Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:15, 18 August 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

--Discussion moved to subpage, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/La_goutte_de_pluie - purely due to length. Not closed; ongoing.  Chzz  ►  23:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note, depite moving it due to length, input is requested, esp, in La_goutte_de_pluie#Resolution. (OK, a few bolded words, has to be preferable to 500Kb of text?) Ty.  Chzz  ►  04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged it unresolved and, to prevent its archiving, am signing this without timestamp. :) --Moonriddengirl Thx  Chzz  ►  as in without timestamp Elen of the Roads (talk)

For whatever reason, it was archived , so I reinstated it, and will post-datestamp 1 week;  Chzz  ►  Postdated to avoid arch, 04:48, 20 August 2011

Aaand. it got archived again . Anyone know how to prevent that happening?  Chzz  ►  08:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, add a future timestamp. -FASTILY 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Like this: FASTILY 23:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Fastily. I noticed this timestamp while skipping through the page and almost had a heart attack. God knows how many other editors you finished off. :) Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• This remains unresolved and any fresh eyes from uninvolved editors would be welcome. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we speed this up? Seems like a bad idea to shift it off this board. Response is getting slow. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing

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

Circuit dreamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his disruptive editing

Reported by Glrx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am continually running into the well-intentioned WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS of User:Circuit dreamer and his lack of sources. He edits many articles in the area of electronics. Although he has some knowledge in the area, he often exceeds his expertise and writes material that is seriously flawed. His behavior has gone on for years.

1. He does not appreciate the requirement for WP:RS.
2. He almost never cites sources.
3. He makes extensive edits that he claims are intuitively obvious, so he claims they do not need sources.
4. He puts down his own thoughts about a subject
5. He invents his own terminology or misuses existing terms.
6. He likes to point out how one idea is connected to several others.
7. His stated goal is to share his insights with others.
8. When pressed for sources, he will use blogs or statistics from Google searches.
9. Many of his edits appear to be voyages of discovery. He becomes interested in a topic, so he thinks about it. He then adds his thoughts to the article on the topic.
10. He has been warned in many articles about the need for reliable sources and and not to use his original research.

Many other editors have had trouble with him. Unfortunately, it can take too much effort to police CD's edits. CD does a prodigous amount of editing (500 edits in 37 days), and those edits often have problems. While I was contemplating fixing his edits to Negative resistance, CD was off editing other articles.

User talk:Circuit dreamer has many discussions about similar problems.

User:Dicklyon sums up the experience of dealing with Circuit dreamer:

... Circuit Dreamer, you waste too much of our time by the amount of work you create for those of us who want the article to remain finite and well sourced. Cut out the essays, in both article and talk pages. ... Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no experience in designing a remedy for his behavior.

The primary goal is to prevent him from improperly editing electronics articles.

He has not been blocked previously. A remedy must be measured.

He has promised to use inline sources, but that promise has not been kept.

The problem has been going on for years.

Other editors are also not sure what the appropriate remedy should be. Mentoring or a ban on electronics articles has been suggested. I'm not sure that mentoring would work. Discussions with CD are time consuming. CD often latches on to his initial beliefs and won't let them go. A topic ban seems severe for someone who is well intentioned and who has not confronted any sanctions yet.

His behavior has gone on too long. We must rein him in. CD must take WP's editing requirements seriously.

Bottom line is CD does not understand the requirement for reliable sources. His energy damages a lot of articles. His goals confilict with those of Misplaced Pages.

Glrx (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What he said; it is impossible to get articles on a trajectory of improvement relative to WP policies and guidelines when CircuitDreamer is actively editing. He's a smart guy and could contribute constructively if he wanted to, but he has made it clear that he doesn't care squat for WP policy. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that CD's editing is disruptive. I have discussed the issue of sources and NPOV with him on numerous occasions but he fails to see the point or else deliberately ignores it. He is clearly in breach of the behaviour guidelines he agreed to the last time time he was here at ANI. CD is not only disruptive in articles but also on talk pages where he inserts large walls of text trying to persuade other editors through the force of his own intellect rather than with sources as if he were teaching his students. This tends to make the talk page unusable to other editors. I propose that community restrictions are placed on CD as follows

1. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing all electronics articles, broadly construed
2. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing talk pages associated with above
3. These restrictions may be lifted in part or in whole if Circuit Dreamer finds a mentor acceptable to ANI and agrees to edit restricted pages only under his/her mentorship

SpinningSpark 06:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark, subject to review if a suitable mentor is found. It is unfortunate that the situation has come to this, but I have been observing Circuit Dreamer's edits for some months and the descriptions above by Glrx, Dicklyon and SpinningSpark are accurate. Circuit Dreamer is enthusiastic and likable, and will listen to a discussion if it is hammered home by exhaustive repetition. However, the editor always reverts to form and soon begins adding their observations (WP:OR)—some accurate, some not, but all unsourced or poorly sourced. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1&2. I don't see how a "mentor" would solve anything here (is there some policy/guideline related to this?). He was advised aplenty already. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic-ban, enforceable by a complete ban. I have not been involved with Circuit dreamer before this report, but reading over the discussion at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#Wien bridge oscillator, it becomes clear he does not see a problem with his behaviour. In fact, he makes it clear that he himself believes it is helpful and will continue to add unsourced, and at times factually incorrect, material to articles. —Ruud 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. I recall the previous ANI thread. Unfortunately I suspect there were some misunderstandings thanks to the input of a well-meaning but very inexperienced editor, whose incomplete view of the situation may have led CD to believe that their edits were only part of the problem rather than the entire problem. However I did believe we had an understanding at the end that CD would seek advice, work constructively with other editors, stick to mainstream published reliable sources, and keep their personal theories out of our articles. I'm disappointed that they've been unable to do this, leaving us with no choice but to exclude them from contributing to those articles at all. EyeSerene 12:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1, but I'm wondering if we might consider a 1 edit per article per day restriction on the talk pages? That way, if he does have good, sourced, content, other editors can add it. If not, of course, it can be rejected. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 12:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Hold on I confess I haven't read everything, yet, there's a lot of material here, but are we really proposing a topic ban for an editor with a clean block log, and no sanctions? Isn't a band for someone who has exhausted dispute resolution measures? I barely see any dispute resolution attempts. Where's the conduct RfC? Where's the failed mentor? Where are the escalated blocks for failing to follow policy?--SPhilbrickT 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In practice violating WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:OR isn't an offence you get blocked for without going through AN/I or arbitration. A mentor isn't going to help unless the mentee accepts there is a problem. On the other hand, I do see a large number of respected editors having tried to resolve this dispute constructively and failed. —Ruud 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I note the evidence contains a link to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electronics#Edit_wars, a discussion about which CD wasn't informed. Perhaps we don't have a rule against failing to inform involved parties when you start a conduct discussion on a Wikiproject talk page, but it sure would be the polite thing to do. A mentor might fail, but a prediction of failure is not, IMO, sufficient reason for skipping the step. I see no excuse for failing to start an RfC covering user conduct. While some may think the user should know there is concern over the editing, the official notice is very limited.--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • A procedural note... Arbitration usually only occurs after all avenues of dispute resolution are exhausted (at least, ArbCom is unlikely to take the time to hear a case until that point). A community ban can happen to anyone regardless of what, if anything, has been tried before. All that is required is a clear community consensus to ban, preferably done at the administrators' noticeboard (ANI after all being part of AN). Considering how difficult it can be to get a consensus on anything anywhere, that's not an insignificant requirement. Misplaced Pages:Ban#Community bans and restrictions has all of the details, but it's fairly simple. -- Atama頭 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, I know we have a formal rule that one should not go to Arbcom without exhausting DR. But an indefinite topic ban is at least as least as strong as anything ArbCom might propose (short of a complete ban, which looks, for all intents and purposes like the same thing.) Maybe we don't have to show that we've exhausted every single remedy short of a ban, but I see scant evidence that much has been tried beyond some discussion with the editor. Not a single RfC. One ANI thread, but that brought by CD, not against CD. No 3RR blocks. Not even a 3RR notice.--SPhilbrickT 17:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
          • CD clearly isn't your run-of-the-mill revert-warrior, nor would the people who interacted with him have liked to lower themselves to childish edit warring. That doesn't mean there isn't a clear case of disruptive editing going on here. What would an RfC accomplish apart from everyone agreeing his current behaviour is inappropriate? There are only two possible outcomes here: either CD voluntarily stops making inappropriate edits or he stops non-voluntary. He has so far made it clear he is not interested in the former. —Ruud 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
            • What an RfC would accomplish, assuming it goes the way you expect (and I think it probably would), is a clear statement to the editor that the editing style is not acceptable. If the RfC is closed by an admin with a finding, one could point to it an d say, you can no longer simply contend that your edits are fine. The community has spoken and they are not. Until that point, you have editors claiming his edits are flawed and CD saying they are not. If we can ban someone on that basis, we have a flawed process. I'm not following the aversion to an RfC. The editor has been doing this for years, it isn't like it has to be solved tomorrow. If you cannot deal with it even for one more day, propose a 30 day topic ban and a concurrent RfC, and I'll support. I think the editor has problems, and they are likely to be intractable, but I simply don't support an indefinite ban of an editor with zero sanctions.--SPhilbrickT 19:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
              • It should already be, but isn't, clear to him that his behaviour is not acceptable. The chance that an RfC will help him see the light is for all practical purposes zero. The energy that has to be put into this, almost completely symbolic, process isn't worth the potential, and certainly not the expected, gain. All CD would have to do to have his topic-ban lifted in the future is explain what is wrong with his current behaviour and give us some, not even much, assurance he won't continue. —Ruud 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • To avoid a topic-ban, all CD would have to do is acknowledge his behaviour is inappropriate and stop. What he does is to defend his actions and continue. This is his choice, a choice very easy to revise, and the community therefore shouldn't be burdened with spending more effort on him than it has already done (again, this problem has been going on for quite some time involving quite a few editors.) —Ruud 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Sphilbrick, we're back here because Circuit dreamer hasn't followed the restrictions they agreed to when this issue first came to community attention nearly two years ago. Perhaps some background would help: as I recall from that ANI, he's got some concepts about electronics that are not mainstream. He saw Misplaced Pages as the ideal place for promoting these concepts, and from the above still does. This is why he's here; mentoring is unlikely to alter his very reason for editing. He's clearly exhausted the patience of those editors who work in the same area; I'm very much against making already frustrated editors climb the procedural ladder for the sake of being seen to stand on every rung. EyeSerene 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break for length

I do not support process for the sake of process, but if we have a process and it makes sense, we shouldn't declare that we can ignore process simply because we are frustrated. Note that the editor bringing the complain said, " A topic ban seems severe for someone who is well intentioned and who has not confronted any sanctions yet.". Yet we are debating an unlimited topic ban for a well-meaning user with no sanctions. When you say he has failed to follow restrictions agreed to, do you mean

or

If you mean the one's agreed to, I'd like to know which diffs. I see a seas of diffs above, but it is a laundry list, I don't see something nice and neat like "user agreed to not do X, here's a diff showing he did X". I'm not saying it isn't here, but this is not the best organized complaint I've ever read.--SPhilbrickT 18:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're requesting other community members to spend more energy on this, at least have the decency to read through the, not unreasonably large amount, of discussion here and preceding the AN/I report. You're also pulling a bit of a strawman here. The main problem is that CD refuse to abide by WP:V and WP:OR. He doesn't really have a choice of agreeing to this or not, he simply has to. So far he refuses. The consequence of this is that cannot continue to be a part of this community. No amount mentoring or dispute resolution will change this. Only his choice to abide by the five pillars will. —Ruud 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now read the NORN exchange. I really do sympathize with those who are convinced that CD doesn't get it, but CD agreed to some editing restrictions, and believes he is following them. Unfortunately, the agreed to restriction has a hole big enough for a truck: "I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense." I agree with those who thinks his notion of common sense isn't consonant with what WP believes doesn't need citing. But I do not support banning someone for having a different view, without any formal finding that the editor has violated community rules.--SPhilbrickT 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I should read all the material. I'm trying, but so far, of everything I've read, I've yet to see a bannable offense. Can you cite a specific diff, or is it an accumulation? --SPhilbrickT 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the continuing insertion of unsoured, unidiomatic and factually incorrect material into multiple articles, while several editors have requesting him to stop doing that. No single occurrence of this would warrant a topic-ban, it's the continuing nature of this, even after repeated explanations of why this is inappropriate and requests to stop.

Argeeing to "some" editing restrictions and "him beleiving" to be following them really is not sufficient. He actually needs to actually abide by WP:V and WP:OR. Until he explicitly agrees to do this (as he has explicitly stated not to be going to do so) and actually does this he cannot continue to edit. —Ruud 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We are in complete agreement that his editing is unacceptable and if not changed, would mean he isn't welcome to edit at all. We simply disagree about what interim steps are needed. I would be surprised to learn that this community has ever topic banned an unsanctioned editor. This doesn't look like the first place to start. Or tell me that my assumptions are flawed and we do this all the time.--SPhilbrickT 19:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A topic-ban is a form of sanction and one has to be the first. Most problematic editors tend to be a little unstable and get a few 3RR blocks before they exhaust the community's patience. A few are better at restraining themselves though, or simply edit at a slower pace. A particular editor in an arbitration case I was involved in ended up banned for a year and topic-banned indefinitely without having had any prior blocks or sanctions imposed on him. His behaviour, or more accurately the amount of energy required to deal with him, did drive away at least three valuable contributors from the project. —Ruud 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. I've read through a few of the talk page discussions, and it's pretty clear that Circuit Dreamer is editing disruptively. The topic ban/mentoring arrangement above may help him find his footing here and contribute productively. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. It is clear that these problems have been problems for a long time, they have been pointed out before, they are not going away, and they are highly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have always believed that CD's edits, however well-intentioned, are out of place in Misplaced Pages. When I reverted several of his edits almost 2 years ago they all contained similar graphics as this- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Negative_resistance&oldid=442011666; as well as confusing long-winded analysis. The previous versions of these articles were well written, easy to follow, and had adequate figures. The sheer volume of his edits make it difficult for the dozen or more editors who have been cleaning up after him to keep up. It also makes it difficult to grasp the full scope of his activity. I would suggest reading some of the comments on CD's talk page. impolite statement on Gyrator discussion_page is one of many times CD has been rude on discussion pages. Following this are several unheeded warnings from Spinningspark. After Dicklyon reverted CD's edits on the Transistor Transistor Logic page, CD posted the following comment: "Dicklyon, IMO you have gone too far in cleaning up the interfacing section. These situations are very important for TTL circuit design; so, they deserve to be included in the article. This morning, I posed the problem to my students on the whiteboard in the laboratory of digital circuits (see the picture on the right). They tried to find answers to my questions in Misplaced Pages but they did not manage since the answers were removed:) Well, let's discuss these considerations here. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)" (copied to CD's talk page here) I believe this clearly reveals a conflict of interest. On November 5 2010 CD was invited to a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts after a discussion page interaction with another editor. CD did not attend. I support a permanent topic ban. It should have been done several years ago. Zen-in (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that CD's editing style is unacceptable. But I concur with SPhilbrick. Editors have been tangling with CD for years; what's wrong with spending another month on an RfC, in the interest of proper procedure, giving him one more chance to avoid being blocked, and avoid setting the bad precedent of a premature use of sanctions? --Chetvorno 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  What's wrong? Wasting yet another month, just so the proper sacrifice is made to the Gods of Process? Process for process' sake is pointless. As far as "precedent", CD will not be the first, nor will he be the last, to be indef'd, topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned without the bother of a pointless Rfc. An Rfc is editors trying to show the problem editor the error of his or her ways. This has already been done, by many editors, over an extended period of time. If you want to see them all in one place, I suggest you start digging through histories and compile your own. I'm with EyeSerene, above: I am "very much against making already frustrated editors climb the procedural ladder for the sake of being seen to stand on every rung." As it is, we have a supermajority for the ban, and only yourself and SPhilbrick disagree, and - this is important - NOT because you think CD will learn and improve from an Rfc, which is the only reason to have one, but "for the sake of process" or "for the sake of procedure". I cannot express how much I think this is wrong-think. I do not understand the worship of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 10:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • • I'm not a fan of process for process' sake. There are times to skip process and do something out of process. This is not one of them. This guy has been editing for years. Why has there never been an RfC? It's too late to redo the last couple years, but an RfC would take a fraction of the energy spent on interacting with him in useless ways. I don't think the first sanction on someone should be an indef. When an unruly kid in a class has been told many, many times that their behavior is a problem, you go through escalation and send him to the principle's office. You don't send him tot he electric chair. That's exactly what is happening here. Every single response by editors has been the equivalent of "Johnny, stop that!". Now you propose the electric chair, because you don't think a stern talking to by the principle will work. Maybe it won't. But the proposal here is wrong. Do the right thing, not the wrong thing. --SPhilbrickT 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I must say I'm with KillerChihuahua on this one. Your analogy doesn't work, on several levels: this ban isn't an electric chair, but more crucially still, this editor isn't a schoolboy, and an RfC isn't "a stern talking to by the principal". This is clearly an intelligent adult, and his kind of disruption is not that of an unruly kid. He's in rational control of what he's doing. If he didn't get the message after so many clear warnings, why would we expect he'd get the message in an RfC, which basically is just the same warning given in a more organized way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Concur. In my view this isn't premature sanction, this is sanction that should have happened 18 months ago. If I'd known that we hadn't resolved this in the previous ANI report, CD wouldn't have a clean block log now. EyeSerene 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, while my analogy is not perfect, it is not as far off as you suggest. In the world of Misplaced Pages, for an editor interested in a single subject, an indef is practically an electric chair. If that's slightly over the top, let's use the exact analogy, life in prison with possibility of parole if you kowtow in exactly the right way. An RfC is a stern talking to by an admin, if it uncovers problematic editing, and is closed by an admin, with such a finding.

As for clear warnings, I don't think they are so clear. I've read dozens of pages linked in the evidence (not all yet), and I'm not finding the clear warnings. The place for warnings is the editor's talk page. I see a warning from 2009 that if certain behavior isn't changed, there would be a request for admin action. A topic ban is not admin action. Let's list all the times the user has been warned that they face a possible topic ban if they do not change. I count zero. How many do you count?--SPhilbrickT 12:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• You seems to be in favour of explaining ad enforcing rules as one would do with a minor. Carefully explaining rules, the sanctions and punishment for not following them, increasing pressure over time. In such a pedagogically correct procedure, you should also always ask the minor to explain to you what he did wrong and apologize. However, CD has so far made no attempt to do so. (Although it should be noted that I disagree this is the correct way to treat intelligent adults, they have a strong will and such methods are therefore ineffective.) —Ruud 14:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the function of an analogy, so let's talk about Misplaced Pages. We rarely ban people without warning them that they might get banned if they don't change their behavior. There are zero such warnings on the editor's talk page (if some were removed, I will happily reach a different conclusion.) You can't bear to wait 30 days to do an RfC? Leave a final warning that the next edit in violation of policy will result in a topic ban. That will take less time than it will take to respond to this post. I don't think such a warning is fair, but it is a tiny bit better than banning without warning.--SPhilbrickT 15:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. We have difficulty dealing with situations like these, where a seemingly intelligent editor refuses to participate in community norms yet absorbs significant community resources. I know nothing of the scientific subject matter germane to this discussion and am not a participant in the underlying conflict, but after reading some of the background and particularly this talk page thread it's apparent to me that Circuit dreamer is unable to successfully collaborate in this content area (at a minimum). Normally I would advocate for a user conduct RfC to begin with, but the pattern here seems long and the efforts of other editors to engage with CD seem ongoing and genuine, to little effect. As such I understand the reluctance to run this whole matter through an RfC--perhaps largely for the sake of process--when the problems are already so well documented and long term in nature. A topic ban is a fairly mild step and one which is very much reversible if Circuit dreamer is able to take a different approach to editing. Given that action is clearly needed, a topic ban seems to me to be the best outcome for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In what way is a topic ban a "fairly mild step"? I understand that we like editors who are willing to work in multiple areas, but the fact is, many editors are attracted to Misplaced Pages because they have a particular area of expertise and want to improve articles in that area. An indef topic ban for such a person is the virtual equivalent of a community ban. Why aren't you discussing 30 day topic bans, if only to make it clear to the editor that the community is serious? --SPhilbrickT 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly naive to think a time-limited topic-ban will be effective. All we need is CD to explicitly acknowledge he will be playing be the rules. Once he does that, I'm pretty sure everyone will be in favour of giving him a second chance and lifting the topic-ban. If he continues to insist his behaviour is perfectly acceptable, then the "indefinite" topic-ban will effectively be an "infinte" one. If we give him a time-limited topic-ban he will surely not acknowledge this and we'll be having yet another discussion about him next month. If he truly cares about Misplaced Pages, he would have listened a long time ago. The fact that he didn't is pretty strong evidence he is primary here to find a larger audience for his, not entirely mainstream, vision on explaining electronics. In my opinion we should strive to make Misplaced Pages a nice place for good and productive editors and not deteriorate it by trying keep aboard each and every misguided editor with potential, that they have no interest in to use for the good of the project. Until this discussion gets closed, he still a choice he can make out of is own free will. I don't see why we should resort to using psychological tricks and social pressure to get him to do something we may want, but he doesn't. —Ruud 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

After the 10/09 AIC AN/I an effort by several editors was made to work with CD. That had some positive results at first but it eventually deteriorated to the present situation. In retrospect maybe we were all too patient with him and spent too much time trying to contain the problem without resorting to administrative action. Warnings were given to CD by Spinningspark and others. They are buried somewhere in the discussion pages. Zen-in (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by initial reporter.

I appreciate the reluctance of EyeSerene, the extended defense by SPhilbrick, and Chetvorno's concurrence. An indefinite ban is a big step, and perhaps it is an extraordinary one. For what it's worth, I did do a 3RR in January 2011. See User talk:Circuit dreamer#Relaxation osc. He's an experienced editor, so I did not template him. I regret that I didn't know about WP:DE until recently; I would have reported him sooner. If there had been earlier reports that led to some small sanctions, maybe CD would have corrected his behavior. If CD had persisted, then the current situation would be clearer.

Ruud's comment, "To avoid a topic-ban, all CD would have to do is acknowledge his behaviour is inappropriate and stop", does something clever. It shifts the burden from the editors who have to deal with CD's edits to CD himself. CD must show he gets it before any more energy is spent.

In following the current discussion, I looked at Circuit dreamer's user page. CD is sophisticated. He teaches at a University. He may not be a professor, but he's an academic and should know the value of references. He is, however, opposed to conventional methods. His user page has some surprising links. His informal bio link states:

... I do not accept the traditional abstract approach favored in technical education: formal analysis of ready-made circuit solutions in their complete, final and perfect form. Instead, I rely mainly on my imagination and intuition.

In his philosophy link, he rejects the mathematical models and explanations in "classical textbooks on electronics". He apparently rejects the notion of traditional sources.

Before posting at AN/I, I posted a long response on the Wien bridge oscillator talk page. It has a lot on the failure to use or cite sources and CD's misunderstanding of the oscillator. CD believes a diode-limiter circuit is a Wien bridge oscillator. In my post, I explain that a source, Strauss, distinguishes the limiter circuit from a Wien bridge oscillator.

After posting this thread at AN/I, I notified CD via his talk page at 02:21, 11 August.

Presumably after receiving notice of this AN/I thread, CD replied to my Wien bridge talk post at 15:50, 11 August.

I recommend reading that reply in the context of the current debate (e.g., the 10 points at the top of the thread). Ignore the insult, but consider his position in the context of his informal bio and philosophy. CD does not care about sources. Anything that is obvious to him is true. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. A Google search trumps any reliable source.

Although a topic ban is more extreme than I am comfortable with, its effect of shifting the burden to Circuit dreamer is appropriate.

Glrx (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A word on mentoring

Some here (a minority) have thought a topic ban extreme for a good faith editor. That is why I have also proposed the possibility of mentorship - to give CD a way out if he really wants it. Others (also a minority) have thought mentorship will achieve nothing with CD. However, it does no harm to offer it. CD must first find an acceptable mentor willing to take this on and to my mind the first thing any acceptable mentor is going to ask for is an acknowledgment that past behaviour is unacceptable and an undertaking to correct it. If CD is not willing to do this then he should not really be editing Misplaced Pages and the topic ban was justified. If he is willing he can be kept on a very should leash, at least at first - if I were mentoring him I would require quality sources for each and every edit for instance. SpinningSpark 15:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

how about a different tack

scuse typing - right hand in splint are all his eduts useless or just the unsourced ones? is the promlem just the lack of source, or that he is making it up as he goes along? how about a nice simple sanctiom - not to add any new content without a source. no source - he can put on talkpage see if anyone can find sourve, but not argue if its true, commonsense etc. if he breaks, can block escalsting for breach. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While fine in theory, rather than us finding ways to add to the workload of good editors who have learned Misplaced Pages's procedures, it should be up to CD (who has been editing since June 2006, see first edit) to offer something. Is there any part of the many previous discussions with which they now agree (however begrudgingly)? Do they have a suggestion for how they might avoid disruptive editing? What sources do they think would be suitable for text added to electronics articles? Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a really different tack

I'll fork WP onto my own server, to donate it for use as an alternate universe Misplaced Pages, AUWP. It will be proxied from within WP's traffic management. Instead of blocking users here at the Real Misplaced Pages (RWP), we simply shunt (or banish, if you will) both registered and IP users to AUWP, unbeknownst to them. There, they can edit at will amongst themselves, in utter freedom and tranquility. Of course, a few supervisory editors (keepers) should check in and revert the occasional "off policy" edit, just to keep up appearances. All other normal Misplaced Pages processes, such as News, DYK, auto-revert bots, etc, will continue apace, piped in from RWP, but not out. It will just be a very, very quiet place where only formerly disruptive editors munch and graze, graze and munch, perhaps never wondering, "Where's everybody gone?" (I can only hope that someone didn't already think of it, and that I haven't already been banished to AUWP. Is this real life?) --Lexein (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Or is it just fantasy? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't know that you're dreaming! Your Lord and Master (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Wikiversity? –MuZemike 07:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuance

I was absent for three days. I was in the country in a place where there was not internet (fortunately, there are still such beautiful places in my country:) I had time to consider the situation and to draw some conclusions. Please, give me an hour to become familiar with the discussions above and then I will suggest a settlement by compromise. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 21:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have finally read the discussions but now it is too late (2.5 hours after midnight) and I am too tired, too excited and too moved to comment them. Thank you for the attention. Sorry if I have wasted your time. You have helped me to regain my faith in Misplaced Pages. Three days ago I had the feeling I hated Misplaced Pages; now I love it again. Have I a day to compose a noteworthy comment? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 23:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. We'd like to hear your response. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On mentoring

I am willing to mentor Circuit dreamer, if that's an option that Cd and the rest of the community are happy to pursue. However:

• I'm not a professional EE, though I do have a degree in physics and a job in IT, so I can keep up with the tech stuff.
• Obviously any mentoring agreement would come with some strings attached. I can make some suggestions but ultimately it's the community's job to agree on the conditions; I'm not a dictator.

Some likely conditions are:

• Cd agrees to work with the mentor in editing electrical/electronic content. Initially, changes to electronics articles should be drafted in userspace; if/when the mentor is happy that progress is being made, then Cd may work directly on articles again.
• Any edit in article-space which adds content on electronics (or changes the meaning of existing content) must have an inline ref which supports the new content.
• The mentor will try to guide Cd on matters of policy; in particular, verifiability and original research. However, Cd has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that any edits they make are in line with policy.
• Cd, and the rest of the community, acknowledge that the past behaviour was problematic, and that a relapse is likely to lead directly to a topic ban with no further chances or excuses.
• If the mentor feels that Cd is not following the mentorship agreement, they bring the issue back here.
• This mentoring agreement should have a definite endpoint. Maybe 2 months? After 2 months the mentor comes back to the community (on AN/I or elsewhere) and we can review whether the problem has been solved; either the mentoring agreement ends positively (Cd continues editing), or negatively (topic ban) or it's unclear (mentoring agreement renewed for a while). This date could be brought forward if the mentor thinks Cd has done really good work.

What do y'all think? Comments / criticisms? bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very generous of you to make this offer. Essentially the same arrangement was tried after the last AN/I, but for a longer period of time. The editors involved in this earlier mentoring effort are very experienced EEs. You might want to read their comments above so you will know what to expect. Zen-in (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I did a quick search earlier and didn't see that earlier deal. (The change of name doesn't help either...). I fear the wording may not have been watertight.

If the community is still favourable, I would still be happy to go with mentoring if clear lines are drawn for the benefit of all concerned, and if it's clear that there are no more second chances.

There is clearly a very persistent problem, but somebody has to do something. I am skeptical that there's consensus here and now for a topic ban - but if the community wants to go down that avenue, I'll happily stand back. Alternatively, people might prefer to take some other DR path. It's good to have more options, though; mentoring is another option on the table. Either mentoring succeeds - delivering a favourable outcome for both Cd and the rest of wikipedia - or it fails and delivers the same topic ban that folk have been pushing for above. bobrayner (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am skeptical that there's consensus here and now for a topic ban. Really? Every member of the community who has previously has dealings with CD and has come to this page has declared in favour of it as far as I can see. Anyway, I am cool with mentoring as long as the mentor is allowed to set strict conditions, intends to so do, and the community agrees that breaches of the mentor's conditions can be followed by admin blocks. I am tempted to list what I think the mentor's conditions should be, but until CD actually agrees to mentoring that is pointless and he has shown no sign either now or in the past that he is willing. SpinningSpark 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There was never a formal arrangement or deal to mentor CD after the 10/09 AN/I. However a few editors did make an effort to work on improving some electronics articles with CD. This Emitter coupled logic talk page documents this effort from 10/09 - 12/09. The goal was to add more inline citations, as can be seen by reading this discussion. Examining the edit history of the ECL page will show continuous edit warring after this. Other editors tried working with CD in the Operational amplifier applications page. This is worth reading. There are several cases where CD added material that had no inline citations and that simply appeared to be made up. These edits were reverted by other editors and their reasons for doing this were given. Their intent was to mentor CD and to help him learn how to edit as directed by the AN/I. The result has just been more edit-warring. The credibility and accuracy of Misplaced Pages's electronics pages has improved in the last 2-3 years but at what cost? Why is it necessary to have continuous edit wars? Zen-in (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just recently become aware of CD, but I recognize the pattern of this type of editing. There is a continual tendency to opt for promoting and presenting original thought while eshewing reliable sources. Specifically, (as noted in the drop down box above) he prefers to picture how circuits work in his imagination, and relying on that instead of reliable sources. Feedback from others who edit according to Misplaced Pages standards appears to have no effect. There is a continous wearing down of other editors. I read where editors who were part of this project have left --- Quote: --- "... and it appears that other editors have left the field...".

This editor has already effectively hi-jacked one article , before finally being restored to the community. (Also please edit history of that article).

This mentoring is a generous offer. I am sorry to say that I am skeptical that it will work. However, I accept the above terms pending community consensus at this ANI. However, there must be a time where CD accepts responsibility for their own editing behavior. If mentoring is not going to happen then I also support an indefinite topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think further discussion here is premature. First we need to hear back from CD, who hasn't edited this past weekend. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion for natural resolving of the problem

Sorry that I have delayed my response to your comments here. The reason was that I have begun preparing an open letter to Jimmy Wales where I pose a general question about Misplaced Pages and the role of its administrators, "Should they stimulate mediocrity and oppress creativity of Misplaced Pages editors?" Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've collapsed this rather than deleting it, but it's little more than a series of blatant, paranoid personal attacks. if that makes me one of "the triad" then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Chris, your golden triangle ring is in the mail, just FYI. We didn't forget you, we just had some problems with the jeweler getting the size wrong. Anyway, I think the diatribe above underscores exactly why people are tired of dealing with CD. I personally don't have any prior interactions, and haven't weighed in above in regards to the ban, but I think I'm understanding why so many people support it. -- Atama頭 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can take that as a pass on the offer of mentoring anyway. SpinningSpark 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Well, it was worth a try. The response above has a whole lot of... text but no actual recognition of the problem, despite being given another chance; so I think the best answer may be a topic ban. bobrayner (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn concerns

For reference: Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Through discussion at WT:DYK#Billy Hathorn and elsewhere (links to current and past discussions follow), it has become clear to me that this user is editing in a disruptive manner in the following ways:

• Mass creation of articles on non-notable topics, mostly biographies.
• Widespread insertion of copyrighted and plagiarised text, both cut-and-paste and close paraphrasing.
• Ongoing uploading of images of copyrighted works of others marked as "own work".
• Tendentious editing and refusal to "get the point" - Billy Hathorn has been active on Misplaced Pages for years, and across literally thousands of articles. Despite repeated warnings to his talk page and past discussions, Billy persists in adding copyvio and plagiarism, using unreliable sources, creating masses of articles on non-notable topics (mostly biographies), and uploading images of copyrighted works of others as "own work".

Links to past discussions:

• Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 - July 2011 (ongoing), covering nearly 6,000 articles
• Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#Billy Hathorn - July 2011 (ongoing) - discussion at DYK regarding copyvio, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Ongoing AFDs and 3RR - April 2011, regarding creation of articles on non-notable topics, citing an article he wrote, and canvassing AfD
• Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 34#User:Billy Hathorn - November 2008 discussion at DYK regarding inadequate sourcing
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn - July 2008, regarding copyvio, plagiarism, and creation of biographies for non-notable individuals
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive114#User:Billy Hathorn - December 2007, regarding creation of biographies for non-notable individuals, copyvio, close paraphrasing, inadequate sourcing, and citing his own masters thesis
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#Harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti - April 2007, Billy accused two editors of Wiki-stalking him, on the grounds that a whole bunch of his articles were deleted for non-notability

I am not sure what the best solution to this is. Given that Billy Hathorn has been a long-time editor who has persisted in these disruptive behaviors despite years of requests and warnings, I think that at the least, he should be banned from article creation. To the extent that he wishes to create new articles, he should do so in userspace, and have them moved to articlespace by someone else (who should, in each case, evaluate them against all of the above concerns before doing so). If there are additional remedies to be taken, I leave it to others to suggest them. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He should certainly just be banned from DYK, where he has played a significant part in bringing the process into disrepute. I prseume this can just be done by local admins? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that he should be banned from DYK -- discussions there are ongoing -- but that just keeps his problematic "contributions" off the Main Page, not out of the encyclopedia. cmadler (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I note the CCI discussion is ongoing, which means it's already being examined by admins. My 2p is to allow that discussion to conclude. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. There are no issues with Billy other than what's already been opened at CCI ... in my recollection he has never engaged in uncivil behavior, personal attacks, edit wars, sockpuppetry (to my knowledge) or anything else that usually gets people discussed here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cmadler, thank you for taking the time to research and bring forward this chronic problem.

@ Daniel Case: I don't see how what "usually gets people discussed here" is the issue; that there is no evidence of him not being uncivil does not make his editing any less disruptive or damaging to the Project. In fact, based on what I've seen, his editing is more damaging than an uncivil personal-attacking editor, as he has created possibly thousands of poor stubs that have flown under the radar and will not likely ever be cleaned up, and those have included BLP vios.

And no, copyright is not the only issue, so waiting for CCI to finish (which may never happen anyway) isn't the solution. There is use of non-reliable sources, inaccurate representation of sources, padding of articles with irrelevant information, and more. It's not only a copyright issue, although that is the most serious. There are many other issues of relevance and requiring admin attention, including but not limited to a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT after many, many warnings. Who gets to clean up all the messes if he continues editing? I get the impression that he is not a child, and not obtuse-- that he knows what he's doing wrong, and continues doing it anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have to second Sandy here on two points. First, the CCI isn't going to get finished out anytime soon, it's one of several dozen CCIs, many of which are as large or larger than Billy's, and some of which originate as far back as 2009. We can't afford to sit on our hands for two to three years on this. Secondly, I am going to agree with Sandy's conclusion that this is a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I was the one that brought the PUF (possibly unfree files) case against Billy, after going though all of his files (he is the largest contributor of files, measured by bytes, on all of Misplaced Pages). Multiple editors tried unsuccessfully to communicate with him during the PUF, no little to no avail. I just recently left him a very clear explanation of the problem, explaining that he could not take photographs of other people's work and then claim it as his own work. His response, that he thought it was fair use, missed the point entirely. I've given up on getting though to him, sad enough of a statement as that is, and I think that it might be time for several strict sanctions to be levied against him; both the aforementioned DYK ban, and a ban on uploading photographs/images derived from other photographs/books/museum displays. He's done a great deal of good work photographing buildings in small towns, I say he should keep that up, but he's got to get out of his problem area (photographs of photographs/books/museum displays), and he's got to do it soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that, between the CCI and the topic ban discussion already underway at DYK (to which I will shortly be adding my support), there's no need for a discussion here unless we want to consider a block or community ban, and we do not seem to be at that point yet (as Sven above and Orlady below are implying). A link to the discussions and archival material, as already provided, is sufficient if we wish to have broader input into this discussion. I do not see what can be added by opening a separate discussion here of the same issues already being discussed at WT:DYK, by many of the same users. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The most that can come of the discussion at WT:DYK is for him to be banned from DYK. Without further action it's entirely reasonable to expect that Billy will continue to disrupt the encylopedia with unproductive new articles in the same way he has for years. I do think a community ban is in order, as Sven and Orlady describe. DYK can't enact that, and as far as I know neither can CCI. That's why we're here. cmadler (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Having read the multiple links above, which involve multiple problems being introduced into the encyclopedia, and taking into account the good work this editor is doing, my suggestion would be to block indefinitely pending a statement that the large number of problems will not be repeated. Too many editors are having to waste their time fixing his issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• A topic ban from DYK (meaning all DYK project pages) makes sense to me. Although Billy has made some good contributions there (I've reviewed some bad DYKs submissions from him, but other of his DYKs that I reviewed were decent, or at least I was able to make them OK without enormous effort), it is now clear that his positive value at DYK is greatly outweighed by the problems created by his poorer-quality contributions.
  Beyond that, I don't think a block is appropriate. This is not a persistent vandal or a deliberate creator of junk. This is a good-faith contributor who does not behave badly within the community, but just happens not to be committed to quality control. (And, unfortunately, there are many users here who have far less respect for verifiability and quality than Billy does.) I believe that Billy's "autopatrol" bit already has been pulled -- that's good because it has reduced his ability to create new pages without minimal oversight.
  Instead of a ban, I propose that Billy be required to create any new pages and do his file uploads in user space, for review by others before the material goes to article space. (That plan wasn't acceptable to another productive user of my acquaintance who also has unusual ideas about quality and who is now blocked, but that's a different personality entirely. I have a hunch that Billy might accept the arrangement.) Having to work under that kind of oversight might motivate him to start policing his own work, which would be a good result. (I don't know, however, if it's possible to put files in user space.) --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If he'd go with that suggestion, it's clearly a better one than the block I suggested above. The files issue is more of a problem - files automatically go into mainspace, they'd have to be moved manually back into userspace, and non-free images are automatically disallowed as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think Orlady's proposal is a good one. Running files through WP:Files for upload rather than uploading them directly might be a good alternative to "userspace files" since such a thing does not exist to my knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved, so unarchiving. 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've had problems with some of Billy's over-detail sometimes, but he's a good local historian, at least by Misplaced Pages standards. . His article on Louisiana and neighboring state politicians have built up a network of relationships, and the people are most of them at least technically notable. There's a question of whether Misplaced Pages is really the place for this level of detail; but one could equally say that the problem is whether the level of detail he's been adding should not be our goal everywhere. I do not think he has gone beyond the academic standards of fair use, though he may have gone beyond the much more restrictive (and, in my opinion, unreasonably restrictive, standards of Misplaced Pages fair use, at least for images. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The ones I ran through PUF were not borderline free use, they were blatant copyright violations. Until he understands that taking photographs of other people's work and claiming that it is his own work is not tolerated, something solution is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• What about an article creation ban, AND file upload ban? Forced mentoring? Anything along those lines? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Non-admin. - I've bumped into some of Billy's work as it has come to AfD. He is a decent content creator with a particular regional and ideological focus to the stuff he writes about. This is perfectly fine. I've found his work to be capable. I have no information about him plagiarizing or stuffing DYK, but the pieces I've seen have been acceptably well done. I believe that his charge that he has been stalked in the past over the ideological content of his work (tending, from what I've seen, to be conservative and christian) has a basis in fact. He's a good Louisiana historian and people need to cut him a little slack, in my opinion. Copyvio is another matter, if that's taking place (like I say, I have no information), but this is the wrong venue for that, yes? Carrite (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

non-admin comment Ordinarily, ANI would not be the venue for discussing possible copyvio matters. However, the original report made a case for a chronic pattern of copyvio matters, and sought additional admin input (and, presumably, action). Reading over the discussion so far, my 2p is that it may be moving beyond the scope of ANI, and into that of RFC/U. This is based on the overall apparent intent to help Misplaced Pages (and my own assumption of good faith), but an apparent and disturbing inability to avoid even the appearance of plagiarism. (Were I a bit more cynical, I'd probably be raising WP:COMPETENCE questions.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

De-archived unresolved discussion. cmadler (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, why do we need to un-archive? We've already got a CCI going, and if an RFC/U be opened, that will take care of general behavioral issues. What administrative actions are needed from this specific discussion? Nyttend backup (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The requests under discussion are for an article creation ban, a file upload ban, or a requirement that Billy put all new articles and files in his userspace for review before they are moved to article space. This was suggested as the appropriate venue to bring this issue, and discussion above seemed to support that; however, if this should be taken somewhere else (RFC/U?) let me know, and I'll raise the issue at the appropriate page. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this did need unarchiving, but Billy Hathorn should have been notified. I've done that here. For the record, the DYK ban was enacted here. Billy Hathorns's response was here. I've left a note at his talk page asking him to comment here. One of the main problems here is Billy Hathorn's persistent lack of engaging in discussion about these issues. He needs to stop creating content until he has engaged in a proper discussion of these concerns, which at a minimum would be responding here and at the CCI page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only a long rest from DYK but one to three months off article creation are necessary, during which time he should be given access to a trusted, experienced editor who might create a few for him in collaboration, to ensure he knows what is required. He still shows signs of not understanding CP and copyvio. Tony (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that Billy Hathorn has refused to not communicate with regards to the concerns here, then and only then a block may be necessary. Now, if he was just notified of this, then we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, plagiarism, in particular willful plagiarism, is a very serious concern and just as much as copyright violations – this is stuff in which academics get embarrassed, discredited, and driven out of their profession; and in which students get kicked out of school for. The same applies here, in which we have previously community-banned serial plagiarizers for such long-term conduct (or they have otherwise driven themselves off Misplaced Pages). The CCI needs to be conducted and followed closely and carefully, while actions should be taken to ensure that he is aware of the consequences of what he may be doing; this could range from an RFC/U or the current CCI, to an outright block if it is found that he is plagiarizing and is not willing to discuss this. –MuZemike 07:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did notify him of this thread when I first opened it, and he's been notified multiple times of discussions at WT:DYK. I did not think to notify him that I de-archived this discussion since that was more procedural, but thanks to Carcharoth for doing so. cmadler (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since before I left him a note about this resurrected ANI thread. His response at WT:DYK shows that he rejects some of the claims made about his editing, but I think he needs to discuss on specific article talk pages the specific concerns raised. That is the only way to demonstrate that he understands the concerns raised, and whether he rejects them or accepts them and intends to (or has) changed his editing practices. I still think the root of the problem here is failure to adequately discuss the concerns raised. No-one can be forced to participate in an ANI discussion, but if reasonable concerns are raised on the talk pages of articles an editor has edited or created (or raised at the CCI), and they are notified on their talk page, I think they do have an obligation to respond. Someone may need to explain to Billy Hathorn how best to respond to the CCI - I'm not entirely clear what an editor at CCI is meant to do myself - are they meant to help with the clean-up, are they meant to contest taggings they disagree with, or what? Carcharoth (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, they'll help out with cleanup (rewriting content) and - in a perfect world - even proactively identify problems themselves. I can only recall one contributor who put real work into proactively identifying his own problems. There have been a couple who have worked on cleanup, and some of them have done a very good job of it. One of the problems with cleanup, though, is that (in my observation) it can be very challenging for contributors who have issues with writing content from scratch to begin with revising established problems. They seem to do better when starting fresh with a different article; when revising existing articles, they almost always seem to want to do it incrementally, unaware of the dangers of creating a clear derivative work.

I have been busy and am not much involved with this one, but I think that what's generally helpful in cases like this is to see that the contributor can write new content without the former problems. And to make very clear that after CCI we hit zero tolerance for future issues. As somebody who has launched a few CCIs of my own, my thought is that if we ask the community to put efforts into cleaning up a problem like this with a user and then permit them to keep doing it, we are abusing the community. :/ My personal practice on finding continuing issues with somebody who has been through CCI is to indef block. --Moonriddengirl 14:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Further update. Two responses, at his talk page and (for some reason) on my user page. See here and here. The latter misplacing of the reply (on my user page, rather than my user talk page) and the "Can you put this information in the right section?" request, reinforces my impression that Billy Hathorn is not that used to editing outside of the article namespace, except in certain narrow areas (look at his contributions by namespace to see what I mean). Anyway, per his request, I will copy his comment here (the latter one, as it says more than the first one), and leave a note on his user talk page again. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Response from Billy Hathorn, initially posted at his user talk page here and later expanded upon here, and copied here per the request in that post:

Thank you for your suggestions, but I don't know how to respond to such a long list of ad hominem attacks. I don't see responses making any difference in the thinking of the attackers. I don't even recognize other Misplaced Pages writers by screen name, but dozens have come out attacking me and apparently virtually none in defense. It reminds me of the old Lincoln line that if he answered all his critics, his office would be closed for all other business. No article (and there must be 4,000, and I have no exact count of how many I have created) has even been cited for an error of fact. I haven't copied anyone's work and passed it off as my own. I can fill articles with my own writing. Several attempts to cite copyright violation have failed. Some are also deleting past articles with few allowed to comment. Photos that say "own work" were listed that way automatically by the Misplaced Pages photo form, and I forgot to delete "own work" in a few dozen of those. Can you put this information in the right section? It appears that nothing cam be done, as I have been banend indefinitely from Did You Know? Where do I go to plead "not guilty" to the charges?Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Would suggest discussion is continued here, as the next step would be to respond to what Billy Hathorn has said, as quoted above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I also gave further advice here (including advice to stop creating new content). I would suggest that around 5 suitable examples are selected and a place to discuss those examples identified (ideally the talk page of the articles concerned) and Billy Hathorn responds there. That should demonstrate whether progress is possible here. I realise some will think that the case is proven already, because a CCI has been opened, but what is needed here is an indication of what Billy Hathorn wishes to contest and where that discussion should take place (possibly at the CCI page?). Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That would seem like a very good approach; I like the way you've described it at his talk page. :) I have myself not had much time to look at his situation, but did find issues in one article when I was approached about him at my talk page: Bill Noël, . I believe that these were significant enough to require a rewrite. See and Talk:Bill Noël. Billy evidently feels that this article was adequately paraphrased, but perhaps did not see the examples at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl 12:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MRG. I'll point Billy Hathorn to Talk:Bill Noël. I will ask SandyGeorgia (as the editor who acted on the Phil Preis article) to comment at Talk:Phil Preis, as Billy Hathorn has started editing that article again, so concerns will need to be thrashed out there if there is disagreement over what is happening there. The other places where Billy Hathorn should respond, if he wishes to contest any of this, are: Misplaced Pages talk:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 and (from the CCI so far) Talk:Walter L. Buenger and Talk:George Caldwell (Louisiana). Karanacs raised those concerns. That is four articles. I suggest that Billy Hathorn be required to discuss the concerns raised with his editing on those articles, and after those discussions have taken place (I suggest the way MRG approached things at Talk:Bill Noël is the ideal model to follow), we will have a much better idea of what needs doing and whether Billy Hathorn understands what is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Updates: , ,

Johnpacklambert

ClaudioSantos and eugenics

User:ClaudioSantos was blocked one week for edit warring on Planned Parenthood stemming from his disagreement with the lack of pointing out his viewpoint that PPs founder was connected with eugenics (talk page discussion here and here). Now that the block has expired, and despite clear consensus being reached, similar behavior has been resumed on Eugenics in the United States. If this could be examined further, I'd appreciate it. Falcon8765 05:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me a close call as to whether WP:RESTRICT#ClaudioSantos applies here. Damn, the link doesn't quite work. Go to WP:RESTRICT and look him up. PhGustaf (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a thread about the his editing restrictions and whether or not they apply to Planned Parenthood and eugenics, and I think it was generally agreed upon that they weren't sufficiently connected. here Falcon8765 05:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

After I was unblocked I have edited only 1 time at Planned Parenthood. Not even 1 sole revert. Is this a futil report abusing the ANI? Should it be noticed the fact that although Falcon was not blocked, he certainly did break the 1RR rule at Planned Parenthood during the same 24 hours for I got the block precisely for breaking the same 1RR rule? Is the ANI a place to extend or to start an edit war? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about you, not Falcon. And it's not about edit warring on AN/I. But I do note that your behavior on eugenics topics is much like that that got you banned from euthanasia topics. PhGustaf (talk)

Anybody could face misperceptions. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this is abuse of ANI. ClaudioSantos has shown a thorough disregard for the spirit of cooperation and consensus that wikipedia is based upon. Despite all the help that others have offered him in the form of advice, warnings, compromises, he continues the same tendentious editing behavior. I'm not sure what my opinion is worth here but I recommend extending the topic ban temporarily to cover Eugenics, I think it would save everyone some trouble. I have to assume good faith so I'll just say that I've found his edits since coming back from the block quite disruptive. Metal lunchbox 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of ClaudioSantos's euthanasia topic ban, certainly Planned Parenthood is unrelated, but Eugenics in the United States actually has a short section on Euthanasia programs. Maybe it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask ClaudioSantos to at least stop editing Eugenics in the United States based on his current euthanasia topic ban? I have found his edits there to be unhelpful. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not editing on that article nothing related to euthanasia, not even the specific section dealing with euthanasia. Of course here came all those involved editors in contents dispute with me, like metal.lunxhbox who also was not blocked but also did break the 1RR rule at Planned Parenthood. Is it here a valid way to deal with content disputes, attempting to force a ban against editors?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I find the repeat reports of disruption disturbing, but as I noted before, we should not be stretching community sanctions every which way to cover other disruption. If the community wants to extend the sanction the community can write up a larger topic :ban and !vote on it.

Claudio - I would like to urge you to consider if you're doing something wrong in how you are engaging here on Misplaced Pages. You seem to be walking down a path that eventually leads to exhausting the community's patience, and an overall ban. I think you should reflect on how you're working here and consider alternate approaches that don't push quite so many buttons.

That said, I don't see anything I am going to action right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Claudio: I have not been involved with the Eugenics in the United States article, and ceased editing the Planned Parenthood article after being informed of the sanctions placed there. Several editors involved worked towards and gained a consensus on the PP article regarding the alleged eugenics link, despite tendentious editing by yourself. The problem is that after the expiry of your block, the same tendentious pattern of editing has continued on Eugenics in the United States, with the exact same subject matter that agreement was formed upon on Planned Parenthood (specifically this). There is a continued demonstrated effort upon your part to link Margaret Sanger with the eugenics movement in a negative way, despite mass consensus not to do so. The results of a RFC on the topic at Talk:Planned Parenthood had many non-involved editors plainly stating they thought linking the two was inappropriate.

Going through the exact same arguments over sources that you put forth on Talk:Planned Parenthood to include your point of view on the matter is tendentious in the extreme. I, not sure how else to proceed, brought it here for cooler heads to review your behavior, lest I am misreading it. Falcon8765 01:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think re-interpreting the editing restrictions to include eugenics is slightly absurd, but it does seem appropriate that we should consider new community sanctions to also include eugenics topics.  - Metal lunchbox 02:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As an example let us consider the diff mentioned above. Falcon8765 is arguing about the content that he (dis)quilifies as tendentious and an attempt from my part "to link Margaret Sanger with the eugenics movement in a negative way". That could be a content dispute but it should not be resolved here in the ANI with an attempt to ban the opposite editor, or am I wrong?. Meanwhile the cited content was removed from Eugenics in the United States, arguing WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, and I did NOT restore this content again. Nevertheless, last to mention that the alleged tendentious content is based on an article written by Margaret Sanger self. It was taken from this source (p.11) provided by Metallunchbox. The quoted expressions there used were exactly the same used by Sanger self. If Falcon finds that Sanger is connected to eugenics in a negative or a positive or a tendentious way, it is a Falcon's conclusion but it is nothing that I argued nor published; the very same diff provided by Falcon is an evidence. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither involved in the dispute at Eugenics in the United States, nor will I become involved. I have not suggested you be banned either. The content itself isn't the main problem, as has been stated. Your behavior on Planned Parenthood exhausted the patience of the editors attempting to work with you, and after that has been resolved, you are trying to start a dispute over the same content on the eugenics article too. I don't think it unreasonable to find this behavior frustrating and inappropriate. If another editor besides yourself thinks I am in the wrong, I will be happy to drop this and let you continue your quest. Falcon8765 15:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is not a dispute at Eugenics in the United States. The article stands still. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ClaudioSantos here, the articles are relatively stable now and while there was the beginnings of an edit war, he chose not to pursue it beyond a few reverts. It is likely that this discussion had some effect on his editing behavior. I suggest we give him a pass for now and all of us can consider this discussion to be a serious warning to him that continued tendentious editing on this topic will likely result in sanctions.  - Metal lunchbox 00:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that 9 of the 15 contributions that ClaudioSantos has made in this discussion have been revoked by Oversight. I assume these things happen for a good reason but is there something that we should know about those edits? Seems kind of strange to me. - Metal lunchbox 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi and Palestinian edits

Chesdovi (talk · contribs) is back, calling rabbis by the name "Palestinian". He has started again with a massive addition of this controversial epithet to the articles of many rabbis. In the recent past his edits in this field have met with extremely heavy protests, on his talkpage, the Rfc on Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, and the following Cfd. For this reason all his categories with "Palestinian rabbis" were deleted. Note that this author is currently blocked per WP:ARBPIA fromediting all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and is already notorious for his controversial edits, which have in the past brought him to WP:ANI more than once. Note also that Palestinian rabbi is still at Afd. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

second thread merged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser has removed “Palestine” under an unusual pretence: . Please fix as I do not want to get dragged in to this again. Chesdovi (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps merge this with the section above...? Debresser (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I being reported on WP:ANI for 1 edit??? In addition, is there something in my explaining editsummary Chesdovi disagrees with? History has no POV, and my edit reflects historical facts.Debresser (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not retort by calling your edits ridiculous, but your edit that supposedly “reflects historical facts” has left a populous and significant city in no region or county. Forget about facts, that is vandalism. Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? There was no country added to Gaza in this article until you added it today, and nobody felt the worse for it for over 5 years! Please, be realistic when using terms like "vandalism". Debresser (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser thinks articles are in a perfect state and no is allowed to edit them, especially if edits do not agree with his sentiment. Debresser has no rationale to remove Palestine. This seems obvious. In the past, he himself said that if no other editor took it up, he would agree to it. Now look at what he is doing. Forget about reneging on his word, he is vandalising pages. Chesdovi (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering topic-banning the both of you. This has gone on for far too long, and neither of you is playing a constructive role in this affair. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support That they are shooting at each other over there (=the territory before WW2 known as Palestina) is bad enough, I don't want that war over here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind, we are not shooting at each other. Chesdovi is Jewish also, if I am correct. :) Debresser (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is would you would shoot a Palestinian rabbi? Chesdovi (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough of this

This is roughly the dozenth occasion in which you two have reported each other to ANI in the last three months, almost always resulting in a thread which consists of you two continuing your battles with each other without any administrative intervention whatsoever (or usually even any participation from other editors). Completely ignoring the actual content dispute at the heart of this, there seems to be a requirement a general ban on you reporting each other to ANI. It's pointless and aggravating and distracts other editors who might be using ANI for, like, something likely to result in immediate administrative intervention.

Moving on, I very much doubt that anything other than a series of RfCs will settle your content disputes. I would recommend that you raise them where required, and attempt to get wider community input on the disputed content. It seems pretty likely that your actual behaviour towards one another will not be resolved by anything other than a general interaction ban, but it's obviously in both your best interests to settle whatever specific points of content you disagree about first, lest the community loses patience and simply bans the two of you from any discussions on Judaism or Palestine.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support 6 month TOPIC BAN and infinite INTERACTION BAN. Oh wait, was that not a motion? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You cannot keep blaming us. The original Rfc was not closed. Whose fault is that? Chesdovi (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, ChrisCunningham, for you sense of humor. I like the idea of a ban against reporting on each other at ANI. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the solution you propose. The problem is that Chesdovi continues to make these controversial edits. Even after the Cfd was closed with "I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces". Nor was the Rfc closed in his favor. It just expired. And frankly, so many people disagreed with him, that at best it would have been closed as "no consensus".

I think Chesdovi is just refusing to admit that he can not garner consensus for his edits. I am not sure there is purpose in yet another attempt. But for sure not as long as he continues his controversial edits. So how to be about this in any practical way? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As to BWilkins "motion". As I said before, I do not think it is correct to punish me with a topic-ban for fighting to maintain the present state of affairs against an onslaught of manifold non-consensus edits that are being heavily protested at all venues (Rfc, Cfd). Perhaps give me the Defender's Barnstar, that I would understand. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For me it is quite simple. If Palestinian rabbis is kept, that is a green light to add it to all Palestinian rabbi articles. Debresser talks of consensus, but there are only two votes for delete at Afd? Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before. You can't just call people "homosexual" just because we have such an article. You'll need something better. I have brought you specific reasons in most of the editsummaries why this link is inappropriate. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Like BWilkins, I support a topic ban and interaction ban. Both of these editors are nice people, but they cannot seem to work together productively, particularly with respect to Palestine/the Land of Israel. I oppose a broader topic ban on articles related to Judaism. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I really am shocked that anybody would consider me for a topic-ban, when I am trying to defend consensus-editing here. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that your seeming addiction to getting baited into arguing with him makes it difficult to outsiders to distinguish between you. This is compounded by the number of times you've gone to ANI despite the result being the same (i.e. nothing) every single time. If you want to settle this without a topic ban, avoid engaging with Chesdovi directly entirely and instead engage with other editors either through the WikiProjects or RfC. I personally agree with what I've seen of your position on the content disputes but that's no excuse for the ridiculou drama generated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you seem to understand where I am coming from. I feel bullied by WP:ANI trying to punish me for defending the system from attacks by a disruptive editor. This is the opposite of the welcome I think I receive. Things might have developed different if WP:ANI would have shown some basic insight from the beginning, when the problem first arose. Something like "if a guy comes up with something new and people don't like it, perhaps we should not let him go on with it until he can show consensus". It surprised me that nobody came up with this simple though rather brilliant idea. Excuse the sarcasm, but I really was surprised when that happened.

In addition, I want to post a question. Since when is "creating drama on WP:ANI" sufficient reason for a topic-ban or block? If admins here see no reason to take action, they should just close a thread or refer it elsewhere. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI is not a dispute resolution mechanism. This applies the first time you take something to ANI and the 99th time you take it to ANI. Continuing to take things which ANI cannot or will not deal with to ANI, or exacerbating the same by constantly replying to them, disrupts the project and makes admins look for the simplest root cause, which in this case is a content dispute between you and Chesdovi. The simplest solution (which is typically the first one that comes to mind) is to simply eliminate that interaction. When it comes to that point, the onus is on you to explain why that isn't optimal. It has most certainly come to that point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 00:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I come here to make sure Chesdovi stops. Because he will not listen to anything else. And he does stop when I post here. There is another solution, which is a topic-ban for Chesdovi, even only for article namespace. That would eliminate the whole problem at its source. Because the source of the problem is Chesdovi. Any "simplest solution" need not involve me. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, Chris Cunningham, when you said "roughly the dozenth occasion", you were exaggerating by a factor of 2. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• My experience with both of these two is that if you touch anything they are discussing with a 10-foot pole whichever you disagree with will go on a full-scale attack claiming you are an uniformed person and so on. They spend son much time going after eachother that few other people want to join in the general fight. That is why issues they bring up do not get resolved, they scare off the other editors who do not want to get nasty statements on their talk pages. I would say that they both could do a lot better at assuming good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hang on. Before we rush to deliver mutual topic bans, I think there's room to try and resolve this without sanctions. It'll be very unfortunate for the Judaism topic area should both these editors get topic banned over this. Chesdovi (talk · contribs), in an exchange I had with you back in June, it seemed to me you had agreed to the formula "X of Palestine" instead of "Palestinian X." Debresser (talk · contribs), you agreed to this too, didn't you? So why not rename the article Palestinian rabbis→Rabbis of Palestine or →Rabbis of the Land of Israel and that be the end of it?—Biosketch (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some compromise can be worked out. Likewise on the Afd of Palestinian rabbis there have been similar proposals. The problem as I see it, is that Chesdovi keeps trying to come at it every now and again from a new angle, and the whole thing starts anew. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic and interaction bans per Bwilkins. They should still be allowed to file WP:AE reports against each other if they wish, because the format there is much less prone to drowning independent admins in endless discussion between the parties, and calling something as being from Israel vs. being from Palestine amply qualifies as a valid topic area at AE. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that it’s unfortunate that people support bans over a content dispute. I do not understand why either of us should be penalised here:

FACT 1: There were originally numerous pages with the term “Palestinian Rabbi”

FACT 2: I added the term to more pages, basing it o n the fact that the current majority at the Afd support the term’s usage.

Debreser reports me for doing so, and I report that Debresser removed the word Palestine, and people want us blocked for that? I call that stifling editing because people can’t be bothered to sort out sticky subjects and prefer to just brush it under the carpet…. Is that the wiki way? Chesdovi (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody care to look at what Chesdovi is doing at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism? Just look at the questions he is asking. And see the easy and obvious answers to them. And please tell me after that that he is not a tendentious and disruptive editor who in all likelihood had best be topic-banned. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop stirring the pot Debresser. I want answers, not having to be bullied into accepting what you feel is correct. If you stifle discussion as you have on so many occasions, we will not get anywhere. You answers so far are absolutely unsubstantiated. I would prefer if other users would kindly take up a more credible discussion with me to resolve this. Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I hope people look at what both of you have done at WT:JUDAISM. Another good reason for an interaction ban and a topic ban. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Malik, if I took the wrong course of action, please advise how I should go about this instead of recommending bans which will not resolve anything. This will not just sort itself out. Do you think Dwellers suggestion of Mediation is good? Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi. You may start by recognising that the word "Palestinian" is a loaded word, which you should try to use as little as possible. When adding it to more then a few articles (inside the article or inside a category) you should first establish clear consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and how do I go about getting that elusive "consensus"?

"By posting at Wikiproject Judaism for the views of other experienced editors"

I have done so in the past, but nobody seemed bothered to respond.

"You saw what happened at the RfC with all those "heavy protests"

But they only came after those categories had been created. I.e. One has to create facts first to the required response to gain consensus. It will not come any other way. One cannot "first establish clear consensus."

"This can't be right"

Yes it is. I am within my right to create Paalestinian rabbis and link as many pages to it as I want. If there is a reaction, then discussion can start.

"Should I have reverted your changes?"

Ideally not. You should have rather gone to the talk page to resolve the dispute.

"I did originally, but you just carried on with your edits."

The discussion had not reached any acceptable conclusion before you started reverting over 150 of my edits.

"We have to keep the status quo."

So stop editing wikipedia then. Chesdovi (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Malik, independent from Chesdovi I too am surprised by your support of a topic-ban. Because the issue of the proper use of the "Palestinian" needs to be solved sooner or later. And also because both of us contribute in many positive ways to Judaism-related articles. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but please see User_talk:Chesdovi#Palestinian that Chesdovi's point of view (as in POV) as to the meaning of the word "Palestinian" is not normative and not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. He denies that the word Palestinian has more than one meaning (actually three). An editor with such an opinion can not be allowed to edit within this topic. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over contents of DSM

Bittergrey (talk · contribs) is insisting on citing the DSM on several two (paraphilic infantilism and list of paraphilias) despite being irrelevant but for a single minor qualification (infantilism appears as a behaviour of masochists, not as a separate diagnosis). This consensus is clearly stated at the RSN (see and by FiachraByrne (talk · contribs), by James Cantor (talk · contribs), by FuFoFuEd (talk · contribs). Despite this, he has been edit warring across all these pages to re-insert it (, , . It's quite frustrating and appears to have no chance of stopping. Some admin assistance would be appreciated - though 3RR has not been hit, it's also not going to stop. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU has, to date, taken this dispute to not two but three articles. At location one, paraphilic infantilism, WLU gamed 3RR ( - 28 hours) to avoid waiting for a third opinion that I requested. He modified that request to assert that this conflict was a just a formatting issue. The third opinion request preceeded WLU's RSN request. At location two, list of paraphilias, I started a discussion. At location three, diaper fetish, I decided to let WLU show what he would do if I didn't hold him in check. I think the deleted text "Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilia" was reasonably well-supported by section "302.81 Fetishism" in the DSM (pgs 569-570 in 4TR).. The RSN debate was only about 302.83, a separate section.

This is WLU's second attempt to remove details (specific page numbers) from the first article. In the first, he didn't question the DSM's quality as a source. Notably, the only "edit war" WLU succeeded in picking there and then was with a bot.

Admittedly, my comments then about his motivations were not in keeping with good faith. However, it should be noted that now both times, the urgency of WLU's edits directly followed debates with another specific editor and involving James Cantor. The timing of the current urgency support those comments as best could be imagined.

As for RSN, FiachraByrne had already became involved in an offshoot of the second such debate. FuFoFuEd might actually have been neutral, and unaware of how heavily votestacked the RSN conversation was. BitterGrey (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 Dealt with what I could from an Administrators point of view. Two pages protected, going to warn both users about edit warring, and they can take it to WP:DR. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Protecting the page doesn't deal with the central issue - consensus was clearly that the DSM does not verify the text it was attached to in any of the pages it was used.

I will happily take any suggestions on how to resolve this; the central issues that a source is being mis-used across multiple pages and edit-warred to keep it in place. What should I do? Protecting the page doesn't resolve this, and the last time the page was protected, it was protected with the DSM still being inappropriately cited for three days. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU should consider constructively joining the discussions that followed from the third opinion request, at Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism. He's now at 3RR at a second of the of the three locations.

Of course, he and I differ about what the central issue is: He was at 3RR in the first location BEFORE questioning DSM as a source. Those edits were to all obscure page references. BitterGrey (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Initially my edits were to collapse references to DSM pages from three different page ranges (568, 569-70 and 572-3) into a single citation to the entire chapter (pages 535-582 ). The dispute became so pointless and acrimonious that I simply edited elsewhere for 4 months. My next edit along these lines again compacted the references to the DSM to a single one with the <ref name = > tags, covering a six page range (568-73) since Bittergrey thought citing the entire chapter was excessive . I also did some citegnoming involving the {{sfn}} template and {{cite pmid}}. Later I actually read the pages of the DSM cited, and found they did not verify the text they accompanied (discussed here). Accordingly, I spent several edits removing the references . My interpretation was subsequently supported with a clear consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard (see my initial ANI post, or the entire RSN section ). Since the DSM was used inappropriately in two further pages, I removed and adjusted on those pages as well - diaper fetishism and list of paraphilias.

The DSM clearly does not support the text it accompanied. It was clearly misused on three pages. My actions are clearly in line with WP:Verifiability. I hope someone will take the five minutes to look into the diffs and the DSM itself () to resolve this or direct us to a more appropriate venue. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, when the discussion at RS/N didn't produce the result wanted by BitterGrey, he found another venue for it. I think WP:DR should be renamed to WP:CIRCULAR. I'm curious if among all venues tried is there one editor that agrees with BitterGrey on this (besides himself). FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My request for a third opinion was made at 15:12, 10 August 2011, BEFORE WLU's RSN request at 11:19, 11 August 2011. (I chose WP:3O because WLU had expressed a preference for it at the time.) However I have to agree with FuFoFuEd that forumshopping did occur. We merely disagree about who was doing it. I had previously respected FuFoFuEd for not claiming to know everything, and was optimistic about his potential neutrality. Well, I _was_. BitterGrey (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the RSN and 3O requests are, as I have said, totally separate issues, the timing is irrelevant. The 3O request was not about whether the DSM was appropriately cited. Once it became clear that the DSM was being misused, the sole issue the 3O had to resolve was the use of {{sfn}}. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

From the WP:30 request:"...there is an editor seeking to reduce the specificity of the citations(eg. ). DSM is dry reading and it seems worthwhile to point people to the relevant page(s) instead of making them wade through the whole section..." Seems quite clearly to have been about the DSM citations. BitterGrey (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I thought we were making some progress at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. Anyway, same problem as reported for Paraphilic infantilism and the use of the DSM exists for Diaper fetishism. That is that the source does not support the content at present. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To expand on FiachraByrne's comment, I'd like to point out that I have let WLU make whatever edits he wishes to Diaper fetishism, and he has. Last I checked, the previous DSM citation to pages relevant to fetishism and general points regarding the paraphilias was replaced with a citation to just the one page defining infantilism, as a subcategory of masochism. According to the DSM, masochism and fetishism are separate paraphilias. Again, the present version FiachraByrne wrote about is WLU's version. BitterGrey (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the DSM, that page looks fine now. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify this is the version of the article Diaper fetishism where the DSM was mis-attributed. As Bittergrey suggests, WLU fixed those citations. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what just happened? Between 4:36 and 8:43 Aug 16, the page went from having a "problem...the source does not support the content at present" to "fine now", but there were no edits to the page. To keep FiachraByrne from putting words in my mouth, I assert that the citations were correct BEFORE they were modified by WLU, and now are not correct. Why shouldn't a fetishism article cite the fetishism section? It did before and now does not.

I agree with the 'contradict' tag that FuFoFuEd has added to the "fine now" page. BitterGrey (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As Bittergrey knows, I raised the issue of the use of the DSM in the Diaper Fetishism article at the RSN for this article at 1:44 pm on the 14 August . At that point, as recorded in the foregoing diff, Bittergrey replied that it would be better to deal with one article at a time and nobody else responded to the issue. In fact, WLU had already begun to remove improper use of the DSM in that article four minutes before I posted my original concerns . Above Bittergrey states that he "allowed" WLU to make those edits so he was, I presume, aware that at the time I posted my original concerns WLU was in fact already removing improper use of the DSM from that article. Either editor could have informed me of this but it was my responsibility to check the article. Then when I was notified by WLU at midday on the 15 August of the ANI here I didn't really want to get involved. So I was pleased to note some hours later that this process had apparently been resolved and I went back to, among other things, trying to establish a workable consensus that respected the sources at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. Returning here for a look early this morning I saw that things were not in fact resolved so I posted at 5.36 am 16 August my concerns about the use of the DSM on the Diaper Fetishism page. As we've established, WLU had in fact already resolved any problem with the use of the DSM on that page, at least from my perspective, and I was in error to have presumed that the page had remained unchanged from the last time I had looked at it (which would have been some time just before 14:38 on the 14 August). As soon as I realised that the page was in fact rectified I posted that information here, but I guess other editors were already aware of that. As to putting words into Bittergrey's mouth I'm not aware of any occasion where I've done this. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to Bittergrey's contention "that the citations" in the Diaper Fetishism article "were correct BEFORE they were modifed by WLU, and now are not correct" ....(I'm afraid I've also had to post this on the RSN page) ...

Just to clarify, here we can see the Diaper fetishism page prior to WLU’s edits. The DSM IV-TR was then used to support the following statements in that article:

1. Diaper fetishism, "Nappy fetishism" or Diaperism, is a paraphilia in which a person feels a desire to wear or use diapers. This is normally not due to any medical need whatsoever

The DSM does not mention Diaper fetishism although it does of course discuss fetishism. It is undoubtedly supportable that Diaper fetishism is a fetish and a paraphilia but the DSM IV-TR does not provide that support. Nor does the DSM describe diaper fetishism in any way or state that the wearing of diapers in such an instance does not stem from medical need.

2. Diaper or nappy fetishism is differentiated from paraphilic infantilism (sometimes simply called infantilism) in that those who engage in infantilism and fantasize about being regressed to an infant or small child state (a form of role-playing) do not involve in sexual activity as such. While in a (temporarily and intentionally induced) state of regression, this fulfils an emotional need that may result from very early childhood experiences. Pure diaper fetishism, on the other hand, refers strictly to the practice of wearing diapers for emotional or sexual gratification, although there is a spectrum of practice between the two. The popular term for a diaper or nappy fetishists is diaper lover, or simply DL. Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias

The only source for this series of statements was the DSM IV-TR. The DSM IV-TR does not mention diaper fetishism. It does not distinguish it from paraphilic infantilism. It does not discuss infantilism in terms of regression or state that it does not involve sexual activity as such. It does not say that this temporary state of regression fulfils an emotional need or that this emotional need is derived from an experience in early childhood. It does not define diaper fetishism. It does not state that there is a spectrum of practices between infantilism and diaper fetishism. It does not mention Diaper Lover. It does not state that diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism (a tautology in any case) or identify it as a paraphilia. To a greater or lesser degree, other sources would have supported most of these statements. Then, perhaps, reference to the DSM may have been appropriate if one was to make a general statement about fetishism. But the way this text is constructed one would presume that the DSM recognised diaper fetishism as a specific paraphilia and engaged in a long discourse about it. Thus, the use of this source was misleading.

3. Diaper fetishism does not include a sexual preference for children.

It is true that the DSM IV-TR does not seek to link fetishism to paedophilia but that is different to the statement above.

4. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder independent from diaper fetishism.

As above, the DSM IV-TR does not support this contention. Other sources may although there are a small number of cases of co-occurrence. Another source, Malitz, was cited in support of this statement, however.

5. Those with diaper-related paraphilias differ widely in their focus of attention.

The DSM IV-TR does not use the phrase ‘diaper-related paraphilias’ or any approximation of this and it does not discuss a differing focus of attention amongst those with the diaper-related paraphilias.

6. Some are aroused from "wetting" (Urination) their diapers, or, to a lesser extent,

There is no such statement in the DSM IV-TR. It could be supported by other sources.

7 Some do not use the diapers at all, for arousal, or bladder and bowel movements.

This statement was supported by another source (Malitz) but the DSM IV-TR makes no such statement. The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR. Urophilia and coprophilia are listed in the DSM IV-TR as examples of 302.9 Paraphilias Not Otherwise Specified, but not in such a way as to support the above statements.

FiachraByrne (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor point - the DSM does mention diapers on page 572, within the context of sexual masochism - "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')." As far as I can tell that is the sole mention of both infantilism and diapers. Other sources do identify infantilism as something associated with masochism but as discussed above and elsewhere, the DSM does not. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks for checking. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I probably won't have time to address all of FiachraByrne's claims, but will touch on a few to show that they are as throughly unchecked as her previous claim about the article, which disappeared suddenly after it became clear that she could not blame it on me. It reminds me of WLU's accusation "Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page." This ended when I pointed out that the ref to the DSM at list of paraphilias was added in 2008 by someone who was now arguing against the DSM. It is great to be addressing this issue in a forum that won't be so easily votestacked or swayed by spammy shouting.

"Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias."

• Sexual fetishism is specified because fetishism refers to religious or magical artifacts.
• pg 569-570 (302.81 Fetishism) A list of items "among the more common" fetish items is given. The only exclusions listed are female clothing (in the case of cross-dressing) and masturbatory aids such as vibrators.
• pg 566 (Paraphilias) "Paraphilias include...Exhibitionism (...), Fetishism (use of nonliving objects), ...

Thus, with few exceptions a <whatever odd item> fetish is a sexual fetish, and (sexual) fetishism is a paraphilia.

"Those with diaper-related paraphilias differ widely in their focus of attention."

• pg 569 (in the section differential diagnosis) "The individual paraphilias can be distinguished based on the characteristic paraphilic focus."
• pg 569 (302.81 Fetishism) "The focus in Fetishism involves use of nonliving objects (the "fetish")."
• pg 572 (302.83 Masochism) "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer... The individual may have a desire to be treated as helpless infant and cloted in diapers ("infantilism").
• It seems relatively clear that diaper fetishism and infantilism are diaper-related, and per the DSM, they do differ in their focus. Also per the DSM, they are both paraphilias.

"Pedophilia is a psychological disorder independent from diaper fetishism."

• Pgs 568-569 define fetishism, 302.81. Pgs 571-572 define pedophilia, 302.2. They are separate paraphilias. Yes, they are not mutually exclusive, but this text being supported doesn't say that.

"Diaper fetishism does not include a sexual preference for children."

The symptoms for fetishism are detailed on page 568 of DSM 4TR. A sexual preference for children is clearly not among them.

By the way, if anyone still thinks this is about the DSM, they should note that all the pages that were relevant to fetishism or paraphilias in general have been removed from the diaper fetish article by WLU. It now only cites the page 572, on masochism. Within the confines of AGF, this doesn't make any sense.BitterGrey (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll skip the rest of the details, and get to the main point: We have a set of people trying to push their position on the DSM, without even having done a careful reading of it.

• "I've read them all , paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." WLU after hitting 3RR to modify DSM citations en masse to make them harder to check.
• "The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR." FiachraByrne, in grandiose but flawed presentation posted to both ANI and RSN, and after seven thousand words of discussion at RSN about the paraphilic infantilism definition on page 572.
• DSM 4TR pg 572 (302.83 Masochism, in the Paraphilias section) "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer... The individual may have a desire to be treated as helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism").

One of the things that makes the DSM a great reference is that it is in most libraries. You don't have to depend on what people like this say - you can check it for yourself. BitterGrey (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong and rollback

As a part of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong_and_IRC, it states "Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page." Within the past 24 hours, he came on IRC twice asking for people to look an a dispute regarding MOS and an Infobox. Lately, he has come on IRC and asked for other people to step into his disputes, including once about a kind of flag to be used in an article on a game show article. I have warned the user saying is pushing the limits of not only myself, the other admins on IRC, but the boundaries of his ArbCom sanctions. I was replied to like this. Normally, rollback is seen as OK in userpages, but with it being a notice of ArbCom enforcement, I found it very inappropriate. Thoughts? User:Zscout370 02:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking for outside input in minor disputes from anyone on IRC, admin or not, is not within the scope of my arbcom limitations. I am not allowed to ask someone to perform an administrative act against someone with whom I am in a content dispute. Also, WP:ROLLBACK#When to use rollback states "Rollback may be used...To revert edits in your own user space". I was exercising that right, regardless of the content of the message.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That warning on their talk page, that's more a shot across the bow than a real warning--it's not very specific. If your sketch of what Ryulong was asking for is accurate (and barely knowing what IRC is I have no other recourse), then they did not fall foul of their restrictions. Asking someone to look into something, though it can certainly be an invitation, is hardly the same as asking for some specific action. As for the rollback, mwuah. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and it's not an ArbCom notification that they rolled back--it's a message from you containing reference to an ArbCom restriction. How about this: Ryulong, please consider not using rollback in such circumstances, OK? Drmies (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine... And use masculine pronouns to refer to me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be similar to what I brought up earlier on ANI about use of rollback. A picture is really starting to be drawn here that is demonstrating that Ryulong either does not know how to use rollback properly, or is unwilling to use it properly. I would recommend removing rollbacker access from his account. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't his desysopping specifically mentioned his use of rollback? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct - a lot of the arbitration case that led to Ryulong's desysopping did revolve around misuse of the rollback feature. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

SchuminWeb, I explained why I did the edits you complained about, but you never responded. Nor have you responded to the RFC I started. I know how to use rollback, thank you very much, and I used it properly in every single instance, as WP:ROLLBACK says it can be used in the user space, to edits I have made, or "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page", all of which I have done. Certainly removing bot-generated deletion tags off of images with the rollback tool or removing several orphaned image tags in a row. The finding of fact on the RFAR that thumperward and zscout370 refer to clearly states that "such edits would be tedious to revert manually". I find that removing {{orfud}} tags from fair use images in use in articles or replacing fair use rationales which need not have been removed in the first place to be tedious to do manually, particularly when there are several pages to do this on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Shroffameen

User:Shroffameen is a newbie, and I try to assume good faith, but his use of automated tools has been problematic. It'd be useful if an admin could restrict his access to Twinkle. He has made numerous inappropriate deletion requests both CSD and XfD ( ) because, well, he has Twinkle and he's just gonna use it, gosh darn it!

He's not malicious or a vandal or anything like that, he just doesn't understand what he's doing; he's had a lot of people offer to explain it to him but he carries on regardless. Temporary removal of access to Twinkle until he understands deletion policy and so on would fix this. He can then either have a rather more patient user adopt him, but he shouldn't be doing CSD (and potentially biting other new users) or clogging up XfD with requests. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not possible any more. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for two weeks for copyright violations before I saw this thread. If an extension of his block to indef is agreed upon, I have no problem, as I believe this user is too incompetent to edit on Misplaced Pages. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to what Tom has already pointed out, Shroffameen has also made some questionable moves ( ) and had several of his drive-by Twinkle taggings undone by established editors ( ). If it is no longer possible to blacklist people from Twinkle then I think that given the number of notices this person has been given () WP:COMPETENCE applies here. —KuyaBriBri 17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Major misunderstanding - it is perfectly possible to ban people from using Twinkle. An admin tells 'em - you may no longer use Twinkle. If they use Twinkle again, they get blocked. In fact, if someone uses Twinkle disruptiely, an admin can just block them, see Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Blacklist Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case I would like to request that Shroffameen (talk · contribs) be banned from using Twinkle upon his release from his block, for the reasons pointed out above by Tom Morris (talk · contribs). I have a feeling he may end up back in block-land before long... —KuyaBriBri 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

COI by article creator of Market America and possible outing of creator's identity

A new article Market America was created recently by a SPA (User:Mjchipol) - I ran into it after updating its categories and was immediately "warned" on my talk page that he owned the article and check with him before editing it: I responded with a link to WP:OWN. I then went to engage the user on his talk page, however he put in redirects from both his user page and talk page to the article: Old revision of User:Mjchipol, Old revision of User Talk:Mjchipol. After fixing those, I placed the correct OWN warning on his page, and tagged the article page with a COI tag. Mjchipol responded to the tag on the article talk page asking how he could make the article seem less promotional "so it doesn't sound like I'm advertising for the company." . I responded asking if he had a COI . He responded he did not. . I took him on good faith and removed the COI tag and added the {{Criticism section}} tag to the controversy section, and asked that he work on integrating the controversies into the main text in the appropriate areas.

An hour or so ago, an anon IP came by and appears to have outed the identity of Mjchipol and confirms there is a COI. I won't post the details here in case an admin needs to take action on the outing:  Leef5   19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't propose the article be deleted, as there is some good content there worth keeping. It just needs to be NPOV-afied.  Leef5   19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the guy outed himself by choosing to use the same name as his other publicly accessible accounts, very close to his real name; is it really outing him to notice that, esp. when he's making up silly stories instead of admitting COI? Maybe so. Do we have a good alternative process for dealing with such COI problems? Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't think it's an outing problem, user was clear enough about his relation to the company. Just delete the IP's remarks if they seem out of place, and see if you can keep on working with the editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the user lied that he had a COI - this was kind of a dual-purpose AN/I. One a COI SPA who created an article of the company he works for, and then lied that he was a student doing this for a project and he had no COI. Then, we have the outing by the IP address. Although, I agree the outing isn't much of an outing with such an obvious username issue. Looking through Mjchipol's twitter stream, he even tweeted to get his followers to Google + 1 his new wikipedia article he created and he linked to the Market America article.  Leef5   22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Mjchipol has now been trying to remove the IP's comments from the talk page. I have restored and caution/warned him twice now on not removing the comments.  Leef5   17:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning got to final warning and user is still edit warring comments off the article talk page. I reported to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism, however they removed it since there was a discussion going here in ANI.  Leef5   00:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Leef5 did good work on this article. I have done some peacock trimming. But parts of the article still seem designed less to inform than to bullshit. (And that's before we even look at the sources that it's based on.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam from "GOOD"

I have recently started receiving spam emails from something called "The daily GOOD". I have received this spam on an email account that I have never used for any purpose except replying to Misplaced Pages emails, so my email address must have been obtained by abusing the Misplaced Pages email service. I have only used the account to email a fairly limited number of Wikipedians. If anyone else has received spam from the same organisation then I will be very grateful if they can let me know. That way we should be able to work out which Misplaced Pages account has been abused in this way and block it, including disabling email access. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more likely that the off-wiki email account of someone you replied to has been compromised, and your address harvested from it. Whether your reply is directly from the email account or through the on-wiki email system, your email address is included. If the person you replied to put your address in their address book, it's even easier to harvest, and use as a forged "sender" address. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, after I posted the above message I thought again and came to the same conclusion. I actually do a very good job of keeping my email accounts spam free by having several accounts for different purposes, such as this one used only for sending Misplaced Pages emails. Once I get spam on one account it's quite easy to ditch that one and replace it: much easier than it would be if I had loads of contacts to that email address. I have to do this on average about once every two years, and the rest of the time I am 100% spam free. Scarcely anyone I tell about this believes me, as it's a "well known fact" that no matter what you do you will get lots of spam. However, I can assure it it really works. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Balkans edit warring

Operation Corridor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The death of 12 newborn babies in Banja Luka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are the subjects of an ongoing edit war. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked 31 hours for edit warring, Alan.Ford.Jn (talk · contribs) blocked 1 week for edit warring unsourced allegations into an article after an ARBMAC warning. IP also given ARBMAC warning.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete gone bad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

boldly closing this. Request has been fulfilled, nothing more to do here.--Jayron32 03:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's appropriate to take this here, but I'm desperate for some help. We've got a Deletion review going at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 16, and editors in good standing are asking for templates that were speedy deleted to be restored. This has been going for over 12 hours, and none of the admins responding has restored the templates while the conversation is ongoing. The problem is that nearly every infobox, navbar, and template in the Writing Systems WikiProject uses these deleted templates, which means that we have hundreds of pages with limited functionality. I commented out the calls in the project infobox, but we are currently scrambling to deal with an admin who deleted templates without checking dependencies, and nothing works right now. Can we get some help? The templates are:

Template:ISO 15924

Template:ISO 15924/name

Template:ISO 15924/alias

and Template:ISO 15924/numeric

Sign added. 23:25, 16 August 2011 User:Vanisaac User talk:Vanisaac Oops, sorry. VanIsaac_WS 00:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody here? Helllloooo????? VanIsaac_WS 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help. The admin has refused to restore templates that are used in several other templates (see template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode for an extreme example), and which were more than half created by editors in good standing, but speedy deleted under G5. I reiterate, he is refusing to restore templates that were erroneously deleted under G5 criteria, whose deletion has broken other templates. We need help. Please. VanIsaac_WS 01:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(Uninvolved non-admin) I have to say, reading the DRV doesn't paint Ironholds in a very good light. I agree that a short-term restoration should be carried out until the DRV is resolved. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You can say that reading the DRV paints me in any light you choose. All I know is that it being demanded that I do my job and fix things, following accusations of bad faith and followed by statements and complaints that I'm a disruptive and abusive administrator, with a nice dash of forum shopping on the side, makes me want to fuck off and leave this to be someone else's problem - and to avoid ripping every person at that DRV a new one, that's precisely what I did. Ironholds (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that everyone who comes across the discussion seems to think that a short-term restoration is warranted. Unfortunately, none of them can press the "restore" button and have it work. VanIsaac_WS 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice that neither Ironholds nor Gfoley4 had been notified of this thread, as is required. I have now done so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I did inform Ironholds on one of the threads about this discussion. I didn't even know about Gfoley's involvement. VanIsaac_WS 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, as Gfoley4 deleted one of the templates in dispute, you would think he counts as "involved". :) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Ironholds had deleted the thread from his talk page. I also talked about this ANI in the actual Deletion review as well. Thanks for your assistance and perspective, Strange. VanIsaac_WS 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the templates. As far as I know I am completely uninvolved except as an admin. The situation seemed to warrant having the templates undeleted during the DRV, in my judgment. If the DRV says the deletions were sound, it it trivial to delete the templates again, and nobody needs to notify me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lost an edit there. I wanted to thank you, CBM. Now we can actually talk about the substantive issues concerning a user who violated a block - actions I am not particularly thrilled about. VanIsaac_WS 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the argument over the merits of the delete, I think VanIssac's behavour in that DRV is pretty damn embarrassing. Honestly, I probably would have just ignored any request to speedy restore the templates because of your attitude alone. And if I was dealing with you, I would not have been half as reserved in my responses as Ironholds was. Next time you get that angry, walk away for a while and let level-headed people deal with it. Resolute 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not an entirely unfounded assessment. Shocked (at templates suddenly not working), frustrated (at a refusal to revert a speedy delete on request), and tired are not particularly good combinations. I've tried to move the discussion forward. I think we can probably close this guy down. Thanks for everyone's insight and perspective. VanIsaac_WS 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unban of Tobias Conradi? re:#Speedy delete gone bad

If these templates are to be kept, then we need to seriously consider an unban and unblock of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs), as it is clear that he will continue to return to make apparently constructive edits in which users do not want deleted. –MuZemike 05:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this incident is a perfect example of exactly how disruptive he can be. Nobody ever said that he didn't make constructive contributions, he was banned because of all the collateral damage he causes. A lot of things had to go wrong for this particular incident - a failure to recognize the contributions of others in a G5 speedy delete due to an admin not fully understanding templates, brusque and increasingly agitated editors responding to effective (not intended) vandalism of important project templates that they cannot revert, etc. A different admin, a bit more tact on DePiep's part, a bit more sleep and perspective on mine would have probably have deemed this incident null. VanIsaac_WS 12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that would end much differently to your nomination of Template:Cleanup-link rot at TfD the other day.

Still, I'm confused as to why is is that the templates broken by these deletions weren't just rolled back to their pre-August revisions. It's not as if we're talking about edits from years ago here: they all worked fine a month ago so far as I can see. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple reason? Because the pages transcluding template:infobox writing system had been updated to the new template syntax, meaning that reverting the template would have removed content from at least 160 articles (not all transcluding pages used the broken part). VanIsaac_WS 12:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The job queue could get through 160 articles in about a tenth of the time wasted on drama so far here. The argument for overturning the deletion was that "pages were broken", and that could readily have been fixed in the interim while discussing how to proceed. We obviously do not want banned users to be able to turn G5 into a suicide pact, but nor should it be ignored lightly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's ban Tobias Conradi as a sock of his latest banned sockpuppet instead. I haven't seen these "apparently constructive edits" of which you speak, I just see a stream of what turn out to be socks, which were heading for independent blocks & bans anyway because of their obsessively POV-pushing editing styles. Why are TC's socks laundered so quickly? It's because they have a bad editing behaviour of themselves, and it's also quite a distinctive one. If there are "apparently constructive" edits out there, I'm not seeing them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we able to do an IP ban? Or is he accessing from too dynamic a place? He obviously has contempt for WP and policy, I'm just wondering if there's any way to prevent all his SOCKs. VanIsaac_WS 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This line of thinking confuses me greatly; are you saying someone can be as bad as they want as long as they throw in valid edits from time to time? Tobias had a great many legitimate edits. He also went crazy. The negatives of him outweigh the positives (for an early example of this, see User:Wik), especially now that I see he's been socking for years and appears to have not changed. (Though I admit I need to read more about the situation.) --Golbez (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, even banned users have come back as productive members of the community on multiple occasions. We need to encourage editors who want to work productively here to come back in through the front door rather than just socking for the rest of their lives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose unbanning him. This is one of those WP:UCS situations. Yes, banned editors are not allowed to edit, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we can never include something useful to the encyclopedia merely because it was first created by a banned editor. Take it to the extreme; imagine if it turned out that George Washington was created and heavily edited by a banned editor; do we refuse to include an article about him merely because the banned editor has his hands all over it? This is a case of "cutting off our nose to spite our face". Yes he is banned. Yes his edits get deleted or reverted. WP:BAN states (bold mine): "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." In other words, we should always revert banned editors. Always. Except when doing so does obvious harm to the encyclopedia. In cases where editors-in-good-standing are willing to stand by the edits, I don't see where deleting them does the encyclopedia good. This is clearly one of those cases where it must be taken on a case-by-case basis, and attempting to apply a rule so strictly that it cannot have exceptions is always a bad thing. In this one case for this one banned editor the templates should probably remain at Misplaced Pages. That doesn't mean that we he should be unbanned, that we won't revert him in the future, that other banned editors will be given similar exceptions, or anything else. It just means that in this one isolated case it is better for the 'pedia to keep these templates. That is all. Don't try to make this a bigger issue, when it isn't. It is always a bad idea to try to change policy based on the edge cases. --Jayron32 13:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Jayron's common-sense approach. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Would it help if editors-in-good-standing who come across useful edits by banned users were to revert those edits, and then self-revert with the edit summary: "self-revert, adopting these edits as my own"? That will show other editors searching out the contribs of the banned user that they should not delete those edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • If they want to, I guess they can. If there's a reasonable expectation that someone else might revert it simply because it was a ban violation, despite the helpfulness of the edit, why not. I don't think we should suggest that this be standard behavior, however. -- Atama頭 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In this case (as I've said in DRV) the "good for the encyclopaedia" approach to resolve this is certainly the way to go. Unlike many examples of article text where we could reasonably expect someone else to come along and write a different version, the nature of these templates where it's data from another source (not collected from diverse sources) in a form pretty much dictated by media wiki, someone else can't come a long and do a completely different version. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Gossip Governance? Today's Trollers Thread? What is this? For starters, the original post is a big "what if" sauced with assumptions and injections. Any substantial comment should have been at the DRV (hey, I had to make a link - first mentioning and all that). I hope you don't mind I came along even though I am not invited. Nor was the DRV notified. Actually, I am here to look for for someone else (a helping admins name -- rare species, has any one of you seen one lately?). Anyway, now all you stop talking about rumours (yeah, I know you didn't start it) and go help an editor. Meanwhile I will put this thread up for the longest irrelevant one being open. At Ani Ever. -DePiep (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Block review

I just blocked 72.181.213.221 (talk · contribs) for this which looked like a legal threat to me. I'd like a review of the block and if the consensus is it was not a legal threat, feel free to reverse it without consulting me. Toddst1 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The block looks good to me. We are choosing to link to a website, http://fsi-language-courses.org, which offers the FSI language courses for download and asserts them to be in the public domain. This would be our default assumption anyway for work of the US government. The IP seems to be unhappy with us considering them to be in the public domain. Maybe he should take that up with the owner of fsi-language-courses.org. I checked the PDF of one of the language manuals that the site provides for download. It says it is published by the State Department and it carries no copyright notice. EdJohnston (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The one caveat to that is a statement in one of the scanned manuals: "The DLIFLC may not have full rights to the materials it produces." The DLI, and the government in general, doesn't always indicate or acknowledge from whence a particular work originated. Still, if FSI Language Courses is asserting public domain due to government publication, it would likely be they who would receive the heavy end of the hammer if a copyright-infringement case were initiated regarding the DLI books and/or tapes. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and am not qualified to give legal advice.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR/sockpuppet

Hi, I was blocked today by user Favonian for removing some silly banner from my discussion page. I suspect that user WWGB might be a sockpuppet, since that user posted the original warning, then out of no where Favonian appeared. All my edits are in good faith (though no one seems to agree), from my IP. I simply don't understand this user(s) utter refusal to engage in discussion and insistence on totalitarian methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:108.132.92.8&action=history

--108.132.92.8 (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not your talkpage, it's Misplaced Pages's, and you may not remove the ISP tag; it's one of the few things you can't remove from a user talkpage. I note that this was explained to you on the talkpage. WWGB and Favonian are not sockpuppets, and you're not being oppressed. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is your user page yours or wikipedias? I bought a static IP from my ISP, that's how I choose to identify myself. Your response is scornful. --108.132.92.8 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read WP:BLANKING? Tiderolls 02:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@108.132.92.8: If this bothers you, you can make it go away if you create an account. While I understand that some people may choose to not create an account, understand that in making that choice, you also forsake the benefits of having an account, which includes control over your userpage. As an unregisterred editor, control over your userpage is something you have less of. It is part of the tradeoff you get for not registering. You are free to edit Misplaced Pages articles while not registerred, but other things which come with registerring an account (including a watchlist, the ability to maintain your own userspace, the ability to create new articles, etc.) are unavailible to you. Again, no one says that you have to register to edit articles. But you shouldn't complain about not getting access to the other rights of a registerred user if you don't choose to register. --Jayron32 03:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the consequences of allowing unregistered editing is that the point of origin of unregistered edits is associated with the IP in the history. Misplaced Pages's talkpages are associated with the IP or a registered account as a consequence of the attribution required by the Creative Commons copyright. The content of those or any other WP page is governed by Misplaced Pages policy and community consensus: that includes registered users' talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

98.210.215.121 on Oakland and San Francisco articles

IP 98.210.215.121 continues disruptive editing on the Oakland, California page. Originally posting long-winded diatribes on the talk page, disagreeing with any language was perceived as negative toward the city, and making travel-guide like edits, the user is now engaged in edit-warring, section-blanking with unexplained removal of content, and reverting all good-faith restorations of said unexplained removal. He/she has already been warned on their talk page. The user is currently on a tear this evening, edit-warring with several editors on the page, as the history page will show .--Chimino (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP is calling me conflicted and manipulative, supposedly in bed with San Francisco interests writing against the city of Oakland (my home town!)

I don't know what good this noticeboard entry will do, but the person behind the IP is editing from a mistaken understanding of what motivates other editors. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Same pattern on the San Francisco talk page, e.g. "you want to protect San Francisco's tourist image hiding the crime.... Your total dismissal of the serious crime problems in San Francisco in order to protect San Francisco's tourist image is rather appauling and shocking." In reality all I had done was explain on the Talk page why crime statistics are generally reported per capita rather than per square mile and try to help regarding finding sources, I had not "hidden" or deleted anything; I replied asking the IP to read WP:AGF but then saw someone else had already done that. The IP also has a history of apparent vandalism.TVC 15 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Winward

Anthony Winward (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) is continually breaching WP:OVERLINK and will not listen to anyone who tells him not to do it. Will not talk about, just stops for a day and then keeps going. He has been told here, here, here and here. The last one was my message to him yesterday after I cleaned up going through 400 of his contributions and having to revert 100+ of them because they were against Misplaced Pages policies and I checked his edits again today and see that he's doing the exact same thing. , , (some examples and there will be more if nothing is done). Atomician (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He also introduces mass edits without consensus (and per this discussion, the consensus was actually against him), and given his recent contribution at some AfDs, I am concerned that this user does not understand basic notability. GiantSnowman 13:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He's been told not to do that many times, but he doesn't listen to anyone unfortunately. Atomician (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Although mainly nuisance edits, his blitzing of celebrity and movie star articles causes a lot of remedial work. Is he stopping or just taking a rest? Someone giving him a Barnstar is also illogical and tends to reinforce the "non-consensus" behaviour... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

He gave the barnstar to himself. Atomician (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

...and obviously been campaigning on his behalf in other forums, (sigh...) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Barnstar self-presented with this edit. GiantSnowman 15:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Too funny; I am resisting the urge to be derisive... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

The only time I can see him communicating (other than talking about going for adminship) with another user is saying "thank you" when somebody wished him happy birthday - but 11 months after the initial post! Very odd... GiantSnowman 15:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, he was blocked by MuZemike for sockpuppetry in Feb 2010 and then again in March by Phantomsteve. Without his input at all (I've put a message telling him that it's difficult to communicate without him talking), there is no way of deducing his intentions as of right now, I suggest that he inputs. If he could reassure us that he isn't going to go on mass edit sprees, doing changes against policy and against consensus then perhaps nothing will need to be done? User seems to be quite obsessed with his edit count, which I would recommend he stop (he updates his user page every 100 edits, a fourth of his edits are user page tweaks because of it!) User needs some firm advice. Atomician (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He's currently running through his own contributions history and self-reverting everything he can. It is unclear if he is doing this because he finally heard the message and is trying to clean up after himself, or if he's just pitching a "hissy fit" and overreacting to the situation. --Jayron32 15:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest he's doing it to increase his edit count. See above. Atomician (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted my third (and might I add final) invitation to contribute: around quarter an hour ago. This time firmly implying that he should come and talk here. Atomician (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry ive took a while to reply ive been quite busy, also sorry about all the edits ive made but dont worrie ill have them all reverted within the next few days :). Tony (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And you won't do any of this again? If so, then this can be closed, no admin action needed. But if you repeat then you will probably be blocked from editing, you should know that. Atomician (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ok. Tony (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm satisfied with that, and if there are no objections, I'd like to close this. User seems to have gotten the message. Atomician (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

SYLAR16 and Sorbid11 BLP hoaxes

SYLAR16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding hoax information to multiple BLPs, including an entire lengthy fake BLP article Mark Warrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Another brand new user account, Sorbid11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has produced a related fake BLP article, Stephen Freed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The two accounts are almost certainly operated by the same individual. I've CSD'd and rolled back his hoaxes, but it looks possible that this individual - quite likely an existing banned user - is attempting to add false information to Misplaced Pages to discredit it. Recommend a block and a checkuser on the IP to see if there are any more socks. Prioryman (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorbid11 is a  Possible match to SYLAR16. TNXMan 13:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This has Jake Picasso's neon fingerprints all over it. --Jezebel'sPonyo 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Digging back some shows that SYLAR16 is  Confirmed as Jake. Sorbid11 is on a different ISP/computer, same geographic area. TNXMan 15:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason I believe they are the same person is because they did the same thing - created detailed hoax biographies - using the same image, File:S 1.jpg, for both. The odds of two independent accounts doing the same thing in different articles with the same image simultaneously are astronomically small. Even the format of the usernames is very similar (name+number). The behavioural evidence very strongly suggests that both accounts are operated by the same person. SYLAR16 is blocked but Sorbid11 hasn't been yet - I think it should be. Prioryman (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Defamatory comment on Talk:Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures about subject. Should be deleted?

Hi,

This edit made defamatory and vulgar remarks about the subject of the article, a BLP. My immediate reaction is to delete it, but I'm exactly how to go about it. Can someone handle it asap, please? Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I went back to delete it myself, but User:Atomician had already done so. Perhaps an admin can delete the edit if he has time? Best,

 Done It Is Me Here 12:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

146.179.213.110 -sockpuppet of Mikemikev

• 146.179.213.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has been been disrupting WP:AE for over 12 hours with abuse of all sorts. Please could an administrator block this account to prevent further disruption. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Kostas Novakis - Admin intervention needed

Can an admin please take a look at Kostas Novakis. Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) is using every argument under the sun to justify his/her actions. It is an extensive issue, which has been partially discussed here. The user is under the apprehension that the the Macedonian ethnicity "is an invention. It is not real. It is pseudo" , and has used this biased POV to cause havoc on the page in question (including putting it up for an AfD). The issue regarding the language which Kostas Novakis speaks the and ethnicity he espoused was a while back, as is made evident on the talk page. Many thanks. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I see you were both discussing just fine, no need for administrative action, I am slightly alarmed that you called him racist and he quite civilly, ignored the comment and kept discussing. This post will boomerang if you pursue it. Atomician (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll add to that by pointing out that this may fall under the general sanctions regarding Macedonia, since that ARBMAC decision included the phrase "broadly defined". If it can't be worked out on the article Talk page, I'd urge one or both of you to take it into the dispute resolution process. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nipson's comments certainly do look a heck of a lot like nationalist POV pushing, and if so, it's a serious problem that should be dealt with; however, this board isn't really good for that sort of thing. Arbitration enforcement for the ARBMAC case will likely be more useful. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank the admins for the responses, It may have to go through WP:ARBCOM Dispute resolution. @Atom, it was a simply reaction to being told that your heritage and culture is "not real/an invention/pseudo". Thanks for the feedback. Lunch for Two (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on "Pallet" article

See http://en.wikipedia.org/Pallet

There is some blatant vandalism in that article, apparently from an actual pallet maker or shipping company.

Apologies if this is the wrong place for reporting; I'm neither an editor nor interested in becoming one. I've spent over 10 minutes now just trying to find out how to report or flag an article for review, with no success. The "talk" page of that article, as recommended in one place for vandalism reporting, is not editable to me.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.248.24 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam removed and spammer blocked. Thanks for reporting this. You should be able to use the "undo" function from the article history page to remove such edits. Acroterion (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

An admin killed him with a forklift. –MuZemike 16:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ziiing. Atomician (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That must have left someone feeling a bit flat. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will transport them away... Atomician (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

DEEP HURTING. Syrthiss (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppets on TMNT template

Could you please check IP 70.48.112.235 if he is a sock puppet? If he is, you may send him to SPI. If not, just wait until he becomes a sockpuppet. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically yes. He's a persistent anonymous vandal who IP hops (usually in the 67.xxx range), always adding the same intentionally wrong vandalism. I first noticed him at the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles articles (check the history of Template:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to see what an pain this guy is) but more recently he's expanded into outright BLP violations. As he'll show up on a new IP while his previous one is still blocked, he is technically socking to evade a block, but as he's never, to my knowledge, actually used a username, he's impossible to indef/ban (though he absolutely should be). Most of he's repeated targets are currently semi'd, but that'll expire eventually, as will the blocks, and we'll do it all over again.

The only real solution I can think of is to treat all IPs he edits from as the same user (which is absolutely obvious), and all blocks issued be automatically 6 months, not 31 hrs. Yes it may be the first time that IP has edited, but there's no doubt whatsoever that it's the same vandalizing, trolling asshat. I'm just tired of dealing with this douchebag. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• 70.48.112.0/22 blocked for 3 months, practically nothing useful recently off that range. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No more "Puppets in a half-shell – sock power". –MuZemike 20:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages makes headlines for its reliability. Again.

The Wikimedia people should probably consult their lawyers, given the implication in this article that legal action may be pending as a result of incorrect information obtained from a Misplaced Pages article. -- SmashTheState (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've informed Geoff Brigham, the WMF's General Counsel in case there is a potential Wikimedia Foundation or Misplaced Pages angle. It looks unlikely but better safe than sorry. No admin action: Rick Rypien is semi-protected and presumably being kept in check following Rypien's death. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I love sentences like "The Canucks may yet take legal action." I may turn into a frog tomorrow, too. To the extent the sentence means anything, I believe the legal action would be against the Star, not against Misplaced Pages/media. But I suppose informing Brigham can't hurt.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Diff from July FWIW. OhNoitsJamie 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'll lay odds that eventually all BLP articles will be semi-protected. This vandalism stood for over a month on a BLP? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, there were several changes by the IP vandal, then a legitimate change by another IP, then more vandalism by the first IP. The last changes were reverted, but the first were missed. I've seen this before where the vandalism is only partly backed out. As for Pending Changes, please no. I'd much prefer semi-protection than the convoluted and unwieldy PC.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, as a regular registered user with a clean record, I'd like the privilege to automatically instantly semi-protect upon reversion or rollback of vandalism, subject to review by an admin. That's it - the only privilege I think I'll ever really need or use. --Lexein (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Time for Pending Changes, anyone? Collect (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, ironic, isn't it? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I read "The Canucks may yet take legal action" in the article and it seems pretty clear that it was directed at the Toronto Star, not at the Misplaced Pages. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit that introduced this change, one of several joke-edits by the same IP. A novice editor changing text enclosed in quotes may have no malicious intent, but the result at least in this case caused problems. Edits like this could perhaps be detected by a bot that triggers when somebody makes a change to a sourced quotation (changes text that is enclosed by quotation marks and followed by a ref tag). Would this be feasible? Sharktopus 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No. That's impossible, since it would be nigh-impossible to detect whether it was just a tweak to the sentence, or an elongation of the sentence from one that was not from the source. Additively (and unrelated), this person was an idiot to directly take his information from Misplaced Pages, even I when doing research go to the sources and not the article itself, it's his own frigging fault and if he did press charges he wouldn't have a leg, half a leg or even a minutiae of a leg to stand on. Atomician (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, they could be tagged in RC by an editfilter, right? That seems like it might be worthwhile. I don't see how we could possibly bot-block bad quote changes anytime soon, but an edit filter could tag suspicious changes to quotes by new users for further examination by RC patrollers. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is a minutia of a leg a toe, or are you going for even smaller than that? As Tarc and I both pointed out, any legal action - which I think is highly unlikely to occur - would be against the Star, not the Star against Misplaced Pages, or whoever against Misplaced Pages. The journalist isn't going to sue Misplaced Pages - he's probably already embarrassed enough as it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, even if it is a toe, he wouldn't be able to stand on it :D Atomician (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That'd be a massive programming job. And I mean -massive-. I know a few programming languages and even programmed a pretty good chess game in JavaScript once, but wouldn't really know where to start with coding that. Atomician (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It would not be a massive programming job. It should be pretty trivially simple to set up an editfilter to automatically flag all edits that meet, say, the conditions suggested by Sharktopus. I'm not sure it would be worth the extra server load, but it might be - it would depend on how often such changes are bad changes. There are other editfilters already in place with similar complexity to what would be needed here. Keep in mind, it doesn't have to detect such changes with 100% accuracy, and it doesn't have to determine good changes from bad changes. it just has to tag edits that are by new users that change quotations for further review by an RC patroller. Kevin (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Well how would you efficiently identify the quotation marks? You couldn't, you'd have to do a scan of every edited article, which is impossible (without seriously lagging), which is what I mean when I say that it'd be impossible to program. Atomician (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Prefacing this with: I'm not actually that familiar with regular expressions, but my understanding of them leads me to believe it should be pretty easy. Obviously, it would be possible to identify many quotes, by looking for a quote mark followed by a ref tag. You can look at EF 391 for an example of how to do that. (Not all quotes will meet those criteria, but everything that meets them will be a quote of some sort.) The remaining problem would be to identify places where changes happen between the end of the quote and the start. I don't know enough about regex syntax to suggest precisely how to do that, but it would shock me if it was impossible, since the start of the quote will be demarcated. I don't know if doing such a thing with an edit filter would create excessive server load - it wouldn't surprise me if it would. But you *certainly* could do it, and even if the load is too high to use an EF to do it, it would *certainly* be easy (and probably valuable) to do so in the context of a clientside bot-or-other-program (which is what was originally suggested.) It might generate too much load to do with an EF, but it would not be a massive coding job in any meaningful sense. Existing clientside vandalism fighting tools (like Huggle) already have options to preload diffs, making them flag for extra attention any edit that changes a quote would not be hard - and the extra (clientside) computing power it would require would be pretty trivial. Kevin (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No other RC program that detects edits searches through an entire article, which is what it would need to do, and that is because it would not be efficient. Vandal fighting bots, such as ClueBot search within the confines of the edit and not the actual article, for a bot (or RC tagging program) to look for quotations, it would have to go through an exterior, but hell, I throw my hands up, some genius can probably do it and if that's you then do program it, but it would be very difficult to be efficiently coded, not impossible but that's just my way of saying that it would be hard. But anyway, this really isn't the place for this kind of talk, no administrative action is needed here, so let's end this, if you want to talk about this more, you can go to my talk page if you want? Atomician (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP is known for being open sourced and something nearly anyone can edit. The Toronto Star made the mistake of hiring a third rate journalist who didn't verify his own sources (even WP doesn't claim itself as a WP:RS). They are the ones being sued, not WP. A nearly unread article contains something defamatory for over a month is not shocking. Semi-protecting all BLPs is far more unwieldy than just requiring all users to register with a user name (Having to tag EVERY BLP for semi-protection will take forever for maintenance purposes and blocking those who abuse/refering them to a prosecutor for prosecution is far easier). Buffs (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agrees wholeheartedly like the puppy-dog he is, does Atomician (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting all BLP's is completely insane and will destroy the project - you need a supply of new editors and semi-protecting all BLP's will switch that tap off completely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree semi protecting all BLPs is insane. To be clear; I wasn't advocating it. I was just prognosticating that it will eventually happen. We already protect a wide swath of templates that are "high value". Certainly we'll eventually consider BLP articles to be "high value", and semi-protecting them all is something a bot could readily do. It's not hard. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong words. However, we'll never know because someone is going to come along and close this topic. ANI's not the place to have this kind of policy discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely? No, only on those articles that are biographies of living persons, which make up a small percentage of Misplaced Pages's articles. If you think semi-protecting all BLPs is insane, what do you propose to deal with these problems instead? I've never yet found anyone who can give me an alternative (other than pending changes, which it seems the community doesn't want). When we're working with living people's biographies, we have an ethical obligation to tell only what is verifiable, and that takes precedence over even our principles of openness. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's why we have general disclaimers that WP itself is not a reliable source. Rather have that and keep the openness we have than to try to be verifiable and lose the one aspect of WP that makes it attractive as a crowd-sourced work. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a few thousand articles currently semi-protected, certainly less than 10,000. There are getting on for a million biographies. Now sure not all of them are living but I would expect a decent proportion (20-30%) are.

Shutting them off completely from new editors will kill the project. If needed pending changes is the only viable alternative. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"If"? How on earth is there any "if" about it? How many of these BLP slipups have we had? Even one is too many, and we've had well more than that. Heimstern Läufer (talk)

($0.02 from non-admin) I'm more concerned about the second-order effects of events like this. The original wrong quote can now be supported by citing a major periodical. Sure, the entirety of Misplaced Pages probably isn't going to spiral into a separate reality because of this, but we need to be careful. One time, someone was lecturing me about what sources were reliable and what were not, and to demonstrate his mastery (and that he wasn't just here to delete), he added a reference to an article. That reference turned out to be a Misplaced Pages article that some diaper company had printed out and was selling. They didn't even change the text layout. BitterGrey (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages didn't make headlines for its reliability so much as the Toronto Star made headlines for the incompetence of its sports department. Ironic and rather amusing since one of that rag's more prominent sportswriters has a decidedly anti-blogger stance because he claims they are not reliable... Resolute 23:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Help! World's greatest rabbi under attack by an Israeli Soldier

Please block User:Israelisoldier. Chesdovi (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, we must thank that editor for reminding us that protection on Moshe Feinstein had expired but is still needed. I've reprotected the article and given an a token of appreciation to the editor. DMacks (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the best DMacks. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Blanket Reverts Modern liberalism in the United States‎ in lieu of talk page discussion

Rick Norwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted a good days worth of constructive edits that I made to Modern liberalism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with an edit summary of "A major edit such as yours, which removes a large amount of referenced information, should be discussed first in talk.", but no feedback on the article talk page about which content removal was problematic.

After discussing the issue on our talk pages: User_talk:Rick Norwood, User_talk:Aprock the only feedback that was forthcoming was that "It may be that some of your edits are ok, but some are clearly not". I specifically invited him to present more specific criticism on the talk page. In the meantime, I made several constructive policy based edits to other sections, all discussed on the talk page, with open invitations to discuss any issues with specific changes, engaging editors in a civil policy based discussion of content.

Rick Norwood did another blanket revert without entering into discussion on the talk page, taking issue with a single edit that I made which was discussed on the talk page. I appreciate the desire to protect the article from arbitrary and unconstructive edits, but blanket reverting constructive edits because of an issue with one edit seems disruptive. Please advise. aprock (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Response from Rick Norwood

Aprock made a major edit to Modern Liberalism in the United States, an edit which deleted a large amount of referenced material, along with the relevant references, seventeen edits in a single day. Helpful Pixie Bot twice flaged his edits, first as "(Dated . (Build p613))", then as "(Dated

This article may contain unverified or indiscriminate information in embedded lists. Please help clean up the lists by removing items or incorporating them into the text of the article.

. (Build p613))".

I reverted his edit, as I would revert any major edit that deleted a large number of references. I suggested he discuss major edits before making them unilaterally.

He undid my revert.

Next, BigK HeX reverted Aprock's edits, noting that they involved "unexplained deletions".

Aprock undid BigK HeX's revert, and continued to edit, making 22 edits in less than three hours, and attracting attention again from Helpful Pixie Bot, and also from Rjensen.

I again reverted Aprock, on the grounds that he is deleting many references. N5iln restored Aprocks version, with the note, "Nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD. It's how the process starts. using TW"

Aprock asked for constructive comments on the Talk page. I made one within minutes, but not quickly enough for Aprock, who accuses me of not entering into a discussion with him.

Yes, Misplaced Pages editors can be bold. But they should also seek a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a point of interest, Helpful Pixie Bot most often comes into play to add date parameters to maintenance tags. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I am, per your decission, working through Aprock's edit one line at a time. This involves, for example, his claim that, if a liberal says something about liberalism, I must find a second liberal who says that the first liberal's statement actually represents liberalism generally. (The liberal in this case being JFK, I've added a quote by Schlesinger.) He flagged as "dubious" the referenced claim that liberals support the environmental movement. How many references are necessary for well-known facts? Rick Norwood (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Aprock has now made the claim, on my talk page, that by editing (not reverting) what he has written I am violating the three-revert rule. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

When you remove a tag that I added without discussion, that is a revert, not an edit. aprock (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The two other editors who commented (including myself) both questioned aprock's edits, so he should have stopped editing until he gained consensus. However none of this rises to the level of ANI, aprock should use content dispute resolution if he cannot persuade other editors to accept his views, and therefore I request that an administrator close this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If I had not engaged in discussion and given you solid policy based rationales for my edits, you may have a point. You don't get to prevent an editor from making constructive edits just because you ask a couple of questions. aprock (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You placed a POV tag on the article but failed to explain why you consider it POV. You seem to confuse POV with lacking sources and you have changed a sourced sentence because you believe that the source lacked balance. You need to explain your objections more clearly and get consensus for your changes. TFD (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In actual fact, when I placed the tag I explained the issues on the talk page, and made note of the edit summaries I had made. Your response to that was: "I should not have to search through multiple edits and discussions threads to piece together your argument." aprock (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this not possibly a question of WP:OWN? In normal circumstances, without choosing a preferred state for the article, the page could be fully protected for a week or more to facilitate calm and policy-based discussion on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In due respect to all of the users involved in this discussion thread, I think that this was a misunderstanding gone wrong and unfortunately blown out of proportion, culminating in this AN/I notice. What I see in the edit history and talk page discussions is mostly a comfortable level of WP:BRD. I've given some itemized feedback to Aprock's numerous edits in response to him on the talk page. He responded acknowledging that since a number of his content disputes regarded the location of content, rather than its credibility, that moving such content is a more appropriate and less eyebrow-raising method of improving the article, as opposed to merely removing the sourced content. I applaud Aprock's boldness, but I also cautioned to him that editors may see red flags if his edits are non sequitur to the premises of his disputes (removing rather than rephrasing POV verbiage, removing rather than relocating misplaced content, etc.). I think that's why Rick Norwood scrutinized the edits that were removing sourced content and felt it appropriate to revert them. I think this was a simple case of everyone acting in good faith and that the reverts followed only because there was not yet a clear connection between Aprock's intended improvements and his actual edits. I recommend that no administrative action be taken, and that the editors forgive and forget the recent activity as we take a bit of a slower approach to addressing Aprock's suggested improvements. John Shandy` • talk 05:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kaiguy817

This user has an odd habit of drafting articles in their user talk page before moving (, ) the page to the mainspace/article talk space. While Kaiguy817 may be a misguided newbie, they have fragmented edits originally made to their user talk page into mainspace articles (e.g. ). I reverted one move, but I'm not really sure how to undo the rest. As a precaution, I have warned (now blanked) the user and locked both their userpage and user talk page until this can be sorted out. Any help on this matter would be appreciated. Thanks, FASTILY 23:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly I haven't yet consumed my second coffee of the day, but I can't see what the problem is. (One article that I quickly looked at didn't impress me, but WP is overflowing with unimpressive articles.) It's normal for people to build up drafts in their userspace; strange to do that on one's user talk page, but if that's what this person wants to do, why not? However, I've very possibly misunderstood something above. (Certainly the bit about "fragmenting" has me baffled.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I left Kaiguy817 a message about developing on subpages, so that when he moves he won't be putting his whole user page history into article space. Looks like he just needed a hint. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson being tendentious, baiting, and uncivil with personal attacks (again)

PMA has been haranguing an admin User:GTBacchus—here on his talk page—about closing an RfC. PMA seems displeased with the manner and timing of his doing so and wrote (∆ edit, here) as follows:

Yes, there was a pack of dosruptive and dishonest editors. A useful admin would have ignored them all, once their arguments had proven to be fallacious.

Parsing that Swiss Army Knife of uncivil personal attacks and baiting, there is a “pack” of editors who are “disruptive” (PMA typo = “dosruptive”), and are “dishonest” and GTBacchus isn’t “useful”. I personally can take all sorts of name calling; it’s just childishness. But hurling accusations of dishonesty against a multitude of experienced and respected editors is ridiculous.

PMA’s pressing of the community’s buttons has gotten out of hand, shows no sign of abating, and I now have doubts as to whether the cost of his participation is worth what he brings to the table. I think it is time for a very lengthy time out for him to reflect if he has it in him to collegially work in a collaborative writing environment.

Greg L (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I blocked PMAnderson for a week for a similar issue earlier this month - see User_talk:Pmanderson#En_dash_spacing. In essence, PMAnderson takes a strict/narrow definition of the term "consensus" which is nigh on impossible to fulfil (i.e it is as if dissenters have the ability to blackball or prevent any difficult decision we have to nut out), hence these debates are going to continue to get dragged out unnecessarily. Unfortunately there are many situations where some form of compromise has to be reached and the approach that PMAnderson adopts is proving incompatible with a collaborative project. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Casliber. From what I've witnessed (over many years) Pmanderson is simply unable to operate in a collaborative environment. When things don't go his way, the people opposing him are immediately labelled (liars, falsehoods, etc). More recently, Pmanderson's behavior is becoming more aggressive and bizarre:

• You have been duped by a cabal of our worst editors. Noetica, Tony1, Ohconfucius, and Dicklyon should be banned...
• MOS should shut the (bleep) up, for once...
• And rhe other liar is heard from...
• Yes, there was a pack of dosruptive and dishonest editors.

The above is simply based on Pmanderson disagreeing with things that the community turned out to support.

I'm happy to experience some healthy rough-and-tumble when working with other people, but Pmanderson's behavior now only serves to deter and discourage other editors (not to mention the time being spent to address his increasingly erratic posts). I'm the first to forgive and forget, but I now suspect there is a fundamental problem that can never be corrected (as evidenced by Pmanderson's block log which contains 17 blocks—10 of which did not get unblocked). Surely the experiment is over and we've reached the point where the community has the right to say enough is enough?

GFHandel ♬  02:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) <sigh> It is such a pity that a very knowledgeable WPian seems hell-bent on being socially destructive. The behaviour seems to have worsened recently: why? If Mr Anderson could reflect on how he could circumvent the following patterns in his edits, he'd at least take the edge off what is upsetting a lot of his colleagues:

(1) Accusations of sockpuppetry, cabalism ("You have been duped by a cabal of our worst editors. Noetica, Tony1, Ohconfucius, and Dicklyon should be banned..."—this one from less than five hours ago I only just tripped over—it would be nice to know when there's a call for you to be banned);

(2) Accusations of dishonesty, lying (e.g. the diff above);

(3) other personal attacks, such as impugning intelligence, substance, and constructing adversarial rather than collaborative positions in the social milieu ("As often, the strengh of my preference is determined by the vacuity of the arguments on the other side.");

(4) a continual rage against stylistic guidance on WP that has been going on for years ("MOS should shut the up, for once...").

These diffs are just examples from the past few days, but I can supply an encyclopedia of them if anyone wishes, stretching back however long you choose. But the problematic social behaviour has become a seemless amalgam of his inner anger, certain agendas, and his interpersonal and social relations, not only at the style guides, but in article space. I'd like to suggest that site-bans are counter-productive, since they fuel whatever intemperance is burning in him. More effective for the project, IMO, would be a longer-term topic ban from the MoS, its subpages, and wp:title (the last sometimes used as a power-base with which to beat MoS and MoS editors over the head.) Admins might also consider assigning a mentor to act as a "valve" when Mr Anderson's relations with article editors become heated. Tony (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We've already done the RFC/U on PMA; he does not seem to have taken the advice to heart. This is most disappointing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. --Jayron32 04:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what should be done here, but honestly, something's got to give. Pmanderson's constant throwing around abuse at people who argue in or close naming disputes contrary to his wishes has gone too far, and I normally advocate ignoring incivility. The point comes when incivility goes into long-term disruption, and that's what's happening here. If he were railing against people who are incompetent, I'd be more sympathetic, but no, Pmanderson is railing against people for disagreeing with him. He can talk about their dishonesty all he wants, but it's really just disagreement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What I find disappointing is that the same people (at WT:TITLE and WP:MOS) argue again and again (and not just on those issues). Tony1 (to take one example) has had his own problems this week (nearly everything he says above can apply to him as well), with rather fraught behaviour at WT:DYK (the all-caps shouty behaviour included Ohconfucious saying SO SAD!!!, and Tony and others threatened to drag each other to AN). Tony1 was also dragged to the wiki-etiquette board for using a "removing vomit" edit summary. I could indeed provide "an encyclopedia" of diffs and examples of several editors (including the ones Pmanderson names) engaging in the same behaviour they accuse him of. Which doesn't excuse any of it. I'm just saying be careful not to fall for the old trick of banning one 'side' in a dispute (GregL and Tony1, for starters, have a long history of disputes with Pmanderson) where both sides may be behaving badly. Long-term problems are best dealt with by ArbCom, who can properly pick through the history, rather than by the community, who tend to respond to the way things are presented to them (as GregL did above, someone complaining on behalf of someone else instead of letting that person deal with it themselves). If it came to an ArbCom case, I'd be fully prepared to present evidence in support of what I've said above. Furthermore, Tony1 claiming that WP:TITLE is being used as a power-base may have some truth, but there are other editors that do this as well (such as User:Born2cycle, who started that thread on GTBacchus's talk page, and multiple editors have used WP:MOS as a power base for years. That is the real problem here, IMO. Too many people of an argumentative and uncollaborative nature jostling for room at WP:TITLE and WP:MOS. At the time of the date-delinking case, it was suggested that a fuller case on WP:MOS issues might be needed. In my view, that need has never gone away, but combining it with WT:TITLE issues might make the dispute resolution process explode. Anyway, some of the above things I've said will offend some, but the full context needs examining here and that means difficult things need to be said. Carcharoth (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Although I've seen PMA's name on the noticeboards many times, I haven't personally looked into the various claims that have been made about his behavior, so I need to ask you a question about the comment above, and I'm not in any way being disingenuous: given this background, and the behavior of other editors in the current dispute, do you think that it mitigates PMA's behavior? Some of PMA's remarks linked above seem clearly to be beyond the pale, were they justified, in the sense of having been unreasonably provoked, or was his reaction out of scale and therefore worthy of censure -- in your opinion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In the lastest Crepe RM mess, it was perhaps "the same people" because Pmanderson followed Noetica (or me) to Talk:Crepe#Move?. Certainly, lots of people involved in MOS and naming have a long history with him, since the MOS is what he has been campaigning against for so long (I have only a short history with him, as I only got involved in such things this year). Recent RFCs have established broad community support for the MOS, and in particular for the dash provisions that he reviled; having lost the discussion, he continues to fight by disruption; that's what Casliber had blocked him for a few weeks ago. There has been a pretty good set of discussions and improvements going on at WT:MOS, that got under way while he was blocked; and pretty good set of discussions and improvements making progress at WT:TITLE. Moderate contention but not much incivility until he steps in. I don't know what's going on over at DYK, but if Tony used ALL CAPS, that shouldn't distract from the problem at hand. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Community ban

Pmanderson (talk · contribs) difficulties in editing with others mean that the problems of his participation here outweigh the benefits to wikipedia. In which case I propose Pmanderson's editing priviledges be suspended indefinitely. If anyone can think of an alternative proposal please come forward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Pmanderson's conduct has not changed. Too many of Pmanderson's contributions to wikipedia, particularly in naming issues, involve unwarranted attacks on other users who happen to disagree with him. Mathsci (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Disclosure: Carcharoth has in the past sent me unsolicited email about Pmanderson, which I found condescending and self-righteous.
3. Support. This is an issue with Pmanderson—not Tony1, Greg L, or anyone else (and Pmanderson's ability to generate friction extends far beyond the editors and areas mentioned in this ANI). To bring other editors into this is somehow trying to excuse the behavior of Pmanderson's by making it proportional. Well, I add content—lots of it; and I'm appalled by the lack of improvement shown by Pmanderson over the years (and if anything, he's getting worse). The hope he would get better was expressed at the RFC/U last year—to no avail (a RFC/U that ended with the comment "...but the RFC/U indicates that there is a problem that needs correcting"). Sorry, but a block log as long as your arm, frequent mentions at ANI, and increasing streams of irrational abuse at editors who can only be turned off by the misery, should lead to only one outcome here. GFHandel ♬  05:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
4. Support. Pmanderson’s behavior is getting worse lately, not better. I see no end in sight to this disruption and no reason to coddle him anymore as if he is incapable of conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While I can't condone Pmanderson's conduct here, I think that on balance his contributions still outweigh the negative aspects. And I say this as someone who has looked at his article space contributions and compared them to the other people that argue incessantly at WP:TITLE and WP:MOS pages. Unlike most of them, he actually edits articles, with actual content and not just script-assisted fixing of MOS issues. Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) And Mathsci should declare his previous history of disputes with Pmanderson.
2. I think a less severe ban would be in order. Two possible options which may be more workable A) he could be banned from areas of Misplaced Pages where he is known to be in constant conflict, specifically WP:MOS related issues and article naming related issues. If he can be confined to article content, it may help ameliorate some of the more eggregious civility issues. B) He could be put under strict civility parole, with a prescribed series of escalating blocks instead of being indeffed now. Maybe 1st offense = 1 week, 2nd offense = 2 weeks, and so on. I think that his contributions to the Encyclopedia can still continue if we can direct him away from the areas where he tends to get into a lot of arguements. --Jayron32 05:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

It seems to me that the primary issues in recent years stem from style and formatting disputes, whether those be move requests (Mexican-American War vs. Mexican–American War comes to mind) or the Manual of Style. Perhaps a very broad topic ban encompassing disputes concerning style and formatting rather than actual content in all namespaces if a community ban does not have sufficient consensus? User probation, enforced by any uninvolved admin, is also a possibility. NW (Talk) 05:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I just edit-conflicted with you proposing essentially the same thing (see oppose section). I think this sort of thing is a workable next step in lieu of a site-wide ban. It would a sort of "last chance" thing, but I'm not ready to show Pmanderson the door just yet. --Jayron32 05:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. With the caveat that the community should also put others who argue incessantly at these pages (WT:TITLE and WP:MOS) on notice and topic ban them in short order as well, if things flare up again. Some of them have been topic banned in the past, so it would be easier to act in those cases. I think Pmanderson was topic banned previously as well, someone will need to check that. Oh, and the unsolicited e-mail Mathsci is talking about is likely the one I sent to him when he and Pmanderson were arguing over the 's' on the end of Marseilles. The e-mail was an attempt to calm them both down. I had meant to send one to Pmanderson as well, but found out I didn't have his e-mail address. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If the contentious behavior comes up when dealing with TITLE and MOS issues then maybe a topic ban would be sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  06:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "a very broad topic ban encompassing disputes concerning style and formatting rather than actual content in all namespaces" would be a sufficient preventative, and less punitive, and would give him a chance to continue with the positive part of his contributions. Can you write that as a more definitive community topic ban proposal? Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I admit to sometimes not meeting Carcharoth's high requirement for absolute civility and agree that he may have reason to chastise me, but this dispute isn't about me. I wasn't even going to comment here, but now feel compelled to because Carcharoth has muddied the waters with a comment I posted at DYK which has absolutely zilch to do with the issue and subject at hand.

  My conscious efforts to de-escalate the recurring drama with a certain individual has seen a reduction of conflict in general as far as I am concerned. We often inhabit the same spaces, but I now more often than not tend not to let him provoke me; my responses and retorts to said editor have diminished greatly in frequency in recent months. Although I also try hard to depersonalise, it is clear just from the small number of diffs cited above that the assaults and insults continue. Whilst his conviction does him great credit, the manifestations do not. I don't advocate a community ban but nonetheless welcome any admin action that can bring about more collegiate atmosphere wherever he goes. --Ohconfucius 06:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1

In May 2010, User:Harmonia1 was identified by Checkuser as the master account associated with four sockpuppet accounts: User:Critias6, User:Elkoholic, User:Tailertoo, and User:Ellieherring, after this SPI was conducted. The defense was that the alternate accounts were all associated individuals involved with M2 Technologies, a company owned/operated by Janet Morris. All of the accounts edited exclusively subjects associated with Morris and her business, which involved "nonlethal technology". The SPI was opened after coordinated editing became apparent in disputes over articles dealing with the "nonlethal technology" area. "Tailertoo" and "Harmonia1" reported close personal association, and "Tailertoo" turns out to be the Twitter handle of Janet Morris's husband, also a central figure in the M2 Technology business. All of the accounts were blocked, with five unblock requests rejected for the master. The accounts edited in tandem, votestacked, and typically participated in discussions without ever citing any external sources of authorities in support of the positions they held.

For some time this year, there has been extensive coordinated editing on subjects related to Janet Morris, with many new accounts and SPAs appearing, particularly in editing disputes. The accounts involved edit subjects related to Janet Morris principally or exclusively, participate in discussions at length without citing any external sources or authorities in support of their positions, and otherwise parallel the behavior of the accounts in last year's disputes. There has been a great deal of canvassing off-wiki. Virtually all of the accounts involved self-identify as associates of Janet Morris, or use names that correspond to those used off-wiki as associates of Janet Morris. Many of them are names of authors published in the book Lawyers in Hell, which was the subject of a contentious AFD where several of the accounts first surfaced.

The accounts involved are:

• User:Guarddog2. This user self-identifies as Janet Morris. Comments by this users and other accounts suggest that Morris has operated other accounts.
• User:UrbanTerrorist. This user-self-identifies as Wayne Borean, a friend or associate of Morris who promotes her most recent book project on his blog.
• User:Bluewillow991967, who self-identifies as Julie Crawford, a writer who is negotiating the sale of a story to a book Morris is editing.
• User:Hulcys930, who self-identifies as being involved in the genre Morris writes and publishes in. "Hulcys" is also the screen name used by a writer published in Morris's Lawyers in Hell anthology, and who has used her Twitter feed to canvass Misplaced Pages disputes.
• User:Knihi, an account created to participate in the Lawyers in Hell AFD, and used only to participate in disputes involving Janet Morris-related articles.
• User:Dokzap, who self-identifies as a science fiction writer. The credentials claimed by Dokzap match those of a science fiction writer who has sold stories to anthologies edited by Janet Morris, and who uses the Twitter handle Dokzap
• User:Dburkhead, who has edited only subjects related to Janet Morris, and who made multiple promotional edits involving "With Enemies Like These", a story published in Lawyers in Hell and written by David L. Burkhead.
• User:Luke Jaywalker, an editor who made a handful of edits in 2008, returned early this year, and since then edited principally subjects related to Janet Morris or to Baen Books, Morris's principal publisher
• User:Mzmadmike, who self-identifies as Michael Z. Williamson, a writer with a story published in Lawyers in Hell, and several novels, mostly published by Baen Books. Williamson operates a discussion board under the Baen's Bar site, and used that board to canvass on Misplaced Pages disputes related to Janet Morris Mike's Madhouse
• User:Cthu-Lou, an account which participates exclusively in discussions relating to the notability of books by Janet Morris.
• User:ColdServings, an account which participated only in an AFD regarding one of Morris's novels.
• User:Cordova829, who self-identifies as Jason Cordova, a writer published in Lawyers in Hell. Cordova edits almost exclusively on articles related to Morris or, to a lesser degree, Michael Z. Williamson (Mzmadmike).

Principal pages involved:

• Lawyers in Hell AFD
• Talk:Heroes in Hell
• Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback
• Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Gilgamesh in the Outback

There may be other accounts involved; there are problem edits and many articles and AFDs involving subjects related to Janet Morris. This is very messy. Since the current disputes coalesced following the Lawyers in Hell AFD began, several users (principally UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2) have posted extensive personal attacks on User:OrangeMike and myself, with helpings of general incivility. Guarddog2 made a round of not-quite-actionable, borderline NLT violations, reported and discussed here , then last night declared she was taking her dispute with me to the SFWA Grievance Committee, which seemed to me a peculiar attempt at intimidation, since that group only involves itself in disputes between writers and publishers. Guarddog2 also declared she is "keeping a file" on Orangemike and his "cronies", another crudely ineffective mode of intimidation.

As Spartaz commented in closing the Lawyers in Hell AFD, the set of Janet Morris-related disputes, has become dominated by a clique of users, mostly with professional connections to Morris, who "have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility." It is extremely difficult to find good faith in the extended discussions. For example, when I cited the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, Urban Terrorist compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion . Guarddog2 posts lengthy commentary on copyright law, unsupported by any sources and often contradicted by what's available, then she and her associated authors post insinuations that editors who disagree with her are ignorant, etc.

The specific dispute I'm engaged in with the Morris clique is fundamentally bizarre: multiple reliable sources support a simple factual statement; but they repeatedly try to exclude it from the relevant article without citing any contrary sources. Underneath it is an effort to WP:OWN a class of articles and use them to promote the interests of various writers. Some editors are trying to reopen ancient disputes; UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2 are targeting Orangemike for abuse over a book review he wrote when Jimmy Wales wasn't old enough to drink legally.Janet Morris (assuming it's her) is still complaining about differences she had with Robert Silverberg back when Michael Dukakis was running for US President.

There's obviously coordinated editing and canvassing going on. The same thing was done on related articles last year, and the central player appears to have returned, even though her unblock requests have been rejected, with a more effective approach toward the puppetry involved. This kind of behavior needs to be stopped and strongly deterred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you classify and describe the conflict of interest that the writers collectively believe you have with the work(s) and writer(s)?

COI works both ways. I am not saying you actually have one, but they're asserting something along those lines a lot, and it's not clear from reading all that (once) what exactly it is.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The accusations of COI against Hullaballoo are not grounded in anything mentioned at WP:COI. One user said that they "had no idea" why he would have a COI. The argument, by another editor, is that "Hullaballoo is committed to making it as difficult as possible for any of Ms. Morris' work to be included in WP without fighting a battle against editors with many years of experience doing an inordinate amount of work to denigrate and dismiss Ms. Morris' books and stories." But he hasn't violated the three reversion rule or even tried to find ways around it (because there hasn't been an edit war). The arguments basically demonstrate ignorance of Misplaced Pages policies, which I am somewhat sympathetic to because there are many. However, they seem to have an inability to accept Misplaced Pages policies that have been explained, such as the need for verifiability of claims and the fact that Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. It has also been intensely frustrating since many users (myself included, perhaps) have responded with wall-of-text-type responses that are long, winding, and include too many issues. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The tactics of this group of editors has been to assert, over and over again, that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest in this matter, without offering a single shred of evidence in support of those charges. Then, they go on to demand that he recuse himself from this matter, since he has such a flagrant conflict of interest. The evidence that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented above seems to show that it is his accusers instead who have a genuine conflict of interest. In several cases, they admit it openly but claim some sort of special expertise as an exemption from Misplaced Pages's normal standards of behavior. Acting in concert, they try to own this group of articles. This conduct ought not be allowed to stand. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec, the commenter immediately above say what I'm trying to say better than I can tonight, and I thank them) I have not a clue what the editors making the COI claims are talking about. It strikes me that they are simply throwing ad hominem attacks because they can't really contest the substantive points I've made. As I recall, the COI claims began with this comment by Hulcys930: "The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz." That's not a real COI claim, of course, and the facts don't bear it out -- the first Morris-related editing I'd done was on the Lawyers in Hell AFD; I believe Dravecky's involvement began only with AFD comments earlier this year; and these folks seem willing to accuse Orangemike of high crimes over a review he wrote many years ago. Full disclosure: I had a brief, pleasant conversation with Robert Silverberg, the author of the story at the center of much of this dispute, about 30 years ago, at an sf convention. I also met Jim Baen, Morris's one-time publisher, at a party even longer ago. I have no less tenuous connection to anyone else involved in the dispute. I consider myself moderately knowledgeable in the field because, 15-30 years ago I did some "management consulting" (loosely described) for some specialty booksellers, two or three of whom dabbled in small press publishing, but never had any contact with any of the people involved here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards