on a weekly basis. I've never heard of this policy before and would like to see it. However, even if it is written somewhere, currently AN/I deals with topic bans very regularly and that's not likely to change soon. N^oformation ^Talk 08:33, 28 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” [75] and this general trend at WP: [76] . 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!”; [77]), 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” [78]. 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)

Stephfo, the behaviour that is causing difficulty is set out above. You'll see it that a number of editors have given statements. The community thinks that a topic ban as set out would be beneficial for a while, to allow you to gain editing skills in less contentious areas. Would you be prepared to consider avoiding the areas that are problematic for a while? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"set up above" is very vague term to accept that involves accusations of alleged edit warring even though I just did exactly what WP recommends to do when somebody deletes content based on a claim that is in discrepancy with reality. You would need to be more specific and explain why such things should be allowed at WP and whether you grant me the same right - to delete content from article leads by making claims "this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead" even though the truth is exactly opposite. If not, I'd like to learn why there should be such double-dealing. It is also a test for your intellectual honesty - if you do not accept my crystal-clear point here, it is awkward to demand someone else to accept such vaguely defined accusations. Please, explain. Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo - the proplems that people are reporting are set out (not set up) above. Wikipedia does not tell you to keep reverting and call other editors vandals. It tells you to discuss the matter. It doesn't tell you to attack other editors. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for typo in set out. As for the remaining reaction, does it mean that if I do the same action as the one that I corrected, namely if I would delete from article leads parts by making declarations that "this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead" even though it can be clearly demonstrated that it is there, that you will support me in doing such activities and you will try to get blocked people who will correct it after me and you will blame them for edit warring? Sounds strange to me, I apologize for any inconvenience, but I have all reasons to believe it would not be so. --Stephfo (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That would depend on whether you were trying to make a WP:POINT. N^oformation ^Talk 23:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Persistent spammer

This user User:Niel Mokerjee, recently off f a several day block for edit warring, is creating WP:SPAM forks of Bengali Brahmins using various spellings in some kind of manouvre to promote his religiously based facebook group[79]. User has been warned numerous times at their talk. but persists. Heiro 21:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) sockpuppetry

I have blocked Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) for one month for vandalising while logged out, as well as using Somali123 (talk · contribs) as a  Confirmed sockpuppet. Somali123 is indeffed, but I'd like an opinion from the community on whether a one month block for Lucy-marie is appropriate, or whether it should be upped to indef based on the long-term disruptive history of Lucy's editing. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally feel that based on their long history of disruptive activity, the fact that this is the second sockpuppet they've used before, and the fact that they've operated this sockpuppet since 2007, that an indef block should be considered. As a disclosure, myself and Lucy have differing views on content and indeed have in the past had an adversarial relationship, so my comments should be taken with a grain of salt, but I don't feel that I am alone in my feelings, as her talk page and archives show. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I previously blocked Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) for abusive sockpuppetry years ago, and let him/her off the hook with a final warning. The socking in question was quite disruptive, and if it's happening again, then I think it's time for an indefinite block. That said, I haven't followed this account closely over the years, so if there are mitigating factors I'd be open to hearing them. MastCell ^Talk 01:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Having looked through her and her sock's edits a bit tonight, I'm wondering why she hasn't received a formal ban or at least been indef blocked. Just from looking at User:Somali123's edits, I see disruption, vandalism (and really, calling Heather Mills a gold digger is so 2009), ignoring consensus, vile racism, and distasteful ethnocentrism. If a new editor did this, he/she'd be gone in four edits, and rightly so: this editor is damaging the project. An indef block would protect the project, a formal ban even more so. --NellieBly (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

By poor man's checkuser (and the deafening quacks), 95.147.55.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is L-M. I think an indef is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef block Using a bad hand sock for four years for disruption, edit warring against consensus, vandalism and BLP violations is bad enough, even ignoring the sock was created just after a month after a previous disruptive sock of Lucy-marie's had been blocked. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Admin attention requested: continuing unruly page moves

At Talk:5_O'clock_(song)#Requested_move the RM is surrounded by chaotic and undocumented moves of the article and similarly named ones – some into userspace. I have posted a note at WT:RM, but the matter is complex and beyond the capacity of non-admins to rectify. May we have some assistance? Perhaps restorative moves, and warnings to those involved? I have not notified any users of this post, because I can't easily track who has done what in the affair. Noetica^Tea? 01:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In particular, could an admin please look at Jab7842's move log and see whether any useful articles were deleted after he(?) moved them into userspace. Jenks24 (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Bonowatcher

This person seems to have signed up just to make disparaging comments about Chaz Bono. On his or her talk page she made extremely insulting comments [80] and on the article's talk page he or she did the same. [81] I removed both comments and suggest that something be done about the abusive editor. Thanks. 76.204.91.45 (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, the user has been blocked indefinitely. 76.204.91.45 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Bonowatcher is a sock of a banned user. Please feel free to report to me or AIV right away. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice, please?

Valoem (talk · contribs) and Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) notified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that several months ago, a user brought back a deleted version of the Dieselpunk article. (It was deleted after a discussion last year, and shortly thereafter the page history was undeleted to assist in the creation of a viable article.) I wish I'd discovered this sooner. In the ensuing months, the article has been modified, but remains essentially the same as the deleted version. I redirected the article to correspond with the outcome of the discussions, but was reverted twice and accused of vandalism. Any thoughts on next steps? - Eureka Lott 04:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Start a new Afd; follow the consensus at the outcome of that Afd.AerobicFox (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

edit:on a side note I find it interesting that the previous deletion discussion had 9 users in favors of keeping the article and only 1 in favor of deleting, yet the article was closed as delete. I have never seen this happen, and believe that the role of an admin is to determine consensus and act according to that, and not to enforce their own interpretations against consensus, although I cannot affirm or condemn the actions here as of now because I haven't fully looked into it yet.AerobicFox (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't determined by WP:VOTE. If it's 9 to 1 but the 1 points out that there are no reliable sources then not much else really matters. It's a core policy. N^oformation ^Talk 09:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. A remarkably strong close in the face of the usual terrible arguments for keeping fictional cruft. The current "article" is the usual parody of encyclopedic content which results when you ask WP's fictioneers to find reliable sources: a hodge-podge of self-published sources, trivial mentions and OR / SYN which looks superficially well-referenced but is as a whole no more than a user essay in the wrong namespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the "resurrector's" contributions, this seems to be a recurring theme (for instance, asking for The Devil's Tree to be moved to his userspace following an AfD and then restoring it, with no alterations, to mainspace while nobody was looking). This is a fairly blatant end-run around deletion by a user who doesn't hold the same notability standards as the rest of the community. There are likely more out there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned by the suggestion of a pattern of behaviour of bad restorations of poorly sourced contents over the results of AfDs. I would appreciate other users investigating this and reporting on this pattern of behaviour while proposing a community sanction. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I recommend immediate removal of reviewer to start ... I was about to do it myself, but figured some additional consensus might be a good idea (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You can remove it, but its not doing any harm considering that the pending changes "trial" is long over (are you perhaps confusing WP:REVIEWER with WP:AUTOPATROLLED?). Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because if I remember, REVIEWER granted the person AUTOPATROLLED, and thus removing the reviewer access would in fact remove autopatrolled as well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, reviewer never granted autopatrolled (they are completely separate userrights). Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I have a faulty memory. Nevermind then :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with AerobicFox An appropriate action would be to hold a new AfD, because whatever happened in the intervening time, an 18 month old AfD is too stale to act on. I might not like the outcome of such an AfD (I advocated keeping the article in the first place), but I would respect it as an action according to consensus and policy. Deleting 30k articles though is vandalism, and repeating that deletion immediately it's reverted is both edit warring and vandalism.

Nor do I appreciate being threatened with immediate blocking by admin Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), who is happy to accuse others of "fairly blatant end-runs around" policy when they disagree with him, but casts a blind eye (maybe it's that pirate eyepatch) to Eureka Lott's actions. This isn't about an article (I agree, it's fancrufty, maybe it just isn't good enough to keep), it's about one editor using redirs as a shorthand for POV-deletion. That should never become how things are done, especially not when it's backed up by their friendly admins threatening to make other editors walk the plank if they disagree. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of material previously deleted at an AfD in much the same state as it was is CSD G4, and is specifically designed to avoid red tape. An 18-month-old AfD is only "stale" if

there's been significant change to the content of the article, which there have most assuredly not been (the changes consist of the addition of two one-word citations and some trivial / bot cleanup). The "threat" issue is orthogonal to this: you (twice) misused Twinkle to make anti-vandalism rollback of an edit which wasn't vandalism, and a user talk warning is a standard response to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why didn't Eureka Lott use CSD G4, rather than a summary deletion? CSD is rapid, but it isn't instant - it still allows for challenge and review, because we're supposed to work here by a collegiate process, not individual fiat.

Your claim that vandalism stops being vandalism provided that the deleter puts an "I've deleted this" message on the talk page afterwards is ludicrous. The purpose is not to make an audit trail, we have page histories for that, the purpose is to support action as a cohesive group. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside to those claiming that Dieselpunk is a non-notable WP:MADEUP, the page view stats are a pretty healthy 10k/month. Not bad going for a non-subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

HiLo and Pregnancy Ban Proposal

In nearly five years of editing here on Wikipedia, I don't think I've every actually brought somebody to ANI. But I feel compelled to do so now. There has been a long and contentious discussion going on over at Talk:Pregnancy relative to the lead image. In September, an RfC ended with no-consensus. ("If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion.")

Everybody, including HiLo felt the original RfC was poorly executed/run. The last RfC was a disaster, totally confused and confusing, guaranteed to deliver a conclusion that could be misinterpreted. [...] I will not repeat my comments. I don't have the time. HiLo48 24 October 2011 Yet, even acknowledging that the first RfC was a disaster, he chooses to use it as the primary reason not to discuss the subject further. According to him, further discussion is not allowed and any arguments presented should be "deleted" because the "umpire" declared that no-consensus existed.

Well after the first RfC ended, another RfC was opened. I initially didn't like the new RfC so close on the heels of the original, but during over a months worth of discussion, have changed my mind. Numerous new arguments/positions have been added. But HiLo refuses to acknowledge them because according to him we had a "perfectly good" decision already---no-consensus. Since I've chosen to take an active role in this RfC, he now accuses me (and anybody else who posts) of bad faith. He's been insulting and refuses to discuss the issue. I think his own words summarize why he should be topic banned:

• Since the new RfC began I have actually not debated the merits of any of the images. (Surely you've noticed that!) So I haven't said anything about liking any picture. I have certainly discussed censorship. Too many people here seem keen on that.[82]

HiLo has declared that his role is to "persist in highlighting" the bad faith editing by poor losers. He has also declared, "Some people may be prepared to compromise Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I am not. [...]The argument must not be won by those who don't." In other words, compromise is not an option and that he will hold dogmatically to his stance regardless of the process. HiLo refuses to acknowledge any argument that does not conform to his own position. When presented with an argument, he accuses the editor of bad faith and being motivated by conservatism or "anti-breast" campaign. He holds firmly to the mistaken notion since the closing admin of the first RfC found no consensus, that the first RfC "which DID NOT convince the closing admin that the image should change, all countered by me and a small number of others pointing out the bad faith behaviour of those who wouldn't accept the umpire's decision." This week he declared, "I have not initiated ANY discussions. I reserve my right to treat garbage posts with contempt, as should you." Garbage posts, based on his comments are any that come from the "anti-breast" "conservative" camp---which is how he views anybody who wants to move the image.

Beyond that I want to give you a taste of his contributions to the discussion. He "strongly believe[s] everything [he] have posted on that page"[http*//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABalloonman&action=historysubmit&diff=462842379&oldid=462710411]

Rather than discussing the issues, he assaults the character of the people who post contrary positions. He regularly called people "prudes", "stupid", "irrational conservatism", "bad faith editing", "unethical", "poor ethics" etc.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find it sadly astonishing that there are so many prudes in the world. It's not the case where I live. Where do you all come from? Middle America 19:54, 17 November 2011 so why post such rubbish? Your post is pointless 07:48, 10 November 2011 I find debates with people who say stupid things very frustrating 19:51, 17 November 2011 Logic has failed. Irrational conservatism MUST pushing this. H 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC) (emphasis his) But, if no good reason for a new RfC is presented, it will just be bad faith editing by poor losers and I will persist in highlighting that (not time stamped but between Nov 16 and 17) (emphasis added) You clearly don't, and won't, get it. It's not worth explaining such matters to people so obsessed. I will not waste my time. 02:40, 13 November 2011 Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:45, 13 November 2011 I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? 19:58, 17 November 2011 (Note: He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt.) No, the reason for the current RfC is that a number of unethical editors on the conservative/censorship side could not accept the umpire's decision ... Having supporters with such poor ethics does not say much for the merits of the case. 07:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC) My views haven't changed, and they don't disappear just because some people here don't have a life. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

HiLo regularly makes assumptions of bad faith, according to him anybody who participated in the RfC acted in bad faith. Here are 9 examples of him calling the edits of others bad faith because they disagreed with him
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And that is a bad faith post. 18:36, 10 November 2011 (In response to a post explaining an !vote) There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision 02:45, 13 November 2011 {Notice, the "umpire's decision" is a common theme in his post. According to him, the first RfC which resulted in "no consensus" is binding.} I'm just glad I at least occasionally had the time to come here and point out the bad faith behaviour of those failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:50, 13 November 2011 People ONLY interested in the good of this article and Wikipedia would not behave in such bad faith. But people pushing a POV through unethical means would. 06:45, 14 November 2011 all countered by me and a small number of others pointing out the bad faith behaviour of those who wouldn't accept the umpire's decision. 06:23, 14 November 2011 I actually love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play within the rules. 04:18, 17 November 2011 (Note---According to him, anybody who is debating the issue now is not playing within the rules.) And any editor who has used this second RfC to argue against the image in the lead has acted in bad faith. 20:03, 14 November 2011 (This includes any editor who joins the discussion now.) I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I usually like to think that people will behave more ethically, but this page has proven me wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He falsely believes that the only reason why people might want to change the image is because they find it morally offensive, are conservative prudes, and want to censor the lead image. The reality is that many of the arguments are based around other issues, but he has declared that he will not be swayed. That moving the image is censorship and he won't even consider it. Here are several examples of his proudly declaring that he will not budge, compromise, or listen to what others have to say:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Let's not mince words. Moving the current picture anywhere would be censorship. 29 October 2011 Some people may be prepared to compromise Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I am not. [...]The argument must not be won by those who don't. 23:55, 29 October 2011 Any deadlock here has been created by the pro-censorship crew seeking action that breaches Wikipedia guidelines 23:24, 29 October 2011 What some here are calling compromise is actually a lowering of standards. HiLo48 19:57, 30 October 2011 If you cannot tell us what your real problem is with nudity in this context, you're not being honest. 23:25, 21 November 2011

Rather than discussing the subject, over 20 of his posts are centered around why any current discussion should be summarily discarded out of hand as we already had a "perfectly good decision" (which was "no consensus").
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants18:36, 10 November 2011 Pointless RfC, [...] It will be a failure of process. And bad behaviour by that admin. I do not intend to comment again 22 October 2011 That reinforces my point that this would then be an RfC decided on the basis of who shouts the loudest and most often 23 October 2011 everything posted since that earlier RfC up until now should now be struck out, 10 November 2011 Please just note that the minds here that won't be changing include those who refused to accept the result of the RfC a month ago 30 October 2011 And we already have an RfC result confirming that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2011 We already have an RfC result confirming that there is nothing wrong with the current picture. HiLo48 07:51, 10 November 2011 (Note* the first RfC did not make that conclusion, only that there was no consensus to move.) No acceptable reason has ever been presented for commencing a new RfC so soon after the first. HiLo48 18:42, 10 November 2011 There are no more reasons to change things now than there were two months ago. Wait, didn't I say that just above? HiLo48 04:25, 17 November 2011 There was an RfC decision a month ago. To re-open discussions so soon shows very poor faith. 07:44, 8 November 2011 There was a valid decision. It should stand. HiLo48 08:13, 8 November 2011 Absolute rubbish. It gives legitimacy to nothing. It demonstrates that some editors will do anything, with no regard to rules and principles, to get what they want. And please subtract from your total of 200K any posts like mine and Desources' saying this should not be occurring. HiLo48 20:02, 8 November 2011 We don't need a new decision. We had a perfectly good one a month ago. Some people didn't like it. HiLo48 23:42, 6 November 2011 We have a decision. No justification has been presented for requiring another one so soon, apart from not liking the one we have. 02:59, 8 November 2011 No justification has been presented for requiring another decision so soon. 03:13, 8 November 2011 That may or may not be true, but to totally ignore the impartial decision of an independent arbiter, just because it didn't go your way, shows incredibly bad faith. It means that Wikipedia judgements are likely to lean in the direction preferred by those without a life who are able to spend virtually unlimited time here pushing POV here without fair and due process. 19:02, 9 November 2011 Nothing posted since that most recent, completed RfC should count for anything. It should all probably be deleted. 22:09, 13 November 2011 [A long tirade on the RfC] 00:40, 14 November 2011 No amount of time is appropriate. This RfC is an abuse of process. The fact that it was started immediately after the closure of the last one showed an incredible absence of good faith 06:58, 25 November 2011

If he did more than impugn the motives of others, he tried to mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument. Since somebody might be offended by any picture, then the logical course is to leave the one that we know has offend some.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some people are offended by bare skin. What you really should have said is "To satisfy MY cultural biases, we should use Image 1." 02:05, 8 November 2011 And there's the bit I cannot comprehend. If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling? Makes no sense 18 November 2011 ( There are some conservative groups that will object to almost any bare flesh. Every proposal here is still going to offend somebody. 1 November 2011 This is pro-censorship, conservative rubbish. Without that argument this debate would either not exist or would have been a lot shorter 20:13, 25 November 2011

This is not the first time this issue has been raise. At least 10 other editors have called him out on his behavior and failure to adhere to the basics of civil discourse here at WP. I personally think civility blocks are ridiculous, but when a person brags that their purpose is not to let others win, to stand up to them, and regularly impugns others rather than discussing the issue. And when 10+ people on at least 14 different occassions tell him that he is out of line, then it is getting a little ridiculous.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(his talkpage) I look forward to seeing this case go to arbcom so that I can see you and others taken to task for disregarding consensus, encouraging a battleground atmosphere and engaging in edit warring, and for failing to compromise or promote alternatives to your disputed, obsessive demand that we insert a single disputed image into an article against the complaints of multiple parties. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2011 (his talkpage) It may be time for you to step back from the Pregnancy discussion. This is grossly inappropriate behaviour. Why not fold your arms for a few days and see what the hundreds (?) of other volunteers, many even more experienced and some possibly even as sensible as you, come up with, without your constant badgering Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2011 Are you going to badger everyone that doesn't agree with you? Where have I said that the nude image was unacceptable? I was agreeing with WAID's excellent reasoning. You need to take a step back, you are taking this far too personally. AIRcorn (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) The discussion is already tedious enough. Please don't start trolling it.[7] Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2011 Come off it HiLo, your badgering and cheap shots are starting to border on disruptive.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) There is no good reason for you, or for that matter, anyone else to impugn the motivations of others and at the same time introduce unverifiable personal accusations against others. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (his talkpage) It seems that you must be urged once again to desist in your refusal to deal with any matters of substance and your repeated stating of unsupported personal assumptions regarding the opinions and motivations of others. In doing so, you are violating the standards of acceptable behavior. I very, very seriously urge you to review and abide by talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) Anyway, please knock it off with the "ethics" and "conservative" baiting. If you're truly unhappy with the RfC results, you should start a new RfC, not attack the people who participated in good faith. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2011 HiLo48, would you leave off the "conservative" and "pro-censorship" schtick already? Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2011 . But you have stepped far past the line. And you still have to answer my question about RfC's above.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC HiLo/Powers, your language is all about us and them and how they must not be allowed to win. It has no place in a reasonable discussion where folk respect other people's opinions when they differ from your own. You've lost the bigger picture Colin°Talk 11:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC) your only objection to this image is that it lets them win and that that their behaviour is thus not only unpunished but appears to have been successfully rewarded, then please please let it go. Colin°Talk 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC) I assume you're frustrated but I don't think we can make blanket statements about the editors here. Olive 20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)) Yeah, can you stop with the personal attacks against Balloonman, and others?--v/r - TP 21:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I once again urge the above editor to act according to WP:AGF and not make unsubstantiated allegations regarding the motivations of others, or make remarks which may well seem more incendiary than productive. John Carter 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is not your battleground against the forces of conservatism. You have swamped this page and, from what my watch list tells me, at least one policy page in your crusade. Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2011

In closing I want to quote the post I made at 17:47, 19 November 2011:

Perhaps that is why I have found you to be particularly unhelpful in this thread... all you seem to do A) Whine about how this issue was decided (via a no-consensus) !vote in the previous discussion B) attack others for bad faith and other reasons, and C) whine about censorship without actually addressing the issues presented. You've added the most to this discussion without adding anything of benefit.

If he actively engaged in constructive dialog regarding the image, I would not be here... but he has drawn a line in the sand and has declared that anybody who posts on the subject is doing so in bad faith and should be ignored. He has not added a constructive comment relative to the discussion, he merely criticizes the current discussion and anybody who partakes in it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC) NOTE: It should be noted, that I waited until the RfC was closed before filing this ANI report, lest he accuse me of arguing in bad faith.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing much I can add here. It's not as if you were the only one who noticed the problem.

Your post was full of asterisks where one would have expected colons. I fixed that to make it easier to read. Hans Adler 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had written it with colons to start every quote, but realized that was hard to read when I posted it here... so I did a find/replace in NotePad to make them asterisks... guess, that didn't work ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad there was such a negative reaction to the nude photo, which was beautiful and harmless. And it's hard to figure why Wales got involved with this brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear your opinion on the images but that's not what the AN/I is about. It is also not about the totally uncontroversial close of an RfC by an admin (who happens to be Jimbo Wales). Let's not make additional drama here please.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. What an ungracious win on a Sole Flounder decided RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Griswaldo, this isn't about the way the RfC was closed or about the image itself, but rather about HiLo's behavior during the discussion. If he contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way, other than to impugn the motives of people who commented, then I would not have opened this.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the RFC, it's about your fee-fees being hurt - we get it. Show a little compassion for someone that put a lot of heart and soul into a project that he believed was an egalitarian, free, uncensored attempt to broaden the world's knowledge who, found that when the curtain was peeled back, it wasn't quite as egalitarian, wasn't quite as free and wasn't quite as uncensored as he thought it was. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the evidence I do want to say that I find responses like this entirely unhelpful. People need to realize that it is behavior that is or is not problematic not intentions. Surely good intentions can mitigate the response the community has to problematic behavior, but first we need to determine if the behavior was problematic or not. So Hipocrite, while I appreciate your reading of the intentions and emotions involved here it simply doesn't convince me to dismiss the complaint, which appears to be your aim. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The "complaint" is more like a novella. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Side comment. On pregnancy there were two alternatives: either keep the image in the lede; or move it further down in the article to a more appropriate place swapping it for the other image of the lady in blue. The image has been deleted and not moved; presumably someone can fix that. As for topic bans, I think that is a more general issue with several users, providing too much unconstructive and disruptive input on images (mostly on pregnancy and Muhammad). I am not sure that can necessarily be decided here, although it's worth a try.

While not disputing Balloonman's evidence, could he please find a more condensed way to present it? At the moment it is tl;dr. Perhaps a summary with details collapsed for readability? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SF certainly reviewed the RFC when closing it as replace one image with another, remove replaced image entirely, right? Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's supposedly at 26 weeks, so I placed it in the second-trimester section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call. It should not be removed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, I went back and hatted all of the quotes/supporting evidence. The key points are now highlighted.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it by a minute or two. I was just going to collapse all the evidence in one collapse box, but your way works just as well. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• My only comment here is that my behavior at Talk:Pregnancy was not above reproach and my comments to HiLo should be taken with plenty of bad faith because that was how they were intentioned and made. I made several comments to be WP:POINTY and to cause some editors, including HiLo, to retaliate. Not my finest moments, but I want to clarify so HiLo isn't judged on issues he may have been provoked by me.--v/r - TP 15:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)