George1918 (talk · contribs) created a badly formulated poll at Talk:Homeopathy#Is Homeopathy a reliable source for scientific or evidence based medical conclusions? (apparently under the impression that being a "reliable source" is an intrinsic property of a source unrelated to the claim in question), and PPdd (talk · contribs) spammed notifications to a dozen more or less related talk pages. (See Talk:Homeopathy#Objection to the nonsense poll above for a more detailed explanation of the situation from my POV.) I propose that an admin warns both editors to be more careful in the future and, unless PPdd does so themselves, removes most of the spammed notifications as inappropriate. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Update: Ppdd created the poll, misrepresenting earlier comments by two other editors by taking them out of their original context and putting them into a completely new one. The poll was not George1918's fault at all, but was created in a way that implied that it was. I have written more about this below. I apologise for my initial confusion. Hans Adler 23:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I created the poll as a subsection from George1918's question by isolating the unresolved part of the question as a subsection header. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, the atmosphere at the article was quiet and almost harmonious for a long time, but recently it looks as if there might be a return to the old battleground behaviour that led to several Arbcom cases. Symptoms include the appearance of a new sceptic editor who tried to rewrite the historically contentious lead completely without knowing or researching the first thing about the topic, and the sudden appearance of a likely sock of a banned pro-homeopathy editor.

I believe the article is still under discretionary sanctions. While certainly no action should be taken against any individual editor (except for the possible sock; I have filed an SPI), it may soon become necessary to give formal warnings to new editors or to editors whose formal warning about the article sanctions happened long ago. It would be great if a few uninvolved admins could keep an eye on the talk page. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

I am one of the editors who "spammed" to relevant Wikiprojects related to using the journal Homeopathy as RS for a physics article in it showing a miraculous "matter genrating machine" at the nanolevel.

Before notifying relevant Wikiprojects (and I presume by the same reasoning, article talk pages related to the RS debate) I was explicitly told by an admin that it was appropriate to do so here[1] --

"How do I "inform a Wikiproject"? I would have liked to do so in several articles, but is this not WP:Canvassing? HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! No it isn't, quite the opposite: wikiprojects exist exactly to provide help from editors who specialize or anyway care about a subject. You just go to the desired wikiproject talk page, open a new section and ask with a neutral message for help. --Cyclopia^talk 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)]".

After the notifications I was again told by an admin it was "reasonable" here --[2],

"I put a notice to please vote at a Wikiproject to which the article belonged. I was told that this is the appropriate place to request votes, though I was told to be neutral and should not express a POV as to how to vote. Did I make a mistake? PPdd (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject; it is also good form to post a note at the discussion saying that you did so. (There might be an expectation that members of the project would tend vote in a block (true or not), and it's good to be completely open about how a discussion has been publicised.) LadyofShalott 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)"

PPdd (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, FYI, although Cyclopia is a very experienced long-time editor here ("reviewer" status) I don't believe they are an admin. You need to add a tool to your monobook that immediately provides lots of information when you let your mouse pointer hover over a link. In this case it immediately tells me this about Cyclopia: "reviewer, 6735 edits since: 2004-07-25". It even shows me the top of their userpage! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject". It is unreasonable, however, to post a link to 3 WikiProjects (Rational skepticism, Medicine, Alternative medicine), 3 policy/guideline talk pages (RS, MEDRS, FRINGE) and 5 articles (List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, pathological science). Hans Adler 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this ANI is premature. HkFnsNGA is a good-faith editor with some common newbie issues that need ironing out (and it seems they're improving in fact), and George1918 is quite a classical case of tendentious newbie or semi-newbie (I cannot and will not comment on possible sockpuppeting issues). Nothing odd I'd say for such an article, and I wouldn't raise an AN/I for what looks like the natural cycle of such articles on WP. However the "poll" itself was actually helpful (or at least not harmful) in settling the specific matter. I fully agree with Hans Adler that sources are not reliable or not in a vacuum but obviously by context -yet the context indicated in the poll (and most importantly in the poll opinions) was quite circumscribed. I also don't think that notifying wikiprojects per se is akin to spamming -they exist for these very reasons. I personally would have notified the RS/N (don't know if it has been actually done) and perhaps moved the discussion there, but the more eyes on a controversial issue, the better. --Cyclopia^talk 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Cyclopia: FYI, HkFnsNGA (now PPdd) isn't a newbie. Their present status: "3824 edits since: 2009-11-18" . -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If I had been aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed I might have acted somewhat differently, but I was not aware and I don't think that's my fault. It appeared to me that one problematic new user had temporarily disappeared and another problematic user appeared. Even with the new knowledge I don't think this report is premature. The homeopathy article had an extremely bad atmosphere in the past, and excessive spamming of canvasing messages creates a real chance that we will return to that situation soon. The situation should be monitored by uninvolved admins.

This [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] was not just "notifying wikiprojects", it was far out of proportion. Especially for an attempt to canvas answers to a question that didn't need asking in the first place because the answer is so obvious. Hans Adler 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed as well. There are a few talk page notices which make little sense but I see nothing serious happening from that. And again: it may seem so obvious to us but this doesn't mean it is obvious to everyone. Too many times I've seen (in WP and in real life) the "obvious" challenged by good faith people. It is good to have a consensus even on the obvious to better rebuke who wants to challenge the obvious due to a POV. --Cyclopia^talk 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Boy does that ever apply here! George1918 is such an editor....a very persistent POV pusher who fails to understand many things about how science works. Of course that's generally to be expected from those who are true believers in homeopathy. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns Hans Adler must have felt when seeing what he thought was a newbie engaged in so much activity! Fortunately it was an experienced editor and the poll was about a specific issue. (In fact, when I discovered that someone didn't follow the link and tried !voting "on the spot", I followed PPdd's trail and made a clearer notice of where to !vote.)

We need to differentiate between proper "notifications" and improper "canvassing":

• Notifications of polls, RfCs, etc. are normally sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification. It is important in doing so to include the talk pages of both believers and skeptics, otherwise it's de facto "canvassing".

• Canvassing would be sending such notifications in a manner to get a desired result, either by selective notification or by asking for a certain result. That's very wrong.

In this case I don't see a violation of the prohibition against canvassing. (Whether the question is really unnecessary to ask because the answer is obvious is another matter.) In this case it related to a specific situation and was to demonstrate to a pushy and persistent newbie what the consensus of editors believed on the matter, and it seems to have served the purpose. Some of the !votes were excellent answers that showed how even a normally questionable source should be treated (decision about use as a RS made on a case-by-case basis). Even an often questionable source can be used in some circumstances. It's not a black/white situation.

I'm not saying that everything about this matter was necessarily worded perfectly, or done completely wisely, but in principle I don't see any gross violation. At worst it was a good faith attempt to settle an issue that was very pressing and causing quite a bit of disruption, especially because it was coming from a newbie of questionable origins. Any advice from others who see this from other angles would no doubt be welcomed by all concerned parties here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I endorse BullRangifer above statement completely. --Cyclopia^talk 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't.

• PPdd is not an "experienced editor". PPdd is an over-enthusiastic newbie who is about to cause serious damage at one of our historically most contentious articles, possibly steering it straight to Arbcom.
• The poll was not about a specific issue, or at least not a sensible one. It's hard to tell because it was so unclear. The only thing that was clear was that "no" was the only sensible answer, and that this could later be overinterpreted. Not too long ago I have seen something eerily similar, and it caused a great deal of disruption that was hard to deal with. As a result, I no longer have any tolerance for such bullshit. (As a general comment, I have hardly ever seen a single editor or two create a poll and advertise it widely without waiting for input and approval of the poll's formulation from their fellow editors. I don't know if this is regulated in any way, but acting like this is a sure path to chaos.)
• Notifications are not normally "sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification". At least not for values of "numerous" that lie around 10. Two or perhaps three talk pages are reasonable. Eleven are not.
• The choice of talk pages does not appear completely unbiased, either, although I consider this a very minor point.

That said, I agree it wasn't a "gross violation". But it was behaviour that needs to stop. Hans Adler 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Hans, FYI, HkFnsNGA (now PPdd) isn't a newbie. Their present status: "3824 edits since: 2009-11-18" . -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still puzzled as to what to do regarding notification to projects and talk pages to end limitless questions about RS and alternative medicine and pseudoscience journals. The RS related talk pages are directly on point for notification, so are the three projects. I was told that this might create a "block voting" situation, so I thought (thinking there would be a swarm of reacting pseudoscience POV pushers voting) it best to post at talk on relevant article talk pages. (I thought junk science was synonymous with pseudoscience in the court and politics. I was once malisciously prosecuted using what a major national president of a scientific body described in his a keynote address at his body's annual national meeting as, alternatively, "junk physical science" then "pseudoscience".) If the situation arises again, I do not know what is proper. Selectively notifying relevant talk pages is a kind of canvassing. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How was the discussion related to improvements of any of the following articles? list of topics characterised as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, pathological science. I think I can be forgiven if I got the impression that you selected these articles because you expected to find a certain type of editor there, rather than because of any relevance of the question to the articles themselves. You could just as well have notified editors at articles such as Catholicism, Discovery Institute and parapsychology. That would not have been OK, either. Hans Adler 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I expected editors at talk at list of topics characterised as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, and pathological science to be interested in what or what is not RS for pseudoscience, when there is a claim to use a scientific method in the article in question (as was made in the electron miscroscope article on nanoparticles in Homeopathy. In circles I travel in, junk science is used more commonly than pseudoscience to describe the same thing. Pathological science and pseudoscience are often used interchangeably, e.g., by what Brangifer referred to about DNA-electromagnetism studies and homeopathy (called alternatively pseudoscience or pathological science. I almost did not post at these, thinking it would attract a bunch of nuts, but I decided to do it anyway because I thought I was being biased if I did not. PPdd (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Assuming good faith, I have tolerantly read George1918's extensive ultra-POV comments at homeopathy talk, as well as the full and sincere time other editors have spent responding to them. His proposal for Homeopathy as RS to put science and medicine things in the homeopathy article was voted down by unanious consensus. George1918 has made ZERO contributions to WP other than (1) many huge comments at the talk page of homeopahy, (2) linking a single date (e.g., "1918" to "1918") in a handful of articles (edits that were immediately reverted, with edit summary not to link dates, which he ignored), and (3) capitalizing "no." to "No" in one article.[14] It is odd that he created a new account a short time ago, but seemed to have sophisticated knowledge of WP policies from the outset. The extensive and ultra-fringe POV expressed in comments seems highly disruptive. PPdd (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it healthy to develop such an "obsession" for or against an editor following him around? Please reconsider and try to be friendly: provide reasons and reliable sources. It easier and more fun than that you are currently doing. --George1918 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• The meaning of my question was - as I have stated - Is Homeopathy a reliable source for reporting various claims of homeopathy ?. You changed it conducting your poll. I asked this question because I saw the journal Homeopathy to be used as a reference multiply times in the article, without any objection. When it was suggested that claims of homeopathy published in the same journal to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes - the journal became automatically unreliable for any purpose. Furthermore another editor -replying to my question- said that all references using homeopathy should be replaced by reliable sources. The same thing of course happens to NCCAM website and the American Medical Association which seem to have double properties: Reliable to take entire quotes describing how much homeopathy is ineffective and unsupported by science and unreliable for reporting any info which might provide such as that NCCAM funds homeopathy research. I don't really know who demonstrates an excessive point of view here. Maybe you should ask yourself. Can we try to be more honest here? I might have to repeat that I have nothing to do with homeopathy and I believe that the topic is not presented netrualy even by wikipedia standards which means : accurate and complete presentation of homeopathy claims and accurate and complete representation of the mainstream experts's opionions - not only the opinion of the skeptics scientists. --George1918 (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

George1918, you talk about honesty, but I believe your presentation is itself misleading. You write: "When it was suggested that claims of homeopathy published in the same journal to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes - the journal became automatically unreliable for any purpose." By adding some words there ("to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes"), you changed the whole history of what happened. (Maybe you thought those words, but you didn't write them. If you ever did, then it was much later, after you had created much confusion by insisting it was a reliable source. We were fairly clear that it's use as a RS is very limited, that is for opinions, but not for scientific facts. The poll was worded as it was because we needed to make it clear to you that Homeopathy couldn't be used for such purposes. For the opinions of homeopathists? Of course. That's obvious. I believe there was ONE editor who went a bit overboard at first and declared it couldn't be considered a RS at all, but that editor likely wasn't thinking about the possibility of using it for opinions. No, you're not being honest here. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see any good faith in this comment- if I m asking a simple question, someone changes its words and meaning, creates a little canvassing crusade around and a mess and the same time I m the one to be blamed for this situation? Isn't more than obvious whose mistake and responsibility that is? But my comment on honesty regards the double standards editors have for the same sources: reliable when they are debunking and unreliable when they refer to even a controversial aspect of the topic --George1918 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

George1918, don't change the subject. You made statements immediately above that are not exact quotes of what you actually said. You added a number of qualifying words that didn't exist in your original statements at Talk:Homeopathy. Your statements above are thus misleading and can give editors who were not involved in the discussions at Talk:Homeopathy the impression that we have somehow misrepresented you. No, your original statements were simple and thus open to interpretation. Here are the first of your statements questioning whether the journal Homeopathy is a "reliable source":

• The article [ Homeopathy ] states that homeopathic remedies (high dilutions) are indistinguishable from water and the article [journal Homeopathy] disputes that. This a reliable source - correct? --George1918 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC) [I had to add identification for each use of the word "article", since George1918 was referring to two different things.]

• Did you make up your minds yet? Is it "homeopathy" a reliable source or not? It cannot be both. --George1918 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

After that last statement, PPdd formed a poll to clear up that question. The results of the poll provided some good explanations for why it can indeed be both.

So don't try to mislead others here by making statements that aren't true. You didn't ask "Is Homeopathy a reliable source for reporting various claims of homeopathy?" That may have been your "meaning", as you state above, but that was not clear when you made your original, simple, statements. You made the two statements above and neither time was it clear you meant "for reporting various claims of homeopathy" or "included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes". If you had done that there would have been no confusion or need for a poll. No George1918, my reply to you was in good faith. I just point out how your original statements were simple and ambiguous, and how your big objection above is very misleading. That's it. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not. If you create a poll or request for comment it is appropriate to discuss with fellow editors first and not to take their question change its words and then add your interpretation. Adler said the same and he is right in that.--George1918 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is (misleading). Your statements above are misleading and I pointed it out. Don't try to change the subject. The matter of the poll that followed is another matter. You can discuss that until you're blue in the face, and it won't change the fact that your statements above are misleading and your two original questions were simple and ambiguous, and they (because of your POV) caused enough confusion that it was felt necessary to create a poll. -- Brangifer (talk)

Part of the discussion above is bizarre. I must apologise to George1918 for not returning to this thread earlier and seeing what was going on here. George1918 made a comment that was absolutely reasonable for what it was: a short, quick contribution to a long conversation. Ppdd then totally misrepresented this edit with [this edit]. The edit:

• added a heading right before George1918's comment,
• removed all indentation from George1918's comment, moving it from level 11 to level 0
• similarly removed all indentation from Jmh649's response,
• reformatted Jmh649's reply as if it was a vote in a poll, and
• added another, genuine poll vote Ppdd themselves.

This was a violation of WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable ("Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context.") and WP:TALK#Others' comments ("Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning [...]").

The edit separated George1918's comment from the discussion to which it was a minor contribution and created the following impression:

• That George1918 started the poll section.
• That George1918, rather than commenting briefly and probably wihtout much thought in a long discussion, intended and expected this comment to have a lot of weight.
• That George1918 supported holding a poll on the question.
• That Jmh649 supported holding a poll on the question and in fact participated in it.
• That the context for "reliable source" in George1918's comment was reliability "for physics conclusions" (later section title changes, I believe also by Ppdd, created other, equally wrong impressions) rather than the actual context, in which I, for example, had written: "I doubt that we have to wait for [other sources] before reporting what the paper found as just that: Something that was published in a homeopathy journal."

These were serious distortions of a scale that I initially did not realise at all. This edit did not correct the distortions. It was totally insufficient as a warning about what Ppdd had done. It is unfortunate that George1918 did not immediately revert Ppdd's manipulations. Hans Adler 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I may have got a detail wrong in my analysis, but it is totally inacceptable for Ppdd to claim that they did not take comments out of context, as they did here. I propose a stern warning by an admin. I currently have no confidence that the editor will learn from this serious mistake. Hans Adler 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

clearly pushing an agenda at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood?action=history and time for a topic ban i see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.168.84.76 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I see User:WikiManOne working to defuse a lot of recent POV editing... can you offer specific diffs where he's actually promoting a pov? I may be missing whatever it is you're seeing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

for example at talk:pro-life he is clearly trying to push a pov. i think he has potential to be a good aditor maybe a topic ban from abortion for awhile will help [[184.168.84.76 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)]]

I hate to put this down, as I see WikiManOne as a good editor, but this and this are troublesome. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

this was worrisome as well. He is a youngin' and capable of growing out of it. I think something in the neighborhood of a 1 month topic-ban would be for the best. - Haymaker (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, another IP address starts a report on the noticeboard complaining of edits to the same article and gets subsequently banned. This is getting ridiculous... for those of you complaining about my edits to the article, I wish you would take a closer look. I have taken out statements that were POV in both ways and am operating on the basis of consensus on the talk page. This just one example of me taking out a pro-choice POV in the article. [15] _WikiMan^One 21:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have ZERO problem removing POV, in fact I encourage it. But the two edits I posted seem to be the removal of alot of posts from media sources. Can you explain why this was necessary? Note: The pro-life/anti-abortion subject is one I know little about. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I believed they constituted undue weight. I note the page later qualified for protection and there was enough consensus during that time for an admin to remove it entirely as I initially did. [16] The reason I removed the verified information in those two posts were because the criticism constituted undue weight imo and was an example of WP:BITR. As you can see from this version of the article, the controversy was the largest section, and there was yet more criticism under legal positions. I thought (and consensus seemed to agree on the talk page leading to the current version) that this was too much mention considering the article's length, I always err on the side of not covering enough negative material than adding too much, but I think this was an obvious case of anti-abortion pov influencing the content of an article. _WikiMan^One 22:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The blocked IP was not as a user but for a broken proxy, so I guess you have to AGF on that one. Someone has just flipped pro-life back to anti-abortion. I've left a note on his talk page. Sitush (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting, an IP address using a proxy gets blocked after doing the same actions as another IP address who was blocked for trying to get around their previous indefinite ban. Very interesting. _WikiMan^One 22:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, that makes sense. I probably would have found that with a little more digging but I wouldn't know how to make heads or tails of that subject. My concerns are satisfied. I see no agenda pushing here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. There is clearly agenda pushing going on from multiple parties on two sides of the abortion issue here. The party in question appears to be playing a rather central role, but is not alone. The entire charade needs to stop. Someone should have closed down that ill advised move discussion as soon as it was born. Now we're left with drama all over the place.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - As discussed here, hacking open this can of worms and trying to justify it by pointily opening up another can of worms isn't particularly impressive either. As I suggested above, WikiManOne looks like he's entered WP:BATTLEGROUND territory and could use a break from abortion topics, either self-imposed or as a community decision.Griswaldo (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying he should abort his editing for a while? Oh dear, I went there, didn't I? HalfShadow 22:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Could a user on the WP:1.0 project or an admin create a stat table at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Albemarle County articles by quality statistics please and link it at WP:ALVA? It would be much appreciated. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Worked with an admin on IRC and got it taken care of. Credit goes to Sven Manguard for finding the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is considerable controversy within the HIV community about when therapy HIV infection should be initiated. Most experts believe that everyone who is infected with the virus should be offered therapy. There are many activists within the HIV community who oppose this. These activists are very militant. MuZemike is one of these activists. He has blocked me from editing Wikipedia for this reason. [23] This is my ONLY crime. He has made it clear that he will not stop abusing his Check User privileges on his own.

P.S. I cannot notify MuZemike of this incident report because his talk page is semi-protected and I am blocked from editing it. ~~KBlott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.236.189 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I have blocked KBlott a good while ago due to persistent sock puppetry and disruption on HIV and other articles pertaining to AIDS denialism: please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KBlott and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KBlott/Archive. He's on here right now because I blocked a recent sock of his, NotKBlott (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, what was this user going to do with KBott (talk · contribs), which I just also blocked? –MuZemike 19:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

*WhhstwhhstwhsstwhsstSMACK!* HalfShadow 19:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No you blocked me because I don’t adhere to your denialist views. I broke no other rule. --KBlott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.236.189 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked. Nakon 19:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend a rangeblock so the user doesn't IP hop. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I wanted to contact a person, on a subject that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and going to their website I find this comment: Contact My talk page or <removed email>, now as I didn't particularly want to send an email to this individual I followed their advice and posted my message to them on their talk page As they requested.

This was clearly a "honey trap", because within a few minutes of posting it on their talk page as they directed from outside Wikipedia, someone reported me for breaching a Wikipedia policy (You won't believe me but I know because I went back to delete it!)

Now, as this William Connolley only does the climate - any personal message to this guy is going to involve the climate and not everyone is going to be "how wonderful you are". This is a communication that has nothing to do with Wikipedia - and if I broke some policy, it was this guy who was responsible for encouraging communication on the climate when he has been in the thick of all this (I hardly ever edit wikipedia because of people like him)

It was a private message to this individual which someone then abused procedure to ban me for several days. Frankly, I'm already disgusted with Wikipedia (as you will be able to tell by my writings), but I have NEVER BROKEN THE RULES ... except where they were blatantly stupid like this ban. My username is Isonomia ... and I'm sorry if you post and I don't respond because Wikipedia doesn't want to hear from climate sceptics like me, so I don't see the point even trying to edit ... so I only log in once in a blue moon. PS. I've not notified anyone ... as a sceptic I get banned if I do contact people ... and no doubt if I don't so what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.234.255 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am slightly confused on what exactly you are requesting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You were blocked for blatant harrasment – don't pretend it was anything else. Your IP has now also been blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very sympathetic.

Your post to WMC was rude. You claim it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, yet you posted from a Wikipedia account to a Wikipedia talk page and discussed Wikipedia business (banning). I'll AGF your current explanation that you came across the request to post at WP from an outside source, but there is nothing in your message to indicate that, nor would that even give you absolution. I happen to think a warning, rather than a block was warranted, but you are not exactly blameless in this.--SPhilbrickT 20:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest even if it didn't get consideration trying to keep [24] on your user page doesn't help. Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mechamind90 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing the non-free licenses on images that are derivative works of copyrighted product labels, logos, etc. The user is also changing the speedy deletion tags to ones that are inappropriate for some reason. The following images are the ones in question, I don't know if the user has been doing this to others:

1. File:YoplaitS.jpg
2. File:Lomza Beer.jpeg
3. File:WarkaBeer.jpeg
4. File:HapoelscarfS.jpg
5. File:RamahshirtS.jpg
6. File:CzechdollS.jpg
7. File:NaotboxS.jpg

Kelly ^hi! 23:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want this to be considered an incident. Trademark is obvious, but I'm comparing it to others that I've seen such as some of the images that can be found in the article on Coca-Cola, which are identified as public domain. What I'd say is that if those particular images are free but subject to trademark, the same applies to these (but first would require removal of the DI tag in general, which I didn't do). mechamind90 23:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

All I know is that not all images that contain a photo of a trademarked brand but are still just photos are not in the same field. When they're all the same (except in the case of specific products that were made pre-1923, or PD-70 or any free license), only then can we really consider the general issue resolved. mechamind90 23:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be confused but what does public domain Coca-Cola trademark images have to do with File:RamahshirtS.jpg (where the issue doesn't seem to be trademark at all)? Also if you 'don't know' might it be advisable to either seek help or leave it to someone who does know? Are you aware of how seriously we treat copyright issues. Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• All the above listed images are copyvios except for File:HapoelscarfS.jpg and File:RamahshirtS.jpg, for which the copyrighted portions are not the main subject of the photo and are a small enough part to fall under de minimis. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  I agree those two images are close to the borderline; they'd be deleted on Commons (likely) since the copyrighted parts of the image are what they are being used for. Kelly ^hi! 03:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I am aware of Wikipedia regarding copyright and being more strict than general copyright law, but what I was trying to say is that not all photos containing such trademarks are treated equally (whether considered free or non-free, only one would make sense, and I actually don't mind which one). mechamind90 05:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• For File:HapoelscarfS.jpg, the actual copyrighted logo parts are very small (the text would fall under {{pd-ineligible}}, I'd imagine), so I don't think that would be deleted. File:RamahshirtS.jpg is much more borderline; I would go the FfD/PUF route for that. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  So are we agreed that the user was wrong to remove the non-free licenses on all of these images? Should I revert? Kelly ^hi! 04:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally a reply. I would agree that they are unsuitable for the Commons, but I agree with the De Minimis. Personally I would say keep the GNU licenses, but tag the images as subject to trademark (except for Naot, which I replaced in a safety measure as the entire image appeared to contain the copyright in the photo). mechamind90 05:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get this obsession with trademarks. Either there are copyright issues with File:RamahshirtS.jpg or there aren't. Trademarks is at best a minor point. The logos there look like they are clear complex enough to be covered by copyright, I'm not even sure if the 'Ramah Israel Day Camp' would really worry about trademarks. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

So it looks like Nyttend (talk · contribs) has removed all tags from the above items, even those that are obvious copyvios. Some help here, please? Kelly ^hi! 06:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, formally I guess he's right about "di-nopermission" being the wrong tag. We have some confusion here about which level of authorships the tags are meant to apply to: if we're talking about the copyright and authorship of the original product designs, then "no permission" is beside the point because nobody has actually claimed they were released freely, and nobody would expect a release of those to be filed with otrs. And if we are talking about the authorship of the photograph, then its self-made status is not really in doubt. Wouldn't PUI be the correct venue for the whole thing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, except there's really no doubt the subject of the images is non-free. Or is someone really arguing that the uploader owns the copyright to the product labels/logos/3D art in question? Kelly ^hi! 06:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The uploader, Gilabrand (talk · contribs) (currently blocked) posted a {{helpme}} request on their talk page regarding this issue [25] which I have responded to as best I can [26]. Chzz  ►  10:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I stumbled on these and started marking some of them as {{derivative}}, Mechamind90 has already removed one of them saying "It is identified as just a photo anyway" - which, to me anyway, means nothing, and it has zero bearing on potential copyvios. A picture of a copyrighted work is still under the original copyright. As for Nyttend, they have an history of removing tags and they have been warned about it. But that is another issue all together. In this case, about this user, it seems to be a combination of things. For example File:Lomza Beer.jpeg was upped using "(GFDL)" as the license (seems the uploader meant {{GFDL}}) and a bot tagged it for having no license info so it was changed to {{WTFPL}}. But as this is just a picture of a products label it *is* a derivative, and should have been marked as such, more so since the license is not correct. I see what Kelly did and it was really fine. Mechamind90 could have simply added the {{derivative}} tag and left the rest alone, so I am really unsure of why they didn't. A lot of what was done by both Nyttend and Mechamind90 is just extending a process which doesn't need to be extended in case such as these. My slant would have been to mark most of these with the {{derivative}} tag first, and also the {{trademark}} tag if applicable, and wait to see if anyone "fixed" it. Kelly did, in reality, "fix" the incorrect license. Perhaps someone else should have added the {{db-norat}} tag (Most likely would have been done by a bot) but there is nothing really that prevents the same editor from doing both. Removal of the tags for that reason is not looking at the actual image/s.

As for sending everything to IFD or PUF, that can become an extra step that in many cases is not needed. I would say File:CzechdollS.jpg for sure should go to PUI because there is no real indication of the "original" source of the doll (i.e - who made it?) and it could very well be under copyright and/or trademark. The others are fairly obvious that the uploader would not own the copyrights or the trademarks, so we already know the license is not correct. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey All, I was wondering if someone could do an assessment job on all the articles in Category:Unassessed Albemarle County articles via a bot. They would just need to match the assessments of the already exsisting templates. L ike if WP:FOO is Class C with Low Importance, WP:ALVA (the WP link for the project) would be the same. Could someone do this? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!

Is WP:BRQ not open for requests like this? Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew we had a page for it, just hadn't the clue where it was. Normally I just ask a bot operator, but couldn't find one. Must all be watching the Super Bowl. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!

There are unconfirmed reports of the death of Gary Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have semiprotected for 4 hours, by whihc time some reliable sources should be available if it is true. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

News reports start trickling in. Only two so far and I can't acces them. — Edokter (talk) — 17:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

[27] Irish Times seems to be the first reliable... --MASEM (t) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• And BBC and others. I removed semiprotection. Very sad, he was a seriously good musician, something you can't say about every famous rock band member. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this is the first time Guy and I can agree on something. Gary Moore was an excellent musician. Picked up on him after I heard "Over the Hills and Far Away" on WXPN one night and have been checking his stuff out since. Major bummer. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Wow, what a shame. Amazing player, amazing (Les Paul) sound. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has called a fellow editor "liberal scum" [28] when he disagreed with his use of "liberal" and "socialist" in a "pejorative" way. I believe a block of some sort is certainly appropriate. This user has violated WP:CIVIL as well as WP:NPA.

As a side note, an indefinite ban would be overkill, but a short(in comparison) ban would clearly send the message that this type of behavior is not welcomed by the wider community. _WikiMan^One 02:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I already reported that to AIV, and an admin has told me he's going to keep his eye on that editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the edit I showed certainly merits more than "keep[ing] an eye" on him, don't you think? _WikiMan^One 02:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless this editor is the reincarnation of someone else they have been around all of a day. A warning should suffice.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Liberal scum" as opposed to "conservative scum", I suppose. The editor in question is on the radar now, so we'll see what happens, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I dropped them a note about WP:CIV. If an admin wishes to offer a sterner warning please do. Clearly not acceptable commentary but they appear to be a newbie.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This user has managed to provoke considerable conflict in his first day of editing. I notice that his user page says "Please don't be rude". I think that a short block would be helpful as it would allow him time to review WP policy and guidelines before continuing to edit. However, his edit history indicates that he will probably continue to provoke controversy. TFD (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

His edit history? You mean 15 edits total in his first day here? Granted it isn't a stellar list of edits by any means, but I think if there is ever a time someone needs to be warned before being blocked, its on their first day of editing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Between vandalism and incivility, I think he deserves it. First day or not. _WikiMan^One 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree a short block would be in order... although I agree, by the tone of his first day he will probably continue to provoke controversy. _WikiMan^One 02:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

E91 is brand new. Don't bite the newbies. Go light. And try to rein in any prejudice you may feel toward editors with conservative points of view. I dropped him a note, too. And I would be fascinated to know if I'm the one that inadvertently alerted WM1. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITE applies. And I recall an editor accusing me of being pro-fascist in the past, and one editor who was officially warned about doing such to another editor - but who was not even given a 10 second block for the infraction. Seems that such an editor who was given lenient treatment ought not be calling for blood here. Meanwhile [29] has an editor saying articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV which I consider at least as bad as "liberal scum." Collect (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, not as bad. "right wing extremist" is regularly used in the main stream media, as is "ethnic nationalist" when describing Baltic politics. You'd be hard pressed to find a neutral news agency calling someone "liberal scum" in the way this editor did. _WikiMan^One 03:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

General Comment. The way you all are engaging each other, across the political devide surrounding abortion, makes me wonder if this isn't heading to arbitration, which from my limited exposure to this content area over the last couple of days makes me feel like bad news all around for many of you. Can you all please try to stop being so confrontational to each other (accusations of stalking, filing AN/I reports, igniting battleground type discussions, etc.)? When the reports keep coming here the community will decide, eventually that they have had enough. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason this is going on is that admins are letting WM1 run wild. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• And User:Kenatipo makes another uncivil, personally directed attack. Is anyone surprised? _WikiMan^One 03:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I hope none of you are surprised when you are all dragged to arbitration. That's all I'm trying to say. Step back and evaluate how you are all contributing to the atmosphere around this topic presently. If you don't I really don't see this going anywhere else at this rate. That's all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

<--IMO, letting WM1 use this page as a shortcut WQA and a weapon to hammer opponents in content disputes is a disruption of this page's function. betsythedevine (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Quo usque tandem abutere, WM1, patientia nostra? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a better place to report violations? I would be happy to do so if you would point me in the right direction. I apologize if this is a unacceptable disruption to the page. Also, I note that I started using this page after frivolous reports were brought against me at this page which no one objected to. _WikiMan^One

We actually have a whole slew of pages for reporting different types of behavior, which you can see linked in the big banner at the top of this page. The one in question is probably best addressed by Wikiquette alerts, the etiquette notice board. Or, better yet, by a nice comment from you citing the policy WP:CIVIL that says we shouldn't talk to one another like that. The fact is that in most places on the internet, such type of name calling is somewhere between tolerated and encouraged. Our civility policy is not the norm, and new editors need to be informed of it. Of course, if they choose to continue being uncivil, there are plenty of ways to handle that. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I dealt with the initial AIV report here. I'll watch the editor, but for now, I'm assuming good faith and thinking it's just somebody going after a hot-button issue. Isn't that what politics is? :P m.o.p 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I think the most charitable and productive assumption we can make about this is that we all just got trolled, hard, and that we should all practce WP:DENY, keep "eyes on", and just move on. ( Caveat: Anyone who tells me to assume good faith in this instance should expect imminent and highly-personal acquaintance with an oversized trout. ) If you think about it, to assume good faith here, i.e. to assume that the comments were sincere, would actually be less respectful and would evidence less wikilove by far than to adopt my suggestion. Besides, the newbies are just so tasty! ;-p I'd recommend we close this thread before it spirals into another drama-fest. Anyone with me? Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm marking this as resolved. m.o.p 06:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As the person who was the target of the original attack, I have to assure you all that I wasn't all that stressed about it. I just wanted to play a little game with the attacker's obvious US bias in his definitions of liberal and socialist, which I saw coming from innocent ignorance, rather than real nasty vindictiveness. I was satisfied with being able to reply that being called liberal where I come from is generally seen as a compliment. I hoped it would get him thinking. No need for any more action. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Problemwikipedian claims, in this diff to have 17 other accounts for vandalizing Wikipedia. Worth a checkuser looking at this? Pol430 talk to me 12:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Other accounts? Yes (now blocked). 17? Not quite. Thanks for catching this. TNXMan 12:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So, it wasn't just a clever name? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been marked resolved for some time now, please continue your conversation elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
January 28, 2011. The article in question was created by User:Kittybrewster as David Gold (lawyer) [30]. 02:54 February 2, 2011. The article was moved, also by User:Kittybrewster, without discussion or explanation, from David Gold (lawyer) to David Gold, Baron Gold. [31] 03:46 February 2, 2011. It was moved from David Gold, Baron Gold back to David Gold (lawyer) by User:Lucy-marie with edit summary, "moved David Gold, Baron Gold to Damvid Gold (lawyer) over redirect: When was this discussed? RM required.)" [32] 03:51 February 2, 2011. After moving the article back to its original name, User:Lucy-marie also started a move proposal discussion about moving the article from David Gold (lawyer) to David Gold, Baron Gold, including a comment in opposition to this move[33]. 03:57 February 2, 2011. User:Kittybrewster engaged in the discussion, filing an argument in support of the move proposal to David Gold, Baron Gold [34]. 07:42 February 2, 2011. Despite the ongoing discussion which started only 4 hours earlier, the article was moved from David Gold (lawyer) back to David Gold, Baron Gold by User:BrownHairedGirl with edit summary, "moved David Gold (lawyer) to David Gold, Baron Gold over redirect: restore title to which the page was moved by its creator, within 5 days of creation, when nobody else had edited it)" [35] 07:45 February 2, 2011. After moving the article at 7:42, three minutes later User:BrownHairedGirl added a comment in favor of "speedy close" in the discussion. Part of that comment included the statement, "If another editor believes that this title is incorrect, they should open a WP:RM discussion from the existing title, rather than moving it first. "[36] 08:51 February 2, 2011. Apparently since the article was already moved, User:Amakuru closed the discussion [37]. 12:09 February 2, 2011. User:Born2cycle (yours truly) started a new discussion back in the other direction (move David Gold, Baron Gold to David Gold (lawyer)) [38]. 16:14 February 2, 2011. User:Lucy-marie initiated a discussion[39] about the discussion closure with User:Amakuru at User_talk:Amakuru#BHG_speedy_closing_of_David_Gold. In that discussion Amakuru noted it was closed because 1) it was confusing to leave the discussion open about moving the article to David Gold, Baron Gold when the article was already moved there, and 2) that BHG was probably correct in moving it back, since it's not appropriate to move an article and then open a discussion about moving it back to the title which you oppose. Apparently unaware that this already happened, Amakuru also noted that this still will "allow anyone to reopen it back in the other direction if they so desire.". 02:59 February 4, 2011. About a day and half later, the discussion was closed by User:Favonian with summary comment, "speedy close as not moved" [40]. Obviously there is some controversy about the title of this article, but the way we normally establish consensus on these issues is through WP:RM discussion which is why I opened the discussion in the first place. I've asked User:Favonian to reopen the proposal to allow discussion to continue, but this request has been refused (see: User_talk:Favonian#Talk:David_Gold.2C_Baron_Gold). I don't know where consensus is on this article title, but I suggest we will find out by leaving the discussion open for at least the normal week. So, can an admin please reopen the discussion at Talk:David_Gold,_Baron_Gold#Requested_move_2011Feb02 to allow it to follow a normal course? Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Two comments - I started an RfC which is very related to this here although to date it's had no comments. Secondly I'd agree it's a bad close. The arguments at most of these requested moves, seemingly including this one, is whether or not the person in question meets the exception in WP:NCPEER and the only way this can be decided is by discussion of each individual. Yes, in this case it looks like consensus is currently that they don't but that's no reason for a speedy close. Dpmuk (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC) For the record Kitty's initial move was not a violation of any policy. It is not true that every last action must be discussed before it is done. WP:BRD, although not actual policy, is a good guidepost, she had no way of knowing at that time that there would be any objection to the move. However, I also must say I don't like what appears to be attempts by admins to stifle further discussion. If the move requests are bad-faith or very disruptive I could see it, but that does not appear to be the case here despite the accusations of such in the move discussions. There is disagreement, and I don't see why there is such a hurry to just shut down all conversation. If the conversation wandered off-topic, nudge it back in the right direction instead of basically telling everyone to shut up. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I would agree with Dpmuk's sentiments here. I hope my actions (as detailed above) were not in error - I was really just trying to tidy up what had become an intractably messy situation with the first move request. Once that was done, anyone was entitled to reopen the request to establish whether the particular topic could be deemed one of the exceptions permitted by WP:NCPEER, and that's what B2C did. I don't personally think David Gold is notable enough to warrant omitting the peerage title, but I do think the RM has the right to run its course.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Agree with the above. This has become quite a mess and Favonian's close made it worse. History tells us that closing a contentious discussion early always creates more drama not less, and this is no exception. I also think that BrownHairedGirl acted incorrectly in moving and closing the first discussion. The initial move was reverted; it was not appropriate to move it back again without consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I wish I could say that I was surprised to see this thread being started, but sadly I'm not. There's been a lot of disruptive editing here, and this topic has been on the verge of ANI for a while. If an article's creator moves it soon after creation, when nobody else has edited it, there is no need for a discussion. A move back to its original name will inevitably be controversial, so should be proposed for discussion. Luce-marie (who has been engaging a lot of similar moves) tried to game the system by moving the article from what was then its default position, and proposing that a consensus be sought to move it back gain. That's gaming the system, by trying to establish L-M's preference as the basis. The second RM request was made by B2C. I sought speedy closure of that RM, because the nomination made no attempt whatsoever to address the merits of the title of article: instead it was a set of generalised objections to to the naming convention, and I ponted out that the way to pursue such objections is to follow WP:MULTI and raise them at WT:TITLE or WT:NCPEER rather than running a campaign against the guidelines in half-a-dozen places simultaneously. Favonian accepted that argument, and closed the discussion. The issue here is quite important. B2C is quite entitled to disagree with the naming convention, but the way to change it is by seeking a centralised discussion. Instead, B2C was back pursuing his old game of trying a war-of-attrition: running the same policy discussion in as multiple places, in order to hopefully establish precedents to by wearing out the editors who disagree with B2C, but unlike him spend most of their time creating content rather than running an article-naming campaign and This is merely the latest example of an old problem: B2C repeatedly uses this war-of-attrition strategy in pursuit of his views on article naming. It's time to put a stop to it, and insist that B2C follows centralised discussions when he wants to challenge a convention. There has been an ongoing problem with Lucy-marie (talk · contribs), who has engaged in several bouts of disruptive moves in recent months, and has rejected warnings. She seems to have stopped for now, so I don't see any need for action on that front .... but B2C's games should be stopped. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Amakuru, for the record, given the situation as created by BHG, I think what you did is fine, though I don't think BHG's revert was as justified as you seemed to think it was. But all that is water under the bridge, and already was when I started the new discussion to resolve this. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC) B2C, the subsequent rationale you offered for your requested move was nothing to do with the article under discussion. It was a set of concerns about the naming convention, and you were making those points in the wrong place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC) No, it was not a set of concerns about the naming conventions. It was an argument in favor of the specific proposed move based on following the principle naming criteria at WP:TITLE as best as possible. But, as noted below, even if your characterization of the argument was correct, that's no excuse to close a proposal which you oppose. Others contributing often make better arguments - that's key to developing consensus via discussion, at least in discussions that are not prematurely closed. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Actually as I mention above I've started a relevant discussion at WT:NCP which seems a logical third choice. I'd also disagree whether MULTI applies here. Although the discussions are all very similar the central point appears to be whether the exception applies and that has to be decided on a case by case basis. Dpmuk (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC) B2C's r requested move rationale offered no reason specific to the article in question. It was a generalised objection to the naming convention, and those generalised objections should be discussed centrally. Other similar RMs have offered a rationale specific to the article in question, and I have not sought the speedy closure of those ones, except where they have been preceded by the nominator moving the article away from a stable name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC) BHG: you seem to have different understanding of WP:BOLD to me. The initial move by User:Kittybrewster was, of course, fine. The first revert, by User:Lucy-marie, was also fine. It is at that stage that discussion needs to occur. (And this is exactly what happened...) The fact that the article was only created shortly before the first move puts a different slant on this, but is ultimately irrelevant. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Martin, please check the wider history. I will collect more diffs later, but this came in the midst of a long series of RMs where Lucy-marie moved an article away from its stable title, using the edit summary "When was this discussed?" and then opened an RM demanding that a consensus be sought to move it back again: for example she moved Rita Donaghy, Baroness Donaghy away from the title at which the article was created 7 months previously. In this case we had slightly different situation: a newly-created article, which no other editor had edited. It seems to me that there is no substantive difference between 1) creating an article named X and promptly moving it to Y; and 2) creating the same content at Y. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I'll grant you there isn't much substantive difference between creating X and moving to Y v.s. just creating at Y if the article is moved a few minutes or at least within a few hours of creation. But once several days and about a dozen edits go by, which is what occurred here, there is a substantive difference. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC) My understanding is in line with Martin's, and is the consensus view as far as I can tell. The initial move was fine, and so was the revert. The fact that the initial move was done by the article creator, soon after creation, is ultimately irrelevant per WP:OWN, and certainly did not make Lucy-marie's revert of it inappropriate. Anyone can try a bold move if they reasonably believe it to be uncontroversial - but once it's reverted, that's it... and discussion, preferably via WP:RM, is required, before anything else happens. That BHG acted to revert the revert, and end that discussion, especially with regard to an issue on which her position is anything but neutral, is completely out of line. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I disagree with BHG on several points, not the least of which is the accusation that I'm playing games. That the initial move was done by the article creator is irrelevant. See WP:OWN. I agree that User:Kittybrewster made the first move quite possibly without knowing it was potentially controversial - and by WP:AGF we must assume so despite her involvement in many of these disagreements. However, once it was reverted by User:Lucy-marie that should have made it clear to everyone (including BHG), that that initial move was controversial. As others have noted, this is classic BRD stuff. There was no justification to move it again, especially with discussion among everyone involved so far in progress. BHG is an admin with strong opinions about these peerage articles and so should not be using her admin authority in this area. The argument that the second discussion speedy closure was justified because the proposal argument was based on policy concerns is ludicrous twice over, and simply reveals BHG's bias in this area. First, arguments based on policy adherence are the best arguments (see WP:JDLI for the problem with the other kind of arguments). Second, no matter how poor an argument may be, that's no reason to close the proposal; it may be supported by much better arguments put forth by others, if the discussion is allowed to proceed. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC) B2C, you spend your tine playing games on article names. Waging wars-of-attrition against naming conventions is what you do all the time, trying to wear down the editors who actually create content A page moved promptly by its creator is substantially no different from one created at the new title, because in both cases, there is no stable title to revert to. If Lucy-marie disagrees with the title explicitly chosen for an article by its creator, then her move is inevitably controversial. She should have opened an RM from the existing title, but she didn't -- neither in this case nor in cases where the article had no other title, such as this one.moved I did not act as admin. I moved the page back, as any editor could have done, and recommended speedy closure. I did not close the discussion myself. Your rationale for he second RM was based on your outright rejection of a naming convention. You seem to think that it is appropriate to argue those general principles at multiple locations, but long-standing guidance at WP:MULTI says otherwise. If other editors want to propose a move based on issues related to that particular article, then they are of course free to open a new RM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I shall not be commenting on the main purpose of this discussion as I do not believe that I would be able to add to the discussion beyond what has already been said as I agree broadly with the positions of Dpmuk, Beeblebrox and Martin. I do though have to take objection to the comments made by BHG accusing me of essentially bad faith editing by claiming there is a Problem with my editing. I have initiated two discussion on this issue one died a natural death and the second one became very nasty with very nasty comments from BHG directed towards myself. I believe that a wider issue is in need of discussion and that is the whole application of NC:PEER itself and if NC:PEER still commands consensus. I firmly believe that the BHG has acted highly inappropriate and is POV Pushing her desired outcomes on some of these discussions particularly this one. That is highly inappropriate and shows a lack of professionalism particularly for someone who has been given the privilege of holding adminship. The third way discussion which has already been started is in my opinion the best way to begin to attempt to sort out the NC:PEER mess which has developed. I though would like the sniping and nasty comments and threats of RFC/Us and removal of the right to move pages which have been made against me to stop as it is an inherent bias, and assumption of bad faith towards me by admins who are acting in a fashion which is unprofessional. Purely because there is a dislike of what i am doing on the grounds it goes against what they believe should be the way it should be and nothing else. It is in effedt an attempt to stifle opposition to thier held position.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)BHG, all the controversy surrounding this article title, as noted above, clearly existed prior to my involvement. Any expressions of opinion about how I spend my time on WP (anyone interested can read my user page) is pure ad hominem attack and is not relevant to this discussion. You live in some kind of alternate universe where starting an RM discussion per WP:RM and as you suggested is "playing games" - but moving an article while productive discussion is in progress is not. Yes, I consistently argue that all titles should adhere to the principle naming criteria put forth at WP:TITLE as well as is reasonably possible. Suggesting that doing so at the individual RM discussions is a violation of WP:MULTI is so "out there" I don't even know how to respond, except to say it's the only way I know to avoid WP:JDLI arguments. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC) B2C, you know perfectly well that your main activity on wikipedia is trying to overturn naming conventions. That's not an attack; it's a statement of demonstrable fact, just as it's a statement of fact that my main activity is creating and editing article on British MPs, elections, and constituencies. What you've done in this case is to tag on to the disruptive antics of Lucy-marie, and try your usual game of arguing against existence of the naming convention at multiple locations. That's a clear violation of WP:MULTI, and while I'm not surprised that you don't know how to respond, I do know that won't stop you from replying frequently, at great length, just as you do at other discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC) My main activity on WP is promoting as much adherence as is reasonably possible to the general naming criteria put forth at WP:TITLE. That sometimes includes supporting the modification of some specific guidelines, and sometimes in some certain cases promoting the ignoring of certain guidelines that need modification to indicate a title that is in better compliance with WP:TITLE for that particular article, but mostly it involves taking one position or another (whichever aligns better with WP:TITLE) at WP:RM discussions. Again, I'm quite clear about this on my user page. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Your main activity on wikipedia is to foment arguments over the names of things, an activity which (as pointed out to you many times before) is of no value whatsoever to the readers of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I don't particularly want to get involved in a persona slanging match again with BHG, but I have to correct an intentional misrepresentation of my position. I have to state that i am of the belief that BHG is beginning personal and not content contributions by stating with statements such as What you've done in this case is to tag on to the disruptive antics of Lucy-marie, and try your usual game.... This goes to show BHG as unprofessional in her approach to this subject and is trying to throw mud at users who disagree with her position, by claiming things such tag on to the disruptive antics and try your usual game . BHG needs to focus on the content and not on the opposing contributors for no other reasons than she disagrees with them and appears to be fearful of NC:PEER changing.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Lucy-marie, I stand by my assessment of your conduct as "disruptive antics". As you know, I am not the only editor to warn you of this: you promptly archived all the warnings on your talk page, but plenty of them are visible here, initially regarding your moves of several pages to names with trailing commas, to which you responded that none of the editing was sloppy". More followed, and you archived them too. There was a lengthy discussion of your disruptive antics a month or two back, when you made a long series of disruptive moves. When politely asked to desist, you struck the comment with the edit summary "removed abusive trash". The rest of the page visible on that diff contains many complaints from other editors about your conduct across a range of topics: here in relation to "Top Gear", here in elation to Barichello. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC) The above comments are further evidence of no interest on BHGs behalf to resist and refrain from commenting on the contributor and a desire by BHG to focus on discrediting the individual user personally, as opposed to focusing on the content of the discussion. This is more evidence of unprofessionalism and a lack of ability to hold a constructive discussion. The use of the pejorative, your, in BHGs above comments indicate BHG is losing perspective in relation to this discussion. This is not a discussion about me as a user or any other user. This is actually a discussion on the appropriateness of speedy closing an RM and whether kittybrewster or myself acted inappropriately to justify BHGs speedy closing of an RM and clearly neither of kittybrewster or myself acted inappropriately as stated by multiple other users.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC) The specific names of articles is of very little importance. Copyright violations are hugely important matters, and your casual pooh-poohing of that major problem makes me wonder if you should be doing any editing here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC) The above comments are inappropraite and I would like them removed and the user to apologise for making those comments which are in no way related to content at hand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC) "Content at hand"? What are you talking about? Do you really think the names of articles is somehow anywhere near the same league as copyright violations??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I should mention that it was B2C who made the appalling statement, below, that copyright violations are somehow "not a topic for ANI". His screwed-up perspective serves as further proof that he ought not be editing wikipedia. As if that were news. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Knock if off, Bugs. We all know your feelings on Born2Cycle. There's no need to repeat them again and again. 28bytes (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Knock it off yourself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I believed the comments I responded to were aimed at myself if they were not then I withdraw the above comments asking for an apology, if the comments were aimed at me then my request for withdrawal and an apology stand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC) What I'd like to see from you and B2C both is some clue that you understand the gravity of copyright violations. Copyvios have the potential to harm wikipedia. Whether an article title has commas or parentheses in it does not. It's mere trivia that's of no value to the wikipedia readers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Of course I undersatnd that interlectual theft is something which is not acceptable on Wikipeida. That was though not the original issue that was raised here. Also just becuase other users don't get as animanted as other users dosen't mean they are ignorant of the current situations.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC) It's a lot more than "not acceptable", it has the potential to bring legal trouble to wikipedia. Do you truly not understand that fact? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Of course I understand it is unacceptable how acceptable do you believe I think theft is?--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to post below the archive, but I just wanted to note that, until the silly sniping started above, there was a valid complaint that a requested move discussion was closed down early and inappropriately. Until the discussion got side-tracked several users were in agreement with this, so I have reopened the discussion on Talk:David Gold, Baron Gold. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The above header added later in this edit and adjusted in this edit. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is there so much discussion of the various moves of the article, when the first two paragraphs of the article were lifted almost verbatim from here? I've raised this on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, and that needs to be addressed, but is not an ANI issue[I was thinking this was one minor isolated incident when I said that --Born2cycle (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)]. But I hasten to note that that source identifies him as just "David Gold", not "David Gold, Baron Gold", which is an important point that should be introduced to the discussion about the article title, if someone/anyone finally reopens the discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It clearly demonstrates principles and a wider issue being discussed here. It is the principle of moving pages, onwership, RMs, speedy closing and NC:PEER.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation trumps everything. The article either has to go or be substantially rewritten, and someone needs to see what other copyright violations might be lurking in other articles Kitty has posted recently and/or other times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That is an issue for the talk page of the aricle and potentially an AfD a copyvio tag is clearly needed on the article now. I do though say the David Gold aticle is purely the unfortunate vehicle where all of these issues appear to have come here to be discusssed. as for other Copyvios it may be worht posting your concerns on Kittybrewsters talk page and checking other articles Kitty has recently created. Though the copyvio issue is not really a matter for this discussion as it is --Lucy-marie (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is a matter for the ANI page, because if Kitty is indeed engaged in copyright violations, they need to be sent to the phantom zone and all their work needs to be scrutinized. At the very least, that article's existence violates the rules and should be immediately deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs it is not really a matter for this topic at the AN/I, it is more an issue for a new topic. As it appears as if the protocol which is required is something you are familiar with could you please imitate whatever is the necessary procedures for addressing the issue you have raised.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is that people need to get into the habit of scrutinising articles they edit. It is all too easy to be lazy and edit an article to 'improve' it (e.g. by moving it or wikilinking stuff as I did when I first arrived at that article), but if you don't look at where an article has come from, you may be wasting your time. The first question to be asked should be: is this sourced? If not, ask where the information came from. And then see if the writing correctly reports what is in the sources, without veering over the line into verbatim copying or other variants of that ilk. Then ask if it is likely to remain on Wikipedia (i.e. notability stuff, not a problem here). Only then, when a secure basis for an article has been established, is it worth doing any of the other things needed. FWIW, I've blanked the parts of the article that were copied, and left this note on the talk page giving a link to the last version I edited. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• The first article I checked, Gordon Wasserman, Baron Wasserman, was lifted from [41]. This is probably endemic in Kittybrewster's editing. Fences&Windows 01:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth raises an important COPYVIO issue, which needs attention. Thats the sort of content issue we should focusing on, not the sort of drama caused by this game-playing over article titles. As an example of the game-playing, see this comment by B2C where he says "I support using the peerage title in the article title only when it is necessary for disambiguation of the person's "normal name" (First Last in most cases)". In the case of David Gold, disambiguation is clearly needed ... yet instead, B2C has upped the ante on Lucie-marie's page-moving drama to oppose using the title for disambiguation, and bring the discussion here to create a meta-drama.

Please can we close this meta-drama. Editors can have a centralised discussion on the guidelines if they want to, but the pressing issue here is to focus on the content, and see if there are other copyvios from the same editor. If the copyvio problem is widespread, we may need a substantive discussion on that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Kittbrewster has been around since 2005. Can't imagine how they thought blatant plagiarism was OK.Griswaldo (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a case of WP:JDLI. I don’t really think BHG is in a position to call this a meta-drama and insist on its closure, as BHG is primarily the main user at the centre of the original issue being discussed on the AN/I here. A substantive issue has be raised which is evidenced by B2C and no matter how much individual users dislike it the discussion has been initiated and until it runs its course the discussion has to remain open.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not insisting on closure; I am requested closure (see that word "please"). Whether or not it closes depends on consensus.

However, this is a meta-drama: it is a bad-faith attempt by B2C to manufacture a complaint. B2C is game-playing on the substance of this: taking one position at a guideline discussion, where he supported restricting the use of peerage titles, for disambiguation only, but then opposing their use even for dismabiguation at two separate discussions: [42] and [43].

Classic FUD tactics: game the system by waging a war of attrition contrary to WP:MULTI, and filing complaints against other editors when he sees some scope for doing so.

You too are trying FUD tactics, Lucy-marie. You are insisting that this discussion focus only on the closure of the RM, and not on your gaming of the system by moving articles from their stable titles and then seeking opening an RM to insist taht they sould not be moved back without a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a classic sign of a user disliking the discussion and not liking thier edits being scruinised. Please stop trying to divert the discussions to contributors and focus on the content. Individual users are not the subject of the original discussion only the RM on the David Gold page is.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with my edits being scrutinised, but you have protested repeatedly when yours put up for scrutiny, whether here or on your talk page. I can quite understand why don't want any scrutiny of your attempts to stack RM discussions by pre-emptive moves such as [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk about POV pushing and cherrypicking on behalf of BHG. Unilateral moving of pages on the scale advocated by BHG is a nonsence and the original discussion has proved how unprofessional BHG is. The above cherrypicking and limited showing of the entire situation is further proof of poor discussing and sheer unprofssional conduct by BHG--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• At this point, to avoid things degenerating further, can we do three things?
  • (1) Suspend all discussion of the article title for a few days - that can wait.
  • (2) An admin who knows how to judge these things decides what revisions are OK in the article history and which are not.
  • (3) Everyone waits for Kittybrewster to respond here before posting more. Notification of matters relating to other articles can go to his talk page.

Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, but here's another Stewart Wood, Baron Wood of Anfield, largely plagiarized from The Daily Mail. It's not looking good on this front.Griswaldo (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've just checked more of User:Kittybrewster contributions - Bryony Worthington, Baroness Worthington and Claire Tyler, Baroness Tyler of Enfield are obvious copyvios and now tagged as such. Monroe Palmer, Baron Palmer of Childs Hill is a copy of [49] and Anna Healy, Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill is a copy of [50] and the only reason I haven't tagged these two is I'm not certain the content has enough creative content to be copyrightable. Can someone more experienced and more uninvolved take this on please. Dpmuk (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Think this has reached WP:CCI time. Request now made on that page. Dpmuk (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems right to me. Copyvios abound.Griswaldo (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely a matter for WP:CCI. Well done Dpmuk for starting that process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I sent Monroe Palmer, Baron Palmer of Childs Hill and Anna Healy, Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for review. Malcolm Green (physician) is copied from [51] [52], some of the infringing text remains. This article is also blanked. Hence Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kittybrewster. MER-C 03:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest removing the autopatrolled permission from this user? Sadly, this is another case of a confirmed copyright violator having been creating articles under cover (I don't imply deliberately) of the autopatrolled permission -- without the permission who knows the community may have been able to address this earlier. Correctly, no-one is proposing a block. But at the least, any contributions going forward need to be subject to NPP. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now read the foregoing and will respond shortly, probably in another place. Meanwhile I agree that I should lose autopatrolled status. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights removed. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Worthy of mention here, Kittybrewster has been advised of our copyright policies several times before, most notably here, where the original article on Glasserton was G12ed. The earlier, more complete, notice is here (though in that case, it's very likely that the user did own the copyright). There is no plausible reason that the contributor should have believed after these notices that copying content from other websites without verifying permission was allowed. There are over 1,000 articles listed here, and I believe this may well constitute one of those "extreme cases" mentioned at Wikipedia:Copyright violations where it may be appropriate to require the user's assistance with cleanup. While we cannot take the user's word for it that content is clean, there is no reason that the user cannot compare article text and sources and annotate that CCI to note when copying is found. In terms of Kittbrewster's intent to respond, general conversation about this issue should be conducted here, not at the CCI listing. CCI listings are simply to facilitate cleanup of copyright concerns; they are not community discusison boards. If sanctions are appropriate, including required cleanup, they should be resolved here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to assist so far as I can but the page said I should watch the process. I am unclear what assistance is required or how to do it. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It is often better when CCI contributors do not edit those pages directly, since it frequently only confuses matters, but as I said in this case I think that this would be a good opportunity for you to go through and help us identify articles that are problems. This would help demonstrate your understanding of policy and your willingness to comply, and it would also help get the listing processed more quickly. We have a backlog of several dozen CCIs, some of which are over a year old.

If you find a problem, it would be very helpful for you to place a subthread beneath the listing, something like this: ":*Copying found in [diff] from [source]; [diff of rewrite]. That will allow reviewers of the CCI to easily check to see that content has been cleaned. Since we really can't mark content cleared, though, because you say there is no problem, if there are multiple diffs or if there is content added from multiple sources, it would also be good for you to note on any listing you so annotate what content could not be cleared for review. So listings might look like this:

---

• Baronetage of the United Kingdom: (53 edits, 53 major, +58965) (+6422)(+2792)(+19750)(+8782)(+423)(+244)(+229)(+158)(+169)(+278)(+629)(+150)(+189)(+253)(+170)(+179)(+205)(+392)(+411)(+419)(+176)(+335)(+997)(+646)(+960)(+197)(+450)(+237)(+184)(+692)(+1301)(+1064)(+740)(+1836)(+9929)
• (+233)(+347)(+657)(+4388)(+2256)(+20917)(+1218)(+2959)(+1665)(+924)(+4196)(+209)(+222)(+215)(+329)(+196)(+58965)(+175)

• Copying found in (+8782) from [url] rewritten [here]. Other diffs need checking. --Kittybrewster time

• N Ettore Modigliani: (1 edits, 1 major, +6183) (+6183)

• Unattributed translation of it:Ettore Modigliani repaired. --Kittybrewster time

---

(Note that the first case is purely an example; I haven't even looked at the diff.) The important thing here is to get these issues addressed as quickly as possible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I will have a go. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I know this should go in AIV, but I wanted to make sure a person saw this and not the bot. 122.183.97.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in numeric vandalism (changing dates, mostly) and I am pretty sure we had a well-known vandal who used to do this as well, but since I can't remember who it was, maybe someone here does. MSJapan (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Clinicalnurse has made a number of problematic edits to the article Brian Deer (a journalist who has written extensively on the subject), which I have reverted. I have started to talk to Clinicalnurse on their talk page, but as you can see it's not going well. Anyone fancy keeping an eye on both the editor and the article? I will inform Clinicalnurse of this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've warned them about edit warring and given them a welcome template so they can read up on editing policies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, hadn't seen that particular welcome template before. DuncanHill (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This user has shown on multiple occasions an unwillingness to work as a part of the community on wikipedia in a civil manner. The most recent manifestations of this can be seen on his talk page where I cordially asked him to remove some content from his userpage, which he refused to do, prompting me to file a civility report. He responded with the same general attitude to the editor who handled the case at that noticeboard which can be seen on the user's talk page. User talk:Kenatipo

In a separate incidence, three days ago I added a {{noindex}} template to his sandbox, the user violated Wikipedia:UP#CMT by removing it from his sandbox, along with the impolite term "ASSHOLE" being used in his edit description [53] to describe yours truly as a result of my actions that were in response to:

"Editors may add {{noindex}} (optional "|visible=yes") to a userspace page that is a source of concern, which will remove it from search engines and can also provide a lightweight alternative to deletion, or prevent external indexing during discussion. It will not affect the page for legitimate userspace purposes or on the internal search engine, and should not be used to make a point, nor removed without discussion or consensus."

Unfortunately, the user violated both WP:CIVIL and the previously noted guideline in response.

In yet another case today, in this edit, the user accuses does not assume good faith with yet another editor by undoing her edits to collapse discussion that was unrelated to the move.

All the above incidents have been active in the past 24 hours. This user shows a pattern of not assuming good faith on the part of those he disagrees with or confronts him. I leave it up to the admins to choose how to deal with these egregious issues. _WikiMan^One 17:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What on earth does this fellow think he's accomplishing by messing around in my Sandbox? Stalking, harassment, intimidation, wikilawyering, uncivil. Take your pick. I advise everyone reading this to investigate wikimanone's recent disruptive behavior on the Talk:Planned Parenthood and Talk:Pro-life pages. Arrogant, incessant POV pushing, including canvassing, lobbying, etc., etc. He is also, through his proxy, Cube Lurker, trying to get my userpage deleted as "Miscellany". Please do not comment here until you thoroughly research wikimanone's recent behavior. And you can start with the section above entitled "Vandalism At Planned Parenthood Talk Page". --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am not going to 'thoroughly research' the other editor's behavior; I am simply going to tell you that referring to Cube lurker as someone else's proxy is a violation of the requirement that you exercise good faith and could be seen as a personal attack. Kindly refrain. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Cube lurker's behavior may very well be purely altuistic and well-intentioned. My feeling is that it violates WP:MYOB. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are free to feel as you wish, but you are not to violate AGF without a really good reason. Given that this noticeboard is for topics requiring administrators' invention, not for discussing someone's suspicions about someone else's allegiances, I suggest you simply stop using the proxy terminology and take Cube lurker's edits as done in good faith. Oh, there really is you "own business" here--your user page is not your own, and Cube lurker has a point at that MfD. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• To be clear on my involvement. Yesterday I saw a report pop up on the WQA board regarding Kenatipo's userpage. Looking at the userpage in my opinion it violated WP:UP#POLEMIC. I attempted to explain this to Kenatipo and requested he remove the sections that were in violation. Later, as another option I offered my assistance if he wanted to turn what he had into a proper temporary evidence subpage. On his refusal I nominated the page for deletion at MFD. I did it myself because I was outside of the content conflict I thought it would be better if the nomination stuck to the points of policy, and didn't spin off into other aspects of this wider dispute. Although it may be possible that someone could argue a different interpretation of userpage policy, I am confident that my conduct has been without reproach and have no concern about any examination of any of any of the edits I've made in attempting to resolve this dispute.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You can also get insight into wikimanone's editing style in Archive 669 section (compacted) entitled: "Requested move: Pro-life > Anti-abortion". Again, please do your research first before weighing in here. Uninformed opinions will do more harm than good. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinions on your userpage are not, and need not be connected to any other part of the dispute. It's not a declaration that wikimanone is correct in any/all of his other actions, or that you are wrong in all other aspects of this dispute. You are however using your userpage outside of policy and need to correct that regardless of any other surrounding actions. That is the only area I intend to involve myself in. Others will no doubt be involved in refereeing the rest of the dispute and can do that better if these easily solved side issues are handled.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like an answer to one question, at least: What business does wikimanone have coming anywhere near my Sandbox? --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

How would noindex affect that in any way? Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. Also, articles in userspace should not have categories, as your sandbox does. Please comment the categories out, then uncomment then once you move the information into article space. Ravensfire (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the noindex tag because that it is within my rights to do so on sandboxes per the guideline noted above, it is also a violation of the same guideline for Kenatipo to remove it without first seeking consensus, and to call me an "asshole" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Furthermore, his reverting of the Rosceles' edit did not show good faith. _WikiMan^One 20:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how an article in my sandbox is " . . a source of concern, . . " to you, per the policy. And, why you used the policy " . . . to make a point, . . " which itself violates the policy. If the categories part is causing trouble, Ravensfire, no problem. I'll remove it right away. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do remove them - generally, article categories should not be used in user-space pages. Those pages don't have the visibility of an article, so it's harder to detect problems. People can find their way to those user-space article via the categories, resulting in possible problems. So, policy is not to use article categories in user-space. I don't know (and honestly, don't really care) if that's causing any of the problem here, but noticed it when I was reading through this. Generally, it's not something you'd know unless someone pointed it out to you. It's something that should be corrected though, preferably by you. Ravensfire (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that that sandbox article, which is a re-write of the Crisis pregnancy center article, had been in my sandbox for almost a month before wikimanone, an aggressive pro-abort POV pusher, started stalking my user pages. In other words, it wasn't a concern to anyone until wm1 read it and decided he didn't like it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If something about the page goes against policy, it's irrelevant who found it, or how long it went unnoticed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless, of course, it's prima facie evidence of stalking, harassment, and a failure to MYOB. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If "MYOB" were a policy this noticeboard, nor any others, wouldn't exist.   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that calling other editors names like "aggressive pro-abort POV pusher" is unhelpful. A review of WikiManOne's top edits[54] show some significnt editing of Planned Parenthood, but otherwise fairly minor involvement in political topics. By comparison, Kenatipo seems much more politically oriented.[55] We need to accept that there are a range of views on topics like abortion, and try to apply the neutral point of view to the articles, including all significant views without favoring any. It's OK to disagree, but we should do so in a civil manner free from animosity or name-calling. As for pages in user space, they don't belong to individual editors.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. Which proves absolutely nothing, Will, and I'm a bit amazed that you're still using the same tactic. Simply pointing to an editor's contribution list showing that they have edited various political articles is nothing more than a red herring, and one I've noticed you often employ when the "opposing" editor has disagreed with you in a content dispute. jæs (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny getting involved in a wide variety of politically related articles. But I'm not going out of my way to call another user "aggressive pro-abort POV pusher". I'm not sure Kenatipo has clean hands in that regard. One topic that I'm not involved in is abortion, so I'm not "opposed" to any editor in that regard.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User Kenatipo has self reverted and added the {{noindex}} tag back to the userspace, so that point is now null. The other points, I believe to still be valid. _WikiMan^One 03:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User Kenatipo has again failed to assume good faith, this time an administrator in the discussion over deletion of his userpage. [56] Something needs to be done regarding his incivility. _WikiMan^One 17:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarek the Vulcan may have a personal beef with me: once I asked him if he was a legal alien or an illegal alien and made a joke about flying around Uranus. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at his userpage, he has been warned [57] for not behaving ivilly before in this case [58]. This editor shows a long term pattern of behaving in an uncivil manner to those he disagrees with. _WikiMan^One 17:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yet another one at the Sarah Palin page: [59]. _WikiMan^One 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of wikimanone's editing style. And he can't understand why it bothers people. [60] --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

His removing a lot of sourced, relevant content was certainly inappropriate, but it's really pushing the line for you to refer to him as a "pro-abort POV pusher" here. The term "pro-choice" is nowhere near the same term as "pro-abortion," and I'm sure you can recognize the difference (and it's more than semantics). Nonetheless, that argument was fought a while back (see, but don't move, pro-choice and pro-life), and it isn't really a relevant argument for this noticeboard or thread. I think it's probably a good idea for both of you to take a step back from attacking each other here, because the current course isn't helping either one of you. jæs (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WM1, what were you doing in my sandbox in the first place? And, why is Cube lurker handling the "Miscellany for Deletion" (i.e. the proposed deletion of my userpage) action for you? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I clearly answered the second half of that question in my initial statement in this section.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time Kenatipo has charged that Cube lurker is not acting on his own, but is proxying for WikiManOne. Neither time has any evidence been presented. May I suggest that Kenatipo post their evidence for this charge here immediately, and if they are not able to provide diffs or other data to support their contention, that a short block be applied for their lack of AGF and violation of NPA. Once might be a mistake, but twice is deliberate provocation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Copied from above, this statement also I think is a violation of the same policies:

"Sarek the Vulcan may have a personal beef with me: once I asked him if he was a legal alien or an illegal alien and made a joke about flying around Uranus. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)"

Also, in reference to Kanatipo's accusation regarding the change from pro-life to anti-abortion, I have moved away from that position, and if you would note on the talk page I have gone as far as to oppose changing it unless the move request is approved at pro-life. _WikiMan^One 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WM1, you haven't answered this question: what were you doing in my sandbox in the first place? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the "noindex" is to keep that sandbox from turning up in a google search. And you don't own your pages. If he were messing with content, that would be one thing. But the "noindex" belongs there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how that's relevant, Kenatipo... Also, this user has now violated another guideline (WP:UP#CMT)by removing the noindex tag from his three other sandboxes [61] [62] [63] which I added after he failed to do so after my request on his talk page which is the protocol put forth at Wikipedia:UP#On_others.27_user_pages. This user has now violated multiple policies and guidelines. _WikiMan^One 02:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This being the Admin Notice page, we need an admin to weigh in here and tell us whether the "noindex" should be used on those sandbox pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If "noindex" is so important, it should be added automatically to sandbox pages, like by bot. That would prevent stalkers like WM1 from going around causing trouble where they don't belong. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WM1, you still haven't answered this question: what were you doing in my sandbox in the first place? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• As I stated, how is that relevant? _WikiMan^One 03:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We now have another violation of WP:CIVIL by user Kanatipo as well as his intentional ignoring of user's note that userpages are not owned. Calling someone a "stalker" is both rude and name calling. How long are we going to allow this loose cannon to go on? This is in addition to multiple other violations of said policy including against an administrator as noted above and violating the guideline stating that the noindex tag should not be removed from userpages without consensus. _WikiMan^One 03:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiboy, I just noticed that user DrMies' sandboxes are missing the "required" noindex tags. Please go add them right away. Surely you won't allow this grievous breach of wikipolicy to stand for one more minute! --Kenatipo ^speak! 07:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, trying to push his buttons isn't the right choice at this point. If you two want to keep bickering with each other, might I recommend your respective talk pages? jæs (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Now Kenatipo is again uncivil by calling me "Wikiboy in lieu of my username, wikiman, not that its a big deal, but is a part of a pattern. There is no requirement that every userbox needs to have the noindex tag, only if they are a source of concern to an editor per the guideline linked. I have shown my concern with your userbox, and the reason is irrelevant and I will not reply to you questioning that. Now, since I have added that, you violated said guideline by removing it without first achiving consensus. Could an admin please look at this user's edit history? He's violated WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV as well as removed noindex tags from his sandboxes without seeking consensus knowing full well that they should not be removed in that manner per guideline linked above. _WikiMan^One 10:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Kenatipo for 24 hours for his repeated personal attacks, not only documented in this thread but conducted in this thread. Whatever else may be going on and whatever provocation he may feel he has, lashing out at all and sundry in the way he has been doing is completely inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of these egregious violations. Here's to hoping that this is the end to incivility and personal attacks from this user... _WikiMan^One 22:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the noindex tag required in userpage sandboxes?

Does the noindex tag really prevent Internet search engines from finding content in userpage sandboxes?

How many of your personal userpage sandboxes include the noindex tag? --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the noindex tag is not required in userpage sandboxes. It will prevent search engines from finding the Wikipedia article, but it does not control what mirrors and forks do (some of which index userspace. Personally, none of my userpage sandboxes include the noindex tag. Graham87 15:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 has made a number of remarks that have crossed the line of civility in his efforts to oppose what he feels is an improperly-sourced article at List of Jews in sports, such as this edit, where Bulldog123 states that "Three references to them being Jewish (an article mention, a category, and now a "See Also" link --- which pretty much implies that this wrestler was wearing his yarmulke while wrestling)". While I empathize with his concerns about sourcing, and have endeavored to provide additional sources where he has pointed out what he believes to be deficiencies, Bulldog123 has often resorted to remarks that crudely caricature those who have added sources to such articles in a manner that Julius Streicher would find familiar. Echoing similarly offensive remarks made by other editors, Bulldog123 today described an editor's "egregious yellowbadging of articles", explicitly referencing the yellow badge that the Nazis forced Jews to wear as identifying marks during The Holocaust (see here). At BLPN yesyerday, User:Bus stop had taken justifiable offense at similar remarks made by another editor (see here), and User:Off2riorob had the decency to retract his earlier statement describing an editor as a "yellow badger" (see here), and Bulldog123 had complimented Off2riorob for his having labeled Bus stop as a "Yellow badger" (here). There is certainly room to challenge the broad consensus that the List of Jews in sports is notable and to ensure that individual entries have appropriate sources, but the persistent labeling of those who disagree with Bulldog123 using such blatantly ant-Semitic slurs directed at editors adding sources in good faith is beyond the pale of acceptable criticism, violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Alansohn (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

These "[religious_adherent or ethnic_group] in [topic]" lists and categories are inherently problematic. Of course if someone has notably combined the two in their careers, e.g., if they were president of the Association of Jewish Wrestlers or Society of Armenian Chemists, then we should mention this in their bio. But having these broad lists and categories invites trouble. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how such lists "invite trouble" and I fail to see how this makes calling some a "yellow badger" acceptable. There may well be room to assert a position against the notability of such lists, but there is no acceptable justification for resorting to explicitly anti-Semitic rhetoric to label other editors. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the issue here is whether the use of anti-semitic slurs is appropriate, if the list should be deleted, there is certainly room to argue for that without resorting to racial slurs. At least, that's my reading of this whole thing. _WikiMan^One 18:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Yellowbadger" is not an antisemitic slur - it is rather an anti-antisemitic slur. In Bulldog's use "yellowbadger" obviously refers to a person who thinks that it is necessary to overtly state whenever a person is jewish (like the persons who enforced the use of the badge in question)- not to the jewish person. His problem is with the person who wishes to forcibly identify people by religion/ethnicity even when that religion or ethnicity is not relevant to the topic. Now of course Bulldog should no that by the principle of Godwin's law he loses the discussion by comparing people who want to label jews as jews in all kinds of context to Nazi's but we don't actively enforce that law here.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is rather twisting things to refer to the term yellowbadging as "anti-Semitic rhetoric". It was the Nazis who introduced the badges, not the Jewish community after all. I can see why some might find the term objectionable, and wouldn't use it myself, but can entirely support Bulldog123's suggestion that this endless tagging by 'ethnicity', often with dubious sourcing, is in itself objectionable. Wikipedia seems to attract a particular form of ethnobureaucratic categorisation that seem to me unencyclopaedic, and often done for less-than-neutral reasons. Given the 'tagging' of individuals even against their own express wishes - e.g. Richard Feynman in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates - seems to be a valid exercise by some, I think that Bulldog123 is fully entitled to object to the practice, if perhaps not in those words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It was the Nazis who introduced the badges... so the use of the term is not anti-Semitic, but rather explicitly comparing other editors to Nazis? I'm not sure that makes it OK. 28bytes (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't ok (per Godwin's law), but it isn't anti-semitic either.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case it seems like the thing to do would be to ask Bulldog123 to choose language that doesn't imply that other editors are using Nazi tactics. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• - I should comment as I am mentioned. The expression was meant as someone who is repeatedly adding, so and so who is Jewish as though it is part of that persons notability, in the manner of ethnic labeling, for example here, an edit I removed twice as the support was weak for the claim, two days later it was reported that Porter was not Jewish after all. I had seen the expression yellowbadger used in a similar way before at wikipedia, but that was perhaps in relation to vandal type edits. User Bus Stop was kind enough to politely point out that there are nicer ways to express such edits, and I realized it was an insensitive expression and likely could be found upsetting and I retracted the comment completely, and apologized to him. If someone is proud of their country, religion or ethnic group it is wrong to call them a name that harks back to the holocaust, and as I said I apologized to him for that and struck the comment and I apologize again to him here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(ecXa bunch) Bulldog123 has a lot of interest and participation, in a positive way, in Jewish-related articles. His (I'll assume) motivation in doing so is obviously not antisemitic, he clearly cares about the subject. But there have been persistent issues about civility, edit warring, and aggressive advocacy, with statements about other editors that often come out as insensitive or verbally abusive. This is a low level long-term problem that only occasionally boils over into something that could plausibly require administrative help. If it ever does get to the point of a user RfC or ArbCom case, there's enough there that I'm sure they would consider a topic ban - so even in the likely event nothing comes of this report there's a lesson to be learned here. Regarding this specific boil over, of course calling someone a yellow badger is inappropriate. If you dispense with the irrelevant question of whether the literal meaning is pro-Jew or anti-Jew, it's race baiting. It's using a person's presumed Jewishness to tell them that they've got a persecution complex and should stop using their ethnicity as a badge of shame (note - I see after the edit conflict that Off2riorob mentions a different meaning). It's not a common expression, it's not like telling a Christian that they have a cross to bear. More like telling someone to get their head out of the gas chamber, or telling a black person not to be such an x (slave, n-word, Uncle Tom). I'm sure there is a more respectful way to make that point, but even soit's commenting about the editor and not the content, and if editors are objecting to being addressed in this way, our expectations of civility are that you would afford them. If you call someone a hog-shuffler and they say please don't call me that, do we really have to get into the semantics of thee term? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Only because calling someone an antisemite is also in it self a personal attack which in this case clearly isnt warranted. Bulldog123 does need to stop referring to other users with any kind of disparaging remark ethnic or not. Bulldog123 has clearly been incivil and an apology and a statement to the effect that he is going to stop the Personal Attakcs would be in order.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• This whole thing that "yellow badge" is not an ethnic slur is laughable, it was introduced by Nazi Germany as a way for them to identify Jews as part of their anti-semitic program, obviously, it is anti-semitic. Being part Jewish myself, I take particular offense to the use of this word. Simply apologizing doesn't cut it, this is beyond WP:CIVIL, it is an ethnic attack at a time when Jews in Israel and in general find themselves in an extremely precarious situation because of the rise in anti-semitism recently. This is ridiculous, and anyone who defends the usage of this ethnic slur is insensitive as well. That's from someone who has never associated with either of these editors previously. _WikiMan^One 19:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand that you cannot get that when he uses the word he is referring to the people who apply yellow badges to others - i.e. antisemites and nazis, he is saying that putting yellow badges on people is bad. How on earth is that antisemitic? Just by using a word denoting an object which was created by Nazi's he becomes one himself even when using it to say that it is a bad practice - would i. Am I an antisemte know that I have used the word yellow badge in several different places above. Whoops. I did it again - and so did you. Can we please get a little perspective on this - if I call someone who si discriminating against homosexuals a "gay-basher" does that make me a homophobe? No - it makes me incivil and it puts me in danger of receiving sanctions for using personal attacks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Three issue issues. First, I think there's semantic question. Some would say that offensive racial terms are racist (meant to encompass antisemitism here), whether in support or against a person of that race. Telling a Jew he's acting like a Nazi is a racially tinged statement, even if the premise is that it's not good to act like a Nazi. But it's just a matter of definition. Second, observing that a statement is racist is not a personal attack on the person who said them, it's a claim that the language is objectionable. The words themselves are the problem because their presence on the page creates a hostile environment for some participants, regardless of what's in the heart of the person who wrote them. We're pretty close to Godwin's Law here. It doesn't matter why you brought up the Nazis or on which side of the argument, it's a discussion stopper. Finally, to deal with it we have to talk about it. Poop stinks and it shouldn't be there on the front yard, but to clean up poop you have to handle the poop. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the term that Bulldog123 used was yellowbadger - meaning one who applies the labels, not one who is forced to wear one. I've already stated that I don't consider the term appropriate, but it is nevertheless true that it was being applied to editors that Bulldog123 saw as engaging in 'labelling' on the basis of 'Jewishness' - the very foundation of antisemitism. If objecting to somebody calling somebody else a Jew is antisemitic, then exactly what isn't? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• You can object to labeling someone a Jew without using a slur with its origins in Nazi Germamy. _WikiMan^One 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, and he should have. And if he does it again I will happily block him.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Has someone issued a warning? _WikiMan^One 20:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Let's put it this way: Poor choice of words, I admit, and using any words that reference the Nazis is breaking Godwin's Law, which makes me look stupid. However, it's obvious the real reason I was brought to AN/I over this (and not Off2riorob, who used the term earlier) is because Alansohn is "shopping for a block" using whatever means necessary (see my Reply below) because of a content dispute concerning the spamming of See Also links and the controversial use of a source. So, I'm sorry to anyone who was offended, I shouldn't have used that term. Bulldog123 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Since I am the one (or one of the editors) whom Bull used the slur against, I imagine I should comment. Context is of great importance. There are situations where this would not be troubling. Here, however, the editor using the term is one who has of late in dozens of edits sought to delete Jewish lists in their entirety, and portions of Jewish articles/lists (including ones that inter alia list Holocaust victims). The conversation was with regard to his efforts to delete material related to such lists. It strikes me as foreseeable that editors on the other side of the discussion could be especially troubled by his use of anti-Jewish Holocaust imagery. The editor here had been warned more than once for incivility and personal attacks, as here. I find his continued incivility to be highly disturbing and, after his warnings, actionable.[64] --Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Reply - Second time in two days User:Alansohn has posted an AN/I report concerning me, shopping for a block/ban (by apparently, whatever means necessary) because of content disputes: See [65]. If it wasn't going to be about this term, he'd find something else to report me about. That we're even bothering to have semantic discussions about this is the sad part. Bulldog123 01:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you get a U.S. patent on how to tactically employ the principal of “The best defense is a strong offense”? I saw this sort of strategy out of you yesterday over on WP:BLP-Noticeboard. You might consider modifying your behavior instead of acting like a pit bull that hangs off the throat of its victim with its tail wagging the whole time. Greg L (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Both parties mentioned in the report acknowledged that the term was offensive, apologized, and said they would not use the term in the future. All the other stuff aside (content issues) that seems to be the best we could ask from them. David Able 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've come across a set of contributions from Pedia07 (talk · contribs) that I'm unsure what to do with. The user has been making edits to a variety of medicine articles, many adding new information. My concern is that all add references to articles by a specific author, and in some of the cases the information added seems to be of tangential relevance. I've reverted a few things, but this was never my specialty in any way, and I've been out of action here for a looooong time. So can someone wiser than I in current policy on how to handle this sort of thing take a look? Many thanks. --Robth^Talk 05:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd point the user towards the external link page. In particular, note criteria thirteen:

“

Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject...

”

I would assume good faith and tell the user that, while their efforts are appreciated, linking everything remotely to do with surgery to that one page isn't much of a help. Any more questions are welcome! Cheers, m.o.p 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess is Pedia07 is Vivian C. McAlister, proffessor at the University of Western Ontario. see (http://works.bepress.com/vivianmcalister/). McAlister is also the editor of History of Surgery in Canada (http://www.historyofsurgery.ca/). All of Pedia07's edits involve linking to his own research, through his own blog(bepress.com/vivianmcalister/), university (uwo.ca) or through his site, historyofsurgery.ca. This falls into the catagory of WP:REFSPAM, WP:COI and WP:OR more thad it does WP:EL--Hu12 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've found myself profoundly tempted to lock this article, but since I'm involved in the dispute, it would be grossly inappropriate. Editor Dante19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (whom I suspect of being a friend or associate of the subject) seems determined to remove all but a token mention of the subject's ongoing legal problem, which is cited in the article to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and other reliable sources. Can I get some non-involved folks to look at it? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• On a purely content standpoint the section could be due for a small trimming. I don't think that we need to detail current restrictions placed on Kramer by a county court especially if those are for what is essentially pretrial confinement. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• I just removed most of the redundant refs. Overkill, really... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks to the other editors who made that section more concise. I fully support those edits. However, Dante19 has reappeared and is making another attempt to remove the information. I'm with Orange Mike and would support protecting the article. But I also don't want to do this myself since it would not be appropriate.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Letshavethetruestory2011 is still adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles Grantham House and Earl of Leitrim nd is in edit war with other users. He was warned by two users [66] about BLP policy, but without success. Of course, he use sources as "Swan Turton Solicitors London", but these are unverifiable.As can be seen, he violated 3RR [67] --Yopie (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring, and set to indef for username passing the "truth" test.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Yopie (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this needs to be reported (best to be safe i guess)...so i will let admins beside its context : Pls see here.22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User has been given a final warning. An indefinite block will be in order if disruption continues. Jujutacular ^talk 22:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A little while ago I raised an issue at this noticeboard about this user who refuses to justify a reinsertion of texts at Independent Payment Advisory Board which have been seriously challenged. The editor continually reinserts the texts. For instance here, here, here, here, here, and here, The editor accepts that I have explained why I have deleted the texts but says only that my explnations were "incoherent" and has so far refused to justify his or her own reasons for inserting the texts. The editor has unfortunately re-emerged and begun inserting the offending texts yet again.

I have checked the edit history of this user and it is very typical of accounts created for sockpuppetry. The early edits are nearly all inconsequential edits moving texts around via cut and paste (sometimes in different edits) and slightly rewording. Hardly any of the edits had any meaningful impact on the content of Wikipedia until the editor began editing this article and its predecessor. I have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged, but his or her editing behavior for trying to reinsert them after I deleted them leaves me to think that they may have been. I have been challenged several times about my suspicion of sockpuppety at this article and asked to raise a formal complaint. I have trouble doing so because the complaint procedure requires me to name another user as the so called sockmaster but I have no idea who that may be. Notwithstanding this, the editing behavior of this editor is unacceptable and I ask that an edit ban be imposed.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you attempted dispute resolution? This looks very much like a content dispute at core, and it is significantly easier to identify tendentious editing when consensus has been clarified by a broader group of participants. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution with a probable sockpuppet? Have you looked at the editor's editing history? That does not seem likely to produce much of a result. I have listed all the problems with the text he or she is inserting and just refuses to justify the edits. Did you look at the issues I raised? The users inserts are clearly problematic.Hauskalainen (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI is another board. And yes, you must name a sockmaster for a report there and not just continue to accuse the account of socking without any evidence save your suspicions. You "have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged"? Well, do some homework and see if you can determine a sockmaster (if it is indeed a sock). This is the third time you've filed a report here concerning this exact same editor and issue within a week. You were advised after the first report filed on the 28th to let the WQA run its course, and even that's been archived as well because of lack of input. The fact that the last AN/I report filed two days ago was archived without any input from anyone just might tell you that you are possibly beating a dead horse. "Try dispute resolution" is some very good advice you might want to take. Are you planning on filing this report here yet again if it gets archived? I sincerely hope not... Doc talk 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It really does not matter WHO is the sockmaster, the account has all the chacteristics of a sock. I'd suggest the WP:DUCK test is relevant here.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As Doc notes, we can't treat this person as though he is a sock without some evidence that he is a sock. Even if he had prior experience on Wikipedia, he might be a user in good standing under a "clean start", for instance. The advantage of dispute resolution is that in drawing others into the conversation, you make the problems more apparent to outsiders. His response to you, that your explanations are "incoherent", is hardly in keeping with expected behavioral standards, but it is not alone sufficient cause for blocking. There does seem to be edit warring in the article, but as an outsider I cannot easily determine who is at fault and to what degree. The more people to nail down consensus, the easier it becomes to see who is ignoring it to promote their own preference. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor has editing account has edited very few articles in its very brief history. I suggest that someone look at all of them because it will only take a minute or two to compare the before and after edits that the account has made. There is no need to be selective (i.e. for me to suggest which ones to look at). These are the typical edits of accounts used for suckpuppetry and quite unlike those of serious editors.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like edit warring and thus is blockworthy. Any admin should be able to do it immediately since the editor in question knows they are doing it against the wishes of another editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Which editor would that be? The one mentioned in the report here or the one filing it? They have each been reverting against the wishes of another editor. This is why it's much easier to tell who is being disruptive when multiple people are involved in a conversation. It may be tedious, but it's worthwhile, when the content is not obvious to those unfamiliar with the issues.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine Brangifer means User:Intermittentgardener because I gave a very detailed explanation of all my edits at the TALK page. User:Intermittentgardener 's contribution was just to admit that I had explained them in great detail and then just went on to say that they were "incoherent". That is is hardly engaging in the normal editing process.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have explained below a key element here that I think cannot be ignored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But the only other person to have weighed in at the talk page seems to feel that you are the tendentious editor ([68]; [69]). Uninvolved bystanders who do not know you or any of the participants in the page cannot easily determine what's going on based on the little bit of interaction provided. It is not our job to lay the groundwork for a listing here, but yours. If you think he is a sockpuppet, you must provide evidence that he is disruptively using multiple accounts. If you think he is tendentious, you should provide us with clear evidence that he is the disruptive element in this article. Otherwise, people will do as evidently they have been doing: glance at your listing and ignore it, because it is not easily resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to appear to be taking sides here. I have had encounters with Hauskalainen over time and found him tendentious. I have just begun to see edits and comments by Intermittentgardener this week and have not yet formed an opinion. Angel's flight (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Intermittentgardener should have definitely engaged with discussion before performing all of those reverts, but Hauskalainen can be disruptive, IMO. I've had to warn about/clean up their WP:SOAP/advocacy/WP:V issues as of late.[70][71] Jesanj (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I left this note on User talk:Intermittentgardener:

• "You need to read WP:BRD. This is the only known method for determining when an edit war starts and who started it. Discussion doesn't justify continued editing of the contentious material. You must reach a consensus first. To do otherwise is to treat the article like a battlefield."

While BRD isn't policy, it's still very useful. Even when both parties end up in an edit war and may need to be sanctioned for it, fairness and justice require that the degree of blame be determined and that both parties not be judged with the same degree of harshness. BRD is the tool that helps to determine this. The point of BRD is to force editors to reach a consensus on the talk page before making more controversial edits, REGARDLESS of who is right. Many edit warriors think that as soon as they have started the "D"iscussion on the talk page, that they are then free to just continue making controversial edits. Not so. Not at all. That's battlefield behavior, and again, it makes no difference whether they are right or wrong. I have often seen blocks of equal length handed out to both editors because some admin was too lazy to form a just opinion of what was happening. That's blind justice, and justice isn't supposed to be blind or arbitrary. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The question, of course, is who is behind the battlefield behavior. On the 25th of January, Hauskalainen made these sweeping changes to an article in which he had not substantively participated before (except in moving it). User:Intermittentgardener reverted ([72]) and left a note at the talk page ([73]) This is so far in accordance with WP:BRD. Hauskalainen made major changes and was reverted, with objection logged at the talk.

The following day, Hauskalainen responded with a note at 03:29, 26 January 2011 and then, three minutes later, without allowing time for any feedback, reverted the contributor who had objected to his sweeping changes. WP:BRD says “The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D"… The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.” There was no waiting for agreement here; Hauskalainen boldly edited the article, encountered reversion & objections, and (although he did respond to the objections) restored his preferred version without waiting for consensus.

It’s quite true that User:Intermittentgardener’s contributions to the article and talk page subsequent to this act are also inappropriate, but is it a unilateral problem? It looks to me like there are two people not following proper consensus procedures here...and it seems like the person who responded to the objection and restored the disputed changes before anybody had a chance to discuss launched the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems to me Hauskalainen is filibustering the talk page and Intermittentgardener is to an extent brushing it off, not ideal, but understandable. BRD isn't the whole answer here. Superficially it looks to me that Intermittentgardener's edits are ok and Hauskalainen is editing tendentiously, but it's going to take more examination that I don't feel likely to attempt. I do think some uninvolved editors should look at it. The very first section in Hauskalainen's big reply in [74] jumps out as dubious (the part mentioning WP:OPINION to remove some comments of a senior US congressperson involved in passing the legislation, which seem obviously significant under NPOV). Hauskalainen is removing a lot of sourced info without consensus and at a certain point has to consider WP:PRESERVE. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like both editors are so deeply involved that third parties need to come in, separate them, and force a pause in editing while consensus is sought among the two and some third parties. Maybe an RfC will be required.

Whatever the case, temporary and immediate article protection seems justified. That often does the trick. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

24h page protection sounds ok to me, re-applied if warring resumes afterwards. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Article protected for 24 hours; if edit warring resumes afterwards, further protection may be necessary or blocks may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked back at the situation's development yet, but the protection should be "until consensus is reached", since this isn't a one-time thing, but a serious edit war. Anyone who needs to make an edit can request an admin to temporarily lift the protection to make the edit. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:57, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editors should also look at the diffs in dispute, including checking them against sources. For example, Intermittentgardener here says Rep. Pete Stark "issued a 14-page talking point report" cited to this. The cited article just says "report", and "talking point" is a somewhat perjorative term connoting propaganda. That stuck out at me so I looked into it; I'm not claiming it's part of a pattern (which would take further investigation). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For everyone's information, the editor with whom I have had this problem has now been engaging in what I regard as blatant POV pushing and I have placed a warning about this at his talk page here. The editor followed this by dismissing my complaints and then raised a complaint against me here at the main Administrator's noticeboard. Well they say attack is the best form of defence, so it was to be expected, but its a bit deceptive of the editor not to have drawn attention to the fact that his account has been identified by me as a possible sock and accused of both editing against the rules by not engaging at TALK and now for blatant POV. The good guy/bad guy routine is also being played out with the another tendentious editor UserJesanj having called out User:Intermittentgardener for apparent canvassing. I am sure that User:Intermittentgardener will just say that he has been drawing in other editors who may have commented. Some of these are editors such as User:Angel's flight are ones who appear to follow his line of editing (if not quite the same style) but certainly not all.Hauskalainen (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

@User:Moonriddengirl. On your home page I think I read recently that you welcome comments about your actions as an Admin, especially if they seem wrong. So I hope you don't mind me saying the following. You seem to accept that User:Intermittentgardener’s contributions to the article actions were inappropriate as well his responses to me at the article talk page and his own talk page, but it seems to me that you have not given me a fair hearing here. You implied that we are as bad as each other. I have given very detailed explanations of what is wrong with this user's edits, for example here and here. At no time has User:Intermittentgardener made any serious attempt to answer these issues. I have pointed out that the editor has all the characteristics of a sock (a recent editor who makes completely inconsequential edits to a handful of articles such as slight wording changes and moving texts around) before weighing in and placing highly contentious and highly POV edits to another (Independent Payment Advisory Board). This article, the subject of which is the subject from some quarters of a political campaign against health care reform, is a clear candidate for POV pushing and I am surprised that you are not alert to this possibility. I fail to see why you could possibly think that this is a matter of equivalence. I am disappointed that you blocked the article and I would hope that you or another admin can unblock it as this is clearly not a case of two editors with equally strong opinions edit warring with no give and take on either side. I have justified each of my edits in great detail and the other editor simply does not engage.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hausakalainen, it would help if you could identify the editor who you think Intermittentgardener (I.G.) is a sock of. Otherwise it's just another of those vague suspicions that might have some grounding but really can't be acted on. The page protection was ok per there is no deadline since so many reversions is never good, and tendentious editing (if it is happening) may be making the article worse. I've been regretting not suggesting 48h instead of 24h protection to give outside editors a bit more time to make sense of the diffs. Yes I think we all know that POV pushing goes on in political topics. I didn't see any obvious POV in a couple minutes of looking at I.G.'s edits. Not seeing a POV is usually a sign that the person is editing neutrally, but the subject matter in dispute is very complicated for an outsider like me to size up, so I may well have missed something. Your note on I.G.'s talk page is more informative than the earlier one on the article talk page in that it tried to identify a POV being pushed. I'll see if I can look at it more tomorrow; Brangifer's suggestion of an RFC might also be warranted. I think the content discussion should stay on the article talk page rather than spreading all over the wiki. Do you think you could link your user_talk:I.G. message to the article talk page? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure I can add this link to the article talk page, but the issue is primarily with the editors actions and not with the article. I thought I made the reasons for claims of POV pretty explicit. POV is often done with promotion and demotion of content, with the deletion of texts not favorable to the editor's POV and by the use of WP:undue to push fringe ideas and theories. I have now raised what partly the same issue at WP:Finge noticeboard, but this issue also affects the edits of other users. To be frank, there are several editors engaging in POV pushing to various degrees at the IPAB and Death Panel articles.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, I don't mind; I would not expect you to necessarily agree with my view. But as I have explained above, when a contributor reverts you and objects at the talk page, it is not part of the consensus process to restore your changes prior to pursuing conversation. That you explained why you believed your edits were reasonable does not mean that other contributors to the talk page are going to be convinced. I've quoted from the widely cited essay WP:BRD to explain that reverting somebody's reversion is not part of the process. This is also encoded in policy: "When there is a more serious dispute over an edit, the consensus process becomes more explicit. Editors open a section on the article's talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic." There are few emergencies on Wikipedia that justify bypassing conversation (which is a give and take, not a declaration followed by unilateral action). Reverting prior to reaching agreement is a provocative action.

In terms of the neutrality of his posts, it is not the purpose of this noticeboard to determine what content should be in this article. As I advised you above, you need to pursue dispute resolution. If there is clear consensus for content, then administrators will be able to help deal with contributors who persist in disrupting it. Until that clear consensus exists, except in blatantly obvious cases, this is not the appropriate forum. There are quite a few others listed at WP:DR that can help settle content issues, and we do not ban or block contributors (as you requested here) on suspicions (without clear evidence) of sock puppetry or of disagreeing with another person, even if they behave poorly--at least not without a clear pattern of persistent behavior after efforts to address it through, yes, dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I am getting very annoyed with you. I asked you very kindly here to look again at the allegation you made that the two editors at dispute were as bad as each other because I thought you were characterizing me unfairly. But quite clearly I have been engaging (or attempting too at least) with this user at several talk pages with very detailed reasons as to why his edits are unacceptable and he or she just fails to engage. You seem to have just repeated that same thing above by suggesting that I am doing something wrong. Clearly I am an established editor who uses the Talk pages extensively. The other editor is clearly a newbie with dubious editing credentials and does not respond to criticism of his edits. Its hardly a case of "six of one and half a dozen of the other". BRD only works if there is a D and so far the D has come only from me. There is very little to be gained by not reverting and hoping that this particular editor will have a change of heart. I ask you again, very sincerely, to look again at your characterization of my editing. I would hate to have to take this matter further, but you are, to an extent, tarnishing my edit reputation.Hauskalainen (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please quote where I said that the two editors at dispute were as bad as each other. I generally avoid such weighted value judgments. It is my position that you are both at fault in this engagement and that you were the first to deviate from expected behavioral standards. I've placed differences above and explained, with policy quotations, why you should build consensus before reverting a reverting. He should not have refused to engage you; you should not have continued the chain of reversion before giving him or anyone else a chance to respond to your comments at the talk page. I'll note also that Wikipedia:Edit warring says, "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action." You do not have to wait for him "to have a change of heart". The two of you are a small selection among the thousands of people who edit Wikipedia who may help to settle disputes. If you feel compelled to take the matter further, you are welcome to do so. See WP:ADMINABUSE. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not say you used the words "as bad as each other" but that IS the clear implication of your words previously and again above. You imply that I do not use BRD but as I say BRD only works if the other party cooperates. There is a cabal of editors at work on this article. It is not JUST User:Intermittentgarden. Therefore your suggestion that I engage with other editors at TALK is just pointless. I may have reverted some of the garden's edits very quickly but that is only because the other editors otherwise make intervening edits, as happened just before your edit freeze, which makes undoing the multiple damage done by garden harder to correct. I know full well that these editors are trying to run me ragged, but I have the patience of a saint and will continue to make changes if they indicate that there is POV or there are other breaches of policy. What I am curious about is why it is that I make very substantial claims about the edits of editors like garden but only a few commentators above (and now below) have bothered to look at the problem edits I have drawn attention to see if I am right or wrong. Why is that? I edit a lot at potentially contentious articles and I have earned a fair amount of respect from fellow editors for tenacious adherence to reporting factually and in a NPOV way and for removing gross factually erroneous or POV content. All I am trying to do now is the same thing. Hauskalainen (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You said "the allegation you made that the two editors at dispute were as bad as each other". I have made no such allegations, whatever inference you may have drawn. (Please be careful to be precise in attributing positions to others.) What I have done is point out repeatedly that when you have been reverted in a bold edit, re-reverting before waiting for additional input is improper. This is no more than various policies and essays set out. It is never pointless to engage other editors at talk; if you feel you are dealing with a "cabal" on a specific article, you draw attention of outsiders (appropriately) through one of the many content boards or mediation processes described at dispute resolution. This one is for urgent and obvious situation; the limitations of it are set out explicitly at WP:DR.

I have already explained to you why only a few commenters have bothered to look at the problem edits you have drawn attention to; it's because the situation is not obvious, and until it is the administrators' noticeboards are not the forum to report it. From my very first note, "it is significantly easier to identify tendentious editing when consensus has been clarified by a broader group of participants." If you achieve clear consensus and then show that somebody is edit warring against it, administrators can help you. (We can also help if you identify a clear sock puppeteer, although not at this board.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen is engaging in very extreme POV pushing, edit warring, constantly insulting other users (He likes to accuse others of being sockpuppets), and posting frivolous complaints here. Previously, he has been warned by numerous users to stop his behavior and has even been blocked for edit warring. See User_talk:Hauskalainen, Wikiquette_alerts#User:Hauskalainen, Talk:Death_panel for but a small sample of the venom this guy spews. He is really out of control and needs a block. Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this situation. But I have observed Hauskalainen at work and talk at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for about 6 months. The worst I saw them do there is apply too much expertise to contributions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I also think User:Hauskalainen is doing great job on the PPACA article, fighting the vandals. I really appreciated his help with the article. I think User:Intermittentgardener is just trying to push his ideas via Wikipedia and remove all comments that do not comply with his point of view. Innab (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at this [75] this [76] and this [77] before you jump to conclusions. Hauskalainen really is out of control and needs to be reined in. Intermittentgardener (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Another end of this argument is at WP:ANI#editor User:Intermittentgardener (reposting after archive without comment). - David Biddulph (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the problems reported a couple of weeks ago at this board[78]. Mr. H does seem to be a bit clueless about how various policies are supposed to work, in addition to being very tendentious. Angel's flight (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I was notified on my talkpage about this discussion because I had brief involvement in an RSN discussion started by Hauskalainen and in the Death Panel article linked to that. It doesn't seem very obvious to me what the complaint is, so I would ask Intermittentgardener to be more specific.--FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this page is not to be used for raising issues of this sort. But having been raised I should point out that User:Intermittentgardener is treating attack as the best possible defence. Just before he raised the allegation which commenced this thread I had issued a very detailed warning about his/her blatant POV pushing at the user's talk page here. And as has been said above I raised at AN/I an issue with User:Intermittentgardener. This was initially about his failure to answer allegations that his edits did not concur with editing policy, and now of course his POV pushing. I have alerted the administrators of my suspicions about the account being used for sock puppetry (it is a new account with relatively few edits to a few articles which had zero effect on them and then a series of edits to the article where I accuse the account of being used for POV pushing and politicizing Wikipedia) but it is hard to know who the sockmaster might be. I am not accusing anyone at this stage of being a puppet-master. There are certain editors at the article where POV pushing has been going on who are inclined to follow the same general line of editing such as User:Angel's flight and User:Jesanj but there is no way that I am prepared to say that either of them fits the bill. User:Angel's flight has undone several of my edits as has User:Jesanj. I see that User:Angel's flight was very quick to jump in and accuse me (above) of being "clueless" which is rather uncivil and not very dissimilar to User:Intermittentgardener's accusation that I was "incoherent". This happened following his accusation that I had deleted "properly sourced material" which I fully explained here and which he summarily dismissed without answering a single one of my points.Hauskalainen (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the sudden appearance and immediate leap to dispute resolution of Intermittentgardener and Angel's flight is unseemly. Both are semi-SPA's in closely related subjects, which isn't encouraging. Jesanj has been around for a while. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, user:Angel's flight has also been involved in Lyndon LaRouche-related articles, in a manner consistent with past sock puppets of a banned user. See WP:LTA/HK. So-called "Death panels" and "Obamacare" are key issues for the LaRouche movement, which has become known for its posters of Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache (because they believe the plan is similar to, and inspired by, Hitler's T4 euthanasia program). I have not gathered specific evidence on Angel's flight, and am not explicitly accusing that user of being a sock puppet. While we should make a practice of assuming good faith, there are times when it is not warranted.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, every time an editor on the LaRouche talk page disagrees with Will, Will insinuates that the editor is a sock. It seems to be SOP. Angel's flight (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If your suspicion is right, it would make sense of my concern, as the POV I see being advocated from Angel's flight is definitely LaRouchian. Hauskalainen has his own POV pushing problems,[79][80][81] IMO. At worst, he seems to know "the truth" about things and can't control his urge to opine in article space or remove things he doesn't like with dubious edit summaries. He also can assume bad faith easily.[82][83] He can be a productive editor at other times. Jesanj (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've also been concerned that Angel's flight is a sockpuppet of a banned LaRouche editor who edits from the Los Angeles area. Angel's flight arrived recently at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to support reverting to parts of an old version favoured by the LaRouche account(s). I don't know anything about the healthcare edits he has been making, but if they're consistent with LaRouche's "Obama is Hitler" position, that would increase the concern. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay - any "uninvolveds" wanna tackle this? Totally no opinion except that it needs go to WP:DR if the talk page efforts fail. Content issue. WP:WQA is a widespread joke, and it's too bad about that. One less step to take, I suppose ;P Doc talk 04:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth looking further into the possible socking activity that has been mentioned. That would make it not a pure content issue. I've checked a few diffs but I find the subject matter mind-numbing, so it hasn't been easy. I'm also not familiar with the cast of characters who have socked in this area in the past. If Will Beback has any further thoughts, he might want to post them, or possibly email them to checkuser-l. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree that WQA is not the direction to go, and that this matter should most likely go to WP:DR, unless a truly uninvolved admin can step forward to take a stab at sorting this out. Various parties appear to have adopted a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here, which is not surprising given the subject, which produces heat. The article itself appears to be reasonably close to WP:NPOV at first read, but it is long and the turf is well-trodden. I am no fan of SPA's, if indeed those are present. All socking has to stop at once, and that should be checked completely for compliance. A real time sink: I'd like to see the parties all agree to a truce and perhaps take several steps back. Seems unlikely. Jusdafax 09:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the many cases which makes me yearn for a policy that thwarts SPAs, something in the direction of limiting their one-sided interests. For example, if an editor's contributions are over 40% on one article, they automatically get a warning, and when they get to 50% they are automatically blocked from the article and it's talk page, IOW an effective article ban, but not a topic ban since there are likely other articles dealing with the same topic, but automated bots can't figure that out. This would hopefully force them to start editing other topics for awhile, and when the percentage drops back down to 40%, then they are again allowed access. My basic thinking is that editors should be forced to make the encyclopedia their main motivation, not warring over their favorite topic. It's valuable experience for SPAs to edit in other topic areas and it's good for them to learn that peaceful collaboration actually works. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I very much sympathize with your thinking, since I'd also like to see tougher measures brought against SPA editing, but I don't think this scheme will work, since it would automatically block bona fide experts contributing to an article in their area of expertise in a referenced and NPOV manner. The problem is that SPA activity is not only about the focus of the contributions, but also about their quality, which can't be determined through mechanical means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Brangifer, and also with the point Ken makes. I was hoping we could deal with bad SPA editing through the recent proposal for an advocacy noticeboard, now deleted. But if not that, there has to be some other way to approach it because it's only going to get worse. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Some talk page input at Independent Payment Advisory Board might help or be warranted. The 24 hr page protection has elapsed and editing has picked back up. Thankfully, discussion on the talk page has also increased. Jesanj (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that my proposal is definitely unfinished, but that something needs to be done. This isn't a rare situation and it causes significant disruption, often complicated by socks who aren't quite obvious enough for filing SPIs. There can be several socks and meatpuppets at work causing disruption and attempting to force fringe agendas into articlees. We often have problems with SPAs. Just take a look at Talk:Aspartame controversy (also a subject on this page right now). We need a WP:Administrators' noticeboard/SPA where problematic SPAs can be discussed and dealt with, and where potential sock issues can be dealt with. SPAs who are experts and cause no disruption shouldn't be bothered. Only when non-frivolous complaints are made should action be taken. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree that something needs to be done and that more attention needs to be focused on the subject, but I'll point out (as SlimVirgin well knows) that the tide seems to be running against new noticeboards right now. I'd be more interested in beefed-up enforcement measures that can be wielded whenever necessary, no matter where the issue arises. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that both contributions made by the IP address 217.42.23.10 have been vandalism.

Middlewich High School: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middlewich_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=407373003 Sir John Deane's College: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_John_Deane%27s_College&diff=prev&oldid=407373893

I am the Network Manager of Middlewich High School. Many of our leavers go on to Sir John Dean's College, so it is most likely an ex-pupil. While our Wikipedia page will hardly be well-visited, our SEN programme is an important 'selling point' for the school and we would not wish it to be defamed on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.85.88 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that both edits have been reverted. No warning was left, so I have placed a lvl 1 vandalism warning for the later of the two edits, and will watch the ips contributions from now on. Other than that, I am afraid there is not a great deal to be done. Vandalism is a fact of life on Wikipedia, and all we can do is revert, block and ignore.--Korruski^Talk 11:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

While it is definitely vandalism, I have to say that it's fairly humorous vandalism.75.150.53.81 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

without contacting a specific admin, could someone close this as it's past 7 days. thanks LibStar (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Probably best to put stuff like this in AN, not AN/I or even just wait a bit unless the debate is really overdue for a closure. Protonk (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that User:NYScholar has taken little notice of their latest block [84] and has returned yet again, this time as 69.205.79.125 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot), same ISP (Road Runner HoldCo LLC). Allocations for this OrgID serve Road Runner residential customers out of the New York City, NY and Syracuse, NY RDCs. As will be seen in previous reports, this banned user refuses to use any channel to appeal their ban. Previous discussions at [85], [86], [87]. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, User:F is a good and reliable editor. This is their last good edit from about 65 minutes ago. The next edit 40 minutes later started to be vandalism. Somebody has hijacked their account. What to do - a temporary block? Schwede66 02:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think its legit. See http://www.mediawatch.co.nz/news/political/68056/10-to-contest-botany-by-election. –Moondyne 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, turns out to be a false alarm. Sorry. I thought that the Green Party in the election box being replaced by the Pirate Party was vandalism. It turns out that the Greens didn't get their nomination in, whereas the Pirate Party does exist and is running. Schwede66 02:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A little while ago I raised an issue at this noticeboard about this user who refuses to justify a reinsertion of texts at Independent Payment Advisory Board which have been seriously challenged. The editor continually reinserts the texts. For instance here, here, here, here, here, and here, The editor accepts that I have explained why I have deleted the texts but says only that my explnations were "incoherent" and has so far refused to justify his or her own reasons for inserting the texts. The editor has unfortunately re-emerged and begun inserting the offending texts yet again.

I have checked the edit history of this user and it is very typical of accounts created for sockpuppetry. The early edits are nearly all inconsequential edits moving texts around via cut and paste (sometimes in different edits) and slightly rewording. Hardly any of the edits had any meaningful impact on the content of Wikipedia until the editor began editing this article and its predecessor. I have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged, but his or her editing behavior for trying to reinsert them after I deleted them leaves me to think that they may have been. I have been challenged several times about my suspicion of sockpuppety at this article and asked to raise a formal complaint. I have trouble doing so because the complaint procedure requires me to name another user as the so called sockmaster but I have no idea who that may be. Notwithstanding this, the editing behavior of this editor is unacceptable and I ask that an edit ban be imposed.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you attempted dispute resolution? This looks very much like a content dispute at core, and it is significantly easier to identify tendentious editing when consensus has been clarified by a broader group of participants. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution with a probable sockpuppet? Have you looked at the editor's editing history? That does not seem likely to produce much of a result. I have listed all the problems with the text he or she is inserting and just refuses to justify the edits. Did you look at the issues I raised? The users inserts are clearly problematic.Hauskalainen (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI is another board. And yes, you must name a sockmaster for a report there and not just continue to accuse the account of socking without any evidence save your suspicions. You "have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged"? Well, do some homework and see if you can determine a sockmaster (if it is indeed a sock). This is the third time you've filed a report here concerning this exact same editor and issue within a week. You were advised after the first report filed on the 28th to let the WQA run its course, and even that's been archived as well because of lack of input. The fact that the last AN/I report filed two days ago was archived without any input from anyone just might tell you that you are possibly beating a dead horse. "Try dispute resolution" is some very good advice you might want to take. Are you planning on filing this report here yet again if it gets archived? I sincerely hope not... Doc talk 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It really does not matter WHO is the sockmaster, the account has all the chacteristics of a sock. I'd suggest the WP:DUCK test is relevant here.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As Doc notes, we can't treat this person as though he is a sock without some evidence that he is a sock. Even if he had prior experience on Wikipedia, he might be a user in good standing under a "clean start", for instance. The advantage of dispute resolution is that in drawing others into the conversation, you make the problems more apparent to outsiders. His response to you, that your explanations are "incoherent", is hardly in keeping with expected behavioral standards, but it is not alone sufficient cause for blocking. There does seem to be edit warring in the article, but as an outsider I cannot easily determine who is at fault and to what degree. The more people to nail down consensus, the easier it becomes to see who is ignoring it to promote their own preference. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor has editing account has edited very few articles in its very brief history. I suggest that someone look at all of them because it will only take a minute or two to compare the before and after edits that the account has made. There is no need to be selective (i.e. for me to suggest which ones to look at). These are the typical edits of accounts used for suckpuppetry and quite unlike those of serious editors.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like edit warring and thus is blockworthy. Any admin should be able to do it immediately since the editor in question knows they are doing it against the wishes of another editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Which editor would that be? The one mentioned in the report here or the one filing it? They have each been reverting against the wishes of another editor. This is why it's much easier to tell who is being disruptive when multiple people are involved in a conversation. It may be tedious, but it's worthwhile, when the content is not obvious to those unfamiliar with the issues.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine Brangifer means User:Intermittentgardener because I gave a very detailed explanation of all my edits at the TALK page. User:Intermittentgardener 's contribution was just to admit that I had explained them in great detail and then just went on to say that they were "incoherent". That is is hardly engaging in the normal editing process.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have explained below a key element here that I think cannot be ignored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But the only other person to have weighed in at the talk page seems to feel that you are the tendentious editor ([88]; [89]). Uninvolved bystanders who do not know you or any of the participants in the page cannot easily determine what's going on based on the little bit of interaction provided. It is not our job to lay the groundwork for a listing here, but yours. If you think he is a sockpuppet, you must provide evidence that he is disruptively using multiple accounts. If you think he is tendentious, you should provide us with clear evidence that he is the disruptive element in this article. Otherwise, people will do as evidently they have been doing: glance at your listing and ignore it, because it is not easily resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to appear to be taking sides here. I have had encounters with Hauskalainen over time and found him tendentious. I have just begun to see edits and comments by Intermittentgardener this week and have not yet formed an opinion. Angel's flight (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Intermittentgardener should have definitely engaged with discussion before performing all of those reverts, but Hauskalainen can be disruptive, IMO. I've had to warn about/clean up their WP:SOAP/advocacy/WP:V issues as of late.[90][91] Jesanj (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I left this note on User talk:Intermittentgardener:

• "You need to read WP:BRD. This is the only known method for determining when an edit war starts and who started it. Discussion doesn't justify continued editing of the contentious material. You must reach a consensus first. To do otherwise is to treat the article like a battlefield."

While BRD isn't policy, it's still very useful. Even when both parties end up in an edit war and may need to be sanctioned for it, fairness and justice require that the degree of blame be determined and that both parties not be judged with the same degree of harshness. BRD is the tool that helps to determine this. The point of BRD is to force editors to reach a consensus on the talk page before making more controversial edits, REGARDLESS of who is right. Many edit warriors think that as soon as they have started the "D"iscussion on the talk page, that they are then free to just continue making controversial edits. Not so. Not at all. That's battlefield behavior, and again, it makes no difference whether they are right or wrong. I have often seen blocks of equal length handed out to both editors because some admin was too lazy to form a just opinion of what was happening. That's blind justice, and justice isn't supposed to be blind or arbitrary. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The question, of course, is who is behind the battlefield behavior. On the 25th of January, Hauskalainen made these sweeping changes to an article in which he had not substantively participated before (except in moving it). User:Intermittentgardener reverted ([92]) and left a note at the talk page ([93]) This is so far in accordance with WP:BRD. Hauskalainen made major changes and was reverted, with objection logged at the talk.

The following day, Hauskalainen responded with a note at 03:29, 26 January 2011 and then, three minutes later, without allowing time for any feedback, reverted the contributor who had objected to his sweeping changes. WP:BRD says “The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D"… The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.” There was no waiting for agreement here; Hauskalainen boldly edited the article, encountered reversion & objections, and (although he did respond to the objections) restored his preferred version without waiting for consensus.

It’s quite true that User:Intermittentgardener’s contributions to the article and talk page subsequent to this act are also inappropriate, but is it a unilateral problem? It looks to me like there are two people not following proper consensus procedures here...and it seems like the person who responded to the objection and restored the disputed changes before anybody had a chance to discuss launched the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems to me Hauskalainen is filibustering the talk page and Intermittentgardener is to an extent brushing it off, not ideal, but understandable. BRD isn't the whole answer here. Superficially it looks to me that Intermittentgardener's edits are ok and Hauskalainen is editing tendentiously, but it's going to take more examination that I don't feel likely to attempt. I do think some uninvolved editors should look at it. The very first section in Hauskalainen's big reply in [94] jumps out as dubious (the part mentioning WP:OPINION to remove some comments of a senior US congressperson involved in passing the legislation, which seem obviously significant under NPOV). Hauskalainen is removing a lot of sourced info without consensus and at a certain point has to consider WP:PRESERVE. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like both editors are so deeply involved that third parties need to come in, separate them, and force a pause in editing while consensus is sought among the two and some third parties. Maybe an RfC will be required.

Whatever the case, temporary and immediate article protection seems justified. That often does the trick. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

24h page protection sounds ok to me, re-applied if warring resumes afterwards. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Article protected for 24 hours; if edit warring resumes afterwards, further protection may be necessary or blocks may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked back at the situation's development yet, but the protection should be "until consensus is reached", since this isn't a one-time thing, but a serious edit war. Anyone who needs to make an edit can request an admin to temporarily lift the protection to make the edit. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:57, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editors should also look at the diffs in dispute, including checking them against sources. For example, Intermittentgardener here says Rep. Pete Stark "issued a 14-page talking point report" cited to this. The cited article just says "report", and "talking point" is a somewhat perjorative term connoting propaganda. That stuck out at me so I looked into it; I'm not claiming it's part of a pattern (which would take further investigation). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For everyone's information, the editor with whom I have had this problem has now been engaging in what I regard as blatant POV pushing and I have placed a warning about this at his talk page here. The editor followed this by dismissing my complaints and then raised a complaint against me here at the main Administrator's noticeboard. Well they say attack is the best form of defence, so it was to be expected, but its a bit deceptive of the editor not to have drawn attention to the fact that his account has been identified by me as a possible sock and accused of both editing against the rules by not engaging at TALK and now for blatant POV. The good guy/bad guy routine is also being played out with the another tendentious editor UserJesanj having called out User:Intermittentgardener for apparent canvassing. I am sure that User:Intermittentgardener will just say that he has been drawing in other editors who may have commented. Some of these are editors such as User:Angel's flight are ones who appear to follow his line of editing (if not quite the same style) but certainly not all.Hauskalainen (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

@User:Moonriddengirl. On your home page I think I read recently that you welcome comments about your actions as an Admin, especially if they seem wrong. So I hope you don't mind me saying the following. You seem to accept that User:Intermittentgardener’s contributions to the article actions were inappropriate as well his responses to me at the article talk page and his own talk page, but it seems to me that you have not given me a fair hearing here. You implied that we are as bad as each other. I have given very detailed explanations of what is wrong with this user's edits, for example here and here. At no time has User:Intermittentgardener made any serious attempt to answer these issues. I have pointed out that the editor has all the characteristics of a sock (a recent editor who makes completely inconsequential edits to a handful of articles such as slight wording changes and moving texts around) before weighing in and placing highly contentious and highly POV edits to another (Independent Payment Advisory Board). This article, the subject of which is the subject from some quarters of a political campaign against health care reform, is a clear candidate for POV pushing and I am surprised that you are not alert to this possibility. I fail to see why you could possibly think that this is a matter of equivalence. I am disappointed that you blocked the article and I would hope that you or another admin can unblock it as this is clearly not a case of two editors with equally strong opinions edit warring with no give and take on either side. I have justified each of my edits in great detail and the other editor simply does not engage.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hausakalainen, it would help if you could identify the editor who you think Intermittentgardener (I.G.) is a sock of. Otherwise it's just another of those vague suspicions that might have some grounding but really can't be acted on. The page protection was ok per there is no deadline since so many reversions is never good, and tendentious editing (if it is happening) may be making the article worse. I've been regretting not suggesting 48h instead of 24h protection to give outside editors a bit more time to make sense of the diffs. Yes I think we all know that POV pushing goes on in political topics. I didn't see any obvious POV in a couple minutes of looking at I.G.'s edits. Not seeing a POV is usually a sign that the person is editing neutrally, but the subject matter in dispute is very complicated for an outsider like me to size up, so I may well have missed something. Your note on I.G.'s talk page is more informative than the earlier one on the article talk page in that it tried to identify a POV being pushed. I'll see if I can look at it more tomorrow; Brangifer's suggestion of an RFC might also be warranted. I think the content discussion should stay on the article talk page rather than spreading all over the wiki. Do you think you could link your user_talk:I.G. message to the article talk page? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure I can add this link to the article talk page, but the issue is primarily with the editors actions and not with the article. I thought I made the reasons for claims of POV pretty explicit. POV is often done with promotion and demotion of content, with the deletion of texts not favorable to the editor's POV and by the use of WP:undue to push fringe ideas and theories. I have now raised what partly the same issue at WP:Finge noticeboard, but this issue also affects the edits of other users. To be frank, there are several editors engaging in POV pushing to various degrees at the IPAB and Death Panel articles.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, I don't mind; I would not expect you to necessarily agree with my view. But as I have explained above, when a contributor reverts you and objects at the talk page, it is not part of the consensus process to restore your changes prior to pursuing conversation. That you explained why you believed your edits were reasonable does not mean that other contributors to the talk page are going to be convinced. I've quoted from the widely cited essay WP:BRD to explain that reverting somebody's reversion is not part of the process. This is also encoded in policy: "When there is a more serious dispute over an edit, the consensus process becomes more explicit. Editors open a section on the article's talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic." There are few emergencies on Wikipedia that justify bypassing conversation (which is a give and take, not a declaration followed by unilateral action). Reverting prior to reaching agreement is a provocative action.

In terms of the neutrality of his posts, it is not the purpose of this noticeboard to determine what content should be in this article. As I advised you above, you need to pursue dispute resolution. If there is clear consensus for content, then administrators will be able to help deal with contributors who persist in disrupting it. Until that clear consensus exists, except in blatantly obvious cases, this is not the appropriate forum. There are quite a few others listed at WP:DR that can help settle content issues, and we do not ban or block contributors (as you requested here) on suspicions (without clear evidence) of sock puppetry or of disagreeing with another person, even if they behave poorly--at least not without a clear pattern of persistent behavior after efforts to address it through, yes, dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I am getting very annoyed with you. I asked you very kindly here to look again at the allegation you made that the two editors at dispute were as bad as each other because I thought you were characterizing me unfairly. But quite clearly I have been engaging (or attempting too at least) with this user at several talk pages with very detailed reasons as to why his edits are unacceptable and he or she just fails to engage. You seem to have just repeated that same thing above by suggesting that I am doing something wrong. Clearly I am an established editor who uses the Talk pages extensively. The other editor is clearly a newbie with dubious editing credentials and does not respond to criticism of his edits. Its hardly a case of "six of one and half a dozen of the other". BRD only works if there is a D and so far the D has come only from me. There is very little to be gained by not reverting and hoping that this particular editor will have a change of heart. I ask you again, very sincerely, to look again at your characterization of my editing. I would hate to have to take this matter further, but you are, to an extent, tarnishing my edit reputation.Hauskalainen (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please quote where I said that the two editors at dispute were as bad as each other. I generally avoid such weighted value judgments. It is my position that you are both at fault in this engagement and that you were the first to deviate from expected behavioral standards. I've placed differences above and explained, with policy quotations, why you should build consensus before reverting a reverting. He should not have refused to engage you; you should not have continued the chain of reversion before giving him or anyone else a chance to respond to your comments at the talk page. I'll note also that Wikipedia:Edit warring says, "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action." You do not have to wait for him "to have a change of heart". The two of you are a small selection among the thousands of people who edit Wikipedia who may help to settle disputes. If you feel compelled to take the matter further, you are welcome to do so. See WP:ADMINABUSE. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not say you used the words "as bad as each other" but that IS the clear implication of your words previously and again above. You imply that I do not use BRD but as I say BRD only works if the other party cooperates. There is a cabal of editors at work on this article. It is not JUST User:Intermittentgarden. Therefore your suggestion that I engage with other editors at TALK is just pointless. I may have reverted some of the garden's edits very quickly but that is only because the other editors otherwise make intervening edits, as happened just before your edit freeze, which makes undoing the multiple damage done by garden harder to correct. I know full well that these editors are trying to run me ragged, but I have the patience of a saint and will continue to make changes if they indicate that there is POV or there are other breaches of policy. What I am curious about is why it is that I make very substantial claims about the edits of editors like garden but only a few commentators above (and now below) have bothered to look at the problem edits I have drawn attention to see if I am right or wrong. Why is that? I edit a lot at potentially contentious articles and I have earned a fair amount of respect from fellow editors for tenacious adherence to reporting factually and in a NPOV way and for removing gross factually erroneous or POV content. All I am trying to do now is the same thing. Hauskalainen (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You said "the allegation you made that the two editors at dispute were as bad as each other". I have made no such allegations, whatever inference you may have drawn. (Please be careful to be precise in attributing positions to others.) What I have done is point out repeatedly that when you have been reverted in a bold edit, re-reverting before waiting for additional input is improper. This is no more than various policies and essays set out. It is never pointless to engage other editors at talk; if you feel you are dealing with a "cabal" on a specific article, you draw attention of outsiders (appropriately) through one of the many content boards or mediation processes described at dispute resolution. This one is for urgent and obvious situation; the limitations of it are set out explicitly at WP:DR.

I have already explained to you why only a few commenters have bothered to look at the problem edits you have drawn attention to; it's because the situation is not obvious, and until it is the administrators' noticeboards are not the forum to report it. From my very first note, "it is significantly easier to identify tendentious editing when consensus has been clarified by a broader group of participants." If you achieve clear consensus and then show that somebody is edit warring against it, administrators can help you. (We can also help if you identify a clear sock puppeteer, although not at this board.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen is engaging in very extreme POV pushing, edit warring, constantly insulting other users (He likes to accuse others of being sockpuppets), and posting frivolous complaints here. Previously, he has been warned by numerous users to stop his behavior and has even been blocked for edit warring. See User_talk:Hauskalainen, Wikiquette_alerts#User:Hauskalainen, Talk:Death_panel for but a small sample of the venom this guy spews. He is really out of control and needs a block. Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this situation. But I have observed Hauskalainen at work and talk at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for about 6 months. The worst I saw them do there is apply too much expertise to contributions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I also think User:Hauskalainen is doing great job on the PPACA article, fighting the vandals. I really appreciated his help with the article. I think User:Intermittentgardener is just trying to push his ideas via Wikipedia and remove all comments that do not comply with his point of view. Innab (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at this [95] this [96] and this [97] before you jump to conclusions. Hauskalainen really is out of control and needs to be reined in. Intermittentgardener (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Another end of this argument is at WP:ANI#editor User:Intermittentgardener (reposting after archive without comment). - David Biddulph (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the problems reported a couple of weeks ago at this board[98]. Mr. H does seem to be a bit clueless about how various policies are supposed to work, in addition to being very tendentious. Angel's flight (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I was notified on my talkpage about this discussion because I had brief involvement in an RSN discussion started by Hauskalainen and in the Death Panel article linked to that. It doesn't seem very obvious to me what the complaint is, so I would ask Intermittentgardener to be more specific.--FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this page is not to be used for raising issues of this sort. But having been raised I should point out that User:Intermittentgardener is treating attack as the best possible defence. Just before he raised the allegation which commenced this thread I had issued a very detailed warning about his/her blatant POV pushing at the user's talk page here. And as has been said above I raised at AN/I an issue with User:Intermittentgardener. This was initially about his failure to answer allegations that his edits did not concur with editing policy, and now of course his POV pushing. I have alerted the administrators of my suspicions about the account being used for sock puppetry (it is a new account with relatively few edits to a few articles which had zero effect on them and then a series of edits to the article where I accuse the account of being used for POV pushing and politicizing Wikipedia) but it is hard to know who the sockmaster might be. I am not accusing anyone at this stage of being a puppet-master. There are certain editors at the article where POV pushing has been going on who are inclined to follow the same general line of editing such as User:Angel's flight and User:Jesanj but there is no way that I am prepared to say that either of them fits the bill. User:Angel's flight has undone several of my edits as has User:Jesanj. I see that User:Angel's flight was very quick to jump in and accuse me (above) of being "clueless" which is rather uncivil and not very dissimilar to User:Intermittentgardener's accusation that I was "incoherent". This happened following his accusation that I had deleted "properly sourced material" which I fully explained here and which he summarily dismissed without answering a single one of my points.Hauskalainen (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the sudden appearance and immediate leap to dispute resolution of Intermittentgardener and Angel's flight is unseemly. Both are semi-SPA's in closely related subjects, which isn't encouraging. Jesanj has been around for a while. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, user:Angel's flight has also been involved in Lyndon LaRouche-related articles, in a manner consistent with past sock puppets of a banned user. See WP:LTA/HK. So-called "Death panels" and "Obamacare" are key issues for the LaRouche movement, which has become known for its posters of Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache (because they believe the plan is similar to, and inspired by, Hitler's T4 euthanasia program). I have not gathered specific evidence on Angel's flight, and am not explicitly accusing that user of being a sock puppet. While we should make a practice of assuming good faith, there are times when it is not warranted.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, every time an editor on the LaRouche talk page disagrees with Will, Will insinuates that the editor is a sock. It seems to be SOP. Angel's flight (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If your suspicion is right, it would make sense of my concern, as the POV I see being advocated from Angel's flight is definitely LaRouchian. Hauskalainen has his own POV pushing problems,[99][100][101] IMO. At worst, he seems to know "the truth" about things and can't control his urge to opine in article space or remove things he doesn't like with dubious edit summaries. He also can assume bad faith easily.[102][103] He can be a productive editor at other times. Jesanj (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've also been concerned that Angel's flight is a sockpuppet of a banned LaRouche editor who edits from the Los Angeles area. Angel's flight arrived recently at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to support reverting to parts of an old version favoured by the LaRouche account(s). I don't know anything about the healthcare edits he has been making, but if they're consistent with LaRouche's "Obama is Hitler" position, that would increase the concern. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay - any "uninvolveds" wanna tackle this? Totally no opinion except that it needs go to WP:DR if the talk page efforts fail. Content issue. WP:WQA is a widespread joke, and it's too bad about that. One less step to take, I suppose ;P Doc talk 04:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth looking further into the possible socking activity that has been mentioned. That would make it not a pure content issue. I've checked a few diffs but I find the subject matter mind-numbing, so it hasn't been easy. I'm also not familiar with the cast of characters who have socked in this area in the past. If Will Beback has any further thoughts, he might want to post them, or possibly email them to checkuser-l. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree that WQA is not the direction to go, and that this matter should most likely go to WP:DR, unless a truly uninvolved admin can step forward to take a stab at sorting this out. Various parties appear to have adopted a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here, which is not surprising given the subject, which produces heat. The article itself appears to be reasonably close to WP:NPOV at first read, but it is long and the turf is well-trodden. I am no fan of SPA's, if indeed those are present. All socking has to stop at once, and that should be checked completely for compliance. A real time sink: I'd like to see the parties all agree to a truce and perhaps take several steps back. Seems unlikely. Jusdafax 09:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the many cases which makes me yearn for a policy that thwarts SPAs, something in the direction of limiting their one-sided interests. For example, if an editor's contributions are over 40% on one article, they automatically get a warning, and when they get to 50% they are automatically blocked from the article and it's talk page, IOW an effective article ban, but not a topic ban since there are likely other articles dealing with the same topic, but automated bots can't figure that out. This would hopefully force them to start editing other topics for awhile, and when the percentage drops back down to 40%, then they are again allowed access. My basic thinking is that editors should be forced to make the encyclopedia their main motivation, not warring over their favorite topic. It's valuable experience for SPAs to edit in other topic areas and it's good for them to learn that peaceful collaboration actually works. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I very much sympathize with your thinking, since I'd also like to see tougher measures brought against SPA editing, but I don't think this scheme will work, since it would automatically block bona fide experts contributing to an article in their area of expertise in a referenced and NPOV manner. The problem is that SPA activity is not only about the focus of the contributions, but also about their quality, which can't be determined through mechanical means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Brangifer, and also with the point Ken makes. I was hoping we could deal with bad SPA editing through the recent proposal for an advocacy noticeboard, now deleted. But if not that, there has to be some other way to approach it because it's only going to get worse. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Some talk page input at Independent Payment Advisory Board might help or be warranted. The 24 hr page protection has elapsed and editing has picked back up. Thankfully, discussion on the talk page has also increased. Jesanj (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that my proposal is definitely unfinished, but that something needs to be done. This isn't a rare situation and it causes significant disruption, often complicated by socks who aren't quite obvious enough for filing SPIs. There can be several socks and meatpuppets at work causing disruption and attempting to force fringe agendas into articlees. We often have problems with SPAs. Just take a look at Talk:Aspartame controversy (also a subject on this page right now). We need a WP:Administrators' noticeboard/SPA where problematic SPAs can be discussed and dealt with, and where potential sock issues can be dealt with. SPAs who are experts and cause no disruption shouldn't be bothered. Only when non-frivolous complaints are made should action be taken. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree that something needs to be done and that more attention needs to be focused on the subject, but I'll point out (as SlimVirgin well knows) that the tide seems to be running against new noticeboards right now. I'd be more interested in beefed-up enforcement measures that can be wielded whenever necessary, no matter where the issue arises. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that both contributions made by the IP address 217.42.23.10 have been vandalism.

Middlewich High School: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middlewich_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=407373003 Sir John Deane's College: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_John_Deane%27s_College&diff=prev&oldid=407373893

I am the Network Manager of Middlewich High School. Many of our leavers go on to Sir John Dean's College, so it is most likely an ex-pupil. While our Wikipedia page will hardly be well-visited, our SEN programme is an important 'selling point' for the school and we would not wish it to be defamed on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.85.88 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that both edits have been reverted. No warning was left, so I have placed a lvl 1 vandalism warning for the later of the two edits, and will watch the ips contributions from now on. Other than that, I am afraid there is not a great deal to be done. Vandalism is a fact of life on Wikipedia, and all we can do is revert, block and ignore.--Korruski^Talk 11:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

While it is definitely vandalism, I have to say that it's fairly humorous vandalism.75.150.53.81 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Killdec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the latest to join in the conflict of interest accusation at Talk:Aspartame controversy. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Worsening talk page abuse at Talk:Aspartame controversy.

• accusations of "ownership of articles, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, censorship and conflicts of interest", and refusal to redact
• accusations on talk page presented precede evidence

The ongoing problem needs to be addressed.Novangelis (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The problems I brought up with the article require indepth investigation, it is pretty clear that as Novangelis wants no sort of investigation and for me to be punished for raising these doubts (which I suspect him to be a part of).КĐ^♥ 20:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that wikipedia is not for investigations, we only list things that are already in reliable independent sources and that count as undue weight. No original research. If there is ownership, that's a problem. _WikiMan^One 20:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that implicit accusations that other editors are engaging in some sort of industry-funded whitewash are, in the absence of actual evidence, not in-line with WP:AGF. Killdec's comments were in no way useful in improving the article and any further activity in this vein should certainly be considered disruptive. Killdec should endeavor to provide productive input and leave the accusations 'til after s/he's got suitable evidence of some sort of wrongdoing.

This article is a messy battleground, indeed. Further eyes would be welcome. Thanks, — Scientizzle 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the edit histories and the whitewashing of any and all criticism of aspartame, if it doesn't cry ownership, meatpuppetry, censorship and conflicts of interest I don't know what does!КĐ^♥ 20:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems more like a content dispute than anything, perhaps you guys should move it there. _WikiMan^One 20:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No it seems its crossed from Content to behavioral issues, Though you are right it started as content. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed, this isn't a content dispute because Killdec made no content suggestion. There are ample disputes regarding content on that page; this tripe is merely as-yet unfounded character attacks. — Scientizzle 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This sums up what it is like to contribute to the aspartame articles "Any change you make to this article...will be reverted. And not even by me! Conversation over. --King Öomie 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)" КĐ^♥ 20:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's so nice to see a year-old comment from myself reposted, absent all context. --King Öomie 21:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, would you like to clarify what you said?КĐ^♥ 21:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go ahead and do the work you didn't feel the need to. I'm sure you're busy gathering evidence. Here is the context, in full- 12. I'd completely forgotten that that was you! How have you been? And by the way, I stand behind my handling of your increasingly unreasonable requests (and increasingly unkind insults) those 16 months ago, though my tone could have been more civil. --King Öomie 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You stand behind threatening total censorship for no good reason? I was a newcomer back then and you thoroughly bit me.КĐ^♥ 21:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You bit me first, and repeatedly, and when I warned you, you accused me of trying to intimidate you. At WQA. At that point I was thoroughly through granting you the benefit of the doubt as to your knowledge of Wikipedia. I don't stand behind any word you just used to describe my post. I was attempting to make it clear that the content you wanted to add was completely unusable and inappropriate, by the standards of any reasonable editor, and as such if you added it, its removal was a good bet even without my intervention. --King Öomie 21:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable editor? That's funny coming from you. I have never been able to reason with you. The quote of yours came right after I provided you with three peer reviewed sources that refuted your argument completely.КĐ^♥ 21:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it doesn't seem to give enough info about the concerns associated with Aspartame. I'm not ready to get involved in another controversial section, but you guys should collaborate on increasing coverage of the health effects often associated with the use of aspartame. _WikiMan^One 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What health effects would those be? Alas that is another matter, the matter at hand is having to, every few months or so, put up with accusations of being some sort of industry shill, and having to prove my innocence. I find this tiresome, and a severe violation of WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Were each of these allegations by this user? If she's done it before then a block might be valid, if these accusations were by other users, then that's too bad but it has nothing to do with her. _WikiMan^One 21:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

They had nothing to do with me. I can't say I'm surprised they've been investigated before.КĐ^♥ 21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And how surprised would you say you are the past investigations turned up absolutely nothing? --King Öomie 21:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if that happened if the investigations covered all of my concerns, I.e. ownership of articles, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, censorship and conflicts of interest.КĐ^♥ 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No true investigation. Carry on, then, muckrake until you're satisfied. --King Öomie 22:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I will.КĐ^♥ 22:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Telling us that this "seems more like a content dispute than anything, perhaps you guys should move it there" and then offering a uselessly vague content suggestion is remarkably unhelpful. — Scientizzle 21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

DFTT. They can only cause disruption if you let them. Stick to discussing the content. Fences&Windows 21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I collapsed the mini-thread Killdec began, and asked them to stick to content on the talk page, and to present any evidence at appropriate venues. Fences&Windows 21:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

While the original motivation is about content, this thread, the one right HERE, has nothing to do with content. It's about gross personal attacks and action needs to be taken. Killdec has removed previous warnings for personal attacks related to aspartame controversy, so this isn't a first offense. They have done it before and been warned before. Please do something now. They haven't even edited the subject for some time, and now when they return their very first comment is an attack, and it immediately gets MUCH worse. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh look at all the aspartame regulars meatpuppeting to get me blocked from the article. The incident you mention happened over 17 months ago when I was a newcomer, it was taken to the notice boards and me and the person who issued the warning (Kingoomie no less) both were warned.КĐ^♥ 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider this a warning: do not accuse others of meat puppetry without some clear evidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Within a short period of time four of the avid pro-aspartame editors, Novangelis, Scientizzle, King Oomie, and Brangifer have done all they can to try and get me blocked for voicing my concerns. Good enough for you?КĐ^♥ 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't tried to get you blocked, but I have criticized you for bringing absolutely nothing of substance to the talk page, merely insinuations and ad hominems. In the meantime, I've been improving the article, even including (*gasp*) sourced criticisms of aspartame! Thanks, though, for pigeonholing me into some perceived "pro-aspartame" cabal. — Scientizzle 22:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. First, you're still accusing them of being "pro-aspartame," with nothing to back that up. The fact that they have requested you be blocked is not evidence of meat puppetry. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have any photographs of them drinking diet coke, or any "I LOVE ASPARTAME" quotes, but if you took the time to go over their edits and discussions it would be fairly obvious that they do what they can to minimize criticism of aspartame, using whatever techniques necessary.КĐ^♥ 00:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As there are a number of editors on wikipedia, it follows that there would be many people that have intersecting interests. Some of us are interested in similar topics. I would hazard a guess that most of my edits are about ice hockey (and related topics), not aspartame. The behaviour shown by Killdec is a gross violation of WP:AGF. No evidence has been given, instead just more accusations and violations of WP:CIVIL have followed. This behaviour must stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Dbrodbeck has joined the party, now all we're missing are Six Words and Yobol and we'll have the whole aspartame crew.КĐ^♥ 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's it! Please block Killdec. Nobody's going to miss him. After a short block, then start a topic ban, including the talk pages since that's where most of the disruption's occurring. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done. NW (Talk) 01:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I predict this block will be used as further 'evidence' of a conspiracy. Nonetheless, thank you, NW. --King Öomie 01:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. While one user is an annoyance, this is the sixth user to make such unsupported accusations or implications in two months. My goal is not the block of individual users, but the end of the ungrounded accusations. Thank you to Fences&Windows, as well for ending the side tracking on the talk page. (I'm sorry to have contributed to the side-track.) I hope you have heard the last of me on this issue, but I don't like the odds.Novangelis (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you as well. I hope maybe this can stop others from doing the same thing. AGF and CIVIL are very important to me, and important policies to follow in building an encyclopedia. So thanks again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, or is that three now? Much appreciated. Now if the others can be reigned in, especially Immortale, who is very strident with the COI accusations. The new IP is also an obviously very experienced editor who must be avoiding the scrutiny of other editors by using their IP rather than their username. That's forbidden. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am experiencing problems with this editors and need help. First edit was made on Blow (song) (1), his addition is a WP:LEAD and WP:OR violation, i removed and warned him here. He responded by removing the warning and re insurting the information [104] with an edit summary in all caps "THE RELIABLE SOURCES JUST WENT DOWN BECAUSE iTUNES DIDN'T KEEP THE SONGS UP". Then he reverts my edit on Cannibal (EP) from months ago, i revert once he adds again. Then he goes to my talking page screaming swearing and yelling at me when i explained dead links are to be removed as well as the information as it can no longer be verified and fails OR and V. I am not edit waring i just want something to be done. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because the links are currently dead does not mean the content is not verifiable and my additions to the edits are suddenly considered original research. I apologize if I was blunt in my comments, but the blatant mistaken application of Wikipedia policy and warning me as if I was a run of the mill vandal upset me. And as WP:LEAD is a guideline, there is no possible way that I can violate it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well i dont really care if you're sorry, ive gotten into arguments with you before. Wikipedia:Link rot says "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available." But in this case the information cannot be restored, the links went dead so the information is no longer available, no reliable websites covered them as promo releases, which you are adding. You should revert both your edits now. And the links you just added are once again, WP:OR, read the sources, says released to itunes, doesnt say if its a single, song or promo. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I have done is considered a violation of WP:OR. You are continuing to be mistaken in what is and what is not allowed as sources for this project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Read what i wrote above, OR right here in full. You got a template warning because as pointed out below, you have thousands of edits and you should know without a doubt never to add something to like that. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We generaly don't remove citations to deadlinks (after all they might come back) unless we have an alturnative source or an article is undergoing a final polish for say GA or FA candidacy.©Geni 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

All here pages are already GA or FA or will be. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If the source was in the article and verified before becoming a dead link, it should not be removed. Certainly, it is not original research. Citation needed, perhaps. Use common sense guys. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) I think that this is a classic case of miscommunication and lack of personal discussion between users. On the one hand, I think that (CK)Lakeshade was wrong in templating Ryulong as if the user were a vandal. That's just the wrong thing to do, especially when he as over 130,000 edits on Wikipedia. It would've been better just to bring it up on his talk page. On the other hand, I think that the expletives that Ryulong used were not very necessary, and it would be more conducive to a better relationship between the editors to simply link to the essay, WP:DTTR, or don't template the regulars. Although it is not a policy, it probably better sums up the feelings that Ryulong was experiencing without the words that could be considered offensive. Both of you are valuable contributors, and I really don't want to see this escalate. I'm sure that with some discussion about policies this can all be worked out without any punishment inflicted on either user. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Ryulong could have been more patient, yes, but he's been here for a long time, has tons of edits and is somewhat upset that he was given several templated warnings instead of engaged in discussion. (CK)Lakeshade: You've even got this on your userpage: "Please do not slap me with a generic "warning" template, ive been here long enough to have a grasp on rules, if you dont like something i did, then ask me why i did it or discuss it with me". It's good advice, so following it yourself in this instance would have been good, no? henrik•talk 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To all commenting editors, perhaps im incorrect but the lead of V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This is the issue here, its true, im the one who wrote all the pages but it can no longer be verified as the links went dead, its small 4-5 sentence paragraph about songs that was released then removed, is it detrimental to someone's understanding of the topic? no. It should be removed. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This particular page isn't really the best place to settle the issue whether the article is better or worse with the disputed material. I think you have a strong case, a dead itunes link isn't an ideal source. But Ryulong, you or someone else can perhaps find a better source, and time should be given to do so. May I suggest taking a few deep breaths, having a cup of tea, turning a leaf on past unpleasantness and talking it over on the article talk page? henrik•talk 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, your comment "Yeah well i dont really care if you're sorry, ive gotten into arguments with you before" is not helping your cause. Verbally flipping another editor off isn't likely to endear oneself to an impartial audience. Second, have you tried finding sources yourself? Yes, dead links are a problem, but claiming OR for statements that were verified before the links went dead is disingenuous. If, after a time, the statements can no longer be verified, it would be proper to remove them under WP:V. But first, at least try using things like current sources, internet archives and (if possible) offline sources such as books or newspapers. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. For one, access dates are there for a reason. Two, the web archive often has copies of now-dead links after a while. I think there's no harm in leaving the source there until a better one can be found, in the case that an archived copy is later added. The {{dead link}} template is used to categorize dead links for future archive searching. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I archive every single source on every Kesha article to avoid dead links, Itunes links cannot be archived anywhere as the are not website archives, they show up as multicolored triangles and squares. No website covered the released other then MTV saying a new song has appeared on the web, nothing about a countdown or promo release. All links went dead on November 22, 2010, i removed the sections on January 4, 2011 as there are no alternatives for sourced. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One glaring thing I see is that (CK)Lakeshade technically "violated" DTTR.  :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

DTTR is an essay not a policy, and as such there is no way you can be in violation of it. 115.64.182.73 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, is the prior exclusivity really controversial? Is that fact actually in question? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of controversial, to me, yes it is because dead, no longer verified information should not be kept especially something of such small importance. Its unfortunate that itunes links cannot be archived and no one reported on the release of these but i want them removed because with the dead links staying, neither article with pass a GA/FA nom if someone does a dead link check. Anyways ive taken this matter to the talk page on the article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the fact it's a dead link doesn't make it controversial. Controversial means "is this fact questionable?" not "is it currently verified?" In other words, are you disputing that the song had an iTunes exclusivity period? If yes, can you explain why? If no... well, having a dead link isn't really high on the priority list, then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, February 7, 2011

without contacting a specific admin, could someone close this as it's past 7 days. thanks LibStar (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Probably best to put stuff like this in AN, not AN/I or even just wait a bit unless the debate is really overdue for a closure. Protonk (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that User:NYScholar has taken little notice of their latest block [105] and has returned yet again, this time as 69.205.79.125 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot), same ISP (Road Runner HoldCo LLC). Allocations for this OrgID serve Road Runner residential customers out of the New York City, NY and Syracuse, NY RDCs. As will be seen in previous reports, this banned user refuses to use any channel to appeal their ban. Previous discussions at [106], [107], [108]. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, User:F is a good and reliable editor. This is their last good edit from about 65 minutes ago. The next edit 40 minutes later started to be vandalism. Somebody has hijacked their account. What to do - a temporary block? Schwede66 02:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think its legit. See http://www.mediawatch.co.nz/news/political/68056/10-to-contest-botany-by-election. –Moondyne 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, turns out to be a false alarm. Sorry. I thought that the Green Party in the election box being replaced by the Pirate Party was vandalism. It turns out that the Greens didn't get their nomination in, whereas the Pirate Party does exist and is running. Schwede66 02:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is currently some 80kb of discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#The_Circus_.28film.29_-_Time_Traveler_.3F.3F.3F_.28part_2.29 on the topic of the extent to which George Clarke's time travel urban legend should be mentioned at The Circus (film). This topic (about which I could hardly care less) has been hashed out in numerous venues (apparently including Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22#The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ???, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Charlie Chaplin and time travel, Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Notability of 'time traveler' film in The Circus, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends, Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Time_travel_urban_legends). I have expressed the view several times that FTN is not a venue to pursue this discussion (there being no dispute whatever that physical time travel by living people is deeply fringe-y), but various parties disagree, and keep reviving the debate. May I suggest that some steps be taken to confine the discussion to Talk:The Circus (film), or even to bring it to a conclusion? At the very least, could it be kept off FTN? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it was an iPhone - there's an app for that. --B (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

rotfl. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. The matter seems to have been brought there by Viriditas to seek some sort of consensus for removal of cited material. The matter had been there before, and the consensus was to leave it as a note or link. Most of the 80k+ discussion has been on everything but fringe-related topics. It never should have been discussed there. Not sure if the article discussion is the best place for it - esp. when three or four users seem to be declaring victory over two editors, but FTN is certainly not the place for it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• It keeps coming back to the board because it keeps coming back to the article, incessantly, most recently here. Kenilworth says "(there being no dispute whatever that physical time travel by living people is deeply fringe-y), but various parties disagree, and keep reviving the debate." This is true, and that is why this has come and re-come before the fringe board. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Respectfully, this is not yet another place to argue that issue, Scotty. KT has pointed out (correctly, imo) that FTN was not the place to has voice personal grievances, concerns about NOT, V, RS. and NOTE. Applying FRINGE to the idea was simply wrong. It doesn't belong there, and KT asked that it leave the board. Three or four contributors thought it was a fine place to hash the matter out, and ignored him. He then came here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they ignored him because two editors do not dictate what is and is not to be discussed on a noticeboard. You and KT were the only editors at the Fringe noticeboard who argued that discussion of this topic (discussion of a "time traveler" in an article on the Chaplin film The Circus) does not belong at the fringe noticeboard. The rest of your post makes no sense, as I'm clearly not "arguing the issue" here, airing "personal grievances," etc. Parenthetically, I became involved in this topic when it was initially posted on the fringe noticeboard a couple of months ago. That is the purpose of the fringe noticeboard, to get new eyes on a topic, and as a new editor you may not be aware of that.ScottyBerg (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, respectfully, you might want to take another look at that discussion; FRINGE was only the least of a series of increasingly dislocated arguments to exclude 1-3 sentences from an article. It was repeatedly stated by others that FTN wasn't the place for the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate. It was repeatedly stated by you and Kenilworth that FTN was not an appropriate venue, no one else. Two editors repeating themselves does not multiply their numbers. Just to recapitulate, before coming here Kenilworth tried twice to shut down this discussion on the Fringe noticeboard. The first time was here.[109]. The second time was here.[110] The first time, on 21 Jan., he was supported by you and opposed by four other editors. The second time, 4 Feb., he was supported by you and opposed by three editors. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that ScottyBerg agrees with my comment "FTN is not a venue to pursue this discussion ... but various parties disagree, and keep reviving the debate". I in turn agree with him that it is not up to a small group of editors to decide what is or is not discussed at FTN -- it is ultimately up to the community, and I hope that a consensus on that issue will emerge here, as that's why I brought it to this forum. However, he is mistaken in suggesting that the purpose of FTN is "to get new eyes on a topic": there are indeed ways of doing that, such as RFC. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I've been fairly emphatic that FTN is the proper venue. Mischaraceterizing what I just said 1/8th of an inch above your comment is pretty lame. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case you appear to have either misunderstood or misquoted what I said. However, I am happy to accept that you do not agree with me on this, and that you withdraw the statement that you did. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We have an RFC on this matter [[111]]. It seems to have a consensus for excluasion, as most of the dicusions have. I have susgested closing the FTN a couple of times now as no consensus, and its been rejected by both sides of the dispute. Here I ask that we have no consensus lets leave it. [[112]] Jack continues the debate [[113]][[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=411888892&oldid=411888328]][[114]] I again suggest we close this as no consensus[[115]]This time Scoty rejects it out right [[116]] So it is misleading to represent this as just one side constantly reopening this its not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Focus people... the issue for this board isn't whether to discuss the time traveler claim in the article on the movie ... the issue for this board is whether continued argument and discussion of that question (at FTN and other places) rises to the level of disruption... and thus requires Admin action. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is disruption (and I am not sure that deciding that one user saying "I HAVE SPOKEN!" is not a reason to close a debate is disruptive) then its two sided disruption. I doubt that those who are saying that its not been decided its not a fringe theory (or that it should not be discused there) are being disruptive given that there is a clear majority on the RFC that seem to say it is fringe. I am less sure about the other side (that seems to be arguing against clear consensus for inclusion), but its not as clear cut as the actualy question (the FTN). FTN is less clear as to consensus (as I have said there appears to be no consensus on the FTN board).Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

@Blueboar: the discussion on the article talk page was already voluminous and daunting when I first lit upon this "circus" on the FTN page on 31 October. Consensus on the talk page, and in the RfC among uninvolved editors (broken out here[117], and the other venues has supported that consensus, which is that little or nothing on this trivia should appear in the article. What struck me initially about the talk page discussion in October [118] was the extent to which consensus had already been formed and yet there still was endless bickering. As I said previously, there would be no need for other venues if that consensus was accepted, and if there were no edits such as this[119] that are against the clear consensus everywhere this issue has been raised: the talk page, FTN, etc. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should make it clear that I'm not on any "side" regarding this content dispute and I could not care a two-penny curse about a content dispute over exactly how much the article on The Circus (film) says about George Clarke's time travel urban legend. I really do not want this AN/I report to become yet another of the venues in which this extremely lame content dispute is continued. In fact what I suggest is precisely that this content dispute be confined to, and resolved at, the article talk page without continuing to disrupt other venues, and in particular WP:FTN. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

But the editors there don't agree with you that the very existence of that subject matter in FTN is disrupting that venue. The editors there are not shy about hatting discussions that they feel have run their course. You already raised the subject of closing the discussion there (in a very peremptory manner, I might add). Your rationale was that it was outside the aegis of the FTN. You received no support except from Jack Sebastian. One previously uninvolved editor stepped in, User:Till Eulenspiegel, and he was against you.[120]. So with three editors opposing you and one supporting you, you come here. My feeling is that if you don't like the discussion there, you are free to ignore it. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that it doesn't matter if the discussion is out of place, because it can be ignored? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that only you and Jack Sebastian feel that the discussion doesn't belong at FTN. That's why you're here, remember? ScottyBerg (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If I may be ever so bold I think this is going the same way as all the other disputes related to this ANI. I suspect that ther is nothing to see here and that in reality this should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, alas. But at least I tried. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand your zeal to squelch the FTN discussion especially at this stage. There is a productive discussion underway on a possible compromise.[121]. Why not let that discussion run its course? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think my "zeal" to confine a content discussion to the appropriate place is just as relevant to this discussion here as the propensity of other editors to shop it across multiple inapproriate fora -- and that is, not at all. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You should definitely pursue remedies against any forum shopping that you perceive. However, you do realize, I hope, that coming here after failing to get consensus in FTN could be perceived as forum shopping? ScottyBerg (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

OK then lets try thi8s. Will all parties agree that we have failed to achive consensus on the FTN one way or the other (for the sake of moving forward if nothing elsed) and to close down that thread?Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, because there has been consensus, particularly if you exclude editors who have commented previously. Secondly, I think that if you want a noticeboard to conclude a discussion, you need to raise the point there (which I think you have). ScottyBerg (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you do realize that about 30-40% of the discussion on FTN has been devoted to "shouldn't we shut down this discussion"? I think that's the most tiresome aspect of the whole thing, not to mention disruptive. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I make it about 40 out of 262 postings, which is less than half of that percentage. About one half of those allegedly "tiresome" postings are by me and about one quarter are by ScottyBerg. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to hold back but I can't. You have launched this ANI because users wont let go of something and fly of on tangents that have nothing to do with what is being discused. You are now talking about how many posts were about closing the thread down. This is diverging as much of track as the FTN thread, and is down to you and one other Scoty.Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite correct. The object of this exercise is to get the community's view as to whether the content debate was disrupting FTN, and I hope that may still happen. I should not have allowed myself to fall for ScottyBerg's diversionary tactic with the irrelevant and inaccurate statistic, tempting though it was. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not diversionary, but on-point. Namely that you raised the same point in FTN on two occasions, failed to achieve agreement, and then moved on to here, after commencing two FTN subsections in pursuit of your goal. No, three, if you count the one[122] in which you announced that you were carrying out your "threat" to report the whole bunch of us to AN/I. Without putting too fine a point on it, your tone in general has left a great deal to be desired, and your incessant "shut up already" drumbeat has not been constructive.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nearly right. There was no consensus at FTN as to whether the content debate was appropriate for the FTN board, so I proposed taking it to ANI for a community view, and that proposal was actually supported by one of the participants in the content debate [123]. So I did,and here we are. Now, please feel free to comment on the issue: How, and where, best to manage the debate over the extent to which George Clarke's time travel urban legend should be mentioned at The Circus (film). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that Admin intervention may be required. I'm uninvolved in the dispute but I've been watching this train wreck for several months and there are repeated accusations and counter accusations of disruptive editing, forum shopping and tendentious editing. Some diffs from the most recent exchange:

Viriditas:

• "we have once again come to the conclusion that you are editing against consensus in a tendentious, disruptive manner"
• "Jack Sebastian intentionally and disruptively altered to change the meaning and intent of the original editors...this is extremely hypocritcal behavior on Jack Sebastian's part"
• "It is important for Jack to understand that consensus does trump tendentious editing"

Jack Sabastian:

• "This categorizes many of your arguments as disruptive...What you have done is forum-shopped"

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

@Kenilworth, no, that's not correct. There was a clear consensus against you, twice, as to whether FTN was appropriate to discuss the extent to which a fringe theory on time travel should be dealt with in the movie article. But even if you were correct, it's not appropriate for this board being used to invoke cloture on another board, when there is no consensus on that board to terminate the discussion.

As to how to best manage the discussion: for starters, stop incessantly demanding that the discussion stop when it is ongoing. Put down the whip and use a more collegial tone. If anyone feels a burning desire, and the other editors agree, portions can be hatted. Threats to "report everyone to ANI" and taking a peremptory and combative stance simply tees off other editors and is not constructive.

More substantively, editors need to let go when they are not able to convince other editors as to their position. That is the backdrop to the links AQFK just provided. Ordinarily one just moves on. For example, I happen to feel that there should be a separate section on attacks on journalists in the article on the Egyptian riots. I raised the issue on the talk page[124], failed to get any support, so I moved on. In the case of this "cell phone user in 1928" dispute, the consensus is fairly clear on the substantive issues, most recently in the RfC, but it just hasn't stopped. When that kind of thing happens, imposing arbitrary cloture on a talk page discussion is silly, because noticeboards are the initial steps in what I expect will eventually lead to dispute resolution. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Since there was no way an administrator could help, there seems to have been no point in moving the discussion here. WP:FTN is every now and then hijacked by groups of users. I think the discussion on Weston Price was a previous example. One possible solution is to move overly long discussions to subpages with a link left to the subpage on FTN. Mathsci (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

@ MS -- Other users have suggested that admin intervention might be required, so the discussion seems appropriate. However, the suggestion of a subpage is excellent, and we might try it if this overextended content dispute crops up again at FTN.

@ SB -- Please be consistent, 3/2 is not a consensus. Are you really suggesting that an inappropriate discussion must not be moved to a more appropriate venue by community consensus until its participants agree that it's finished? I don't think so. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that two users are still thrashing this out at FTN, despite this ANI. I hope you will tell theym both to stop as you consider this an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but you are't really a calming influence on the matter, Slatersteven, as I am pretty sure you are aware. ScottyBerg and I are trying to resolve the matter by seeking actual middle ground (Viriditas' stalkerish interruptions notwithstanding) Maybe by avoiding extremism and setting aside your need to "win" can allow you to contribute to a more equitable solution as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The matter has already been resolved, and there is already strong consensus on the issue. ScottyBerg has little to no interest in discussing anything with you Jack, and has asked you several times to stop harassing him. Please find something more constructive to do with your time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotty is all gorwn-up now, Viriditas. You know my feeling about having to deal with you - its akin to having to work alongside someone's own stalker. Please stop tryng to interact with me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Diffs:

• "User account was asked to not edit my talk page but hasn't got the message yet, apparently"[125]

Perhaps one way to resolve this would be to ban every editor heavily involved in this content dispute from the article in question for one month? Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd voluntarily remove myself from the article for a month if the other involved parties did so as well. This was always about policy and guidelines for me. The wikidrama is completely draining, not to mention being wikistalked by a seasoned editor who knows how to skirt the edge of the rules. This was the ugliest piece of editing I've ever been involved in with Wikipedia. No wonder so many contributors flee the Project. With co-workers like there, who needs enemies? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, has it occurred to you that a popular tactic of tendentious editors is to try to get all involved parties blocked using the rotten apple strategy? We already have a clear consensus on the talk page and the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to reexamine your idea of what a clear consensus, Viriditas. After forum-shopping this to two different boards in less than three weeks, there would appear to be a growing consensus of editors who think that some information should be there, and expanded upon as the article gets larger. Your claim of a clear consensus would appear to be a misinterpretation of what consensus is: it just isn't about numbers, and it doesn't trump policy. As you pointed out previously, consensus is not numbers. You are seeking to exclude information because WP:IDLIyou do not like it. Thus, all the varied (and invalid) arguments you have suggested keep having to get shopped around at a different venue. Many could do without the info, but most are fine with the way it is, and some (myself included) think some further explanation isn't unreasonable or UNDUE. Your continued calls for complete removal are not supported by the consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would ask (although this also applies to us) why this material is so important (to include this) that the dispute has reached this level. Many Edds have commented that normaly this sort of thing is not this contentious. I know what my answer is (and I suspect I know what some others will be. I would agree that this does seem to be a case of one Edds refusing to accpet consensus (although ithere are others who say iit shgould be mentioned there is a clear majority aginst its inclusion). Indead (yes I am not AGF) the account has become virtualy a SPA, seems to almost be operating ownership over the page and looks like its engaging in advocacy. As to not droping this dispute and dragiing it up on evey notice boards under the sun [[126]]. Slatersteven 14:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right, it isn't AGF to presume an account an SPA simply because a lot of time has been spent on a particular page. As for "dragiing (sic) it up on evey notice boards under the sun", I think you are under the misapprehension that I have done all that. That is incorrect:

• 29 October, 2010 - Cirt (FTN)
• 31 October, 2010 - Slatersteven (RSN)
• 5 January, 2011 - Jack Sebastian (NN)
• 10 January, 2011 - Jack Sebastian (MedCab) as per someone else's recommendations
• 11 January, 2011 - Viriditas (FTN, again)
• 19 January, 2011 - Viriditas (NORN)

It looks like Viriditas has initiated conversation on two different noticeboards, and then Cirt, myself and then you, Slatersteven. In my defense, it was suggested that someone initiate mediation, and I set up the Medcab discussion, presuming it was the correct forum. It was not, as practically everyone advised me afterwards.

And, without continuing the content discussion here, I'll point out that at no point have I exerted OWNership of the article (as if I could). It's an unfair and poorly-conceived accusation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• User:Christopher Demers/Christopher Demers, Artist/Brand Manager & Entertainment Executive

Can another admin delete this? Delete result after WP:MFD, but due to "server error", it is not letting my delete on this one go through at the moment. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor cited the source, and put some words in quotation marks, but it's a direct cut and paste (plagiarism), with only a minor change, and some words do not have "" quotes. I understand policy says "Limited amounts of text can be quoted if they are clearly indicated in the article with the use of quotation marks" & WP:PLAG Editor added this to the main page:

This would "finally consolidate our whole country to one nation only," Jefferson suggested in 1803. He regretted in 1813 that white-Indian war had prevented this: "They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time." [127] Edit made: [128]

vs this text from which it comes:

In 1803, he suggested: "In truth, the ultimate point of rest and happiness for them is to let our settlements and theirs meet and blend together, to intermix, and become one people."

This would "finally consolidate our whole country to one nation only." He regretted in 1813 that white-Indian war had prevented this: "They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time." [129]

The italicised words have no quotes, and are verbatim cut & paste. I would remove the offending text, but that would only cause fighting, since I've also notified him of several policy problems (as have others), and he ignores those. He's been notified [130]Ebanony (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think there might be a wider problem with copyvio. I checked two recent edits at random:

Lewis and Clark Expedition: "All earlier travelers had warned of this powerful and aggressive tribe. A recent Sioux raid had killed 75 Omaha Indians and burned 40 lodges." [131]

Source: "All earlier Missouri River travelers had warned of this powerful and aggressive tribe ..." "A recent Sioux raid had killed 75 Omaha men, burned 40 lodges ..." [132]

Trans-Siberian Railway: "The peak of the resettlement occurred during 1906 to 1914, when 4 million peasants migrated to the Siberian provinces." [133]

Source: "The peak of the resettlement occurred during 1906 to 1914, when 4 million peasants migrated to the Siberian provinces." [134]

There's more along those lines in a couple of others I checked. I don't see it as plagiarism, as everything is properly sourced, but it does look like overly close (or identical) paraphrasing, so it comes under copyvio. - Bilby (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, thanks for warning me about copyvio. I was not aware of it. I will fix it in the next few days, rephrasing or removing the copyvios. Tobby72 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User has still not removed text; I have just removed the it by a revert [135]Ebanony (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As of now, Tobby72 has not corrected his other violations: [136] copied from [137]; [138] copied from [139]. Copyright says "If a contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted, they may be reported for administrator attention to the administrators' incidents noticeboard."

He claims he didn't know, but this isn't the first time editors have spoken to him about copyright [140]. That was Jan 27th.

"Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." WP:CV I understand these should be removed immediately. Am I incorrect in saying he is ignoring the problem?Ebanony (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony, please don't harass me, it's very unhelpful. I have corrected it at 6:19 AM [141] Yes I didn't know. I didn't check what 51kwad wrote because I didn't have enough time to do it [142]. There are no copyvios from me [143]. I just left a comment on the article's talk page a few months ago. Tobby72 (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick check of this editors history found several more copyright violations. A wp:CCI has been requested and I will discuss this further with the user on his talkpage. User seems cooperative and willing to clean up the copyvios, so administrator action is not required at this point. Yoenit (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Yoenit. I have carefully read, understand the WP:COPYVIO policy, and want to clean up the copyvios. Starting yesterday I am going to rewrite or remove all copyrighted material. Tobby72 (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

James Russiello (talk · contribs) made edits to six article to insert joke "information". The articles with their disruptive edits are:

1. Port Authority Bus Terminal
2. Donald Trump
3. George Washington Bridge Bus Terminal
4. Cross Bronx Expressway
5. Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum
6. Lincoln Tunnel

I issued a level 3 warning when I found the first three article, and upgraded it to a L4 when I found the fourth article. I'm concerned though that the account might be compromised. An hour before these edits, some seemingly valid edits were made. Imzadi 1979 → 00:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Imzadi understands the edits. The joke - which is appropriately labelled - comes from the New York Times, complete with reference and link. Or perhaps I've just missed the rule where it says that humor regarding a subject may not be included. If so, please just fill me in - which rule is it? Do the Sarah Palin supporters know about this? In any case I don't think that it is appropriate to put multiple threats of blocks on a users page without saying which rule has been broken and without something of a calm discussion. Somebody is taking himself too seriously. Smallbones (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think using a joke article from the New York Times to support anything other than "they New York Times ran a joke article set 100 years in the future" is rediculous. This isn't a joke site. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be precisely what the cited NYT pieces were used for. I don't know that the satires were significant enough to include in the articles, but that's an ordinary editing issue, not a matter to bring here. There certainly are enough "The subject was satirized on The Simpsons/Family Guy/SNL" type comments in myriad other articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I believe Imzadi missed the point. The introduction of well-cited and quoted lines from a satirical article printed by the [New York Times] in their special millennium edition, which purported to have been published in the future. The article in question satirized the historic preservation movement. It was the third page of one of the Jan. 1st 2000 edition, which had one of the highest circulations for the paper. This was a well-known feature of the NYTimes and still exists online so the article could be viewed in its entirety. I added the relevant content to the articles on the Port Authority Bus Terminal, Lincoln Tunnel, Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, Cross Bronx Expressway, and Donald Trump. In the same manner that popular culture, artistic reference, or notable fictional events are introduced into factual articles on Wikipedia. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's hero, Sherlock Holmes, is mentioned early in the article on Reichenbach Falls#Artistic references, despite his fictional nature. My additions were introduced as interpretations on the relevant design, or with the case of Donald Trump in his Donald Trump#In the media, which in the case of an article published by the New York Times, satirically analyzing his Trump Towers on Fifth Av and the Hudson, would seem to be the appropriate place. Perhaps the content added was not notable enough for the article, however, to issue a warning about it is an act that assumes bad faith---James R (talk)

I would like to bring the attention to administrators to the conduct of User:GoodDay. I first came across this user on the UK talk page. I asked him a question, my first ever interaction with him, and his reply was not exactly what I was expecting. [144]. I then wondered what kind of user would answer in that way. It seems to me that he brings his opinions to article talk pages with no proper argument to back it up, as can be shown here. [145]. This appears to me as though he is bringing an opinion to something hoping someone else with more knowledge on it can come in and argue for him. Before I go any further I should point out my own reply to him on the Scotland article which may not go down well, [146]. I have been looking at his talk page, not wishing to partake in any discussion on it, and it is quite obvious that there are many editors of all political persuasions who appear to have had enough of his trolling type edits. A quick peruse of his talk page will back up what I am saying. This may not be something you will want to look at here, but when so many editors are finding him troublesome should something not be done about it? Some of the complaints against him are also on his last archive page. [147] Thanks. John Hendo (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing a single recent warning of any kind from an administrator.GoodDay has a clean block log and is prepared to argue his point within policy and guidelines on some articles with local editors, imo that is often pretty beneficial to some articles and to the project if done civilly and with reference to policy and guidelines although the local contributors can get a bit ruffled. Clearly there is no immediate administrative action required and this thread should be closed, the correct place to discuss such user issues would be a User RFC, which to be perfectly honest I don't see a level of disruption that would get a lot of feedback either. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob. I have occasionally found GDs TP contribs a bit frustrating, but he is at least always open to reasonable discussion. RashersTierney (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with John Hendo. As to Off2riorob's assertion that he hasn't seen a single recent warning of any kind from an administrator: it depends on how one defines recent. Here, User:Rockpocket expressed their concern about GoodDay's behaviour not having improved since their last quiet word (warning). That was within the last month. Since then (and before that too) editors from across the spectrum have noted their concern at GoodDay's Talkpage. Many more either don't bother, or just ignore him. Daicaregos (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I define warning as - take this as a warning if you repeat those actions I will take administrative action against you, which clearly that was not, it was more friendly advice imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That sort of wording would be a final warning. Most warnings take the form of the friendly advice. In my experience most admins don't get to the don't do it or I will take action until its a final warning. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have had a couple of those comments from Admins and appreciate the advice and take notice of them. Are you saying that GoodDay has continued the disruptive behavior and such notes from more than one administrator and that some administration is required now? Topic ban? Block? Official administrative if you repeat these disruptive actions I will block you warning?Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I am just stating that I think he is a slow burning disruptive user, one who doesn't do anything so drastic that its immediately obvious but instead offers a constant disruption but on a low enough scale that its not necessarily easy to take action due to any one issue on his part. But that the combination of issues may be getting to the point that something should happen. But as I said earlier, that should be discussed at an RfC. I see no pressing need to have something done immediately which is what ANI is about. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think people are getting upset at him because he doesn't argue his point. He shows up and makes a one line comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion and then he repeats that comment over and over, often after the discussion/drama has died down, in what often looks like an attempt to spark the drama again. During which time he disappears and doesn't truely partake in the discussion other than mentioning his single line statement over again. I think if he would put some more thought into his comments and not just throw out often irrelevant one liners then people would probably not be quite so upset with him. But I do agree ANI is probably not the place to discuss this, an RfC if someone wanted to would be the way to go. I would also note that administrators have warned him recently, atleast I know I have. -DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you mean in this thread from last month. I don't really think that was an uninvolved administrative warning for any policy violations, was it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on your point of view I suppose, but he has been warned on numerous occasions by numerous people. He really does have to take some of the suggestions at face value or the total combined weight of the issues will likely get to a point where it is sanctionable. Or he can keep ignoring them as he has been for a couple years and find out for sure if that is what will happen. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello JH. You shoul've opened a RfC, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I too have recently suffered near-fatal overdoses of GoodDay-isms, but the disease is probably not best solved by newly-minted pots calling kettles in the wrong venue using the wrong format. A quick browse of John Hendo's contrib file shows a not inconsiderable tendancy towards trite, trolling, mildly offensive remarks. Perhaps it takes one to know one? [148] [149] [150] [151]. Just to give a few examples. Good luck without your internet connection anyway John, hope you get back on soon for your sake - horrible to be without these days. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to make a complaint about me please do so. My "trite, trolling, mildly offensive remarks" are there for all to see. I don't really see them in your examples, but hey! Who am I to judge. John Hendo (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "making a complaint about you", I'm suggesting we reflect on your conduct as well as the one you are complaining about - I don't personally find you the most convincing of complainants. The facts are better put below, but beware of the mote in thine own eye. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd endorse DJSasso's comments. GoodDay has been a low grade nuisance for years but has appeared well intentioned so I and others have defended him in the past. However its gone on too long and I lost my patience a few weeks ago. Basically GoodDay likes articles with conflict. He will leave comments to provoke especially when a consensus is emerging. Generally by repeating his opinion again and again and again. I've yet to see him research sources or make a constructive suggestion to move forwards. A year ago he was seeking our disruptive editors who had not contributed for a bit and poking them. He's also encouraged edit warriors. His talk page is like a social computing site. Its all low grade, he backs off as soon as there is any danger his conduct might come under examination. However dealing with him is being subject to Chinese water torture. ANI is probably the wrong place, a few of us have been thinking about raising an RfC. However as it has come here can I suggest a neutral admin takes him on for a bit, provides some mentorship and tries to correct the behaviour; carrot or stick it doesn't matter too much which --Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've restricted myself from other user:talkpages & limited myself at article talkpages, in these last few weeks. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

...And another annoying aspect (to add to many - I agree with the concerns raised by others) is the number of times he has made comments like the one above, which he (I assume it's a he) then completely ignores or forgets. He appears utterly incapable of self-regulation or self-censorship. He also appears incapable of self-education, as shown by the number of times (surely running into the hundreds by now) he has re-stated his inaccurate understanding of UK-related constitutional matters, despite having been shown many references from reliable sources that directly contradict his opinions. An enforced withdrawal from UK-related matters would resolve some problems - but probably only serve to divert him into other contentious areas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd initially planned to restrict myself from article talkpages. However, if one makes an edit & somebody reverses per BRD, then it's un-workable to continue such an article talkpage self-restriction. Such a self-restriction cripples 'collaboration'. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My specific concerns are that GoodDay:

• Makes statements that prima face appear to be authoritative. However, on closer inspection are nothing more that his own POV:
  Note the edit summary, this is the resulting thread. Again, note the edit summary, a reversion of his edit resulted in GoodDay's edit warring: more false statements in edit summary, the resulting thread at Talk:Prince Edward Island#Official languages showed further false claims by GoodDay, that were cited by nothing more than his POV. Other editors showed concern at his behaviour here, noting that GoodDay was just ignoring all other editors' points.
• Embarks on controversial campaigns on sensitive subjects. e.g. he decided that languages in country article infoboxes should be in alphabetical order. So he just changed them; e.g. at Philippines, putting English before Filipino; at Republic of Ireland, putting English before Irish; at Wales, putting English before Welsh; at Israel, putting Arabic before Hebrew
• Stirs up trouble on by highlighting pages on his Talkpage: e.g. Tom Pryce; Cornwall; and Taoiseach
  As for GoodDay's numerous pronouncements over many articles - often nothing more than soapboxing. I imagine most of you will have seen them for yourselves. e.g.: Talk:Scotland; Wales etc., etc., etc.
  Individually, nothing here that would warrant sanction. However, this low-level, continious disruption to articles and Talkpages needs to be addressed. Happy to move it to an RfC if necessary, though. Daicaregos (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, after the quite limited outcome after a months discussion in what I would say was a case of more diverse complaints, as seen in this RFC user,Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MickMacNee best of luck. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

At least Mick makes sense most of the time, and does research.... --HighKing (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As the one who opened this I have no problem moving this to a RFC as others have suggested. If someone would like to move it, please do so. John Hendo (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

GD's not a problematic editor when it comes to revert-warring or personal attacks, and is indeed very amiable. I do understand though how this has come about. GoodDay edits with a very strong anglophile/loyalist ideology; it's actually quite a common (though not mainstream) ideology in Canada and is not an 'outsiders' view at all, so there will almost certainly be a base of opposition to him in ideological camps antithetical to this. But don't let that obscure the fact that GoodDay does have a problem he needs to fix. I can confirm that GD's main contributions to talk pages and wikiprocess is simply to assert the same thing over and over again, no matter what anyone says; for me it has never been truly disruptive, as I usually leave him alone whenever I disagree and there it normally ends, but he rarely contributes encyclopedic content and so if the community accepts this as disruption then something ought to be done. I am optimistic though that GD will be responsive to the concerns raised if he realises they are genuine, and I urge him not to dismiss them as the baseless vitriol of agenda-pursuing opponents. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Anglophile, in the sense that I've often touted that this is the English-language Wikipedia. I'm not certain of the Loyalist discriptive though - as I'm a republican. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than describe your actual views on monarchy/republic debates, I meant in the sense that you are very enthusiastic about the United Kingdom and England and endorse a lot of viewpoints that would be characterised as 'loyalist'. Whatever you believe about yourself, that is how you come across. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm enthusiastic about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, too. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with User:Snowded, especially on "Basically GoodDay likes articles with conflict. He will leave comments to provoke especially when a consensus is emerging. Generally by repeating his opinion again and again and again." amd "A year ago he was seeking our disruptive editors who had not contributed for a bit and poking them." More recently, he was championing a return for indef-blocked User:Vintagekits, and the last couple of days he's stirring up the Talk:Taoiseach article. He genuinely seems to be a conflict junkie. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Championing Vk's return was a mistake, as it was discovered that he was socking during his 1-year block. As for the 'Taioseach' article? by all means folks, show me where there's a conflict occuring. Has the article been 'protected'? Has civility been breached by anyone? Has anyone in that article discussion been presenting 'original research'? GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, you are showing no sign whatsoever of listening to what a broad range of editors are telling you. Otherwise this is a classic example: raising a question without doing any research or proposing any action, but one he knows may trigger off a dispute --Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't re-start the current discussion at the Taioseach article. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Then, because the conflict died down, he raised the issue on his Talkpage here, canvassing editors to do something on that page. Daicaregos (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing on my own talkpage? That's like campaigning for an office, by giving speeches from your own room with the door shut & nobody around to hear you. For those who are concerned about my user-talkpage? simply don't look in. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I'm not getting behind any of the other complaints listed here... but that example is quite clear. It was obvious people watching your page would rise to it. The comparison campaigning you mention is not good.. this is more like, sticking a campaign poster on the wall facing a window you happen to know that your most vehement opposition glance through every day on their way home from work... --Errant ^(chat!) 15:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Too many folks have my talkpage on their watchlists (I suspect). There must be some truth in my posts there - otherwise, nobody would give a darn about'em. The NPoV approach, does tend to get opposing sides emotional. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you believe you, presumably in contrast to everyone else, have a 'NPoV approach'? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

At the Wales, Dai shows up (a self-proclaimed Welsh nationalist & devolutionist). At the Taioseach, HK shows up, an Irish editor who's anxious about the usage of British Isles on Wikipedia. At Scotland, Scottish editors show up. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that GD seems to exclude the possibility that, just sometimes, editors who actually live in the countries under discussion may know more about their history and current constitutional arrangements than someone who lives some distance away. Usually, the disputes are less to do with people's politics, and more about simple errors of fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I find the canvassing accusation ridiculous. You don't want him fueling things at the article talk page, then you get upset that he's venting on his talk page. I should think you would find that a healthier outlet. It is asinine to suggest that he shouldn't be able to talk about the issue or that he can only talk about it off wiki where no one will know or care what he's talking about. What is the harm in allowing him that outlet. It would be one thing if he were posting at other people's talk pages, but he's not. -Rrius (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be fine to discuss such topics with other interesed users, had those users broached the subject first. However, that is not the case, the articles are noted by GoodDay apropos nothing. GoodDay's motive is obviously to highlight specific articles to other users. If that isn't canvassing, it is certainly an attempt to disrupt. Interesting that Rrius' only comment is to defend one of the least of GoodDay's low-level disrupive methods. It would also be interesting to hear Rrius' opinion, for example, regarding GoodDay's campaign to change languages in country article infoboxes to alphabetical order, with no prior discussion; e.g. at Philippines, placing English before Filipino; at Republic of Ireland, placing English before Irish; at Wales, placing English before Welsh; at Israel, placing Arabic before Hebrew. Daicaregos (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Least or not, it was a stupid criticism. People who disagreed with him were under no compulsion to respond at his talk page or, indeed, to read it. It is absurd that his ability to whinge at his talk page about a discussion is being called into question, especially as he is not the only person who has posted in this discussion who has done it. As to the point about what has gone on at specific talk pages, I haven't the foggiest. Many of the UK and constituency country articles involved I simply stopped bothering to discuss things at because I got sick of the nonconstructive tone of those debates. I'll note that GoodDay wasn't even on the radar at that point for contributing to the atmosphere. Anyway, I don't follow any of those other articles, but I'll note from your summary that GoodDay appears to have been trying to put them in alphabetical order, which is certainly rational. Hell, for Ireland and Wales, I would think English is also the most prevalent language, making the attempt all the more sensible. In any event, simply advocating for a neutral rule for listing languages is hardly the crime you make it out to be. -Rrius (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not a unilateral decision to put Arabic before Hebrew at the Infobox on the Israel page was sensible, it is part a pattern of low-level and continious disruption. Few, if any, of GoodDays individual posts are sanctionable. However, his disruption to the project needs to be considered as a whole. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Deacon, I agree that problem with GoodDay is not revert warring or personal attacks. But are you able to tell us how his contribution to the project is actually beneficial? This illustrates how GoodDay, an editor with over 50,000 edits, hasn't even the faintest idea of how to edit articles. And, after over five years 'experience', I can't honestly see it likely he ever will. The question is: is GoodDay's amiability worth the disruption he causes? Daicaregos (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the core issue. GoodDay can be funny, sometimes his comments are accurate and sometimes they are silly, way off-base, irrelevant or so patently false that one marvels that he wastes time making them. Why does he? I suspect that for him, Wikipedia talk pages are an entertainment. I don't see a lot of content editing these days. Perhaps in some dim and distant past. He's a bit like a retired sportsman who now only appears on chat shows and irritates people. I don't really see that anyone takes him seriously. My suggestion would be that he stays off talk pages for a few months, takes a basic editing course (learning to contextualise, how to write about simple ideas, improved one's spelling, cultural sensitivity etc) and permanently avoids anything to do with the UK, Britain, Ireland, the Commonwealth, BIOT, Canadian provinces, ice hockey, boxing er, I could go on. You get the idea. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that GoodDay could stay away from those areas because these articles really are his raison d'être. Thirteen months ago [152] GoodDay seemed to respond to community concerns, realised he had a problem and vowed to change his ways but this just hasn't happened. He received a lot of good advice from people who were fed up with his actions back then and here we are today still unhappy (to say the least) with his behaviour. GoodDay's disregard for the arguments/discussion of other editors by his incessant pearls of wisdom have worn very thin. His firmly held opinions, repeated ad nauseum, litter the pages of British and Irish talk pages. For a long time most people put up with him and generally ignored the bulk of his comments but his relative harmlessness has morphed over the years into a pot stirring agenda that needs to be addressed. --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Odd. I wasn't going to comment because I, like many, generally view GoodDay as Mostly Harmless, but I think Bill has correctly identified that in the last few months he has recently morphed into something less benign. He treats his own Talk page as a personal community chat board. He doesn't contribute content. And he makes comments on Talk pages for a hobby, all of which are simple personal opinions. I sincerely hope GoodDay understands that while he has made friends here, his emphasis and main activities are inappropriate and unbalanced away from content. --HighKing 13:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, alright - I'm getting the message "GoodDay, stay away from Article talkpage discussions". Is it alright that I continue to participate at RMs, AfDs, Rfcs & ANI etc? In meantime, what happens if somebody reverts my edits per BRD? a dilima I faced at the Pedro I of Brazil & John VI of Portugal articles? BTW, in complying with this restriction, I see it as a form of censurship being pushed on me & that's a personal view yas can't change. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What's special about RMs and AfDs? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If an article is facing wrongly being deleted or wrongly being moved? my opposition would be required. If an article is facing rightly being deleted or rightly being moved? my support would be required. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You realise though that these are discussions, not votes? Your view on such matters has no significance beyond the strength of argument that you present. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always been content to let un-involved closing-administrators of those AfDs & RMs, be the judge of the merits of my arguments. In fact, that's usually my response in those AFDs & RMs discussions, when I'm getting challenged for my stance. Sometimes, the opposite side convinces me of their argument & I change my stance (I am -sometimes- flexiable in those AfDs & RMs). GoodDay 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: Would you move this to an RfC? Within a few hours, this thread is gonna be archived. This should've been an Rfc/U, to begin with. GoodDay 16:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

PPS - threads at ANI are only automatically archived 24hours after users stop posting in the thread. A user can't really ask to move to a RFC that is for users that think opening one is needed to address specific editor issues. I personally don't see a talkpage ban as even a possibility and never mind a requirement in this case, at least I have never heard of such a thing as a talkpage ban. If a user makes any edits or additions to articles they have a requirement to discuss them if they are contented. Off2riorob 17:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

BRD is gonna be a problem for me. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I support some sort of restriction on GoodDay. I have never seen GoodDay be uncivil, but he is at best a pointless addition to the project, and at worst a persistently disruptive commentator on pages relating to Britain and Ireland, someone whose presence dramatically reduces the signal-noise ratio. (I call him a "commentator", because his article-space contribs are so insignificant that the label "editor" would be misleading). Sometimes this is merely irritating, but at other times it is disruptive, as with the recent antics over the article Taoiseach, where his throwaway comments sparked a long discussion, wasting the time of editors who could otherwise be improving content.

He seems to use wikipedia as a sort of social networking site, where he can have amusing discussions of a form better suited to a pub, and other editors have posted plenty of evidence of how his amiable-ingenue approach to discussions on contentious matters in effect a form of civil trolling.

I don't think that it is feasible to ban an editor from talk pages. If they are making any contribution to articles, then discussing them on talk and project pages is an essential part of building and maintaining consensus. So I can only conclude that unless GoodDay rapidly and completely drops his pub-talk approach, he should either be topic-banned from anything to do with Britain and Ireland, or banned entirely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if GoodDay didn't start that section, I never would have got a good laugh out of seeing a source which calls the country The Republic being used to assert what the chieftain's proper title is. Irregardless of who started the section though, it's useful now as someone might see it and add this new loanword theory to the article's use of it as the page title, as it's certainly never been there before (the previous defences being of the 'it's in the constitution' variety). MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The loanword theory, was new to me aswell. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay has indeed got worse recently, but I'd say he is probably just fed up at the tactics certain content opponents have been using against him, not least waving this mythical RFC over his head, but never quite getting around to filing it. There's nothing here that judicious use of neutral refactoring and a bit of DNF wouldn't fix. Pending an Rfc, or a worsening of his behaviour, there's certainly nothing for admins to do, that's for sure, except monitor those who like to respond to him bearing their own gifts of wisdom. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In GoodDay's defense this edit that John Hendo mentioned can be clearly understood when you have been involved in matters relating to the British Isles - there is that much nationalist jockeying that it is only time before someone decides to snap and label it what it is. Funny how anyone who doesn't agree with nationalist thoughts and beliefs are instantly labelled a "loyalist" or "unionist" as GoodDay has been before despite the fact he is a Canadian republican - it sort of implies that only nationalist editors can be neutral or are correct and if you don't agree then your wrong and a troublesome editor.

Many of GoodDays detractors here and in the past can be classified as being nationalist in viewpoint - and i feel the fact that GoodDay is an open Canadian republican and outside (of the British Isles) voice who doesn't adhere to the ideology of nationalists in the British Isles and has an opinion that differs from them that they are trying to silence him from British Isles topics to reinforce their own hand. Especially as they don't have much else on him. In fact some of his detractors here have worse records and have gotten into far more trouble than GoodDay.

Yes many of his comments can add nothing to a discussion, but his opinion on matters does count as much as any of ours. He is an outside voice that gets involved in UK and RoI topics, and that is vital as he can help show confusion on matters that some editors here don't see as confusing due to personal preferences. If anything is to be done to GoodDay then just enforcing that his comments add something to a debate or discussion should be suffice. If he continues to add nothing and does descend into getting more troublesome and problematic then something more should be done.

I can list a few editors who add less than GoodDay and should be topic-banned from British and Irish matters.

Suppose i'll now be labelled as only supporting him as i'm suppossedly a loyalist too. Though i can still remember being named in a sockpuppet investigation as a sockpuppet of O Fenian by one actual loyalist editor (Factocop). Mabuska ^(talk) 21:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, you do argue a loyalist/unionist perspective, but you argue it. The point being raised here is not GoodDay's actual political position (which has fluctuated over the years) but the fact that he does not contribute anything other than his opinion, and he repeats it incessantly. He also provokes debate when things settle down - a conflict junkie as someone said earlier. Its a behaviour which has also been noted and referenced in hockey articles, so this is not a content debate it is a behavioral issue. It is not a content debate by proxy as the issue is not confined to British and Irish issues. You make a very important statement however which we can build on; you suggest that "enforcing that his comments add something to a debate" would suffice. I fully agree with that and the best solution here might be for an "independent" to phrase that appropriately then we can close this off. --Snowded ^TALK 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly true that all matters-British-Isles can try the patience and tempers regularly get frayed all round in that particular hotzone. I don't think it's GoodDay's temper that's the issue though, it's his endless scatter-gun approach with its repetitive triviality, wierd contrarian lurches (I've seen him completely flip from one end of the argument to the other, several times, in the same long thread) and frankly surreal unrelations to the argument. I am also somewhat unconvinced from my own admittedly somewhat limited exposure (>2 years) to the phenomenon that GoodDay is the ingenue "outsider" that he sometimes likes to paint himself. Frequently his comments (and this is what I find most annoying and have most had cause to come here and join in the whinging about) seem skilfully barbed, posing as little witticisms but actually solidly based in knowledge about precisely what will most wind up each type of participant. It would be so nice to have a break from that! GoodDay is currently promising us one, but seems reluctant to leave the field altogether and I feel sure he will return with renewed vigor if the response to an RFC/admin action here and now is too limited. On his nationalism or otherwise, I am also unconvinced by which side GoodDay sits on. Sometimes, as on royal articles, he seems to me to be quite pro-Queen for example. Other times, he is busy seeing what he can do to stir up aggression from the pro-monarchists. The word PEST comes to mind. Sorry to be so harsh GD, but there it is. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain of one thing, folks. From this day forward, I'm 'hesistant' to post on any article talkpages. My 'name', has been tarnished here (others may decide whose fault that is), this should've been a RfC -not an ANI report-. From this time forward, my posts would be scrutinized more then ever. Any slight mis-understanding of my posts or any slight disagreement with my posts? I'd get dragged off to the shed. Indeed, such talkpages will be filled with land-minds for me, in the future. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just take those pages off your watchlist, the wiki is so big dude and there is so much to do - the BLP button, still a few thousand poor lonely uncited articles about living people to improve. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

They've already been removed from my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, making this an ANI and advocating for a particularly drastic measure makes this seem more like an attack and pile-on rather than a constructive attempt to address the issues people have with GoodDay. This should absolutely have been an RfC/U or some other form of discussion instead of a call for an administrator to pull out the tools. A less confrontational approach could have fairly quickly resulted in an agreement on a way forward. Instead, what we've had is a travesty, and I'm disappointed in the way this has been handled by the people with concerns about GoodDay's actions at various talk pages. Calling someone "pointless" is unnecessarily harsh and hard to take as a fair-minded contribution to this discussion rather than as an uncivil and useless expression of frustration. I respect BHG a lot, so I found that particularly disappointing. This discussion should be closed and, if necessary, a new one commenced at RfC/U with a tone more conducive to amicable resolution. -Rrius (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rrius, I agree that what I wrote was harsh. But having watched GoodDay's chit-chattery contributions on a range of talkpages for several years, that's my assessment.

The British-Irish topics on which he comments are frequently difficult ones, where highly divergent perspectives meet on either side of very old conflicts. Sadly, there are some editors on both sides whose idea of NPOV is promoting their view over others, rather than working for a balanced presentation of all views; and even amongst those editors who do strive for balance, it is hard work to find formulations which are acceptable to all sides. GoodDay's prolific court jester contributions to those discussions are have been disruptive for a long time.

Maybe ANI was the wrong place for this discussion, and I would not support sanctions at this stage; but after all the discussion on his talkpage over the last few months, it's not surprising that this problem was raised here. Maybe an RFC/U would be a helpful next step, but whatever route is taken from here on, I think it's important that GoodDay understands the extent of concerns, and I hope that this discussion has emphasised that point. From what I have seen of his responses so far, I don't think that this will be resolved without sanctions on GoodDay, but I hope I will be proved wrong about that.

In the meantime, I agree with Snowded that Mabuska's suggestion would be a good way to close this discussion: "enforcing that his comments add something to a debate". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know or care about the underlying issue. It may well be that there is a significant issue, and if there is, it should be dealt with in a constructive manner. Just as you say that GoodDay has to understand the extent of the concerns, those with those concerns need to understand that taking this to ANI, advocating for drastic and possibly unprecedented sanctions (punishment, frankly), the confrontational tone, and the overall way this has been handled are not calculated to achieve an amicable and sensible result. (And yes, I realise that some people did some rather than all of those things.) In that light, GoodDay's "snide comments", as they were called elsewhere, should be seen as natural.

Additionally, comments like "from what I have seen of his responses so far, I don't think that this will be resolved without sanctions" aren't particularly helpful. They presuppose that after entering into a more reasonable forum and less attacky discussion he won't listen to reason. In addition to not being helpful, it is not fair. Though he's been passive-aggressive in doing it, he has shown a willingness to disengage from a lot of the problem areas. Under the circs, I think a little passive aggressiveness is understandable. I repeat: this discussion should be closed with no action and a new discussion started elsewhere with a more constructive and conciliatory tone (and an open mind on both sides). -Rrius (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally outside of all of this and I'm sorry but I have to comment. Maybe GoodDay is everything everyone says he is, I don't know at this point. I've looked at the difs supplied and did the research here. One thing I can say though is where is the RFCu on this user? Where is anything from DR on this user? Most of the editors here have had contact with this editor and to me it looks like ganging up at this point. What is it that everyone wants from posting here to ANi? I feel it's totally unfair the way things have gone in this thread. You want this editor to do a, b, and c. Well what are the rest of you going to do to get along? Please, stop the ganging up and do things the right way, start the RFCu already and close this thread. I don't see anything so terrible that deserves this kind of thrashing to a long term editor who is, at least right now, in good standing with the community at large. Please everyone, lets back off a bit. Giving suggestions is ok but that belongs on his/her talk page, not AN/i. If this editor needs to be banned from these set of articles than do it already if there is cause. From my reading though, it looks like the goal here is to frustrate this editor into taking a break, a really long break from the community and we don't do things like that or at least we shouldn't. Sorry if I am coming across too strongly but for me it's late and I'm going for the night so I want to make my points. Make the RFCu and close this already. Thank you for listening, my apologies if I'm too strong in what I am saying, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think if you check it out you will find a few of us have tried to get GoodDay to change by raising issues on his talk page. Initially with caution, but with increasingly directness as he ignored the comments. He also has a very long tradition of inconsistency, he will say that he will withdraw from an article (which is an unnecessary over reaction to a request to participate constructively) then a day later will be back in there. The next step would have been an RfC but then another editor brought it here so people responded. I can't see any major clamor to have him blocked, just a request from him to behave properly. The Mabuska suggestion still seems to be the best close and is supporte by BHG above.--Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)