Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 4 October 2010 (→Bot War). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

    Unresolved
    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

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

    User:FellGleaming

    {{archivetop|strong community consensus support for a 3 month 1RR editing restriction. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FellGleaming#Editing_restriction_notification Notified user here] and logged at [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]] - [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)}} ( Please see comment at end of thread about this non-admin closure. 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

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

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

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

    Response from FellGleaming

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

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

    I have already succinctly explained the problem in my original report, but I would like to clear up Fell's misrepresentation of basic facts. To refresh Fell's memory, I originally removed poorly sourced material from Challenger Deep[10] and placed it on the talk page per best practices.[11] This was done because the solitary source used, did not support the content. FellGleaming, without replying on talk first, quickly restored the material,[12] adding an unreliable source to Helium.com as his chosen source, a "peer reviewed citizen journalism website". FellGleaming then begin making a series of very strange claims on talk, arguing that "the Helium source is not being used as a WP:RS for a science claim, but merely to support that the location has been suggested as a waste repository." Fell began trying to reinterpret and reinvent the concepts of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR on the fly, so that they would support his edits. Because Fell was unable to find a reliable source that supported the content he wanted to add, I felt sorry for him and tried to help him out. I found the Hafemeister (2007) source[13] and Fell was happy.[14] However, things quickly devolved into Jekyll and Hyde territory after I helped Fell find a source. At this point, Fell began to go off on bizarre tangents, arguing that any reliable source is acceptable to use in the article, even one that is not about the topic. I calmly explained to Fell, that per the policies and guidelines, we generally only use topical sources, mostly to avoid original research and drawing conclusions that aren't found in the sources. As it stands, Fell will not accept this fact. So now, Fell has added the disputed material into two different articles, and continues to ignore the concerns raised about his edits on the article talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore. CANVASS per [15], [16]. I have not seen anything nasty from Fell Gleaming. Charges of "tag teaming" should be weighed carefully, and discarded as chaff. Absent any real charge, and considering the CANVASS involved, I suggest the first word I wrote is correct. Collect (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no canvassing, and MastCell asked me to "bring it up elsewhere" because he can no longer deal with FellGleaming on both a personal and administrative level. Screwball23 has nothing to do with this report. Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    CANVASS occurs even if the people CANVASSED do nothing. It is the contact which is the violation, not the result of the contact here. Collect (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ::[reply]
    A simple question for teh alledged canvaser, did you ask anyone who has not been in conflict with fell? A si8mple question for the accuseer, has the user asked for comment or asked what he should do in both cases?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There has also been no tag teaming. I made Two edits, one imidialty after the other [[17]]. I ask that this blatant mis-representation is withdrawn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And you blanket reverted my edits and restored Fell's. You tag teamed. And like Fell, you have not been able to answer the questions posed on the article talk page by myself, or on the NOR noticeboard by other editors. This is disruptive editing by the both of you. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ONe making an edit you do not like (or restoring an edit you do not like) is not tag teaming (and I now belive this to be casued by the fact you cannot revert due to having used 3 reverts already, that you are attmepting to use this ANI to continue an edit war). Two I have answerd the questions, that you do not accpept the answers [[18]] (why this should be here) [[19]] (sources supporting the fact the nUS has not ratified the treaty) [[20]] (that the sectio with out the material about US nonratification mis-represents the situation) is not my problom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have filed this ANI because both Fell and yourself have ignored concerns regarding your misuse of sources on both the article talk page and the OR noticeboard, and have now duplicated the same, exact disputed edits in two different articles for no reason, which not only doesn't make any sense, but is a good example of the disruptive, POINTY behavior going on here. You can't just ignore talk pages and noticeboards that question your edits. You need to stop adding the disputed material and work towards resolution and consensus. Neither of you seem able or willing to do this. I don't know where you stand at this point, but I do know that Fell has some kind of difficulty understanding basic policies and guidelines, and from what I can tell, has no interest in understanding them. That's a bit strange for an editor active since January 2008. I mean, he's had plenty of time to figure things out, right? Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you care to check I have only edited the one articel. I ask you to withdraw the accustion I have done this on two artciels as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was presenting that finding as a total, not as evidence that you yourself edited two articles, but you are correct, you have only edited one, but two separate articles between the both of you now contains the same content. Viriditas (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    GISS is not a "science article", and the text being cited is not a scientific point, but simply that a particular person works for GISS. Even worse is the fact that Ibis himself agrees the fact is accurate; he simply wishes to use a separate source for the citation. Fell Gleamingtalk 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How can our article about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) not be a science article? --TS 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that the statement "Steven Schneider once worked for GISS" is some sort of scientific method, theory or discovery that can only be verified by a Ph.D-authored science book is rather odd. Fell Gleamingtalk 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is different, i.e. that you don't want to use a source which, while verifying the statement, covers the science related to the article's topic in a way that makes the book not a good source for the other information it contains. There may be cases where such a book is the only source available and you don't have a choice but to use that book. I think there exists a special tag for such references that indicates that one would rather have another source. But in this case we already have a better source. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case we have an apparently perfectly adequate source for the late Stephen Schneider's association with GISS. I agree that the source proposed by FellGleaming is a little odd for an article about a scientific institute. --TS 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The source was proposed by another editor, not myself. As for the other source being "perfectly adequate", multiple independent sources are often used. Fell Gleamingtalk 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this in the article at all? As far as I can tell he was at Goddard as a post-doc for less than a year in 1971-72? (according to his own CV). What particular relevance the GISS article has his brief stop there to do with anything? Put another way -- rather than argue about "what" source for this information, a more important question would seem to be "why this information at all?" (The place for it would seem to be the guy's biography, you know "Early career and education.")Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a very good point, Bali. I don't feel comfortable removing it myself because of this ongoing dispute, but if you (or anyone else) wants to excise it, I support the action. Fell Gleamingtalk 16:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple, but you need to understand the history. Cla68 is having a campaign to add as many facts to as many articles as he can, using Fred Pearce's book as a source. That is where this factoid came from [21]. See-also the next diff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have encountered this editor before. He bears careful watching. Basically FellGleaming is so very strongly pro-nuclear power that he will bend or break WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR to get a pro-nuclear slant onto articles. Tenacious to the point of tendentiousness, this editor will likely require the attention of Arbcom eventually. A SPA with an agenda, who treats our project as a battleground. --John (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The "smoking hot" edit war consists of my making a total of 3 edits in the past week: [22]. Ohiostandard, by the way, has been following me from article to article, misrepresenting sources with his edits, just as he did in this one [23], where he claimed it for "fidelity with what the sources actually say". The only problem is, they say no such thing. If he continues this pattern of harrassment and source misrepresentation (and continues to misrepresent my sex as well, despite repeated corrections to the contrary), I believe action will be necessary. Fell Gleamingtalk 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, "smoking hot" was careless, and I'll retract the phrase. I was influenced, no doubt, by my great distaste for what you've been doing at Linda McMahon since the end of August. But anyone here can look at its history and decide whether you've been edit warring there, long-term, and whether the warring needed to stop. As to your claim that I have some kind of "pattern" of misrepresenting sources, people can take a look here for the facts, and refer to MastCell's enforcement remarks about your own "pattern" re sources. Further, I'm genuinely sorry if you feel "harrassed", but you're a very ubiquitous presence on boards like this one, I'm very familiar with your own "patterns", and I very strongly disapprove of them. So when I see you in places like this so often, up to your old "hijinks" (your word, since you like it so much), of course I'm going to comment. I'd rather not, actually; it's boring. But someone needs to. Anyway, my principal point in the post above was that I think it was disruptive to copy-paste a contested section from one article to create an identical new section in a different one, while you were in the middle of a discusssion about the section at WP:NORN. But as I said, this is boring; have the last word if you like.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The Challenger Deep is a particularly deep spot in the Mariana Trench. The two articles are so closely related that it is hair-splitting to distinguish between them in this way. In case anyone wants to know my opinion (as an involved editor) about FellGleaming: This user appears to be an expert on nuclear power with a very strong POV, and a will to push that through. The user seems to be generally operating right at the edge of what is tolerated here, not unlike the way that some other editors are acting or have acted in the past to advocate mainstream, sceptic or pseudosceptic positions on articles related to fringe or pseudoscience. The main difference is that this user is now advocating positions that are very unpopular, overall. The main problem at the moment is that we don't seem to have an expert who can represent the other side and prevent articles from being skewed through highly selective information. This is the kind of explosive situation that is bound to end at Arbcom. Hans Adler 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then (if they are that closely related) do a totaly different set of edds appear to edit one, but not the other, articel? With only a couple of edds on only one of those pages objecting to this aqddition? If the users actions are that out of order then would it not offend more then those with whome he appears to be (or have been) in content dispute with. I see this users actionsa as no worse then many otehrs who seem to enjoy huge amounts of indlugence, and I am operating from the posiiton of precidence. I agree that this users combative approach is problomatic, but no more so then (for example) the attitude of the accuser.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

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

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

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

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

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

    This is not a mistake on FellGleaming's part. This is part of a willful, purposeful campaign of misrepresentation of sources in article after article, and something needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Viriditas already brought this issue to the NPOV NB [26]. The text Viriditas is complaining about wasn't even added by me; it simply was the prior version restored when I reverted out improperly cited material. Note that admin Mastcell at the NPOV NB agreed the claim was overstated. Further, given Viriditas has posted this to three forums, he seems to be forum shopping. Fell Gleamingtalk 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This example seems to fit very well into my overall picture of FellGleaming: An excellently informed editor who is pushing an industry POV vehemently and with a strong focus on results rather than interpersonal conflicts. If the public relations departments of huge industry associations ever start paying people for editing Wikipedia, we are going to get a lot of editors here who will be behaving very much like FellGleaming. Come to think of it, it's amazing that we haven't reached that stage yet. Hans Adler 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't we? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting data point: I asked FG here why he had added Being a subduction plate, the nuclear waste would slowly be pushed deep into the Earth's mantle. to the Mariana Trench article, as, quite apart from whether it belongs on the article at all (and I am officially neutral on the matter), it is somewhat poor English. He stated here that it is not his preferred version and I apologized for what I thought was my mistake, but then I checked and saw that he had indeed added the text. In fact he appears to have added this poor material three times to the article. Why would someone add text that they do not think should be added, then edit war over it? I am having trouble understanding what is going on here. --John (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reviewing his latest efforts, I now believe that FellGleaming should be topic-banned from anything related to nuclear power, in addition to his current ArbCom restrictions. This is a POV-pusher and a combatant in an environment which should be a civil and collegial one. At the very least we need a lot more editors watching him and his edits as I am now doing. --John (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to John's many errors, (a) I am not under any "current Arbcom restrictions". (b) the grammatical error he refers to in Challenger Deep was not added by myself. It existed in the article prior to my first edit: [27]. In restoring a section which had been blanked, I merely did not take the time to cleanup the grammar. As to John's complaint on the nuclear article, I'm sorry I don't see it. I took a vague "scientists and engineers" statement and replaced it with the actual descriptions of these individuals, taken directly from their existing WP entries. Calling someone a "scientist" in a nuclear power article is not only vague, but somewhat misleading, when they are in fact a biologist commenting on nuclear issues. Fell Gleamingtalk 15:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But "restoring a section which had been blanked, ... not tak[ing] the time to cleanup the grammar." is the very definition of edit-warring. You should think about it; you are no longer a newbie and should not act like one. --John (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we have a link to the policy as I cannot find this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring thanks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You just made a link to it yourself, so I'll assume it is a problem of comprehension rather than not knowing where to find the info. We have "However, situations will inevitably arise where editors have differing views about some aspect of a page's content. When this happens, editors are strongly encouraged to engage in civil discussion to reach a consensus, and not to try to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting. It is the latter approach which is known as edit warring."
    Help:Reverting has "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously."
    This is one of three key problem areas in this user's editing, the others being misrepresentation of sources and tendentiously pursuing what appears to be a particular agenda. As these seem like long-term problems, I would push for a ban, but a topic-ban or a medium-length block might be kinder in the first instance. We certainly cannot go on like this, in my opinion. --John (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me but I cannot see the wording you have used in your comment of 16:02, 22 September 2010 so I cannot see how Fells action breach a policy that does not in fact exsist. Nor can I see how you above quotes can be seen as saying anything about restoing text or not altering bad grammer. So it would appear to me that you have mis-repreented policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you're still having difficulty with this. The solution may be in examining the word "restoring" (in my comment) and comparing it with "being restored to a version that existed sometime previously" (the language of Help:Reverting, my emphasis). Now look at "repeated" (from the policy you linked to) and compare it with my evidence that FG restored the sub-standard material three times. Can you see the similarity now? The grammar issue isn't that important, except that it shows an unsatisfactory combative streak; how easy it would have been for him to tweak the content rather than restoring a version he himself said was sub-standard, yet he didn't. The fact that he then lied about it when I asked him about it is cream on the pudding. --John (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    CForgi9ve me but teh grammer part is opart of your 'quote' so I fail to see how its unimportant. I agree that if he reveted to an exsisting versio that would be edit warring,, but there is nothing about not altering bad grammer so you did mis-represetn polciy. You claim he had breached a rule (or at least the way you interperate that rule) in a way that is not in fact aginst policy. Now if you are saing that he reverted text he should not have done (and that is all) then fait enough perhaps it might be usefull stike that part of your post.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And this was the Arbcom "final warning" given in April for misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing. That was six months ago. Has this editor changed for the better? I would say not. Topic ban please. --John (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it excuses anything, but the CC noticeboard is backed by the community process, not by ArbCom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I struck that part of the complaint. --John (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bad behavior has not stopped and a simple topic ban will not work. FellGleaming is an advocate of "ignore all rules", which is fine, but he expects us to agree to his ignoring of all rules, which is not fine. This is an abuse of WP:IAR, as any attempt to clean up after his mess is met with hours of wasted talk page arguments and edit warring. This needs to stop. It's a huge time sink, and the editor does not help build an encyclopedia, but destroy it. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unfortunately, the disruption is not confined to climate change articles, but includes many topics that touch upon energy and chemical industry subjects, as well as the politicians who represent those interests. FellGleaming is an experienced editor who understands the policies and guidelines as well as any long term contributor. The problem at hand is that FellGleaming is using his understanding to game the rules, to obstruct discussion, and to push an agenda. How should Wikipedia handle editors like FellGleaming and why hasn't anything been done? He was already the subject of a severe warning in a climate sanctions enforcement request, and by that reasoning alone, he should already be blocked. What is interesting is that he's even managed to game that warning as well, by editing articles just outside the topic but engaging in the same bad behavior and disruptive edits. This is wasting a great deal of time and energy of good faith editors who would prefer to work in harmony. Please do something. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're actually trying to dredge up an edit [[35]] from more than six months ago into the current argument? And my "severe warning" was simply a no-sanctions message to "be more careful". I looked into a source already in an article, and used the exact phrase "leaked emails" from the source. Admin Mastcell decided it was "misleading" because I put the phrase half a sentence away from where the inline citation was, even though two other admins said it was without merit. In fact, the only reason I didn't appeal such a ridiculous conclusion was simply because there were no sanctions attached to it, just a warning to "be more careful" ... which I always am, anyway. And Viriditas is simply upset because he's taken me to three different noticeboards in the past week, without once getting the result he wants. On the first forum, he even went so far as to begin personally attacking editors who agreed with me. Fell Gleamingtalk 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Here's evidence of clear POV pushing and wikilawyering. Compare here where, to prevent the Heartland Institute article mentioning that it's often referred to as "right-wing", he says
    "The principle touchstone here, Mastcell, is accuracy. A source that states something verifiably inaccurate should not be used period, no matter how reliable that source is in general. Further, a source that describes the subject as "right wing noise" is clearly biased. Why are you trying so ardently to portray Heartland as something they so clearly are not? I'm honestly curious."
    with this from an OR notice board, where, to get an organisation labelled "left-wing", he argues
    "you're confusing WP:OR with potential WP:RS and WP:NPOV issues. If a source labels an organization liberal, then its not OR to provide that description -- though the source's description can still be shown to be inaccurate or non neutral."
    These comments were made within a couple of weeks of each other. Either viewpoint might be valid, but not both at the same time. Technically, no policy has been broken, but it's things like these that stretch the AGF of other editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Unsuccessful enforcement request from April 2010

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

    1. User claims that this source states "the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were."
      After I challenge this,
    2. he invites me to "click on the link" After a further challenge,
    3. points out that "It says the largest problem is mental health...", which was not the claim.
    4. FellGleaming then repeats the mischaracterization of the source.
      After my warning, below, then
    5. accuses me of making a personal attack, at which point I give up and come here. --John (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion

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

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

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

    As someone who's run into the brick wall that is FellGleaming (on Indian Point Energy Center), I'm certainly not going to argue that any additional evidence is needed to show his obstreporous behavior pattern, but I'm also well aware that, with some frequency in the past, sanctions have been rejected if intermediate steps such as an RfC aren't taken beforehand. It's that auld demon process: some people just feel queasy about doing the right thing before all the T's have been crossed and the i's dotted. Me, I'm more interested in results, and see nothing wrong in sanctioning an aggresive POV-warrior at any stage if he or she is preventing the encyclopedia from being as accurate and factual as it can be – and that indeed seems to be the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Process isn't just that there for the sake of it (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY), it's there because it serves a purpose. In this case, an RFC seems called for, (a) giving FG a chance to reconsider his behaviour and not view criticism as mere point-scoring by content opponents (b) allow others, especially those sympathetic to FG, to see that he is given such a chance before more drastic measures are taken, if it is at some point concluded that they are necessary. Rd232 talk 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the date was April 2010 I would agree with this analysis. As the problem has been going on for several months since then, and the user seems to show no insight into the problematic nature of his edits after this time and after four blocks, I am struggling to justify the idea of an RfC. If that's the consensus I will go along with it of course, but I really don't see why in such an egregious case we couldn't just enact a final warning or a topic ban by community consensus right here, right now. --John (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Community Ban

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

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

    • FellGleaming (talk · contribs) has just been blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring. I think the issues raised here require serious consideration (particularly in light of the repeated blocks for edit-warring on politically sensitive articles), but please consider that FellGleaming is currently unable to participate in this discussion. MastCell Talk 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban - The clever POV pushers who know how to manipulate language and sources are way more dangerous than the overt vandals. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There is no more depressing sight than an editor who has been in conflict with another try and use a separate incident as a chance to ask for a guy to get banned. This comment is aimed at the proposer, i do not know all those who are supporting this proposal and do not mean those who do support it are all in conflict with Fell mark nutley (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support; I would have preferred a block or a topic ban before going to a full ban, but this is better than nothing. What we mustn't have is FG coming back in 72 hrs and continuing to disrupt. --John (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC) see below[reply]
    • Support - IMO, FellGleaming is been disruptive at Libertarianism in addition to Climate Change related articles. Yworo (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - FG's has an extremely aggressive and confrontational attitude, but only has 4 total blocks, two in 2008 and two in 2010. FG also has a undeniable passion for some subjects which may be harnessed to benefit the project. Rather than a flat ban, put them on a civility probation, to be monitored by a few uninvolved admins. Any, and I mean ANY, slip, for ANY reason, is a week long block for the first, indef for the second. They've had more than a few warnings and comments, but maybe, just maybe, a blunt smack to the face will change things. And maybe not, but with a block on site for any slipup, damage to the project is mitigated. (And for the record, I find their general actions on WP reprehensible, contributing to several problem areas). Ravensfire (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Yet another example of a civil-POV pusher, whose lack of a substantial block record is a result of gaming the system, and not because he or she is really interested in creating a NPOV encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Does this editor pose problems? Sure. But I then conclude something differently from Ken's observation that the lack of a big block log is due to "gaming the system". If the system doesn't work properly, then that deserves more attention. Banning editors on an ad hoc basis is not a good thing. Ravensfire proposal makes more sense to me, but we also have to take a more general approach: Welcome the feedback that problematic editors give us here and adjust the system to deal with problems, instead of pointing the finger to the problematic editor and not fixing flaws in the system. For the problems in the climate change area, this means that Wikipedia needs to adopt WP:SPOV. Count Iblis (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the system needs overhauling, since it does not deal well with civil POV pushers, but to say that because the system is ineffective in fixing that proble, we should not take advantage of what mechanisms it does provide is just plain silly. I'd be all in favor of having a way that people like FG can be dealt with at a much earlier stage, without going through all the endless drama and disruptive palaver that CPOVs cause, but in the meantime, once things have come to a head, to back off simply because there's not a better method of dealing with them is harmful to the project overall. It's taken much too long, but a specific problem has been identified and needs to be dealt with, that's entirely a different proposition than fixing the system, which should be dealt with, but elsewhere, not here, and not as part of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've tried to work with FG on many articles relating to nuclear issues, without success, and the POV-pushing and disruption has continued. Johnfos (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've seen plenty of caustic comments from this user. Enough. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Premature - RFC first, and see if FG can improve. Rd232 talk 21:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, sort of broadly per Ravensfire. The real danger here is that FellGleaming will see failure of the indef block proposal as vindication of his actions. Better to withdraw the indef block proposal and instead put him on notice that he needs to clean up his act, and that there are admins willing to step in if he continues on his current path. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As usual, draconian responses do not work. Moreover, the proponent is currently involved in an ArbCom case, and this may be seen as a way to sidestep the discussions there about both parties. Collect (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Editor has a poor record and does not observe neutrality, rs, AGF or 3RR, despite feedback from other editors and blocks. TFD (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, basically per Ravensfire. I do not think that the Wikipedia community has a great track record with civility paroles, though. I would support a global 1RR restriction with a discussion requirement (block length aggressively escalated) + sourcing probation (immediate indef if a source is substantively misrepresented). RfC/U might also help - I have seen editors recover from worse. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for a different reason. I do not know enough about this user to form an opinion of whether this editor is deserving of a site ban or not. I am opposing because they are involved in an ArbCom case. I think that the ArbCom case should be allowed to finish and see how any remedies and findings of facts which pass effect this user and whether their behaviour improves.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. While I am no fan of FG's editing, this is too much. A topic ban was proposed (below); the problem with that is that there are a number of topics where this editor has been disruptive. 1RR would be helpful, for instance, but perhaps an RfC is the way to go at this time. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Only recently experienced him as an editor. He appears knowledgeble on Wiki policy and open to consensus editing but can also comport himself agressively. Editing as an assumed "sceptic" CC editor, his survival skill alone probably warrants merit. Civility parole might help but a ban is, IMHO, way over the top. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - if he acknowledges there is a problem and comment. Wikipedia has difficulty with this kind of civil POV editor. In the debate we're having now, the struggle is to describe in concrete terms the behaviour pattern that would lead to a ban, although I think everyone more or less is agreed that he's been a net detriment to Wikipedia's processes, and with intention. I'm uncomfortable in this instance with a wholesale ban. FellGleaming is knowledgeable, and has forced some article writers to be very careful what they say about fringe theorists and BigEvilCorporations in a healthy way - in addition to blatant POV editing. Such subjects can be subject to attack, just as much as articles on Obama or Acorn. Of course, if he does not acknowledge that there is a problem with his approach, then I would reassess my view - and I would urge others to do so. That said, I think it's worth looking at this summary of his edits. Although the first two bans were two years ago, FellGleaming was not editing regularly again until April this year. Each time he has become more active, he's experienced blocks for edit warring. I support suggestions of an indefinite global 1RR, and, based on what I've seen him do, a warning about misrepresenting talkpage consensus (must not be done) and about his warning other users of breaking policy (wikilawyering) - only to be done in absolute cast iron cases (e.g. blatant vandalism (obscenities etc.), including both talkpages and usertalk pages. He can always ask an admin to take a case up for him if it's genuine. Looking at his edit history, I think it' a case of WP:ROPE.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mild oppose I have had run ins in the past with Fell. I do not see his actions as much worse then many others (inlcuding in truth the origional ANI poster). If he can demonstrate that he is able to learn from this experiance then I will oppose a ban. If however evidacen comes forward that he will not moderate his activities then this would change to Mild support.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mild Support I don't like to impose sanctions, but an editor who persists in pushing the same original research two years after it's been removed by consensus and two days after he's been warned to "exercise basic due diligence" in the use of sources, doesn't seem willing to operate within the Wikipedia framework. Given the scope of his problem edits, a topic ban won't suffice.SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC); revised 15:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Edits like this one, demonstrating an apparent unfamiliarity with WP:UNDUE, followed by this one, showing that the editor has at least heard of UNDUE, are a serious concern that there's an underlying problem (either with competence, or, more likely, with POV-pushing) that needs to be addressed. But that doesn't necessitate leaping to a community ban. Let's press on with blocks - we're only up to the 72 hours block stage at this point. TFOWR 15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Probably the most POV pushing wikilawyer I have known. I have known both wikilawyers and POV pushers but FellGleeming has taken these tactics across multiple articles and venues using every wikitactic available. To simply suggest there is a problem that needs to be addressed is an understatement and fails to look into this editor's history in a meaningful way. This editor is not here to improve wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Very belligerent user, and both competence and POV-pushing are issues. I encountered him recently on the CC case; see his defensive response to a warning I posted on another user's page (a user I see opposing a ban above; no surprise there, I guess), without even waiting for that user to do his own replying.[37] When I requested diffs for his accusations from FG, reminding him that "it is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation"[38], he fell unaccountably silent, so his character assassination had presumably been mere hot air. (I guess it's not only sources that he misrepresents.) I would like to see a ban, but one with a timelimit; sitebanned for three months sounds about right, IMO. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Not support, not oppose, but comment and learning toward mild oppose I had a very recent run-in with Fell where he passionately and belligerently pushed his point. He threatened to excise an entirely section (that was very well referenced) and clearly did not agree with the consensus. He brought the issue to another noticeboard without notifying anyone in the local discussion, despite being specifically asked to do so. His civil POV pushing is usually that, civil, but he sometimes makes accusations of bad faith, which is clearly against policy. I do not think Fell needs to be banned, but there ought to be an RfC/U on the issue to gain wider community input. Basket of Puppies 01:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Fell Gleaming is only one amongst many great contributors who have been shoved out of Wikipedia for not going along with the elitist majority POV that pervade Wikipedia's articles.--Novus Orator 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, for the sake of the timeline, this ANI report was precipitated by the failure of a previous report opened by FellGleaming at WP:NOR/N on 13:22, 17 September 2010.[39] "Novus Orator", real account name Terra Novus (talk · contribs), created their account at 05:26, 18 September 2010.[40] This noticeboard report was filed by me at 13:48, 18 September 2010.[41] Wikistalk results for the intersection of both contributors can be viewed here. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point is? I can't see where these two edds have edited the discusion on the notice board (mentioned above) so I fail to see the relevance of this. Unless you are sugesting the Fell knew you were going to raise an ANI before you did so, so created an account for use here in advance.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My observation from being (unofficially) involved at SPI is that sockpuppeteers frequently create one or more account just before an administrative action, as insurance. Yworo (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I may mis-understand the point your making bit this was not created before an action, this was created before a report (or even a warning of a report, indeed Fell was never issued with a warning that his actions might lead to an ANI). Thus its hard to see why he would have created an account 8 hours before he had any reason to think he might need one (rather then at a time when he actually was under threat, such as after the ANI started). Also see below, it seems that both these accounts have been used at the same time. Moreover I would like to see what Fell and the other account are in fact being accused of rather then some innuendo.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative proposal

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

    That's not nearly good enough as his edits cover a wide variety of topics, as his most recent 3RR violation shows, from energy to politics, from biographies to geography. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty obvious that there are problems with FG's actions. But I think the first step should be "what can you do to help yourself?" See if FG is willing to commit to changes in his behaviour/restrictions that might solve this problem. Guettarda (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree also we should wait untill the end of the wider investigation. But I would suppoert a 1RR restiction.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems difficult to enumerate the problematic areas, as they are too many, and too fuzzy at the edges, so might my suggestion above for a time-limited siteban (3 months..?) be a less complicated not-so-draconian alternative? What do you think, John? Bishonen | talk 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    An RfC/U needs to be listed for wider community discussion. Until then, I suggest his unblock so he can participate. It seems only fair. Basket of Puppies 01:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think not. See above for new evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s interesting that both of these accounts make different edits on different pages, at the same time [[42]] [[43]] that’s some clever sock puppeting. I sugest that the 'evidance' is re-examined.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just what I'd do if I were going to sock. I don't know whether FellGleaming and this new Terra Novus account are the same person, but the simultaneous edit is no argument against their identity, imo, none at all, and the behavior does seem pretty quacky. We need a checkuser's help here before we can reasonably proceed, imo: if results come back negative then I'd agree with Basket of Puppies (my vote for best username, btw) that FellGleaming should be unblocked to be able to participate here (if not elsewhere, yet) for the sake of fairness. Since some pretty serious sanctions are being spoken of here, I also agree with Basket and others that a RFC/U is called for, perhaps with with an interim 1RR until that process can be completed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A semi=technical question, how would you be able to do two seperate edits at the same time? its not imposible, but a lot of work to do (if the way I have figured out is true). Can a user log on with different accounts at the same time?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably with two different browsers, or very easily with two different devices - a computer and iPad/iPhone combination. Another example of Terra Novus' edits here (three diffs in a row combined) - which are clearly POV, and even include a conservative/libertarian motif. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Numerous ways to do this: two computers, signed on to different IDs, for instance. But also, a reminder that WP's time stamp does hours and minutes, not fractions of minutes, which means that two edits done within 59 seconds of each other could be time-stamped with the same time. 60 seconds should be sufficient time, depending on the computer and the speed of the connection, to log out of one ID, log into another, and make an edit, but if the data is actually evidence of sockpuppetry (it seems interesting, but not overwhelming compelling to me), it's more likely that 2 devices were used.

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

    The two editors have been editing with the opposite point of view on Heim theory, see also the talk page of that article and see the Wiki-project physics page for details. So, if one is the sock of the other, then this must have been a deliberate attempt to create a cover. But that's a bit of a stretch to assume without strong evidence. Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't. Thanks for mentioning it, though. I looked at the pages you pointed out, and I can't draw the same conclusions you do; I could easily believe the one revert was staged, for example. The concordance of interests in an obscure article like Heim theory, the same political bent, the new account showing up to support FG so strongly; the chances of that occuring without intent driving it are just far too low for me to dismiss the idea of a blind. FG's an extremely bright chap, after all; if he were to undertake to sock let's give him credit enough to assume that he'd be very much more sophisticated in doing so than your average 14-year old who wants to get his bandspam to stick. I'd be pleased to be wrong about this, but I still think we need a checkuser's assistance before we can go forward.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The two edits were made 16 seconds apart, at 2010-09-19T04:41:14Z[44] and 2010-09-19T04:41:30Z[45]. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all humorous!! I never guessed that I would be involved in something as silly as this. (They must think Fell Gleaming is superman if he is able to simultaneously edit and argue with himself! Here is an example of how close this supposed sockpuppet is editing with himself:
    04:39, 20 September 2010 (diff | hist) Challenger Deep ‎ (compromise text as per talk.) Fell Gleaming
    04:40, 20 September 2010 (diff | hist) Heim theory ‎ (We already mention that it was not published originally, and a search in Google Scholar does not determine the status of a theory. The proviso is welcome, it just needs to be more documented.)Terra Novus
    ' PLEASE run the Check user on me and him to show that I am not Fell Gleaming (though I sincerely sympathize with him, we have way to many editors on Wikipedia who think they can do whatever they want, and when they are caught they just initiate a ban..) and PLEASE turn this discussion into an objective analysis of both sides of the story (Fell Gleaming isn't the only editor with POV issues). If you don't, I might consider running an ANI on certain editors who are abusing Wikipedia's banning policy...--Novus Orator 04:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Summary of opinions

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

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

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

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

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

    Whatever his past behavior seems to show, always assume WP:Good Faith until his future conduct tells differently...--Novus Orator 04:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make any sense, TN. FellGleaming has exhausted the patience of many editors here. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a naive, bureaucratic recitation of rules. Toddst1 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1RR proposal

    • OK, then, suggested outcome: impose 1RR now (indefinitely, or at least til end of calendar year), and have an RFC/U later on, maybe in late October or November sometime. RFC/U outcome can then take into account FG's behaviour during 1RR restriction. The assumption remains that FG can improve, otherwise a community ban would have been passed. Rd232 talk 10:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support That seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I remain hopeful that FellGleaming can make a useful contribution to the project, if he learns to discuss things first, and gain consensus before making changes to controversial articles. --Merlinme (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, especially if someone initiates a RfC/U. I would prefer a time-limited restriction, and three month sounds about right. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: 1RR now (at least until the end of December), and an RFC/U (in Oct or Nov) sounds fair. Johnfos (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a reasonable 1RR until December (excluding legitimately minor edits to prevent inadvertant crossing the line) - as not being draconian at all. The RFCU is, however, moot as to desireability - letting things calm down is not aided by an incipient RFCU by any means. Collect (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it can be taken as read that if an RFCU becomes moot through FG improving then no-one will bother. It should be left a while, so there is a sufficient opportunity for FG to make it unnecessary. Rd232 talk 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Collect; 1RR until 1/1/11; no more monkey business with misrepresenting sources; no need for an RFCU because by January 2011 this user will either have reformed or be indefinitely blocked. --John (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as the best current chance of sending a message to this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Hope it works. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Though honestly I don't think that 1RR gets to the other significant problems of non-verifiable edits, battleground editing style and ad hominem attacks on other editors. Until recently I had had no contact with this editor, but in the brief time that I have been, I have been singularly unconvinced that accurate, NPOV content and collaborative editing is this editor's goal. --Slp1 (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1RR for all the editors involved in the troublesome articles...--Novus Orator 03:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trouble is, we agreed above that the areas of conflict FG was involved in were too wide to permit a subject restriction. So what "troublesome articles" would you propose? There are other means of getting broader attention on whole areas of the project, but this seems from the above to be one editor whose editing style creates problems wherever he goes. --John (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. But we can't establish a pre-determined expiry date. FG hasn't edited since 24 September, and appears to be doing what some editors have said he did last time he was close to being banned over climate change articles: just bugging out for a while. His edit history via wikichecker is very "spiky". We need to see three months active editing under 1RR before we can tell whether it needs to be lifted or whether to proceed with an RfC/U. And I think 1RR needs to be construed very restrictively in this case, i.e. no "undo" edits of previously-added material beyond 1RR just because the material is not under current dispute or wasn't added recently.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Good point. Could the 1RR restriction be made to last until Mr FG has completed a certain number of article edits—excluding any form of reversion—rather than expiring on a particular date? If so, what would be a reasonable number of such edits to impose the restriction for? 200? 500? David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In his last three months of editing (from the end of June to the end of September) he made roughly 550 article edits, so perhaps 500 would be an appropriate number of edits for the restriction to run. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the intention of the 3 months' 1RR is to provide a restriction for 3 months of active editing, for the purpose of FG learning to be a better member of the community. It isn't intended to provoke a self-imposed exile for the period of the restriction, with a resumption of the status quo ante afterwards. So: any calendar months with less than 100 article or article talk edits don't count towards the 3-month restriction. Rd232 talk 12:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I sympathize with the sentiment here, but I think it is misplaced. If FG wishes to continue to contribute here, the burden is clearly on them now to do so within clearly expressed community norms. The point of the restriction is to lessen the cost to the community while they learn to do so, not increase it by requiring someone to count edits and months. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of the restriction is to have FG learn to contribute in a way the community is OK with. Circumventing the restriction by disappearing whilst it's in effect is not going to achieve that. If FG continues contributing, it's not an issue. If he goes away for a while and then returns, it's a small burden to check his contribs in a certain period (using wikichecker) compared to worrying about enforcing 1RR. I'd also anticipate it being unnecessary, since FG probably wouldn't disappear for a long time knowing the restriction would remain until he'd faced it. Rd232 talk 11:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, are you saying that the restriction should be indefinite, not to be lifted until FG requests it and the community assents? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would accept that, but I would prefer a flat time (until the first of next year). If FG chooses not to edit during that period, then it will be up to their ability to recognize even without a formal active restriction that the community has spoken and edit warring in any form will not be tolerated. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    {{archivebottom}}

    Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

    Unresolved

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

    Timestamping, as this is now an ArbCom matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
    I've removed the time stamp, as discussion on that page seems to be continuing, and there's no reason that the community can't consider sanctions while ArbCom is considering the case. If the community decides to do something, then reviewing that sanction will become part of the ArbCom case; if they don't, ArbCom will conduct its own investigation. Either way, there's no particular reason to let this pointer slip off the board until the community discussion is well and truly closed. Beyond My Ken (talk)
    Re-timestamping: arb case is now open; further discussion should take place in the arb pages. 67.122.209.115 (talk)
    No, this is not resolved until the consensus is enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk)
    Hmm, I thought usual practice in this situation was the venue changed to the arb case, with sanction proposals and whatever else going to /Workshop. As GWH put it (re arbcom) "if they're going to take it then they preempt."[47] My bad if I closed that page improperly (I see you have reopened it). It's certainly inappropriate to act as if there is some kind of turf battle between ANI and arbcom, if that's what you're thinking. If they're willing to handle this thing, it has structural advantages, and I don't see any problem with moving it there. They arbs are themselves, as the saying goes, uninvolved admins; they can handle it just fine. 67.122.209.115 (talk) —Preceding undated
    Yes, the closing summary of the discussion will include a link to the case, but it should also include the enactment of the current community consensus. The community isn't about red tape; when it comes to a consensus, it enacts that, and discussions tend to close without an outcome if there is no activity or no consensus for anything. Was there a community consensus to do nothing? Was there a community consensus to ban? Or, with the exception of about three users, did every editor (who participated in that part of discussion) consent to the revert restriction for now (be it as an alternative to something harsher, or as an alternative to nothing)? Especially if it's the latter, I don't see a reason why it should not be enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk)

    Rich Farmbrough and unnecessary capitalization changes

    Template:Formerly

    Further information: [[:User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Reflinks conflict of interest with other bots|User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks § Reflinks conflict of interest with other bots]], [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#Battle of the bots: Reflinks vs. SmackBot|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639 § Battle of the bots: Reflinks vs. SmackBot]], [[:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Filling recent changes with pointless changes|Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard § Filling recent changes with pointless changes]], and [[:Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#Template caps: "Cite" or "cite"?|Wikipedia talk:Citation templates § Template caps: "Cite" or "cite"?]]
    Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

    Recently, the AWB bot has been making totally unnecessary capitalization changes. These were being "discussed" on Rich Farmbrough's page, here and here. He said that he fixed the problem, but a day later, it was back. When brought up again, his response was to blank (archive) the page. Therefore, I request immediate halt to this use of this bot until this issue is addressed. Q Science (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The fact that so many have complained to Rich about pointless template capitalization changes and other sundry changes such as == spacing around headers == makes it clear that these are not uncontroversial edits. As such, they represent a violation of WP:AWB#Rules of use #3. I had laid off complaining about R.F. botting from his main account, but only because the edits were by-and-large useful and uncontroversial. This is no longer the case. These types of edits that change articles from how they were intentionally set by other editors to suit one bot-op's personal preference should stop unless they are approved by BAG. –xenotalk 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see that Rf is blockable about this, but we can stop the bot if we feel there is a problem. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I've blocked him until this can be resolved. This is clearly causing disruption. In addition to this, it has tagged the Main Page as uncategorized. According to the bot policy, automated bots cannot be run on main accounts unless approved by BAG (and AFAIK, this is not). (X! · talk)  · @926  ·  21:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Done[48]. Communication with the bot owner is going to be exceedlingly hard, it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with a user undertaking blanking and implementing 1h[49] (one hour) auto-archiving on the talk page designated as the point-of-contact for the bot. There were multiple threads open on the User_talk page on the topic at the time of blanking. —Sladen (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • RF has a long history of controversial mass-actions and refusing to discuss them or even consider that anybody else might possibly be right. Suggest he simply be banned from running a bot or engaging in any automated edits, or edits that seem to be automated, for one year. At the end of that year, if he has demonstrated that he will actually discuss his edits and not summarily blank discussions, he may apply at BAG to have his bot reinstated. → ROUX ₪ 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good, I warned him like 4-5 times about changing {cite foo} to {Cite foo} in the last two days, and he was still making them. In general, it would probably be a good idea to force him to do these AWB runs on a BAG-approved bot rather than on his main account. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Copied from user's talk

    Neither the bot nor I are editing at the moment, nor will we be for some time. I have revised the ruleset on Cite templates, as I said. When people start destroying the structure of the talk page the choice is to revert or archive. I had 35 threads, all pretty much dead, it seems reasonable to archive them - all accessible and new messages can still be left. I have no revised the rulset further and removed the Cite templates completely, restoring the status quo ante. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

    I advised him that he really shouldn't be changing the first-letter capitalization for any templates without consensus or approval; if a human editor used {{small case}} then it can and should remain small case. –xenotalk 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the point of doing that anyway? Does it help the server or something? Wknight94 talk 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I think Rich's belief is that it somehow helps new users identify templates and improves readability [50]. My belief is that it just bloats the diff and makes it hard to see what the actual meat of the edit was, while imposing a personal preference that does not seem to be shared by the majority of editors. –xenotalk 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is purely Rich's preference on the aesthetics of the templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I had noticed this being done before, and found it mildly annoying that my templates were being capitalised for no apparent reason, especially as personally I think {{cite news|...}} looks better than when it's capitalised anyway. I figured this had basis in policy somewhere so I didn't protest; the edit summary including a "build number" and being performed by a bot suggested that it had been community-approved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, capitalization of templates hasn't been specifically approved. –xenotalk 22:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't appreciate that it is only one user's preference, plus the fact I don't really see any gain from doing this. Truthfully, I am surprised that Rich has been so unresponsive in this matter. He has been helpful in the past, performing Admin duties in a clear and objective manner. So what about this appearance of being community approved? Since it was not community approved, perhaps that was not intentional. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the edits are uncontroversial there should be no difficulty in forming a Wikipedia-wide consensus, producing a policy, and then specifically authorising a bot to undertake the work. Wikipedia has processes for doing all of these. The large number of threads on just this one topic recently shows that it is controversial and therefore not something that is appropriate automated deployment (whether bot, or automated "manual" edits). —Sladen (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ownership displayed in operating bots against consensus and removing avenues for discussion is deeply concerning conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're not really that short of avenues for discussion. This has been on two noticeboards and one project space talk page, so far. See above. Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't that we're short of venues; it is that the user is deliberately closing off the natural venue while making (to me) extremely controversial edits without consensus. I was noting that this is clearly a conduct issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My stalker of these many moons is currently turned off? I'd better sneak some writing in. ☺ In the meantime, I hope that everyone commenting on this is aware of all of the prior discussion, (now) linked to at the top of this section. Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bot being misused is as bad as at least ten regular vandals. Please don't tolerate such things. In case of repeated issues, impose a total automation ban (like Betacommand had back in the day) and/or an edit speed limit of 20 edits per hour or thereabouts, and generally urge the editor away from any repetitive editing of any type. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have two questions:

    • What happened with the SmackBot/Citation Bot conflict. Did Citation Bot switched to the capitilised Cite web or not?
    • Does anyone know how many of the 200k Cite web templates are capitilised and how many aren't?

    -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • In order:
      1. Rich Farmbrough told Dispenser that Dispenser should fix Reflinks to conform to SmackBot. See the discussion on Dispenser's talk page linked-to at the top of this section.
      2. Possibly. It's possible to find out, but expensive in terms of traffic for mere mortals without toolserver access.
    • Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My stalker is back

    SmackBot is running again, it seems. I didn't manage to sneak in any writing, alas. ☺ Interestingly, as can be seen from this edit where {{silicate-mineral-stub}} was changed to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}}, it is still capitalizing the names of all templates. Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is Farmbrough blocked but this bot isn't? Shouldn't it be the other way around if the bot edits are the ones people dislike? Wknight94 talk 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was blocked for running bot tasks on his main account; the bot itself hasn't been doing much wrong right now (though it does seem to be used for non-bot edits). Ucucha 14:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Angusmclellan just blocked SmackBot. Ucucha 14:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncle G's diff is from today and includes the sort of pointless case change complained of. Since RF can't now (and before the block, seemingly wouldn't) change this behaviour, there seems to be no reason to leave the bot running and add to the comedy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SmackBot is not following its own documented stop process, and I have just drawn Rich's addition to this.[51]. The instructions given at User talk:SmackBot are to place the string "STOP" in that page and a new section link is provided to do this. This "STOP" string continues to be the present, but the bot is making edits[52][53] including the these capitalisation changes under discussion[54]. A bot making edits while apparently stopped is a fairly serious bug as there is then no reliable way to stop the bot without resorting to an administrative block (as has had had to be performed here). —Sladen (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless Rich has reprogrammed AWB, editing the bot's talk page will stop the bot until the orange bar is cleared and it is restarted by the operator. I would guess this is what happened. –xenotalk 15:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Same question as above but for Femto Bot (talk · contribs). Wknight94 talk 17:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hm, it seems this bot does not have approval. (See also). –xenotalk 17:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blocked for now. Not sure if it's worth blocking the rest, I'll have a look through to see if they are editing. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the other bots are active. So lack of approval won't be concern. As for Rich having access to unblocked account, I don't think that should be a concern here. IF he does start editing with one of them it's not going to do him much good, so not worth blocking the others, imo - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It probably wasn't worth blocking even that one, to be honest. Part of the complaint here is that 'bot-like edits are being done through the main administrator-privilege account. The irony of blocking Femto Bot is that it was making edits that had heretofore been made through the Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) account, apparently entirely uncontroversially, since at least May 2010 (list). It was a 'bot intended to do exactly what people have been asking for.

          I think that we're starting to lose sight of the goal here, as this snowballs into desysopping discussions and the like. The goal is not to stop Rich Farmbrough at every turn. It's to get xem to get SmackBot and other people's 'bots onto the same page when it comes to changing/retaining capitalizations. Uncle G (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • I don't see any reason to block any bot account that does good edits and have approval of the community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Desysop?

    Seems a bit silly to have an administrator in an indefinite block. If he can't be trusted to edit at all, why would he be trusted to be an admin? If he isn't going to respond to the concerns or even respond to having been blocked, it seems the desysop process needs to begin before long. Wknight94 talk 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well (1) I don't believe that desysopping is within the scope of ANI (RFC / ARBCOM) and (2) as you know, indef doesn't mean infinite. Syrthiss (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone is concerned about his administrative actions at this point, merely his bot-like edits. –xenotalk 15:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto. No doubt he is distracted by something in RL and will take care of this in due course. Or he may be adjusting the programming as we speak. Once he solves the problem and implements it, there is no particular reason to keep him blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems to be a bit overboard. The desired result is for Rich Farmbrough, Dispenser, and others ‎to get their tools singing from the same hymnal — no blocks, no desysoppings, no fuss, no acrimony. I made the point a week and a bit ago that this sort of thing is usually sorted out informally amongst 'bot owners. That's been my experience, as a 'bot owner. I'm rather saddened to see my argument undermined by the fact that this time, it as yet hasn't been. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In my experience the user in question is unfit to be combining adminship and botting. Had an ordeal with it in Jan 2009 when it was inserting {{Ibid}} into 1000s of articles, which I was forced to revert with mere rollback. Stunningly, in one planned action the user behind it used rollback to revert these reverts and then Smackbot to reverse himself.One Example In general there are too many princessy bot operators who cannot be trusted with their tools. I'm sick and tired of dealing with the problems they cause, though of course bots in general are a net plus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reason I ask is the absurdity of having an admin indefblocked. If he's such a menace that he can't edit, surely he can't be an admin. Otherwise, if we're just waiting for him to return from RL distractions, then unblock him. Shouldn't have one without the other. Wknight94 talk 16:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would guess the block was placed as a form of 'wake up call'. If R.F. were not an admin, his AWB access could simply be revoked (admins have implicit access). –xenotalk 16:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you unblock him and he continues on without resolving/discussing, then nothing happens. If he unblocks himself and continues on without resolving/discussing then you have cause to ask arbcom for an emergency desysop. (This is about any blocked admin in general, not a judgement on the specific admin involved).--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you unblock him and he continues, then he gets re-blocked. If an editor can't reliably keep himself in an unblocked status, they often get banned. They sure as hell shouldn't be an admin! Wknight94 talk 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about what should be, it's about what is. There's no desysop process outside of arbcom. If he needs desysoping you there either needs to be a case filed or he would have to cross one of those bright lines that would pass arbcoms emergency desysop test. Such as unblocking himself.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I guess I'm testing the waters for the viability of an ArbCom case. If no one is prepared to take that step, then he should be unblocked. I don't know Farmbrough and I don't care, but you simply can't have an indefblocked admin. Unblock or proceed to step 1 of desysopping. Wknight94 talk 17:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Indefinite is typically chosen when a time-limited block would not necessarily have the desired effect. In this case, the user is indef blocked pending a certain outcome (a commitment to cease making edits of the disputed nature until consensus and BAG approval is attained for the same - see comments from blocking administrator). The commitment has not yet been made, so the user remains blocked. The fact that they hold administrative rights is entirely peripheral. –xenotalk 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're okay with leaving someone blocked forever - assuming they never meet your requirements for unblocking - even though they have a sysop bit? Wknight94 talk 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've posited a hypothetical situation that I doubt will come to pass in the present case (I expect Rich will agree to eliminate the disputed changes from his AWB matrix until consensus and BAG approval are obtained for them), but yes - if a user is indefinitely blocked because of their doing X and they refuse to agree to stop doing X, then they will remain blocked indefinitely (+sysop notwithstanding). If this were the case, one would have a case to ask the committee to consider removing the bit, but it's premature at this point. –xenotalk 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you - the blocking admin - "expect Rich will agree to eliminate the disputed changes from his AWB matrix until consensus and BAG approval are obtained for them", then you need to unblock him. Wknight94 talk 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    X! (talk · contribs) was the blocking admin. –xenotalk 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eck, y'all and your X names.... Still, if the consensus here is that Farmbrough will break out of this odd trance, then he needs to be unblocked. Like now. For all we know, he is waiting to be unblocked before he'll even discuss. I don't see any comments from him about RL distractions. (Or are they offline?) Wknight94 talk 17:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the user should be unblocked you could ping X! (talk · contribs) for his thoughts. I agree that it may be ideal to have the user conditionally unblocked (conditional upon them not resuming their AWB tasks until the matter is finalized) so they can participate here directly, rather than by proxy. –xenotalk 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If my reading of the consensus is correct, it would be useful to unblock Rich and allow useful, administrator activity to proceed on the condition that Rich agrees to abide by BAG (that means no automated edits, no AWB, no Smackbot, no Army/*bot). For those worried that unblocking might be premature, perhaps we can agree (and document) that Rich would be blocked again immediately if any automated edits are made. That would allow discussion to continue, and for Rich to apply for suitable bot permission. If WP:BAG is being followed (in spirit and letter) then there is no longer a problem. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be reiterated in the process of unblocking that bot-like activity is not allowed from main accounts and the same for bot accounts that do not have up-to-date approval. The suggestion of <20 edits/hour may be a way to enforce this (although it is a technical solution to a social problem); without automation, the 10 edits per minute speed that I have clocked Rich at previously is unlikely to be attainable.
    Above all, demanding punishment is the wrong direction: all that is being requested is simple compliance with Wikipedia policies. —Sladen (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    resp to Wknight94 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) post - as far as I am aware, RF is still able to perform sysop functions (such as, but hopefully not, unblocking himself) but as blocked cannot post on any page other than his talkpage to say what he has done. RF can block, move over redirect, protect, and have access to The Chocolate Biscuit Jar, etc, as any other admin. It is his editing privileges only that are blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As Deacon knows perfectly well "Rollback" is a blunt instrument, which he was using against policy. Specifically it reverts all consecutive changes by that user. Moreover he simply mass rollbacked a bunch of articles without differentiating by edit summary. Had Deacon used "undo" - even blanket undo it would not have been a problem. As it was he created a situation where potentially very old, very complex, fixes for which the code no longer exists (because they were one-offs - eg importing population figures, or correcting RamBot grammar problems) could have been undone. Since any edit, however trivial, would now prevent the recovery of this information without manual analysis of every single history of however many articles it was, I speedily reverted the hasty patch wherever possible, picked out those articles that could not be fixed for manual analysis, and removed the "ibid" tag, that he found so offensive, cleanly, without damaging the articles in any other way. As I recall I spent a considerable time undoing his mess, whereas if he had simply let me sort it out it would have been minutes. Nice to see that he bears a grudge about it though. Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    So if you mess up c. 1000 articles with your bot and you refuse to reverse your actions, anyone seeking to revert you is supposed to use undo? And you expect people to care about your time being spent? As you should remember, I informed you that I was using rollback and explained, which is enough to comply with rollback policy (not that anyone cares about that these days). If you did it now I would just block you, but I was trying to mencourage you to co-operate of your own free will. At this rate, you are unlikely to retain both your bot and admin access, but if you started being responsive and respecting bot policy and stopped arguing with everyone giving you feedback, you might have a chance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My response at the time:

    Please note that Deacon rollbacked these edits without discussing with me. It is not an issue that he has reverted several hundred recent edits that are not those he is targeting (although they have a different edit summary) - recent stuff can by and large be redone - the problem with rollback is it undoes all the consecutive edits by that user to the article. So for example, edits the bot made in 2006, using code which will no longer run could be reverted. Adn there is no way to know which articles this applies to. Had deacon come to my talk page as clearly requested on the bot's talk page and discussed the matter there, we could have avoided a lot of work for both of us. I have rollbacked as much of Deacons rollbacks as I can, and am re-applying the removal of the template he finds so disquieting. I will be left with probably several hundred articles to go and check the history of manually. Deacon, you really needed to talk to me about this, rather than just apply rollback which is for anti-vandalism purposes only. Rich Farmbrough, 17:43 22 January 2009 (UTC).

    I did not mention that you were rollbacking at 60 edits per minute. Hardly "mere rollback". Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    The 'mere rollback' was in reference to its power vis-a-vis bots. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My view

    There seems to be a history of poor botop practices on RF's part here. This is not a new problem. This is a problem that has been going on for years. Bot operators are expacted to respond to concerns about their bots, and instead, he has reverted them as "vandalism". This is not appropriate conduct for a bot operator. What more, one should know that running one on your main account is prohibited, and that is also not a new problem. Even if the problems that led to the block are resolved, I would like to see some sort of action taken as a result of this. If nothing happens, this is just bound to happen again. It should go without saying that all of his fully-automated tasks are operated from his bot account and approved by BAG, for each and every task. If he refuses to comply, I think a reblock may be needed. I am reminded of Lightmouse in this situation: good intent, poor execution. (X! · talk)  · @728  ·  16:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is indeed not, as I commented above, a new issue. RF should be banned from bot or bot-like edits, period. Same as Betacommand was. → ROUX ₪ 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor technical question

    Smackbot was doing what I thought were strange things to DEFAULTSORT for cats eg [55]. ie ÖBB Class 2070 became sorted as {{DEFAULTSORT:Obb Class 2070}} Which was fairly counterintuitive. (yes I know what Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_keys says but if the bot had made no edits the page titles caused perfect categorisation anyway, whereas incomplete bot activity made a mess.) Whilst I had no real objection to what it was doing in principle the effect was usually to totally mess up alphabeticalisation of categories requiring remedial manual editing work .

    Can I assume that no more edits like this will ever be made and I can ignore what the bot was programmed to do - and consquently stop having to make edits that fix problems inherited?Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already brought this up with RF. I consider it intentional disruption. He make tiny meaningless changes throughout articles that break diffs and then changes them to something else the next day. He basically told me too bad. Changing the names of reflinks is one of his favorites. -Selket Talk 04:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bah, editing too late at night. This was in the entirely wrong section and I was talking about a different editor. Please disregard. --Selket Talk 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for that, anything like this can be brought up with me an quickly fixed. As for sorting under 2070 for that category probably a very good idea - the only caveat is that with large categories we should avoid sorts that diverge from the leading characters - i.e. fine to sort Henry IV as Henry 04 - because he will be where we would look for him, but not fine to sort him under "Anjou and Castille" - to give a flawed and improbable example. Rich Farmbrough, 13:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Unblocking?

    Rich wrote somewhere (I can't be bothered to find right now, I am busy in real life too) that he removed the cite -> Cite from SmackBot's code. Should we move on, unblock, let SmackBot keep doing its main tasks and re-report of there are still complains? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rich should be unblocked at least to comment in this discussion. I bet nobody believes that Wikipedia is at danger if we unblock him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Conditions that would satisfy X!, Kingpin13, MSGJ, and others

    1. No more changing the cases of the initial letters of any templates. No more changing {{for}} to {{For}}, or changing {{silicate-mineral-stub}} to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}}, or changing {{coord missing}} to {{Coord missing}}, or anything else. 2. No automated editing at all from main account. Specifically:

    1. All 'bot-like tasks, like this one, no matter how uncontroversial, to be farmed out to non-administrator accounts like Femto Bot (talk · contribs), and approved via Bots/Requests for approval.
    2. Use of a dedicated non-administrator account, in accordance with AutoWikiBrowser rule of use #2, if editing at speeds like 10 edits per minute with AutoWikiBrowser.
    3. Clear linkages be provided on the bot pages to the appropriate approvals through Bots/Requests for approval.
    4. No altering a bots function outside of the linked approvals without approval of the change.
    5. Scope and function(s) of the bot explicitly stated both in the application for approval and on the bot page.

    3. A message to any bot's talk page stops the bot; 3.1 the task is not restarted until the issue is resolved. 4. No unblocking one's own bots.

    Small-ish suggestion re point 2:
    Merged with above.
    Looking at the preceeding discussion, it should be crystal clear regarding he be fully transparent and accountable in his use of bots.
    - J Greb (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the modified conditions now that the BAG approval is added. (X! · talk)  · @914  ·  20:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say, one of the things which I personally find wanting is Rich's attitude. He seems very reluctant to ever admit that he's actually done anything wrong (even after slapping a maintenance template on the main page..), for example, his first unblock request showed a clear lack of remorse, and his comments on his talk page display that he doesn't really seem to appreciate what he was actually blocked for, let alone be prepared to admit that he shouldn't have done the various things which lead up to the block. However, I do agree with the conditions above. Although I'm not completely convinced they would be enough, they're all basically already in policy, so Rich should be doing most of these already.. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the above and guess that User:Sladen would too, judging from RF's talk page. It's not really a complaint but I think RF's 'man on a mission, the only one who can possibly solve wikipedia's problems' attitude is starting to look a bit silly. I thought the unblocking was so that he could respond here, not so he could carry on with what he was doing before. Is this guy actually listening to anyone? Can someone suggest he post a short note to us mortals here on his own wp:ani section. Please :) Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1 is redundant to 2.4

    2 has nothing to do with some of its sub-conditions

    2.1 goes off at a tangent

    2.2 is good

    2.3 is good

    2.4 is good

    2.5 is good

    3 Is unreasonably onerous. AWB tasks will be stopped by a talk page message. Other tasks you will have to find an admin to block if I am not around - although I am likely to be for non-AWB content tasks.

    3.1 Again unreasonable. This gives the other party veto - on Wikipedia you will find someone to oppose the tiniest changes. I will discuss, as I have with everyone (except with one editor who has been gentleman enough not to bring it up - for which my apologies), but we are talking about approved tasks here. Ninety nine times out of a hundred problems are sorted out on talk pages, but it is not reasonable to expect every one to be. A Bag member can be called if the other party thinks there is clearly a problem that a botop is refusing to acknowledge, and they have the power (or so the template documetnatin says - and templates documentation, I am informed, is the ultimate authority on Wikpedia (yes-joke)) to revoke BRFAs. There are 17 "Active" Baggers and 24 "Inactive". Or you can find an admin to block the bot (pretty easy - changing one letter got SmackBot blocked) or maybe even a 'crat who will do it on the basis of two duff diffs? (Yes another joke, but also true.)

    4. Seems reasonable, given my arguments at 3.1. As long as I am allowed to remove CBM's blocks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Incidentally I would expect those admins that zoomed to stop/block my bots to have taken the trouble to leave me a note to that effect, especially as this ANI is supposedly about communication? Well maybe they had collective amnesia, but five admins all failed to leave me a note, including the one who left a stinky edit summary in his block. Rich Farmbrough, 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Unblocked

    Rich Farmbrough has finally agreed[56] to both participate in discussion here, and to cease doing the disruptive and unresponsive editing that got him blocked in the first place. So I've unblocked him. Wknight94 talk 20:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the unblocking. - it's hard to know where to start with this one. It is more about human nature than anything else - and text communication. So lets start with Wknight94's message above.
    "Rich Farmbrough has finally agreed both participate in discussion here... "
    OK so this is minor, maybe, and in good faith, but the implication is that I was reluctant to join the discussion. Obviously that is the impression Wknight94 picked up, probably from something said on my talk page by my unblock request. However I was in the middle of typing a comment here when I was blocked.
    • 21:01 notification of ANI
    • 21:03 - 21:06 started reply
    • 21:09 - blocked.
    As my comment (later forwarded by Xeno, for which thanks) said "Neither the bot nor I are editing at the moment, nor will we be for some time. "
    -so I wasn't exactly reluctant to "cease doing" .. "that [which] got him blocked in the first place".
    Further "disruptive and unresponsive editing" is rather jumping to conclusions, based on what others were saying.
    More later as I am being pinged on my talk page (about responding here I think). Rich Farmbrough, 07:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    OK. I'm going to keep this short: I could write a book, but it would be TLDR - I hope the following is both informative and reassuring.
    What happened? SB dates maintenance tags as it's most intensive task. It also does various minor cleanup as it goes - as people have said pretty unexceptional.
    One of the features of templates - indeed all wikilinks - is that they are not simply literals but a minor grammar in their own right for example:

    ____ __ _ __ :____ __ _ __ Template____ __ _ __ :____ __ _ __ Citations____ __ _ __ needed____ __ _ __ is a perfectly good link to {{Citations needed}}. Particularly when SB's regexes were hand crafted for each template (back then merely 1000 , now well over 2000 counting redirects) dealing with this complexity meant canonicalisation of template names was the only way to go. (I thought dating a few templates was going to be trivial when I started.) Therefore standard functionality is to replace the clean up template names with a clean version, following redirects. This also has the benefit that the number of different possible clean up templates left after a run is 569 (!) rather than four or five times that number. It also means that the template is capitalised - an "arbitrary but intelligent" decision I made - yes I know algol coders, C coders, perl hackers just love lower case - and I have been all of those things - but for someone who has never coded it seems to me that the capital says "Here is a new thing starting that is somewhat like a sentence." - and it is not a great leap from {{Citation needed|reason=this seems unlikely|date=July 2009}} to "Citation needed, because this seems unlikely, request added July 2009" (Incidentally anyone looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Citation_needed&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 right now will see six articles that appear to redirect to Citation needed - these are almost certainly articles that have had the redirect placed at the top and the article text left in place - normally I would go and fix them, but I am being "chided" for not writing here as a priority.) Having canonicalised the templates - which - only takes (569 + a few) rules, dating them is simple - provided that they haven't already been dated, don't have an invalid date don't have "date" mis-spelled (SB will pick up "fate" but not "jate" - that is left for some poor human drudge to do - as being a very unlikely mispelling SB is pretty conservative to avoid errors, similarly it will pick up "date=Spetember" and correct it to September but "date= Josh is ghey" will simply get over-written with the current month and year) - so another 569 rules for the basic dating and a few hundred to deal with specials like "As of". Anyway some of the minor cleanups SB picked up were related to templates in wide use that either had oodles of redirects or were moved. Again pretty unexceptional. Foolishly on 6th Spetember (or September if you prefer) I added the Cite templates to this list - this was foolish because cites are an area where "angels fear to tread" much like dates and MoS - I have been foolish enough to contribute to MoS too. Having said that it was foolish, it wasn't mind-numbingly stupid, despite what others may think, I had been pleasantly surprised not to receive negative feedback on other changes, and there are a surprising number of redirects to , for example {{Cite web}} - 21 in fact. That's 21 templates - not 21 pages, the number of pages is 12,118 and the number of actual uses will be higher still. Moreover I knew that removing those four templates would be fairly trivial. So what was the response? Were seven different kinda of hell unleashed upon my talk page? Find out in the next thrilling episode. Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    I get the impression that you think the only reason you were blocked, or that people are concerned, is this recent problem with SmackBot's capitalisation, which I see this more as being the last straw. I think the underlying problems are: You ignoring bot policy, by running unapproved bots; running bots on your own account; not responding to concerns, which you are also expected to do as an administrator, but instead you blank messages, ignore concerns, claim to be too tired (even claim that you're always too tired), you even seem to play word games. These are the problems which need to be addressed, since they are what lead to problems such as the template capitalisation. It's no good just dealing with the result of these problems, as we know (from prior experience with you in regard to bots) that all that happens is problems arise again. This isn't a one-off mistake. That said... Looking at what you say above, it mostly seems to be explaining how the task works, that's nice, but really the question is can you prevent SmackBot from changing the capitalisation of all templates (not just the cite templates or whatever). You could maybe even use a regex find/replace after the other changes are made to effectively "revert" any capitalisation changes made (but before actually saving to the wiki)? - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of explaining how the task works - which is pretty deadly dull - is to lay the ground work. Understand, for example, that powerful though AWB is, it is an application, not a programmers framework like Pywikipedia. SmackBot's rulebase runs to 750k+ of XML - let me find out how many regexes that is - 5067 rules plus some "advanced" rules. The suggestion you make above might be workable - while I try to keep the rules as simple as possible, there may be an elegant solution, but on the face of it I would have to pull apart the redirect consolidation rules and have a separate one for "Sentence case" and "lower case", and the same would apply to any specific rule - since there are about 2500 redirects and some hundreds of other rules this would mean a massive increase in the rulebase (possibly more than doubling it). I outlined what is easy and what is hard to change, on my talk page, along with the benefits. And I really don't hear a clamour for {{infobox... There are two reasons I find commenting here tiring: one is the fact that every word is hostage to fortune - as shown in your comment. And indeed every edit or lack of an edit: - I don't know whether its funny or sad to have people counting my edits between being unblocked and starting to comment here. The suggestion that it would have been better for the project to leave redlinked categories on a hundreds articles than to keep the ravening hordes of ANI waiting - especially when commenting on the volume of text here, let alone the 50k or so on my talk page was likely, and still is likely, to take some time, may have some merit, but I can't see it. More later. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    This reads a bit like "Smackbot is too big to be maintainable". If that's the case, break Smackbot up into small pieces running on separate bots that are individually auditable. If the answer is that individual smaller tasks would mean loosing the opportunity to discreetly make whitespace/capitalisation changes otherwise deemed without merit, then that's actually a positive; the minor changes brought your activities to a head—as Kingpin mentions (and I'll reiterate for the explicit avoidance of doubt) there is a wider general problem; which is one of interaction (acting on feedback, not disputing/arguing it; and participating in discussion to a closure). —Sladen (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but here (and on my talk page) you are plain wrong about software maintainablity.
    • (Citation[ _]+style|Cleanup-references|Cleanup-citation|Ref-cleanup|Citationstyle|Citation-style|Refstyle|Reference[ _]+style|Reference-style|Cleanup-refs|Citestyle|Cleanrefs|Refclean|Refsclean|Source[ _]+Style|Sourced[ _]+wrong|Ref-style|Refcleanup)
    is longer than your proposed
    • (clean(up)?-?(ref(erences|s)|citation)||(cit(ation|e)|ref(erence)?|source?)-?([Ss]tyle|clean(up)?)|sourced[ _]+wrong)
    But it is also more maintainable and more readable
    Your version
    1. Has errors of coding
    2. Has errors of design
    3. Is hard to add to
    4. Is hard to remove items from
    5. Has no discernible performance benefits, and maybe performance costs (although I do agree that this is "in this case" not critical, I'm fed up with people saying "don't worry about performance" as a blanket statement when we have literally hundreds of fantastic servers worth millions of dollars which time out serving pages, yet my little desktop, encumbered as it is with the world's worst operating system, runs most of the software I write (pace infinite loops) before I can blink, or at least IO bound. I was running SmackBot - and everything else on a skip-rescue PC until about 18 months ago.)
    6. Is less readable
    It is also very very clever - and I am not being sarcastic. In fact I am being a little peacocky, because it is exactly the sort of regex I was using until I simplified and automated. And it caused a number (not necessarily a lot) of problems, picking up incorrect templates.
    (See now, this has taken me over half an hour to write, maybe I'm slow, maybe I'm just being careful what I write - and maybe other people spend as long and as much care on what they write, but I certainly see evidence that some of them don't read what I say, and just bash of a few hundred words at top speed to express their feelings. But I have probably already spent about 4 hours on this thread, let alone my talk page. And I am being accused of "not responding" - I know there are subjects here I haven't even broached, and I have made it clear that it will take time to get to them - anyone who can't wait - well I would offer an informal reply on my talk page - but it would only get quoted back out of context here -as has already happened.)
    Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    At the risk of putting words into Rich Farmbrough's mouth, I'm going to respond to something Kingpin13 wrote: that RF has claimed "to be too tired (even claim that you're always too tired)" -- only because it sounds true. There seems to be a familiar pattern to the last chapter of the career long-term Wikipedians: increasing lack of patience with others, obsession with details (which may appear to be WikiLawyering), & an increasing weariness with contributing or the discussion which follows contributions. The bastards finally wear the dedicated & selfless volunteers down. Now if this is truly what is happening here, then the only advice I can offer to Rich (I say "only" because I honestly don't have a better solution & wish there was one) is to simply cut back on what you do. If running certain bots on Wikipedia is getting to be more of a pain than it is a joy, then stop doing it. Wikipedia can survive without all of the bots being operated here, believe it or not; & if I'm wrong, it's likely someone else will pick up the slack. If someone doesn't, the resulting carcass will get preserved, & another group will try to resurrect the online encyclopedia with a slightly different set of rules of operation. And I'm writing this because I, too, feel tired with Wikipedia, just like Kingpin13 says RF claims to be. And after I finish the projects on my plate here (i.e., a few groups of articles & upload a few PD images), I'm going to drop my involvement here even more. Or if one of these leads I'm chasing gets me back into the job market, maybe sooner. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    llywrch is right - but I don't blame the "Aha! I have a diff... " brigade. "I too was once as you." (Yes that's (self-deprecating) humour, not being patronizing.) Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Well, take time to consider my advice. Maybe if enough experienced Wikipedians say "I'm burned out, so I'm quitting" the PTB may decide that it would be better for the Wikimedia projects to allocate resources to retaining veteran editors than increasing the the pool of Crowdsourcers in places like India. The idea is to create a quality encyclopedia, not to recruit every Tom, Dick & Hari to make questionable edits to Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Changes to cite template

    I have just discovered that, without any discussion, Rich made significant changes to the Template:Cite web. Specifically, while we were complaining about his bot, he changed the template examples from lower case to upper case. Since this was his response to complaints on his page, and since his deleting the comments on his talk page without responding to our comments is what started this whole discussion, I think that these changes need special attention.

    • 22:21, 21 September 2010 Start of "Could you not capitalize citation template in the future?"
    • 15:49, 26 September 2010 Start of "cite vs Cite"
    • 12:47, 27 September 2010 Rich says that the bot is no longer changing "cite" to "Cite"
    • 18:41, 27 September 2010 I complain again because the bot is still making the changes
    • 18:42, 27 September 2010 Rich changes the case of the first character in the Template:Cite web examples
    • -- There are additional comments in both threads
    • 20:29, 28 September 2010 Rich blanks the talk page without responding to anyone since
      • 15:19, 26 September 2010 in the 1st thread, and
      • 12:47, 27 September 2010 in the 2nd.
    • 20:54, 28 September 2010 This ANI discussion was started by me.

    It was very difficult to step back through his contribution log. It appears that on Sept 28, he made well over 5,000 edits. (Perhaps over 100,000. And all with AWB. It is totally unbelievable that the admins allow this. Link to contribution log so no one else will have to search for it.)

    As a result of this "new" information, I am requesting others to comment before I simply undo his uh, changes, to the template. I for one do not like them. For another, I think this was an underhanded slap in the face. He didn't even have the courtesy to mention this on his talk page when two groups of people were complaining about the same subject. He also did not mention it in any of the other discussions since. Q Science (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's obviously been established above that he has no consensus for the capitalisation changes, so I say change them back. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just revert Q. Rich Farmbrough, 08:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    ok reverted [57] Note there's one reason why none of the fields are capitalised, and that is that non-bot editors can enter them without having to press shift key. Clearly the first field could be an exception, and changed by bots later. There are many arguments, it probably didn't need changing - anyway continue that debate on relavent page.Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stalk Rich's talk page, but even now, I still fail to understand why some editors object so much to capitalisation. The typical reason seems to be they are immaterial and thus unnecessary. Whilst I am not sure why he changes the capitalisation, it makes not a jot of difference to anything, whether in the smaller or the larger scheme of things. Our servers recognise and resolve both. The important thing I see is that SmackBot is providing an invaluable service with all the detritus it picks up. This business about capitalisation should be allowed to overshadow the huge contributions (whether in terms of load or in types of small changes) by Rich and his bots. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is indeed, why does he do it? Imagine a page with all cite templates in lower case. RF comes along, changes them all to uppercase. I add a new cite, using the edit box cite functionality. This by default add cites in lowercase. We now have, thanks to RF's unnecessary edit, an article where some of the cites are in uppercase, some in lowercase. Everything still works, but we get less consistency for no good reason at all... Fram (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The great thing is, being only visible in the read mode makes them totally inconsequential. Not worth busting a blood vessel over it, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Totally inconsequential, but a nuisance when you notice an article on your watchlist being updated by an RFbot. You get tons of "differences" which consist only of meaningless spacing or capitalization, and to find what was actually changed (usually, admittedly, improved) takes a lot more work than it should do. Fram (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "This business about capitalisation should be allowed to overshadow the huge contributions" I'm not sure if you're suggesting we should let him continue with these disputed changes (which makes zero sense to me), or if we should "cut him a break" as long as he doesn't do it going forward. You have to keep in mind that this ANI would not have come to be had Rich stopped making these changes after being asked several times. –xenotalk 12:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting that Rich ignore the talkpage complaints; au contraire. Of course he should be transparent with the rationale for the capitalisation changes too. If I understand correctly just what Rich he has programmed his bot to do, I'd say it combines a large number of inconsequential changes which would otherwise never be made with jobs such as tag-dating. One way forward is perhaps he will program his bot with more consequential tasks (such as date format alignment or other style fixes), so that the chances of there being only inconsequential edits is further reduced. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The capitalization changes aren't merely inconsequential but also undesired. –xenotalk 14:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page disruption by Darkstar1st

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

    We really need to have a list of his other disruptive behaviors regarding the topic of libertarianism. Like his creation of a WP:POV fork by at this diff turning a common redirect Libertarian to Libertarianism into a whole article reflecting the narrow view he has been trying to impose on Libertarianism for the last six months, most recently through continuing WP:Soapbox on his POV, ignoring of RfCs rejecting his POV, displaying obstreperous WP:Refusal to get the point. I can provide lots of diffs if people think it's relevant to expand this complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    the whole section has now been closed and hidden by an uninvolved editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Turning a re-direct page into a POV fork is disruptive. After three RfCs confirming that left libertarianism should be in the article, all of which supported inclusion, Darkstar1st created a new discussion thread, "left libertarian is the lessor well known, thus a minority and according to WP:NPOV should not be given as detailed a description or as much".[58] This discussion thread presented no sources and I and another editor removed it for soapboxing. Soapboxing has been an ongoing problems in the this article. Editors discuss what libertarianism means to them and refuse to use sources. TFD (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    FYI, Wikipedia cannot distinguish between upper and lower-case letters in the first letter of an article title. Therefore Wikpedia articles use the primary meaning for the article with a hatnote or disambiguation to the other meanings. All -ists are redirected to their -isms, which are either disambiguations or have hatnotes. This case is no different. The articles 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' should not have different subjects. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we must remember that the article covers both of those words. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nothing new, libertarian has been a redirect to libertarianism since September 2004. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    yet that would contradict your statement here: "Because Libertarian political parties are covered by the disambiguation page. This article is about libertarianism (little 'l'). Yworo (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)" since you also support merging the disambiguation page, do you still object to my adding the full Websters definition? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Libertarian political parties are also covered in the hatnote at the top of libertarianism. No need for the definition in the article. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI. Libertarian now protected indefinitely, after another editor put redirect back in place. At this diff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    When to use rollback

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

    I doubt this is an ANI issue, but yes, I do believe the policy is rollback should only be used on non-constructive edits including but not limited to vandalism. Non-admin opinion. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are asking my opinion, the entire rollback issue is completely pointless. In my opinion, every autoconfirmed user should get it, then we could just stop with all of this stupid bullshit about granting it like a reward and revoking it when somebody doesn't follow the arcane rules to use it. Look, all it does is save one mouse click when reverting someone. You can just as easily click the (undo) and then click the save page buttons and effect the same result. It's a complete waste of admins time to constantly have to police rollback's use, when not one edit warrior has been hindered by not having access to it. Total bullshit that we have to deal with this. That's my opinion on it. Policy is clear on its use, and Paralympiakos is probably usin g rollback against policy, but in my opinion policy is wrong in that it wastes time on a non-issue. --Jayron32 02:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear fucking hear. → ROUX ₪ 02:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I'm not sure what qualifies as in incident with a capital I. Intelati, if it were so that misuse of rollback was taken seriously, we'd have at least an incident, I reckon. But my question was answered: it's against policy, but nothing will come of it. Jayron, I can't say I disagree with you on the IAR part--still, the bit in the guideline about not leaving an edit summary being impolite (and in case of the first diff I gave, a bit bitey) has some merit. I have seen some editors getting rollback removed, though, which made me extra careful myself. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See two posts above "User:Kafziel and administrative abuse." that's an example of an "Incident." and the only reason I commented on this post is that it intreged me, but I have no problems with the current setup.--Talktome(Intelati) 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The real issue is the lack of an informative edit summary and the fact that the default edit summary implicitly casts aspersions - and not anything about permission to use magic buttons "properly". The latter two reverts (to Michael Johnson (fighter) and especially to WEC 53 are bad because they're unexplained summary reversions that should have had an informative edit summary, but the reverts on Travis Browne and Brock Lesnar would have been done practically identically by anyone who encountered them, so the method of achieving those reverts is pretty immaterial. Paralympikos ought to be reminded that informative edit summaries cause a good impression and avoid extra work for editors who see them - and that's all that needs to happen at this point, in my opinion. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Johnson one is obvious vandalism. It's a fake bout and that's within even your rules of rollback. The Brock Lesnar ones are a pattern of nonsense edits and the user was warned. Rollback was best as it is vandalism. WEC was an accident, which as I've explained before, is because my browser pops upwards from time and time and I accidentally hit the button. Then, I've explained my view on the other edit. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) to both Drmies and Gavia immer: I am not sure that hitting (undo) followed immediately by [Save page] leaves any more informative of an edit summary. Assuming that an editor is repeatedly doing that to good faith edits, why is that somehow better than using rollback? --Jayron32 02:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is an ANI topic because admins are the ones to grant and take away rollback. Technically, this is a fine forum to discuss appropriate use of rollback. Still stand by my feelings that Rollback is a bullshit issue, but insofar as the system exists as it is, this is the proper place to discuss its use and revocation. --Jayron32 02:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the rollback guideline, but it's my belief that this editor doesn't understand them properly and hasn't been using it in accordance with them, so I've revoked the permission. We can discuss the relevance of WP:RBK on its talk page or another, more suitable forum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support--Talktome(Intelati) 02:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm playing by the rules of rollback. It says that when a revert is self-explanatory, rollback can be used. It says "for example, vandalism etc", but that doesn't mean that it is limited to vandalism. Any sane person seeing a "tag: incorrectly formatted image" would easily know that it needs removing, so the change is just self-explanatory. If you disagree with that, then go and change the wording on rollback, so that people can't do what I did. As far as I'm concerned, I'm 100% right in what I did and this remove is farcical. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also disappointed that action was taken whilst I was away. It would have been decent of people to at least wait so that discussion could take place involving me. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see WT:ROLLBACK where I've asked that this farce of a discussion have some results. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not self-explanatory to the person who made the edit, which is exactly the point of using an informative edit summary. Reverting without an edit summary, whether with or without rollback, is a form of biting a newcomer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it really is. They put an image down in the form of a hyperlink and see it doesn't work. I'd say they'd know why I performed a rollback. As has been said above, it doesn't matter whether it is via rollback or undo, the result is the same, just with an extra, unnecessary click involved. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it really isn't. They made a good faith edit. "Something" went wrong - the image they expected to see didn't appear! Why? Don't know. Then somehow the edit they'd just made disappeared as well - the redlink they'd just added (Valley Center,California) turned back into a bluelink (San Diego, California). What on earth is going on?! There's no explanation on their talkpage, no explanation in the article's history - nothing. Just a confused newbie. Constructive or well-intentioned changes should not be reverted without an explanatory summary, as it is impolite to the author of those changes. Your rollback was inappropriate. It did not help someone who needed help. TFOWR 13:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what then? Put that in the rollback summary! As I've said many times now with that quoted statement, I performed under the rules as they currently look. The sensible thing to do here would be to change the rollback policy/statement etc, revert the removal and chalk this up to misunderstanding/errors at the rollback page. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe there are any errors at the rollback page. I believe the error is in your belief that your use of rollback was "self explanatory". It wasn't. TFOWR 14:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you see an image that doesn't work, followed by a rollback and you need that explaining to you? I'm sure you'd find it self-explanatory. Still doesn't explain why the rollback was removed without so much as a hint first. As I've said elsewhere, you're quick to defend IPs, saying that things should be explained to them, but what about me? As far as I was aware, I was acting correctly, but instead of having it explained to me, I have rollback taken away immediately. That's poor. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point: you don't provide an edit summary for my benefit, you provide it for the benefit of the poor soul you're reverting. And that is explained at WP:ROLLBACK - Constructive or well-intentioned changes should not be reverted without an explanatory summary, as it is impolite to the author of those changes. - and it is expected that editors understand that before being granted rollback. This is being explained to you, and when you've demonstrated that you understand it I'll have no problem with you being granted rollback again. TFOWR 14:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As pointed out by other editors, if there is any doubt as to whether the reason for your rollback is completely self-explanatory, and the user is making a good faith contribution, it's a perfectly simple matter to undo the edit instead, giving the option of leaving an edit summary which would help the user. One of those edits was a red-linked image as the user had tried to insert a full URL as an image; it would have been a simple matter to undo it with an edit summary something like "Please see WP:UPLOAD and upload the image first, and make any test edits in the sandbox", and/or leave an explanatory note on the user's talk page. If you use twinkle as well, you have the option of rolling back multiple edits with an AGF edit summary. It's confusing and disheartening for good-faith editors to see their edits immediately reverted without explanation, when such an explanation would take a few seconds to write. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is fine. All points will be taken onboard for the future, but the removal of the feature is hardly going to help with learning. It can be disheartening for good faith editors to see edits immediately reverted, but by the same token, it can be disheartening for a long-standing editor to be treated like rubbish and have things taken away without a moment's notice. Still though, nothing has been done to reverse that action. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you do differently if you encountered the same situation and had rollback privileges? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ....the complete opposite to this time. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the Browne edit, I've left the editor a {{uw-imageuse}} message. In my humble opinion, if rollback is used in situations like this, it's a good idea to leave a note on the user's talk page to explain why the edit was reverted. I don't think it matters whether the explanation is in the edit summary or user talk, provided an explanation is provided. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Custom summaries can be used with rollback. This script, importScript('User:Gracenotes/rollback.js'); added to your monobook.js file allows you to rollback a edit with a custom summary. --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take it on board, but I need the tool back first. I'm still waiting for Mitchell to reverse his actions, but I'm guessing he's being too stubborn. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeatedly calling him "stubborn" for not restoring your access when at least four other admins and/or editors in good standing agree with its removal is not acceptable. It is uncivil and really just shows that you're getting way too heated over this. All the more reason not to restore it if you're just going to get this defensive and refuse to acknowledge your errors in case this happens again in future. StrPby (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Being "defensive" doesn't really have anything to do with my suitability for having the tool, now does it? That would be a vendetta coming into play. I've admitted I was wrong already. I misunderstood the contradictory rollback speech and made a mistake accordingly. I'll say for the final time, I'm not heated whatsoever. I'm calm, but I'd just like it reinstated, as I think it's wrong that it was removed. I've learnt, so let's move on. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this script could be directly incorporated into rollback. --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me as though that would be as slow as undo. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no, it is quite fast because you don't have to refresh the page. You can also perform a normal rollback, the script just adds a extra button. When performing a custom rollback it takes the exact same amount of time as a standard rollback, only it promps for a edit summary. --Alpha Quadrant talk 23:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page disruption by Born2cycle

    Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been soapboxing all day at Talk:Libertarianism. Now he is admittedly disrupting the talk page by hiding other editor's pertinent comments, with the edit comment "Fine, I can play this stupid game too. Carol's comment about UNDUE also applies to scope... hide it too" which shows it to be an intentional WP:POINT violation. Yworo (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a misunderstanding (yet another I've been having with Yworo, but it's hard to work out differences when he deletes your comments from his talk page and requests that you not post there again) and refuses to continue discussion and answer questions in discussions he starts on my talk page.
    1. That hide referenced above with the poorly chosen words in the edit summary was in compliance with a decision made by some editors earlier in the day and subsequent hides were made in enforcing that decision.
      The decision: Talk:Libertarianism#General_warning_regarding_disruption
    2. As a result of that decision, you can see entire sections hidden on Talk:Libertarianism towards the bottom that say, "Discussion of Topic or Scope during the period 1 October 2010 - 1 April 2011".
    3. A bit earlier I wanted to respond to an earlier discussion about what different sources indicated, and I found it to be hidden/closed not for the agreed upon reason, so I had to unhide it before I added my comments. Then Yworo deleted my comments. Is that acceptable?
    4. As to the section I hid, is filing an ANI really necessary? When I disagreed with a hide, I just reverted it.
    5. I'm disappointed that Yworo escalated to ANI without discussing his concerns with me first,. I suggest Yworo take a break, and then return open to working out differences on our talk pages before escalating to ANI or elsewhere. I'm confident we can work this out, except he unfortunately is apparently in a "battle" frame of mind, as made evident by this wikilawyering trick to accuse me of WP:POINT because of my poor choice of words in an edit summary comment. That is, if I had just commented "hiding per decision about hiding discussions about article scope", there could be no technical complaint.
    6. Since we're here, any assistance would be appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I made that particular revert (3) because you removed the {{hab}} at the bottom of the collapsed section but not the {{hat}} at the top, hiding the entire rest of the talk page from the {{hat}} down. That's not the disruptive behavior I was talking about, which I very clearly indicated. However, the thread was collapsed for valid reasons and you shouldn't have been adding to it in any case. Still, you seem to be attempting to distract from the focus from my actual complaints. Yworo (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? It seems to me that you discovered and corrected that problem later (thanks for fixing that, by the way, though I still don't understand what I did wrong because you can see both hat and hab removed in the diff of my change).

    Note the reason you gave for the edit summary (at 19:36) for the diff in (3) when you deleted my comments: "Undid revision 388214486 by Born2cycle (talk) discussion was closed)". Seems pretty clear to me.

    Your edit to fix something by adding a hab occurred 13 minutes later at 19:49 with edit summary, "by removing the {{hab}} but not the {{hat}}, you collapsed the entire rest of the page, please pay attention to what you are doing".

    What are your actual complaints? That I hid a section for discussing article scope in concert with the decision of some others (including you, apparently, because you implemented it too) to hide sections like that (see below)? If that's sufficiently disruptive to warrant an ANI, why not mention that you and Fifelfoo and everyone else who agreed with this is being disruptive too? Or is it because the comment in my edit summary indicated I was complying with the decision in order to make a point? Pardon me for disrupting you with my edit summary comments. How is that disruption? You couldn't instead put a friendly reminder about WP:POINT on my talk page? Is this really worth an ANI? Is this not WP:HARASSMENT?

    Though I would not have filed an ANI for it, since we're here, I thought involved admins might want to look at your deleting of other users' comments, your ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions (which is characteristic of WP:TEDIOUS), and refusal to work out disagreements on your talk page as actual disruption, since you're the one raising this ANI, which sure feels like disruptive harassment to me, especially considering the time and effort it takes to defend and explain my behavior. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    On 1 October 2010 I boldly instituted a general warning regarding the disruption caused by the continual revisiting of topic and coverage. The warning is in place until 1 April 2011, six months is a reasonable period after which to revisit topic and coverage. Two remedies were provided for: hiding threads to immediately shut down disruption, or taking the matter to AN/I as disruptive user conduct. The article has been through a very large number of RFCs and extensive discussions, all of which have supported the current broad topic and coverage. Attempts to change the topic or to narrow the coverage have been rejected as against the consensus of the article's editors. As "I didn't hear that" revisiting of achieved consensus were continual, and disruptive, I generally warned article editors, so as to allow editing and WEIGHTing discussions on the current article. Feel free to sanity check this, but imho, it shuts down the disruption without preventing editing or content disagreement within the current scope, and six months is a decent time to wait to revisit topic consensus after six months of disputation over what the scope should be. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Born2cycle's point 3 is correct. I boldly hid a large body of text because it appeared to have (imho) descended into battleground mentality. Hiding this text was was not connected with any breaking the warning about topic or scope. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I was also accused (multiple times, not just in this ANI) for "soapboxing", I should also point out that I have no idea what this is about. I've read and reread WP:SOAP (including 2. Opinion pieces) and cannot for the life of me understand how that applies to anything I've ever posted anywhere in Wikipedia, much less "all day long" yesterday at Talk:Libertarianism. I mean, I don't deny having my own views and biases (who doesn't?), but I try very hard to adhere to WP:NPOV, especially with respect to how material is presented in the article, and so take some offense at these accusations. So, if someone can explain this to me, by citing my exact words (should be easy enough since I supposedly did it "all day long") and quoting whatever criteria in WP:SOAP that supposedly corresponds to my allegedly inappropriate behavior, and explaining how it applies, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I think we have to conclude that this is just yet another form of WP:HARASSMENT. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You added a comment to a discussion marked closed. Any editor may revert the addition of a comment to a discussion marked closed. Apparently I didn't scroll down enough and missed the second comment outside of a collapsed discussion. My apologies, that was a mistake.
    As to your demands for answers, I repeatedly pointed out that I considered the whole scope argument, especially the "just libertarianism" and cat arguments, to be soapboxing. It was soapboxing, and all the threads containing those arguments have been collapsed. I don't have to answer soapboxing. Yet you kept harassing me to answer your soapbox questions after I made clear that I wasn't going to debate the "logic" of your soapboxing.
    That soapboxing is major part of the disruption that I intended to report here, which is why I mentioned it first. Even after the agreement not to discuss scope, you brought up your scope argument in the middle of one of my discussions about definitions of libertarianism from sources, in an obvious attempt to disrupt my discussion thread. When you became frustrated that your soapboxing was being collapsed and wasn't achieving the effect you intended, you started to uncollapse threads and post less than civil comments. How is that not a pattern of disruption? Anybody who goes and reads the talk page will be able to identify your voluminous comments as primarily soapboxing. Yworo (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Born2cycle's edit summary, "Fine, I can play this stupid game too", shows an unwillingness to work cooperatively with other editors. He should accept the results of three recent RfCs and stop pushing his own POV about how the article should be written. TFD (talk)
    Born2cycle also participated in the POV-fork of Libertarianism created at Libertarian, making these three edits to the forked article: [59], [60], [61]. Of course, primary responsibility for that POV-fork remains with Darkstar1st, who actually replaced the longstanding redirect with the POV-fork [62]. Yworo (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    yworo accuses others of hiding comments, yet he tried to hide an entire section which received 100+ edits in the span of a day http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=388148762&oldid=388148380, including many by yworo. he has also reported me for hiding his 2 word comment "just so" as off topic, yet now that entire section was collapsed. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "which received 100+ edits" That's a serious exaggeration. It received between 20 and 25 comments, and it wasn't particularly productive. If you disagree, please summarize the conclusion of the discussion and precisely how it contributed to the content or structure of the article. What was the outcome? Yworo (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your collapse of "just so" was directed at a specific editor (myself) for no reason other than I dared to question your turning Libertarian into a POV-fork of Libertarianism. It had no justification. The later collapse of the whole thread was done based on the agreement not to discuss scope. If you'd collapsed the whole thread for that reason, it might have been justified. Collapsing a single editor's two word comment had no justification and was clearly a disruptive WP:POINT violation, and you edit warred to restore it after I reverted it. Yworo (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    the whole thread was disruptive, my edit was later restored as well as the rest of the thread being collapsed. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't justify your collapsing a single comment of a single editor, replying to an established thread that was active at the time. Yworo (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    very well, i apologize for removing "just so", being from the ysa, i didn't realize it meant "agree", i assumed it was some kind of taunt of misplaced comment. may wind of a 1000 camels, fill your sails! Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    TFD, that one edit summary comment (which is all you mentioned) in a moment of frustration "shows an unwillingness to work cooperatively with other editors"? I hope one has to demonstrate much more and much worse than one unfortunately worded comment to prove someone has "an unwillingness to work cooperatively with other editors". I suggest almost all, if not all, of my other edits on the talk page and article fall on the other side of that scale, clearly demonstrating I am willing and able to work cooperatively with other editors. As to my edits on the Libertarian article, I went there after someone brought it to my attention on my talk page, and made a couple of edits to try to improve it.

    Yes, Yworo, I know it is your opinion that much of what I type is soapboaxing because you disagree with me, which apparently you use to rationalize your ignoring of much of what I'm say and ask you. As a contrast to how discussions with me go when someone else is equally skeptical but willing to cooperate, see this discussion with John K on his talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Born2cycle, this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to present a mainstream view of subjects. Obviously your view is fringe, not that there is anything wrong with that, but what is wrong is that you try to inject fringe views into articles. TFD (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TFD, thank you for stating this. That's quite the accusation (and is at the root of the harassment, I believe, because everything I post seems to be interpreted through this "he has a fringe view" lens by a few of you, and not taken seriously, and often ignored).

    So, please identify, as clearly and specifically as you can, for the sake of others reading this if not for me, the view of mine that you believe is so fringe that it should not be represented in (or "injected into") Wikipedia articles.

    Also, please identify enough instances of me doing this (to establish a problematic pattern sufficient to bring to ANI) where you believe I was doing so, and explain how that behavior exemplifies inappropriately injecting this fringe view. Also, if it's an example of me arguing that that the scope of an article should be reduced to be not about a general use of the term in question but about a more specific topic because the more specific use is primary please explain why this is an example of me trying to inject my alleged fringe view rather than applying the Cat specific/general argument (Cat is about the specific commonly used use of the term, domestic cat and not about the general use referring to the family that includes lions and tigers), and how it's not just me upholding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as I consistently have done at WP for over five years, including recently at Talk:Stockman (Australia) (also discussed here). If you are unable or unwilling to do this, I request you withdraw this accusation for being without basis, and agree to not bring it up again. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Even I can do that, the fringe view that TFD refers to is the view that left-libertarianism is not part of the topic of libertarianism proper, which is contradicted by numerous mainstream sources, as can be seen from the many provided sources on Talk:Libertarianism. When you have abandoned using sources and are reduced to arguing about "just libertarianism" and "cats" to make your point, it becomes clear that you have no sources that explicitly state what you assert. Bringing your "pet" soapbox (pun intended) to AN/I may not have been the smartest move, either. Yworo (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by "libertarianism proper", especially in the context of deciding Wikipedia article WP:TITLE and scope, an issue that is almost never determined by what sources "explicitly state". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    At the contentious article, on the issue in contention (inclusion/exclusion of disparate, even opposite philosophies with the word "Libertarian" in them) I happen to agree with Yworo (think kwe should include) and disaqree with Born2Cycle. However I think that Born2's conduct has been exemplary, and Yworo is using notices like this as methods of warfare. After I saw Yworo go to the user page of an admin who had just blocked another of Yworo's opponents and tell them that my milk-toast middle of the road peacemaker proposal [direction / compromise?] was "soapboxing" [[63]]that view has become reinforced, and I consider reports like the above to be warfare tactics. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    Blocking of Law and Order Offensive Party by User:Tiptoety

    WP:DNFTT. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    User:Tiptoety uses his admin's privileges to remove sourced information [64] in order to support the views of User:Miacek [65]. --78.53.44.188 (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No "admin privileges" were used in the diff cited. Tipoety subsequently semi-protected the article due to "excessive sockpuppetry"; the IP above seems to be another of these multiple socks. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP policy allows editors to undo any edits by banned users. Nevertheless, what exactly is wrong with the IPs edits from a content perspective? The references seem to be in German - did they not support the term to which they were attached? The dispute on this article starts here: [66] - about a category. The article still has the text related to the category (without the references), so why was the category removed? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiptoety appears to have been involved at that article in a purely administrative capacity. Good on them for following up and monitoring after their earlier semi-protection expired. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would still like some explanation of the content issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Dodo19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) banned, or merely indef'd? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved comment. As Gimmetoo said, no explanation given if the edit is legimate or illegimate. This is the trouble of Wikipedia, Bugs just yells "banned?" but fails to provide proof or explanation! Wikipedia is very childish in this respect. Too bad. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't yell "banned", I asked if the editor was banned. Because if he's actually banned, quality of content is irrelevant. If he's merely indef'd, then automatic deletion of his edits is not necessarily allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quality of content is irrelevant? This is simply untrue. If a banned user improves an article you don't just toss it. We have IAR for a reason. If the encyclopedia is improved thats all that matters. -- ۩ Mask 22:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Banned users are not allowed to edit. Anything posted by a banned user is subject to removal, regardless of it's alleged quality. That's the rule. Such is not necessarily the case with a user who's indef'd but not specifically banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • *Sigh*. Dodo is a faultfinding troll and massive sock puppeteer who is known for attempting to use every opportunity to launch frivolous 'reports' [67], [68] against his perceived enemies, often masquerading with ostensibly legitimate 'concerns' [69], [70]. In order to be able to act, he is keen on instigating edit wars, very often using argumentation based on WP:SYNTH [71] or sources that do not support the assumption he pretends they do [72].
      As for the Law and Order Offensive Party, I no longer have that page in my watchlist, so I didn't notice Dodo's insertions. I was asked to comment on my talk page. Tiptoety probably reverted Dodo's IP edits for administrative purposes, as 1) the user is prone to enter POV material, even if sourced [73] 2) is known for falsifications, that serve one aim and one aim only: to provoke his foes into edit wars. It is definitely healthy practice to semi-protect the articles affected by Dodo's sock puppetry and to block disruptive IPs for some days. On the other hand, I agree that his references in that particular case can be included after some scrutiny by constructive users (I've only checked a couple of them, not all); whether or not the party now warrants the category Dodo's sock introduced, I'm not sure yet. It should be agreed upon on the respective talk page.
      If Dodo19 is not technically banned yet, I suggest we fix the issue now. Users like this are not interested in writing an encyclopedia, they come here only to poison the atmosphere and to disrupt. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved comment. Miacek refers to "often masquerading with ostensibly legitimate 'concerns' ". If there are legimate concerns, they should be carefully considered. If they are not legimate concerns, then they are illegimate (bastard/bitch). The concern should be evaluated foremost, not an attempt to smear the editor if you cannot come up with an unbiased evaluation of the concern. That said, I am uninvolved and have not evaluated the original concern. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An insider comment: this was a case what I'd describe as an ostensibly legitimate concern that in effect amounted to harassment and caused some renewed sysop intervention that eventually led to the disclosure of his sock puppet farm. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, the elephant in the room is the fact that an IP's first edit was at ANI complaining about a seasoned admin. Toddst1 (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Epson291

    After using a verbatim, unattributed quotation from a source [74] ("Dominick suggested that Stewart, who is Jewish, is also a minority.", from [75]), I warned Epson291 [76] that such plagiarism was unacceptable. Unbelievably, his response was that he hadn't committed plagiarism because he provided a reference to the source from which the quotation was lifted [77], even though no quotation marks or other means were used to denote the direct copying of text. After I rewrote his plagiarized material in clear, original language [78], Epson291 proceeded to reintroduce the plagiarized sentence [79], changing the wording only slightly "Dominick suggested that Stewart, who is Jewish, is also a minority." became "Dominick then noted that since Stewart is Jewish, he is also a minority" (material removed from the original is in strikethrough, new language in bold). Given Epson291's repeated failure to adhere to common standards of academic honestymisuse of source text on Rick Sanchez, he's probablymay have added plagiarized material to other articles as well. Blocking his account would permit the damage to be stopped while his contributions are thoroughly investigated.Therefore I'm requesting that an administrator take appropriate action. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Excessively heated language rewritten by Peter Karlsen on 01:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    non admin reaction May I suggest you refrain from texts as your plagiarism, unrepentant plagiarism, unbelievably and academic honesty for the possibly improper attribution of a short sentence. It seems to be a bit more confronting than needed and it hardly suggests assuming good faith. Probably by investing some time in the discussion with the user on talk:Rick Sanchez or user talk:Epson291 you can come to an acceptable solution within a few days; and without much drama. L.tak (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Users who reject Wikipedia's attribution requirements for the verbatim copying of text need to be stopped, not negotiated with. Anything less than a firm response trivializes the seriousness of the offence: what we have here is no mere accident, but a user who insisted that he's done nothing wrong [80], then did it again [81], on the same article, with the same sentence from the source. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter, these are very serious accusation not assuming good faith. You seem to have a discussion on the way a short sentence was attributed/phrased. Epson seems not to explicitly reject the policy, but has problems with a different version which he phrases as poor wording. Thus this seems to be merely a content conflict and I have confidence that in a good discussion the two of you will come to a solution. Otherwise, you can try to obtain a third opinion. But again, texts like he committed an offence, blocking suggestions or bringing things to ANI are not helping here. L.tak (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So now issues of whether sentences can be copied from sources without using quotation marks or similar attribution are "content disputes" merely because the user inappropriately introducing the source text chooses to complain about the style in which the offending text was rewritten? If this were purely an issue of stylistic disagreement, then, yes, it would be a content dispute, but plagiarism shouldn't be permitted to be re-framed as such. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the issues you mention are not content disputes. However, you provided a solution. That solution was not ok because it was poor wording according to Epson. Instead he reintroduced a not properly attributed text. The challenge that remains is to find a wording acceptable to both of you (that's what I called the content dispute); an additional challenge might be to explain/convince Epson that his way of attributing is not correct.L.tak (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not terribly concerned with the style of the sentence. If Epson291 disagrees with the language I used, he can rewrite it in his own words, and I won't revert him. But let's be clear: avoiding the verbatim, unattributed copying of text takes priority over any stylistic disagreement. To the extent that I'm seeking to stop Epson291 from adding incorrectly attributed text to the article, I am not in a content dispute with him. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's a clear position; and in this wording it is free of anything which could be construed as an accusation to him/her. I suggest you take this to the talk page there and see if you can come to a solution together. I realize you attempted before at his user talk and you discussed in edit summaries, but you are hardly completely out of options yet I'd say... Good luck! L.tak (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've crossed out and rewritten some language in my initial report that was unnecessarily intense. I'd still like an administrator to deal with this, because Epson291 is likely to respond better to an editor who carries more authority in policy enforcement than I do, and whose language has been more temperate. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He's only been here for about two months. HalfShadow 00:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you claiming that Epson291 is in the right, simply because he has the longer tenure? Is there a "vested contributor right" to copy sentences without attribution? Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (just in case the questions were not rethorical): Tenure time doesn't count on wikipedia and sentence copying without attribution should be dealt with. When working with users who are around shorter, some inexperience can be expected and should be taken into account by others. L.tak (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a serious problem with your language directed towards me, from the very first time you wrote on my talk page. Yes the poor wording referred to content, not attribution. I'm not going to reedit it, because I don't have the time to debate with you, but be civil, and assume good faith, the way you've handle this is not appropriate for WP in my opinion, nor was taking this to ANI. - Epson291 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just the tip of the iceberg

    It's unfortunate that Epson291's response above was unapologetic and refused to acknowledge that he'd done anything wrong. As I suspected, his plagiarism on Rick Sanchez wasn't the first instance, and, if he isn't sanctioned, it won't be the last. For instance, consider Yellowstone Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which Epson291 created. An original sentence from a Fox News Article: "Founded in 1999, the invitation-only club in the Gallatin Mountains counts Bill Gates and Dan Quayle among its 340 members." Now Epson291's version: "The club was founded in 1999, in the Gallatin Mountains and counts Bill Gates and Dan Quayle among its 340 members." [82] (provided without quotation marks or other indications of the direct copying of text.) Epson291, you have two choices: you can admit the extent to which you've plagiarized material, and devote an adequate amount of time to cleaning up the mess you've created, or I can open a contributor copyright investigation on material you've added to Wikipedia. Which option would you prefer? Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As do you, however, given your problem with civility, which need I remind you is a rule here, I am getting the feeling you're the one that's going to be blocked first. I suggest you stop issuing the ultimatiums here, you've already done enough, and posting here further could be seen as baiting, especially with the tone of your posts. I suggest you leave this thread be, and wait for more knowledgeable people to comment, instead of biting and biting. You've been told it's wrong already to bite someone new to things, yet you continue to do so in your completely rightous attitude. Drop it, leave them alone, and if your complaint has any merit, an administrator will comment. Until then, stop berating them.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BITE? Epson291 has been editing since December 2006 [83], and has over 14,000 edits [84]. Here's some more material that he plagiarized: He created Jewish Community Center of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Here are two original sentences written by a Jewish Community Center archivist:
    "In addition, it has provided resources for individuals and families to express themselves culturally and physically, and it has changed its activities, directions, and locations to help meet the needs of the community. The JCC has also sponsored many activities for those people who are serving in the military during wartime and many holiday observances." [85]
    Now Epson291's version:
    "In addition, it has provided resources for individuals and families to express themselves culturally and physically, and it has changed its activities, directions, and locations to help meet the needs of the community. The JCC has also sponsored many activities for those people who are serving in the military during wartime and many holiday observances." [86]
    (as usual, no quotation marks or similar are provided to indicate that text has been directly copied.) With all due respect Daedalus969, academic honesty is more important than being nice to editors who reject Wikipedia's standards in this respect. In none of his responses has Epson291 been at all willing to admit any wrongdoing or to improve his editing [87] [88]. Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with Jewish Community Center of San Francisco was not created by Epson291: it was split off from Jewish Community Center where it was introduced here by WJHC (talk · contribs). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's obviously a prior account of the same user: Epson291 takes credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on his userpage [89] (he does indicate other articles which he merely merged and rewrote, only "sort of" created, or "Created by Merging/Splitting other WikiUser's Content", but not this one.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over Epson291's edits this is looking less like an issue of plagiarism (since the sources are attributed) and more like an issue of copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, per Wikipedia:Plagiarism,
    Works with copyright restrictions can not usually be extensively copied into Wikipedia articles. Limited amounts of text can be copied from such works providing they satisfy the Wikipedia copyright policy and are clearly indicated in the article with the use of quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations). All quotations must be followed by an inline citation (see WP:PROVEIT).
    Since Epson291 copies non-free text into articles without "the use of quotation marks, or some other acceptable method", his behaviour does indeed constitute plagiarism. Also,
    If an external work is under a standard copyright notice, then copying text from such a work, with little, or no, alteration to that work, into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless it is clearly indicated in the text by quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations).
    Therefore, plagiarism of non-free sources is a copyright violation per se, even if it otherwise would have been fair use. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WJHC is not a previous account of mine, and yes I split it from a previous page. If there are attribution problems or anything which constitutes plagiarism, I'm not perfect, and I am certainly willing to look at this, with the advice from other editors, but your tone towards me is not acceptable. - Epson291 (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, a concession that you may have done something wrong only after an administrator threatens to block your account indefinitely [90] has to be taken with a grain of salt. If WJHC isn't your prior account, then why did you take credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on your userpage [91], even though you have a section devoted to "Articles I Created by Merging/Splitting other WikiUser's Content"? If you're willing to take credit for other contributors' work, then you're also going to have to take the blame. If WJHC is your prior account (your claim to have created Jewish Community Center of San Francisco is truthful), then you're going to be in serious trouble for copyright violations [92]. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Why did you take credit for creating Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on your userpage" - Well looking at it, because in the only edit I made on the page was its creation, hence it being on my section for pages I created. And in the edit summary I wrote, "(new article --> split from main)", so yes I did split it, so it should probably have been on the other list, it may have just gotten their because I was looking at the tool for seeing which pages I created, I was certainly not trying to decive anyone, or take credit for someone elses work. Those lists exist as a sort of watch list, to give me an ability to check up on the articles.- Epson291 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly,even isolated sentences taken from a prior source must be attributed, and the consistent failure to do so after warnings is a serious offense, and would certainly merit a block to prevent further abuse. Even if attributed, using previously written sentences for the presentation of plain facts where there would be no difficulty in rewriting does not make sense, and is probably a violation of our NFCC policies (even though, from a legal point of view, it would be fair use in the US). Epson, you do need to pay very careful attention to this: please consider this a formal warning. . However, I see no prior warnings at any time. This does not on the present evidence seem at all analogous to the major CCI problems we have been dealing with lately. But it's certainly true that is some articles have such problems, other may also , and I suppose they do need to be checked. On the present evidence, I see no reason not to treat him as a good faith user who has adopted an unfortunately erroneous pattern of work. The best thing for him to do will be to revisit his earlier contributions and check where quotation marks and citations may need to be added. Unless the pattern continues, I do not se the need to do more than that. Obviously, if it does continue, its another matter entirely. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to the split article, it is very easy to get confused while doing this process. Attribution is claimed here by the edit histories, not the user pages, and I do not regard a slip like this as a serious problem. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I do regard as a serious problem is a confrontational attitude between editors. Peter, you were not wrong to come here, but as I see it you did not do well to come here as aggressively as you did, and to use language implying moral turpitude when what the evidence supports is error or lack of understanding. I see you have realised this , by striking out some of the previous language above. I commend Epson, in fact, for remaining calm in the situation--many people here would have responded in a way that would have escalated the matter. It really helps here to assume the most benign explanation possible of apparent problems: there are many more people here careless about attribution than there are deliberate offenders. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, it is/was certainly not my intent to violate the non-free content criteria, and it's (obviously) important that I properly understand the polices to ensure that any work I do here in the future including my existing contributions are not copyright violations. I'm going to start to relook at my previous entries to ensure the my contributions are consistent with said policies. Epson291 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG, Peter: That is what I was trying to say, but another point in regards to Peter, yes, 'bite'. Bite does not solely apply to new users. Yes, I misread who was knew and who was not, but that does not take away from the fact that you were unnecessarily aggressive. The proper action would have been to assume good faith and be polite, instead of assuming this user's goal was to commit copyright violations.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a legitimate disagreement between editors as to the appropriate tenor of response to Epson291's actions. While DGG believed that more subdued and measured language was appropriate, another administrator believed that a firmer approach was necessary under the circumstances [93]:
    Could you explain to me why I should not block your account for an indefinite period of time? This is a serious question, and if I do not receive a response I may be forced to take action on the grounds that we simply don't know what you will do in the future. NW (Talk) 15:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is because, contrary to DGG's assertion that "I see no prior warnings at any time", Epson291 did receive a warning [94] before his most recent addition of inappropriately attributed non-free text [95] (from [96], explained further in my initial report). Most importantly, after DGG observed that "This does not on the present evidence seem at all analogous to the major CCI problems we have been dealing with lately," additional copyright problems were discovered in Epson291's contributions [97]. Therefore, I still am willing to open contributor copyright investigation if necessary. However, since Epson291 states that he will take the initiative to remedy the problems himself [98], I am holding off for now. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Humaliwalay

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

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

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

    Still this matter is under discussion here [99]. User brought this here very hastily. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    One very interesting thing I noticed after the User George accused me of being biased is that his citations are based on the findings of Youssef Chahid done in year 2005 and not 2007 which were reprinted by NOWLEBANON.COM here [100] in which it states that Shias are around 29% even less than the Sunnis. Where as the same source NOWLEBANON.COM in its latest release by its MD Hanin Ghaddar on April, 25 2010 states that Shias are demographically the largest sect of Lebanon here [101]. Nowlebanon.com does not prove to be as authentic and reliable as Pew Research Center and others. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What the hell kind of nonsense is this? I have never cited nowlebanon.com, nor have I cited Youssef Chahid, making your claim a complete fabrication. I cited the U.S. State Department, which gives a figure of 28% (not 29%). Fabricating such claims on top of your POV-pushing does not bode well. ← George talk 19:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bumping for more discussion before this gets archived. ← George talk 08:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalizer blanking pages

    Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AIV
     – This should be taken to WP:AIV if the vandalism persists after warnings. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome-vandal also given. How does the user follow the rules if he has never been given access to them? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But I dont think a user would ever need a rule to decide whether its a good thing or a bad thing to blank pages, its obviously bad. Thanks for the help! I'll be sure to send it to WP:AIV if the user continues.--TwelveOz (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always best to assume good faith and ignorance, as BWilkins pointed out: before leaving a warning, you should leave a general note indicating the rule and why their edit was reverted, unless it's absolutely blatant bad-faith like libel or a personal attack etc. A template such as {{uw-delete1}} is an easy way to give the user a general note about blanking pages or sections, and you can continue sequentially through the templates until a final if the behaviour persists. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Though personally given that they had blanked sections and been reverted three times and that didn't give them pause for thought, I would probably start at a level 2 (no assumption of faith). The note you left was essentially equivalent to a level 3 template though (see {{uw-delete3}} for example), which shouldn't be a first warning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    213.6.27.118 and 213.6.11.49

    Unresolved

    I feel comfortable assuming this is the same user. User:213.6.11.49 was blocked for edit warring. A few days later User:213.6.27.118 made an argument for[102] then then blanked the block and appeal discussion on the 213.6.11.49 talk page.[103] That isn't a big deal but then User:213.6.27.118 made the same edits that got User:213.6.11.49 blocked.[104] Can an admin give them a firm warning about using the talk page and not edit warring?Cptnono (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like WP:DUCK. He pretty much says so himself here. Fainites barleyscribs 12:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IP User:213.6.29.97 is probably the same user, contributing the same content to the same articles (see 213.6.29.97 contributions). However, I have a feeling that he is trying to be constructive or at least follow the rules this time. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left a message on his talkpage.Fainites barleyscribs 21:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues now to edit war break WP:3RR with different IP address [105] LibiBamizrach (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lame. I was about to mark this as resolved. Clearly edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Four points I'd like to mention:
    --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot about the User:213.33.31.120 .40 Gaza War conversation. It doesn't matter if he is doin better since the behavior is still disruptive. Needs to be notified of the arbitration case and blocked for edit warring after a recent block.Cptnono (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dilma Rousseff

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

    There were numerous editors edit-warring over several items that involved WP:BLP concerns, with no evidence of moving towards consensus on wording or agreement on validity of sources. There is talk-page activity, which is good. But can't simultaneously edit-war on the article. Good use of protection in a form that is least BLP problematic and/or prior to current disputes. WP:PROT does not require a vote, a consensus, or any other prior notification. DMacks (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and note that after the article was protected, another admin re-protected for a longer duration. For what it's worth, this is a clear BLP vio, and fully justifies the protection in my view (there were several edits like this one). TFOWR 14:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And Ftsw has twice inserted this edit [106] at Israeli West Bank barrier (among other things, changing barrier to wall in the text and with an edit summary 'rvv pov'}. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, there's an SPI case open about Ftsw. Their edits are getting progressively more troubling. They just uploaded File:Barackobama.jpg, for example. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's third edit was a request to become an RfA candidate. Tiderolls 15:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They're intimately familiar with policy, which makes their current conduct all the more troubling. TFOWR 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer (ThomasK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Thomaskh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)); I just pointed this out on the SPI page. And you're right, he's had more than five years to read up on policy. His previous RFA didn't go very well either. How do we feel about a range block on 188.23.0.0/16 and 93.82.0.0/20? There aren't many edits there that aren't his. Antandrus (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should perhaps point out that we don't 'vote' or generally require consensus (at least before hand) for a page to be protected. If an admin feels protection is justified in accordance with our WP:Protection policy they are free to protect a page. Often this comes from a WP:Request for page protection but there is no need for consensus to request protection, nor for admins to grant it and if admins notice problems themselves, they don't need to ask 'permission' first. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    If you're saying that your edit being called vandalism is the incident here, I would propose that your edit (which removed a reference) appeared to be vandalism. I'm not sure, I don't use Twinkle. It appears the source you removed was actually the article by Joe Nickell, not the Wikipedia article on Joe Nickell. I see you have posted to the article talk page. That is probably the optimum course for you to follow. Regards Tiderolls 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified User:Anikingos of this discussion as well. Tiderolls 15:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the IP looked at our article and thought that was the source being used - it wasn't, Joe Nickell's name was just wikilinked. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry for the revert, but as it was explained, the edit appeared to be vandalism. But why would a revert come this far, if it was not vandalism, then you could just explain me about that and tell me why it is not vandalism and then i myself will put things back. It happens to me quite a lot of times. Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After the clicking on Joe Nickell (at # 26) appears an article Joe Nickell (at Wiki), the contents of which are not linked to an article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. A wiki invites all users to edit any page, but I deprived of this possibility and charged with vandalism. If the reference to # 26 is principally important, this the reference should be putted in due order and probably should be take away my unfounded accusations. Thanks for discussion, IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.85.5.251

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

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

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

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

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

    It appears to be Bambifan101. I will place long softblocks on all these addresses. If someone could update the LTA page, and any SPI page, in the meantime? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI report filed, and noted ip's blocked.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Missile article

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

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

    Revdel review

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

    Good action, well within admin discretion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, however it doesn't really make any sense to delete the block log entry but leave the user with an intact talk page and an entry in ListUsers. See also this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    User:Alacante45 is currently edit warring to protect his inappropriate edits to the Algae article.[107]

    This user made an addition to the article of a number of tags and text that I felt were inappropriate.[108] I reverted his edits as the tags were not used appropriately. If the entire article is confusing, this should be discussed on the talk page in addition to placing the tag. I waited a while to see if he would discuss this situation, meanwhile editing one of his other tagging abominations. The "too long" tag is also not helpful on a high level article about a large topic. His additional text was added to a random sentence, but did not incorporate the remainder of the article and was unsourced. The article clarifies that cyanobacteria are an excluded group.

    The user put a single warning vandalism tag on my talk page for removing his edits, rather than assuming good faith.[109] I will not be blocked for making an appropriate and good faith edit, and an only warning vandal tag is grossly inappropriate for my edit.

    This user gave another single warning vandalism tag by mistake,[110] this time to a user who was actually reverting vandalism.[111]

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

    Administrators can't revoke Twinkle rights; unlike rollback, which is a tool granted and revoked by administrators, Twinkle is a gadget that is activated by going to Special:Preferences, selecting "gadgets", and then selecting Twinkle. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a twinkle blacklist in User:AzaToth/morebits.js. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, probably appropriate under the circumstances to have blocked both. Thanks for posting the information here. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems he is just a vandal, but adding subtle nonsense, rather than doing the sort of vandalism designed to attract quick notice and blocking.[112][113] --184.99.172.218 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well he's twice attempted to evade his block, resulting in it being extended, so it seems his remaining time here may be brief. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I assume he's going to hoist himself on his own petard soon enough, but do want to include sufficient details to get his twinkle use taken away asap to make it easier to revert him until he gets to his explosive finish. Assuming he gets back. Not looking good for this user name. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Twinkle use

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

    No, he didn't just misuse it once. He misused it a number of times, in a very short edit history, by inappropriately warning users that their article edits were vandalism, when they weren't,[114][115] by calling other edits vandalism that weren't,[116] and while edit warring on the algae article.
    Twinkle isn't a granted. It's a tool that requires proper usage:
    "Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or being blocked."
    This user clearly doesn't understand wikipedia policies well enough to be using this tool, and it is pretty straight-forward to ask that the tool be taken away. It doesn't impact his editing, other than to slow him/her down, and this may be sufficient to make him think a bit while making the edits. This is WP:AN/I, and I would like administrator action and/or input. Your comments are adding nothing to the eventual resolution of the problem that I raised. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I was not aware of that misuse. However, he is still already blocked. I will warn him again on Twinkle misuse and that continuing to misuse it in the future will result in a blacklisting. Cheers Tommy! 00:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds sufficient for marking this resolved, in my opinion. Thanks. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Glad I was able to help. Tommy! 00:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hungry generation

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

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

    Sinbad Barron sock yet again

    He even admits it [117]. Causing major disruption, please block right away. Athenean (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Constant rudenesss

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

    KnowIG (talk · contribs) has a big problem with incivility, and has done for quite some time. In the last day or so he's managed to produce the following: [118] (which includes disturbing connotations of, "I don't give a stuff about BLP,") [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]

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

    I see my stalker's reappered, who constantly swears at people KnowIG (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should perhaps just point out that while KnowIG (talk · contribs) may believe that I appear and disappear, he must surely be aware that Wikipedia's civility policy does not; rather, it is constantly a requirement. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming from you who was banned for being incival the other day KnowIG (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (I'm not going to get into a debate with you, so this is my last comment in response.) Nothing I have [supposedly] done in any way makes the above diffs from you acceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So ur admiting that your actions are acceptable cause you can get away with it KnowIG (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I suggest you note the RfC linked to under the "for quite some time" text - that, plus the diffs, plus the immediate attempt to divert attention to the other party, plus my rationales at the user talkpage and subsequently here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TreasuryTag

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

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

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

    Yopie and his rollback right

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

    The user is notified about the report:[124]

    The user is not very proficient in English so that the only thing that he is able to contribute to the Wikipedia by is nothing more than POV reverting and he has been carrying out a certain type of reverting crusade on Wikipedia every day. Withal, he has recently been blocked for edit warring. And shortly after he had received the block, he commenced an appeal against the sanction in which he was warned about abusively using rollback tool in an edit war and he was said that this may entail the revocation of the rollback permission. [125] However, it is worth pointing out that this is an old problem and that this behaviour of him was first expostulated as far as November 11, 2009. [126] And in addition, there is a template on his user page that "This user reverts vandalism in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!". In other words, while reverting, one of his eyes blinks and of course his ability of apprehension of English written texts is very limited due to his poor command of the language. It is important to note that the user continued using rollback even after being warned in his aforesaid latest block appeal.[127] [128] It is also true that there are several other problems with him but they are germane to the ArbCom rather than here (e.g.wikihounding, personal attacks) and those I woultn't start to dissect right now. In my opinion, it would be in order to request Yopie to be bereaved of the possibility of using rollback.--Nmate (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors recently blocked for edit wars have no need for rollback. This user no longer has the priv. Toddst1 (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, that rollback is privilege, not right. But I feel unjust about my "un-rollbacking" for these reasons:
    1. It was done without my opinion.
    2. I was blocked for edit warring two weeks ago and I was informed, that "Using rollback in an edit war may lead to the permission being revoked". From this point I ceased with using rollback and continued only with Twinkle (with statement of the reasons)and of course, I´m aware of edit war. It was because as I understand, that I´m blocked for edit warring. As I understand, if I misuse rollback next time, I can be "un-rollbacked". But last two weeks there was not any misuse of rollback be me.
    3. I was blocked for 24 hours for edit war 2 weeks ago and "un-rollbacking" is another penalty for same offence. This is unjust.
    4. WP:ROLL says, that "Administrators may revoke the rollback feature or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used." There is nothing about "second penalty for blocking" and there is not persistent failure by me.
    5. I feel, that reason for Nmate request is my comment in ANI [129], because he don't like user Iaaasi and I´m on side of Iaaasi. This looks, like I´m punished for expression of view on ANI.
    6. Nmate request is on edge of personal attack and he clearly don't understand difference between Twinkle and rollback [130], thus his request seems be invalid.

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

    Theodore Roosevelt

    Wrong venue. Please move to the article's talk page
     – No issue here requiring administrators' intervention. Yet. Don't push it. Incredibly lame issue to be coming close to editwarring over.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

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

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

    How is this not a content matter? This is not a matter with which I have great familiarity, but it seems to be being discussed at Dr.Kiernan's talk page and probably other places as well. I don't think it should be at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt: there are actually some important behavioural problems at play here, though Xanderliptak would need a mirror in order to see what they are. → ROUX ₪ 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't really know much about heraldry; I didn't even know Americans had coats of arms. With my admin powers, I could block someone, delete something, or protect something- are you asking me to do any of those things? Which one, and why? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Some Americans have legitimate coats of arms (e.g. many members of the Kennedy family, Bill Clinton, etc), though most labour under the misapprehension that there is a 'family crest' they can use. Eh. You could block Xander for editwarring (he was blocked for that last week, too) if you want, or for just being generally disruptive and not understanding concepts like 'consensus' and 'no original research,' if you want. I don't really see the point in doing so, but you might; a clear directive from an uninvolved admin to him about what exactly he is doing wrong might be useful, though. → ROUX ₪ 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I'd like to note that none of the named editors, myself included, was notified by Xanderliptak about this posting. The discussions in which a clear consensus was established on this matter are here (Very long) and here. Those are content disputes, the only behaviorial question is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and what is arguably becoming disruption from Xanderliptak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    If you want to accuse me of forum shopping when I am seeking to resovle a dispute, you may want to refrain from psoting to all of the forums you guys tried to shop. Stop making this about you and let an admin direct on where a content dispute may be resolved, where facts will determine the outcome, rather than impulsive comments like "my irony meter just overloaded". [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Xander, it sort of looks like you're here at WP:ANI to try to make sure you win your argument. We don't do that, I'm afraid. No one is ignoring you or hijacking the article by holding the opinion that a picture of Roosevelt's coat of arms should be documentably the coat of arms Roosevelt used. They're just disagreeing with you. They're allowed to disagree with you, and it doesn't make them bad people. You don't have to keep your picture in the article until 'the discussion has run its course,' by which I gather you mean, until everyone agrees with you. It isn't worth getting blocked for edit-warring over that. If consensus comes to agree with you, the picture will go back in and stay there, and no harm will have been done. If consensus does not agree with you, the picture will not go in, and no harm will have been done. Don't let this become something that gets added to WP:LAME; just make your best case, cite your sources, use WP:DISPUTE for advice if you need to, and when the time comes, either win graciously, or lose graciously, and move on with your life. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Posting to all what forums? BMK asked for input, neutrally, at several locations and asked for discussion to be centralized at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt. You, on the other hand, took the dispute to DrK's talkpage. And now you have brought it here in order to end-run around the consensus. You also failed to notify the users you were discussing, which is not an optional step when filing an AN/I. You have also been, well let us say flexible with the facts. And again, simple question: have you got a reference supporting Roosevelt's use of these embellishments or not? → ROUX ₪ 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ROUX, you found this within minutes of me posting it. Why do I have to notify you of something you already injected yourself into before I could find the template?
    @FisherQueen, they are attempting to replace an image of mine with an image of mine. This is not about whether or not I have my image in the article, either way it was decided an image of mine would be in. The problem I have is the inaccuracies they are promoting, and doing so without providing sources for their opinion whilst at the same time ignoring any and all information presented to them. I am quite familiar with heraldry, and I spend much time correcting errors about heraldry, so I do not particularity like editors who admit to know little to nothing of the subject undo work without citing sources for their reason, but instead going off incorrect myths they have heard about heraldry. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay... so, since I'm not involved in this actual dispute, and don't have the knowledge to contribute anything useful... what administrative action are you requesting? Do you want me to block User:Roux from editing, restore your desired edit, and then protect the page for six months while you make your argument and persuade others to come to consensus with you? I do, technically, have the power to do that. I wonder if I'd be sysopped for it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno if you can be sysopped for doing that... because you have to have been sysopped to do the block in the first instance. Perhaps you mean you might block Roux, resign your bits and then restand for admin on the basis of those actions...? Seems to be bit of a palaver, if you ask me - and I am the bloke who stood for reconfirmation of adminship. I suggest that you don't... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. I mean desysopped, of course. I am already sysopped. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could stop with the lie that anyone other than BMK has stated they know very little about heraldry, that would be just great. One notes you didn't mention User:Tamfang here, who has also pointed out that you cannot use the embellished version, and who arguably knows a hell of a lot more about heraldry than you do. We are promoting no inaccuracies. Indeed, we are trying to prevent inaccuracies--namely, the use of an unsourced image--from being included in the article. Third time, simple question: have you got a reference supporting Roosevelt's use of these embellishments or not? → ROUX ₪ 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You actually never provided the reference you were asked for. Again, do you or do you not have a reference showing that Roosevelt used those embellishments on his arms? Why do you refuse to answer the question? → ROUX ₪ 21:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be suffering from "expertisatiousness" - where your knowledge of a subject renders you unable to comprehend that the rules/policies of a different place apply to you in the same way as they apply to anyone else. If you want to contribute your knowledge to the project, and rest assured that the project wants you to just as much, then you need to do so within the limitations of that project. Appeals to authority do not work here, only reference to reliable third party sources. No ones unbuttressed opinion is more equal than that of any other, and referenced opinion - even if wrong - will prevail over uncited comment. Experts, however, do have one particular advantage; they should know where the best references are and be able to apply them.
    As for letting other people know, regardless of the fact that they found out anyway, it is in the nature of participating on another site - their rules rule. You don't wish to abide the rules, then you cannot play. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but please see my opening paragraph where I gave textual sources and visual sources. I can also direct you to some books to read. The opposing editors are the ones that provided nothing, just "I don't know anything about heraldry, but I don't think that's right." . I have adhered to the rules here, I have sourced everything. I asked the other editors to do the same, and they responded with a no, they don't have to, because they know they are right no matter what sources I give. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the last time: stop lying. Nobody has said anything of the sort. Your sources do not actually support what you say. Stop evading the question: do you or do you not have a source showing that Roosevelt used the embellishments you have added? → ROUX ₪ 22:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that you have explained why your references support your contentions. Other parties have explained why they believe the case is unproven. You do not seem to have provided a definitive authority in regard to this one matter, which is what Roux continues to request. Your expertise in being able to interpret your sources appears unsupported by independent third parties. I see only a content dispute, where the case for a change has not been made because the vital evidence supporting that change has not been presented. Should you supply that evidence, then the discussion may restart. Until then the status quo remains. (Roux, please would you stop with the use of the term "lying" - it degrades your position. Find a civil term, if you must make the implication,) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no, I won't stop using the word that accurately describes what Xander is doing. He has been told multiple times that words he is attributing to others are factually incorrect. At this point, there are only two possible options for the behaviour: either he is simply not reading what is being written (clearly not the case) or he is lying about what other people have said. I will not be lied about, particularly when someone is doing so in order to sway a discussion which they have quite clearly come out on the minority end of. → ROUX ₪ 22:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    What authority issued the letters patent for Theodore Roosevelt's coat of arms? Tiderolls 22:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got a reference stating that Roosevelt used these embellishments or not? → ROUX ₪ 22:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    None, the Roosevelts are not British. Only British realms and those regions that take their influence from Britain (Australia, Canada and South Africa, for example) require letters patent. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me, then, that any alteration of the arms that Roosevelt represented as his would be a waste of time. Reporting that he used them, if supported by sources, might be notable but anything beyond that would appear to be speculation or synthesis. Tiderolls 23:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing that requires a patent, only British law (which includes a sort of 'processing fee' for the service), and is an Anglo-centric stance that any arms without patent are somehow invalid. More common families, noble families and royals have assumed arms without patent than have been granted arms. Even the Queen of Great Britain and the oldest noble titles of England and Scotland use arms that were never granted, and are quite proud to have used arms for so long they predate any law. The O'Donovans of Ireland, for example, take much pride displaying their supporters, much to the chagrin of the English heralds who often said they had no written right to use then, the O'Donovans countering that their arms were older than written right. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak.png
    Xanderlipak's original image, including the disputed three shields at the bottom

    Convenience break

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

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

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

    But that would be akin to asking for sources that says lines form outside of a particular building, or that turtles will stand in grass. Part of the problem is heraldry is little understood, which has caused this problem. We can dumb it all down and make everything match people's preconceived (and often incorrect) notions, but that is not encyclopedic either. If anything, an image that people do not recognize initially as a coat of arms due to their googling of their "family crest" would incite curiosity and cause a person to investigate what they are seeing. That would lead them to the Heraldry and Coat of arms articles, where their knowledge would be expanded. The same reason we don't just say that stars are fireflies stuck in the sky, or rain is caused from angels crying, we do not conform to myths and legends we are told, we put forth truth, even if it is uncomfortable and unfamiliar to us. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the same experience- as a person with limited knowledge of heraldry, I know it often appears on shield shapes- so when I see the shield shapes on that picture, I assume that they are the coat of arms, and that the flowers growing out of the top of them are the embellishment. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Xanderliptak; simply provide the source for your changes. If you could provde a source for the stars/fireflies analogy-that-doesn't-fit, you could make a case for adding that content. Do you have a source? That question is very familiar... Tiderolls 23:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    24.236.248.179

    User:24.236.248.179 was making comments at the Gaza War article that were not constructive. They bordered on treating it like a forum and soapboxing while making accusations.[131] He was asked to raise specific issues but continued.[132] His response at an additional request was to make a comment in the middle of a stale conversation I had previousely started.[133] His response to another request on his talk page was to post a personal attack on my talk page.[134] His response to another editor explaining to him of this not being appropriate was dismissive. It would be appreciated if an administrator would provide him with notification of the arbitration case as detailed at Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement. I am under the impression that incivility is not blockable so doubt that is a possibility but a stronger warning seems necessary.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Yes, I did say "Who the fuck are you?" In response to one of your a comment. I didn't think it was that bad but if you took offense to it I apologize. It pails in comparison to your comments and ongoing disruption. And no one said anything about banning or blocking you unless you continue.Cptnono (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And since you acknowledged being User:Jalusbrian, you have been warned multiple times about using the talk page as a forum. User talk:Jalusbrian#Please add to the discussionUser talk:Jalusbrian#See Talk:Coconut oilUser talk:Jalusbrian#Talk:MV Mavi Marmara‎.Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    An editor asked who I was and I asked who "the fuck" he was. Inappropriate. If he would have expressed concern the last thing I would have done is continued with that behavior. It was a stupid comment and nothing more. You on the other hand have not headed warnings and made two personal attacks in the last 24 hrs: "you are so freaking retarded" (in a section titled "Screw off" and "self-righteous hypocrite" Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My impression of this is that neither party is entirely innocent, or guilty; collaborative editing here requires some understanding of the other point of view, especially on contentious articles and issues within those articles. In the absence of that, a third opinion can be sought, but meanwhile, insults don't help and I suggest that there is no reason for admin intervention here and both parties are advised to cool down. Rodhullandemu
    I admit to being BITEY since I did not put forth the effort CordeliaNaismith did at the user's talk page[135] There was no harassment. I commented on a talk page I was previously involved in, a conversation that I originated, and the user's talk page. So can your advice to cool down be considered being "finally warned" as LessHeard vanU mentioned above? Calling another editor "retarded" and "a self righteous hypocrite" are in no way acceptable and this needs to be made clear. And a third opinion is not necessary since specific content has still not been addressed.Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, warnings have already been issued for the incivility, by LessHeard vanU, and for the avoidance of doubt, this may be taken as a final warning by any involved editor that incivility is just not what we are supposed to be about. Arguments over content get heated, particularly in factional disputes, but it is fundamental that we have neutrality here. That depends on the sources you choose to support a particular position, but there is still room to accept differences of opinion from those sources, and seek outside opinion here where such differences exist; however, incivility and personal attacks remains unacceptable; that's why I advised cooling down, on both sides. Apart from that, remedies under dispute resolution remain if you really cannot get it together on the relevant Talk pages. Rodhullandemu 02:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I have no horse in the race of middle eastern disputes; what I would like to see is that participants in the various articles in this topic realise that there are bound to be differences of opinion, and we should report those differences fairly and neutrally, without favouring one side or another. That's perhaps a counsel of perfection, but it cannot be without the knowledge and experience of involved editors that differences exist. However, pushing one side or the other has traditionally been castigated here as unencyclopedic. When it comes to content disputes, even severely polarised disputes, my personal preference is that editors would set aside their local perspective and realise that there is another point of view, and that needs to be dealt with constructively rather than argumentatively. That's why we have dispute resolution, and other venues. Rodhullandemu 02:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you completely understand the dispute. There is no difference of opinion on the content. I have been one of the leading advocates from fixing the "massacre" issue. I was the one who mentioned adjusting the section before the IPs comments and when another editor opened up a second discussion. I supported the move suggested by that editor and then adjusted it even further. So it appears that the IP and I agree to a large extent on content. Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Loansbreak again

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

    I see no recent warnings on the user's talk page (last one was 19 September), and it doesn't seem anyone has attempted to actually discuss the issue with the user on their talk page, either. This should be your first port of call before bringing it to ANI (twice). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Without even looking any further, I agree with Giftiger. You should try at all costs to discuss problems directly before coming here, and then use ANI as a last resort. Tommy! 23:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Blocking MickMacNee from AfD boards permanently for PA and UNCIVIL violations

    I was wondering if it is possible to bar a user from participating in Articles for Deletion. I was shocked at the level of uncivilty displayed by the user MickMacNee in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243. He was unacceptabally nasty in his responses to anyone that disagreed with his views. While passion is good, taking any dissent as an attack on ones' self is not only bad, but damaging to the project, as it steers the focus off of the issues at hand and onto the user and his own personal dramas.

    His decision to badger users who disagreed, and I mean badger, which is distinct and different from offering counterarguments, as well as his name calling and borderline personal attacks on Kafziel demonstrate to me that he should be barred from participating in AfD for a significant amount of time. His continued beheavior after being told he was acting uncivil is a primary motivator for such a harsh proposal.

    Please advise, Sven Manguard Talk 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: I just had the destinct displeasure of reading an exchange between MickMacNee and Kafziel on MickMacNee's talk page. Quite simply, MickMacNee has demonstrated extreme violations of good conduct, launching a series of increasingly angry and illogical personal attacks. I was tempted to slap the upper level personal attack and uncivil warnings on his page, but I doubt it will do any good. He has a long history of blocks and including one explicitly justified as ‎ "attitude not compatible with this project" from January of this year. For posterity, the attacks on the talk page are available here [136] It's time to ban this person for an extended period of time. Sven Manguard Talk 03:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, saw that gem awhile ago. Mick feels the need to badger most (all?) of the keep comments. I've seen him do it elsewhere as well. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)) Grsz11 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Sven brings up a good point. Everybody has the right to reply to comments in AFDs, of course, but his answers are becoming heated and incivil, and yes, badgering; and his replies to Kafziel ("Fucking 'TLDR', that just about sums up the issue for me, pure and utter laziness.", "I am bloody amazed you are an admin tbh") are unacceptable. He has also received a final warning for incivility. I'm not sure about barring MickMacNee from AFD is the best way to deal with this, but the situation is something that requires attention. That being said, I'm fairly new on the English Wikipedia, so I'm probably not the best person to comment on this. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 03:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have as much right as anyone to speak your mind Clementina. I think that it is high time to permanently block this user. He has had more than enough chances. I'm sure there is precedent for banning perpetually uncivil people, and there certainly is precedent for banning users with personal attack track records of this magnitude. Sven Manguard Talk 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Changed header title to reflect change in circumstances. Blocking from AfD is not enough, considering that the user takes his attacks beyond AfD. Sven Manguard Talk 03:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to ask, where is he being uncivil in the page linked? I only read the first half, but every one i looked at was quite appropriate. To take a random example of a strongly-worded but perfectly civil response:

    Arguing that it is both notable right now, and that it should be kept to see if it becomes notable, is not sound reasoning in the slightest. It is positively unsound reasoning infact. You would have more chance of having your vote counted if you didn't just piggy back other people's thoughts, when it's not even clear what policy or guideline is backing up their rather vague and WP:ATA-like opinions. MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

    Pointing out logically bereft arguments is the duty of any wikipedian. That's just plain good looking out for the project. Not every opinion is valid, AfD is not a vote. He may have stepped over the line, like i said i only read the first half, but this has been done before with him and afd, and the end result was whining about having to make your afd !votes actually defensible is not productive. -- ۩ Mask 04:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue are with his tone most of the time. He comes off rather stand-off-ish. [137]. As a note, I agree with him that the article in question should be deleted, do not agree that he should be blocked indef, and am just commenting as an observer. Grsz11 04:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mick's tone is not exactly conducive to mature and healthy debate, however, he is right. It would be a travesty if the AfD were closed as keep and nobody so much as challenged the the drive-by "follow the leader" votes. It's not much to ask people to produce some kind of informed rationale for their vote. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't think a ban is needed here. He has been blocked often in the past for repeated incivility, but as HJ Mitchell said, MickMacNee's opinion is usually not unreasonable - it's just that the tone in which he expresses them which is troubling. And while "follow the leader" votes may count as less than a personally written vote, yet sometimes a personally written vote is really just be a repetition of what another has more fully commented on, and the voter might feel that a succint endorsement would express his or her opinion just as well. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 04:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ, I thought that I had given a rationale as to why the accident is notable. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the OP is now effectively asking for a community ban, I would vote to oppose that remedy. But Mick has been here long enough to know that news stories in popular areas never get deleted, regardless of policy. Fighting that hard against the tide wont win any friends. Sometimes one has to simply accept what is and move onto other battles. Resolute 04:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit conflict:

    You are correct that pointing out bad logic is okay, but the way he does it is by attacking users, specificly saying that users are not entitled to their own opinions because they do not think for themselves. This is what I have the problem with.
    Direct cut and paste quotes:
    You really don't have any opinions of your own on the matter? None at all? Are we playing follow the leader here today? MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    This is an Afd. It is not disrespectful or badgering to expect you to have your own opinion on the matter. Given that your only contribution here is to agree with a contradictory rationale, whose actual intention w.r.t. the issue is still open to interpretation, I should think that it is more respectful for you to realise the deficiency of making such a vote, and correct it, rather than implying wrongdoing in others. MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    Treating it as a game as ever WR. I'm guessing you put as much thought into this Afd as all the others based on the evidence. I am pretty sure that whatever happened in those other debates, the outcomes really had nothing to do with anything you might have said, which is generally not a lot, as you can only seem to manage these sorts of 'per x' votes anyway, and then fall back on this ridiculous grandstanding act of yours. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    Plenty of things add nothing to an Afd. This warning was just one of them. You should just concentrate on not making the sort of reading mistakes like you did down below, and let others worry about their knowledge, or lack of, of the contents of CIVIL. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    Each of these are violations of civility policy. Telling people you disagree is okay, telling people that they are not thinking and don't deserve opinions is not okay. These are mostly from the first half of the article. There are other bits and pieces elsewhere, some of them better than these (although the first one is a real gem) but I didn't want to be accused of taking things out of context. Also, read his user talk, in the big blue box, for the reason I moved for a full ban. Sven Manguard Talk 04:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    May I respectfully suggest that we allow editors to read the AfD for themselves and form their own opinions? Taking quotes out of their original context, while not your intention, I'm sure, has a tendency to alter their meaning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I just did that because I've proven time and again how bad I am at the linking that everyone else seems to do easily. I encourage everyone interested to read the whole thing. My intention is not to distort. Sven Manguard Talk 04:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything here remotely approaching ban level. In the linked AfD, his comments may be a little more heated than need be, but they are addressing the issue—whether the article should be kept or deleted. He can argue with everyone who comments if he wants to. They're not required to engage with him, and the closing admin will also make the determination on which arguments are most firmly grounded in policy. I would also agree that "Fucking TLDR" is not the most civil thing to say, but responding to someone's argument or comment (as Kafziel did) with "tl;dr" is quite uncivil in itself—it's a dismissive handwave, and is quite rude. So while his response didn't exhibit the best behavior, what he was responding to exhibited rather poor behavior as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd suggest that if anyone ought to be banned then it's you Sven, for bringing this nonsense to the punishment board. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that comment certainly isn't helpful. Why does this page and its contributors have the terrible habit of creating more drama? Grsz11 04:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Now that is harsh. I again point out that this is a ban for a pattern of activity, it wouldn't be his first for incivilty, and the reason I am so concerned, despite what would normally be of little personal interest, is his treatment of Kafziel at "Wind Jet" on his talk page.
        • I'm staggered that you apparently can't see the irony in your question Grsz11. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The pile-on was not needed. Obviously nothing was going to come of Sven's proposal, but he brough up legit concerns. But stupid counter-comments aren't helpful. Why not just keep your mouth shut and ignore it? Grsz11 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Seraphimblade's assessment in that Kafziel shouldn't have used "tl;dr" in a discussion. It's counterproductive. On the other side, Mick is standoff-ish. I don't think he's at the level of communal ban. I would say open an RFC first, or take it to mediation. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, what? I'm confused here. What just happened, was Malleus being uncivil as an illustration of why we shouldn't tolerate incivility, or am I reading into this poorly? These last few posts have made no sense. Also, I am completely serious about the ban, but everyone is ignoring the talk page, the reason I am asking for the full ban, and focusing only on the AfD, which is now secondary. Sven Manguard Talk 04:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanction. MickMacNee has had, on occasions, civility issues, but his behaviour in this AfD is absolutely fine. I don't see any evidence of incivility, and legitimately questioning weakly (or even well) reasoned opinions is part of consensus-building, it isn't badgering. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I'm sure many will be aware, this has been going on for months. Please see the RFC that MickMacNee filed about my participation at AfD and the associated talk page for further information. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Disruptive behaviour at AfD where I attempted to gain the community's support in curbing MickMacNee's behaviour at AfD without success. This should not just be about MickMacNee, as there are other editors who indulge in similar behaviour. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    [expletive] You know, on the one hand this guy has pushed a whole lot of boundaries far too often, on the other hand it's 3AM where I am and I need to get some sleep. After seeing your post, I sincerely hope someone just up and bans this menace, but I am formally done with the issue, and unless this explodes onto my userspace, I'm not perusing it tomorrow morning. That being said, if you need anything don't be afraid to call. Sven Manguard Talk 06:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolve and move on?

    Okay, this has gotten out of hand, and it seems unlikely that there will be any blocks, so can we settle on a harshly worded final warning for incivility and a request that the user takes disagreement less personally, then move on. Either MickMacNee will calm down or he won't, and if he does this again, we can take this up again, but again, this ANI isn't going to end in a block or a section ban, and there continuing serves no purpose. Sven Manguard Talk 05:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I wasn't going to participate here, but I do think I should at least say that I do not think Mick's comments to me were out of line. We're both adults, we were speaking our minds, and in the end we agreed to disagree. I do think some of his comments at the AfD are pretty bad, which is why (as I said on his talk page) I declined to respond to him there, but it's certainly nothing that's going to get him banned from AfD. So let's just close this and move on to something more productive. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mick is often abrasive, but all I see here is him trying to make a strong case for deletion and to point out invalid arguments and to debunk the straw man arguments advanced for retaining the article. There is fairly terse language on both sides, and it would be unfair to single Mick out for any punishment. Anyhoo, it may be that the OP to this thread genuinely thinks Mick is being exceptionally uncivil, or simply that he may feel threatened by the relentless assault on his own hollow arguments. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I posted my keep vote after this whole thing began. I doubt that Mick even knows I exist, considering that this entire thing appears to have taken place while he was offline. Sven Manguard Talk 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohconfucius, I hear what you're saying, but by doing so, isn't MickMacNee insulting the intelligence of the closing admin/editor? In my experience, regular AfD closers are quite capable of evaluating the arguments for and against deletion, and making a decision on the merits of those arguments. In the rare cases they get it wrong, there is a mechanism for dealing with it. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He may well be, but he hasn't to my mind breached WP:CIVIL (and if he has, he's not the only one), although he may have perhaps overstepped WP:POINT. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A final warning? He didn't do anything. So no, we can not settle on that. This entire thread has been people saying they dont see what you're upset about. -- ۩ Mask 05:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      "Didn't do anything" is laying it on a bit thick. But, yes, it's not THAT big a deal. Sven has been editing for all of two weeks, so maybe everyone could give him a break already. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I actually did not know that, and I do apologize. I just assumed someone who has found ANI has more experience then two weeks. This can be a learning experience for him, and I don't hold it against him at all. No harm, no foul :) -- ۩ Mask 10:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about we just give both Mick and Kafziel a trouting for letting their talkpage discussion get a bit overly heated, and all move on with our lives? No harm, no foul on both sides, IMO. rdfox 76 (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a clarification, this began as my objection to Mick's beheavior on ANI, then I saw his warnings and block log and realized that he has a history of these things. That's when I went all out. I admit that it might have gotten out of hand, but I saw him as an aggressor mistreating a half dozen people and stepped in out of what now seems like a misplaced desire to protect others from what I perceived to be a community threat. I'm sorry for the trouble I caused. Sven Manguard Talk 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner

    Created on the 15th of September, with 8 editors endorsing it as well as the two who certified it, this seems to have had no effect on Milogardner (talk · contribs) who has made minimal input to the RfC. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Talk:Rhind Mathematical Papyrus 2/n table. I'm one of those who certified it so I may be seen as involved, but I think it is time that some action is taken to stop his disruptive editing. I'll notify him about this thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) (thanks for fixing my sig, clicking on the sig icon at the bottom has been giving me a very erratic response for weeks, placing it in section headings, edit summaries, etc, anywhere other than where it should be Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

    • I'm not really sure what can be done about this user. He does not seem to be responsive to the RFC and has just used it as another venue to expand on his personal thesis (RFC Response). This thesis has adversely affected pretty much the whole of the coverage of the work on Egyptian Mathematics for several years now. I would suspect further attempts at Dispute Resolution will be similarly unproductive, so we might want to look at a community ban.--Salix (talk): 10:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support an indefinite topic ban from Egypt-related topics, until the user signals that they got the message. Hans Adler 13:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please cite one or more specifics? Every one of my latest posts cite scholars and scribal issues ... Anneka Bart cites 'common sense' opinions without citing sources, therefore being unclear and non-Wikipedian. What are you folks going to do about her practices? One background issue all along has been: was Egyptian math intellectual or emotional in scope? I will continue to side with the intellectual facts, taking Wikipedia posting rules and practices into proper account adding scholars at every level ... Get used to it, and document Egyptian math controversies ... ignoring a controversy is non-scholarly and non-Wikipedian ... The recent 'flap' revolves around single false position, a proposed form of Egyptian division that Howard Eves reported in my undergrad History of Math class 48 years ago. Note that Wikipedia correctly discusses the topic in terms of diffusion from India and documented byuFibonacci in the Liber Abaci ... no one has added the proposed scribal idea with hard evidence ... I'd like to read several updated scholarly reports on Ahmes' false position that guessed (at first partitions) as scribal division operations ... ignore or fix Wikipedia's false position ... Egyptian scribal division used divisors n and inverted and multiplied by 1/n to prove answers (example: RMP 38, Clagett (1999), multiplied one hekat (320 ro) by 7/22 and 22/7, returning 320 ro; and Akhmim Wooden Tablet, Vymazalova (2002), multiplied one hekat (64/64) by 1/3, 1/7, 1/10, 1/11 and 1/13 and multiplied by 3, 7, 10, 11 and 13, and returned (64/64) facts that are not in dispute. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The only relevant background issue has been that your idea of what Wikipedia is and how it works is very different from everybody else's, and that you are not really listening when people try to explain it to you. This behaviour is described in WP:IDHT. It is so common here, and so detrimental to our goal of writing an encyclopedia, that it often ends in editors being blocked for it. If you want to contribute to the project you will need flexibility and openness w.r.t. what the community of editors tells you. Most of us experts get away with a bit of original research, when done appropriately. What nobody gets away with is huge amounts of original research that is so fresh that it contains errors, and which we push into articles against the opposition of other experts. Hans Adler 13:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin - User:Nyttend

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

    You may not have wanted this issue broached, but I'm going to bring it up anyway. First, anyone has the capability of deleting a tag, so you can't argue for stripping his adminship on that basis. You can argue that he doesn't understand issues around images, and that's a normal editing issue... which leads to the second point, which is that the rules and regulations for images on wikipedia are extraordinarily complex, unclear and confusing, so it's not at all surprising when someone doesn't understand. Compounding that is users such as yourself who tag stuff for deletion when the wording is not precisely correct as per this week's version of the rules, when your better course would be to advise the user of what the appropriate tag might be... assuming you even know. The other day I asked at the help desk about the proper tag for an image. Their response was "read the rules", which is absolutely a useless response. The rules make no sense except maybe if you already understand the rules. Which is why I only upload photos I've taken, because "PD-self" is the only tag that I can make certain sense of and which doesn't seem to change every week or month. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)::I apologize if I wasn't clear - the issue is not the removal of tags on a few images. The issue is their overall apparent lack of understanding of terms, polices, guidelines and so on that extends to closure of deletion discussions, participation in deletion discussions, denial of image deletions, removal of tags and so on. And I concur with what you said - that the polices ("rules) may not make sense to some, however I have offered, and suggested, that if they did not understand something to ask and they have refused. About the "self" tags - they are used because they are convenient most of the time, not because every image uploaded is actual taken by the uploader. In other words an "author" may not always be the "source". A scan marked as "self" may, in the eyes of the uploader, be true in that they did the scan so they are the "source" and the "author", however that is not what the "self" tags are meant for and an admin should understand that if they work with images. The same for images found on the internet - a user may very well find a cool image on facebook and upload it here using a "self" tag because it was they who uploaded it. However that is not a correct use of the tag, but is may be a good faith mistake. That is why tags such as {{di-no source}} are used. It is not a speedy tag, it is a tag where there is a copyright tag/license tag in place but there is no clear source. In order to verify the license and copyright we need to know a source. An image from the internet without a source may not be clear, but an admin should look over the uploader uploads to see what else has been uploaded - are all the images exactly the same? Are they different but all claimed as "self"? Does the user have a history of uploading others work and claiming it as their own? But with some images it is blatant - and if an admin does work with images and views File:19 no. Azimpur Road.jpg as an original photograph there is a clear issue with that admins understanding of images. Just to illustrate two other examples (Not related to Nyttend) - I can look at File:2005 Champs.jpg and "assume good faith" that it is most likely a user created image. I do not question that, I sent it to IfD because it is unused and appears to be a personal snapshot. File:Farmers of the Blue Hills, 2010.jpg is licensed as "self" and even states the uploader full name as the author. Someone with a keen eye spotted it was being used in the Richard Winkler article, meaning Richard Winkler is the author, not the uploader. Had I discovered that I most like would have marked with a {{di-no permission}} tag and there would have been a high probability Nyttend would have removed it claiming it was very clear that the uploader was the author. In either case however (Being sent to PuF or tagged no permission) the end result would have been the same - the uploader was informed and had Richard Winkler submit a permissions email to OTRS. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect there is some confusion about process - admins are only empowered to speedy delete obvious cases, and just about everything else gets pushed through Files for Deletion. In situations where a speedy is declined, I'd suggest opening a discussion at Files for Deletion. If the discussion is closed as 'keep' and you consider that an error has occurred, you should then speak to the closing admin. If afterwards you still consider the decision to keep was a mistake, then you can open a discussion at Deletion Review.PhilKnight (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am seeing I was not 100% clear in this. Read my above response and see if it makes it more clear. If not let me know and I will start a list. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem knowledgeable, so I'll ask you: I took a photo from commons, isolated a portion of it, and uploaded it under a new name. I used PD-self, but that doesn't seem correct. What would be the correct tag to use? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the original license? PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)In response to Baseball Bugs - It would matter what the original license was, and what is contained in the image that you have isolated. For example if you took a picture of your living room and your TV set was in the picture and was turned on. The overall image could be freely licensed but, for example, if someone did a "remix" and kept only the image on the TV screen there is a likelihood that image is *not* available under a free license. This is why "self" images of screen/frame grabs are often speedied as copyvios. Actual photographs of tv sets, movie screens, jumbotrons will vary. As will photographs that contain other trademarks and copyrighted material. (And any associated derivatives) Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This File:Target Field - Opening Day of Inaugural Season.jpg is the original photo. I referenced that photo in my description of my subset of it: File:Target Field retired numbers.JPG ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Quoting Soundvisions: About the "self" tags - they are used because they are convenient most of the time, not because every image uploaded is actual taken by the uploader. In other words an "author" may not always be the "source". This statement can be true of many images with a statement of "Own work by uploader"; for example, last night, I deleted File:McMahon Stadium.jpg, even though it had a statement of "I (Shahroze (talk)) created this work entirely by myself.", because it was obviously taken from this webpage. An upload cannot be more trusted simply because the uploader said "Own work", and it should not be less trusted simply because the uploader claimed authorship solely through a self template. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The overall issue is an ongoing one. Again, to everyone reading this, I used just two recent examples. I am more the willing to help *anyone* with why I tag images the way I do - and I *have* done that with many admins and other editors. To explain what a "source" and an "author" is should not be really needed when it comes to admins *if* they do a lot of work with images. Also "rollback" is not that seam as a "revert". I reverted tag removals, I did not "rollback" because of vandalism. What Nyttend has a pattern of may be attributed to many things - their unwillingness to discuss it prior to this point is also an issue. As for "good faith" arguments - it is bad faith to assume anyone who uses a semi speedy tags such as {{di-no permission}} and {{di-no source}} is not assuming good faith. I have stated this in the past - it is not the intent to speedy everything, it is the intent to clarify sources in order to confirm copyright. I have used "di" tags for year and it has not been until the last few week that Nyttend had repeatedly removed/denied/question my use of them. Considering my first real noticeable interaction with Nyttend was only this year, the issue of when they became and admin is somewhat irrelevant. The question really is - how long do you want this ANI to be? I can take the entire day and provide links with specific questions if need be. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Read Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools: this Twinkle feature is meant to enable you effectively to have rollback if you haven't been granted it as an explicit user right. You're responsible to use it only to revert vandalism. Anyway, as I don't remember encountering you until recently, why would you expect my concerns to have surfaced before the last few weeks? In case you've not noticed, I delete images for lack of a source rather frequently; for one example, I've never complained to Magog the Ogre for tagging File:Heinrich thomas mann.jpg under that criterion: no source was provided, and it wasn't obviously PD for age or simplicity reasons. You have failed to assume good faith on the part of uploaders who claim authorship through certain means. What's more, you persist in following the wrong means of deleting these images; if you'd stop trying to speedy these images (and yes, tagging for lack of a source is speedy deletion; it's accomplished by criterion F4, not by some other process) instead of taking them to PUF or FFD, we wouldn't have this problem. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    In mid-September a discussion relating primarily to User:Gniniv took place here at ANI (archive). Gniniv's declaration of retirement on 15 Sep appears to have cut short that discussion. User:Terra Novus was created on 18 Sep, and after it became clear that the account was not a new user (raising WP:SOCK concerns), he was asked to disclose to someone who he was, which he sort of did here, though as User:Carcharoth had no prior knowledge of the new account, this just caused confusion. (There's also this to confirm the link.) Terra Novus has said that he is making use of WP:CLEANSTART, but is continuing to edit some of the same articles [139], and the way his 3-day retirement cut short the previous ANI discussion leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I'm not sure what the best course of action is here - but it does not seem appropriate use of CLEANSTART, and the way both Gniniv's old signature was virtually unreadable and his new one is slightly misleading ("Novus Orator" instead of account name "Terra Novus") doesn't help matters. Perhaps the best thing would be for users who had issues with this user to start an WP:RFC/U. At any rate, the matter seems to merit an airing. Rd232 talk 13:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Bot War

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

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

    The problem is with ChuispastonBot (talk · contribs). I have warned the bot's talk page, and its owner. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my assumption, too, because that was the bot that kept removing the link (see my partly serious, partly facetious comment). Thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=388696973"