Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:40, 30 September 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

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

User:FellGleaming

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

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

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

Response from FellGleaming

A short history of events:

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

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

I have already succinctly explained the problem in my original report, but I would like to clear up Fell's misrepresentation of basic facts. To refresh Fell's memory, I originally removed poorly sourced material from Challenger Deep and placed it on the talk page per best practices. This was done because the solitary source used, did not support the content. FellGleaming, without replying on talk first, quickly restored the material, adding an unreliable source to Helium.com as his chosen source, a "peer reviewed citizen journalism website". FellGleaming then begin making a series of very strange claims on talk, arguing that "the Helium source is not being used as a WP:RS for a science claim, but merely to support that the location has been suggested as a waste repository." Fell began trying to reinterpret and reinvent the concepts of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR on the fly, so that they would support his edits. Because Fell was unable to find a reliable source that supported the content he wanted to add, I felt sorry for him and tried to help him out. I found the Hafemeister (2007) source and Fell was happy. However, things quickly devolved into Jekyll and Hyde territory after I helped Fell find a source. At this point, Fell began to go off on bizarre tangents, arguing that any reliable source is acceptable to use in the article, even one that is not about the topic. I calmly explained to Fell, that per the policies and guidelines, we generally only use topical sources, mostly to avoid original research and drawing conclusions that aren't found in the sources. As it stands, Fell will not accept this fact. So now, Fell has added the disputed material into two different articles, and continues to ignore the concerns raised about his edits on the article talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore. CANVASS per , . I have not seen anything nasty from Fell Gleaming. Charges of "tag teaming" should be weighed carefully, and discarded as chaff. Absent any real charge, and considering the CANVASS involved, I suggest the first word I wrote is correct. Collect (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been no canvassing, and MastCell asked me to "bring it up elsewhere" because he can no longer deal with FellGleaming on both a personal and administrative level. Screwball23 has nothing to do with this report. Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

CANVASS occurs even if the people CANVASSED do nothing. It is the contact which is the violation, not the result of the contact here. Collect (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ::

A simple question for teh alledged canvaser, did you ask anyone who has not been in conflict with fell? A si8mple question for the accuseer, has the user asked for comment or asked what he should do in both cases?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There has also been no tag teaming. I made Two edits, one imidialty after the other ]. I ask that this blatant mis-representation is withdrawn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And you blanket reverted my edits and restored Fell's. You tag teamed. And like Fell, you have not been able to answer the questions posed on the article talk page by myself, or on the NOR noticeboard by other editors. This is disruptive editing by the both of you. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ONe making an edit you do not like (or restoring an edit you do not like) is not tag teaming (and I now belive this to be casued by the fact you cannot revert due to having used 3 reverts already, that you are attmepting to use this ANI to continue an edit war). Two I have answerd the questions, that you do not accpept the answers ] (why this should be here) ] (sources supporting the fact the nUS has not ratified the treaty) ] (that the sectio with out the material about US nonratification mis-represents the situation) is not my problom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I have filed this ANI because both Fell and yourself have ignored concerns regarding your misuse of sources on both the article talk page and the OR noticeboard, and have now duplicated the same, exact disputed edits in two different articles for no reason, which not only doesn't make any sense, but is a good example of the disruptive, POINTY behavior going on here. You can't just ignore talk pages and noticeboards that question your edits. You need to stop adding the disputed material and work towards resolution and consensus. Neither of you seem able or willing to do this. I don't know where you stand at this point, but I do know that Fell has some kind of difficulty understanding basic policies and guidelines, and from what I can tell, has no interest in understanding them. That's a bit strange for an editor active since January 2008. I mean, he's had plenty of time to figure things out, right? Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you care to check I have only edited the one articel. I ask you to withdraw the accustion I have done this on two artciels as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was presenting that finding as a total, not as evidence that you yourself edited two articles, but you are correct, you have only edited one, but two separate articles between the both of you now contains the same content. Viriditas (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

GISS is not a "science article", and the text being cited is not a scientific point, but simply that a particular person works for GISS. Even worse is the fact that Ibis himself agrees the fact is accurate; he simply wishes to use a separate source for the citation. Fell Gleaming 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How can our article about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) not be a science article? --TS 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The notion that the statement "Steven Schneider once worked for GISS" is some sort of scientific method, theory or discovery that can only be verified by a Ph.D-authored science book is rather odd. Fell Gleaming 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is different, i.e. that you don't want to use a source which, while verifying the statement, covers the science related to the article's topic in a way that makes the book not a good source for the other information it contains. There may be cases where such a book is the only source available and you don't have a choice but to use that book. I think there exists a special tag for such references that indicates that one would rather have another source. But in this case we already have a better source. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case we have an apparently perfectly adequate source for the late Stephen Schneider's association with GISS. I agree that the source proposed by FellGleaming is a little odd for an article about a scientific institute. --TS 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The source was proposed by another editor, not myself. As for the other source being "perfectly adequate", multiple independent sources are often used. Fell Gleaming 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this in the article at all? As far as I can tell he was at Goddard as a post-doc for less than a year in 1971-72? (according to his own CV). What particular relevance the GISS article has his brief stop there to do with anything? Put another way -- rather than argue about "what" source for this information, a more important question would seem to be "why this information at all?" (The place for it would seem to be the guy's biography, you know "Early career and education.")Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good point, Bali. I don't feel comfortable removing it myself because of this ongoing dispute, but if you (or anyone else) wants to excise it, I support the action. Fell Gleaming 16:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple, but you need to understand the history. Cla68 is having a campaign to add as many facts to as many articles as he can, using Fred Pearce's book as a source. That is where this factoid came from . See-also the next diff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have encountered this editor before. He bears careful watching. Basically FellGleaming is so very strongly pro-nuclear power that he will bend or break WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR to get a pro-nuclear slant onto articles. Tenacious to the point of tendentiousness, this editor will likely require the attention of Arbcom eventually. A SPA with an agenda, who treats our project as a battleground. --John (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree with John. For at least the past couple of years, Fell Gleaming has gone from article to article in an attempt to pursue a global warming denial agenda. See: WP:COATRACK. For example, see his recent deletions from this article: Anti-nuclear movement in the United States. He also attacks the biography articles of climate change experts such as Joseph Romm (full disclosure: I am a friend of Dr. Romm's). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The "smoking hot" edit war consists of my making a total of 3 edits in the past week: . Ohiostandard, by the way, has been following me from article to article, misrepresenting sources with his edits, just as he did in this one , where he claimed it for "fidelity with what the sources actually say". The only problem is, they say no such thing. If he continues this pattern of harrassment and source misrepresentation (and continues to misrepresent my sex as well, despite repeated corrections to the contrary), I believe action will be necessary. Fell Gleaming 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, "smoking hot" was careless, and I'll retract the phrase. I was influenced, no doubt, by my great distaste for what you've been doing at Linda McMahon since the end of August. But anyone here can look at its history and decide whether you've been edit warring there, long-term, and whether the warring needed to stop. As to your claim that I have some kind of "pattern" of misrepresenting sources, people can take a look here for the facts, and refer to MastCell's enforcement remarks about your own "pattern" re sources. Further, I'm genuinely sorry if you feel "harrassed", but you're a very ubiquitous presence on boards like this one, I'm very familiar with your own "patterns", and I very strongly disapprove of them. So when I see you in places like this so often, up to your old "hijinks" (your word, since you like it so much), of course I'm going to comment. I'd rather not, actually; it's boring. But someone needs to. Anyway, my principal point in the post above was that I think it was disruptive to copy-paste a contested section from one article to create an identical new section in a different one, while you were in the middle of a discusssion about the section at WP:NORN. But as I said, this is boring; have the last word if you like.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The Challenger Deep is a particularly deep spot in the Mariana Trench. The two articles are so closely related that it is hair-splitting to distinguish between them in this way. In case anyone wants to know my opinion (as an involved editor) about FellGleaming: This user appears to be an expert on nuclear power with a very strong POV, and a will to push that through. The user seems to be generally operating right at the edge of what is tolerated here, not unlike the way that some other editors are acting or have acted in the past to advocate mainstream, sceptic or pseudosceptic positions on articles related to fringe or pseudoscience. The main difference is that this user is now advocating positions that are very unpopular, overall. The main problem at the moment is that we don't seem to have an expert who can represent the other side and prevent articles from being skewed through highly selective information. This is the kind of explosive situation that is bound to end at Arbcom. Hans Adler 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then (if they are that closely related) do a totaly different set of edds appear to edit one, but not the other, articel? With only a couple of edds on only one of those pages objecting to this aqddition? If the users actions are that out of order then would it not offend more then those with whome he appears to be (or have been) in content dispute with. I see this users actionsa as no worse then many otehrs who seem to enjoy huge amounts of indlugence, and I am operating from the posiiton of precidence. I agree that this users combative approach is problomatic, but no more so then (for example) the attitude of the accuser.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Update

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

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

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

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

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

This is not a mistake on FellGleaming's part. This is part of a willful, purposeful campaign of misrepresentation of sources in article after article, and something needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Note Viriditas already brought this issue to the NPOV NB . The text Viriditas is complaining about wasn't even added by me; it simply was the prior version restored when I reverted out improperly cited material. Note that admin Mastcell at the NPOV NB agreed the claim was overstated. Further, given Viriditas has posted this to three forums, he seems to be forum shopping. Fell Gleaming 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This example seems to fit very well into my overall picture of FellGleaming: An excellently informed editor who is pushing an industry POV vehemently and with a strong focus on results rather than interpersonal conflicts. If the public relations departments of huge industry associations ever start paying people for editing Misplaced Pages, we are going to get a lot of editors here who will be behaving very much like FellGleaming. Come to think of it, it's amazing that we haven't reached that stage yet. Hans Adler 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting data point: I asked FG here why he had added Being a subduction plate, the nuclear waste would slowly be pushed deep into the Earth's mantle. to the Mariana Trench article, as, quite apart from whether it belongs on the article at all (and I am officially neutral on the matter), it is somewhat poor English. He stated here that it is not his preferred version and I apologized for what I thought was my mistake, but then I checked and saw that he had indeed added the text. In fact he appears to have added this poor material three times to the article. Why would someone add text that they do not think should be added, then edit war over it? I am having trouble understanding what is going on here. --John (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• After reviewing his latest efforts, I now believe that FellGleaming should be topic-banned from anything related to nuclear power, in addition to his current ArbCom restrictions. This is a POV-pusher and a combatant in an environment which should be a civil and collegial one. At the very least we need a lot more editors watching him and his edits as I am now doing. --John (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To respond to John's many errors, (a) I am not under any "current Arbcom restrictions". (b) the grammatical error he refers to in Challenger Deep was not added by myself. It existed in the article prior to my first edit: . In restoring a section which had been blanked, I merely did not take the time to cleanup the grammar. As to John's complaint on the nuclear article, I'm sorry I don't see it. I took a vague "scientists and engineers" statement and replaced it with the actual descriptions of these individuals, taken directly from their existing WP entries. Calling someone a "scientist" in a nuclear power article is not only vague, but somewhat misleading, when they are in fact a biologist commenting on nuclear issues. Fell Gleaming 15:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But "restoring a section which had been blanked, ... not tak the time to cleanup the grammar." is the very definition of edit-warring. You should think about it; you are no longer a newbie and should not act like one. --John (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the policy as I cannot find this here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Edit_warring thanks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You just made a link to it yourself, so I'll assume it is a problem of comprehension rather than not knowing where to find the info. We have "However, situations will inevitably arise where editors have differing views about some aspect of a page's content. When this happens, editors are strongly encouraged to engage in civil discussion to reach a consensus, and not to try to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting. It is the latter approach which is known as edit warring."

Help:Reverting has "On Misplaced Pages, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously."

This is one of three key problem areas in this user's editing, the others being misrepresentation of sources and tendentiously pursuing what appears to be a particular agenda. As these seem like long-term problems, I would push for a ban, but a topic-ban or a medium-length block might be kinder in the first instance. We certainly cannot go on like this, in my opinion. --John (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but I cannot see the wording you have used in your comment of 16:02, 22 September 2010 so I cannot see how Fells action breach a policy that does not in fact exsist. Nor can I see how you above quotes can be seen as saying anything about restoing text or not altering bad grammer. So it would appear to me that you have mis-repreented policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you're still having difficulty with this. The solution may be in examining the word "restoring" (in my comment) and comparing it with "being restored to a version that existed sometime previously" (the language of Help:Reverting, my emphasis). Now look at "repeated" (from the policy you linked to) and compare it with my evidence that FG restored the sub-standard material three times. Can you see the similarity now? The grammar issue isn't that important, except that it shows an unsatisfactory combative streak; how easy it would have been for him to tweak the content rather than restoring a version he himself said was sub-standard, yet he didn't. The fact that he then lied about it when I asked him about it is cream on the pudding. --John (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

CForgi9ve me but teh grammer part is opart of your 'quote' so I fail to see how its unimportant. I agree that if he reveted to an exsisting versio that would be edit warring,, but there is nothing about not altering bad grammer so you did mis-represetn polciy. You claim he had breached a rule (or at least the way you interperate that rule) in a way that is not in fact aginst policy. Now if you are saing that he reverted text he should not have done (and that is all) then fait enough perhaps it might be usefull stike that part of your post.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • And this was the Arbcom "final warning" given in April for misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing. That was six months ago. Has this editor changed for the better? I would say not. Topic ban please. --John (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that it excuses anything, but the CC noticeboard is backed by the community process, not by ArbCom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I struck that part of the complaint. --John (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• The bad behavior has not stopped and a simple topic ban will not work. FellGleaming is an advocate of "ignore all rules", which is fine, but he expects us to agree to his ignoring of all rules, which is not fine. This is an abuse of WP:IAR, as any attempt to clean up after his mess is met with hours of wasted talk page arguments and edit warring. This needs to stop. It's a huge time sink, and the editor does not help build an encyclopedia, but destroy it. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have been trying very hard to work with Fell for some months now on articles relating to nuclear issues but recently had to abandon my efforts at Anti-nuclear movement in the United States, see . This is the first time in my 3.5 years of editing that I have had to withdraw from an article because it became a battleground, see Talk:Anti-nuclear movement in the United States. I agree with John's thoughtful comments above (, ) and concur that something needs to be done. Johnfos (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Unfortunately, the disruption is not confined to climate change articles, but includes many topics that touch upon energy and chemical industry subjects, as well as the politicians who represent those interests. FellGleaming is an experienced editor who understands the policies and guidelines as well as any long term contributor. The problem at hand is that FellGleaming is using his understanding to game the rules, to obstruct discussion, and to push an agenda. How should Misplaced Pages handle editors like FellGleaming and why hasn't anything been done? He was already the subject of a severe warning in a climate sanctions enforcement request, and by that reasoning alone, he should already be blocked. What is interesting is that he's even managed to game that warning as well, by editing articles just outside the topic but engaging in the same bad behavior and disruptive edits. This is wasting a great deal of time and energy of good faith editors who would prefer to work in harmony. Please do something. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're actually trying to dredge up an edit ] from more than six months ago into the current argument? And my "severe warning" was simply a no-sanctions message to "be more careful". I looked into a source already in an article, and used the exact phrase "leaked emails" from the source. Admin Mastcell decided it was "misleading" because I put the phrase half a sentence away from where the inline citation was, even though two other admins said it was without merit. In fact, the only reason I didn't appeal such a ridiculous conclusion was simply because there were no sanctions attached to it, just a warning to "be more careful" ... which I always am, anyway. And Viriditas is simply upset because he's taken me to three different noticeboards in the past week, without once getting the result he wants. On the first forum, he even went so far as to begin personally attacking editors who agreed with me. Fell Gleaming 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Here's evidence of clear POV pushing and wikilawyering. Compare here where, to prevent the Heartland Institute article mentioning that it's often referred to as "right-wing", he says

"The principle touchstone here, Mastcell, is accuracy. A source that states something verifiably inaccurate should not be used period, no matter how reliable that source is in general. Further, a source that describes the subject as "right wing noise" is clearly biased. Why are you trying so ardently to portray Heartland as something they so clearly are not? I'm honestly curious."

with this from an OR notice board, where, to get an organisation labelled "left-wing", he argues

"you're confusing WP:OR with potential WP:RS and WP:NPOV issues. If a source labels an organization liberal, then its not OR to provide that description -- though the source's description can still be shown to be inaccurate or non neutral."

These comments were made within a couple of weeks of each other. Either viewpoint might be valid, but not both at the same time. Technically, no policy has been broken, but it's things like these that stretch the AGF of other editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Unsuccessful enforcement request from April 2010

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

1. User claims that this source states "the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were."

   After I challenge this,

2. he invites me to "click on the link" After a further challenge,
3. points out that "It says the largest problem is mental health...", which was not the claim.
4. FellGleaming then repeats the mischaracterization of the source.

   After my warning, below, then

5. accuses me of making a personal attack, at which point I give up and come here. --John (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

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

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

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

As someone who's run into the brick wall that is FellGleaming (on Indian Point Energy Center), I'm certainly not going to argue that any additional evidence is needed to show his obstreporous behavior pattern, but I'm also well aware that, with some frequency in the past, sanctions have been rejected if intermediate steps such as an RfC aren't taken beforehand. It's that auld demon process: some people just feel queasy about doing the right thing before all the T's have been crossed and the i's dotted. Me, I'm more interested in results, and see nothing wrong in sanctioning an aggresive POV-warrior at any stage if he or she is preventing the encyclopedia from being as accurate and factual as it can be – and that indeed seems to be the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Process isn't just that there for the sake of it (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY), it's there because it serves a purpose. In this case, an RFC seems called for, (a) giving FG a chance to reconsider his behaviour and not view criticism as mere point-scoring by content opponents (b) allow others, especially those sympathetic to FG, to see that he is given such a chance before more drastic measures are taken, if it is at some point concluded that they are necessary. Rd232 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If the date was April 2010 I would agree with this analysis. As the problem has been going on for several months since then, and the user seems to show no insight into the problematic nature of his edits after this time and after four blocks, I am struggling to justify the idea of an RfC. If that's the consensus I will go along with it of course, but I really don't see why in such an egregious case we couldn't just enact a final warning or a topic ban by community consensus right here, right now. --John (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban

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

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

• FellGleaming (talk · contribs) has just been blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring. I think the issues raised here require serious consideration (particularly in light of the repeated blocks for edit-warring on politically sensitive articles), but please consider that FellGleaming is currently unable to participate in this discussion. MastCell  17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As I've pointed out at his talk, he can post any response there and someone will copy it over here. --John (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban - The clever POV pushers who know how to manipulate language and sources are way more dangerous than the overt vandals. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no more depressing sight than an editor who has been in conflict with another try and use a separate incident as a chance to ask for a guy to get banned. This comment is aimed at the proposer, i do not know all those who are supporting this proposal and do not mean those who do support it are all in conflict with Fell mark nutley (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support; I would have preferred a block or a topic ban before going to a full ban, but this is better than nothing. What we mustn't have is FG coming back in 72 hrs and continuing to disrupt. --John (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC) see below
• Support - IMO, FellGleaming is been disruptive at Libertarianism in addition to Climate Change related articles. Yworo (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - FG's has an extremely aggressive and confrontational attitude, but only has 4 total blocks, two in 2008 and two in 2010. FG also has a undeniable passion for some subjects which may be harnessed to benefit the project. Rather than a flat ban, put them on a civility probation, to be monitored by a few uninvolved admins. Any, and I mean ANY, slip, for ANY reason, is a week long block for the first, indef for the second. They've had more than a few warnings and comments, but maybe, just maybe, a blunt smack to the face will change things. And maybe not, but with a block on site for any slipup, damage to the project is mitigated. (And for the record, I find their general actions on WP reprehensible, contributing to several problem areas). Ravensfire (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Civility is not the main problem here; more a case of edit-warring, tendentious editing, and systematically misrepresenting sources. --John (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Yet another example of a civil-POV pusher, whose lack of a substantial block record is a result of gaming the system, and not because he or she is really interested in creating a NPOV encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does this editor pose problems? Sure. But I then conclude something differently from Ken's observation that the lack of a big block log is due to "gaming the system". If the system doesn't work properly, then that deserves more attention. Banning editors on an ad hoc basis is not a good thing. Ravensfire proposal makes more sense to me, but we also have to take a more general approach: Welcome the feedback that problematic editors give us here and adjust the system to deal with problems, instead of pointing the finger to the problematic editor and not fixing flaws in the system. For the problems in the climate change area, this means that Misplaced Pages needs to adopt WP:SPOV. Count Iblis (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the system needs overhauling, since it does not deal well with civil POV pushers, but to say that because the system is ineffective in fixing that proble, we should not take advantage of what mechanisms it does provide is just plain silly. I'd be all in favor of having a way that people like FG can be dealt with at a much earlier stage, without going through all the endless drama and disruptive palaver that CPOVs cause, but in the meantime, once things have come to a head, to back off simply because there's not a better method of dealing with them is harmful to the project overall. It's taken much too long, but a specific problem has been identified and needs to be dealt with, that's entirely a different proposition than fixing the system, which should be dealt with, but elsewhere, not here, and not as part of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I've tried to work with FG on many articles relating to nuclear issues, without success, and the POV-pushing and disruption has continued. Johnfos (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've seen plenty of caustic comments from this user. Enough. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature - RFC first, and see if FG can improve. Rd232 21:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, sort of broadly per Ravensfire. The real danger here is that FellGleaming will see failure of the indef block proposal as vindication of his actions. Better to withdraw the indef block proposal and instead put him on notice that he needs to clean up his act, and that there are admins willing to step in if he continues on his current path. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As usual, draconian responses do not work. Moreover, the proponent is currently involved in an ArbCom case, and this may be seen as a way to sidestep the discussions there about both parties. Collect (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Editor has a poor record and does not observe neutrality, rs, AGF or 3RR, despite feedback from other editors and blocks. TFD (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, basically per Ravensfire. I do not think that the Misplaced Pages community has a great track record with civility paroles, though. I would support a global 1RR restriction with a discussion requirement (block length aggressively escalated) + sourcing probation (immediate indef if a source is substantively misrepresented). RfC/U might also help - I have seen editors recover from worse. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for a different reason. I do not know enough about this user to form an opinion of whether this editor is deserving of a site ban or not. I am opposing because they are involved in an ArbCom case. I think that the ArbCom case should be allowed to finish and see how any remedies and findings of facts which pass effect this user and whether their behaviour improves.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I am no fan of FG's editing, this is too much. A topic ban was proposed (below); the problem with that is that there are a number of topics where this editor has been disruptive. 1RR would be helpful, for instance, but perhaps an RfC is the way to go at this time. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Only recently experienced him as an editor. He appears knowledgeble on Wiki policy and open to consensus editing but can also comport himself agressively. Editing as an assumed "sceptic" CC editor, his survival skill alone probably warrants merit. Civility parole might help but a ban is, IMHO, way over the top. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - if he acknowledges there is a problem and comment. Misplaced Pages has difficulty with this kind of civil POV editor. In the debate we're having now, the struggle is to describe in concrete terms the behaviour pattern that would lead to a ban, although I think everyone more or less is agreed that he's been a net detriment to Misplaced Pages's processes, and with intention. I'm uncomfortable in this instance with a wholesale ban. FellGleaming is knowledgeable, and has forced some article writers to be very careful what they say about fringe theorists and BigEvilCorporations in a healthy way - in addition to blatant POV editing. Such subjects can be subject to attack, just as much as articles on Obama or Acorn. Of course, if he does not acknowledge that there is a problem with his approach, then I would reassess my view - and I would urge others to do so. That said, I think it's worth looking at this summary of his edits. Although the first two bans were two years ago, FellGleaming was not editing regularly again until April this year. Each time he has become more active, he's experienced blocks for edit warring. I support suggestions of an indefinite global 1RR, and, based on what I've seen him do, a warning about misrepresenting talkpage consensus (must not be done) and about his warning other users of breaking policy (wikilawyering) - only to be done in absolute cast iron cases (e.g. blatant vandalism (obscenities etc.), including both talkpages and usertalk pages. He can always ask an admin to take a case up for him if it's genuine. Looking at his edit history, I think it' a case of WP:ROPE.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mild oppose I have had run ins in the past with Fell. I do not see his actions as much worse then many others (inlcuding in truth the origional ANI poster). If he can demonstrate that he is able to learn from this experiance then I will oppose a ban. If however evidacen comes forward that he will not moderate his activities then this would change to Mild support.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mild Support I don't like to impose sanctions, but an editor who persists in pushing the same original research two years after it's been removed by consensus and two days after he's been warned to "exercise basic due diligence" in the use of sources, doesn't seem willing to operate within the Misplaced Pages framework. Given the scope of his problem edits, a topic ban won't suffice.SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC); revised 15:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Edits like this one, demonstrating an apparent unfamiliarity with WP:UNDUE, followed by this one, showing that the editor has at least heard of UNDUE, are a serious concern that there's an underlying problem (either with competence, or, more likely, with POV-pushing) that needs to be addressed. But that doesn't necessitate leaping to a community ban. Let's press on with blocks - we're only up to the 72 hours block stage at this point. TFOWR 15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Probably the most POV pushing wikilawyer I have known. I have known both wikilawyers and POV pushers but FellGleeming has taken these tactics across multiple articles and venues using every wikitactic available. To simply suggest there is a problem that needs to be addressed is an understatement and fails to look into this editor's history in a meaningful way. This editor is not here to improve wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Very belligerent user, and both competence and POV-pushing are issues. I encountered him recently on the CC case; see his defensive response to a warning I posted on another user's page (a user I see opposing a ban above; no surprise there, I guess), without even waiting for that user to do his own replying. When I requested diffs for his accusations from FG, reminding him that "it is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation", he fell unaccountably silent, so his character assassination had presumably been mere hot air. (I guess it's not only sources that he misrepresents.) I would like to see a ban, but one with a timelimit; sitebanned for three months sounds about right, IMO. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC).
• Not support, not oppose, but comment and learning toward mild oppose I had a very recent run-in with Fell where he passionately and belligerently pushed his point. He threatened to excise an entirely section (that was very well referenced) and clearly did not agree with the consensus. He brought the issue to another noticeboard without notifying anyone in the local discussion, despite being specifically asked to do so. His civil POV pushing is usually that, civil, but he sometimes makes accusations of bad faith, which is clearly against policy. I do not think Fell needs to be banned, but there ought to be an RfC/U on the issue to gain wider community input. Basket of Puppies 01:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Fell Gleaming is only one amongst many great contributors who have been shoved out of Misplaced Pages for not going along with the elitist majority POV that pervade Misplaced Pages's articles.--Novus Orator 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, for the sake of the timeline, this ANI report was precipitated by the failure of a previous report opened by FellGleaming at WP:NOR/N on 13:22, 17 September 2010. "Novus Orator", real account name Terra Novus (talk · contribs), created their account at 05:26, 18 September 2010. This noticeboard report was filed by me at 13:48, 18 September 2010. Wikistalk results for the intersection of both contributors can be viewed here. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your point is? I can't see where these two edds have edited the discusion on the notice board (mentioned above) so I fail to see the relevance of this. Unless you are sugesting the Fell knew you were going to raise an ANI before you did so, so created an account for use here in advance.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My observation from being (unofficially) involved at SPI is that sockpuppeteers frequently create one or more account just before an administrative action, as insurance. Yworo (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I may mis-understand the point your making bit this was not created before an action, this was created before a report (or even a warning of a report, indeed Fell was never issued with a warning that his actions might lead to an ANI). Thus its hard to see why he would have created an account 8 hours before he had any reason to think he might need one (rather then at a time when he actually was under threat, such as after the ANI started). Also see below, it seems that both these accounts have been used at the same time. Moreover I would like to see what Fell and the other account are in fact being accused of rather then some innuendo.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Community bans, IMO, are too often suggested and handed out before the escalation of blocks is properly implemented, and this is no exception. Doc9871 (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• oppose Mob mentality manifesting. This guy can be dealt with a topic ban. Community ban is overkill The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose In the one article I've been working with FellGleaming on (The Great Global Warming Swindle) he has eventually shown himself amenable to reason. It's been time-consuming, sure; I've occasionally found him arrogant about a subject he hasn't done enough research on; and I think he should edit (and especially revert) with more care, particularly on controversial subjects. The article in question is definitely better for having someone questioning the previous balance in it though. I would support a 1RR, with warnings of more drastic action if he doesn't stop edit-warring; I would not support a community ban at this stage. --Merlinme (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- Let's wait a little longer and try RfC. Tommy! 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

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

That's not nearly good enough as his edits cover a wide variety of topics, as his most recent 3RR violation shows, from energy to politics, from biographies to geography. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that there are problems with FG's actions. But I think the first step should be "what can you do to help yourself?" See if FG is willing to commit to changes in his behaviour/restrictions that might solve this problem. Guettarda (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree also we should wait untill the end of the wider investigation. But I would suppoert a 1RR restiction.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems difficult to enumerate the problematic areas, as they are too many, and too fuzzy at the edges, so might my suggestion above for a time-limited siteban (3 months..?) be a less complicated not-so-draconian alternative? What do you think, John? Bishonen | talk 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

An RfC/U needs to be listed for wider community discussion. Until then, I suggest his unblock so he can participate. It seems only fair. Basket of Puppies 01:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think not. See above for new evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It’s interesting that both of these accounts make different edits on different pages, at the same time ] ] that’s some clever sock puppeting. I sugest that the 'evidance' is re-examined.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just what I'd do if I were going to sock. I don't know whether FellGleaming and this new Terra Novus account are the same person, but the simultaneous edit is no argument against their identity, imo, none at all, and the behavior does seem pretty quacky. We need a checkuser's help here before we can reasonably proceed, imo: if results come back negative then I'd agree with Basket of Puppies (my vote for best username, btw) that FellGleaming should be unblocked to be able to participate here (if not elsewhere, yet) for the sake of fairness. Since some pretty serious sanctions are being spoken of here, I also agree with Basket and others that a RFC/U is called for, perhaps with with an interim 1RR until that process can be completed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A semi=technical question, how would you be able to do two seperate edits at the same time? its not imposible, but a lot of work to do (if the way I have figured out is true). Can a user log on with different accounts at the same time?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably with two different browsers, or very easily with two different devices - a computer and iPad/iPhone combination. Another example of Terra Novus' edits here (three diffs in a row combined) - which are clearly POV, and even include a conservative/libertarian motif. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerous ways to do this: two computers, signed on to different IDs, for instance. But also, a reminder that WP's time stamp does hours and minutes, not fractions of minutes, which means that two edits done within 59 seconds of each other could be time-stamped with the same time. 60 seconds should be sufficient time, depending on the computer and the speed of the connection, to log out of one ID, log into another, and make an edit, but if the data is actually evidence of sockpuppetry (it seems interesting, but not overwhelming compelling to me), it's more likely that 2 devices were used.

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

The two editors have been editing with the opposite point of view on Heim theory, see also the talk page of that article and see the Wiki-project physics page for details. So, if one is the sock of the other, then this must have been a deliberate attempt to create a cover. But that's a bit of a stretch to assume without strong evidence. Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't. Thanks for mentioning it, though. I looked at the pages you pointed out, and I can't draw the same conclusions you do; I could easily believe the one revert was staged, for example. The concordance of interests in an obscure article like Heim theory, the same political bent, the new account showing up to support FG so strongly; the chances of that occuring without intent driving it are just far too low for me to dismiss the idea of a blind. FG's an extremely bright chap, after all; if he were to undertake to sock let's give him credit enough to assume that he'd be very much more sophisticated in doing so than your average 14-year old who wants to get his bandspam to stick. I'd be pleased to be wrong about this, but I still think we need a checkuser's assistance before we can go forward.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The two edits were made 16 seconds apart, at 2010-09-19T04:41:14Z and 2010-09-19T04:41:30Z. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all humorous!! I never guessed that I would be involved in something as silly as this. (They must think Fell Gleaming is superman if he is able to simultaneously edit and argue with himself! Here is an example of how close this supposed sockpuppet is editing with himself:

04:39, 20 September 2010 (diff | hist) Challenger Deep ‎ (compromise text as per talk.) Fell Gleaming

04:40, 20 September 2010 (diff | hist) Heim theory ‎ (We already mention that it was not published originally, and a search in Google Scholar does not determine the status of a theory. The proviso is welcome, it just needs to be more documented.)Terra Novus

' PLEASE run the Check user on me and him to show that I am not Fell Gleaming (though I sincerely sympathize with him, we have way to many editors on Misplaced Pages who think they can do whatever they want, and when they are caught they just initiate a ban..) and PLEASE turn this discussion into an objective analysis of both sides of the story (Fell Gleaming isn't the only editor with POV issues). If you don't, I might consider running an ANI on certain editors who are abusing Misplaced Pages's banning policy...--Novus Orator 04:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• Terra Novus has said that he's a former user who has a new user name, per "Clean start". However he seems to be engaged in contentious issues. Perhaps it'd be helpful if he'd share his former username with a Checkuser or ArbCom member to make sure that he is following best practices.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to share my former name with a qualified Checkuser or Arbcom member..--Novus Orator 05:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Then please go ahead and do that, and ask the person to publicly confirm that you've done so. Rd232 12:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary of opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever his past behavior seems to show, always assume WP:Good Faith until his future conduct tells differently...--Novus Orator 04:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, TN. FellGleaming has exhausted the patience of many editors here. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• OK, then, suggested outcome: impose 1RR now (indefinitely, or at least til end of calendar year), and have an RFC/U later on, maybe in late October or November sometime. RFC/U outcome can then take into account FG's behaviour during 1RR restriction. The assumption remains that FG can improve, otherwise a community ban would have been passed. Rd232 10:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support That seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

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

Timestamping, as this is now an ArbCom matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:

I've removed the time stamp, as discussion on that page seems to be continuing, and there's no reason that the community can't consider sanctions while ArbCom is considering the case. If the community decides to do something, then reviewing that sanction will become part of the ArbCom case; if they don't, ArbCom will conduct its own investigation. Either way, there's no particular reason to let this pointer slip off the board until the community discussion is well and truly closed. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Re-timestamping: arb case is now open; further discussion should take place in the arb pages. 67.122.209.115 (talk)

No, this is not resolved until the consensus is enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Hmm, I thought usual practice in this situation was the venue changed to the arb case, with sanction proposals and whatever else going to /Workshop. As GWH put it (re arbcom) "if they're going to take it then they preempt." My bad if I closed that page improperly (I see you have reopened it). It's certainly inappropriate to act as if there is some kind of turf battle between ANI and arbcom, if that's what you're thinking. If they're willing to handle this thing, it has structural advantages, and I don't see any problem with moving it there. They arbs are themselves, as the saying goes, uninvolved admins; they can handle it just fine. 67.122.209.115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Hounding and off-wiki harassment by a WP admin? (User:KimvdLinde)

I have seen editors of sexuality pages receiving off-wiki harassment before, but I have never seen it coming from an admin, especially during a content dispute in which the admin is currently involved: http://heathenscientist.blogspot.com/ .

I am no stranger to controversial topics in sexuality, and I appreciate that there will always be editors and admins who disagree with me on one issue or another. However, for an admin to be reverting edits and issuing warnings on the one hand and then attacking me (and other editors) off-wiki is a clear example of what “creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith” (i.e., WP:HARASS). In fact, giving into one’s POV while editing and intimidating editors with admin authority behind it suggests grossly poor judgment.

I have had no prior interactions with User:Kimvdlinde, until this AfD discussion. She then began sending me off-wiki emails regaling me with her off-wiki experiences as a scientist becoming embroiled in academic disputes. She then began reverting edits of mine, but left unanswered my request to untangle a problem she had with the content versus me personally . Still participating in the content dispute at pedophilia, she is now making off-wiki attacks against me and the other editors participating in the discussion.

(We can, of course, discuss the content of the relevant edits, but to avoid TLDR, I will hold off unless asked. For the record, however, the statements User:KimvdLinde makes in her off-wiki attack are inaccurate. Two final notes: I have acknowledged my off-wiki identity, so I do not fault User:KimvdLinde for using it in her blog. Second, although User:KimvdLinde uses a pen name in her blog, she also acknowledges her identity: She link’s her userpage to her personal page, http://www.kimvdlinde.com/, where she acknowledges that the heathenscientist blog is hers.)

— James Cantor (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The pedophilia article is suffering from serious issues, and in my frustration dealing with it, I wrote a blogpost explaining my feelings about the article. I have reproduced the blog post on wiki, because I stand by what I wrote. I will answer the unanswered question so we can take that one out of the equation.-- Kim van der Linde 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Pedophilia article is only suffering from "serious issues" according to KimvdLinde and another editor. Sticking mostly to authoritative sources on a medical issue is not a "serious problem." Pop culture calling a sexual interest in everything under 18 "pedophilia" and people wanting that in the article as if it is a valid definition of pedophilia is the serious problem. As long KimvdLinde doesn't start sending me emails, I really don't care what she writes on her blog about that article or me. I am sorry that James feels harassed, however. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not harassment; it's the views and observations of a person. There isn't anything harmful or demeaning in the blog, and I speak as an Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless Kim redacted her original post, the "worst" I see that she said was that you do "not always know the limits of self-promotion", a statement she makes an effort to back up. That is mild criticism, not harassment. If I were you I'd either take it constructively or just ignore her and move on. She is just one person (admin or not) and if you feel her off-wiki criticism has no value, you are free to pay it no heed. -kotra (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether I believe her off-wiki attacks have any value; the question is whether editors/admins who feel frustrated enough lob off-wiki attacks is editing in good faith. A administrator acting in the best interests of WP would not intervene herself, but ask another admin to intervene; and would be answering questions on wiki about official warnings given on wiki rather than ignoring them and instead writing attacks about the warnee off wiki.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• - User:James Cantor should stop immediately adding his own self promotion conflicted articles. - I have watchlisted the user. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to invite anyone who wants to to watchlist me. However, by reading the pedophilia talkpage and its archives, for example, one will find that my suggestions for RS's that KimvdLinde faults me for providing were indeed posted on the talkpage and not the mainpage, and that the majority of my input for many months has been limited to answering questions posed specifically to me or referring specifically to me.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You added an external link to the sexual addiction article on the 11 September, to an interview with yourself,please don't do this again. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You leave out that I indicated my association with the EL on the talkpage, inviting others to review it (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sexual_addiction#Disclosure.). You also leave out that I have made 100's of non-controversial edits to that page itself, not a single one of which has anything to do with me personally (I have not published any research articles on the topic), and not a single one of which has been contested by any other editor in the many months since I made them. (If my goal were to for self-promotion, I would not be using a very efficient method of going about it.)

Despite my asking it several times, no one has yet said that there is any problem at all with the content of the EL in question. The productive thing for an editor to do is read the EL, and either decide that the EL is relevant, informative, etc. and support it, or decide that the EL is irrelevant and delete it. For an admin to delete it and refuse to answer questions about the deletion, responding only with an off-wiki attach is not, in my opinion, appropriate (regardless of whether one believes that my own behavior was appropriate).— James Cantor (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not leaving anything out, you added it and that is unacceptable, as I said don't do that again, If you have the idea to add a self promotional external link to content conflicted to your editing here, open a discussion and allow consensus to arise and if there is a consensus on the talkpage to add your desired personally related interview then please do not add it yourself, allow an uninvolved user to add it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:COS says simply "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. If you are able to discover something new, Misplaced Pages is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. See also Misplaced Pages's guidelines on conflict of interest." 24.205.45.49 (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for the link, personally in this case it doesn't appear to cover the issue, as cherry picking your own interview as an external link is not actually covered by that. Misplaced Pages is not written by experts and not read by them either. If users want to add their opinions and cites about themselves they would do well imo to discuss it well on the talkpage and as I said it would be a stronger position if they did not add it themselves. So called experts would do better by not editing in their field, they have a mountain of conflict of interest and as such are so involved to be unable to edit in that area in a neutral manner.Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

At least that clarifies that the disagreement is not about page content, but about one's POV about expert editors.— James Cantor (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave my thoughts on this above in this section. Really don't have much more to say about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider the comments in the linked blog to constitute either hounding or harassment, and I don't believe that admin interaction is required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the blog post does fall within Misplaced Pages:NPA#Off-wiki_attacks, and does a great deal to drain credibility from KimvdLinde. It is an incredibly petty thing to do. I have been driven to distraction by other people's behavior on WP, but I feel no need to do such a thing as create an attack page. Regarding alleged self-promotion James Cantor, I have always known him to ask first before incorporating any source he is an author on, and he has never added one over the objections of other users. When he one such suggestion], I suggested an alternative textbook source that fulfilled the same purpose, and we went with mine instead without any heated argument needed.Legitimus (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, everybody his opinion, but the facts show he inserted an external link of an interview of himself to an article, so your assertion that he always ask is incorrect. -- Kim van der Linde 15:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed true that for that article (sex addiction), which is only infrequently edited, I put the EL in myself and disclosed all the information on the talkpage, whereas for highly followed or disputed articles I do exactly as Legitimus describes. (And no one is saying that the actual EL I added was at all problematic.) If Kim (or anyone else) would like to start an RfC on me, then we can have that discussion properly. However, the question here is whether it is appropriate for an admin to disparage an editor off-wiki while engaging in content disputes with that editor on-wiki and while acting in her admin role on-wiki with the same editor (rather than ask another admin to intervene).

1. In fact, when I was asked to provide an opinion at the AfD, my very first comment included the disclosure of my relationships with the topic and with other editors. However, Kim immediately opined that I should not have revealed those conflicts/interests, only to have another admin opin that I was correct in including the disclosure.
2. When I updated an editor's comment on behalf of that editor , Kim intervened to say I should not , again only to have the original editor say I was correct .
3. Moreover, Kim's not answering questions from me on the topic was not an isolated event: e.g.: .

So, after each of the above, when Kim decides to write an off-wiki attack about me at the same time as engaging me in content disputes on-wiki, and at the same time as refusing to answer questions about her admin actions on-wiki, it is perfectly reasonable for me to question Kim's decision not to pass off her admin role. That Kim faults me both for overhandling COI and for underhandling COI makes it reasonable to question if the goal here is really about COI at all or about an opportunity to just fault me for whatever she can find. It is not unreasonable for me to indicate that the appropriate thing for Kim to do is to let another admin handle issues she perceives with me.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

James, as off-wiki attacks go, it was unusually temperate. There's been much worse behavior in comments on this range of topics on-wiki also. We've enough problems with these articles without going into side issues that can only exacerbate things. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

James, let me be blunt about things:

1. Adding links to interviews with yourself about a specific topic is not okay; it is blatant self-promotion.
2. Importing your off-wiki dispute with Andrea James is questionable, especially when you paint her as the attacker and yourself as the victim, while, after reading many of the webpages devoted to the dispute, it is not that clear who is at fault. Instead of immediately attacking her, you could frame it as a conflict or a dispute and leave it in the middle who is at fault. That would suffice for a disclosure, and leave the off-wiki drama off-wiki.
3. Removing external links to Andrea James pages when you are having such a high off-wiki conflict is really not okay. You berate me for things that happened before this blog post and when we did not have a conflict yet, you are in a full conflict with her for a long time, and yet, you think you have the right to remove external links to her webpages? I smell hypocrisy.
4. I work as a biologist, and if I edit pages I am an expert on, I take care that I first use sources that are from other people, especially those that have a different opinion from me. Why? Because I think that is the proper way to go. Only when there is NO other source then my own stuff, I will add it. I would expect from an expert like you that you could drum up at least a dozen reliable sources other than your own articles. But no, you had to promote your own article.

Anyway, I think you regularly skirt the rules of what is acceptable, and I am glad you brought yourself to the attention of the admins. Next time I find something that I consider inappropriate, I will contact an uninvolved admin. -- Kim van der Linde 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my only request.— James Cantor (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have two longish observations to make:

• Encyclopedias traditionally give the more precise, and often more restrictive, definitions of terms that are used by experts, rather than those that are in use in the general public. That does not imply that these definitions must also be adhered to elsewhere in the encyclopedia, unless it is done with a potentially misleading link. Sometimes we seem to be overdoing it, as in the case of influenza, where a reader who is not aware of the distinction between influenza and other influenza-like illnesses could easily come away with the wrong ideas. When editing in a problematic area such as pedophilia, it is extremely important to keep in mind that conflicts about definitions are very common in Misplaced Pages, even if the term in question is totally harmless. (I have myself been involved in long discussions between many editors about the meanings of the words Leeds and city, for example. See the archives of Talk:Leeds.) It is easy to miss this and make incorrect assumptions about another editor's motives in such a context. This is only one of many typical scenarios in which we tend to jump to conclusions about someone else, and which make the guideline WP:AGF necessary.
• Reading KimvdLinde's user space essay, I had a trivial problem that turns out to be rather serious in this context. The second sentence of the second paragraph says this: "If you have to believe the people of the Clarke Institute, he would not have been a pedophile even when it had caused him distress, because the child is too old." (My italics.) This is very odd, because there is no real referent for "he" in the preceding. Someone with disturbingly inappropriate sexual fantasies was introduced in the previous paragraph as "or example, if you have many sexual explicit fantasies about ", but that doesn't really fit. This creates confusion in my, and presumably many readers' mind: Who is this he? Is she talking about someone in particular? And precisely at that point follows this sentence: "James Cantor, an active wikipedia editor who not always knows the limits of ". The sentence continues with " self-promotion ", but at this point this particular named Misplaced Pages editor is already a pedophile in the reader's mind. This is not appropriate at all and needs to be corrected pronto, even though it is probably just an innocent oversight. Hans Adler 23:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I am still trying to assume good faith, but now that I have realised the title of the original blog entry was "Pedophilia whitewash at Misplaced Pages", this has become significantly harder. The choice of words clearly implies an assumption of bad faith. It must be possible for a scholar on a criminal topic X to contribute to this encyclopedia without being accused of being a supporter of X merely for daring to promote the scientific lingo to which they are used. Hans Adler 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I disagree with your first point, and don't care to comment about that essay myself because the issue is addressed in reliable/academic sources. I gave my reasons on the article's talk page, but since you repeat the matter here, and you love analogies, assume for a second the year is 1970. Our homosexuality article should read, according to you, "Homosexuality is a mental disorder defined in the DSM-II as ..." Do you not see problem with that? The points that KimvdLinde raises above (and in his essay) reflect wider society use of the term pedophilia, and there is academic commentary over such (mis)use. Did you ever see a media article titled Ephebophile Priests, for instance? Me neither, and neither has Thomas G. Plante or Philip Jenkins both of whom discuss the use of the term in society Excluding such discussion from the article because the word has a narrow definition in the DSM, which declares it a mental disorder, thus (according to some, including yourself) making it the exclusive domain of psychiatry and psychology, is obviously not neutral. You might have heard of political discourse purposefully conflating pedophilia and homosexuality, in part playing on the difference on the age of consent for homosexual versus heterosexual acts, in the UK for instance: Even in the US, religiously or politically biased books trying to prove a link are not uncommon. (Here's one by Jim A. Kuypers ). These are issues that should be addressed in the article. Just because some word is given a specific meaning in the DSM, it should not preclude other discussion about its uses, especially when the editors that do not agree to have those viewpoints discussed (and by that I certainly do not mean endorsed) in the article, also reject a separate article discussing these wider issues as "POV fork". Finally, it should be obvious now that your analogy with influenza is weak, because nobody uses influenza in a derogatory fashion. It might get you in trouble at an airport, but otherwise saying that "X has a flu" instead of "X has a common cold" is no big deal in layman contexts. Declaring someone a pedophile is an entirely different matter, and it's sometimes done for ulterior motives. Merely dissing this aspect in one sentence at the end of the article as misuse of scientific term is obviously ignoring an elephant in the middle of the room. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Declaring someone a pedophile is an entirely different matter, and it's sometimes done for ulterior motives." At least we agree on that. I am astonished that apparently User:KimvdLinde is getting away with insinuating, apparently without any evidence, that a named Misplaced Pages editor and scientific researcher on the subject of pedophilia is pedophile himself. She has been editing since I explained the problem above, so presumably she knows about it. In fact, I find it hard to believe that this wasn't deliberate in the first place. There are only two possibilities: Either she knows something very important that I don't know, or she doesn't. In the first case she would have an obligation to notify Arbcom so they can deal with the situation. In either case she had an obligation to shut up. Hans Adler 00:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to Tijfo098, it is not only the DSM which calls pedophilia a mental disorder. It is generally considered a mental disorder among all of the medical community. And this should not be equated to what went on with homosexuality, as if pedophilia has any chance of never being considered abnormal. Again, I am not calling you a pedophile, but pedophiles are always comparing "their hardships" to that of the LGBT community, especially gays and lesbians. Every LGBT person I know or have known has passionately objected to this comparison for many reasons. And regarding the article, it is not as though compromises have not been made. I have no problem discussing other uses of the term in the "Other uses" section or the "Misuse of terminology" section. But the editors arguing for inclusion of the general/wrong use seem to feel that it should come first in the lead because it is the more popular use among the general public and that the article should be half about the general/wrong use as well. That is what I disagree with. WP:UNDUE has something to say about what the general public thinks. The general public needs to know what pedophlia truly is first and foremost, not walk away from the article thinking they are right in their misuse of the term. And the media has sometimes made the attempt to distinguish between misuse and correct use of the term. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Flyer22 writes: "It is generally considered a mental disorder among all of the medical community." Medicine outside psychiatry does not deal with issues like paraphillias or mental disorders unless they have a well understood etiology, like Parkinson's disease or Huntington's chorea. If you can cite a survey of the opinion of the general medical community on pedophilia in relation to medicine, it would be good addition to the article.

• Flyer22 writes: "And this should not be equated to what went on with homosexuality, as if pedophilia has any chance of never being considered abnormal." Mental disorder and "abnormal" (which is just as imprecise the layman's use of pedophilia) are two different notions, otherwise homosexuality would still be a mental disorder today. You don't seem to have much background knowledge on the paradigm used in classification of mental disorders, so here's a quick review from Robert Spitzer, the guy that wrote the first DSM(-III that is) def for it: , "... it will be apparent that the question 'Is condition A (whether it be homosexuality, schizophrenia, left-handedness, or illiteracy) a disorder?' is more precisely stated as 'Is it useful to conceptualize condition A as a disorder?' or 'What are the consequences (to society, the individual with the condition, and the health professions) of conceptualizing condition A as a disorder?' It became clear to me that the consequences of a condition, and not its etiology, determined whether the condition should be considered a disorder." There's no deep biomedical insight about pedophilia that makes it a mental disorder, but the obvious observation that these individuals might act on their impulses with very bad consequences for the children involved. And if you think homosexuality was removed because of some great biomedical discovery, that's not the case either--it was put up to a vote by entire APA membership, something unprecedented before and since. Although officially the failure to change homosexual orientation by medical treatment officially had nothing to with this, Spitzer writes: "If there were a 'treatment' for homosexuality (I use quotation marks because the term presupposes pathology) that was available and effective in most cases, I very much doubt that there would be much objection to classifying it as a disorder." Ouch.

• Flyer22 writes: "pedophiles are always comparing " I suppose you don't want to make the same correlation about Richard Green for writing this paper, questioning the validity of pedophilia as a mental illness. I don't even embrace his position, but I do find it strange that it's not even mentioned in the article, given that he is a prominent academic. And by the way, he finds the same flaw in the DSM-IV-TR definition as Kim did: "So what then of the pedophile who does not act on the fantasies or urges with a child? Where does the DSM leave us? In Wonderland. If a person does not act on the fantasies or urges of pedophilia, he is not a pedophile. A person not distressed over the urges or fantasies and who just repeatedly masturbates to them has no disorder."

• Flyer22 writes: "The general public needs to know what pedophlia truly is first and foremost " You realize you're talking about an operational definition, right? So, "truly is" is meaningless in such a context. Introduce yourself to the next variation (from the current DSM-5) pedohebophilic disorder. Speaking of DSM-5, they also make a distinction between "abnormal" sexual orientation (paraphilia) and a level of that which causes harm or disstress. In part, we can thank our esteemed editor and psychiatrist James Cantor for that distinction. You can look it up on the rationale page of any paraphiliac disorder: "The Paraphilias Subworkgroup is proposing two broad changes that affect all or several of the paraphilia diagnoses, in addition to various amendments to specific diagnoses. The first broad change follows from our consensus that paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders. We are proposing that the DSM-V make a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. A paraphilia by itself would not automatically justify or require psychiatric intervention. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others. One would ascertain a paraphilia (according to the nature of the urges, fantasies, or behaviors) but diagnose a paraphilic disorder (on the basis of distress and impairment). In this conception, having a paraphilia would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder."

• I hope I didn't waste my time typing all this, and you'll be more informed and less combative in the future. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(Placeholder for a reply. Can't imagine what couple of things need correcting in my statement. Pedophilia is not considered a mental disorder among most of the medical community? It should be compared to the hardships of gays and lesbians? The general use of the term should come first, even though it is absolutely silly to equate it to a person finding a 17-year-old sexually attractive? I'll try to make it in time to reply to your upcoming statement.) Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• • My bad, I made a jump between second person and third person. I fixed my essay. -- Kim van der Linde 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Protector of Wiki

{{resolved}} No admin action required. However: POW, tone it down - your reply to Michael Hardy was inappropriate, and comments like that are likely to result in a trip to WP:WQA. (And on a personal note: can you start referring to admins as either "admins" or "sysops"? "Mods" is just wrong). TFOWR 12:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

{{unresolved}} Still an issue --Alpha Quadrant 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen in his notice at the top of his talk page, Protector of Wiki (talk · contribs) migrated to the English Misplaced Pages only a month ago, after being blocked indefinitely from the Simple English Misplaced Pages for incivility (contribs log). Since September 10 this year, he has (mostly) been writing ALL CAPS in his edit summaries. He responded by telling that he will "try to tone down his comments where possible", but yet after that he simply continues using all caps. He has attemped to spam his own talk page by putting a 1000 px large smiley image (reverted). Today, he wrote in an edit summary that Alpha Quadrant is rude. Only two days ago, he received an only warning for posting this comment. As can be seen in his block log at enwp, he has already been blocked one time, for posting this comment. I think all of this are cases of either disruptive editing, intentioned trolling, or he simply has massive temperament problems.

I honestly think at least a(nother) block is in order. HeyMid (contributions) 08:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: PoW was not the user who initially added the smiley face — see 1 and 2. However, PoW did increase the smiley face image to 1000px — see 3. It seems to me that he does not take criticism and advices seriously; is this a case of WP:Gaming the system? Misplaced Pages is not a playhouse. HeyMid (contributions) 09:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties/admins may also want to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Reviewer#User:Protector of Wiki. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer request and some of general demeanour reminds of the "SMASH ALL VANDALS MUST DIE DIE DIE"-type vandal fighters they have sometimes around here. WP:AGF and WP:CIR are all very well, but perhaps PoW needs to take the initiative a little less easily and gel a bit more around here? S.G. _ping! 08:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe PoW needs encouragement to be a little more collaborative and a little less abrasive, but I honestly don't see that they've done anything actually disruptive. The ALLCAPS is mildly irritating, but it does not appear to me to be hurting anything. Same goes for the ginormous smiley face. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"not your talk page! not rude at all! you are the one being rude!" It does seem a lot less "rude" without ALLCAPS, doesn't it? Edit summaries should be no exception: type like every other editor when composing them. He can "shout" in lowercase all day, and it's far less disruptive. It's one keystroke... Doc9871 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I just don't see the big deal. This is not worth sanctioning someone over. Reyk _YO! 09:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If that were the only issue sure, but users banned on other projects should be on a very short leash and should not engage in behaviour that winds other users up. Spartaz 09:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal with just turning capslock off. That said: I'm quite surprised to see this up now, because he actually seems to be making a decent effort at being, well, tolerable. (Despite the "well, I'm still not going to play nicely" edit summaries.) Take for example, the AfD notification on his talk. I was suitably impressed by his response to it. To be honest, I think that he does have good intentions. This community attracts all kinds of temperaments who are just trying to help, and the most harmful of these aren't the kind like him. He doesn't need another block at this point. Just as long as he can start making less drama, he'll be a good counterbalance. sonia♫ 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty well sums up my impressions of this user. Reyk _YO! 09:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with sonia as well. In his defense, PoW was bitten by an admin no less before his arse comment. I've reviewed the article in question and found that PoW was clearly correct while Michael Hardy violated numerous policies in his defense of the article. Nevertheless, I'm troubled by PoW's ongoing defiance of all requests to tone down his/her behavior. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread is completely unnecessary. So he uses some caps, which I admit are annoying, but not block worthy. I see no reason for a block; agree with Sonia. Tommy! 12:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Special:Contributions/Heymid

"Mod" lesson not learned — see this diff. Note that I now have warned this user about this concern, hoping that he becomes/is aware of this concern. It turned out to be relatively pointless; he responded by refactoring the headline and saying that "Mods are mods" (the opposite). He apparently believed I wanted him blocked (which was not the case).

I'd like to point out that his constructive comments (and mainspace edits; excluding his "shouty" edit summaries and comments) suggest that he may have good intentions of being an active user at Misplaced Pages. He is still a relatively new user though; he has been at the Simple Misplaced Pages only since July 19, 2010, as can be seen in his prev contributions log. He probably just needs more time and experience. I don't know. HeyMid (contributions) 08:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, "mods" is just a personal peeve of mine - if POW, or anyone, really wants to call admins "mods" there's nothing to prevent POW doing that. The real concern is civility, but that's not - at this point - a concern for ANI. TFOWR 08:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

He has also asked User:Armbrust questions about what he would do if he were a "mod" on his RfA; this is just a misnomer though: he's not breaking any policies, it's just mildly annoying that he's using an incorrect term. This doesn't really have any further relevance to a now-resolved ANI thread. GiftigerWunsch 08:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: Maybe he needs a mentor? HeyMid (contributions) 08:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried that informally on his talk page and finally gave up. He may have taken a few of my suggestions, but it's clear that he's not budging on the remaining issues. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually while on the topic of questions at Armbrust's RfA; it seems that PoW essentially asking for a second opinion on a personal attack for which he was blocked previously, and suggesting that a sysop making the same comment would have been treated differently. Does this strike anyone else as rather WP:POINTy and possibly forum shopping? It's particularly disruptive that the user has chosen to add such questions to a user's RfA for no apparent reason other than to make a WP:POINT, imo. GiftigerWunsch 12:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  It is definitely a point issue that he is having. As for his previous block, is amusing he still thinks its not appropriate now that another user is complaining about some of the issues he was blocked for. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  For completeness, I will mention that he did the same thing at Ron Ritzman's recent RFA. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, it seems like he is trying to use WP:ADMINSHOP to prove that "mods" are kinder to each other than to "commoners". Buggie111 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalking?

It would appear from his talk page that Clementina (talk · contribs) is growing uncomfortable with Protector of Wiki following her around. I only noticed this following his approval (again, all caps edit summary) of an article she nominated at T:TDYK. This is slightly worrying. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears that POW has read this thread — see this diff. HeyMid (contributions) 07:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User warned and directed to WP:HOUND. Let's try not to use "stalk"... T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she has complained about being uncomfortable about his hounding on IRC to me as has Griffinofwales, however I haven't heard that he kept hounding griffin since I warned him. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ALL CAPS

User:Protector of Wiki has continuously used ALL CAPS in all of his edit summaries. He has also used exclusively, the Only Warning template when a new editor vandalizes or makes a inappropriate page along with a ALL CAPS edit summary. Eight editors, User:X!, User:UncleDouggie, User:Lothar von Richthofen, User:Airplaneman, User:Heymid, User:Sonia, User:Trusilver, and myself User:Alpha Quadrant have asked him to stop using ALL CAPS, as it is considered shouting and biting newcomers and is therefore disruptive. Protector of Wiki has told us that he wishes to emphasize by using all caps. We have suggested using bold text instead, as it is not considered shouting. However he continues to use all caps as well as the only warning template. According to this he has been blocked from Simple Misplaced Pages for incivility and also recently blocked here for 72 hours for incivility block log. Can someone else please try and talk to this user? Thanks --Alpha Quadrant 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I give up. That basically illustrates that he's not willing to cooperate with little things like fixing "mods" or capslock, and that he's being pointy. My tendency to err on the side of good faith only goes so far. sonia♫ 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think that his behavior is worthy of a block at this time. He's going to either get his act together or land in more hot water soon enough that will make the course of action clear. I am impressed with his content edits and logic in article discussions. He has been a benefit to the project, but at the cost of some upset editors. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Frankly, POW can call sysops "Purple monkey dishwashers" if they so choose, and so long as their choice of language doesn't fall foul of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA it's not an issue (it irks me, but that's more because it's just incorrect). My personal view is that there are behavioural issues here, and that sooner or later POW is going to cease to be an editor here. But we have in no way reached that point yet. ALL CAPS EDIT SUMMARIES are annoying, and I'd hope POW stops it, but it's hardly an ANI issue. I'd suggest WP:WQA, maybe, but until there's a continuing pattern of behavioural issues this isn't an ANI issue. TFOWR 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a point however where his all caps etc becomes pointy editing which is blockable. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Using inappropriate warnings can also be blockable if he really refuses to stop. —Soap— 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I just found this. Buggie111 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How many people in this day and age really don't know that ALL CAPS on the interwebz is offensive and uncivil? The diff posted by Buggie111 shows me that this is a highly problematic editor who either doesn't "get it", or is a deliberate troll. The account name itself implies a POV warrior or battleground mentality. POW ought to either be blocked or at least must agree to mentorship. The ALL CAPS garbage and the disruptive editing needs to stop now. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely. I'm not quite sure what the game is here; he clearly takes some pleasure in the disruption. His talk page is littered with warnings about inappropriate behaviour. I glanced at his recent contributions and the hounding of certain editors and the RfA edits are clearly a concern that PoW doesn't get. Hopefully a break will do him good, but I'm fairly convinced further warnings are a waste of our time. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think our patience has been tested enough - his recent activity (shunning warnings, etc, abrasive tone) has been on the verge of trolling. His calling admins 'mods' has also been irritating, as is his referral to editors as 'commoners' (Misplaced Pages is not a social hierarchy), the worst part is how he refuses all comments, and continues to use these terms, eg. "Yikes! Three MODS and 2 COMMONERS are hounding me! ". Connormah (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL, he sonds like a funny guy, but I think he was probably trolling and disregarding the standard for wiki behavior, so if he got blocked, that was probably the RIGHT thing to do. :-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I applaud PeterSymonds for putting himself out there and making the call on this. It was becoming increasingly obvious that POW was making this into his own little game. He knew that by warning him, others were upset with a behavior, so he continued that behavior just to frustrate others. Glad that this disruptive behavior has been capped with this block. either way (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good block, POINTy disruption and general unwillingness to edit collegially. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good block; I was one of several users who attempted to reason with the user and ask him to stop misusing terminology and typing in capitals, and the response was continued WP:POINTy disruption. It's apparent that the user is doing more damage than good. GiftigerWunsch 23:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Petersymonds, you have my applause. This person has been nothing but trouble the past few weeks. I echo all the comments above. Buggie111 (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I fully endorse PeterSymonds' action, mainly due to his recent (and current) behavior. Also, please note that PoW's talk page access has now been revoked. HeyMid (contributions) 10:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - It also appears Protector of Wiki still doesn't get it. He still thinks that he is a "victim of conspiracy". --Alpha Quadrant 14:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, it seems that no-one has opposed this block. HeyMid (contributions) 14:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ban discussion

I have had little in the way of interaction with this editor, but I'd like to call in his defense at least a discussion of the matter to confirm his indef-blocking and make it more official whether or not he is a net benefit (loss?) to the encyclopedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The user is indef blocked, not banned, which is completely different. I also don't see such a ban happening just so soon after his indef block. Maybe if they start socking to evade their ban, continue their abuse, but not before.— Dædαlus 10:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not ban, but block. HeyMid (contributions) 14:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 again

• Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Said user is at it again - having evaded a ban by the skin of his teeth. has him accusing an editor of "telling lies." has him readding material which is contentious to a BLP against consensus clearly reached (he is the only one seeking to ad the dirt). Seems the clear warning shot across the bow was not going to affect this one. Collect (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I disinvited him from my talk page at so he decided to test the WP rules about this almost immediately at with a quite argumentative post. Since he had been clearly disinvited, I suggest that a major behavioural issue exists. Collect (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• One thing - your last diff is by User:Viriditas, not Screwball23. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Two very similar behaviour problems at one time gets confusing. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please refrain from making personal attacks against me again. I am in the process of documenting your ongoing incivility, talk page disruption, and edit warring for community review. I have enough diffs to deal with at this time, so please avoid giving me more work. For your recollection, Collect, you have previously been accused of being a "tendentious editor with a long history of edit warring and gaming the system/using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith." According to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Collect you said you would stop edit warring, however, your edit warring continues to this day on articles like Fox News Channel, as does your continued tendentiousness and assumptions of bad faith. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• - user notified - Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Several complaints have been brought to ANI about this editor in the past and he has been offered advice which he has chosen not to follow. I would recommend a block this time, since other approaches have proven ineffective. TFD (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support an editing restriction at this time, his repeated additions that all portray Linda McMahon as negatively as possible are clearly disruptive and against consensus at the articles and he is constantly being reverted and edit warring against multiple users. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Did'nt we have one of these archived (without action) only a couple of days ago?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was this ANI thread I think from seven days ago, same issues. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments pending; awaiting response from Jclemens to talk page post.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread had been marked "resolved" in all good faith, by user Jclemens. I requested that he revert that so I could appropriately add a comment here, and he very kindly did so. ( Thanks, Jclemens. )  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

New information

• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This section could have been just as approprately titled "User:Collect again". Screwball23 was appropriately blocked, but WP:BOOMERANG definitely applies here. Collect has also been a long-term edit warrior on the Linda McMahon articles and he merits a block for that, too.

The block that King of Hearts placed on Screwball23 for personal attacks and edit warring was very well-earned: I support that fully, and nothing that follows should be interpreted otherwise. But Screwball23 had no opportunity to respond here before he was blocked. If he had, a more complete picture of the events that led up to the filing of this report would have emerged and Collect would have been blocked for edit warring, as well.

I've been watching those events unfold since the end of August, and I'm very familiar with the three editors most involved: Collect, Screwball23, and FellGleaming, who's under present discussion elsewhere on this board, and who initiated the previous ANI post against Screwball23. I've never edited the Linda McMahon article where most of this started, btw, although I did edit Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010, once, a few days ago. I have, however, taken strong exception many times to the behavior of Collect and FellGleaming, both in forums like this one and on the talk pages for multiple articles, and have also criticized Screwball23 over the Linda McMahon articles, although to a lesser extent.

I can take the time to provide diffs, if necessary, although I'm really sick of this whole thing, and would prefer to spend my time more productively. But it should be pointed out that Collect and FellGleaming acted in a blatantly POV-driven way over a long period to remove everthing they could from the Linda McMahon articles that was unflattering to her, usually under the cover of BLP policy. I note, however, that despite their both having taken the matter to the BLP noticeboard, their allegations of BLP violations were rejected there as unfounded. One of the items that Collect edit-warred with Screwball23 to keep out the Linda McMahon article, for example, comprised indisputable evidence that McMahon had improperly interfered with a Federal investigation into her firm's involvement in promoting steroid use among its wrestlers. That was relevant, well-sourced, and our readers have the right to know of it.

Further, two completely completely uninvolved editors at the BLP noticeboard were highly critical of both Collect and Screwball23. User Macwhiz said he thought they both should walk away from Linda McMahon, and expressed surprise that an admin hadn't blocked them both. User Balloonman, after two hours of research, sided with Collect on the content dispute, but also stated his agreement with Macwhiz, saying, "But I have to agree with MacWhiz. This is almost getting to the point where a subject ban might be appropriate." These opinions are in concordance with my own: When I took the Linda McMahon article to Requests for Protection a couple of weeks ago to ask that it be fully-protected (it was) I did so not just because of Screwball23's edit warring over the article, but equally because of Collect's and FellGleaming's long-term warring.

I'll also note that Collect has a well-documented history of edit warring and tenditious editing in support of his political POV. The admin who closed his RFC/U for very similar behavior in May of last year, said:

"Given Collect's behaviour following the unblock, I'm restricting Collect to 0rr (no reverts or undo edits any kind) on all political articles and political BLPs for 6 months: He is free only to revert the most straightforward kinds of vandalism. If he makes a single revert to any political article or political BLP, I will block him from editing for at least two weeks... If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption."

Collect has claimed that the process that led to this outcome, and its related Arbcom request was compromised by socking and canvassing, and he says that the main proponent later apologized to him for initiating it. He appears to think the complaints were entirely unwarranted, the result of error or conspiracy on the part of other editors. That could be true; since he didn't provide any evidence for his claims I can't evaluate them. But I nevertheless will observe that someone probably has to work pretty hard to generate these kinds of comments from other editors. Similar complaints have been made in the past few days, btw, with respect to Collect's participation around the John Birch Society article, on that article's talk page.

I'd like to ask that an admin take a second look at the revision histories of the Linda McMahon articles. I believe it will be clear that Collect, helped by FellGleaming, was an enthusiastic participant in a long-term edit war with Screwball23. Coupled with nearly identical actions in the past, I think Collect also needs a block to make it clear to him that he can't continue this same behavior with impunity.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you will explain why you made this claim when I have, in fact, made very few edits to that article? The ill-formed RFCU had FOURTEEN people CANVASSED at the outset - and many of them have since been banned from WP. And whose originator apologized to me! Trying to raise it from the dead is inane at best. So lets look at the record: Linda McMahon I repeatedly used proper noticeboards for. Screwball23 did not use the noticeboards for outside opinions. Screwball has made over eight hundred edits, I have made 18, some of which were minor. On John Birch Society , I have made a grand total of 68 edits. On the Linda_McMahon_U.S._Senate_campaign 2010, I have made 26 edits. Screwball 186 edits. So as for edit warring - looks like we have the likely suspect in hand. What I do find disturbing is that you berated me for not notifyine Screwball<g>, but your message on my UT page only says you posted on this thread, and does not say you seek to bash me. As for me in any was co-operating with Fell Gleaming, our overlap is de minimis entirely on WP. 7 articles out of close to 2000. Aha -- you are just over 1000 edits and know about users with over 10,000 edits? Fewer than 100 article edits? Your own greatest contributions are to WP:AN and WP:ANI? About half of all your edits in the past month alone? A total overlap with me on two articles? Hamlet would notice. One solitary edit in 2007, then nothing until 2009? Half your edits in your own userspace or "minor"? And your ANI experience consists mainly of where you failed to notify the person you accused of being a sock <g>. Among a laundry list of other things. Ah yes - the person was not concealing any identity. Complaint dismissed. I suggest you get a bit more seasoned OS. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's how I "berated" you on your talk page in the new section I created there:

"I've added a comment. I don't know whether it's strictly required, but I'm informing you of it since the thread had previously been marked as "resolved" by another user. BTW, please remember to inform users when you comment about them there. I don't know whether Screwball32 might have seen your post if you'd done so, and thus have had time to respond before he was blocked, but it's possible."

Yeah, that's some wicked harsh berating, alright. I knew with absolute certainty, of course, that seeing this message from me you would revisit this thread. And I was right, of course. So if you're implying I was somehow trying to hoodwink you into not looking, well, we both know better, don't we? And re this, that you mention, you're the only person who has ever taken exception: I'm perfectly happy to have any user review that in detail. (Although I mentioned possible socking there in passing, because the new account - which I never identified - was obviously a very experienced user, you'll see if you read the post that the principal concern I had was COI-spam; it was eventually all deleted.)

As to your classic ad hominem response about our respective edit counts, well, I actually smiled to see that. I knew you'd respond that way:

"Collect has often answered worries about his behaviour by dwelling on the behaviour of other editors, instead of swaying his own behaviour,"

wrote administrator Gwen Gale in closing the RfC/U about you that you say someone apologized to you for starting. And if you think my referencing your old RfC/U about the same pattern of behavior was "inane at best" then you might like to remember that I would never have even known about it if you hadn't made a great point just two days ago of bringing up another user's RfC/U that took place around the same time as yours. Btw, if the RfC/U about you was as invalid as you're claiming, and your behavior was really just misconstrued or misunderstood by all your critics, then by all means link to the retractions you're mentioning. I'm not going to try to answer the rest of your criticisms about my contributions; I agree they're fairly humble, although I often take hours preparing or researching a single post. But even though you have the higher edit count I'd very much rather have my edit history here than yours.

I'll close by saying that all I'm asking is that an admin look at the revision histories of the Linda McMahon articles, and decide whether Collect, too, was edit warring. Admins are plenty smart enough to figure that out without a lot more discussion from either of us.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was just edit warring. I thin it was also repeated incivility and combative mentality that got screw blocked. If collect and Fell have demonstrated the same tendencies then they should also be blocked. I think we neecd to see difss showing edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a non-TLDR version of this with diffs, please? Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • OS is tickedsatisfied that Screwball23 gor blocked. He blames anyone who was at all involved in any way with the articles where SB23 was found to be incivil for this, and thus goes around looking at edits from everyone well over a year old. My own few edits on LM were done precisely in accord with the requirements of WP:BLP, as were edits made by an admin on the WWE history article. OS, to be sure, is a new editor by number of mainspace edits, though his edit pattern is puzzling at times. That basically summarizes this whole TLDR stuff <g>. Collect (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Please refrain from speculating about the emotions of other editors and assume good faith. Need I remind you of your long and sordid history of making personal attacks and assuming bad faith, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Collect? Does this need to go back to arbcom? Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Collect, please stop mindreading; you're not very good at it. As I said at the outset:

      "Screwball23 was appropriately blocked ... Collect has also been a long-term edit warrior on the Linda McMahon articles and he merits a block for that, too. The block ... was very well-earned: I support that fully, and nothing that follows should be interpreted otherwise."

      So in your own words exactly, when you objected to being called a "conservative" as a "personal attack", kindly do not assert that I hold an opinion which I do not have. I ask that you redact such claims. Thanks. The editor you addressed had the decency to do so, and I have every confidence that you do, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Short precis remedied. As I have not in any way "edit warred" on the LM article, I ask you redact that claim. Thank you. Collect (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of sanctions at WP:GS/BI

The area of the British Isles naming dispute is under probation as per WP:GS/BI. After numerous attempts, over a period of months, to get the message to User:Triton Rocker (who is serving a topic banned from making edits in this topic area) and User:LevenBoy (currently blocked for the second time for breaches of WP:CIVIL in the topic area) vis-a-vis appropriate conduct. For this reason I have decided to issue a six month civility parole (beginning at the time of their return form their current blocks) to both editors. I am taking this here for outside review.

For further reference this SSPI report alleging tat LevenBoy and Triton Rocker are socks - shows a high level of 'editing in concert' to make a point by these two editors as do their posts to my page. I believe there is a WP:TAG/WP:NINJA issue here.

In the last few weeks two long term sock-puppeteers have popped up once more. First User:Aatomic1 and in the last few days User:The Maiden City. These users are bringing there disruption from areas covered by 'The Troubles' RfAr resolutions to the British Isles naming dispute topic. Other sock-puppeteers such as User:MidnightBlueMan (aka User:Mister Flash) have been working in this topic area already. These users are both encouraging and involving themselves in disruption of both enforcement threads and the topic in general. In the light of this higher level of disruption I believe we need to adjust our remedies to deescalate this situation.

Therefore I am bringing this here as I wish to add the issuing of 3 lesser editing restrictions to the current probation system, and to add a full topic ban to the list of remedies at WP:GS/BI. The lesser restriction are as follows:

1. Civility Parole: a strict enforcement of WP:TPG, WP:EDITSUMMARY, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS.
2. Interaction bans: editors are banned from editing with, reverting (in any way), commenting upon or to, or in any other way interacting with a defined other user or users.
3. Revert parole: editors are restricted formally to 1RR in relation to all Britain, Ireland, the British Isles naming topics - with the exception of obvious vandalism and reverts of proven banned users.

All to be enforced by escalating blocks. (eg. 24 hours, 48 hours, 5 days, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year/indef) I'm suggesting we add these as discretionary sanctions for use before we jump to topic bans in the hope that said users will adjust their behaviour. I have already informed the patrolling admin, User:TFOWR, of this and they fully support these sanctions.

Also I'm suggesting we add "TB02: Topic banned from editing in naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, the British Isles naming topics widely construed. Banned from commenting upon or otherwise discussing this topic."

Finally I'm also suggesting we add time limits to all current and future restrictions. Triton Rockers current ban has no duration and is to best of my knowledge indefinite. I'd suggest we add 6 and 12 month periods to all restrictions and then go to indefinite if necessary.--Cailil 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

wording and time limits

• Strongly oppose time limits as these are a constant source of complication in these schemes; simpler to deal with restrictions which are explicitly lifted. What an admin can do, if he/she elects, is: spell out that in the event that he/she is not willing, able, or available to deal with an appeal, if x, y and z happens for t period of time, then that can be considered as that admin's approval for sanction to be lifted (eg; "If I'm not willing, able, or available to deal with an appeal of this sanction, then: I will approve for this sanction to be lifted if you do not violate your topic ban for six consecutive months. You may ask any uninvolved admin to lift this on my behalf in such circumstances."). The rest is ok. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, like TFOWR, I'm open to tweaking this. If time limits are a complication I'd be happy to remove them. In that event LB and TR would be placed on civility parole until lifted, and TR is serving TB01 until it is lifted--Cailil 09:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Also noting that the imposing admin's approval is all that is required for lifting the restrictions (community consensus only req if such approval does not exist). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Ncmv - I'll add that text when this is closed--Cailil 23:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) though you won't need to add that bit as it was part of the original probation terms I drafted/enacted; those details would still apply to these. What needs to be worked on + drafted, well-before this is closed, is what the log will say - and others need to have an idea of this. (Eg; the first line in the log says that TBs may be imposed on any user who add/removes, or editwars over x. So what are the circumstances upon which these other sanctions may be imposed? Disruption?) Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Right and I like how you've organized and phrased it. I'd suggest that we should have a "how to" for TB02, so that it should be used if disruption persists after other remedies (ie CP01, TB01, TB03, IB01) have failed to remedy the issue. Otherwise I think the new layout is clear and pretty self explanatory--Cailil 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Realizing I had actually not answered you. yes the lesser remedies should be used for specific disruption ie 1RR applied after multiple warnings to stop (what ever disruptive reverting relating to the topic - case specific) and a block related to this are ignored; civility parole for persistent incivility in edit-summaries comments or in arenas related to the topic (ie talk pages the BISE board, enforcement threads etc) after multiple warnings to stop and a block related to this are ignored; interaction bans to be imposed if hounding users or persistent incivility occurs or is evident over a prolonged period and has not improved.
TB01 and TB03 seem pretty self explanatory. If disruptive edits (ie addition of OR, misleading links, other disruption) and edit-warring, over names/titles/etc, to articles persist after a series of warnings and blocks and lesser remedies are not appropriate (or have failed to ameliorate the situation) TB03 should be used. If only edit-warring persists or is an issue TB01 should be applied.
If after either TB01 or TB03 are applied and incivility persists, and continues after further warnings and blocks are ignored then TB02 should be used. TB02 could be used if appropriate after a series or combination of lesser remedies (ie 1RR and CP01) have failed to de-escalate teh problem. But, as above, TB02 should only be a last resort--Cailil 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent)A more concise phrasing might be:

Topic bans should be used to prevent disruption where lesser remedies are inappropriate, ineffective, or have failed to ameliorate the situation. TB02 should be used only after either a series of lesser editing restrictions, or limited topic bans (TB01 or TB03) have failed to ameliorate the situation.
Lesser restrictions should be applied to remedy disruption, as appropriate, after a series of warnings and blocks have failed to de-escalate the situation.

--Cailil 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments re civility paroles

• In agreement with recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• In full agreement. --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. (For the record, Cailil had discussed this with me (section: "Time to adjust the sanctions") beforehand). I note Ncmvocalist's comment re: time limits, and am open to "tweaks" in that regard. I appreciate that time limits may cause procedural issues; however, I also quite like the idea, as indefinite limits seem - to me - to be a little excessive. TFOWR 08:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed and very much needed. Thanks for the clear and firm intervention - hopefully it will continue to assist a more thoughtful and intelligent approach to BI-related issues, which does appear to be developing sans the recent activity from the listed editors. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe the complaining admin could show us some diffs. I've been watching this from the sidelines. It seems that the complaining admin took exception to some reasonable comments on his talk page by LevenBoy. Together with other editors he has then been engaging in what appears to be a witch-hunt against LB and TR, as have others by raising SPIs, blocking these users, including a talk page block so LB can't even respond to this accusation. This is an extension of the battle between Irish nationalists and others on Misplaced Pages, where one party is trying to silence the other by this sort of thing. The complaining admin should recuse himself from this since he is from Ireland. LemonMonday Talk 12:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  The matter of these restrictions was raised and agreed at the last Triton Rocker ANi- and will be applied to any editor from any 'side' who repeatedly breaches WP:CIVIL.
  Ignoring the spurious accusation of collusion (a breach of WP:AGF on its own) for the moment, by conflating a person's country with their reasons for editing LemonMonday, your comment is in breach of WP:AGF. Basing an assumption of bad faith on an editor's race/gender/religion is not acceptable behaviour and I'm giving you the opportunity to redact that remark before the matter is escalated--Cailil 16:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well I resent your intimation that my suggestion of recusal on your part is in any way connected with race/gender/religion. It is a slur against my character of the most serious kind and I urge you to immediately withdraw it or I may have to escalate it. Think of it like this; if there's a rugby match between Ireland and England the referee would under no circumstances come from Ireland. If he did, and someone complained about it, they would not be admonished in the style of your astonishing accusation. Think of this whole issue as a kind of rugby match; it's certainly a conflict, so someone who identifies with one side of the conflict, however indirectly - as in your case - has no place to be refereeing it. LemonMonday Talk 17:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  This is not a rugby match, but if it were it would be one with multiple participating referees and 807 more watching from the sidelines. Every decision Cailil makes is visible; every block is subject to review if {{unblock}} is requested - and every review has been upheld by other admins. If this were a rugby match it would be unlike any I have ever seen.

  Nor is this a conflict or a democracy, where decisions are made based on strength of numbers. It is a consensus-based process. The apparent inability to understand this is tiresome, and is precisely why Cailil has, I believe, been forced to raise this latest proprosal. Until editors - yourself included, LemonMonday - understand that shouting loudly about other editors' nationality is absolutely not going to work, this process will be bogged down. I refuse to let that happen.

  Too many editors at WT:BISE believe that by shouting, socking, complaining, repeating the same irrelevancies, attacking, or otherwise playing in a team of one - too many editors are wasting too much time. It's pissed off the community, it's pissed off too many admins, and it's pissed off me. Well, here's where the push-back happens. Here's where things get put back on track. Here's where the idiots who want to piss about learn that their silly little games are over, and they need to find somewhere else to play. TFOWR 17:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  I couldn't have said it better TFOWR. LM this your last opportunity to redact rhetoric conflating nationality and bad faith. Further off-topic or otherwise inappropriate use of the talkspace will be prevented--Cailil 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  A quick way to see some examples would be to go through the history of WT:BISE - any edit I've made with the word "snip" in the edit summary will show an example of civil or NPA problems. TFOWR 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Here's one recent example. I've chosen one from an editor who's now indef'd as a sock, though obviously this proposal is intended to cover all current editors, not blocked socks. TFOWR 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I also agreed with this and appreciate the effort made by Caili and TFOW in this area. Bjmullan (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments re expanded sanctions

• In agreement with recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• In full agreement. The community needs to recognize the disruptive editors and take firm action, and allow editors wishing to collaborate to get on with it. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed (with my caveat, above). TFOWR 08:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As ever, easy and simplistic notions of what civility and good wiki-behaviour is and is not, are being used as a stick with which to tactically eliminate opposition in a highly contentious area of dispute in a very dubious and little watched side-venue, the conduct of which should have gone to arbitration long ago. Anyone who claims that BISE produces legitimate examples of cluefull CONSENSUS wrt to things like NPOV needs to have a serious word with themselves. Civility is not just about not being rude or edit warring, it is about preventing gaming, tendentious editing, and systematic POV-pushing, and generally not being an uber-tactical rules savvy WP:DICK. Unless or until there is some evidence that that page and this ongoing and never-ending dispute is being oversighted with all of that in mind, and topic bans are actually being applied to those who are doing the real harm to the pedia while maybe not being so dumb as to say boo to a goose or break 3RR, then this 'push back' should absolutely not be tolerated as a meaningfull act. Maybe we should just get BISE and all of it's obsessive participants to arbcom already. It is high time that the people who are paid to consider all behaviours against all policies, not just the easy to enforce ones, got involved. I have stayed away from BISE for a while, but I can guarantee if I looked in right now, I would be able to pick at least five classic unactioned examples of WP:TE in the last week or two, and I am not talking about the low-hanging fruit from the naughty kids, I am talking about the serious stuff, the stuff that actually makes this pedia a wholly non-neutral and agenda pushing vehicle for what can only be described as a concerted exercise in social engineering. Infact, shit, I will probably get one of these topic bans myself for daring to utter these words, and I am just an observer to these edits, that's how back to front this entire dispute is getting. MickMacNee (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you have 5 examples of tendentiousness show me please (I'm serious). But please remember this and other enforcement threads are not a soapbox--Cailil 13:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Misplaced Pages is plenty big enough for troublesome editors to find outlets for their talent away from areas where it has been shown that their editing is problematic. The alternative is to completely exclude them from the project. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. My only concern is that blocked/ban editors need to be made fully aware of what restriction are placed on them and they need to acknowledge that they understand it. I know that in the past TR has pleaded ignorance when he did something wrong. Bjmullan (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:SluggoOne not allowing me to assist a new user who needs help; keeps reverting me

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

{{resolved|Bad edits r dumb blocked for disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolving this; there is strong consensus for removal of this user's tools. The discussion is not over just because the thread starter was a troll.— Dædαlus 08:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

{{unresolved|Tool abuse is apparent; there appears to be consensus for their removal. An uninvolved admin needs to review the thread and act. It may have been created by a now indef'd troll, but the abuse remains apparent.— Dædαlus 08:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)}}

This is so mind-jarringly simple and clear-cut that I can't believe I am soliciting opinions on AN/I.

• As her very first edit, new user Darya Gorbatyuk posted a general knowledge question on her talk page.

• Before I could welcome her and assist with her question, SluggoOne deleted her question with a terse edit summary

• I scolded SluggoOne for his rudeness (via edit summary) and restored her question and attempted to assist her and welcome her to Misplaced Pages.

• SluggoOne reverted me

• Scarcely believing what I was seeing, I reverted SluggoOne and scolded him on his talk page

• SluggoOne reverted my attempt to assist the new user AGAIN, using rollback

Could some one please give this poor new editor a hand? Apparently, the appallingly rude SluggoOne has some sort of problem with my assisting her.

The only reason I brought it here is that don't want to violate the 3RR rule. I strongly feel this user should be welcomed.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad edits r dumb has, per MuZemike, engaged in sockpuppeting, which is a blatant violation of core Misplaced Pages policies. My first edit was over five years ago; since, I have never been blocked. Unlike Bad edits r dumb, whose "first" edit was fewer than two weeks ago, I have never been blocked from editing. I wait with baited breath for this bored troll to get the boot. Şłџğģő 08:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What in the world does your block record or my use of an alternate account have to do with your inexcusable rudeness toward a new user?--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

SluggoOne - Your actions were still incorrect in this situation, regardless of any previous or future block of this user. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I'm replying to you is because, if I recall correctly, I've encountered you before and you came off okay. I have no idea who Huntster is, and Bad edits is a troll, so neither is getting attention from me.

My point is, since nobody seems to have picked up on it, is that, per this edit summary and several other violations of policy, I believe the reporting user is a sockpuppet who is throwing a fit for no good reason. That you and Huntster missed the fact that you're dealing with a bored troll makes me a little unwell.

This all started here, with this guy claiming, apropos of nothing, that my edit indicated I'd bitten a newcomer. According to Huntster, nothing of the sort ever happened. That the newcomer got rescued by the bored troll Bad edits r dumb is getting ignored. Sadly and predictably, the newcomer has, like so many other editors to English Misplaced Pages who aren't good English speakers, vanished. What is the issue here? Şłџğģő 08:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the user has vanished after what happened on their talk page? Your rudeness is a bit much as well, stop calling people trolls. mark nutley (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be this guy, but if the user was going to edit so badly, per WP:COMPETENCE, it's for the better that they disappeared. English Misplaced Pages is crippled by legions of articles on various foreign locales that are written in similarly broken English. Also: User:Bad_edits_r_dumb is a troll who needs to be blocked. Call a spade a spade in this case, would you? Are people bothering to click on links here? Or are we, for whatever reason, assuming good faith on a guy who's already failed (so to speak) a Checkuser? Şłџğģő 09:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Replied on Sluggo's talk page. Basically, in this situation, Bad edit's history is irrelevant. He was trying to help someone (unless I'm missing something here), and Sluggo slapped him down. This is not acceptable. To both parties, please stop baiting each other, otherwise the heat to light ratio here is going to get seriously unbalanced. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and I will not engage Sluggo any further (I was admittedly very harsh when I scolded him). I do, however, feel that someone (if not me) should welcome the new user and try to help her out.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad edit your right to greet new users, but unfortunately since you seem to have got into hot water at the moment, I agree with your proposal, wait until your in the clear. On the point of Sluggo I concer he reverted me when I was helping out a newish user who was getting upset, and called me impatient in his edit summary--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a welcome template to the top of her page, and you've done about as much as can be done with regard to her question. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I make it a point to never edit unless I can back up what I did. Here's Lerd's edit, which was indisputably BITE-y and abrupt; my edit, which came so close to Lerd's it was almost an edit conflict, was far, far more polite and welcoming. But hey. Lerd "concers" that I bite the newcomers. Şłџğģő 09:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How was my edit BITEY? I posted a message to help wtf09, you posted another friendly message helping him using the welcome template then you deleted mine calling me impatient why did you have to do that? I don't want to start an argument but you shouldn't have deleted my post with a snippy comment like that--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You told the editor his article was "deleted as spam." The word "spam" has tons and tons of negative connotations; I would support removing it from all these templates because it's so mean.

"Impatient" was "snippy?" I disagree. If I recall correctly, and there's a good chance I do not, I used "impatient" instead of my first choice, "BITE-y." I'm willing to step back from my claim your words were BITE-y. I think you approached it like the editor had a thick skin, which you (or I) can't know to be true. The welcome template is far more gentle than calling something "spam." If you're really, really bored, you can look through my edit history regarding this stuff. I almost never call anything spam. Şłџğģő 09:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

While WP:BITE is only a guideline, it is quite clear that it has been violated. Also WP:NPA for calling another editor a "bored troll" appears to be on point. Lastly, use of alternative accounts is not "sockpuppeting" - the user appears to have operated properly in that regatrd, and accusing such a user is quite bad form. Now we have violations "right here in River City" of multiple personal attacks and clear violation of WP:BITE. I suggest that this be clearly noted. Collect (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you even look at the thread on Bad edits r dumb above? If you didn't, then I don't think you can claim he has "operated properly in that regard". Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(-indent, reply to SluggoOne) I'm sorry if article deleted as spam came across as rude to Wtf09 but I was telling him why it was deleted so he knows what can and cant go into wikipedia, he asked why it was deleted i told him why and gave him some advice, you deleted my comment which is against the talkpage rule, you shouldn't have done that unless it was a blatant personal attack--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cameron. Regardless of how inexperienced BErD is, what you did was wrong. Buggie111 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Bad edits r dumb's past history has absolutely nothing to do with this report, Sluggo, and I would advise that you stop deprecating him/her. It seems quite clear to me that your removal of a good-faith question from a new user was, most definitely, bitey toward them. Bad edits r dumb reverted it and posted a helpful response to them. At that point, you should have left the situation alone, as another user was taking care of it and it wasn't your problem anymore. However, you then started a revert war over the issue, using Twinkle no less, clearly violating WP:TPO more than once. I do believe that some action needs to be taken here. Silverseren 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per my comment below, I think Sluggo1's actions were unacceptable. Even if, hypothetically, the new user's question was so horribly out-of-bounds as to merit immediate removal, on what planet is "not how that works" a response that is in any way helpful to the new user? My word, even our assuming-bad-faith vandalism warnings are more insightful, and I'm surprised that sluggo1 did not tag the user's page with such a warning. On the point of Twinkle, access has been removed for far more innocuous uses in the past, and I'd support the removal of Twinkle access in this case. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary and proposal

I first encountered User:SluggoOne in a dispute over whether an article was or was not advertising subject to speedy deletion. (I was not the first editor to do so that day, either.) In the course of our "discussion", SluggoOne invoked Jesus and extended the invitation "eat me" .

I thought SluggoOne merely needed to hear from a third party that his/her tact needed an adjustment, and was simply going to take my concerns to the incivility noticeboard, but then I noticed this thread.

Though I loathe to repeat, I want to place here the detail that may be needed to take durable action against SluggoOne.

User:Darya Gorbatyuk's very first edit on Misplaced Pages was a post to her user talk page: "Darya Gorbatyuk (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)i have a question "what are some of the sumerian names they had in mesopotamia?"

SluggoOne decided to respond by reverting Darya Gorbatyuk's edit with the edit summary: "Not how that works".

User:Bad edits r dumb apparently noticed this and restored Darya Gorbatyuk's edit, and then answered the question by kindly letting the user know that the user talk page isn't the best place for the question and referring the user to one of the reference desks. .

SluggoOne then returned and reverted both Darya Gorbatyuk's question and Bad edits r dumb's answer, with the edit summary, "I deleted it, because that's not how WP works." Bad edits r dumb then restored the question and answer, and SluggoOne actually deleted it a second time! User:Cameron Scott intervened to restore the question and answer a second time.

When Bad edits r dumb complained on SluggoOne's talk page , SluggoOne called the post "crap" and proceeded to personally attack Bad edits r dumb by bringing up Bad edits r dumb's block record. . The rest of the talk page thread, in all its rudeness, it there for all to see.

My own encounter with SluggoOne proves to me that SluggoOne's rudeness and incivility permeates the entirety of SluggoOne's conduct on Misplaced Pages, that SluggoOne fully intends to ignore policy and guidelines (including those on criteria for speedy deletion, user talk pages, talk refactoring, biting newcomers, and civility), that this user has shown no interest in correcting this behavior (even here, the personal attacks in an attempt to undercut the credibility of the reporting user have not ceased), and that, in my opinion, Misplaced Pages would be much better off without this user.

I think the appropriate action would be a block of at least one month, during which SluggoOne can take the time to read all the policies and guidelines SluggoOne now ignores, and SluggoOne can reevaluate how he/she may contribute harmoniously and constructively on Misplaced Pages. --Bsherr (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If one disagreed with Sluggo1's edit the correct action would have been to explain one's disagreement on his talk page rather than reverse his edit with a disparaging comment. One could also provide advice to the new editor on their talk page without re-instating the question. Whether or not Sluggo1 was correct to reverse the original comment is a judgment call, and therefore I would close this discussion thread without further action. TFD (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware such a revert was permissible. Could you identify in policy or guidelines where such a revert is permitted, please? --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How did the new user's question violate talk page guidelines? And if it did not, then Sluggo's removal violated WP:TPO. Silverseren 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think Sluggo1's conduct in this matter has been appalling, and if there were an obvious edit restriction that would prevent it from happening again, I'd be all for it. But a block is too much in this case; it would not solve the problem, and would largely be punitive. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would at least take away SluggoOne's rollback permission. HalfShadow 16:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the block as of now, But Yes with the removing the rollback.--intelati 16:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• You can disregard my input if u want to, because I am an involved party (and apparently a "bored troll" according to Sluggo), but for what its worth I do not think blocking SluggoOne would be helpful at this stage. I do fully support removing rollback rights from this user. If he continues to abuse Twinkle, u should remove that as well, but this is just my opinion.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block, Support rollback removal I don't think this is egregarious enough for a block to be necessary, but I do believe that the user's use of rollback was not within the perview of that tool and, thus, the user should not have access to the tool any longer. Silverseren 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all draconian punishments. Suggest loss of Twinkle and rollback, as a "warning shot" should work. Collect (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support taking away rollback and Twinkle. Reyk _YO! 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• half oppose a month is too long. A week is better. He's very combative and not working well with the community right now. his response on his talk page to the last two comments made to him there on this issue show that. His behaviour was completely inappropriate. In addition he marked his initial revert minor, blanking someone's talk page isn't minor. People have conversations and ask each other all kinds of non-directly wikipedia stuff all the time via talk page. There is absolutely no reason why this user whose only edit was to their talk page should have had their question blanked with no explanation. I still haven't seen anything cited by him or anyone else that shows his edit was appropriate. We really don't him interacting with new users if that is going to be how he is going to carry on.--Crossmr (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support I absolutely cannot see how a longtime user like Sluggo could think what he did was acceptable in the slightest. Access Denied  00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • ADDENDUM: These seem like definite personal attacks. Access Denied  00:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Shameless bitey behaviour towards a novice user, seemingly for no reason? Attacking the person who reported it rather than discussing the problem? Harsh tones elsewhere? Not good. But I doubt that a block is the best solution here and now. bobrayner (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Slightly different proposal

(edit conflict)Everything here has been plainly outlined, so I don't think I really need to repeat it, but I will try if I need to(eg, request it or something).

To the point, per Sluggo's abuse of TWINKLE and rollback, which is only supposed to be used for blatant vandalism(in regards to rollback, just to be clear) is out of line. To that end, my proposal is that both tools(TWINKLE and rollback) be removed, and Sluggo warned against similar edits in the future by an admin. By now, the edits are past, and the new user has been welcomed, however the abuse of the tools is still apparent, and until they can see why their edits were wrong, I am not comfortable in them having them.— Dædαlus 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer, of course.— Dædαlus 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yes--intelati 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support- see my vote for the other proposal above. Reyk _YO! 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Silverseren 23:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Concur, both tools need to be removed. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 00:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As a reasonable intermediate proposal, but would prefer in addition to a block, as above. --Bsherr (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - per rationale of Daedalus969 and rationale in objections raised in earlier proposal. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 05:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• half support If he isn't acknowledging the behaviour and indicating that it won't be repeated, then he needs to be blocked to prevent further disruption. If he still believes his behaviour is justified then there is an open threat of continued disruption. A block is required.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support A much better solution than the block proposal. What was done does not really merit a block and as of now, removal of rollback due to abuse would be enough. He hasn't continued the reversions now, has he? Bejinhan talks 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - contrary to the statement above, it seems from SluggoOne's edit summaries that rollback was not used, since rollback does not allow edit summaries. (At least that is my understanding). TFD (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, rollback was not used when SluggoOne deleted Darya's comment initially, but rollback was used when he reverted Bad edits r Dumb (i.e., ME) when he re-blanked the page.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can rollback the first edit to a page, can you? What would you be reverting it to? So, it was impossible to rollback Darya's question on the talk page. Silverseren 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant; the user clearly used rollback to rollback something that was not blatant vandalism. Also, what you say is indeed impossible; the link is blacked out and is non-clickable.— Dædαlus 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as surely not draconian. Warranted. Collect (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sluggo simply can't get along with users, i've applogised for my post on wtf09's page, and intend to use welcome tags from now on, Sluggo however seems to have come to blows with several editors over welcoming new users, including Bad edits and me--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

False accusations

After I tried to redirect Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album), User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz undid the redirect and said my edit summary was "misleading." I then nominated the article for deletion with a rationale of "no sources found except Allmusic," and his response was to call me out for a "disruptive nomination" and that I didn't have a valid reasoning. This is not the first time he's falsely accused me of bad faith; when I redirected the Big Time Rush discography, he undid my redirect at least twice and said that I needed to discuss it — and when I told him that I didn't feel a need for discussion because it was a 100% duplicate of the parent article, I got the silent treatment. What's more, I withdrew Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Reggie_Young and closed it, and he reverted my closure as "inappropriate" for no reason.

It's clear that Hullaballoo has some sort of grudge against me, and is insanely dismissive when I try to ask him why he keeps making such asinine accusations. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 21:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other instances of HW and you disagreeing on articles on similar subjects? I am just trying to see if there is any pattern, and not prejudging any reply, and seeing if a voluntary interaction ban might be an agreeable solution? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, just the Marty Stuart album, Big Time Rush discography and Reggie Young. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to drop an ANI notice on them - I would like to hear their side of the story, in case an agreement to not get into each others hair will resolve this. If there are other issues or a voluntary arrangement is impossible, then I suppose the community might have to discuss how to resolve it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how else I can get through to him; he reverts or ignores me every time I try to say something on his talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have dropped the notice on them. Let us see what happens. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per these comments between HW and me, I think we should wait to see what responses there are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen such a bizarre, and slightly Byzantine, attempt to game the system as this complaint. TPH has been posting uncivil, borderline profane tirades (other users have recently described similar TPH comments as "tantrums") to my talk page and elsewhere, for the last week or so, on most occasions where we're on opposite sides in editing disputes. As is the acceted practice of many experienced editors, I generally ignore such comments, especially when they ask for nothing more than the same information I already set out in the edit summaries, comments, discussions, or whatever that such posts respond to. No editor in this project has an obligation to respond to comments like "What the hell is your problem?", "answer the damn question," or "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?!" (caps in original).

In the immediate dispute, TPH responded to statements I made in opposition to an AFD he started by making an uncivil post to my talk page (which I deleted) and striking my post from the AFD with the inflammatory comment Struck out as blatantly false accusations of bad faith. Bawwwwwwwww. TPH then vandalized the article involved, removing the wikilink to the page on the music label involved, apparently to buttress his spurious claim that the label was not notable. (I had recently corrected the link, which had earlier pointed to a dab page rather than directly to the label's page.) I reverted TPH's edits. It might well have been better for me to have left TPH's inflammatory comment in place, but in the moment I viewed it as the sort of pure vandalism that I'd seen removed from other AFD discussions.

TPH continued to make uncivil posts to my take page, but continued to ignore the substantive issues in the underlying dispute, so my response did not change. Finally, TPH posted his complaint here. He then placed an ANI notice on my talk page, but immediately removed it, replacing it with what appeared to be an apology for his earlier posts, characterizing them as his being bitchy.

TPH then returned to ANI, continuing to press his complaints, rather disingenuously avoiding mentioning his apparent apology and his removal of the ANI notice from my talk page. Having left the impression on my talk page that he was letting most of the conflict drop, he simultaneously complained here that I was not engaging in the conflict. I've never seen anything like this in WP dispute resolution, whether in complaints from experienced or inexperienced users.

With regard to the particular matters TPH raises:

• My comments in the Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album) AFD are self-explanatory, and their accuracy is easily verified. As is made even clearer from other users' comments in the AFD, TPH's claims that no sources could be located were false. In particular, TPH's claim that AllMusic provides only "a one-sentence summary" is conspicuously untrue . It's also rather curious that TPH applies a rather different deletion standard when it comes to other articles; in the current AFD for "Hello Mannequin," he argues that the subject is notable because it was "released by a notable act on a blue link label," precisely the standard he rejects here.

• The Reggie Young AFD is a simple matter. TPH initially performed a substantive AFD close on an AFD which he initiated (and in which I participated), with a dubious rationale that did not accurately reflect consensus. After my objection, he reclosed it as a simple withdrawn-by-nominator, which addressed my objection.

• The Big Time Rush discography question is equally simple. The exact resolution of the matter is not terribly important, but a collaborative project is always better served in cases like this when such matters are resolved by discussions with the editors actively working on the articles, rather than by a drive-by editor who pronounces "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer." Let them decide whether the discography should be merged, of if similar content be removed from the artist article.

TPH's account of our interactions is grossly incomplete and misleading. As I recall, the first time we crossed swords was in , where multiple users characterized TPH's actions as inappropriate/disruptive, a theme that is hardly unique to me. In more recent disputes, I was one of several users who criticized TPH's edit warring, with misleading edit summaries, over a large set contested redirects. In , I criticized TPH's apparently spurious claim that certain claims ogf notability could not be verified.

In fact, TPH's recent history regarding AFDs and redirects shows other clear incidences of dubious if not disruptive behavior. For example:

• TPH nominated Trey Bruce for deletion after removing the (imperfectly) sourced claim that Bruce had won a songwriting Emmy Award from the article; he avoided mentioning that claim in his nomination. His rationale was "doubt it won HIM an emmy,those don't go to songs." The claim was, of course, easy to verify, and there is at least one Emmy Award given annually to a songwriter for his/her song. TPH made no effort to edit responsibly on this point.

• TPH redirected Robb Royer to Bread (band), asserting the songwriter had no notability outside the band. In fact, as the relevant articles clearly state, Royer had won an Academy Award for Best Song. This situation is particularly problematic; while TPH typically removes all backlinks to redirected articles (itself a practice of dubious value), he stopped removing such links to this article at about the point where he would have reached the relevant Academy Award article, an indication that he recognized the inaccuracy of his lack of notability claim but was unwilling to correct himself. Instead, he apparently opted not to remove backlinks, when removal would highlight the incorrectness of his action.

• Without discussion or notability tagging, TPH summarily redirected award-winning or award-nominated episodes of CSI, including "A Bullet Runs Through It" (Edgar Award nominee); "For Warrick" (Emmy nominee); "Gum Drops" (Emmy winner, inexplicably redirected to the candy rather than the relevant episode list) ; "Blood Drops" (WGA award nominee); and many more. TPH's s actions here and in similar redirection controversies also violated the Arbitration Committee's "Episodes and characters 2" decision, particularly with regard to the "Fait accompli" principle.

TPH's talk page shows that, in the last few weeks, his editing practices have been criticized by a significant number of editors and administrators. For example:

• Sept 9; two editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for a grossly inappropriate edit summary

• Sept 9; two different editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for uncivil/insulting edit summary(ies) [http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Longhorns_.26_Londonbridges

• Sept 18; multiple editors criticize TPH for systematic redirects of a large set of articles without following procedures established by consensus

• Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for misusing TWINKLE by leaving explanation field empty

• Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for edit warring without discussion over disputed redirects

• Sept 18; two admins cite TPH for "multiple abuses of rollback and Twinkle in content disputes" and threaten him with loss of TW and rollback and possible blocking if abuses recur

• Sept 19; admin warns TPH over disruptive editing, stating that "multiple editors are expressing concerns about your recent editing practices." TPH responds by commenting, inter alia, "Have we all gone stupid or something?" and "Being civil hasn't been any more effective, so what do I lose if I scream?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Concerns

• Sept 21; called out for referring to another editor as "Douchey McNitPick" in edit summaries

• Sept 21; another editor criticizes TPH for "an enormous number" of uncivil comments in edit summaries

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• • It seems to me that things might be easier if you two didn't interact - not really too interested in laying blame on one party or the other. If TPH makes a CSD which HW thinks is wrong, why not assume that any other editor will notice and let them contest it and TPH agree not to go to HW's talkpage or engage with HW if they do oppose a CSD - let other parties see if there are any issues? If both parties voluntarily disengage then all these issues become moot, surely. Is this something the two of you can agree to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That simply limits me and leaves TPH free to continue the inappropriate editing I and other editors have been objecting to. Why not tell TPH to stop redirecting articles, nominating articles for deletion,and removing content and tags from articles, on the same principle that other editors will notice and deal with? That will stop most of the unpleasant interactions between TPH and far more editors than me? What you suggest isn't a compromise; it simply gives TPH what he wants, but doesn't deserve; while offering me something of no value. Not that individual interest should govern at the expense of the encyclopedia. Fundamentally, I don't see how the issue I raised which brought TPH here -- TPH's frequently making objectively false claims to promote article deletion -- would "become moot" if I were to stop bringing it up. It would just be a minor league, no, Little League "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I was considering it a matter between the two of you - certainly TPH initial post was only in regard with issues between the two of you. If you consider TPH's editing inappropriate then surely someone else will take up the issues? If TPH thinks your actions are inappropriate, then wouldn't other people be asking questions at your talkpage? My point is, whoever is right then surely the two of you cannot be the only one(s) who know it. Why not withdraw personally from interacting with each other and allow third parties to continue the discussions. Otherwise, unless you are happy to have a possible imposed interaction ban after a discussion here, why not certify a RfC together and see who the community believes to be working best to policy? ANI is not for dispute resolution, and it appears that the behavioural issues are based on disagreements over content in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument here in the slightest. When did "Let somebody else do the dirty work" become policy? One of the few things that's become absolutely clear to me about Misplaced Pages is that there are far too few editors working on important tasks compared to the workload involved, and that dropping one of those tasks means, most likely, that no one else will pick it up. I've just finished a sweep of several weeks through just one category of nonfree images, removing scores and scores of unlicensed, NFCC-violating images from BLPs. The majority had been sitting around for well over a year. I've purged hundreds and hundreds of "references" to Misplaced Pages mirrors, most of which were equally long-standing. The idea that the supply of editors available to clean up on-Misplaced Pages messes will always meet the demand for cleanup is Pollyannish at best. The idea that "surely" someone will come forward is hardly sound. Please note that I am the fourth editor in barely a week to find that editing disputes with TPH lead to a messy incident; he's particularly annoyed about me because when I take the point in a dispute, "my" position is more often supported by the community than "his." With policy and the community "on my side," to grossly simplify matters, it would be irresponsible for me to disengage. TPH shows no interest in disengaging; earlier today, he stuck a gratuitous and uncivil personal attack on into an AFD nomination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue, as presented here, is the interactions between the two of you - and I am trying to suggest a simple solution; stop interacting. I am generally familiar with both of you editors, and neither of you are regarded as noxious or otherwise poor contributors. As for the polciy which allows other people to take over regarding issues or concerns, I cannot recall its name but the principle is "It's a wiki; anyone can edit - no one is required to". I suggest that if you don't voluntarily agree to leave each other alone, then I will start one of those poll things here to see if there is consensus to stop the two of you interacting - same result, but it is taken out of your hands. OR. You could both agree to start an RfC over the issue in contention, and find who has consensus. Either way, this is ultimately a content dispute which ANI cannot resolve - except to stop it by keeping the two of you apart. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

After thinking upon this further, and because I don't like "crowd sourcing" bans, blocks and restrictions, I can also offer a couple more alternatives. To resolve the dispute, you could try asking for a third opinion on the matter, or to resolve the issues between you there is the option of asking for WP:Mediation, or even both. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Dear reader, this is a Wiki - if you have any suggestion or comment, even if it is the reverse of what I have been suggesting, please feel free to do so - it may be that your input is what resolves this issue. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Easy enough for me to keep from crossing paths with HW anymore; if we do, 3rd opinion. No need to drag this out any further, consider it resolved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Deleted From Talk Page

BigK HeX has on several occasions deleted and/or hid my comments on the Libertarianism talk page. My comments, none of which violated the talk page guidelines...WP:TPO, were all in good faith but BigK HeX removed them because he does not agree with my viewpoint. The reasons he ostensibly gave were that my comments violate the "not a forum" rule and/or the "original research" rule. The "not a forum" rule was not relevant because my comments were all geared towards facilitating and focusing discussion. The "original research" rule was not relevant because I clearly specified that my original research was not intended to be used in the article itself but was merely to help editors visualize the topic.

Here's the list of instances...

• First he moved this diagram I created to my talk page... Scope of Government
• He then hid this comment...Request for Critical Thinking using the "not a forum" justification.
• I reposted the same comment with clarification as to its significance towards improving the article...Improving This Article. He moved both over to my talk page
• On my next comment...Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal...I specifically warned him not to remove my comment..."BigK HeX, or any other editors who disagree with my point, let me forewarn you that if you hide or move this section to my talk page...a sufficiently clear pattern will be established and I will definitely report the incident." He did not remove that comment.
• Today he deleted my comment Political Ideology Diagram with the justification that "original research" was not allowed.

Deleting somebody's comments just because you disagree with their viewpoint is highly disruptive and unacceptable behavior. It's exactly these types of cheap tactics which help put BlueRobe's "Incivility" in context. Just to be clear...my viewpoint is based on numerous reliable sources that indicate that libertarians do not advocate abolishing the government...scope of government. Xerographica (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been a lot of soapboxing on Talk:Libertarian which has been preventing progress on the article. Much of it has come from Xerographica. Most of it involves attempting to argue from personal opinion or from generalities without any sources whatsoever and as such it's been a big time waster for all concerned. I approve of BigK HeX's actions in this regard, none of the discussions he moved or hid had any chance whatsover of being productive discussions with respect to improving the article. Yworo (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX did not remove your comments because he disagrees with you but because they are soapboxing, which is disruptive editing. While you are entitled to your opinions, talk pages are not here for that. You should restrict yourself to discussion of improvements to the article using reliable sources and referring to WP policies/guidelines. I would recommend your being blocked in order to prevent this continuing disruption. See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Soapboxing discussion thread already set up about this. 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Constant accusations of "soapboxing" also help put BlueRobe's "incivility" in context. Regarding the accusations of "personal opinions" and "without any sources whatsoever"...those accusations are fundamentally untrue as I specifically mentioned that my viewpoint is based on numerous reliable sources...scope of government. --Xerographica (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am an involved editor at Libertarianism. Xerographica has been soapboxing consistently; examine the provided links for reliable sources supporting the material posted. This makes it difficult to respond to Xerographica's relevant editorial commentary; as, the effect of soapboxing a political article with personal political views is highly disruptive. While the page disruption is a problem, it is less of a problem if it is shutdown immediately after it starts. Removing soapboxing to User talk: was a good thing. It was the right thing to be done. Xerographica should refrain from presenting original research and personal political opinion on Talk:Libertarianism as it is disruptive. However, BigK HeX is too passionately involved in editing Libertarianism for the "seen to be done" component of "done and seen to be done." The editorial and content disagreements between BigK HeX and Xerographica are current, and, as such BigK HeX should let other editors remove OR and soapboxing to user talk pages when it occurs. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again with the "soapboxing" and "personal opinions". This is another perfect example of the context of BlueRobe's "incivility". My viewpoint is supported by numerous reliable sources...scope of government. Just because you disagree with my viewpoint is no justification whatsoever to delete my comments from the talk page. Xerographica (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The link you claim demonstrates reliable sources is no such thing. The lack of publisher, dates, and page ranges makes both the verification of reliability and verifiability of your quotes impossible. I do disagree with your editorial view. I have never removed any of your commentary from the page. My desired outcome here is that you cease posting in a disruptive manner; and, post your editorial comments about improving the article in a constructive manner. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if we had uninvolved editors still quickly clamping down on the WP:OR and soapboxing. However, in the absence of such, something has to be done about (what is, in my opinion) blatant disruption on the talkpage. In order to stick to productive lines of discussion, I'm willing to be that person, and, consequently am willing to have my actions subjected to the scrutiny. Aside from the roughly 5 editors that engage in the soapboxing on that talk page, I'm confident that everyone familiar with that situation would agree that the OR is adding loads of unnecessary trouble at an already-contentious area. BigK HeX (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's certainly big of you to offer to delete comments that you disagree with. Xerographica (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I stated my intention to delete soapboxing and blatant WP:OR. Being that I am putting myself up for scrutiny which -- if unjustified -- would surely be blockable, I do consider my decision as something of a sacrifice. BigK HeX (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Later today, I plan to defend my actions more fully. BigK HeX (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In Xerographica's first example of material removed he wrote, "To try and facilitate visualization of the debate in terms of the scope of government, I created a bell curve diagram. For those of you that tend to get original research confused with critical thinking...this diagram is a good example of actual original research" (my emphasis). The next section hidden was "Request for Critical Thinking". It is all original research and disruptive. TFD (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please specify the policy that states that original research is not allowed on the talk page. Xerographica (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

From: WP:SOAP:

This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages.

You have been politely told you're pushing too far with your behavior there. Let me give you an uninvolved admin's viewpoint: You are just about at your last warning, on pushing that hard there. If you keep going, it's blockable behavior.

Please step back and work collaboratively with the other editors there. Avoid Soapboxing or other advocacy activity on Misplaced Pages. It's not here for that purpose.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you misunderstand my question or are you saying that original research is the same thing as soapboxing? If you're accusing me of soapboxing it would be very helpful if you could please offer some specific comments of mine which you would consider to be "soapboxing". Given that all of my comments have been based on numerous reliable sources...it's very very unclear what is meant by "soapboxing". Xerographica (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked a set of leading questions, including the gloriously inappropriate comment:

"According to WP:NOT#FORUM, talk pages are for discussing how to resolve problems with articles. The problem with this article is that certain editors lack critical thinking skills. To solve this problem, we first need to identify which editors fall into this category. Therefore, all the editors of this article should answer the following questions..."

The combination effect you're having is clearly advocating a point of view. You're doing that disruptively. The questions you asked were soapboxing. The article edits and talk page edits of late are soapboxing. The question you asked is across the no personal attacks policy border.

You're pushing too hard. You're pushing yourself into the corner. The way out of that corner is via being blocked. Whether you chose to keep pushing or simply relax and participate in a more acceptable manner is up to you.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither my "leading questions" nor my "gloriously inappropriate comment" were in violation of any wikipedia policy. My comment was obviously impersonal and I specified how it was relevant to the content. Also, how can questions be considered "soapboxing"? Seriously? Yeah, obviously I'm advocating a POV...the same POV as Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises...names that probably mean nothing to you given how you viewed my questions as "soapboxing". Naw, I'll keep pushing their POVs to try and balance out how hard the anarchist majority have been pushing the POVs of Chomsky and Rothbard. If you want to block me for trying to correct the balance of a clearly unbalanced article then by all means knock yourself out. --Xerographica (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Asking leading (or misleading) questions is a classic political tactic to poison the well of a discussion against your opponent. In this case, anyone who disagrees with you is implied to be "lack(ing) critical thinking skills." And further, that's not a question about improving the article's content, it's your opinion about the abilities of other editors. Not to mention you're still insulting editors by your "names that probably mean nothing to you" comment here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX presents the Xerographica Soapbox Matrix

Editing other users' talk page comments certainly should not be done without good reason, and I'm aware of the potential problems. I chose to do so, and I feel the extreme persistence in this form of the disruption may justify my actions. In my defense, I post the following examples from the past few weeks of the behavior that prompted my action:

	Soapboxing / WP:OR link	Result	Xerographica's reaction
1	Early soapboxing about his definition of "pseudo libertarianism" ... fairly minor incident	warned about soapboxing	indignation .. minor incivility
2	unsourced taxonomy, pretty clearly original research	asked to provide sources, section eventually collapsed	indignation
3	thread of clear soapboxing on "major tenets"	I collapse thread, eventually informal mediator collapses the thread	attempted to reintroduce thread until intervention by the informal mediator
4	original research premised by "I created a bell curve diagram"	I moved to his talk page, eventually collapsed by a total of 3 editors	attempted to reintroduce until intervention by the informal mediator
5	ranted about earlier Original Research being removed	collapsed by the informal mediator	none
6	started a thread to prompt editors to engage in "critical thinking"	I collapsed this first section	apparently he introduced a new follow-up thread on the belief that "The problem with this article is that certain editors lack critical thinking skills. To solve this problem, we first need to identify which editors fall into this category."
7	original research with calculations based on his personal hypotheticals	warned about soapboxing
8	thread premised with "This diagram...is original research"	I deleted the thread	created this ANI notice

As apparent from the early responses to this ANI, many editors find the extensive soapboxing and WP:OR to be counter-productive. He's been averaging one new disruptive thread once every 2½ days, and since we're here, can something be done to help reduce the disruption? BigK HeX (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments 1

You know why I would never delete any of your comments? Because I'm completely confident that I can counter them with reliable sources and sound logic. Clearly the only way you can counter my arguments is by deleting them and then trying to get me blocked. Such behavior is sad and pathetic. --Xerographica (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Or ... what I've actually said is that I delete those comments because they're disruptive and counter-productive. It really should NOT take dozens of warnings that Misplaced Pages places ZERO value on editors unsourced "facts", and, accordingly, we do not have to waste time on them.

As for you being blocked, YOU started this ANI. If you don't want scrutiny of your actions, then starting an ANI isn't the lowest-profile action to take .... BigK HeX (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All my comments are well sourced. How you can pretend otherwise is beyond me. I started this ANI because you were deleting my comments. I had already asked you to cease and desist so there was no other recourse. I don't want you banned or blocked...just to play fair. Xerographica (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are NOT well-sourced. You freely admit in some of them that you are engaging in Original Research (see: , ). The obvious recourse, when many editors are telling you to stop posting your personal "sound thinking" on the talk pages, is to stop posting it. BigK HeX (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See...even if I could get away with it, this is exactly why I would never delete your comments. Of course original research can be well-sourced. If my diagrams weren't well sourced then you could easily provide reliable sources that disprove them. But because my diagrams are well sourced you delete them rather than admit that you can't disprove them. --Xerographica (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you think the diagrams, statistics, etc that you concoct have to be addressed at all is only another part of the problem. The article talk page is NOT A FORUM for people to debate your philosophical outlook/"sound thinking" with you. BigK HeX (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It'd be great if you actually did that. Your source has to explicitly make your point. Making arguments attempting to generalize a long list of unsourced quotes, or working from "reason" or "sound logic", is original research and can't be used. Neither can presenting a long list of quotes and saying, "these don't say anything about that". The source has to say precisely what you want it to support, nothing less. If you've got such sources, by all means present them. I don't think you do, thus the long-winded argumentation, which is not what Misplaced Pages is looking for. Yworo (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The quotes were all sourced and they explicitly support the point that libertarians do not want to abolish the government. Libertarians recognize that the government is necessary to protect all citizens from harm. Any long-winded arguments on my part are because you proponents of libertarianism being synonymous with anarchism fail to see the obvious pattern. What happens when somebody fails to see the obvious pattern? You draw them a diagram based on reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Original diagrams cannot be "reliable sources" by Misplaced Pages standards. See WP:V and WP:OR. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Obvious pattern" is original research. Other editors have citations supporting their points of view. Your "obvious pattern" doesn't override their explicit sources. There are libertarians of both stripes. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never denied that the word "libertarianism" has multiple definitions. My argument has always been that each definition represents a different ideology...and each ideology should have its own article. --Xerographica (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That argument has been repeatedly rejected, including in a fairly recent RfC that brought in outside opinions. Yworo (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If people with inside opinions can't grasp the basic argument even when I draw you folks a super simple diagram...then what makes you think that outside editors, who don't even care about the topic enough to improve the article, are going to grasp the argument? --Xerographica (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above - you're pushing way too hard, and if you continue you'll be blocked for it. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN, a sub-policy of WP:OR: You are not allowed to make your own conclusions based on sources, and cite that for your evidence. It doesn't work that way here.— Dædαlus 08:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to quote me where I proposed it as evidence. On the file page I specified that the purpose of the diagrams was to facilitate discussion. Xerographica (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. You did so right here, complaining that editors won't listen to your own conclusions of the sources based on your original research, as they rightly should do. You've done so several times in this thread, but I'm not going to waste my time here when everyone can see them clear as day. What you need to do is recognize this fact, and learn to abide by policy. You are in the wrong here, and no amount of denying it will change that.— Dædαlus 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments break 2

Xerographica please pay heed to Georgewilliamherbert, he is uninvolved here and is a fair guy, just drop it mate and continue to work on the article, perhaps some drafts in your user space would be a good way to go mark nutley (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Continue to work on the article? Every edit I did to the article was reverted by the anarchists. Now they even delete my comments from the talk page. Not only do they get away with it...but uninvolved editors accuse me of "personal" attacks when I said that "certain" unnamed editors lack critical thinking skills. It's tyranny of the anarchist majority...a majority that gets larger as they continually bully those with opposing viewpoints...and uninvolved editors just jump on the bandwagon...because the majority just has to be correct. --Xerographica (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Trust me on this, GWH is not the srt to jump on bandwagons, he has always struck me as fair and reasonable. If he says you are pushing this to hard then you probably are. It is not difficult to post what you want, i see what you are trying to see it just needs to be rephrased so as not to appear soapboxy mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not be coddling. There is no simple rephrasing that would fix his comments. His entire approach is flawed, and steeped in WP:OR. It needs a complete overhaul. So long as he thinks concocting his own novel conclusions is fine as long as "they're based on reliable sources", we will continue to have this problem. He's been warned literally dozens of times oftentimes by editors with no involvement, yet he refuses to stop disrupting the talkpage. Something's gotta give. Given the intentions he's stated here, it's pretty clear he plans to continue. BigK HeX (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. In the Libertarian article talk page, there are two people who continuously misquote and misapply wp:talk page guidelines and (related) wp:nor/wp:ver. The one myth is that sourcing is a requirement for existence of a statement on a talk page, and that one can delete other people's talk page comments if they lack citations. The other complete misreading is failure to read the guidelines which allow deletion of other people's content only for some very specifically enumerated (more eggregious) "violations", and otherwise prohibit it. BigK is one of the two people who continuously get this wrong, and either do delete or threaten to delete based on (per their interpretation) alleged violations of guidelines such as wp:NotAForum, or their misinterpretation of wp:nor/wp:ver to say that something can be deleted from a talk page if it does not have citations. The former deletion is a violation of talk page guidelines, and the latter is doubly wrong by being that plus a mis-reading of wp:nor/wp:ver. In some respects even the above discussion reflects this misreading. While they often claim the opposite when doing them, these deletions are in violation of talk page guidelines.

I don't want anybody to get "smacked", there is too much of that going on between the participants at this article. I just suggest an experienced admin person clarify the rules and guidelines with respect to the "deletion of comments" issue here. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, it is Xerographica's behavior that has been admonished here, and, as such, I would ask that you stop characterizing my actions as "misapplication of policy" and,, more importantly, that you STOP encouraging the soapboxing. BigK HeX (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I was only reflecting on the narrow topic of application / misapplication talk page guidelines. And wp:nor/wp:ver with respect to talk pages. On those narrow topics I stand by what I said. I have not done the depth of analysis to intelligently reflect on any soapboxing issues. I have no quarrel with anybody,(including yourself) nor desire to see anyone found "guilty" of anything. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think discussion about the topic is reasonable IF it can lead to improvement of the article through better understanding of the topic. So there is some leeway there, and I think BigK has been a bit overzealous with some of the comment removals. However, this is understandable considering how far over the line many of the other comments have been. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hrs

Xerographica exported the problematic behavior to another article, Talk:Night watchman state , after all the warnings above and his responding to them.

I have imposed a 48 hr block for disruption and the various problems described above. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Since we're on the matter here, I could use advisement on my own behavior. I hate to have to play moderator, while I'm also involved in the dispute, but the alternative is far more unproductive, IMO. When Xerographica (and others) first started arguing their WP:OR in a new talk page thread every few days, it was ignored, as is common practice. However, the problem only exploded from there, to the point that one informal mediator and then a later one have both run out of time to attend to the misuse of the talk page. We're running out of dispute resolution options, and if my actions to stem the talk page misuse are borderline questionable, I don't see things going anywhere but downhill. Advisement from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated! BigK HeX (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If you're having problems handling it and it's getting worse, reporting it here (faster, but higher drama typically) or to an uninvolved admin via their talk page (slower, but lower drama) are excellent responses. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank heavens the issue of unrelenting SoapBox and WP:OR is finally getting administrative attention. It's been almost a full nine months of it, with a couple different groups of editors, but particulary bad since June. I can't remember if we brought the issue here before, with all the ones that have come here from Libertarianism, but better late than never! CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just did a little research on Night watchman state (AfD discussion), coming across it at AFD patrol. Our article on it is pretty rubbish. (The name Lassalle doesn't occur anywhere, for starters.) The lengthy screed at Talk:Night watchman state#Libertarianism and Minarchism really has no relevance to how it could be made better, though. (I have some ideas and suggestions. Mark nutley, Carolmooredc, feel free to come to my talk page.) Speaking with my content writer's hat on, I have to report that I don't feel comfortable contributing to an article if that's the sort of lengthy irrelevancy that I'd have to wade through time after time. And that's just one article. I can sympathize with the concerns expressed here. Uncle G (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that we brought up and made a finding on a second issue, I would still like a reading on the subject of this entry. More interested in clarifying the topic for all concerned than reflecting on BigK's or anybody's actions. I would distill it down to these two example questions:

1. If I feel that somebody has written something on a talk page that violates WP:NotAForum, can I delete it on that basis?
2. Can I delete someones material from a talk page due to them failing to provide a citation for what they wrote in the talk page?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on nothing more than what is in your hypothetical, deletion is probably not a good idea (and, in case you're confused about that, your hypothetical does NOT seem to match the general regard for the case in this ANI). Ultimately, Misplaced Pages works by the general will of the community. If you take questionable actions, you should be somewhat confident that the community would vindicate your actions. As you can see here, it's pretty certain that you will be brought up for scrutiny.

I'm not sure of your experience level with Misplaced Pages, but I don't recommend experimenting with talk page deletion based merely on your opinion that my deletions were unjustified. Not saying it is, but *if* that was your intention, it could be seen as POINT-y. BigK HeX (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that. I think that the answer to both of my questions is clearly NO. I think that that is very clear cut in the policies and guidelines, and that it has not been followed in this article's talk page. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that you (and the blocked editor) seem to be the only ones to hold that opinion of my actions ....? Does that tell you anything? BigK HeX (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User created an uneditable page

So doggamn has created a page whose name is so long that I am unable to edit the page to mark it for deletion, or even to link it here. Checking the user's contributions should quickly show which page I'm referring to. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Already resolved. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user has no contributions; has it already been deleted? How can it be so long you can't edit or link to it? Are you editing from a mobile phone? GiftigerWunsch 13:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, you should probably update your browser. -Selket 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My old PC is on IE 6, and I had no trouble getting to the link. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I considered re-creating that article. But I couldn't find a reliable source. :( ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed is Kill me when i die (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 15:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When I click on the red link above, my fully-updated version of Firefox experiences a connection reset error. Anyone else? May be worth filing a bug on this.    Thorncrag   00:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems (Firefox 3.6.10 on Mac OS X 10.5.8), though the page does look a little funny. Ucucha 00:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm on WinXP... I'm sure it's a browser-specific URI character limitation, but putting a limit on title lengths might be a good idea to prevent this kind of thing.    Thorncrag   00:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem for me using FF 3.6.8 on WinXP SP3. I just get the usual create page with the message "A page with this title has previously been deleted." --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... now I'm wondering if it's something else like firewall or web filter that might cause the problem for some.    Thorncrag   00:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem for me FF3.6.10 on die!Vista!Die...sorry Vista Home Premium v6.0 SP2 Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just upgraded to FF 3.6.10, but same result. I hesitate to ask, but is the reset repeatable on your setup? --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've narrowed it down to a web filter or firewall issue. So nothing for us to worry about at this point :-)    Thorncrag   00:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:83.177.142.170 and Category:Hungarian inventions

83.177.142.170 (talk · contribs) is on a spree (evidently not their first) tagging anything and everything, no matter how tenuous as a Hungarian invention. I suggest the Clueiron, a clearly British invention. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted them and WookieInHeat has warned the IP. Try WP:AIV if this restarts The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Last time I did that I was sent off with a flea in my ear, as it was a content dispute rather than vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time mention in the report the extent to which the user is adding this claim, and that they're blatant hoaxes (which is vandalism). GiftigerWunsch 19:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is an invention by a Hungarian-born inventor who spends their adult life in the US a Hungarian or American invention? That's the crux of many of these categorizations. It's "obvious" that they're POV-pushing and trolling, but according to the almighty policy, we're back to Randy's fighting skeletons. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing resolved tag as this still appears to be an issue. Does anyone have any sources to either confirm or refute whether any of these changes are accurate or POV pushing?  7  03:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Many of "Hungary's inventions" were in fields of 19th-20th century engineering that I'm pretty familiar with (and Romania has similar problems, not to mention the current Coanda-1910 furpile). The issue is less about sourcing, more about interpretation of policy. The most problematic ones are in groups, with several examples of each:

• If a Hungarian expatriate in (usually) the USA lives there most of their life and invents something (Lunar Rover Vehicle) in the USA, is that Hungarian or American?
• If a Hungarian "invention" pre-dates a similar British invention (Jendrassik Cs-1 turboprop engine) by a couple of years, except that it doesn't work, than is that invention Hungarian or British? In this case, the British surely (by logical consistency) invented either the jet engine or the turboprop, but not both. Britain is generally considered to have had the jet engine idea first, but were beaten to flight by the Germans. The turboprop concept was in Hungary early on, but again they were beaten to actual flight.
• If a Hungarian emigre, Leó Szilárd, lying in a wartime British bathtub, has the conceptual idea behind the atomic bomb, does this mean that Nuclear reactor technology (several vast steps down the chain of invention) warrants description as such?
• Then there's the regular problem of, "Where the hell is Trieste this week?"

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Category is bogus. I suggest CFD. Also the article Gömböc has an awful lot of spam. Bah. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The category is far from bogus, the only question is over its members. Although many people in "the West" tend to regard both countries as a suburb of Elbonia, that's quite unfair and both had 19th-20th century engineering traditions just as capable of innovation as anywhere else. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough and unnecessary capitalization changes

Template:Formerly

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

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

• The fact that so many have complained to Rich about pointless template capitalization changes and other sundry changes such as == spacing around headers == makes it clear that these are not uncontroversial edits. As such, they represent a violation of WP:AWB#Rules of use #3. I had laid off complaining about R.F. botting from his main account, but only because the edits were by-and-large useful and uncontroversial. This is no longer the case. These types of edits that change articles from how they were intentionally set by other editors to suit one bot-op's personal preference should stop unless they are approved by BAG. –xeno 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Would there be any objection if a regular editor simply hit the big red button on SmackBot's user page until an admin deals with the matter? Delta Trine 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

• Done. Delta Trine 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × >9000)  Done... about a minute after you did. Never mind. I left an informative message about this thread though. GiftigerWunsch 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've blocked him until this can be resolved. This is clearly causing disruption. In addition to this, it has tagged the Main Page as uncategorized. According to the bot policy, automated bots cannot be run on main accounts unless approved by BAG (and AFAIK, this is not). (X! · talk)  · @926  ·  21:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Done. Communication with the bot owner is going to be exceedlingly hard, it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with a user undertaking blanking and implementing 1h (one hour) auto-archiving on the talk page designated as the point-of-contact for the bot. There were multiple threads open on the User_talk page on the topic at the time of blanking. —Sladen (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• RF has a long history of controversial mass-actions and refusing to discuss them or even consider that anybody else might possibly be right. Suggest he simply be banned from running a bot or engaging in any automated edits, or edits that seem to be automated, for one year. At the end of that year, if he has demonstrated that he will actually discuss his edits and not summarily blank discussions, he may apply at BAG to have his bot reinstated. → ROUX ₪ 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Good, I warned him like 4-5 times about changing {cite foo} to {Cite foo} in the last two days, and he was still making them. In general, it would probably be a good idea to force him to do these AWB runs on a BAG-approved bot rather than on his main account. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from user's talk

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

I advised him that he really shouldn't be changing the first-letter capitalization for any templates without consensus or approval; if a human editor used {{small case}} then it can and should remain small case. –xeno 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of doing that anyway? Does it help the server or something? Wknight94 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I think Rich's belief is that it somehow helps new users identify templates and improves readability . My belief is that it just bloats the diff and makes it hard to see what the actual meat of the edit was, while imposing a personal preference that does not seem to be shared by the majority of editors. –xeno 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is purely Rich's preference on the aesthetics of the templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had noticed this being done before, and found it mildly annoying that my templates were being capitalised for no apparent reason, especially as personally I think {{cite news|...}} looks better than when it's capitalised anyway. I figured this had basis in policy somewhere so I didn't protest; the edit summary including a "build number" and being performed by a bot suggested that it had been community-approved. GiftigerWunsch 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, capitalization of templates hasn't been specifically approved. –xeno 22:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't appreciate that it is only one user's preference, plus the fact I don't really see any gain from doing this. Truthfully, I am surprised that Rich has been so unresponsive in this matter. He has been helpful in the past, performing Admin duties in a clear and objective manner. So what about this appearance of being community approved? Since it was not community approved, perhaps that was not intentional. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If the edits are uncontroversial there should be no difficulty in forming a Misplaced Pages-wide consensus, producing a policy, and then specifically authorising a bot to undertake the work. Misplaced Pages has processes for doing all of these. The large number of threads on just this one topic recently shows that it is controversial and therefore not something that is appropriate automated deployment (whether bot, or automated "manual" edits). —Sladen (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• The ownership displayed in operating bots against consensus and removing avenues for discussion is deeply concerning conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We're not really that short of avenues for discussion. This has been on two noticeboards and one project space talk page, so far. See above. Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It isn't that we're short of venues; it is that the user is deliberately closing off the natural venue while making (to me) extremely controversial edits without consensus. I was noting that this is clearly a conduct issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• My stalker of these many moons is currently turned off? I'd better sneak some writing in. ☺ In the meantime, I hope that everyone commenting on this is aware of all of the prior discussion, (now) linked to at the top of this section. Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• A bot being misused is as bad as at least ten regular vandals. Please don't tolerate such things. In case of repeated issues, impose a total automation ban (like Betacommand had back in the day) and/or an edit speed limit of 20 edits per hour or thereabouts, and generally urge the editor away from any repetitive editing of any type. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have two questions:

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

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

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

My stalker is back

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

Why is Farmbrough blocked but this bot isn't? Shouldn't it be the other way around if the bot edits are the ones people dislike? Wknight94 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked for running bot tasks on his main account; the bot itself hasn't been doing much wrong right now (though it does seem to be used for non-bot edits). Ucucha 14:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Angusmclellan just blocked SmackBot. Ucucha 14:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G's diff is from today and includes the sort of pointless case change complained of. Since RF can't now (and before the block, seemingly wouldn't) change this behaviour, there seems to be no reason to leave the bot running and add to the comedy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot is not following its own documented stop process, and I have just drawn Rich's addition to this.. The instructions given at User talk:SmackBot are to place the string "STOP" in that page and a new section link is provided to do this. This "STOP" string continues to be the present, but the bot is making edits including the these capitalisation changes under discussion. A bot making edits while apparently stopped is a fairly serious bug as there is then no reliable way to stop the bot without resorting to an administrative block (as has had had to be performed here). —Sladen (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless Rich has reprogrammed AWB, editing the bot's talk page will stop the bot until the orange bar is cleared and it is restarted by the operator. I would guess this is what happened. –xeno 15:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • I don't see any reason to block any bot account that does good edits and have approval of the community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see where it has approval? If Rich wants to move some approved tasks from SmackBot to Femto Bot, the appropriate course of action is to ask for a bot flag for the cloned bot at WP:BN. –xeno 18:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, it's moving some regular monthly gnomish and robotic tasks from the administrator-privilege account, where they've been performed for months, to an unprivileged account. This is part of what you want, surely? Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yep, it is ideal for the bot task to moved to a proper bot account, but it needs to be flagged and approved per the WP:BOTPOL. As I said, if the task is already approved (I'm not sure if it is, there are so many SmackBot BRFAs), R.F. can skip directly to BN to just ask for a flag as was done here. –xeno 18:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I was referring to the idea to block all Rich's accounts. For instance, Mirror Bot mustn't be blocked. Moreover, since edits that don't have consensus stopped I don't see any reason to keep the block and prevent Rich from doing other tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
            • I only pointed to the page listing the other bots, I didn't suggest they all need to be blocked. –xeno 18:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Desysop?

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

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

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

The only reason I ask is the absurdity of having an admin indefblocked. If he's such a menace that he can't edit, surely he can't be an admin. Otherwise, if we're just waiting for him to return from RL distractions, then unblock him. Shouldn't have one without the other. Wknight94 16:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would guess the block was placed as a form of 'wake up call'. If R.F. were not an admin, his AWB access could simply be revoked (admins have implicit access). –xeno 16:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you unblock him and he continues on without resolving/discussing, then nothing happens. If he unblocks himself and continues on without resolving/discussing then you have cause to ask arbcom for an emergency desysop. (This is about any blocked admin in general, not a judgement on the specific admin involved).--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you unblock him and he continues, then he gets re-blocked. If an editor can't reliably keep himself in an unblocked status, they often get banned. They sure as hell shouldn't be an admin! Wknight94 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not about what should be, it's about what is. There's no desysop process outside of arbcom. If he needs desysoping you there either needs to be a case filed or he would have to cross one of those bright lines that would pass arbcoms emergency desysop test. Such as unblocking himself.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm testing the waters for the viability of an ArbCom case. If no one is prepared to take that step, then he should be unblocked. I don't know Farmbrough and I don't care, but you simply can't have an indefblocked admin. Unblock or proceed to step 1 of desysopping. Wknight94 17:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Indefinite is typically chosen when a time-limited block would not necessarily have the desired effect. In this case, the user is indef blocked pending a certain outcome (a commitment to cease making edits of the disputed nature until consensus and BAG approval is attained for the same - see comments from blocking administrator). The commitment has not yet been made, so the user remains blocked. The fact that they hold administrative rights is entirely peripheral. –xeno 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're okay with leaving someone blocked forever - assuming they never meet your requirements for unblocking - even though they have a sysop bit? Wknight94 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You've posited a hypothetical situation that I doubt will come to pass in the present case (I expect Rich will agree to eliminate the disputed changes from his AWB matrix until consensus and BAG approval are obtained for them), but yes - if a user is indefinitely blocked because of their doing X and they refuse to agree to stop doing X, then they will remain blocked indefinitely (+sysop notwithstanding). If this were the case, one would have a case to ask the committee to consider removing the bit, but it's premature at this point. –xeno 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you - the blocking admin - "expect Rich will agree to eliminate the disputed changes from his AWB matrix until consensus and BAG approval are obtained for them", then you need to unblock him. Wknight94 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

X! (talk · contribs) was the blocking admin. –xeno 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Eck, y'all and your X names.... Still, if the consensus here is that Farmbrough will break out of this odd trance, then he needs to be unblocked. Like now. For all we know, he is waiting to be unblocked before he'll even discuss. I don't see any comments from him about RL distractions. (Or are they offline?) Wknight94 17:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think the user should be unblocked you could ping X! (talk · contribs) for his thoughts. I agree that it may be ideal to have the user conditionally unblocked (conditional upon them not resuming their AWB tasks until the matter is finalized) so they can participate here directly, rather than by proxy. –xeno 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If my reading of the consensus is correct, it would be useful to unblock Rich and allow useful, administrator activity to proceed on the condition that Rich agrees to abide by BAG (that means no automated edits, no AWB, no Smackbot, no Army/*bot). For those worried that unblocking might be premature, perhaps we can agree (and document) that Rich would be blocked again immediately if any automated edits are made. That would allow discussion to continue, and for Rich to apply for suitable bot permission. If WP:BAG is being followed (in spirit and letter) then there is no longer a problem. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be reiterated in the process of unblocking that bot-like activity is not allowed from main accounts and the same for bot accounts that do not have up-to-date approval. The suggestion of <20 edits/hour may be a way to enforce this (although it is a technical solution to a social problem); without automation, the 10 edits per minute speed that I have clocked Rich at previously is unlikely to be attainable.

Above all, demanding punishment is the wrong direction: all that is being requested is simple compliance with Misplaced Pages policies. —Sladen (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

resp to Wknight94 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) post - as far as I am aware, RF is still able to perform sysop functions (such as, but hopefully not, unblocking himself) but as blocked cannot post on any page other than his talkpage to say what he has done. RF can block, move over redirect, protect, and have access to The Chocolate Biscuit Jar, etc, as any other admin. It is his editing privileges only that are blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My view

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

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

Minor technical question

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

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

• This was a very good edit. Pagename has special characters and DEFAULTSORT needed to be added. Check also WP:CHECKWIKI that detects pages with special characters with no DEFAULTSORT. Let's stick to the initial subject of this discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry to digress. A good edit, but not in isolation , see Category:ÖBB - the rest were untouched. Can someone point a still functioning bot at the rest. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Since we're on this digression: Why do you want all of the articles in that category under the same letter anyway? Surely it's better to sort by the number in that category, so that the 2070 is under "2", the 770 is under "7", and so forth? Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah ok. Yobot can do the rest as part of WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes and then decide how to handle the categorisation in the specific category. DEFAULTSORT is global. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • respond to UncleG - yes probably, I didn't create the articles, and a standard for categorisating these things doesn't seem to exist, but is needed. Otherwise I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia#Yobot about the issue, for those who wish to discuss or solve this tangential problem.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Btw, I finished the task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Unblocking?

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

• Check User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Is_it_not_possible.... Rich removed the cite -> Cite and the spacing around heading from his fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There's still a problem with other templates, like the stub one. Also, Rich was also blocked for running unauthorised bots on his main account, I'm yet to see any suggestion that this is going to stop, and it's an on-going issues, which he's messed up repeatedly. I think editing the main page like that (arguably making this an unapproved admin-bot) can not be ignored. Personally, I think that an edit limit of ~20 edits/hour, along with a(nother) stern warning that all automated tasks must be approved by BAG, would be a good way to go here. - Kingpin (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I am opposed to unblocking him yet, per "My View" section above. (X! · talk)  · @491  ·  10:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So what would satisfy your concerns? Let's come up with something concrete and actionable. Here's a starter that you can boldly modify: Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • for context, "here" is referring to this section. (X! · talk)  · @553  ·  12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I would only support this is it was made explicitly clear that all automated bot-like tasks be approved by BAG. (X! · talk)  · @553  ·  12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Be bolder with the section! ☺ It's there to be edited. Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think unblocking is the way to go until/unless he agrees to some kind of restriction on automated edits. StrPby (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have to agree. This response goes some way to addressing concerns but it does not go far enough. I have suggested an alternative, simpler, set of possible conditions below. I would like to try to minimise any chance of this problem reoccuring before unblocking. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – User indef blocked, diff oversighted. Ishdarian|lol 09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Resolved – Notice changed. To discuss whether this notice should be there at all, please go to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#notice for recruiting Article Assessment Team for the Public Policy Initiative — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Report has been filed at WP:UAA. GiftigerWunsch 10:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards