Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

Unresolved

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil.' D.M.N. (talk)

MartinPhi restricted

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi.' D.M.N. (talk)

Copyright violations by CarolSpears on Main page

CarolSpears (talk · contribs) This editor has created at least five articles by means of copy-paste, and, using the Did you know? section, gotten these copyvios onto the main page. In these diffs, bold is used to show exact similarities, italics to show where text has been moved slightly, but is otherwise the same.

Subularia monticola is her most recent DYK. The article history begins with six revisions by her, followed by a few by other editors.

The last paragraph is the most glaring copyvio:

Wikipedia, sixth revision by User:CarolSpears

Proceedings of the VXth INQUA Conference, Durban, South Africa, 3-11 August 1999

On Lake Kimilili a former glacial cirque on Mount Elgon located at 4150 meters, (1°6′0″N, 34°34′0″E), an extinct stratovolcano straddling the Kenya-Uganda border. Seasonal water fluctuations of at least 47 centimeters (19 inches) have been measured, causing overflow during the rains. Lake Kimilili is surrounded by sparse shrubland dominated by Alchemilla, Helichrysum and Dendrosenecio, with localized patches of sedge mire and tussock grassland. Two species of macrophytes are found in the lake: submerged and floating Callitriche stagnalis growing sparsely in deeper water and Subularia monticola forming a low but dense mat on sometimes flooded muds.

This paper presents multiproxy palaeontological data from Lake Kimilili (4150m asl, 1°06´N 34°34´E, a shallow lake ~ 100 x 50m across that occupies a former glacial cirque on Mount Elgon, a heavily-dissected, extinct stratavolcano straddling the Kenya-Uganda border. (Fig. 1) In 1976, the water level fluctuated seasonally by at least 47 cm, overflowing during the rains. Lake Kimilili is surrounded by sparse C3 shrubland dominated by Alchemilla, Helichrysum, and Dendrosenecio, with localized passages of C3 sedge mire and C3 tussock grassland. Two species of macrophytes are found in the lake: submerged/floating Callitriche stagnalis (C3) grows sparsely in deeper water, while Subularia monticola (C3) forms a low but dense mat on seasonally flooded muds.

The second paragraph of that article, before an edit with the revision with the edit summary "paste cleanup" read:

On Mount Kenya small seedlings of Subularia monticola tend to cover entire polygons (lower right and left) and migrate outward along cracks made by the daily freezing and thawing of the ground in valleys at 4000 meters.

Why (lower right and left)? Looking at the source makes it clear: It's a caption.

FIGURE 5. Flooded polygonal areas showing closure of crack systems after V2 hour. Small seedlings of Subularia monticola tend to cover entire polygons (lower right and left) and migrate outward along crack systems (knife = 30 cm long).

Agrostis gigantea has already been deleted for copyvio of http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/grasses/plants/redtop.htm A quick comparison from the google cache:

Wikipedia	http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/grasses/plants/redtop.htm
The leaf blades can be 8 inches (20 cm) long and 1/3 inch (1 cm) across, green, bluish green or grayish blue, linear in shape and flat. The sheath of each leaf is open and hairless; it has a tendency to split open into a deep V-shape. The node at the base of each sheath is purplish and hairless.	The leaf blades are up to 8 " long and 1/3 " across; they are green, bluish green, or greyish blue, linear in shape, hairless, and rather flat. The sheath of each leaf is open and hairless; it has a tendency to split open into a deep-V shape, sometimes all the way to the node. The node at the base of each sheath is reddish or purplish and hairless.

Her non-DYK contributions are equally worrisome. Take: Anthemis cotula, where she deleted a valid stub, and replaced it with copyvio.

Anthemis cotula	http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/c/chammo49.html#sti
Common in waste places, Anthemis cotula resembles true Chamomile (Anthemis nobilis) with its large single flowers on straight stems but differs by having no membraneous scales at the base of the flowers and by their odor.	Stinking Chamomile or Stinking Mayweed (Anthemis cotula), an annual, common in waste places, resembles the true Chamomile, having large solitary flowers on erect stems, with conical, solid receptacles, but the white florets have no membraneous scales at their base.

The other DYKs are Seneco congestus, Senecio angulatus, and Forssakaolea tenacissima. I have not looked into these in detail, but found a worrying example:

Senecio_angulatus (direct link to version)	http://pebb.das.state.or.us/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/docs/pdf/weed_card_vines.pdf
smothering the existing native vegetation both in the ground layer and canopy and altering the light climate in the invaded community and sometimes suppressing the regeneration of native plants.	This plant can smother existing native vegetation both in the ground layer and canopy. It alters the light climate in the invaded community and may suppress regeneration of native plants.

(Particularly worrying as the work being copyvio'd is very short, meaning that a very large part of it is being quoted.)

Where there's one copyvio, there's often more. Where there's multiple copyvios in multiple articles, with many of them having featured on the main page, then we have a very problematic editor whose every edit is now in question. The user's entire history needs reviewed, and that is too much for one person to do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be making a strong case for action here, I won't deny it, but I think you're overdoing it a bit by treating some acceptable rephrasing as unacceptable copying. For example, if you take your bold case hints out of it, it is hard to see "Common in waste places, Anthemis cotula resembles true Chamomile (Anthemis nobilis) with its large single flowers on straight stems but differs by having no membraneous scales at the base of the flowers and by their odor." as a copyvio of "Stinking Chamomile or Stinking Mayweed (Anthemis cotula), an annual, common in waste places, resembles the true Chamomile, having large solitary flowers on erect stems, with conical, solid receptacles, but the white florets have no membraneous scales at their base." Hesperian 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's plagiarism, too. The fact that changes have been made doesn't make any difference. Particularly, the source of striking phrases such as "common in waste places" should be acknowledged. That's what quotations marks are for. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "common in waste places" is very much a "common phrase in floras" :-). For example, on page 274 of The Plants of Pennsylvania (a recently published flora, with Anthemis cotula on that page), it says "frequent in roadsides, woods, fields, and waste places". A lot of what she's been copying is in fact pretty much the same in just about any flora (or e-flora). The language of floras is really quite precise, so there's really not so much you can do to change it unless you "de-botanize" it and use more common-English terminology to replace the botanese. In fact, there's a bit of a question whether these descriptions are even completely elegible for copyright, since they are simple descriptions of physical things... the botanical language might seem distinctive to someone not well-versed in the field, but to those who study the plants, this is rather similar to saying "townhouses are common in suburbs". --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. In standard English, however, beginning a sentence with such a phrase in apposition is distinctly uncommon (struck as a misreading of original; see below). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But the original source did not begin a sentence with that phrase in apposition. Hesperian 23:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, true. I'm wrong about that. Apologies. (I still think that there is unacceptable plagiarism there, but it's true that that is the most marginal example.)

I have some experience with descriptions of flora and fauna, and I can confirm that there are standard phrases that get repeated a lot. The same is also true of biographical articles. There is only so many ways you can report basic data on people and objects. Direct copying and pasting should be avoided, and rewriting is always best, but if the sentence you are writing only reports basic uncopyrightable facts, then those facts (as long as you source them) are fine to include. Carcharoth (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point, Carcharoth. Some of these are nearly the same as phrases like "Born in 1809, he...". Hesperian 23:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

all of these things are dated and cited. wikipedia is essneitally a huge copyright violations ince all we do is synthesize information from other places and not do any original reasech on our own. as long as the sourcing is adeuqate then i dont see why anyone should be humiliated or killed over it. Smith Jones (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No. If you acknowledge your sources, and indicate clearly what you have taken from them, then it is easy enough to avoid plagiarism. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I resent the implication that I had anything to do with the articles being in the DYK boxen on the main page. Is there a template available that I can paste that articulates this resentment without offending anyone? And put Forssakaolea tenacissima back! As soon as I can get to Africa and provide my own research here so that I will not be pasting the words from other sources, I will. That was a great article about what is a mostly boring yet tough little plant. -- carol (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, while you are at it, you should check the results of the examples I just put at Unlimited Register Machine -- those weren't in the book. -- carol (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It must be csaid, you're nothing if not transparent, carefully documenting your sources. But you can't copy-paste information, clean it up slightly, and then save it. That opens Wikipedia to lawsuits. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A copyright violation is a direct copy and paste without any difference between the text. If the place where you found the copyright is cited to where the text is from, or perhaps the text in our article existed first, then there is no copyright violation. Some items are difficult to describe using entirely different words, but if these are quoted and cited, then it is neither plagiarism or a copyright violation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"If these are quoted and cited." Yup, exactly. But changing a few words here and there doesn't stop something from being plagiarism. Plagiarism doesn't have to be direct and verbatim. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly some copyvios above. Some are okay, some are borderline, but some are clearly problematic. It is pretty hard to argue that the first example is acceptable. But I suspect that the way forward here is education, rather than anything heavy-handed. Hesperian 07:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Education is indeed the answer 90% of the time. Many people are genuinely unaware of what is and what isn't plagiarism, and do believe that changing a few words here and there is somehow acceptable. I have long found it surprising that Wikipedia has almost no resources for editors on this. Fortunately, there are plenty elsewhere. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See derivative work. There's a point at which copying with modifications goes from being a copyright violation to merely being intellectually dishonest, and I don't believe these examples are on the safe side of the line. --Carnildo (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So! what I have learned today is that it is far more advantageous to not document the sources so that all the article will receive is a template which claims that the article is unreferenced and that template will sit on the article and mold with it until perhaps forever -- but citing references puts authors on the unsafe side of the line. Or did I miss something? -- carol (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC) And seriously, did anyone check the math there? -- carol (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What you should have learned is how to use quotation marks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you've learned, then you've failed to absorb some of life's most important lessons. Incidentally, if an article appears particularly well-written – and especially if large chunks of it appeared at once – I'll often run some test phrases through Google. I've caught several copyvios and instances of plagiarism that way, and I know I'm not the only admin who does those checks. It's true that that approach doesn't catch editors who rip off material from offline paper sources, but most plagiarists are pretty lazy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is actually far worse than just this, as I have some hard copies of other sources Spears uses and often come across content in her articles which is almost entirely from outside sources. I've discussed this with her. It hasn't changed one bit. However, I've learned my lesson in complaining about copyvios, especially in DYK. At some point, Wikipedia needs to take a stand about how much text copied directly and exactly from another source should be allowed. As it is, large portions of certain plant section articles are almost entirely taken from outside sources. I don't look anymore, and I won't participate in this thread any further. But DYK looks ridiculous, imo, with the amount of text, and number of catch phrases boldly displayed on the main page, that are exactly taken from other sources without attribution. Spears has been more meticulous since I discussed the issue with her about attributing where she got the phrases, paragraphs, and entire sections of articles. --Blechnic (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If 'large chunks' of it don't appear suddenly, then there are issues of ownershitp (which tend to avoid issues of completion opting more for issues of competition). I have seen the link to WP:OWN (or something like that) much more often than I have seen the link for WP:It is easier to sit around and complain, can I make a WP:LINK to this until a more accurate document can be furnished for it? -- carol (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I thought we had a bot that picked up this sort of thing. Has it stopped working, or does it only pick up direct matches? Carcharoth (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, CorenSearchBot? Where is Coren since 08May08? I left a copyvio question on his page awhile ago, and it's been archived without response. Not sure what's going on there, been meaning to ask. Franamax (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard at work, but I guess it doesn't notice everything. It can be fooled. Enigma ^message 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, bot working 42 days after its owner last made an appearance? Nonetheless, I do appreciate the bot contributions. I'm probably misled as to Coren's presence on the wiki. Franamax (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is serious

If Wikipedia intends to be taken seriously at all, it is imperative that we do not highlight plagiarism or copyright violations on the main page. A couple of months ago an editor was sitebanned, Mario1987, mainly because he had gotten a copyvio image through WP:FPC that might have run on the main page. Fortunately his copyvios got discovered in time. CarolSpears actually has gotten plagiarized material onto the main page; the only questions are how many times she's done it, whether the problems exceed mere plagiarism into outright copyvio, and how many of her other contributions are plagiarism. Does anyone volunteer to go over her existing contributions with a fine toothed comb and mentor her? Durova^Charge! 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please use that magical histogram and fix it. I had nothing to do with the inclusion of the articles on the Main Page. I resent the constant implication here that I did. From my observations, my work is not Fictional enough to be Featured and that is just fine by me. Do test that fine toothed comb on selves first, as a favor to everyone. If it works for the combers it should be good for mine and other wikipedia works. -- carol (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

People make mistakes. Good editors realize when they've done so, and make an effort to learn, and fix the problem. Saying things like "So! what I have learned today is that it is far more advantageous to not document the sources..." is not a good reaction. You have plagiarized; inadvertently I hope, by not fully understanding the term. The fact that it was on the main page is why everyone is more excited than usual, but whether you had anything to do with it being there is not what makes it wrong. --barneca (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But this is not the first time that problems have been brought to her attention. Durova^Charge! 20:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, propose siteban. This editor's response to feedback is consistently sarcastic. Mentorship is unlikely to help. Durova^Charge! 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Her edits have put Wikipedia in a very bad legal position, especially if they are seen by someone related to the subject(s). D.M.N. (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably reasonable. Her response here is quite unimpressive. We can be plenty lenient in many cases, but I don't see that this is one of them. Friday (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oppose - Assume good faith; the editor is clearly interested in improving the encyclopedia. Blame for the escalation in tempers can be shared all around. Has anyone gotten it off the main page yet? --Selket ^Talk 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is she? Look at the last few contributions, and trolling of people's talkpages. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How is assuming good faith relevant to the discussion? (Altho, DMN brings up a valid point.) But, all that aside, it doesn't matter whether malice or incompetence are behind her not-getting-it. Either one is unacceptable. Friday (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: trolling, here's a a current example and a past example.[1][2] I could list others both here and on Commons that go back roughly half a year. The last time this editor got blocked (for personal attacks, not trolling) the user talk page had to be protected because she was so persistent in repeating the problem behavior. I had been letting things slide because I thought she was doing good work elsewhere, but now it turns out there's a serious plagiarism problem with the contributions that had appeared to be useful. Durova^Charge! 21:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If asking a question is trolling then I have trolled. I am open to changing my beliefs that uncited articles are more welcome than referenced articles, I just need to see this. It is a cause and effect problem, if one activity causes an effect and another activity causes a different effect, which effect is more desireable? -- carol (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No. The point is how you cite. You want to look at resources such as this one (though there are many more out there, as I've said). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually considered adding a web page to my own web site about what it is like to be plagiarized and even with the multitude of articles and stubs that have been initiated or expanded by me here, I think that my experience in life is more on the having been plagiarized. That experience is difficult to articulate and difficult to prove as the plagiarists did not cite me as a reference. The experience is actually kind of cool and I suggest, best experienced from a location of preference not one of undue isolation. Does anyone want to ask me questions about the difficult to prove plagiarism problems? -- carol (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather curious as to why you choose to deliberately miss the point. The problem here has nothing to do with you citing your work. The problem is that you are copying the work of others. I think the longer you feign ignorance of the difference, the less likely it is people will support you. Resolute 22:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding citation needed tags to support votes at FPC, and readding them once removed by a third party, could hardly be described by any other term. I could bring up other examples from more FPCs if necessary. Carol's interference in the current nomination is particularly destructive: I spent weeks coaching an up-and-coming editor in the use of the software and am building a module on Wikibooks around that collaboration. The aim is to get more people skilled and active in this useful work. Carol's persistent attempts to sidetrack the candidacy with sarcasm and irrelevant chatter run the risk of driving a new contributor off FPC during his first candidacy. Durova^Charge! 22:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bemused spectators comment; If there was something of mine on the mainpage (yeah! dream on!) that had concerns raised about it, my reaction would be "ZOMG! Fix it or pull it - we can discuss it later..." for no other reason that a mistake would reflect poorly upon my contributions - as well as those who vetted, etc. - and the encyclopedia. I am concerned with CarolSpears reaction, which appears to be contempt and sarcasm directed those expressing the misgivings. I do not understand the reaction either toward other editors raising the matter, nor the lack of concern regarding the potential trouble with the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whoa, a siteban seems like a very premature nuclear option. Acknowledging that this editor has already tested the AGF principle, surely there are some other, intermediate steps. Dppowell (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• She does not appear to care that plagiarizing is a problem. So, we can't have her editing, it's too much risk. If she'd said "oops, that's a problem, tell me how to not do this again" we wouldn't be having this conversation. But she didn't. What intermediate step can you think of that would fix this problem without her willing cooperation? I can't think of one. Friday (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, she clearly needs to cooperate. It just seems that there's a bit of a rush to brand this editor as an irredeemable plagiarist and ride her off WP on a rail. She's spent a lot of time trying to improve the encyclopedia, misguided though many of her efforts may have been. My quick & dirty impression is that her intent isn't getting much consideration. Dppowell (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that I asked that the examples at Unlimited Register Machine be investigated. -- carol (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, googling the phrase 'mathematical idealisation of a computer' get a lot of results about Universal Turing Machines, and how they're also called Universal Registers. None is quite what she wrote, but I can see lots of overlap. Whether that's because the language to describe it is fairly specific, thus convergent evolution, or plagarism, I can't be sure. 'URM equivalent to GOTO' found no particular parallels in google searching. However, the other copyvios are clear, so I'd support the siteban. ThuranX (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the solutions! Please! It has been 22 years.... I would like to meet the people who 'own' GOTO. Heh. -- carol (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Opose: A siteban is a bit extreme. Yes, it was plagiarism, but a stern warning shouls sort it. If the user promises not to create any more copyvios we can let it drop. If they create another, we siteban...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 22:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)(A more thorough look at the user's history causes me to Endorse full siteban)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• If it were just the copyvios, I'd say block her for about a week to give her time to read and understand WP:COPY. But her unapologetic attitude, coupled with her past history (three distinct blocks for disruption, harassment and personal attacks) ... in my view, we can't let this one continue to edit. Endorse ban. Blueboy96 22:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Site ban Plagiarism and flippancy together? Having watched this over the past many hours, to me this spins out into a sprawling disruption. Any further talk/mentoring should be done by email. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Generally, I'd prefer that issues like this be settled simply by honest and polite discussion between rational people, instead of resorting to such drastic measures as banning. After reading the user's recent comments as well as their talk page history, however, I get the feeling that discussion might simply not work in this case. Thus, unless someone can come up with a way to get through to the user, I may have to reluctantly endorse Durova's suggestion. Banning a user who is clearly trying to improve the encyclopedia in good faith is not fair, but if they cannot understand why their contributions in the past have been problematic, it may be the best we can do. The alternative would be for someone to volunteer to mentor this user and to carefully review their every contribution — but the time, skill and effort needed to do that properly might well cost us more than it gains, at least if there's no prospect that the reviewing would ever become unnecessary. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is just Carol's way. Sometimes the best word for it is flippancy; sometimes it is better described as trolling. There are a great many people in this world who have trouble admitting they have screwed up, expecially when under broad attack in a public forum; but not all of them have trouble adjusting their behaviour in response to feedback. Hesperian 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain. (Changing to abstain given that this is apparently not the first incident.) If we were to ban everyone on this site who doesn't fully understand plagiarism, we would rather quickly run out of editors... The answer is education. Carol, do have a look at plagiarism resources that you can find via google, especially on what is acceptable paraphrase, and what isn't. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - way too early for that sort of "remedy". Dialog and education are the answer here. She makes many good-faith edits and I believe this was also done in good faith. Mentorship might be an idea, though, as Ilmari Karonen points out. But a site ban? Nope - Alison ^❤ 00:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Then Hesperian, Jbmurray, and Alison, are you willing to take on the task of researching her contribution history for plagiarism plus patrolling her new contributions? The last time I dealt with a problem of this type, 85% of the editor's uploads were copyvio. I have too many other commitments to attempt such a cleanup again, let alone cope with an ongoing problem. If she demonstrated even moderate receptiveness to feedback I wouldn't have proposed a siteban. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yuck, no, I don't think I want to take on that task... a task that will still be there whether Carol gets sitebanned or not. Permit me to point out that I have myself blocked Carol twice in the past, and was the recipient of the personal attacks that resulted in her other blocks; yet here I am defending her, and there I am trying to educate her.

    I think where we differ, Durova, is that I don't accept that she is unresponsive to feedback. From my experience with Carol, if you told her it's spelled "consensus" not "concensus", she would likely give you a sarcastic, flippant or insulting response, then never make that spelling error again. What we're seeing here is the sarcastic and flippant response, which in this case is manifesting as a wilful misunderstanding of the situation. You may get to see the behaviour adjustment, if we can manage to resist the temptation to siteban her for giving us lip. Hesperian 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    • I'm shortly off on an extended wikibreak (three-week travel). I do think that Wikipedia needs to have a page like this one, or a page that points to such resources. Again, this user is far from the only one who doesn't know the difference between acceptable and unacceptable paraphrase, and why the latter is plagiarism. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If we wait a few days to see if she understands the severity of what she's done and modifies her behavior, then the only difference between now and then are whatever edits in article space between now and then. It would be far easier to undo all this with her help, by having her point out problems, than having to have anyone or any set of people brute-force all her edits back through google to try and find corresponding stuff on the web, much less proper journal source searches for stuff she's known to use. I agree this is serious. But I think a little more carrot is in order. Stick is clearly in play, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well no, I'm not, Durova. I've already got the workload-from-hell on WP, and am co-mentoring another editor. None of this precludes it from being a good idea, however. Just that I cannot do it, and the alternative to a lack of my being mentor/content monitor is not banning that person. Sounds like you're saying; "Siteban her. I'm too busy to deal with this" - Alison ^❤ 00:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, Alison, what I am saying is that if I had done anything remotely approaching this level of plagiarism at either of the universities I had attended, I would have been expelled. If I had caught an undergraduate doing this when I was a teaching assistant, the undergraduate would have been expelled. Wikipedia's main page averages between 1 million and 1.5 million page views during each six hour installation of did you know. This person is a public embarrassment to the site, has been approached before, and is defiant and flippant. Since no one is willing to undertake the task of unraveling the copyright violations she has already created, let alone manage the additional ones her continued presence is very likely to create, it mystifies me why any Wikipedian who cares about this project or its credibility would countenance that. Copyright isn't a polite suggestion: it's the law. Durova^Charge! 03:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Indeed, Durova, but this is Wikipedia and not a university, and she is not turning in a term paper here. Furthermore, calling someone a "public embarrassment to the site" is completely OTT, to be honest. She's already acknowledged the problem below and has issued an apology. It's fixable, so let's put the banhammer away and let's not drive away a potentially great editor. And please - stop trying to paint those who disagree with the "you don't care about the project because copyright is Serious Biz™" - I know this. She's stopped so let's fix this and move on. It doesn't meet WP:BAN - not even WP:BLOCK at this stage - Alison ^❤ 05:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Alison, as you'll see below I have already accepted Carol's apology and withdrawn the ban proposal. My assertion, however, was not hyperbolic. For review, here is a summary of Wikipedia's main page traffic from last month.[3] The low was 5.7 million page views on May 3 and the high was 12.9 million page views per day on May 29. When a DYK with plagiarism runs on the main page for 6 hours, a conservative estimate is that at least 1 million people come within one click of it. When five such entries come from the same person--yes, it's very embarrassing. Plagiarism anywhere is wrong. But if the reaction to a volunteer spotting it on the main page is to treat it as not a big deal, that sends entirely the wrong message. I'll call that spade a spade and take heat for it if necessary, because the result of setting overly lax standards is that eventually a journalist will call the spade. If we don't keep our own house in order, they'll do it for us. Durova^Charge! 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Durova, nobody is saying it's "not a big deal" - it is a big deal. Please. Root out the copyvios, by all means, fix the problem and move on. That's what we're at here. Just because I'm not advocating swinging the big banstick right now does not mean I'm not seeing the gravity of the issue. It's that simple. Furthermore, saying an editor is an "public embarrasment to the site" is very different indeed to say that what they did is. It's the very definition of an ad hominem remark. Thing is, too, is that you're not the one "taking the heat" for it; the person you ban is. It's all ban, ban, ban, ban ban - Alison ^❤ 07:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
              • High profile plagiarism that persists with open defiance after reasonable attempts at communication is intolerable. In this case that was also far from the only problem. The editor had been approached by a variety of people for at least half a year about various of conduct issues, and despite several blocks had been treated with kid gloves (at least on my part, probably also by others) because it appeared that this person was also doing good content work. When that content work turned out to be serial plagiarism and the editor posted a series of flippant responses to evidence and reasonable concerns, she left little alternative. We routinely apply indefinite blocks for threats that are almost certainly frivolous and that do minimal actual damage to the encyclopedia's integrity. It is simply not appropriate retain an unfettered individual whose damage is active, ongoing, carries legal implications, and is cumbersome to undo. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. I say that without apology, despite knowing that no matter how well documented and reasoned the position is, caricatures will result: It's all ban, ban, ban, ban, ban. Suggest a few mouse clicks from ad hominem to straw man argument. Durova^Charge! 17:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
                • I was with you until I got to "she left little alternative". I certainly disagree with that conclusion. I indef block dozens of account a day on here - sometimes hundreds - and I've few issues with that. It's part of the job and given the current Grawpfest, hardly surprising. However, an established editor who's apparently working in good faith is a completely different matter, and I'm sure you'll agree. And as for strawman arguments, that hardly applies here, given that I didn't start on a false premise - Alison ^❤ 05:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If some editors think waiting's worth the time that'll be spent by many editors in handling this, it's ok with me. Is it worth the time? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• support "So! what I have learned today is that it is far more advantageous to not document the sources..." sums it all up for me....unacceptable attitude in combination with comments like that? If it's as Hesperian says and its just her way...perhaps her way is incompatible with the project. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain for the time being - Nobody had gone to her talk page and unambiguously described this situation as serious enough to ban someone over. I have done so. I agree that someone who truly is an unrepentant copyright violator needs to be shown the door. I do not agree that Carol has been properly apprised of the seriousness of the situation and our rules on copyright violations and so forth. We need to assume some good faith (even of someone who often posts sarcastically or trollingly, in others words) and give her a chance to come to grips with the seriousness of the situation and its potential outcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Now that she's given a completely useless response, can we call this done and ban her? She's simply too kooky to edit here. Wikipedia requires editors who can behave like reasonable adults. Friday (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Whew, and someone thought that ousting plagiarism-ignorant Wikipedians would reduce the editor pool! This place would resemble latvianstamps.wikia.com in no time... Dppowell (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't joking. It's sad, sure, but it seems clear she needs to go. Here, we're an encyclopedia, not a place for bizarre performance art. I have faith that there are plenty of reasonable editors in the world. Friday (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As primarily a content editor, and a very rare contributor to the ANI page, I have to de-lurk to comment. There is absolutely nothing that should come before the quality of accuracy and writing of Wikipedia. Not feelings, or pride, or anything else of individual editors. Plagiarism is reprehensible and should be reverted, deleted, and any article found to be plagiarized should be returned to a stub. This conversation is so alarming that I'm tempted to review all of my articles for their similarities to the sources. Though I don't believe mine come close to plagiarism, I seem to harbor the embarrassment and shame that Carol Spears does not, which is even more disturbing. Should anyone ever prove that my contributions lack originality I don't know if I would ever recover from the mortification of it. I consider this on par with an editor releasing personal information in a BLP, or threatening another editor or admin. I hope the admins here share my concern. --Moni3 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Non-admin support ban until she can understand two things - (1) Why a slight paraphrasing of a source is still plagiarism, and (2) why "flippant" remarks tend to be counterproductive in a discussion, especially on the internet. The content she's providing is good, it's the way the content is presented and her attitude when she's brought up on it that's the problem. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support and wholeheartedly endorse a siteban until such time as this editor demonstrates a clear understanding of the problem with her conduct and presents a very convincing expression of a desire to improve. Plagiarism is one of the most insidious types of scholarly dishonesty. I can think of few more effective ways to alienate and discourage the participation of academics and subject matter experts than by a failure on Wikipedia's part to take plagiarism seriously. In academia, undergraduate students who engage in repeated acts of plagiarism face loss of credit, suspension, and often expulsion. Reporter who plagiarize their stories get fired. The seriousness of this sort of misconduct cannot be overstated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. More copyright paranoia gone mad. Keep a close eye on her contributions? Yes. Bring down the ban-hammer on her? No. --03:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support because of the unrepentant sarcastic attitude displayed. Adding to Durova's examples from the FPC pages is this: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Einstein_receiving_certificate_of_American_citizenship Viridae^Talk 04:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Basically, support, though not as an admin. Although I tend to disagree with some of the users who have supported the sanctions avocated, I agree that CarolSpears's comments (despite the "apology" entered below) indicate an attitude that fails to demonstrate an understanding of the problems that she has caused. "Flippancy" when it comes from Giano is one thing, but I don't think that this shown a valid reason to disregard copyvio problems, or to repeatedly cause disruption, in this way. 04:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - huge overreaction. Carol means well, and needs education. I feel such a block is being waved arounf for her sarcasm, rather than for the plagiarism. Being sarcastic is not sufficient for a ban, no matter how sarcastic her comments. She now knows plagiarism is not acceptable, why not wait and see if she improves, rather than jump straight to a ban. I'm sure someone (probably more than one person) will be examining her edits with a fine toothcomb. Neıl 龱 08:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The given examples are probably some of the worst offenses (more ambiguous cases would probably not be presented), and I don't find them to be anywhere near the level necessary to deem her to be some kind of insidious, persistent copyright violator. She cites her sources and makes some effort to reword. In some cases the effort appears quite sufficient; in other cases it falls a bit short, but even then it's greatly mitigated by the presence of the cite. I know how hard it can be to reword things at times without changing some aspect or the meaning or leaving something important out, especially when dealing with specific terminology or plain statements that offer little opportunity for an alternative presentation. The cases where the wording is particularly close may merely be limited instances where thinking up substantially distinct language was particularly difficult, and I am certain that every editor in this discussion who actually writes content on a regular basis has at least a few similar examples in his or her history. Considering all that, I find it ridiculous that Carol is being indicted for what seem to be no more than brief, moderate similarities on topics requiring technical language. She should be encouraged—in a friendly way—to think a little harder about how she can present information in different words in certain cases, but I see no grounds for a penalty, let alone a site ban. Everyking (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. I agree wholeheartedly that copyvios and plagiarism are serious problems but I also believe Carol means well and I think she needs educating and assistance, not banning. If there were any repeats of this problem I would certainly be willing to reconsider but at this point I think a ban is too soon and too heavy. Sarah 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sarah, the proposal was already withdrawn before you posted. Durova^Charge! 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It had kind of grown legs and walked quite independently of the original proposal. Orderinchaos 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, that was my impression, too. I appreciate that Durova withdrew her request but there were still people commenting in favour of sanctions here and on her talk page, so I felt it was appropriate to add my own views. I must say, though, that I do agree with much of what Durova has said about copyvios and plagiarism and it is one of the things that really concerns me as I often find myself googling sentences of text that seem too well written for the user who posted them or have telltale signs like copied formating and so on. I also have a generic blog I use to temporarily copy suspect articles to so I can test them with copyscape and an academic copyvio/plagiarism program I have access to. So while I disagreed with Durova's conclusion regarding banning of this particular user, I agree with almost all of what she has said regarding copyvios and plagiarism. Sarah 03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban, although I support the sentiment. However, I don't believe we make it easy for people - at one end is original research and at the other is plagiarism and it is unclear to new editors writing on subjects exactly how one relies entirely on published sources without hijacking them - it's a fine balance and takes a while to get right for many people (especially those without a specific academic background). I think there is some concerns about this editor's work but I believe bans should be reserved for circumstances where the violation is either intended to harm Wikipedia or it is deliberately concealed in order to inflate the editor's own profile, neither of which were the case here. An additional case could apply if it was so regular and frequent that it exposes Wikipedia to legal risk due to the lack of work hours available to detect and fix the edits. Orderinchaos 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I'm an academic (teaching college biology since 1979, dozens of papers in refereed journals) and a Wikipedian, and although I am not defending what Carol has done, I find some of the attitudes evinced about plagiarism in this discussion to be bizarre.

First, although plagiarism is a Very Bad Thing, it is not a crime in the United States (I'm not sure about other countries), and to conflate it with copyvio is the sort of ignorance that hurts more than it helps. It is especially worth noting that much of the material from the 1911 Britannica that is reused in Wikipedia, which is in no sense a copyvio, is nevertheless plagiarism when passages are copied verbatim without quotes, since Britannica never had a "derivative works" license.

Second, as Hesperian and perhaps others have pointed out, in technical fields there are limited ways to say certain things. Without getting into whether Carol crossed that line, the line certainly exists. For example, given a set of facts about a plant species, two formal descriptions prepared by two different botanists, with no knowledge of each other's work, will be largely similar.

Third, plagiarism is rampant in academia. I've known of colleagues who flunked students for plagiarism and at the same time plagiarized the papers of other students for use in their own publications. I would never defend it, but to say that plagiarism discourages the participation of academics, without addressing the lack of fact checking, the pervasiveness of vandalism (often subtle), and the general unfriendliness in some sectors to new editors (whether they be academics or not), is a shortsighted view of the factors that discourage academics.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, Curtis - you articulated something I felt needed saying better than I would have. I think Hesperian is on the money in her / his posts, and frankly, I find the tenor of this thread disconcerting. In the case of blatant repeated copyvio - warning and blocking is entirely appropriate. I'm worried however, that we've descended here to egging on an over-reaction, and it unsettles me. Slow down folks - attending to this issue appropriately does not include talking about site bans at this stage, in my book..... Privatemusings (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is neither a criminal court nor the United States, Wikipedia judges plagiarism on its own terms, with reference only to its own community. In that milieu it is judged harshly, since the theory of GFDL is tha we all freely contribute our singular edits. The 1911 Britannica copies, as I am aware, are accompanied by the {{1911}} template which explicitly states direct text copy from a public domain work. If I say right out front that I'm copying from the public domain, where does the plagiarism and/or copyvio come into play? Please explain.

Okay, humor me for a moment and assume that copyvio and plagiarism are different acts (they are, but I won't try to convince you of that, hence the "humor me"). Carol copies and pastes from a reference under copyright, modifies slightly, provides no quotation marks, and provides a citation. That may be a copyvio (depending on the amount of material used, and the fair use laws of the nations that host Carol, the Wikipedia servers, and the reader) and it is clearly plagiarism, her passing the work off as her own (although it's an interesting exercise to consider what "her own" means in an encyclopedia with mass authorship).

And another editor copies and pastes from the 1911 Brittanica, modifies slightly, provides no quotation marks, and uses the {{1911}} template. That is in no sense a copyvio, since the 1911 Britannica is no longer protected by a copyright. But it is in the exact same sense a plagiarism, since all of the particulars are the same.

Carol is on AN/I because of copyvio, not plagiarism.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Second, yes, the same set of facts and phrases comes into play in natural science. One must now examine the totality of the statements, are multiple works integrated, are statements from the same work merely reordered, etc. If information is simply regurgitated from a copyright source, it must at least be credited verbatim, but further must be evaluated in light of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Can I read a book, type that a little different, and so make it free?

Your points are good ones, but my point is that, having seen (e.g.) a botanical description of a plant, it would be difficult for me to write one that (1) did not falsify or omit facts, (2) followed the standard sequence for botanical description, and (3) would not get me accused of plagiarism. (In real life, I examine specimens when possible, consult multiple references, and interpret the data in that context. But it could still appear to an uneducated reader as plagiarism.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Third, plagiarism in academia - so what? Isn't that the tu quoque thing we see around here every so often? If your best friend is jumping off a cliff, will you too? (I know, Bart said "Milhouse is jumping off a cliff?!!"). Franamax (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have figured that my remark would be misinterpreted in that way. It was a specific response to TenOfAllTrades's statement, "I can think of few more effective ways to alienate and discourage the participation of academics and subject matter experts than by a failure on Wikipedia's part to take plagiarism seriously." I will assume that he/she is an academic, not just someone putting words into the mouths of academics, but I wanted to point out that in my view, as another academic, there are other equally serious issues.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism is often treated like a copyright violation. I wouldn't try to argue the edits above are plagiarism but not copyvios, hence less worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism is treated like a copyright violation only by the ignorant. A single action can be both, but if I copy a web page and put it on Wikipedia in quotes, with a citation, I have committed a copyvio but not plagiarism, and if I pass off a paragraph from a public domain work as my own, I have committed plagiarism but not copyvio. It's as simple as that. en.wikipedia uses United States Fair Use laws to govern images, and I assume the standards are the same for text. Some of Carol's edits shown above would arguably qualify as Fair Use, independent of being plagiarism (others wouldn't).--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If copyrighted material is plagiarized there is both plagiarism and copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For our purposes here, where we contribute under our own name/nyms, plagiarism and copyvio are largely equivalent. I certify that what is input under my nym is my own work, derived from the work of N/RS/V others. If I am making a direct copy, it is incumbent on me to explicitly state that is so, and to explicitly state the public-domain or copyrighted source. As long as I don't claim the work of others as my own, everything is fine. Franamax (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, please, please educate yourself about the differences between copyvio and plagiarism.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Topical news article on plagiarism. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your points about academia are noted, CurtisClark. However, where in many instances Wikipedia can mirror the goals of academia, this may be one area where those goals may be surpassed. Because college professors engage in plagiarism does not mean that we as editors should condone or tolerate it. That's their failing, and if the bureaucratic system within universities looks the other way, then shame on them. Wikipedia does not face the same cultural structure as a national community of researchers. Our pool is not so limited that the ripple of a professor getting sacked would impact the rest of the researchers in it. Our bane is, instead, accuracy. We don't have a "university" at the end of our name to lend articles automatic legitimacy, so we have to work harder to show our sources and prove our work. Nothing should come in the way of quality and accuracy of articles. --Moni3 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I am Curtis Clark, not "CurtisClark". It is the name under which I publish in the scientific literature, and a subset of the name on my birth certificate, driver's license, and Social Security Card. It is not a pseudonym.

Second, your implication that universities represent a single culture is even more egregious that the same implication about Wikipedia. Individuals operate within cultures, but they are not completely controlled. Again, my remark was directed at a statement about the factors that drive away academics, and should not be taken in any wider context.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood my point, but that may have to do with my expression of it. However, quite simply, the Wikipedia community should not tolerate plagiarism, if it violates copyright or not. It's quite possible to hold ourselves to a standard above what laws and rules require of us, and indeed, the practices of other academic communities. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But (1) plagiarism does not have the same legal implications for Wikipedia that copyright violation has, (2) plagiarism is a complicated and nuanced subject in a world with the GFDL, edit histories, and no overt authorship to Wikipedia articles, (3) Wikipedia is filled with plagiarism from public domain sources, and (4) plagiarism is only one of the many reasons that many academics don't want to contribute to Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with points 1 and 2. I know about point 3 and recently worked to rewrite Everglades, as it was tagged with an Encyclopaedia Britinnica 1911 template, and was sadly not comprehensive in any manner. There are a few other aritcles in my interest from public domain sources, and had I the time and resources, I'd rewrite them all myself. I think it should be a goal to take those public domain articles and phase them out. As for point 4, I'm not sure if what you're saying, according to your first post up top there, is that academics are so used to plagiarizing, or so numb to the consequences of it that they fear having to rewrite their own words; or that academics are afraid that writing for Wikipedia will allow their words to be plagiarized on a much larger scale, since they would be available for anyone. Or, rather, something else.

I've found my words copied verbatim and published elsewhere. I know, for instance, that I am providing many a middle school student with the basis of a comprehensive report on To Kill a Mockingbird, and I accept that. However, I found a previous version of a lead I wrote for the Barbara Gittings article printed verbatim in a calendar honoring pioneering LGBT writers. I tend to accept that less. Interestingly, what really made me angry was that some lazy editor lifted two sentences from Mulholland Dr., and placed them, citations and all (with access dates unchanged) into the article on Blue Velvet. I found that completely unacceptable. --Moni3 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One semitopical thing to keep in mind about a lot of this: as far as I know, "A Modern Herbal" (the book which was plagiarized/violated in at least the mayweed article) is, I'm fairly certain, a public domain book. My paper copy, at least, has no notice of copyright. Not sure if that's here, there, or neither here nor there, but seems worth pointing out. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Carcharoth (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User is editwarring to restore her version of articles

Anthemis cotula: [4][5] The version she's restoring includes the dodgy quote I mentioned before, and I haven't gone through this article with a fine-toothed comb, so there may well be more. In the end, if she's going to actively fight efforts to deal with the problem she caused, I too am going to have to support banning. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Come off it! The first link is her original expansion of the article. Whether or not that was plagiarism is disputed here. Blueboy96 reverted her without giving an edit summary explaining why, and she reverted back. One revert is not "edit warring". Hesperian 00:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The real story here, is that a number of articles were reported as plagiarised, and Blueboy96 removed the allegedly offending material. I pointed out that one of them didn't seem like plagiarism to me. Carol has elected to restore that one article, and none of the others. This is responsible and appropriate behaviour, just what you were looking for. And now she's reported for edit warring?!! This discussion has jumped the shark I'm afraid. Hesperian 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, I misread the history. However, she's now reverted again, making it edit-warring after all. She really is her own worst enemy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

She sure is. But this should still be understood in context. Numerous of her articles have been reverted as plagiarism; she is edit warring over only one of them, one that is arguably not plagiarism. Hesperian 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. If you read the last sentence here - "if you would like to help with those articles which have problem pastes, I will probably mostly appreciate it" - you'll find Carol acknowledging that there is a problem, and doing the very opposite of edit warring over it. Hesperian 01:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Pity about every other sentence in that diff, though - if she could just take this seriously, I'd feel a lot better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to help User:CarolSpears with these at the minute, as in the above diff. I just rewrote Anthemis cotula for the sake of a starter, will look at the other articles originally mentioned by User:Shoemaker's Holiday in a little while (and any others User:CarolSpears wants to propose). Agree with User:Hesperian and User:Curtis Clark that technical articles can be hard to reword, I think assistance from other editors is important in that respect. I think it'll all work out. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

an apology

It has been suggested to me that I apologize, and I am starting to agree with the suggestion.

I am sorry for the situation that exists here. Whatever I did to cause it, I will attempt to avoid in the future.

Also, I did not really mean it when I said that I wanted to see an example of how uncited articles are ignored and allowed to sit there until moldy. That was a bad joke that I am very sorry I made here.

Please accept this apology and thank you for all the efforts to protect the encyclopedia. -- carol (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Withdrawing the proposal to ban. Carol, I hope things work out. Durova^Charge! 06:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be very interested to see the advice Carol is given with regard to plagiarism as, reading the above discussion, it seems she has inadvertantly stepped slightly to one side of an invisible line in an effort to improve this encyclopedia. I have often wondered just where the line is myself. I will watch her page keenly. Abtract (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, look at resources such as this one (though there are many more out there). It is indeed sometimes hard to tell the line between acceptable and unacceptable paraphrase. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion, a good way to avoid plagiarism is to NEVER paste text into the edit box (unless you plan to use it as a quotation). Instead, read the article or articles, think about what you want to say, then go write the paragraph with minimal reference to them (I usually check my reference mainly for things like spelling and dates, or where I'm trying to explain, say, a line of argument by scholar X and thus need to get each step in the argument in the right order and clearly explained. You can't end up with an insufficiently edited paste if you never paste in the first place. This also has the advantage that it forces you to think about what's important, and what information you want to include. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose that it is a good lesson that not everybody responds the same way to criticism, one which some others might take to heart (that would be me, that it would), and that in itself a non expected response should have no bearing on the premise of the complaint. It might not be helpful, but it should be accommodated sufficiently to enable a discussion to commence (if no discussion does ultimately commence, then it is another piece of kindling to the pyre) which may then resolve the matter. I would also comment that I can be flippant and sarky - but only when I know I am in the right (and when I do that in the mistaken belief I am right I will likely deserve everything I get). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A link to a useful example, the good and bad paraphrase

Acceptable and unacceptable paraphrases.[6] --Blechnic (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)==))

Further copyvios by CarolSpears

Matricaria recutita

The long lists are exact copy-pastes:

Matricaria recutita CarolSpears' version	Other source
Anthemis arvensis, Anthemis cotula, Anthemis nobile, Anthemis nobilis, Anthemis xylopoda, apigenin, baboonig, babuna, babunah, babunah camomile, babunj, bunga kamil, camamila, camamilla, camomile, camomile sauvage, camomilla, Camomille Allemande, Campomilla, chamaemeloside, Chamaemelum nobile L., chamomile flowers, Chamomilla , Chamomilla recutita, chamomillae ramane flos, chamomille commune, classic chamomile, common chamomile, double chamomile, Echte Kamille (Dutch), English chamomile, feldkamille (German), fleur de chamomile (French), fleurs de petite camomille (French), Flores Anthemidis, flos chamomillae, garden chamomile, German chamomile, Grosse Kamille, Grote Kamille, ground apple, Hungarian chamomile, Kamille, Kamillen, kamitsure, kamiture, Kleine, kleme kamille, lawn chamomile, low chamomile, manzanilla, manzanilla chiquita, manzilla comun, manzanilla dulce, matricaire, Matricaria chamomilla, Matricaria maritime (L.), Matricaria recutita, Matricaria suaveolens, matricariae flos, matricariae flowers, may-then, Nervine, pin heads, rauschert, Romaine, romaine manzanilla, Roman chamomile, Romische Kamille, single chamomile, STW 5 (containing Iberis, peppermint, chamomile), sweet chamomile, sweet false chamomile, sweet feverfew, true chamomile, whig-plant, wild chamomile,	Anthemis arvensis , Anthemis cotula , Anthemis nobile , Anthemis nobilis , Anthemis xylopoda , apigenin, Asteraceae/Compositae (family), baboonig, babuna, babunah, babunah camomile, babunj, bunga kamil, camamila, camamilla, camomile, camomile sauvage, camomilla, Camomille Allemande, Campomilla, chamaemeloside, Chamaemelum nobile L. , chamomile flowers, Chamomilla , Chamomilla recutita , chamomillae ramane flos, chamomille commune, classic chamomile, common chamomile, double chamomile, Echte Kamille (Dutch), English chamomile, feldkamille (German), fleur de chamomile (French), fleurs de petite camomille (French), Flores Anthemidis, flos chamomillae, garden chamomile, German chamomile, Grosse Kamille, Grote Kamille, ground apple, Hungarian chamomile, Kamille, Kamillen, kamitsure, kamiture, Kleine, kleme kamille, lawn chamomile, low chamomile, manzanilla, manzanilla chiquita, manzilla comun, manzanilla dulce, matricaire, Matricaria chamomilla , Matricaria maritime (L.), Matricaria recutita , Matricaria suaveolens , matricariae flos, matricariae flowers, may-then, Nervine, pin heads, rauschert, Romaine, romaine manzanilla, Roman chamomile, Romische Kamille, single chamomile, STW 5 (containing Iberis, peppermint, chamomile), sweet chamomile, sweet false chamomile, sweet feverfew, true chamomile, whig-plant, wild chamomile.
Ārstniecības kumelīte (Latvian), Camomilla comune (Italian), Capomilla (Italian), Echte Kamille (German), Kamomill (Swedish), Kamomillasaunio (Finnish), Kamomilleblom (Norwegian), Kamumilla (Maltese), Kryddbaldursbrá (Icelandic), Matricaire Camomille (French), Matricaire tronquée (French), Prava kamilica (Croat), Prava kamilica (Slovene), Ramunėlis (Lithuanian), Rumanček kamilkový (Slovak), Scented Mayweed (English), Teekummel (Estonian), Vaistinė ramunė (Lithuanian), Vellugtende Kamille (Danish), Ромашка лекарственная (Russian), בבונג דו-גוני (Israel (Hebrew)), בַּבּוֹנָג דּוּ-גּוֹנִי (Israel (Hebrew)), Äkta kamomill (Swedish), Camomille allemande (French), Petite Camomille (French) and Sötblomster (Swedish).	Ārstniecības kumelīte (Latvian), Camomilla comune (Italian), Camomille sauvage (French), Camomille vraie (French), Capomilla (Italian), Echte kamille (Dutch), Echte Kamille (German), Kamomill (Swedish), Kamomillasaunio (Finnish), Kamomilleblom (Norwegian), Kamumilla (Maltese), Kryddbaldursbrá (Icelandic), Matricaire Camomille (French), Matricaire tronquée (French), Prava kamilica (Croat), Prava kamilica (Slovene), Ramunėlis (Lithuanian), Rumanček kamilkový (Slovak), Scented Mayweed (English), Teekummel (Estonian), Vaistinė ramunė (Lithuanian), Vellugtende Kamille (Danish), Ромашка лекарственная (Russian), בבונג דו-גוני (Israel (Hebrew)), בַּבּוֹנָג דּוּ-גּוֹנִי (Israel (Hebrew)), Äkta kamomill (Swedish), Camomille allemande (French), Petite Camomille (French), Sötblomster (Swedish)

Tripleurospermum

Tripleurospermum	[7]
This genus, treated under Matricaria by some authors, is characterized by 3-ribbed one-seeded, one-celled, indehiscent fruits bearing two resinous glands that face away from the base which are absent in Matricaria.	This genus, treated under Matricaria by some authors, is characterized by 3-ribbed cypselas bearing 2 abaxial resinous glands which are absent in Matricaria.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is good that you are documenting these, but as far as I know, this no longer requires administrative intervention? Maybe post them somewhere else, maybe on her talk page? Hesperian 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure that long list qualifies as a copyvio, because it is simply information. There is no wording to change. Viridae^Talk 04:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

She uses the exact wording, exact layout, includes asides such as "STW 5 (containing Iberis, peppermint, chamomile)". It's copyvio. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

He is the judge and jury, he edits without a concensus and with only the inkling that there might be problems and he is only capable of deleting text, not in repairing it. I think that there is a broken person at work here. Can a person who can see a problem also be able to fix it? Not being able to provide an example of acceptable wording, how come you are involved and interested? Please, go undo your edits until an enabled being can repair the problems you are seeing. -- carol (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See the bottom of the editbox? Where it says "Copyright violations will be deleted"? We take that seriously. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Concensus". Heh. Hesperian 04:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple list of names isn't copyrightable, at least not in the United States. --Carnildo (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they are, particularly the lenghy translation section where all the commentary (countries, etc) is copied as well. In the end, she copy-pasted from websites, not changing a single letter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempted bribe by CarolSpears

Here CarolSpears asks me to stop looking into and fixing her copyvios, in exchange for WP:FPC votes. In the previous section, you will find a personal attack against me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Define the word fixing as used in this context. -- carol (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Or is she merely casting aspersions on your motives for pursuing this? Hesperian 04:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My last two FPCs: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Trial_by_Jury Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore As you will see, Carol did not vote on them. I cannot recall the nomination before that. Does anyone seriously believe I'm going to get upset over someone not voting? What actually happened was I happened to be looking at Agrostis gigantea and saw the suspicious edit summary - it's deleted now, so this is paraphrase - "Created with some pasting". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, could you put some bracketing dates around those articles, please!!!! -- carol (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was confused. A list of names that a plant has been called, it is going to be extremely difficult to 'reword' that. I was wondering if you could just make a collection of all of the articles I have written and the start date and end date for me. That would be 1) very cool to see and 2) helpful for the abled people (abled meaning people who are able to reword potential problem text). At any point, should a lawyer show up and have an issue with the text; provide the summons and stuff, the extremely simple reversions that you are doing now will be as simple then. Also, further, I apologize if I have once again mis-spelled the word consensus anywhere. -- carol (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYVIO, and kindly stop the personal attacks. I am acting according to the relevant policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You have also made personal attacks and undid efforts to fix the massive problem you caused with your WP:COPYVIO here. Please stop. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Those images have been nominated in three of the wikimedia hosted contests. Here, commons FP and also at commons VI. Perhaps an editor who does not have so many contests going could manage these problems, proving the good faith of it not being an attempt to make art out of the encyclopedia. Could you abstain from your editing and let an administrator who does not have images entered into contests do this dirty work? -- carol (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And one more question. Is the version you are reverting to as free from this perception of copyvio as you are demanding my version be? Please display for everyone the copyvio goodness your reversions are displaying and I will think a little less that you don't really know what you are doing here, I promise.

Also, since this seems to be a one person (and three contest entry) dealie, isn't it better handled at the Village Pump? -- carol (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Request that CarolSpears be blocked for personal attacks

Most of these are clearly visible above, so I shan't go into details. But here and here she makes bizarre accusations about WP:FPC (which I don't even currently have any images up for consideration on)

This is a particularly egregious personal attack], here she calls me disabled and although I have asked her to stop [8] the attacks continue: [9].

I'm sorry, I'm unwilling to put up with this, particularly when I'm trying to fix the mess this user caused by her copyright violations, which noone denies happened. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks there. Hesperian 05:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which makes this the third falsedubious section heading you've create here - she wasn't edit warring, she didn't try to bribe you, and now she hasn't personally attacked you. I think you need to take a few deep breaths SH. Hesperian 05:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

... although the "pricks" stuff is getting a bit much. Hesperian 05:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not seeing any either - Alison ^❤ 05:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are not aware of all the circumstances. Feel free to email me for a clue. Jehochman ^Talk 06:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are REALLY not helping this situation. Viridae^Talk 05:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, strike ouyt your comment, I object to being accused of opening this as part of a bizarre conspiracy to improve my WP:FPC standing. I object to being called a "broken person". And I especially object to you claiming that I, the victim of Carol's attacks, simply because I tried to uphold WP:COPYVIO am the one at fault, and your claims that I lied. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What part of what comment do you want me to withdraw? Hesperian 05:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That I lied about it being a bribe (it may not have been, but the alternative is bizarre) and that I lied about personal attacks - you may not think they rise to blockable level, but they are attacks. I accept I was mistaken about the edit-warring until after I had made the comment. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you lied; I just think you were wrong. Carol seems to think that the FPC system is fundamentally corrupt, and what she said to you appears to be an attempt to cram into a single sentence both "You are too busy wasting your time on FPC to handle this situation properly, so go away" and "FPC is corrupt so you must be too". It was cryptic because it was too dense with meaning.

I don't think the stuff you linked to above constituted actionable personal attacks, but while I was defending her here, she was on her talk page calling you a big prick, so I'll willingly withdraw the assertion that she hasn't personally attacked you. Whether something should be done about her personal attack(s) is a matter for an uninvolved admin. Personally I think this thread has been extremely unpleasant for Carol, and has become so poisonous that nothing good can come out of it for anyone, and I'd prefer if we just archived it and wend about our business. But as I said I am deeply involved so I'll leave it for someone uninvolved. I see Jehochman has proposed a remedy below.... Hesperian 06:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In the end, I'm trying very hard to deal with a situation which arised because CarolSpears made major copyvio, and she's refusing to accept any responsibility, instead attacking me, complaining that WP:COPYVIO shouldn't apply to her until such time as her actions cause Wikipedia to actually be sued, and making up grand conspiracy theories about WP:FPC with me at the centre. And when I get upset at her complaining and attacking me as a "broken person", claiming I'm making a fuss over nothing because of some WP:FPC conspiracy, and now calling me a "big prick", you take the opportunity to say that you have no problem with any of that, and that I'm just a troublemaker. I presume you can see why I might get a bit annoyed at such a response.

And she still hasn't said she doesn't intend to do this again, nor that she would actually do anything to help clean it up - merely that she's happy to have other people do the work of making her articles non-copyright violating on her behalf, so long as she doesn't have to lift a finger. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I can' see why that would be upsetting... except that I did not say that I have no problem with any of that, and I certainly didn't say that you are just a troublemaker. I endorse neither of those sentiments. You forget that I have myself blocked Carol twice, and that others have blocked her for personally attacking me (not that I asked them to). I am not unaware that Carol habitually hides rudeness behind a veneer of riddles.But I still say that this whole discussion has jumped the shark, and Carol should be acquitted, having suffered enough from this thread, which she referred to on her talk page as "administrative wikified gang rape". Hesperian 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. Sorry. I'm afraid that I may be a little tense just now, and, well... I just want to get the situation handled so no further disruption happens, and get rid of all the plagiarism. She instead began to attack me for dealing with it in various articles, which makes it hard to see that it can be dealt with, if she's just going to revert any attempts to fix it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see egregious personal attacks and disruption by User:CarolSpears. I suggest a block, perhaps a week, or until they show some sort of understanding and inclination not to repeat the problematic behaviors. Jehochman ^Talk 06:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that feelings are running high here, and I hope those of us uninvolved can work to de-escalating and resolving this situation as calmly as possible - Jehoch, if you feel a week's block is appropriate, could you at least head over to carol's talk page, and explain to her clearly where you think she's violated policies, and why you are prepared to block her for a week? - this sort of passive discussion of suggestions might be an approach which actually continues the escalation, rather than helping.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, if you see "egregious personal attacks and disruption" it is best to provide some evidence (either before or after the block), rather than just speaking from authority. Point out the specific diffs that have led you to this conclusion, otherwise there is no point announcing a proposal or intent to block. It is also best to describe the actual behaviour, rather than use general terms ('personal attack' and 'disruption'), as these general terms cover a range of behaviours. Carcharoth (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the thread before commenting. Maybe you should read it again, carefully, and slowly and actually check all the evidence presented. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For those new to the discussion:

• [10] (calls another editor a "broken person")
• [11] (edit summary suggests that editor is disabled)
• [12] refering to another editor "he is a little bigger of a prick"

Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I did read the thread, but there was disagreement in the thread over what counted as a personal attack. That is why I asked you to clarify what you were referring to. We can't read your mind. Now that you have been specific, we can actually attempt to reach consensus on whether a block is needed here, but it would have been quicker if you had done that in the first place - I agree that the first two examples are not acceptable, and cross the line into a personal attack. The third has been said to be referring to "pin pricks", not "pricks". Given that it has been said Carol engages in double entendres (something I was unaware of when I discussed this with her on her talk page), I'd view that rather dimly as well. So yes, I agree that personal attacks have taken place. Now, do you want to do the same with your comment regarding "disruption"? Disruption is a vague term - when it is used, evidence should be provided and the level of disruption indicated. For what it is worth, there are edits that I think some people would view as disruptive (eg. the FPC edits - though some have called that trolling), but what is disruptive for one person can be mildly amusing for another, or annoying but not enough to be disruptive (ie. it can be managed or ignored). So which is it? For the record, I think that a section header such as "Request that User:X be blocked for personal attacks" is disruptive, but others may think that is a legitimate way to draw attention to an issue. Anyway, it seems things have moved on a bit from this point anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I oppose any block. Carol has been bluntly accused of awful things, and she is reacting defensively; is that surprising? The situation is heated and needs to be handled by calmer individuals. The alleged plagiarism is not egregious (it isn't direct copy-pastes) and does not need to be dealt with immediately as some kind of emergency. Ideally, Carol could go back and rework the problem cases within a reasonable timeframe, without requiring anyone else to get involved (except perhaps to review and ensure that the reworking is adequate). Everyking (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact, it is direct copy-pastes. That's the problem. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No examples of direct copy-pastes have been given, except for the list (which doesn't qualify). Copy and pasting something and then fiddling with the wording is not the same thing. Everyking (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyking is correct - lists are not copyrightable, as they are derivative works, consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (see [13]). As an aside, would many of Carol's "copyvios" be resolved by sticking them in quote marks and putting the reference on the end? Oppose blocks, Carol was solely guilty of misunderstanding precisely what does and does not constitute plagiarism, and has indicated above on more than one occasion she now does understand. Neıl 龱 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's stating it too simple though. Not all lists are copyrightable, but many are. Garion96 (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Come on guys, where is your sense of proportion, your understanding forgiving nature; your recognition of past services to wp, your acknowledgement that we all cock up occasionally (especially when we are not entirely clear about the miriad rules)? I see an editor who probably got it wrong through stepping somewhat the wrong side of the copy/rephrase line and a bunch of people throwing stones instead of helping solve the problem. She reacted badly (a mere glance at my history will show that I know how easy that is) but who among you has not done it at some time? Please, all calm down ... consign the harsh words to the dustbin of the past ... ask yourselves "how can we help solve this problem in a way that is good for wp and good for Carol" My guess is that she would like an honourable way out of this mess ... why not offer her one? Abtract (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While I was typing the above, a very sensible suggestion was being posted immediately below this thread; I absolutely endorse the proposal by Mitch. Abtract (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Shoemaker's Holiday, enough already. To me, it looks like you're the one harassing Carol. You keep accusing her of copyvio, yet, your copy and paste of the "original" against Carol's version repudiates your claim. IT CAN'T BE A COPYVIO IF IT'S NOT THE SAME Carol's is not the same. Just knock it off

Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 13:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• • WRONG. Trivial changes are not protection, and, for instance, look at the sentence in the first comparison beginning "Lake Kimilili is surrounded by sparse C3 shrubland dominated by Alchemilla, Helichrysum, and Dendrosenecio..." That's a very long passsage where the changes are as likely as not accidental, as that book cannot be copy-pasted from. The third diff has one complete sentence, unchanged at all, and one sentence that is simply slighly abridged from the original. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Nor did I show everything. Look at the Google cache of Agrostis gigantea [14] and you'll find a lot more copyvio than I quoted. Indeed, there is an entire cut-and-pasted paragraph:

Carol Spears's Wikipedia version	http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/grasses/plants/redtop.htm
The preference is full sun, moist to mesic conditions, and a loam or clay-loam soil. This grass adapts well to worn-out soil in agricultural fields.	The preference is full sun, moist to mesic conditions, and a loam or clay-loam soil. This grass adapts well to worn-out soil in agricultural fields.
It has a circumpolar distribution, occurring as a now native grass in both North America and Eurasia.	It has a circumpolar distribution, occurring as a native grass in both North America and Eurasia.
The wind-pollinated flowers attract few insects. The caterpillars of several skippers feed on the foliage of Redtop, including Amblyscirtes vialis (Common Roadside Skipper), Hesperia leonardus (Leonard's Skipper), Hylephila phyleus (Fiery Skipper), and the introduced Thymelicus lineola (European Skipper). The caterpillars of the moth Leucania pseudargyria (False Wainscot) feed on Agrostis spp. (Bentgrasses). The seeds are eaten by the Field Sparrow to a limited extent, while the Cottontail rabbit occasionally browses on the foliage. Redtop is quite palatable to livestock.	The wind-pollinated flowers attract few insects. The caterpillars of several skippers feed on the foliage of Redtop, including Amblyscirtes vialis (Common Roadside Skipper), Hesperia leonardus (Leonard's Skipper), Hylephila phyleus (Fiery Skipper), and the introduced Thymelicus lineola (European Skipper). The caterpillars of the moth Leucania pseudargyria (False Wainscot) feed on Agrostis spp. (Bentgrasses). The seeds are eaten by the Field Sparrow to a limited extent, while the Cottontail Rabbit occasionally browses on the foliage. Redtop is quite palatable to livestock.

Let's look at the second source quoted for that article:

[CarolSpears' Wikipedia version	http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/agrgig/all.html
Redtop, native to Europe, has been introduced throughout temperate North America as a pasture grass. It occurs from Newfoundland south to the mountains of northern Georgia and Alabama, west to California, and north to Alaska.	Redtop, native to Europe, has been introduced throughout temperate North America as a pasture grass. It occurs from Newfoundland south to the mountains of northern Georgia and Alabama, west to California, and north to Alaska.
It is apparently uncommon or absent from the warm, humid regions of the Gulf Coast and from the desert regions of the Southwest	It is apparently uncommon or absent from the warm, humid regions of the Gulf Coast and from the desert regions of the Southwest
Redtop regenerates vegetatively and by seed. Germination rates are high, generally 85 percent or greater. No pretreatment is necessary but light is required for germination. Redtop seeds are long-lived and accumulate in a seedbank. Germination was 91 percent after 6 years of storage and 50 percent after 20 years of storage in an uncontrolled environment.	Redtop regenerates vegetatively and by seed. Germination rates are high, generally 85 percent or greater [20,61]. No pretreatment is necessary but light is required for germination [20]. Redtop seeds are long-lived and accumulate in a seedbank [6,38]. Germination was 91 percent after 6 years of storage [61] and 50 percent after 20 years of storage in an uncontrolled environment [32].

For those keeping track at home, that means that the sections "Foodplant" and "Distribution" are 100% copyvio, and a few paragraphs elsewhere.

NOW do you see what the problem is? I gave selected examples, and did not go into detail about the worst copyvio as it was already deleted. But there are copyvios everywhere. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |

A proposal to end this discussion

With the discussion going nowhere, I have come with a proposal to end it and small, light, punishment of carol. I propose that:

1. No ban/block is implemented at this time.
2. CarolSpears get a mentor and/or supervisor to watch her edits for future copyvios.
3. If another set of copyvios come to AN/I, a proposal for a block and/or ban is proposed.

I do see a good future for CarolSpears, we just got to look over her a little more and help her along the way.^Mitch32^contribs 10:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - give her an honourable way out and focus on the future. Abtract (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - just a non-admin viewpoint here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- Carol's obviously feeling that she's beset from all sides right now, and it's going to be hard to help her improve without a breather. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse this one. Although I supported the siteban - that was only until carol showed some indication she knew what she had done wrong. Baseball Bugs - your opinion matters - admin or non admin. Viridae^Talk 10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse points one and two (but the mentor relationship must be friendly and should be someone acceptable to Carol); however, I don't endorse point three—if a block/ban becomes necessary, someone will surely propose one, but spelling it out at this point would create an expectation of that outcome were future problems to arise, compromising our ability to make a fair decision at that point. Everyking (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Someone needs to direct Carol to this discussion, in case she refuses to agree with the above - partially the 2nd statement. D.M.N. (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, she's acknowledged this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse with caveats: I endorse this as long as CarolSpears promises not to make personal attacks or insults, or create further copyvios. She should also help, in a big way, to clean them up. Violation of these conditions should result in a long (or even indef) block...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 13:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment "...small, light, punishment of carol." The purpose of a block or a ban is not to punish a user, but to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Nobody has volunteered to mentor, and CarolSpears has not requested mentorship. Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'll volunteer to mentor her in regards to "effective communication", but I am not by any means an expert in copyright law, so someone else will need to at least monitor the situation. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse: With Carol acknowledging this, I see no reason why this proposal cannot move forward. seicer | talk | contribs 17:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I will stand as a potential mentor, too. I am uninterested in applying my own judgment on what may be copyvio, plagiarism or sticking close to the source, but I am willing to act in regard to this editors dealing with such complaints and claims. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal

I suggest that CarolSpears (talk · contribs) be placed on civility restriction, and also copyvio restriction. Any further violations of decorum or copyvio by this editor may result in an immediate block by an uninvolved administrator. That's the gist of the proposal. If this gains support, we can work out the exact details with greater precision. Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Unless someone is going to take the time to explain to her the difference between copyvio and "not-copyvio", this proposal is pointless (unless the point is to set up a hair-trigger for a future block). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A lot of time seems to have been invested trying to explain, but she's falling back on WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Jehochman ^Talk 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: I couldn't find any personal attacks above, although some of the comments could be easily construed as such (referring to the "disabled" comment). Very poor choice of words, and perhaps heated, but to place a good contributor on civility patrol would open up a block for every minor infraction. It's better to warn, block and ignore in this case, in my opinion. seicer | talk | contribs 17:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Response from another editor CarolSpears' block log.[15] --Blechnic (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The block log shows warnings have been entirely ineffective. Seicer, you need to look for the box above with the green border. Saying "he is a little bigger of a prick" is a personal attack. As is calling somebody a "broken person", or suggesting that they are disabled. It is clear to me that CarolSpears is acting like a troll, and needs firm limits set, or else an indefinite block. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I am well aware of the block log, but in the examples cited above, I, nor other editors and administrators, could find any strong personal attacks. Some off-topic and coloured comments, yes, but nothing that is all that ill. I'll echo LHV's comments below. seicer | talk | contribs 18:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Sometimes, when discussions like this take place, it helps when someone states their viewpoint and acts decisively. At other times, someone wading in and trying to impose their view, only ends up disrupting the discussion. And saying someone is acting like a troll doesn't help. Either they are (in which case block), or you are not sure (in which case, don't block). And if other editors say that you may be wrong about trolling, discuss it with them first. Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. There seems to be something of a communication breakdown, it is true... but it takes both sides to fail to understand. The WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem is not one sided, in my view. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More to consider

I've been scratching my head wondering which is worse: to post the likely context of Carol's comment to Shoe or not to. This discussion has developed in very strange directions. I don't think the administrators who've been quick and vocal about defending Carol have intentionally poisoned the well, yet it has created a chilling effect. I've held back from posting this because of concern that I'd be called a vigilante if I even tried.

From December through February Carol followed quite a few of my FP nominations on both Wikipedia and Commons. She singled me out without provocation. Here are a couple of the later examples.[16][17]

That disruption culminated in a long thread at her user talk page. Note the way she went about it, by going after not just me but also a new participant at FPC. Here is the discussion.[18]

For a while I thought she had stopped. Then on June 1, a day when an image I restored ran on wikipedia's main page, Carol goes back to two different people with complaints, insinuating that featured picture candidacies are corrupt.[19][20]

And then resumes trolling my work: Wikipedia:FPC#Australian_Red_Cross_poster.2C_WWI. I didn't know what to do. In the past she had disrupted FPCs for projects I had spent as much as 20-30 hours restoring. This Red Cross nomination is the worst place she could have shown up: I had spent weeks coaching Steve Crossin and he's not very confident in the software yet. I'd hoped this conomination would be a pleasant morale booster, but with an ordeal like this spinning out of it--if this happened during your first FPC would you ever try again?

I'd really let most of this slide because I thought she was doing good work elsewhere, and then it turns out that the "good" work was serial plagiarism and it had repeatedly slipped onto Wikipedia's main page. That's when I looked back at her contributions and saw that on June 1 she was going behind my back again. Months ago I tried to engage her in friendly communication. I gave up. If people need more context I can supply it. Carol's "bribery" comment to Shoemaker fits in with the accusations of corruption she's been making for a long time. Durova^Charge! 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how some admins AGF'ing should have a chilling effect; if there are further concerns regarding the editor then the same Good Faith means they should be considered on their merits - but it is also the case that the perceived shrillness of certain parties in having CarolSpears sanctioned, despite there being no good chance of a consensus forming for that to happen, is rather disinclining some respondents to consider the further allegations and comments of past problems. If there is other concerns that contributors feel need addressing, then start afresh in a new thread. This thread relates to potential copyvio and plagiarism concerns which are acerbated by some communication difficulties. This has largely been considered and proposals put in place to try and deal with it. Perhaps we should let this aspect alone and not bring in fresh (or old, but newly mentioned) problems which will possibly divert us from resolving the original issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

When an assumption of good faith toward one editor bleeds into negative assumptions toward others, that's a problem. Some of the people at this thread have been too quick to assert that Shoe and I went overboard. And yes, that creates a chilling effect. Because when that gains traction there's a risk that subsequent evidence may get dismissed. Do I misread, or are you insinuating that when I raise evidence of Carol's disruption this week that may drive a new FPC nominator off FPC entirely is old, but newly mentioned? Scroll above, please: I already raised this problem in the thread before. What it appears very much is that the people who have extensive experience with CarolSpears are getting dismissed, their diffs unread, and their conclusions dismissed as shrill. This is not good faith. This is very bad faith. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dismissed? Could you point me toward where I indicate that the concerns are not worthy of further consideration. Yes, I did comment that one parties continued efforts to have CarolSpears sanctioned over the matter of possible copyvio may have the appearance of "shrillness" (and is that so much worse than commenting upon the "chilling effect" of some other editors AGF comments?) and, yes, I am aware that you had raised the same point previously, and that it was not extensively commented upon. So, I make the suggestion that a fresh thread (and not a sub-thread of an existing and - hopefully - concluding matter) be opened to address these further concerns. In the meanwhile it may be that the specific matter brought here might be resolved. This will not, and should not, effect the deliberations on any other matter that the community should be made aware of. Starting a new thread may also bring the new concerns to the attention of those who have now withdrawn from this particular thread - which, I suggest, would be beneficial. I am disappointed that my intentions should be so misinterpreted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I hear ya, and I understand she's frustrating to deal with. But please keep in mind that she (almost certainly) has a certain personality type that's not something she can easily "rein in", and I'm pretty sure that she really does believe that FPC, RFA, etc. are corrupt. She is, however, a contributor who really wants to improve Wikipedia, and is obviously motivated to do the legwork and look up information to improve articles... she just needs some mentoring on how to use/quote/cite sources, and perhaps even more so needs an angel on her shoulder to help maintain her cool. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

She needs more than just that. She needs to stop driving new people off FPC. It appears that she targeted me because I was new and productive at image restoration, an area that interests her. Since then she's behaved similarly to at least two other new people. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree this should be dealt with in a separate thread. I also agree that Carol does need to stop disrupting Featured Picture Candidate threads. Her concerns about corruption (I tihnk it is low participation, myself) should be raised (and discussed, not dismissed) at the appropriate talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

They were, months ago, and nothing satisfies her. She shifts the burden of evidence for this extraordinary accusation onto the people who say she's mistaken, and repeats the accusation anyway even after her position is refuted. Durova^Charge! 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere at WT:FPC? Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I did feel rather strongly that there was a strong undercurrent of people wishing I would just go away, and stop saying things that conflicted with decisions they had already made. People said she didn't really copy-paste, because she made slight changes. I showed evidence that she did. They then claimed that lists were not copyvios, and it was claimed I was harassing her by providing evidence, since she supposedly didn't do exact copy-pastes of non-lists. I have now shown that yes, in Agrostis gigantea, two entire sections, and at least one paragraph of another section were pretty much exact copypastes (the only changes being to add the word "now", and strip the source's reference tags). Now I'll probably be accused of beating a dead horse, because I dared defend myself (by providing more evidence) from a frivolous claim of harassment.

I was working hard to sort out her disruption by trying to fix the copyvios, and got nothing but grief from not only CarolSpears, but people in this thread over it. That has a substantially chilling effect; do you seriously expect to put people through what you put me through, and still report the next copyright violator they find? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, I think you provided too many examples here. I haven't had the time yet to go through all of them. When you have a large list like that, it is best to list them somewhere else and link to it, and then carefully develop your argument with examples. Don't get distracted by personal attacks - keep focused on asking questions about, and discussing, the concerns you have with the articles. If you could list the evidence somewhere else, and then start a new thread to summarise the findings, that would be good. I would be happy to help go through the evidence with you if you want. Carcharoth (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be useful. Should we open an RFC? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be best. Durova could raise her concerns there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would comment that your complaint was being dealt with, but it appears you were not happy with the conclusions that some people were coming to (in good faith, I would add) nor how it was being decided to try and resolve it. Your reaction was to give further examples of how bad this person was, and to restate your thoughts on what should be done. So, in essence and in blunt terms, you were chiding those volunteers who were applying themselves in trying to resolve the matter for not doing as you thought they should... and you are now aggrieved that you feel discomforted when hoops are left unjumped? You say you might not bring up any other examples of possible copyvio, because the response when you did this one was not to your liking and you feel "chilled" by the reception? Now I don't wish to be regarded as having some "dark undercurrent" in my comments so I shall put this quite bluntly, the encyclopedia is not here to serve your perception of how things should be done, nor mine, nor CarolSpears, nor anyone else - it is here to be used as a resource for the public readership. As I am trying to emphasise on CarolSpears talkpage, there are certain practices and procedures on WP that should be followed and trying to shortcut them to get to "the truth" is likely to be counter-productive. Working with the community, or such of it as is represented here, is far more likely to get (close to) what you want than chiding them for lack of application to your demands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked Carol for 48 hours because she has decided to revert Matricaria recutita back to her version less than 30 minutes ago, with the description section quite clearly plagerised from here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I've tweaked the "description" link so that it works for all variations of user preferences (some have preferences set to show diffs only and not the full page). Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been comparing this page with this page, and I agree that large chunks of the text of the Wikipedia article (before it was returned to being a redirect) were based on that website. I would lilke to point out a few things though. Where did that website, Illinois Wildflowers, get its information from? I have found a references page here, but no indication as to which bits of information on which pages come from which of the references. If people want to re-add this information to Wikipedia, I suggest they get the books and resources listed on that references page, and recreate what the person who wrote that website has done. I would also point out that that website does not give a date for when each of its pages were last updated, and only says "This website is periodically updated". This makes it nearly impossible to properly check copyvio claims, as if a website does not give a date of publication (here, the closest is the copyright date of 2002-2007), we cannot confirm which way the copying went (ie. whether we copied them, or they copied us). In this case, it is clear that Carol copied them, but the general point still holds. Finally, please compare this with this (current version of 'German Chamomile') and this (the version before Carol split the content). Whoever redirected Carol's split back into German Chamomile didn't dig around further and fix this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Short version: Illinois Wildflowers, while a nice website, isn't really set up for us to be able to use it properly (it is not clear what the author there has written himself, and what he has got from other people's writings - ironic, really). We would be better off going a step further back and using and citing the resources here to improve our flower articles instead. Plus stuff needs fixing at German Chamomile. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009

I've got another dicey SSP for a couple of admins to review. I'm not in doubt that these users are sockpuppets, but what should be done about it? Yechiel (Shalom) 04:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that this is a sock case - what is the next step? Tvoz/talk 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters, someone should block the socks (the accounts indef and the IP and sockmaster for shorter periods, I suppose). Enigma ^message 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Would if I could. Need an admin. Tvoz/talk 22:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A no-brainer. I will indefblock all these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was I blocked

I had requested for a diff which could substantiate the block on my account. But no-one provided any diff or any violation of any wikipedia policy by me. Here I am requesting once again to demonstrate the worthiness of block on my account on wikipedia. here is my contribution [21], kindly provide a diff before 10 May 2008.

Responsibility has freedom associated with it, and freedom does not come for free, it comes with accountability. --talk-to-me! (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's all detailed at User_talk:Cult_free_world#Blocked_.282.29. Neıl 龱 11:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread User_talk:Cult_free_world#Blocked_2 is pertinent. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Note six different administrators reviewed your block at varying points, on your talk page alone, and concurred. Neıl 龱 11:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You have conflicts in editing articles, including the Sahaj Marg page. --Efe (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But no-one has still provided any diff, from my contribution [22] before 10 May 2008, when my account was blocked first. I had requested for the same in my unblock request. Kindly provide the diff, which constitute disruptive editing on my part. Or was it because of lobbying from certain members of a religious cult ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You were given diffs on your talk page (e.g., [23]). Please stop wikilawyering. What do you want to happen here? Neıl 龱 12:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Or was it because of lobbying from certain members of a religious cult ?" You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Regardless of whether your suspicion is founded or not (evil forces are a very convenient, and usually wrong, explanation when you don't understand what's going on), you won't be taken seriously if you make that impression. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Which statement in the diff you have provided violates any wikipedia policy ? and what would you call this [24] ? keeping in view the controversial aspect of the subject, I was working on the same subject in my user-space [25], which was suddenly published in main-area by one of the member of the same religious cult [26]. The reason for this discussion is to bring forth the need for neutrality of admins and not getting emotionally motivated while issuing any block ! Responsibility has accountability, if admins have the authority to block or unblock user's on wikipedia, they should be answerable for their actions, good or bad. You have blocked my account for one month, and the diff you have provided does not violates any policy, be it WP:RS or WP:V or WP:NPOV, including WP:DE as input i had given was based on last version on my user-space, from where it was moved into main-space. --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were first blocked by May 3 with an explanation by the Administrator:

I find your behaviour to be disruptive. Your edits are tendentious, tending to advance an agenda, your comments ascribe motive where none is necessary and you show every sign of simply discounting every request to be less aggressive. I have blocked you for 48 hours to give others a break, and will be discussing this on the admin noticeboards.

I checked your contributions during this time backwards. I found out that you really have problems in editing Sahaj Marg. For instance, you reverted/changed the article vastly by using only the explanation in edits summaries such as WP:COI, which was given attention by one of the editors of that article, as reflected in your talk page. Besides from that, you have problems in talk page regarding the edits: here and here. Hope that partly explains why you were/and should be blocked. --Efe (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for Efe's comment is here [27] and lobbying aspect is here [28] why was the page moved from user-space to main-space when it was still controvertial ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But your edits before or during May 3 explain why your account was blocked. Also, regarding the moving of the content, I don't see any traces of User:Sethie in the article's history adding the user-space content. --Efe (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not, as I had placed exactly the same material which was under construction in my user-space, if it was not suited for main-space, it should not have been moved !! if it was moved by members of same religious cult, and if we assume good faith, same material should go in main-space which was last version in user-space, when that was added, how come it constitute WP:DE ?? Does the one month block indicates lack of admin's understanding of the situation ?? --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Alternately, it may reflect the fact that your behavior is counterproductive in a collaborative environment and violates site policies in the determination of multiple administrators. You seem to be requesting a post-mortem on a block which has since expired and which was amply reviewed at the time it was placed, which is virtually always an exercise in futility. OK. Now put yourself in the shoes of a volunteer administrator committed to the site's principles who happens to be reviewing your request. You open with a lecture about freedom and responsibility, and then admit no other possibility than that you are a blameless editor victimized by shady undercover cult members and oblivious admins. What response do you expect? What response would you have were the situations reversed? MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And i would argue that "multiple administrators" did not reviewed the situation independently, since every user with admin privileges, has same responsibility, thus to maintain the integrity of diverse wikipedia, each admin must review and act independently. this [29] is definitely not an independent view. About "postmortem" why is it done ? to get to the root cause. Since i feel that the block was unjustified, and response to unblock request were also not justified , but it was more driven by lobbying by cult members, such as Reneeholla, sethie, etc.. which is very harmful for a project such as wikipeida, and if people with authority are not accountable for their actions, this might not help wikipedia to move in its intended direction. Emotions should be kept out from admin actions, fixing accountability is the intention behind this discussion. Each and every user on wikipeida has a POV, but how best it is put as NPOV is the name of the game, and that is why we have policy such as WP:RS. what is not referenced here [30] ? Lobbying should be done in senate houses, its better there, i doubt it is useful on en-cyclopedia. --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, you should stop lobbying. If you truly believe the block was unfair, and you were treated unjustly, then given the response here has been unanimously against your interpretation of things, you need to take your case to WP:RFC. Neıl 龱 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC is not that what i guess will yield any result, rather an ArbComm decision might serve as a guideline, as I am looking for change in thinking process on wikipedia, which I guess is getting more solidified, that’s only after we do not come a conclusion here, mindset I am talking about is response here has been unanimously against your interpretation of things we both view this from absolutely different angles, but are viewing the same thing!! Which is block of one month on my account by you, where I guess you failed to read and interpret the situation? I have given a diff above which explains the lobbying against one person by cult members on this very notice board, and then you don't find any difference in that approach and my approach which is quite generic rather then person oriented ! --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock?

The talk page at Talk:Abdul Hadi Palazzi is blanked by a dynamic IP daily. The page was protected but once protection expired the blanking resumed. Is there any way to range block the IP in order to prevent this vandalism? --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I think the answer is an unfortunate no. The IPs involved:

• 82.49.197.142
• 82.49.198.252
• 82.51.158.112
• 87.10.22.178
• 87.10.235.188
• 87.16.231.74
• 87.17.224.134
• 87.17.234.28
• 87.19.223.106
• etc.

Even if we only blocked 82.49.*.*, 82.51.*.*, 87.10.*.*, 87.16.*.*, 87.17.*.*, and 87.19.*.*, you are still looking at something like 400,000 IP addresses. Unfortunately, a rangeblock is out of the question here :(

The IPs complaint is that the talk page contains "libelous and unsourced information"... and it does seem some of what he is blanking amounts to personal attacks. Perhaps we could find out what he has a problem with and see if it ought to be removed anyway? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Abdul Hadi Palazzi has a lot of problems itself, in terms of both verifiability and possibly even self-promotion (I don't like that there are external links to his "publications"...) This might require a closer examination. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That talk page is a BLP disgrace and should probably be deleted instead of protected. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added some references and tried to clean the article up a bit. He seems of no notability in academic circles, but is a popular pundit in the Israeli media and right-wing US publications. Probably notable just due to the controversy surrounding his arguments. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised the talk page was being blanked, given its content. I have blanked it, and asked people commenting there to adhere to WP:BLP in future. Neıl 龱 11:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cliche Online blocked for gross incivility, physical threat

Just a heads-up that I have blocked User:Cliché Online for gross incivility for a period of 1 week for comments he's left to myself and other editors on Talk:Haze (video game), User talk:Cliché Online, and User talk:KieferSkunk, among other pages. I felt that a quick block was warranted particularly because of this comment, in which he made what I interpreted as a threat of physical violence toward myself. As a result of this, I would like to ask whether other admins on this board feel that a longer-term or indefinite block of this user is warranted.

Background: My involvement with this editor began as a result of Talk:Haze (video game)#correct resolution 576p or 720p, in which it's pretty clear that Cliche has been strongly pushing his pro-PS3 POV and attacking other editors by claiming they are unduly biased toward the Xbox 360. I attempted to help in the content discussion, but also told Cliche that he was stepping over the line with respect to civility policies. He became more belligerent, and when I told him he was being a dick, that apparently resulted in the threatening language he used on my talk page. It's obvious that he does not want to work constructively with other editors (myself included).

Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good block, but I do have to mention this is yet another reminder that WP:DICK should never be referenced in regards to a specific editor (I reference WP:DICK on my User page, but in a general way, which I think is okay). It only ever serves to inflame things. I mean, did you think that when you referenced that essay he was going say, "Oh, now I see the error of my ways. Let me clean up the mess in your neck, screw your head back on, and give you a back rub"? hehehe ;D

Bottom line though, I for one don't see a problem with the block. If another admin is bored, it also might be worth it to unblock and reblock with the same duration, just to avoid the appearance of a retaliatory block. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Confer with the above 100%. The block perfectly fine, and I never have seen the need to undo a good block simply to swap blocking admins. I also agree that one should never reference WP:DICK directly about another user, as it is, as stated on its own page "something of a dick move in itself". So good block, but just be aware of not attacking other users; telling someone they are incivil or violating NPA is fine; calling them a dick is not fine. However, his response was out of line, and the 1 week block seems measured and appropriate given the severity of the attack. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'll refrain from referencing that in the future. Though given the situation, I doubt it would have mattered what I said - it's pretty obvious that he would have gone off on me anyway because I was threatening his ability to push his POV. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Threats of physical violence do not win friends and influence people on Wikipedia. The comment you cited is certainly worth a one-week block. This editor has done some serious article work. See Wangan Midnight (PlayStation 3 game). In spite of the positive contributions, if the extreme bad attitude continues further an indef block would be justified. Let's see how the one-week block works out first. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

While the article work is great, the editor seems to have a real problem responding to people offering criticism at all positively. I count plenty of quite rude editorial comments on his talk page, and note a previous civility block. The threat above is totally out of bounds, and I'd suggest a longer block if that kind of behaviour continues. (If there's a need for an admin who he can't call an "XBox fanboy," feel free to ping me, I'm PS all the way. =P ) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Admins who are XBox360 fanboys, Category:Admins who are PS3 fanboys? Do we need to add a separate one for Category:Admins who are XBox360 fangirls? Or should we just change the whole thing to Category:Admins who are XBox360 fanchildren? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL! How about Category:Admins who like all the video game consoles?

BTW, if it hadn't been for the threat, my block of this user would have been 72 hours, having noted the previous civility block. The threat pushed it up to 1 week. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Need temporary protection on User talk:Chrisjnelson

Resolved

 – Thanks KS Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, our colorful friend Chrisjnelson has chosen to continue personal attacks on his talk page after his block was imposed ([31]). I for one don't wish to see the block lengthened (he hasn't had time for the sting of the cluestick to take effect IMO), but semi-protection of the talk page would be in order, methinks. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - it's apparent he plans to continue fighting whatever it is he thinks is worth fighting instead of using his talk page for its intended purpose during a block. I set the period of protection for 2 weeks to match the block. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the protection is Full protection, rather than semi-protect, because he can still login while blocked. Semi-protection would prevent IP users from editing the page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I won't fight over it, but if all he's doing is digging himself in deeper, I don't advocate using protection to prevent this. Heck, hand the guy a bigger shovel. He's making it clear he's not the kind of editor we should welcome here. Letting him make as big a fool of himself as possible might help prevent misguided folks from defending him in the future. Friday (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

At least he's being consistent. I even suggested to him that if he wanted to be unblocked that he could use the {{unblock}} template, but he wasn't up for that. In a way, I kinda wish that it weren't protected just to see what else he'd come up with. But seriously, Chris is kinda digging is own grave deeper and deeper. He was blocked for not being civil, and is incivilly asking to be unblocked.. does that many any sense to anybody, or is it just me? If anything, I'd extend the block, rather than shorten it. Ksy92003 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My main concern was that since it's a personal attack, the IP being attacked could get upset and inflame the situation (so far, he/she is taking it in stride, as can be seen near the bottom of WP:ANI#Example 2 above). If someone is just railing against Wikipedia, fine. Let the dig themselves deeper. But we shouldn't create a situation where people have to endure continued personal attacks just on the theory of giving someone more rope to hang themselves with. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I was being sarcastic about unprotecting his talk page.. I suppose it wasn't obvious enough, eh? Ksy92003 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I was replying to Friday as much as you... although maybe he/she was being sarcastic too and I'm just being dim :) Not having a great day today, I think it's clouding my judgment ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As tempting as it might be to conduct an experiment and in some sense "bait" the user, protecting the talk page is standard procedure. He had his chance to fill in the unblock template, and wouldn't do it. So he needs to keep silent for the rest of his 2-week stretch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand the protection, and I myself would've if I were an admin. A couple times, I was tempted to jump in and just tell him to shut up and wait out the block, but I resisted. Now, with the protection, I don't have to face that temptation any longer. One thing I noticed about the protection though: it's set to expire two weeks from today, which actually means that the page will be automatically unprotected over two days after the block expires. So the protection is either going to need to be shortened or manually lifted. Ksy92003 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, whoops - sorry, my bad. I'll fix that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - I adjusted the expiry time to coincide with the block expiry. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Pats1 and Chrisjnelson have been communicating off-Wikipedia. To me it appears that they made an agreement that Chris would strikeout his most recent comment, so Pats1 unprotected the page so Chris could do that.

So, Chris makes incivil statements on his talk page while blocked, gets his talk page protected, and the one person who seems to like him seemingly gives him a second chance. I know that he's still blocked, but should anything be made of this? Ksy92003 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

<- I don't see that the protection is too important one way or another, but yeah, I am concerned that Pats1 is inappropriately sticking up for his friend. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about who is friends with who - the conflict of interest should be apparent. But, as long as he doesn't do something completely out of line, like unblocking him, it's probably no big deal. Friday (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Did he tell anyone he was doing it? I don't know if I want to be the one to make a big deal out of this, but an admin really should not be using admin powers to help a blocked friend without at least disclosing what they are doing and why. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's no secret that Pats1 and Chris are friends, and it's no secret that Pats1 (who just so happens to be an admin) is the only one that seems to get along with Chris. Both have made it public that they communicate on AIM and whatnot, so it doesn't surprise me that they have been communicating. Pats1 also hasn't made it a secret that he completely detests the block, and with the abilities himself to actually do something about it, this seems like it could be a conflict of interest to me. With about 11 and a half days remaining on this block, I would imagine that Chris would make at least one more comment on his talk page in that time, with it no longer being full-protected. So this is something we should keep an eye on. And I think somebody should make Chris aware of the fact that making any sarcastic, rude comments on his talk page during this block are not gonna look well and could possibly extend the block.. not me, though. He hates me more than anybody else and will revert anything I say to him, no matter what. Ksy92003 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Tricky. On the one hand, it certainly looks like use-of-the-tools based on friendship with the editor in question; on the other; it seems to be motivated by a desire to reduce drama. Here's hoping that it's part of CJN becoming / returning to being a valued contributor to American football articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else in this thread (with which I am unfamiliar) If Pats1 was able to calm his friend down and get him to strike out comments, isn't that a good thing? Obviously an unblock would be inappropriate, but this doesn't strike me as even a tiny bit wrong; it strikes me as a tiny bit right. --barneca (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Addemdum: my post was too short, so to short circuit the question: yes, I understand he unprotected the page. Still seems like a good outcome to me, and outcomes is what we're all about. --barneca (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that sums it up pretty accurately. The situation has gone on long enough and its in everyone's best interest if it ends and ends without outstanding conflicts. Considering the first thing Chris asked me off-Wiki if the protecting admin was even allowed to do a full protection like that, I don't think Chris was intentionally "spamming" his talk page; rather, it was a backhanded comment after Chris has received a good number of them in the now four ADI entries about him in the past 48 hours, among other comments elsewhere from the IP and other users relating to the situation. Pats1 ^T/C 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a fair way of looking at it. If CJN doesn't use the unprotect to disrupt, and if other people feel the same way, I'd be inclined to WP:IAR as barneca suggests. Of course, I'm sure Pats1 is well aware that if CJN continues personal attacks after the unprotect, it's going to reflect really badly on him as well as Chris... But I suppose that was implicit, eh? --Jaysweet (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good thing. But now it also makes me think if Pats1 just convinced him to do it because it would look good for Chris or something. I don't know, but I just think it's something to keep an eye on; I think that with 12 days left on the block, Chris can still say anything. Afterall, there was a reason why the page was protected in the first place. It barely lasted two hours when it was supposed to be for two weeks. So I think we should keep an eye on it for future issues. Ksy92003 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, and I don't appreciate the implication in the conspiracy theory. Ksy, without getting to harsh, I think you really need to tone down your comments a bit. They are really starting to border on uncivil. Stop taking shrouded shots at Chris. Pats1 ^T/C 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. how long had this been here before I noticed it? This is precisely why I dislike comments in the middle of a discussion like this. Anyway, this isn't any conspiracy theory. I'm not taking any shots at Chris, shrouded or otherwise. Based on the comments that Chris has made on his talk page (which currently are still there), the very comments that got his page protected in the first place, I suggested that it would be worth paying attention to see if those types of comments continued since you unprotected the page, allowing him to make those comments if he wanted to.

I don't see how it's wrong for me to say that, based on somebody's past history and recent events that it would be a good idea to make sure that those comments didn't continue, especially since you enabled him to do that, if he wanted to. Ksy92003 (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

By striking out the comments instead of just deleting them, they remain visible, hence the taunting remains. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's how good-faith strike-throughs work, so you'll have to take that up with someone else. Pats1 ^T/C 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, outcomes are what's important. Where I'm concerned is that Chris still thinks the block was unreasonable, because, after all, his buddy Pats1 said so. So, I have no confidence that he'll become a useful contributor as long as his friend is actively preventing him from seeing that his own behavior is indeed a problem. He needs to change his tune or be shown the door permanently, but his friend is getting in the way of this. Friday (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not so bad having a sympathetic admin. I've had an admin or two come to my rescue from time to time. But if I do something truly stupid (which I have sometimes) then I'm on my own, because true favoritism resulting in a double-standard is a no-no. Pats1 has to be very careful in how deals with this situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict.. again

I know that outcomes are what we're looking for here. To me, it seems like we're going backwards though. Again, there was a reason he was blocked, and there was a reason the page was protected. Now, the friendship these two have led to an off-wiki discussion, and resulted in the page being unprotected.. Again, there was a reason the page was protected in the first place. Now that Pats1 unprotected it, this allows Chris to potentailly resume the same types of comments that resulted in the block and ensuing talkpage protection. Ksy92003 (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other admins willing to bring the hammer down if necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If he does it again, feel free to protect it again and drag the now-overblown story on...again. But it's not going to happen again, so don't get your hopes up. The more you guys sit back and take shots at Chris from now multiple ANI entries and on various talk/user pages in the past 48 hours (although this particular ANI entry doesn't have marginally uncivil comments like this), especially when he has no means of defending himself, the more frustrated people are going to get. See reparation payments against Germany post-WWI for further information. You've essentially pinned Chris to the wall, taped his mouth shut, and are now throwing darts at him. Stop beating a dead horse and let the situation diffuse. I'm not impressed with the way some of you are handling this situation, because it really looks like some of you, after Chris tripped, are circling around him and kicking him until he says something back. This is really starting to get ridiculous. He may or may not have deserved the initial block, but there's no way in hell he's deserved the public thrashing he's been getting on multiple talk pages now. Pats1 ^T/C 22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an example of the old adage that "you reap what you sow". In any case, with his page unprotected, he's free to fill out a formal request for unblock, if he cares to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, when Chris has been blocked in the past, he has casually asked the blocking admin (which was Wknight in the incident I'm referring to, and the blocking admin in this latest case was also Wknight94), and the blocking admin did agree to an unblock after a certain point. So instead of mocking Chris for the request as has been done, how about we examine the blocking admin's own comments. Pats1 ^T/C 23:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"..there's no way in hell he's deserved the public thrashing he's been getting on multiple talk pages now".. This thread began after Chris was making totally unprovoked comments on his own talk page, so don't act like we're the ones who caused this current "thrashing" as you put it. "I'm not impressed with the way some of you are handling this situation.." It doesn't surprise me that you don't like they way we're handling this. You've been quick to defend Chris in every single confrontation he's been involved with, directly or indirectly (except the one yesterday, where you joined the party late), no matter what Chris has done. Ksy92003 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, ksy. Pats1 ^T/C 23:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

..I don't get what that link is supposed to prove. Ksy92003 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You just implied that it was alright that you could make comments mocking the fact that Chris is asking for an unblock, or mocking the fact that Chris got blocked again just because he said something uncivil to start the whole thing off. I provided your prior comments to show that even you rejected that line of thought. Pats1 ^T/C 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I never mocked Chris for him being blocked, which I still contend was a fair block, and I never implied that it was alright to. I know that kicking a guy when he's down adds unnecessary fuel to the fire. This thread began after he started causing problems from his own talk page, which resulted in his talk page being full-protected. This thread continued when I noted a potential conflict of interest on your part for unprotecting Chris' talk page after it was protected for good reason. Ksy92003 (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"And the one person who seems to like him..." or "I think we should keep an eye on it for future issues" or (in the Chris Long ANI) "If everybody who was blocked for two weeks knew they could be unblocked less than two days in because their girlfriend is seeing a movie and they're alone at home with nothing good on television" ... come on, ksy, stop taking these subtle shots at Chris. You're not the only one, but you're not helping the situation any. Pats1 ^T/C 23:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving insults visible does not qualify as "good faith". And there's nothing stopping him from filling in the unblock request, if he really wants to be unblocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as the strikethrough goes, I'm not sure if you're familiar with how that process works (I guess not now), but generally (see Durova's comments on my talk page), someone will ask for you to make a good-faith strikethrough of your edits to show that you have essentially retracted your statement. I mean, that's just how things normally work, and that's how I've usually seen it done. It's a fairly commonplace practice. Pats1 ^T/C 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And if he wants to handle the unblock by strictly asking the blocking admin to reconsider (which is how it worked in the past for him), then that's fine. But don't mock him like what was happening above because he wasn't using the unblock template. Pats1 ^T/C 00:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly he's a stickler for rules. Well, then, there's nothing stopping him from filling out the unblock form, which is how "things normally work", especially for users who want to demonstrate good-faith. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the gracious sarcasm. Please continue. Pats1 ^T/C 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure you are. So please explain why expecting someone to follow rules and procedure constitutes "sarcasm". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Suddenly he's a stickler for rules?" Give me a break. Why do you and ksy continue to try to get away with this? It's so blatantly uncivil. Stop mocking Chris, especially based off the fact that you're unfamiliar with good-faith strike-throughs. Chris is doing nothing wrong by requesting an unblock, and he's doing nothing wrong by asking Wknight if he can reconsider instead of just dumping his user page in Category:Requests for unblock where some admin who has no clue of the circumstances will laugh him off. Again, stop mocking me ("things normally work") and stop mocking Chris. Pats1 ^T/C 01:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Asking someone to do things the way other editors are expected to do them does not constitute mockery. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think anything of those statements at the time, but if you find them offensive, then I will retract them. "And the one person who seems to like him..." comes from my observations that you are the only one that I have seen defend him and that everybody else who I have seen encounter Chris has complained about incivility. I don't see anything wrong with "I think we should keep an eye on it for future issues." As far as "If everybody who was blocked for two weeks knew they could be unblocked less than two days in because their girlfriend is seeing a movie and they're alone at home with nothing good on television," that stems from this comment that Chris made on his own talk page, and I don't see anything wrong with that. But if you find those comments so offensive, then I retract those statements.

I'm not gonna make any more posts here for now because it's not doing any good. But I will still keep an eye on the situations and if I find anything else that is worth posting here on ANI, I will do so. Ksy92003 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into all this properly or the complaint below, unfortunately, as I would really like to. But I just want to note somewhere that I have serious concerns about Pats1 using admin tools at the behest of a blocked user. If I understand this correctly, Chris asked his friend Pats privately to unprotect his talk page and Pats1 did so without even discussing it with the admin who protected the page. This is one of the accusations that was made against Alkivar and led to his arbitration and eventual desysopping, so I don't think it's an act that should be taken lightly or glossed over. I don't have a problem with Pats1 talking to Chris and trying to calm him down and get through to him; in fact, kudos to him for doing so. What I have a problem with, though, is his use of the tools on request of a blocked user who also happens to be his mate. I think in future, Pats1, it would be more appropriate to go to the admin who made the protection, explain that you have spoken privately with the user and then allow the protecting admin (or any other uninvolved admin for that matter) to unprotect the page. The problem is this looks like nepotism and it's now going to place your integrity as an admin under a huge question mark. I think it would be helpful if you would pledge not to use any of your admin tools in connection to Chris. If something needs to be done, ask someone else to do it for you. If you'd explained that you had spoken to Chris and he understands why his page was protected but wanted to request unprotection so he could remove his own inappropriate comments, I would have unprotected his page myself and I'm sure many other admins would have, too. There's just no need for you to be using any of the tools in relation to your mate. Please consider this. Sarah 03:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not once did Chris ask me to unprotect the page. He sent me an e-mail at 4:13 PM EST today, asking me if the protecting admin was allowed to put a full block on his user talk page. I told him yes, and it was because of his comments made towards 72.0.36.36 (mentioned above). I then suggested to Chris that he make a good-faith strike-through of his comments, that I would unprotect the page, and all would be forgotten so long as he did not pull anything like that again. He agreed (on AIM a few minutes later), and I asked him to make the good faith strikethrough. Without any action on his page, I then sent him an AIM message of "t-t-t-t-oday junior," at which point he reminded me that he, of course, could not edit the page. After recognizing my mistake and calling myself a retard (Chris: "Yep."), I unprotected the page and he made the strikethrough. Full disclosure. Pats1 ^T/C 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you're very unwise and asking for trouble if you continue to use admin tools in any capacity in anything to do with Chris. It's simple to ask someone else to do it instead and it protects you from any concerns about nepotism and doubts (which now clearly exist) about your integrity. If you continue to use admin tools to aid or convenience your friends or in disputes involving your friends where you are clearly not an uninvolved or disinterested admin, I really don't think you're going to have your tools for much longer. Sarah 05:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. Pats1 helped de-escalate a situation, and helped the project maintain minimal page protection. Given that the page was protected to help the user, I fail to see why the protecting admin would have any objection in this situation. Love and peace, and all that jazz. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood you, my apologies. I don't think it's much to worry about, but I don't think you meant any ill-will with your advice to Pats1. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least assume good faith, here? I don't care that a few users think I'm giving preferential treatment, because I know that I'm not. I treated the situation like I would any other, and I know that is my responsibility as an admin. In seven+ months as one, I have never taken that responsibility lightly. Therefore, I don't appreciate the suggestion that I could "lose my tools" because a few people who aren't exactly down in the dumps over Chris being blocked think I was letting him off easy. I wasn't, and I'm a nice guy, so I would have done the same thing to any other user if they had come to me over a situation like this. I'm not a believer in slamming blocks and protections on someone until they are knocked unconscious. Pats1 ^T/C 12:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You say "I know that I'm not". Why are you to be beleived? What about the evidence? It comes down to trust.72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think people have a reason to doubt your good faith. We are not required to WP:AGF if you abuse your power as an admin. It is proven that you will use your powers, without consultation, on more than one matter. When it comes to chrisjnelson you know no bounds as to what you will do to enable his behaviors. In some ways you are doing things in a worse way. chrisjnelson is young and cannot control his temper. You have the ability to control your yet you don't. You have proven that you will take out your frustrations on me and do it in a way that a simple review may conceal your motives. So, if you are not trustworty then why should you be trusted? And if you are one who has power why don't you look at these things and see if in your heart if some of these things are true. If you do that you will see that you are not trusted due to your actions and your close connection to chris. If you could you'd unblock him tomorrow. right? People are not stupid, given enough time and your actions, ONCE GIVEN SCRUTINY, will be shown for what they really are. I know this hurts your pride, I am sorry but I have been 100% honest here. I have owned my own mistakes and I am sorry for them. You are not, you still are not being stand-up.72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, Pats1 could unblock Chrisjnelson tomorrow, actually. So I don't see what your point is.

While there is some concern that Pats1 may have made some procedural errors in how he handled this situation, there is no doubt about his intentions, nor is there doubt about the outcome. To say that he "know[s] no bounds as to what [he] will do to enable [Chrisjnelson's]] behaviors," well, that statement is simply ludicrous. This thread has been marked as "Resolved," and I think appropriately so. Please do not continue your diatribe here. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I now see the resolved, I didn't before. I do respectfully disagree about what you say is "ludicrous". All you need do is read the "diatribes" by the Adminstrator in question. I have posted my opinion with 100% honesty. Why they may not be artful and I realize you are frustrated they were true, I swear it on all that I know. I hope that counts for something. I truly regret reporting chrisjnelsons actions. It has caused more grief than I could have ever imagined. In the future I will just let chrisjnelson say what he wants to me72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haven't I heard this before? Hmm... Pats1 ^T/C 17:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I knew from that moment you were friends with chrijnelson. I saw evidence that you abused your admin tools then to enforce what chris wnated done. At that time before you had any opportunity to check the facts you threatened to block me twice. The first one I thought was a joke. The next I could tell you were serious. I also knew you had the ability to make your threat a fact. After all that you and I were told to "steer clear" of one another. We both did that until your friend got blocked. On that very day you took the two articles I had most contributed to and made them your own. You had never edited at Jack Youngblood before. Yet you came in and took over and ignored the WP:CONSENSUS building that was occuring. It is my opinion you wiki-stalked me to wiki:harras me. Yesterday I used the term vengence editing. The "wiki" term is wiki stalk and wiki harras. You were there, not to edit in good faith, but to make a point. Do you deny that? Please be 100% honest.72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock of User:Nasrulana??

New (?) user's (User:Notika) who's only contribution so far is spreading of Jewish terrorism categories through Wiki and indef blocked sock's userbox preferences (such as support for complete destruction of Israel) are stuningly alike [32] [33]. Please investigate. M0RD00R (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see strong evidence of sockpuppetry, but I only looked at each user's contribs for a minute or so. If you have diffs that show strong evidence of socking, please provide them.

M0RD00R is right, though, that Notika (talk · contribs)'s sole edits to mainspace have been to add Category:Terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists to the articles on past and present Israeli government figures. I gave him/her a level 3 NPOV warning, but I am very skeptical it will do any good. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is that userbox selection by indef banned sock Nasrulana and User:Notika is unique, and I'd say there is almost zero chance that it is a simple coincidence. M0RD00R (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, geez, I'm sorry, for some reason I didn't realize that one of the diffs was Nasrulana. I swear, I did click them too, but I guess I just spaced out. My bad, not a great day for me over here.

Ordinarily, I would say maybe they just copied the user boxes, but since it was not from User:Nasrulana, but rather from User:Nasrulana/Box, I ain't buying it. Definitely a sock, and User:Nasrulana/Box should be deleted. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Can we also do something about deleting Category:Israeli terrorists, which this sock created? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the userboxes and the category, both per G8 (Attack), as they were created to attack the subject and for disruptive purposes. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that attack pages are G10 ;)

Are we going to do anything about the likely sock? Take it to WP:SSP I suppose? It will be tough to provide evidence, because the strongest evidence is now a deleted contrib... (User:Nasrulana/Box) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC

I'm not so much concerned about the puppet as the puppetier. Nasrulana was a part of sock farm by User:NAccount. See this case[34]. M0RD00R (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I see Notika hasn't been blocked yet. Corvus cornix_talk 20:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And in the meantime Notika does it again [35], and again [36]. M0RD00R (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Woah. I'm didn't add the categories to cause any disruption. I thought that if they were labeled terrorists by the British and by their own governments, they should be included. I stopped now and I don't want to waste time arguing about the issue. And please don't accuse me of being a sockpuppet. I copied Nasrulana's page because I liked the userboxes. As for how I found the page, I searched for userpages linked to the flag of Hezbollah and I found the one that I liked most. Regards. Notika (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Notika (talk · contribs) has made just 18 contributions to main space as of this moment. All but one of his contributions have been reverted. This might be one index of the POV nature of his edits thus far. Should the pattern of POV editing continue, that might be enough to justify a checkuser on Notika. Since there is a very recent case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Klaksonn which confirmed that User:Nasrulana was a sock, the checkusers should still have good data to use for comparison. I don't see enough behavioral data for a conventional SSP identification yet, since there are so few edits. For Nasrulana's behavior see the SSP report on Klaksonn. Notika and Nasrulana both appear to be Hezbollah supporters but could still be different people. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I really think Notika should be banned Radical-Dreamer (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP:ARBPIA notice given. GRBerry 04:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New blanket reversion by User:RedSpruce, after warning

Resolved

After User:RedSpruce's acknowledgement that he has been removing what he agrees are "good edits" made to the articles in question (this diff), he had shown signs that he might be a tad more selective in removing sourced material, and had indicated that he would respect a warning on blanket reverts (this diff). Since then, he has made a number of blanket reverts, such as this edit to William Remington, which simply blanket reverts and removes sourced material back to back to the same point as this revert on the 17th and this revert on the 15th to what he has described as a "better version". He has also done another blanket revert at G. David Schine (this diff], reverting back to this revert from the 16th, which in turn was a revert to this version from the 15th, this version from the 5th, this one from the 4th and (my favorite this one from the 2nd with the edit summary of "RV to version _I_ choose to call 'stable'". Not a single edit to these articles in this period has added any content or source; all of these edits have simply removed sourced content. Unfortunately, the edit war continues unabated despite the promises. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been addressed by Elonka on Talk:G. David Schine#Edit warring and Talk:William Remington#Unnecessary repetition via footnote quotes. Further edit-warring against consensus on those pages, at least, will see RedSpruce blocked. Marked this as resolved. Neıl 龱 09:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bhavishya Purana

The situtaion at this article is becoming derganged beyond words. User:RajivLal, User:Jookti and User:Padan appear to be sockpuppets, certainly of RajivLal, who has already been convicted of socking, and almost certainly of User:DWhiskaZ, who seems to have been fringe-bombing this page and others (eg Mahound) for months with his proofs that Muhammad was predicted in all world scriptures. This issue has already been raised here. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive404#User:Abecedare. What is most bizarre is the fact that the reversion started when I initially just cleaned up the prose of this editor. I didn't even change the meaning, but raised it for discussion on the talk page. The various "users" who keep reverting are simply restoring incoherent English. I guess they just assume that any changes must be designed to conceal Their Truth. It is impossible to engage in any meaningful discussion with this/these editors. Paul B (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesnt belong here this should be posted at the WP:Sock puppets with supporting evidence. --RajivLal (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2008

(UTC)

There's nothing wrong with posting it here. It's not a simple sock case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder a bit at the recent contributions of RajivLal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Today's edits appear to include one revert, one (red) wikilink, and about a dozen edits to add or remove whitespace. I'm not sure what the purpose of the whitespace edits would be, beyond padding the editor's contribution history. The comment about 'incoherent English' seems off the mark. The revert (diff) that RajivLal made appears to have reintroduced errors of grammar, changing (for example) "It states that Muhammad will redevelop religion..." to "It further regards Muhammad to re-develop an religion...". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It was never discussed in the Talk Page. If user Paul Barlow wanted discuss grammar situations it would have been dealt with --RajivLal (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I said they were "restoring incoherent English', which means the same as "reintroduced errors of grammar", so I don't know why my comment was 'off the mark'. As for 'introducing blog content', this is nonsense. RajivLal is referring to a talk page weblink provided for convenience, that was never in the article, as he well knows. The content he deleted was from a scholarly text published by New York University. [37] Paul B (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry—I misread the signatures; for some reason I was thinking that RajivLal had claimed that he was fixing grammatical errors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you read that book it sure should state there were two sections one was done by Rishi Vyas and one was attributed to Rishi vyas. The Rishi Vyas summary is mentioned and the attribute summary was supposed to be mentioned in the date and text section. Going off topic if you had problems with grammar issuses you shold have brought it up in the talk page. --RajivLal (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Vyas is a mythical figure. The issues of language were raised on the talk page. The central issue is your disingenousness, repeated sockpuppetry and misrepresentations of evidence. You are behaving here in the same way that you - in a previous incarnation - did in the Abecedare case. Paul B (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are again going off topic. Wikipedia is not an Chat Room you are providing an dead closed sock puppet account and can discuss issues on my talk page or the article talk page.--RajivLal (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries by User:Say nesh

Resolved

 – indefinite block Toddst1 (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Say nesh (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) has been editing since 18 May 2008. In that period, he/she has made about a dozen personal attacks, slurs, and uncivil remarks against or about other editors in edit summaries. That editor was nicely advised to tone down the edit summaries on 6 June and that was seconded on 16 June. An uw-npa2 warning was placed on 16 June, and on the same day, I placed an uw-npa4 final warning based on a persistent pattern of WP:NPA, WP:UNCIVIL, and WP:AGF violations. These all can be seen on users' talk page.

This user has used highly pejorative terms and multiple homophobic slurs in edit summaries on multiple articles. Faggot, or a version of the word, was used eight times: "editfags", "syntaxfags", and fagfucks (misspelled as "fagfukcs"), and plain "fags". The phrase "english motherfucker do you speak it" was used twice. The slurs "motherfuckers", "assfuckers", "spastics", and "idiots" have been used against other editors. The specific examples can all be be seen on the user contrib page, as they are all edit summaries. Other than the edit summaries, I found no problems, in fact there have been constructive contributions to WP otherwise. If these slurs had been placed on the talk pages, this issue would have been handled by now.

On 17 June, user acknowledged warnings by creating edit summaries as follows:

• i have been discouraged from casting aspersions on the work of editors who are unable to write in coherent English. Diff [38]
• censorship has prevented me from commenting on how massively this edit demonstrates the failure of the Wikipedia model. Diff [39]

Finally, this edit summary was left on 18 June after the final warning in which the users' sole comment was: "fags fags fags"

I request that this user be long term blocked until he/she learns to play nice with other editors, or indefinitely, as I find the nasty words, insults, slurs, homophobic insults, general incivility, and lack of good faith in edit summaries disturbing and disruptive. — Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1

Resolved

Editing dispute, nothing to do with us, AN/I is not the High Court. Orderinchaos 13:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[[40]] In defending a certain user this admin, in a particularly vicious way, personally attacked me. There are so many instances of uncivil things here it is hard to start. This is compounded because it seems Pats1 thinks a banned user was unfairly blocked and that I am the sole cause of that block. I opine that there is a WP:Competence, WP:grudge on Pats1's part. Can I prove it? No. I do not know the contents of a man's heart. I can only see what he does. It really would not matter what he thinks but it matters in that it is now impossible, or nearly impossible, for me to edit without fear of him showing up at articles he's never (or rarely) goes to and in a sense, barking out orders. I realize he's angry and mr. nelson's blockage, but I reported various instances of behavior, but I did not apply the block. I have done nothing to cause the actions of that user today, which were crossed out in what seems to be actions of Pats1. The closeness of that relationship causes me not to trust Pats1, that coupled with his anger toward me. I have point out many times that I am not mad at him but that I mistrust his judgment when it comes to me. I have demonstrated my willingness to compromise in the latest saga. However, no edit I do will pass muster. To this I must object. I have every right to edit, don't I? Why is it he can take a hardline? Is this NOT what I referred to as "bullying" and to another extent "mob rule"? I know my reporting this will cause him to hate me more than he does, but this needs to me noted.

This whole recent sage, in my OPINION, has been about content, not about style (too many quotes) and it is my view that based on what was posted it is a grudge at the heart of it. Pinkkeith and I are working on St. Louis Rams stuff with others as part of the NFL project. We agree on many things, I think Pats1 should voluntarily step back for a few days to cool off. We can then go to depute resolution. I ask that these suggestions be taken seriously by Past1 and not scoffed at. Today, there were barbs exchanged to be sure but when I saw what he posted on his talk page I got a little bit nervous, the sinking feeling in your heart you get when unfairly and viscously attacked. I think having a SUSPICION of a grudge is one thing, but to read what he wrote makes it kind of obvious or pretty obvious. I don't think Pats1 one is as bad as nelson when it comes to civility but it is a deeper thing, more . . . more something. I have lots to offer and have shown over months the ability to work well with others, I take serious suggestions seriously and in the last 24 hours I have done so. Perhaps the same can occur with Pats172.0.36.36 (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Now

Now, I ask that Pats1 be asked to pause his edits and jack Youngblood. I contend he has gone there not to improve wiki but to taunt me and to take out his grudge against me. Pinkkeith and I and one other have been doing good things there today but now, Pats1, who has never edited there before is making wholesale changes from top to bottom and ripping apart things. I must beleive, it has to be that this is a grudge. Maybe before there was a possible alternative explanation, now it is nothing more than an attack. I ask that the most serious request be made of him and I ask that the edits be reverted to where they were and that Pats1 take a cooling of time before he destroys the article and the NFL project. I think he in really angry and will stop at nothing to get his way.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I now contend that the grudge against me by Pats1 has now turned into an full-out assault on my work. I ask that only Administrators review his actions of today. I ask that they use due dilligence to discern and find the facts. This without doubt is personal. I can do nothing to stop him. He cannot be reasoned with. He will not take suggestions. He is in a slash-and burn-mode. However, he is slick enough to disguise it as that he is being "productive". I ask that contacts between pats1 and chisnelson be discovered where possible. I ask that Pats1 be forced to answer tough questions about his behavior today. I ask that be forced to be truthful in his responses, no games, no fables. This recent turn of events is making me ill. I have seen a lot of troll-like behavior in my years on the internet, but in a protected forum this may be the worst. Pats1 is an administrator, not just an editor. He has voiced his displeasure and contemt for the decision to block chrisnelson and I am the one being punished. There is no longer any way this is a cooincidence. It must be planned. Pats1 has never edits Chris Long before, he's never targeted jack Youngblood before, he's never done much with Rams. Why now? I will tell you with full purpose of heart to punish me. He cannot do anything to you adminstrators but he can punish me. The one who he thinks is responsible for the banning of a friend. Please, let cooler heads prevail. He needs to cool down. he needs to not be able to say, "What? me? What am I doing? I am doing nothing wrong.". Please, act now.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost too late, no?

I dunno but it may be too late. You see, I am in a catch-22. If I defend my right to be invloved in the Jack Youngblood article then I am edit warring. If I make a change back to what was, it is edit warring. If I do nothing, which I did in this case Pats1 changed the whole article without WP:CONSENSUS and it is the default position. He could have joined the discussion on the talk page, but he didn't. So, I am damned if i do and damned if I don't. Further, by bringing another incidnt here then I risk having the whole Administration community turn on me and take Pats1's side because people are sick of me. I am sick of me, but there is no other way to get fairness and equity. So, what do I do? Roll over in which case my work is not respected in the least or fight in which case some Admin will say "a pox on both your houses" and block both of us. I am screwed either way.

That is why the patten and practice of Pats1 needs to come out. His connection to chrisjnelson and his willingess to abuse power for chrisjnelson. It is clear from the link I posted I am hated by Pats1. It is a fact that Pats1 showed no interest in Chris Long or Jack Youngblood until chrisjnelson was blocked (A simple check of the log will prove it). It is a fact that Pats1 and chrisjnelson communicate about wiki matters offline. It is a fact that Pats1 was rebuffed by a number of admins in the chrisjnelson incidents. It is a fact that he showed interest in articles I edited beginning there. It is a fact that Pats1 did not participate in the Jack Youngblood talk page discussion. He posted yes, but did not engage with Pinkkeith and others there. These things add up to one angry fellow. Angry fellows act out. I think that is what happened here. I was the one acted out on. I am seen as the one who is the cause of all chrisjnelson's troubles. This adds up to a guy who abuses his power to help chrisjnelson and to do what he did to me. I think it is a travesty and so anti-wiki that it makes my head spin.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible threatening by Pats1

72.0.36.36 directed me to a dispute between him and Pats1 on Jack Youngblood. One of Pats1's edit summaries got my attention: I am taking hours out of my day to make an article better, if you continue to disrupt that, you risk being temporarily blocked, especially when 72.0.36.36 had been working on the article in the past and today was the first time Pats1 came to that article. That edit summary, to me, sounds like he's kinda threatening the IP with a block. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If an admin has a content dispute with another editor over an article they are both working on in presumably good faith, he should follow procedures that other editors are expected to follow, i.e. working toward consensus; and failing that, reporting an incident here or wherever appropriate, so that an uninvolved admin can assess the situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

He is not doing those things you list He is just wailing away. I ask that you find out if these are good faith edits or if he is trying to target my work and disrupt wiki to make a point. I allege he is. I think a review of his actions will cause an fair and reasonable person to beleive that.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP twice did a wholesale revert of all of my copyediting because he or she felt that it was "vengeance editing." It was disrupting editing, and if it continued I would have considered a temporary block, especially considering I have gone through and outlined all my copyediting notes on the talk page, and the IP has called it a "charade." I don't know what to say. But right now, I'm continuing my copyedit. Pats1 ^T/C 02:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's anything like the Chris Long dispute, i.e. over the amount of quotes and hype and other fluff, then maybe the Youngblood article also needs to go to an RFC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is different Bugs. This is an incident I want to be looked into. It will take some nerve to stand up to this guy. He is claiming that he woke up today and decided to rip apart my work. Pats1 one did no consensus building, I asked him to pause. Just a pause yet he defies that. When a user is this out of control and this unreasonable somehting has to be done. This is pure wrong. It violates ALL that wiki is about. He is not taking times to consensus build, Pinkkeith and I were there all day and he never chose to participate until AFTER he ripped it apart. This is about an attack on a user's work. He, in my view, hates me and targeted an article I was working on with 2 other users. Then he took it over and just did as he pleased. You must look at the state of mind he has been in for the last dew days and connect that to his actions. This is not some random act this is cold and calculated and it seems like the Admin really needs to cool him down. He's been rebuffed for three days about chrisnelson, I think he is seething. What else explains this? I ask you to look into your heart on this thing and figure it out. This is bad, really bad. This is an Admin, not just a user. Look at his actions, he's left a trail of evidence. I ask that his edits be reverted to before he arrived and that a lock be put on until this is resolved, this is not content. Repeat this is NOT content. This is vengence editing. Trying to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. That what he is doing. If he cannot have his way with chrisnelson he'll make me pay. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear. I don't think the motives are hard to discern either. Why is here they today? What tomorrow? Are all of my edits going to be decimated by this guy? Is this a backdoor way to try and get me to quit? Is he trying to anger me so I will lash about in an angry way? I ask if, and I say if, this is a threat is he in the wrong? Would that be abuse of his power? I also ask if this is not a form of taunting. Ripping something apart (that he has shown zero interest over the past say, 4 years) to evoke a response to me is a grave injustice. This has excalated into something I've never seen before. There are rules of behavior here. Wow.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the article, and Pats1's edits seem good to me - removing trivia and copyediting the article isn't "ripping it apart". Neıl 龱 09:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This requires real investigation and thinking outside the box. WIki has rules Neil and personal abuse is not permitted. Now you need to follow me on this one. Just hear me out. Just because the edits seem good does not mean they were done in good fatih. Good faith is an absolute on wiki. What you need to do is asky yourself why he went there yesterday for the first time. WHy? If he is not truthful then there is a problem. He says his intention was to improve. Was it? Or was he following ym edits and knew that this would be a way to punish me. This is a passive-aggresive move by a Admin who was rebuffed on the chrisjnelson affair. I respect your view but I have asked for more than a cursory review here. This is an Admin who will do secret deals offline with a banned user in defiance of other Admins. This is one that requires some tough thought.72.0.36.36 (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That was my intention in the first place - to improve an article that really needed the help. I did my best to ignore the IP's misguided pleas ("This is a disgrace! This is as shameful a thing I've seen on the internet!") and just get the job done. Pats1 ^T/C 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1 Why did you go there yesterday? You've never been there before, why yesterday? You are required to be honest. Why?72.0.36.36 (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

. . . crickets 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1 Why did you ignore my posts about slowing down? Why did you ignore the consensus building on that talk page? You are required to he honest. Why?72.0.36.36 (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

. . . crickets 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1 Do you hold me responsible for chrisjnelson's blocking? Your are required to tell the truth72.0.36.36 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

. . . crickets 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No one cares, I fear it is over

I hope that somebody actually pays attention to this post. Something that I noticed yesterday when I was first made aware of the Jack Youngblood situation. Before the conflict on this article began, there had been disputes between 72.0.36.36 and Pats1 thanks to the Chris Long and Chrisjnelson situation. Jack Youngblood was an article that Pats1 had never touched before yesterday. If you look at the history you can see that it was an article that the IP had first edited on July 31, 2006 (I know you can't see from the link I provided; just click on "Earliest" and you'll see that) and had made many edits to that article. Pats1 came to the article yesterday for the first time ever and pretty much took over. Whether or not the edits that Pats1 made were helpful to the article is irrelevant: this could be a serious case of stalking. How else did Pats1 know to go to that article if he didn't see it from the IP's contributions? I think this is also something that should be looked into. Ksy92003 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people just don't see it I guess and I failed to convince them. Pats1, in my opinion, edited Chris Long and Jack Youngblood to harrass me. Can I prove it? No. Is it relevant he showed up at those places after his buddy was blocked? Yes. I was told that is is over. I was told I made a federal case out of chrisjneslon and Pats1. Maybe so. It's funny. There is more disruption now than when someone was active. Hmm. stalking is allowed by the Admins here. They, apparantly, won't look into it. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason it's easy to see someone's contributions. Pats1 is allowed to edit whatever he wants, regardless of how he found it. If you have some problem with Pats1's editing, let's hear it. But, if all you have is "he dared touch this particular article", this counts for nothing. Friday (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Friday, there was a talk page going on. He could have chosen to participate in WP:CONSENSUS. He didn't. Please read the comment by Ksy. Perhaps you will respond to that. I think it is unfair for you to say my point is, "he dared touch this particular article". That is not the point and I know you understand that. The issue is the rules on civility. Let me guess, if I went into a article he edited and spent a lot of time on and just took over and ignored his requests to pause, you'd defend me, right?72.0.36.36 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one issue here, and in order to deal with them effectively, we have to separate them. The complaint as written here is mainly about him daring to touch this article. This is a spurious complaint and is not worth spending much time on. The idea that it doesn't matter whether his edits are good or bad is ludicrous. He's allowed to make reasonable edits, your dispute with him notwithstanding. If he's exhibiting excessive ownership tendencies somewhere, this is an actual problem that needs attention. The fact that you two don't get along is not an actual problem that needs attention, unless it gets to the point that somebody needs a timeout. If he thinks your edits are problematic, he should be checking them over and fixing them as needed. Everyone should do this; it's how Wikipedia works. So, please, separate any actual problems (if there are any) from your personal dispute with him. It's getting tiresome. Friday (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. The complaint here is stalking. Not content. I was not quite articulate enough but that is the issue. The fact we don't get along is that I complained against a friend of his. That needs to be separated out, I agree. The content stuff can be agreed upon, that can be separated out. It wasn't me who forwarded "The idea that it doesn't matter whether his edits are good or bad". However, the basis of this place is civility. If one who is an Admin is not held to a high standard then the rules really don't mean much, do they? I have asked that the stalking issue be separated out, to use your words. So, let's "deal with that effectively". The complaint was not, I repeat, was NOT about him daring to touch an article. That is your (with all due respect) characterization of this. I understand you are frustrated, I understand it is tiresome. Let's get past the things that are obvious. Focus on whether or not an adminstrator abused power by going overboard to defend a friend and to harras another editor. It is either yes or no. However, to date, no one has looked at that part, they have only looked at a big mess caused by chrisjnelson's being blocked and say, "Both of these guys are wrong but Pats1 is an administrator and we will give HIM the benefits of any doubts. The other guy is an "IP". If he wants fair treatment, let him get an account". I am sorry that is the way I see it. So, do what you yourself suggest. Separate out the stalking issue, look into it and ask Pats1 to answer the questions and defend WHY he went there. Was it is help? Was it to be civil? Was it to de-escalate a situation? Was it to harras? Was it to exact a type of revenge for his fallen comrade? Was it to be nice? Was it to put gasoline on a fire he started? Or did he, just wake up yesterday and find the "Fix the jack youngblood article" on his "To-Do" list? After all, he's never been there before and he's been meaning to go there are improve the article for a long time now. What do you, in your heart of hearts beleive?72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

. . . crickets 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

User:Ottava Rima commented on the talk of WikiProject Freemasonry asking us to assess Christopher Smart within the scope of the project here. We explained to him that not only do we not assess bio articles, there are no sources confirming Smart's membership, which there most certainly would be, even in the 1700s.

It then comes about that later scholars believe Smart wrote a rebuttal to Laurence Dermott's Ahiman Rezon, which is a book well-known to Masonic historians as part of a schism in early Freemasonry. Ottava's contention is that that rebuttal prevented changes in Freemasonry. The rebuttal was published in 1765, and the schism was healed in 1813. none of us in the project know of this rebuttal or have ever heard it mentioned. Ottava then pulled a mention in a footnote in another history no one in the project has heard of, which ascribes the book to a Dr. Cassigny. Needless to say, this does not seem to be strong evidence.

We figured that would be that, but as can be seen from the thread, it has escalated into personal attacks, and reversals of statements, most notably going from "there are no records" to "here are some records." Ottava has produced no sources, and from checking his additions to the article on Smart's A Song to David against the article by Rose in Philological Quarterly, what Ottava says that Rose says is not what Rose says. Ottava is picking and choosing his sources and taking material out of context in order to make the point he wants to make (see diff). This is turning from a content problem into a violation of policy issue, as well as trying to force a project to do what he wants, and I think some admin intervention is needed here. There seems to be an agenda involved, as there's quite a bit of misuse of sources, and some real need to get an admission of Smart's membership and his supposed importance within Freemasonry, and a steadfast refusal to acknowledge any position but his own, which seems, from sources, to be flawed. MSJapan (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, given what Ottava thinks is appropriate research to support a claim as shown on Talk:A Song to David#What Rose Says, and how easy it was to show that the position taken by the scholar was not the one Ottava claimed the scholar took, I further request that he be topic-banned until his edits can be scrutinized for accuracy. MSJapan (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from the project page that MSJapan is completely misconstruing everything I have stated. For example, when he claims I reversed myself, he is unwilling to actually quote, because nothing I say verifies anything that he claims. Also, his claims about what John Rose states was blatantly false and proven such on the talk page. He is moving between page after page in directly conflict with WP:V. He has no respect for that policy, nor respect for the encyclopedia. I can provide all quotes from each source if needed, but it is enough to say that even John Carter pointed out where MSJapan is wrong on this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that I indicated that there could be good reason to think that, with no extant original sources regarding this subject being a Mason, as seems to be the case, when such records are generally easily available, that the lack of that evidence could be seen as a reason for saying the subject was not a Mason. It should also be noted that the subject of the complaint has made a few declarations that policy and guidelines demand banners be placed on certain articles when in fact no such statements are made. On that basis, I believe that there is reasonable cause to suspect the subject of the complaint may be, intentionally or not, misrepresenting other matters as well. John Carter (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that there would be easy to find original evidence is a red herring and completely false. There are a lot of famous Masons whose original documentation will never be found. Most of Smart's letters were destroyed or vanished, and the Masons were in their infancy at the time which was also filled with turmoil. Documents get destroyed. Fires happen. However, even the Masonic Lodge that specializes in 18th century British Masonry published a historical account of Smart as a Mason and his role with Masonry via his A Defence of Freemasonry. The only one who is in serious denial about Smart being a mason is MSJapan, and WP:V would not side with his original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

An example of MSJapan's constant use of incorrect information.

Here. You can see the two different versions. My statement is completely correct even when you add in the secondary section:

(My original quote) "There is no public record explicitly connecting Christopher Smart with Freemasonry. There does exist a poem attributed to "Brother C. Smart, A.M," published in a volume called A Defence of Freemasonry, in the mid-1760s, but it is of course possible that another C. Smart was the author of that work. The most suggestive evidence is therefore a line from the definitively attributed Jubilate Agno, which was written contemporaneously with the Song: "For I am the Lord's builder and free and accepted MASON in CHRIST JESUS" (B109). At a mnimum, this line establishes that Smart had Freemasonry on his mind. A close analysis of the Song to David reveals that he was familiar with symbols from all three of the craft degrees, and undoubtedly the best source for such detailed knowledge would have been personal experience."

(His addition) "But there were certainly other potential sources, for example the extremely popular expose Masonry Dissected by Samuel Prichard, published in 1730. This pamphlet ran through three editions in eleven days and remained readily available in London for over a century. It was also reputed to be one of the means by which the still young practice of speculative Freemasonry became standardized in Britain and abroad. In other words, Smart would have read it whether he were a Freemason or not."

What he leaves out: "The most important thing to be said is this: much of the symbolism of Freemasonry derives from the story of the building of Solomon's temple, of which David was the divinely inspired architect. Upon this basis alone one is justified in pursuing the question of Masonic symbolism in the Song to David."

Now, if you read my original summation of Rose, I was completely accurate: "Although it is not know for sure if Christopher was a Freemason or not, there is evidence suggesting that he was either part of the organization or had a strong knowledge of its belief system which "undoubtably the best source for such detailed knowledge would have been personal experience.""

I left a little bit of doubt, and I included Rose's mocking of the doubt of Christopher Smart's Masonic membership.

If you notice, his version: "Rose claims in 2005 that it is not known for sure if Smart was a Freemason or not; there is no public record explicitly connecting Smart with Freemasonry there is conjecture that he was either a Freemason or had a strong knowledge of its symbols from an expose of the time."

Leaves out the top portion of the paragraph that recounts the constant scholarly association of Smart as a Mason. Instead, he claims "Had you bothered to read any farther than the one sentence you found to support your position," which you can see is patently absurd when I quoted the whole section of the paragraph that comes before, which proves the half of the assertion he was denying (that Rose gives evidence supporting Smart as a Mason). If anything, MSJapan is being complete incivil, is denying WP:V, and is pushing a POV that is not backed up by scholarship. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to restrain Ottava Rima from wasting so much of people's time?

Ottava Rima again..? I thought they were supposed to have reformed. Compare previous ANI threads on OR here and here (initiated by Awadewit). I have a feeling there may be further threads, which better sleuths than me may be able to find. See also Ottawa Rima's block log here. It's time to stop this uncollegial editor from wasting quite so much of other people's time, IMO. Some page bans, mentorship, or a longer block? May we have some input on alternatives from uninvolved users, please? Bishonen | talk 08:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC).
P. S. I just fortuitously came across another OR thread, from late April: "Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima", containing depressing examples of OR's behaviour on WP:FAC, plus some strikingly unresponsive lawyering by OR: "This topic is misplaced. The appropriate place for "civility" issues is Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Furthermore, the use of "extreme" in the title heading is unproven POV on an issue." By this principle, all of AN and ANI are no doubt "POV", a concept which (of course) applies to articles only, not to discussion boards. Incidentally, I should perhaps have made it clear that I myself am entirely uninvolved, and have no grudge or beef whatsoever against OR; I've only had one brief and perfectly pleasant exchange with them, on my talkpage. (That's one of the reasons I hoped and believed there had been reform.) The issue for me is 100% OR's inappropriate wasting of the time and energy of others (as evidenced above). Those others could have been cheerfully writing content instead of (cheerlessly) trying to contain this kind of behaviour. Time to help them? Bishonen | talk 11:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC).

Bishonen, your history of the events is quite ridiculous to anyone who bothered to read them. Your account does not reflect consensus nor the outcome of those events, and it is rather shameful that you portrayed them in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who is willing to look at things rationally, you will see that the overwhelming consensus was against Awadewit even taking the matter to AN/I, and that the consensus was against the community doing anything about editors responding to FA reviews. As was determined, I was not causing any major problems over the issues, and I took a leave of absence from FA Review as a show of good faith. As the proceeding thread demonstrates, users bring topics to AN/I that do not belong there in order to push their POV. Bishonen has continued just that. The only serious matter here is MSJapan going against WP:V and WP:STALKing me across many pages in order to revert verifiable content. I have proven that the content is perfectly verifiable, and if he had any problems with that, he would have taken it to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

When Bishonen talks about "reform", he is completely making up facts that clearly do not exist. The only statement that I was not to make is to ask people to go to another Wikipedia project if they would not accept the rules of Wikipedia. That is it. Have I done such? Clearly not. I will ask Bishonen to prove that his interest here is over civility and for him to strike his obvious inaccuracies. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and, as a neutral admin, go through this. It might take a bit of time so have a little patience all. One quick note - Bishonen is a "she", I believe. Neıl 龱 11:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Its hard to settle pronouns when the pseudonym is gendered the opposite way. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil, if you were wondering about Bishonen's characterization of me, why not look here and here, where I effectively brought together two sides that were adamantly opposed to one another and removed a large source of the controversy. There is far more than just that, but it only takes one example to point out a character smear. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. As best I can tell, Ottava Rima is editing in good faith. This is a content dispute only. It has not spilled over into incivility, edit-warring, or any real disruption. The only issue is Ottava's belief that he is always right, a common belief shared by many, many Wikipedia editors. This has led to a somewhat uncollegiate attitude, as Bishonen correctly states. Docboat (talk · contribs) has kindly made an offer to Ottava Rima at the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Freemasonry#Assessment, and I suggest he takes him up on it. Ottava, whilst you clearly intend well, it is important to understand others have differing views. A review of Wikipedia:The Truth (be warned - it is written humorously, but has a somewhat worthy message) might be worthwhile, as might the excellent Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers (particularly the last two paragraphs, which everyone should read and take to heart). To sum up, I think this was being handled well enough on the Wikiproject's talk page, and I don't think a block or a topic ban is warranted. Some sort of mentorship in the ins and outs of collaborative editing, perhaps, which could nip this in the bud before it does spill over into bad behaviour (emphasising I haven't seen any of this to date). Neıl 龱 11:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil, the issue is not good faith. "Good faith" is the test for vandals, and no one is accusing Ottava Rima of being a vandal. Instead, people are testifying to their experiences of dealing with this editor. She may write with good faith, when he or she does an article, but it's profoundly obvious that this editor is exceptionally rude, obsessed, and hostile. My own version of "civility" asks whether a person's actions are for or against community function: Ottava Rima's hostility and ignorance are anti-social and therefore uncivil, disruptive (look at the links Bishonen has provided: just look at all the time people are having to lose saying the same things over and over again). I'm glad that you want to be neutral, but you are, essentially, wanting to reset the clock to day one. This isn't the first. This is a trail of frustration all centered on one figure. Geogre (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I must point out here that Geogre's definition of "civility" includes belittling editors constantly, especially his recent outbursts against John Carter over his assessing pages as "start" even though they clearly fit the criteria as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you Neil. And collaborative editing? As you can see from the Rosalind Picard page, as with others, I have done a lot of collaborative editing and have been recognized for it. However, it takes two to do such. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You remove every comment that asks you to stop, leave every bit of praise, and therefore mislead people into thinking that you are not vexatious. In fact, you are a time sink, from my experience, and incapable of recognizing your errors, much less of learning from them. Geogre (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make claims, don't make ones that are easily checked. As anyone can see from my talk page, I have left things that are pertinent, and I have removed that which is not. I have removed neutral and positive comments along with negative comments. However, its my talk page, so I can do whatever I want in removing or leaving comments. There is a history if anyone cares. Now, if you want to talk about "errors", I will merely mention your recent actions in regards to John Carter over assessments, your inability to allow people to put proper inline citations into articles to bring them to GA, A, or FA quality, and your improper deletion being overturned by community consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To make up for any "wasted" time, here is a poem for the audience's enjoyment:

A Defence

Childish games and childish fights, have spread 'round,

And bring forth those who merely want to play.

Of course, our hero would be called unsound,

By such who speak half truths, false claims, they say

That they are unique, and problems they found,

That are just mere phantoms; but he must pay.

And so it begins, more who do not care,

Poor Wikipedia they will not spare.

To many, the poor Lass is just a tool

For venting their rage or spreading their hate;

But must it be this way? Don't let it fool

You into thinking that it is our fate.

We can move on now, just follow the rule

And realize that they will never be sate.

People as these trouble to bring they must

But are their actions and claims really just?

No, is the answer, and no it must be,

Since there is nothing to claim for a ground,

Once you open your eyes and choose to see,

Everything here that's waiting to be found.

One who makes claims that all accounts are free

Of mention; And he only circles 'round

The same point, athough the proof contrary

Is given; his own mind merry.

And of the others, I will now proceed

To give account of their action and tell

How from that sacred truth they have receed.

The one he mocks, the one he tries to sell

A story of Verify not. This deed

He spread, edit made, and so pages fell

At his hand and inaccuracies spread

Until this place, this post, which it has led.

Now what can I say? Now what can be done?

Since Melodrama has reared its large head;

That awful beast is here to ruin fun

As it demands in earnest to be fed.

Please don't feed it! Kill it now! Or else none

Will be spared. I think that is enough said.

So shall I end; is it really too soon?

Nah, I say, but I shall conclude my tune.

Editor I am, a Writer you see,

Who spends all of his time with research much

And gives my findings to sacred Wiki.

Why all of this fuss? Why all of this such?

It is really more than what has to be,

And all this needs just a delicate touch.

So when there are those who rush to accuse,

It is poor Wiki who will surely lose.

- Ottava Rima, The Italian Rhyme, Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let wiki’s boffins chew the plaintiff’s cud,

What worries me’s not this – God only knows -

But rather how you haul rhyme through the mud

Play loose with rules and end up writing prose.

‘Sate’ ‘receed’ are poorly placed there, bud,

The iambics limp, and almost anything goes.

The measured art that Wyatt and Byron used

Though honoured in the breech, is quite confused.
Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have to fault Bishonen: what made her think that Ottava Rima (which is not "the Italian rhyme," but an eight lined form used by Dante) had reformed? Ottava Rima has consistently acted like a contributing troll. That person's contributions tend to be ham fisted, poorly written, and quite frequently in ignorance of other articles. Wikipedia seems to exist for him or her to write upon, and anyone who asks for form, asks for content, or, worst of all, edits the entries is going to get, per above, two or three screens of "and another thing" attacks. I have said it before, and I see no reason to change my opinion: this editor is not suitable for a cooperative editing environment. I imagine that this comment will be lost in another two screens of attack and lawyering, but I agree with Bishonen: it's time to lose the marginal gains from this user, if we can prevent the monumental losses of time caused by Ottava Rima's poor behavior and labile performance. Geogre (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to know if Geogre is correct or not, merely look at the editors that have complimented my work, have complimented my writing, have complimented me over my handling of Rosalind Picard et al, and the fact that Geogre is known to WP:OWN 18th century pages, causing problems for those like John Carter and constantly belittling and abusing users, abusing his powers, such as deleting pages which was quickly overturned by community consensus, and other such things that show that his testimony here is quite a mockery to everything Wikipedia is. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• What "history" and what "account" of mine is that you're talking about, Ottava Rima? All I can see myself doing above, is 1) link to ANI threads and encourage people to read them and form an opinion of your editing, 2) suggest ways for you of improving your interaction with others. (Tentatively: page bans, a block, or mentorship. Other people may have other and better suggestions.) It's not expected you'll agree any improvement is needed; people rarely do. But I'd like to hear from others. Are you sure you actually read my post, beyond the header? I ask because you're continuing to use "POV" in the same absurd way ("users bring topics to AN/I that do not belong there in order to push their POV. Bishonen has continued just that"). even though I had just pointed out that POV is applicable to articles only. How could it possibly be applicable to discussion boards? The notion makes my head hurt, quite apart from the insulting notion that I have a POV about you, just after I stated I have no personal negative opinion about you whatever, and only pleasant interchanges. I'm used to brushing off insults, and happy to do it, but if you say I lie, kindly be prepared to back it up. Anyway. I'm sorry to see that "When Bishonen talks about "reform", he is completely making up facts that clearly do not exist." I apologize for thinking you reformed. WP:AGF has a lot to answer for. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC).

Your history of my actions and your account of my actions are patently absurd and ignore the resulting community consensus, both of which did not pan out to match your claims. POV is not WP:NPOV. Perhaps, instead of making personal attacks about me not reading, you open your horizons beyond Wikipedia terminology and realize that I am talking about your limited prespective and presentation. You cannot put out random threads, make claims, ignore the results, and ignore the other 95% of my character. That is called a smear. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gee. I both can and will "put out random threads". Why shouldn't I? Those are interesting links. Is your block log also "random"? But, one more time, and then I'm done here, sorry for the repetitiousness (and for, ahem, taking up so much ANI space): I have not offered any history. I have not made any claims, absurd or not. And far be it from me to comment on any percentage whatever of your character. Still kind of hoping some other people (whether involved or not) besides Neil will have input, though. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC).

And Bishonen, you keep throwing out "reform" as if it is pertinent to this case. My AN/Is deal with two things - FA reviewing for saying people should leave if they don't like the procedures, and FA reviewer who was told by the community that her views did not actually hold up, and I stepped away to demonstrate that my intentions are not personal, unlike Awadewits were. I did not have to step down from FA reviewing for a while. I chose to. There is no "reform" necessary, nor reform needed. I was asked to stop saying one set of words during the process, and that was it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the history here, but if Ottava Rima has been editing disruptively, we don't need to care whether it's being done in good faith or not. Good faith is a necessary but not sufficient condition for editing here. Competence is required as well. (I don't have much opinion yet on the disruptiveness of this editor; I just wanted to say that "good faith" is mostly a straw man in this context.) Friday (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima blocked

Ok, fine. I've blocked Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) indefinitely - that Freemason nonsense was just absurd, both the edit-warring on List of Freemasons and the trolling on the WikiProject talk page - but will promptly unblock if and when he acknowledges he's actually doing something wrong and agrees to stop editing disruptively and abide by a stringent civility supervision. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to say that I've look mostly at two pieces of evidence, the block log, and the habit of removing critical messages from his talk page, and it seems clear that this is not the kind of editor who should be welcome here. I was about to endorse liberal use of cluebat as needed, and it looks like it's already done. Only thing I have to add is that he be kept on a short lease if unblocked. I don't object to "one last chance" I guess, as long as it's really "one last chance" not Wikipedia patented "One last chance except an infinite number of additional last chances". Friday (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Further, Ottava, you remind me very strongly of Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs): please don't go down that route, for your sake and ours. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good block, and I endorse that it can only be lifted upon Ottava Rima's acknowledgment that s/he is at fault and will take steps to curtail their problematic attitude. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• I ran across this after a spurious filing at WQA. I agree this block is richly earned and concur with LHvU's suggested criteria for it to be rescinded. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban circumvent

I'm rather certain User:24.205.234.250 who was banned earlier today and User:66.17.49.165, are operated by the same person.

• Are both overly interested in the same subjects. Being superpowers, great powers, and ofcourse lawnmowers.12
• Both have an obsession for a certain page on kommersant.com and present it as accurate for the U.S. stating Russia to be a superpower.12 and 1234
• Both sign edits in the same way --User:24.205.234.250 and --User:66.17.49.165
• Use different connection but during timespans one is online, the other is not making edits.12
• When in dispute, User:66.17.49.165 runs straight to admin User:AndonicO that earlier today blocked User:24.205.234.250.12

In other words: User:24.205.234.250 is using another connection (User:66.17.49.165) circumvent his 24h block.

Engages in new edit war on Talk:United_States where User:Van_helsing performed an archivation.1 It's not far stretched to see this as another attempt for provocations by the other IP.

Should also stop vandalizing user pages with warning messages.12345678. Species8473 (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Does appear to be the same person (or perhaps an associate or friend of some sort), and is likely worth keeping an eye on the situation to make sure things stay calm -- I'll try to check back. Hard to say if this is a case of intentional block evasion (they could be editing from another location, and/or may not have noticed the original block at all), and they seem currently inactive anyhow, so I'm more inclined to assume good faith for the time being unless there's something particularly pressing about the situation. As I said, will try to check back to see how/if this progresses, but feel free to poke me about it. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is back with new IP User:69.239.171.174. First edit continues edit war started by his other IP User:66.17.49.165.12 That together makes three reverts to an article in 24h, while the user is supposed to be blocked for major editwarring with his User:24.205.234.250 IP. I predict the next article that will get a full protection will be Potential superpowers after seeing this edit. Species8473 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you've found yourselves a couple of open proxies: 66.17.49.165 is very likely (multiple suspicious ports) to be a proxy, 69.239.171.174 is very suspicious (open telnet and http, looks like it may be behind some sort of hardware firewall), 24.205.234.250 is unlikely (no open ports detected). I've reblocked the first two as proxies. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 14:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on temazepam and abuse of Twinkle privileges

This was the latest installment in a slow-brewing edit war between an anonymous editor and two users, Thegoodson (talk · contribs) and Literaturegeek (talk · contribs), on benzodiazepine-related articles. This particular episode led to the article being protected, final warnings all around, and the anonymous user being briefly blocked (erroneously IMHO) for vandalism. It is clear from the article history that Literaturegeek used Twinkle to label a content dispute as vandalism and break 3RR (in under 15 minutes, no less). After a brief discussion (1 · 2) with the protecting admin, we decided that removal of Literaturegeek's Twinkle access for a reasonable period of time was in order. I have accordingly done so, let Literaturegeek know, and am now asking the community to let me know whether this was good or whether a {{Minnow}}ing is in order, since I may be considered an "involved" party here. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think two weeks might have been a bit on the long side, but Literaturegeek doesn't seem to have a big problem with it. I would be inclined to restore Twinkle privileges as soon as the content dispute underlying the edit war is worked out (assuming that is <2 weeks, heh). Clearly it was abuse of Twinkle, but it also looks to (probably) be a one-time incident. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Cut and Paste move....

Resolved. Bobet 06:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa - folks, I have just exacerbated a cut and past move on Trouble in Mind‎. Previously it was an article about the Elki Brooks album. Another editor cut and pasted that to Trouble in Mind‎ (album) (I moved it to that title to fix a typo in previous title). Trouble in Mind‎ was then turned into a disam page that I subsequently cleaned up. Obviously the page history of Trouble in Mind‎ still has edits for the original contents. I should have checked the edit history before diving in, any chance that an admin can straighten this out. Thanks and sorry. – ukexpat (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing! I will now write out 500 times: "I must check edit histories". – ukexpat (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Board Elections

Admin's are no doubt aware that the voting closes tomorrow for the elections to the board of trustees. If you've got a spare twenty seconds, consider dropping a note off to a couple of wiki friends to encourage one and all to vote, and if you haven't voted yet yourself go do it! (click if this is your 'home' wiki, otherwise, head to meta wiki for more info... Privatemusings (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Blogsd

I've been having a problem with uncivil (to the point of obscene) edit summaries and edits from editor Blogsd. I placed a note at Wikiquette alerts and received this reply from Jaysweet:

Okay, so yeah, if this user ever bothers you again, just copy-and-paste this to ANI:

• Gross incivility: [41] [42] [43]
• User warned against personal attacks: [44]
• User threatens to use sockpuppets to evade block: [45]
• User continues to disrupt after final warning and threat to user sock puppets: [insert diff of anything else he does here]

Put that in a new section at WP:ANI, and he'll most likely be indefinitely blocked. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The "insert diff of anything else he does here" in this case is here[46], showing that Blogsd intends to continue this using sockpuppets, as stated in a note left after Jaysweet's warnings to him. Following Jaysweet's recommendation, I'm posting here. Thank you. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the user should be blocked. But don't overlook the humorous aspect, as the user seems incapable of spelling any English words correctly, including the obscenities. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the user was blocked for only 24 hours [47] and the previous complaint (restated above) was archived. [48] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I see no evidence to suggest he's going to change his approach - all he's been doing is removing comments and the block notice from his talk page, rather than responding to concerns or making any assurances. It should increase straight to (at least) a week if it doesn't stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As Ncm says, it will indeed increase if he doesn't stop. As he hasn't continued the bad behaviour following the block thus far, wait and see. Neıl 龱 11:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if I'm reading the clock right, he's only about halfway through his 24-hour block, so it stands to reason he hasn't done any new vandalism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but he could have acted up on his talk page, and has not (yet). Neıl 龱 11:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Good point. How quickly I forget. It's too bad, though. I was looking forward to some more of his almost-English rants. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I put together most of an ANI report to recommend to Brilliant Pebble, since I had to go and wouldn't be able to keep an eye on the user. Then I got a message on my user talk page that I didn't appreciate, so I filed the ANI report -- but then I had to leave in a hurry, so I didn't get a chance to mention to BP on the Wikiquette Alerts page that I'd already filed it :) Sorry for the confusion! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

James Dobson

Resolved

 – NewUser7 was blocked 12 hours by PhilKnight. EdJohnston (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please look at activity on the above article? I don't know how this article ended up on my watchlist, but it seems to me that a person using dynamic IPs (and now a new account - NewUser7‎ (talk · contribs)) is trying to push POV into the article. I really don't want to edit war - have done everything I can to get the person to the talk page. I can't really report to 3RR because of the dynamic addresses, and I don't want to request protection because the person may have a valid point that can be arrived at through compromise and consensus. Kelly ^hi! 04:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, this person continues to vandalize my userpage.[49] [50] Kelly ^hi! 04:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the vandalism to your talkgpage. Smith Jones (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Translator wanted

Resolved

 – Images deleted as copyvios and uploader warned

Can anyone translate this? It's being used as the grounds for including a number of images on Wikipedia, and I don't know what permissions, if any, it's granting. --Carnildo (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Things such as this better fit at the Help desk, no need to bother the already overly busy admins with it ;)

Nevertheless, I hope this helps you out. With some luck a translation from Arabic to English will appear. Species8473 (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation from Arabic to English: "The rights are dedicated to all the children of Jenin, wherever they are, in the country or exiled from the land. And we wish them success wherever they are. The story of Jenin was taken from the Book "Jenin's Tale", by Harb Hnaiti, published by the Arabic Organization for Education and Sciences, a branch of education sponsored by the Palestinians freedom organization. Some pictures were collected from the internet." (Signed by Raed Idrees) -- Many thanks to Dhiaa Alyousef from Saudi Arabia for the translation. Species8473 (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice you are one of those busy admins, hope you forgive me because I provided a translation. Species8473 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like more work for busy admins, then. User:Abdazz uploaded about a dozen images citing that as permission to use on Wikipeda. I'm out for the night, so someone else will need to deal with this. --Carnildo (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All copyvios, all deleted. User warned. Neıl 龱 09:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Savvy10

Problem section: American Idol (season 7)#Elimination chart. User:Savvy10 is repeatedly making edits to the Elimination Chart despite general consensus to not include the information s/he is adding, and multiple reverts/undos from several users. In the weeks of 4/30 and 5/7, Syesha Mercado and the eliminated contestants for those weeks were the last two left on stage before the other contestant was eliminated. Because the show never expressly stated that that Mercado and the others were the "Bottom 2" for those weeks, and reality television in general attempts to create drama, regular editors of the Idol articles have decided that it would be wrong to include a "Btm 2" field for those weeks. Including bottom 2/3 information only when Ryan Seacrest explicitly notes it had been discussed at length or mentioned here, here, here, here, and here. The last link was the latest incarnation of this seemingly never ending debate, when editors new to the article had shown up and attempted to include "Btm 2" fields on the chart. It seemed that by the end of it, most people advocated to just leaving the chart as it originally was and moving on—after all, the show ended over a month ago. Yet, User:Savvy continually insists on including information on who was in the "Bottom 2"/"Saved Last" for those two weeks and the semifinals (in which no one but Kady Malloy was noted to be in the bottom): [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. No fewer than 4 users have undone hir edits, yet s/he still persists. I would like to request that s/he be blocked from editing that section of the article. MissMJ (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have the wrong board. The correct place to report edit warring and/or abuse of WP:3RR is here. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think this particular incident fits the kind of report I would have to make at the 3RR noticeboard, since there hasn't been three reverts in a 24 hour period. This has been going on over the span of at least a week, and while there doesn't seem to have been an explicit violation of 3RR, I still consider it an edit war as User:Savvy10 insists on changing the chart despite consensus from other editors. MissMJ (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't take 3 reverts to violate WP:3RR. If they keep reverting the same thing over and over, it is still breaking the spirit of WP:3RR. That's why the template at the top suggests edit warring be reported to the 3RR noticeboard. Anyway, as no administrator has yet to respond, you might want to give it a shot. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Presumptive

I've noticed some troubling things out of this user. I nominated Joseph Didier for deletion a week ago, and a few days into the deletion discussion he created Murder of Joseph Didier, as many of those involved in the discussion thought the event might be notable, though not the victim. That article was also nominated for deletion. In the second debate, he posted two dubious supports for keeping the article from people who had contacted him. This all felt weird, and I decided to do a search for information about the murder. Turns out, the article is a massive copyright violation from this website, that list the copyright as 2003. Some admin action is needed here, I'm just not sure what exactly should be done. AniMate 07:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be blanked and replaced with {{copyvio}}...... Densock .. Talk^{(Dendodge on a public network)} 07:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, {{db-copyvio}} would be better...... Densock .. Talk^{(Dendodge on a public network)} 07:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And that also accepts the |url= parameter...... Densock .. Talk^{(Dendodge on a public network)} 07:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I considered a speedy delete, but some of those who contributed to the AfD discussion have valid keep arguments (though none of them have actually contributed to the article). I'm more concerned about the user's actions than the article right now. AniMate 07:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Valid keep arguments don't really matter when it's a blatant copyright violation. Speedily deleted. Neıl 龱 08:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This user has been troublesome from the get go, which admittedly has only been about a week. He or she has engaged in garden-variety vandalism, but also articles with copyright violations and numerous attempts to do end runs around the Wikipedia process, such as the "Mruder of..." article which was a direct copy of Joseph Didier, the introduction of the dubious votes in the AfD discussion, and almost frantic attempts to keep the Joseph Didier articles afloat. I would normally suspect first-time-user mistakes, but this user seems to know Wikipedia almost a little too well. I'm wondering if a checkuser might be in order to see if Presumptive is a sockpuppet of another troublesome user — there's just something here that smells a little fishy. My old reporter's instincts are kicking in, I'm afraid. In any event, this user needs a block for at least a few days, if not an indef. Just my opinion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

An indef block would certainly be an over-reaction here. Presumptive's actions here were clumsy and desperate but were not, in my opinion, indicative of someone who knows the system well (if they did, they would not try the ridiculous "proxy vote" comments in the AfD since they were certain to backfire). Copyvio is not an unusual thing for newbies. Creating "Murder of.." article while the original AfD was ongoing was bad, but I think the idea of moving to "Murder of ..." was suggested by someone else in the AfD. I participated in both AfDs and voted delete in both (even before copyvio was uncovered) and I found Presumptive's actions rather silly and annoying. But I don't think they indicate yet somebody who knows the system well and knows how to game it. I think this new user needs to be admonished but given a chance to reform and improve before we start handing out indef blocks etc. Nsk92 (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was being a bit, uh, presumptive. (I'm sorry, but I just couldn't resist.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This Presumptive fellow has a surprisingly good command of how Wikipedia works given he's a new user. -- tariqabjotu 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (or not, given your point of view), checkuser is not to be used for fishing. If he has a pattern of copyvios and vandalism, post the diffs here. Neıl 龱 09:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Realkyhick that there is something fishy about the user, I'm happy just to know that some extra eyes will likely be watching the user in the future. AniMate 09:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on Presumptive's page telling him about adoption. If he's a good faith contributor just making mistakes, that would likely help him towards contributing productively. AniMate 09:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, I have left him a note suggesting that he take time to put together an article that meets Wikipedia standards and policy before trying again. I believe the topic is viable, but unfortunately was defeated by the copyvio issue. 23skidoo (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani - Baseball Bugs = Sockpuppets?

Resolved

 – I don't think so. seicer | talk | contribs 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User Badagnani has a history of edit warring and it appears that this user is using the account Baseball Bugs as a sock puppet.

signed/ Bold Wikieditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.18.127 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for being wrong in suggesting you are a sock puppet Baseball Bugs.

signed/ Bold Wikieditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.18.127 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Apology accepted, on one condition: Start signing your posts, by adding 4 tildes afterward, so the bot program doesn't have to do it for you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

False sockpuppetry accusation

I am willing to put up with a lot from other users, since they often have to put up with a lot from me. :) But one thing I will not stand for is attacks on my personal integrity. The above IP address has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. I don't do sockpuppetry. Whether I'm judged right or wrong in any given situation, I stand on my own at all times. [58] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bwahahaha. This is the funniest accusation I've heard in a long time. These two couldn't be more opposite. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect copyright tags - Ludo225

I'm about to head out (and don't know enough about image copyrights), but could somebody please deal with this. Cheers, Alex Muller 12:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrg3105 Layout

I have posted a warning to User talk:Mrg3105#Warning on Layout.

On 13 June 2008, Mrg3105 made an edit to Hundred Days where he altered ==Notes== to ==References and footnotes== and altered ==References== to ==Sources==. I reverted this change back to the names used in WP:LAYOUT and (Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings -- Neither guideline recommend using the name "Sources" as a section heading -- with the comment "More cleanup of the citations and References. Added "Further reading" for authors not cited. Mrg3105 if you do not like the names of the sections take it up at WP:LAYOUT"

20 minutes afterwards 11:43 13 June, Mrg3105 added a section to Wikipedia talk:Layout called "Notes and references sections" as can be seen neither of the two editors who replied in that supported Mrg3105.

Today I noticed that the headings on Zieten Hussars were "References" and "Sources" so I changed them to "Notes" and "References" as WP:Layout suggests Mrg3105 changed back, with the comment Sources and references are mandated by policy and guidelines, notes are not. Mrg3105 now seems ready to edit war over this.

On checking Mrg3105's contributions for the 19 June Mrg3105 changed 30+ articles claiming that the change was "article support sections reorganise per WP:LAYOUT" see for example Battle of Château-Thierry (1814).

I have warned Mrg3105 that such behaviour is disruptive, but said that I would post a message here to make sure that administrators who are not involved editing any pages which Mrg3105 has changed, agree that it is disruptive behaviour and that the warning is reasonable. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The main thing is to let the primary editors of an article call their sections anything that makes sense. In short, don't fight. Personally I like "Sources and notes" and "Further reading" best as it is more clear. But when the referencing style is to use inline notes to identify page numbers and the details describing the book itself are separated, then a notes section and a reference section also make sense. But you could have both in one section called "Sources and notes" or call the reference seection "Sources". Each to his own. Those are only guidelines. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, in this case Mgr3105 was going through multiple articles that he had not substantially edited and changing the section headers. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No Philip, its called contributing productively.

References, is what the writer referrers the reader to. Not the entire book, but a specific page number.

Notes are those additional expansions to the article content that are not mandated by any guideline at all.

Basing an article on a verifiable source is however a core Wikipedia policy. Ideally every article should have at least one source, and every statement in an article that is possibly questionable should be referenced to the page in the source.

Do you have a problem with this? I suspect not.

What you do have problem with is that I had the gall to go into the Hundred Days article, which I suspect is one of your "pet" articles, and fix the mess that its Sources section was in.

The above problem would not occur if editors had used the guidelines as suggested, and cited page numbers. That way a reader, such as myself, could tell which titles cited were actually used in the creation and editing process and which are just recommended reading.

If this was done, many many articles would also not require missing citation templates if sources were found by at least by attempting to use the {{find}}, and used to edit them, because having such missing citation templates on an article bring the article, and with it Wikipedia's credibility into question.

Now, what is it that you think I'm disrupting here that warrants your threats of blocking me?

I suspect that somewhere in the archives is a hard-argued section on the names of the LAYOUT sections, but I do not care to read archives. I care to reflect the reality of the sorry state of many articles and the reality that many editors have no clue as to how to cite sources, so I was bold in applying common sense--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• For those interested, this is how it works--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, if someone is going through and changing the names of end sections in "established" (whatever that means) articles, that's a violation of WP:POINT. I'm being quoted to say the opposite of what I said: mrg says on his talk page (User_talk:Mrg3105#Warning_on_Layout) "I agree with Dank55, namely people have to learn what both sets of words mean". What I said, at WP:LAYOUT#Notes and references sections was: "Renaming pre-existing sections in 2.4 million articles and fielding questions from confused authors isn't practical. If we don't change them all, then people have to learn what both sets of words mean, which makes more work for everyone. It's not practical." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean NOW Dank55.

However I am not advocating wholesale change of section titles in articles. I am advocating editor education.

Then why change many articles in one day adding a section called "Sources" when neither WP:LAYOUT or WP:CITE suggest using such a section header? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no specific reason to have a Notes section, and clearly people do not understand that References ought to come with page numbers, what that feature on the edit window is for.

I dare say that Philip is far from a confused editor. So far I had one other disagreement over the issue, and left that alone because the editor of several years is not keen on referencing the article using page numbers and I lack the time to invest in the discussion

Not that that is relevant to this dispute ... but where have I added citations from books which did not have page numbers? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Philip has not discarded my edits on the source citation, so he is not entirely disapproving of my contribution, so who is making a point here? Renaming the sections was the after-effect of fixing the citations, but what is Philip trying to say? Guideline doesn't sound like a policy to me

It seems to me that renaming article support section heading is a cardinal sin worthy of blocking threats, but non-existent sources and their citation is ok? Seems a bit twisted so far as logic goes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrg is blocked now for 48 hours (for another matter concerning an Arbcom ruling), so I won't watchlist here. Let me know if I'm needed, please. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Admin blocked

Resolved

 – Blueboy96 is not Moulton and I'm an asshole (apparently). Simple misunderstandings.

On a recent jaunt into the blocked users section of the special pages page, I stumbled across this;

13:31, 20 June 2008, User:Blueboy96 (Talk | contribs) blocked #958018 (expires 13:31, 21 June 2008, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "User:Moulton". The reason given for Moulton's block is: "Personal attacks, outing other editors. Sorry, you're done here".)

I am not sure if I understand. This means that these two people are using the same IP address, which implies that one is the sockpuppet of the other. I don't mean to stir up controversy, and if I am wrong, let this be stricken from the record, but I think someone should look into this a bit further, as User:Blueboy96 is a sysop, and if he is a Sockpupeteer, then that would be bad for the project. As I said, I am just going by what I judge, so if I am wrong, let us never speak of this again. Will Thompson (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy96 is the blocker here, not the blockee. See [59] for every block he's ever gotten. It's shorten than mine [60] but just as damning, eh? WilyD 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was already trying to figure out how Moulton and Blueboy could be the same person and/or use the same IP address if one is at MIT and the other in North Carolina. :D --Jaysweet (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well then I was wrong, it does look like he was blocked though, just saying, how it is set out. Will Thompson (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WilyD, you sure do cuss a lot in your blocks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That asshole deserved it. ;) WilyD 14:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me test my autoblock knowlegde: I think it means either 1.) Moulton was trying to edit at 13:31, 20 June 2008 and that's the autoblock, or 2.) Moulton tried to edit at some point after 13:31, 19 June 2008 triggering the 24-hour autoblock and someone else tried editing from his same IP at 13:31, 20 June 2008. Am I right? If so, do I win anything? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That IP was used by Moulton, and then somebody (Moulton or otherwise) tried to edit from it shortly thereafter, yeah. WilyD 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to Blueboy for accusing him, won't happen again/ Will Thompson (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In my old neighborhood, autoblocks were defined as those things you put a car on while waiting to work on it. Hence the Jeff Foxworthy observation, "If you have seven cars in your yard, and none of 'em work, you might be a Redneck." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I like "If you mow your grass and find a car, you might be a Redneck." —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There ya go. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Notika

This user has vandalised many articles.

Just some of his recent edits:

1. 00:36, 20 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Yitzhak Shamir‎ (he was member of a known terrorist group)
2. 00:33, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Yitzhak Shamir‎ (NPOV - he was branded a terrorist)
3. 00:33, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Menachem Begin‎ (NPOV - read the article, he was branded a terrorist)
4. 00:32, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Avraham Stern‎ (NPOV - he was branded a terrorist)
5. 00:32, 19 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ze'ev Jabotinsky‎ (NPOV - he was branded a terrorist)

Obviously, his edits are influenced by his hate rather than real contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radical-Dreamer (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sock of User:Nasrulana?? above. He's promised to stop those edits. Deor (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More Moldovan/Romanian edit warring

I've been keeping an eye on Moldopodo and noticed his edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldovenism. It looks like this is part of yet another bout of fisticuffs between the Moldovans and the Romanians - the AfD nomination is completely spurious and comments by both the nominator Xasha and Moldopodo are totally misleading - e.g. stating that there are no credible sources when the sources include the UN and independent (i.e. non Moldovan or Romanian) academics. andy (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no AFD that so many people vote delete on can reasonably be considered vandalistic, in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to construe andy's message as a personal attack?Xasha (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Stifle, I would say that the other delete votes were based on policy, while the two users in question displayed bad faith and willful dismissal of the sources provided, so their comments were of a different calibre. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in this ANI notice that would be considered a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of Xasha's remarks come close, or at least indicate bad faith/incivility: "Thanks for sharing with us the real reason why you support this fringe use of a legitimate Romanian term ... You made your real reasons clear to anybody. You can prattle all you want now". Biruitorul ^Talk 17:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I ignore the utterly false title (anybody can see there's no edit warring going on at the linked page : not even 1 revert; also, of the 10 participants as of today, only 4 are openly Romanian or Moldovan; moreover 2/3 of the editors who didn't openly declare one of the two ethnicities think the article's got to go), I could say that calling a process based on Wikipedia (core) policies as "spurious" and my very pertinent comments as "totally misleading" qualifies as a personal attack. If I wouldn't ignore the current title, I could speak of fantastic hipocrisy.Xasha (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nationalism, what would we do without you? -- tariqabjotu 17:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On point, though, what course of admin action are you suggesting? I'm not sure I see, through your description of the course of events, where "edit warring" is occurring, and I think the only thing that could be done here is make sure the closing admin takes the circumstances into account rather than simply vote-counting (not that admins... er... do that now). -- tariqabjotu 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, with regard to Moldopodo, I suggest you have a look at this and then this. Perhaps I wouldn't include the AfD comment, but these other edits indicate a pattern of disruptiveness is continuing unabated. Also, there's this: Moldopodo has an unfortunate habit of crying incivility where there is none, and mentioning Digwuren in the same breath - a bit ironic, considering he has an editing restriction and two blocks under that very case. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul, being completely aware of the Digwuren general restriction accuses me of bad faith [61] with no justification, for the mere usage of my right as any user of comment and vote. I have perfectly justified my position: the sources are not credible and highly biaised, the article does not fulfil basic requirements of Wikipedia for notability. Besides a gross lie is being put through by those who insist on using UNHCR as an argument, as it has explicitely declined responsibility for the referred to source and the document itself is not even the result of the UNCHR's work, but of one of the unknown organisations.

Also please take note of this comment of User:Biruitorul, which not only is irrelevant on the discussion where it was placed, but also is located far beyond decency and civility.[62]--Moldopodo^talk 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, you are posting diffs to comments that were only made a few minutes ago in the previous section, comments, I might add, that are no in the least bit incivil or indecent. It looks silly. Now, please cut it out; threads merged again. -- tariqabjotu 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, not that I have anything in particular to justify, but it was this remark that smacked of bad faith: "The main goal of this invention is to deny the existence of everything that relates to Moldavian state, ethnicity, nation, culture, history and language". No, Moldopodo, the main goal of that article is to inform readers about a concept, using the reliable sources where it appears, and this reading of anti-Moldovan conspiracies in articles that you happen not to like is rather tiresome, and indeed manifests a failure to assume good faith. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, have a look what User:Biruitorul calls bad faith voting, when I say that UNCHR cannot be taken in consideration as it expressly refuses any liability: Caveat: Writenet papers are prepared mainly on the basis of publicly available information, analysis and comment. The papers are not, and do not purport to be, either exhaustive with regard to conditions in the country surveyed, or conclusive as to the merits of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. The views expressed in the paper are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Writenet or UNHCR. Such kind of sources "papers" cannot be either verified, nor does anybody take any responsibility for them--Moldopodo^talk 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. Whether or not that paper is reliable (and the UNHCR doesn't generally pick unreliable individuals to do their research), you imputed sinister motives to that article where none exist. You accused, did you not, the editors who have been working on it for 2⅓ years of having as their goal "to deny the existence of everything that relates to Moldavian state, ethnicity, nation, culture, history and language"? That is bad faith right there, although questioning the validity of the Gribincea paper certainly seems tendentious as well. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreover the same user engaged into edit-warring in the article Cinema of the Moldavian SSR (the same contents in the article Cinema of Moldavia, Cinema of Moldova, also please check the talk pages of the respective articles), while he was perfectly aware that I was writing in the very moment the same article. Upon numerous requests to cease disruptive moving around of the article, the user has never explained whatsoever on the talk page. The user did not contribute to the article, and only moved it around as I was editing it. However, after I pointed this blatant fact to the user, User:Biruitorul added one meaningless reference, basicly saying there is nothing to say about modern cinema of the Republic of Moldova. The same user has also changed all adjectives "Moldavian" to "Moldovan" (term alternatively associated with the Republic of Moldova, but is not used nor was used for the Moldavian SSR in English (as well as in other languages)) in the paras which all refer to the cinema in the Moldavian SSR. No explanation, inspite of my requests was provided. User:Neil intervened and wrote "the country name is "Moldova", but I am afraid the latter did not read the contents of the article and to which time period it referred, which was very clear from the very beginning: the first phrase: "Moldavian cinema - considered as the youngest of the Soviet cinemas". It might be difficult to find the diffs as the article was deleted and moved numerous times yesterday.--Moldopodo^talk 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You do not need to start a new thread to reply to a comment that in the thread directly above here. I have merged the sections. -- tariqabjotu 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

it's not a reply, it's a filing of request for enforcement of Gigwuren arbitration general restriction.--Moldopodo^talk 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm risking to turn into "a complain about Moldopodo page", but I think he's really unhelpful and disrupting on the way he ignores reliable sources when he disagrees with them. For instance, at Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, he disagrees with an author on Moldovan history (Charles King), whom he calls "a tendentious and unprofessional source", so instead of adding other reliable sources (which might or might not contradict King; from what I have read, King is quite authoritive), he's just adding citation needed] everywhere. Perhaps it's hard to find his POV in western scholarship and that's why he has no sources?

So he's constantly revert-warring to impose his view (he has hundreds of reverts in the last few weeks), without bringing any actual reliable sources. Instead of this, he insists adding his own interpretations to 17th/18th century documents, such as those of Dimitrie Cantemir.

Also, it's getting really tedious the way he changes "Moldovan" to "Moldavian" in dozens of articles. If the New York Times, BBC and virtually every notable English newspaper uses the term "Moldovan", why should we use "Moldavian"? I know he considers it more historically appropriate, but we're not here "to do justice", we're here to describe the world. bogdan (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't be shy and provide a diff to the talk pages, where all the sources are cited, how many exactly are excatly the contrary of what King says? 10-20-30? Did you count? --Moldopodo^talk 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Now, I consider lying as uncivil - I have always provided sources for my edits. Please bring in the diff, to prove what you are saying.--Moldopodo^talk 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Does not look like you are going to provide anything except blind unsupported accusations. Please, have a look at the difference (namely sources presented after line 70) supported bu User:Gutza, and User:Biruitorul, as well as User:Bogdangiusca - there are about 30 sources provides for what I writeDiscussion on the talk page of article Moldova on the usage of the term "cession" in the Bucharest Treaty 1812, therefore it's a lie to say I provide unsourced edits, or to say I push through POV of any kind. Another talk page - another almost 15 sources provided by me - History of Moldavian language, further - more: Moldavian language - attempts by some users to interpret a scholarly scientifical writing of Dimitrie Cantemir, trying to say what was never said in his work. Here is the edit, which User:Bogdangiusca described as "tedious adding of tags everywhere"; please, admins, and be convinced, that here again, the said does not correspond to the reality, therefore it is another lie, consequently uncivil[63]. On the article Moldovans, please check the sources I have provided[64], just as on the article Moldavia, where I requested move to the Principality of Moldavia, as these articles are separated on other Wikipedias, and it is the question of a mere logic reasoning: are we writing articles on Wikipedia on a specific subject or do we write one article to cover three different topics? As for redirect Moldavia - it should be directed to Moldova (as it is also the case on other Wikipedias) - which is the only political formation which always kept this name, being both subject of international law or a territorial unit inside of a bigger body. In fact the present article Moldavia was merged from Principality of Moldavia with an article apparently called "Moldavia as Romanian region" (please, bear in mind whether this is or is not an original research, as Romanian legislation does not provide, AFAIK, for any specific status, nor does it set any legal framework of any kind for any region with a name Moldavia, nor are Moldavians living in Romania recognised as Moldavians, for example during banal censuses) and some other article (honestly I don't remember, but I am sure experienced admins may check). I have also initiated discussion on the move of Moldovans to Moldavians as the article Moldovans describes Moldavian ethnicity and not Moldovan citizenship, so it's a complete confusion of terms. As for disruptive editing of User:Biruitorul - on the article Cinema of Moldavia - you may se it here (I apologoze, I think I said it was User:Oneil earlier by mistake). The article is clearly about the cinema in Moldavia - Moldavian SSR. Please see another move of [[User:Biruitorul] - again with no proper justification, nor any comment left on the talk page. (also, please check the talk pages' histories [65] and [66] of both articles, some of the diffs I am unable to find anymore, as I guess they disappeared with repetitve deleting and moving articles by User:Biruitorul - without any constructive contribution to the contents of the article. I hope this gives you a clearer picture (message to admins).--Moldopodo^talk 20:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, also take in consideration, that this is the reaction of User:Biruitorul on his talk page for my announcement of filing the request on enforcement of the general restriction as per Digwuren arbitration. --Moldopodo^talk 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Today's country is called Moldova, the former principality Moldavia, and your constant attempts to confuse the issue have proved disruptive. 2. Just as Cinema of Ukraine or for that matter Cinema of Germany can do with a single article, so too can Cinema of Moldova, and it is your constant moves, splits and other measures that are disruptive; I'm just trying to maintain some order and consistency. 3. I saw your "report", I thanked you for it, and I erased it from my talk page. If that's all you have on me -- well, this thread is, after all, about you, and here's a perfect illustration of why. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued plagiarism on DYK?

Resolved

Please note there is an article on today's DYK, Coast Range (ecoregion), that is written by an editor who wrote another article that is largely plagiarized from another source.[67] I read the Columbia Plataeu ecoregions article and instantly recognized the source of most of the text because I used the same source for some soil mapping in the area. I don't know, but suspect, considering that almost the entirety of the Columbia Plateau article is plagiarized, that the Coast Range (ecoregion) article is also largely copied intact, although sentences are re-arranged, from a single source, that same source as the Columbia Plateau article.

I think that it should be a concern to editors that most of what is on DYK appears to be well-written phrases copied directly from other sources, not written by Wikipedia editors. I was put through hell the last time I complained about something on DYK that was copied entirely from another source, so I'm not up to it. This is just a notice to Wikipedia administrators that the problems with DYK continue. If you care about whether or not what's on DYK is written by Wikipedia editors, as it seems not to be, you are welcome to do something about it.

Now you do know that DYK is largely plagiarized. Everything I've ever clicked on that's on DYK has been. --Blechnic (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern. I started the articles in question. On the discussion page of those articles, I linked to User:Northwesterner1/notes, where you will see a "public domain rationale." You are correct -- I have copied verbatim from the sources; however, it is not plagiarism. The sources are in the public domain in the United States as works by federal government employees in the course of their duties (in this case the Environmental Protection Agency). Public domain status was confirmed to me by email from the EPA project coordinator, which I am happy to produce to any interested party. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Then please put this information in the articles! It's a well known source, and it will not be known to all who read these articles that they are from public domain without seeing a note in article space that this is the case. Please take care of this. And thanks for the immediate response here. --Blechnic (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a note to the talk page. It's not clear to me how I would indicate this in the articles themselves. Would you suggest adding something to the articles themselves? Where?Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-)The fact that the sources are in the public domain prevents any copyright violation issues, but unattributed, or improperly attributed, text remains plagiarism, regardless of permission for use. -- Avi (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but do you believe the text is unattributed or improperly attributed in this case? All paragraphs have inline citations to the sources. I have added an additional note explaining the public domain status to the footnotes. It's not clear to me how I could attribute this any better, short of adding the same footnote to every sentence.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think adding it to the article itself is proper, possibly making a little template for the purpose. I don't think, as it's public domain, and if you add a note to the article (not it's talk page), that attributing every line is required, simply a prominent note in the references section describing that that map is in the public domain from the EPA and was used as the source of the descriptive text for the various areas is appropriate. --Blechnic (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the explanation I added to the footnotes suffices? Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw how you did it on Northern Basin and Range (ecoregion) and this looks fine by me.[68] I'm no expert on Wikipedia policies and don't know if others will consider this fine, but it looks like the issue is resolved. Thanks for addressing the issue quickly and responsibly both before and after I brought it up. I tried to find whether the map was public domain initially, especially after viewing your edit history, but it was not possible to find this information. --Blechnic (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, great. Thanks for bringing up an important concern. Hopefully we've clarified it for others. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Many sentences in this article are copied verbatim from the source, which is in the public domain." - that is OK, as long as no-one else comes along and edits the article. Something like {{1911}} might be better. BTW, I've used text from here before when filling in redlinks. A template to cover PD-copying in general would help. See also the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• See also Category:Attribution templates. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Specifically, something like {{USGovernment}} or {{USDA}}, but tailored for the US Geological Survey, is what is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Voldemore

Hi guys,

Recently, User:Voldemore. was nominated for deletion (see here for MFD). Five users (Crevaner (talk · contribs); OldRightist (talk · contribs); AmeriCan (talk · contribs); Deaniack (talk · contribs); Thefreemarket (talk · contribs)) all voted keep at the MFD. Suspicions about sockpuppetry were raised (see this sock report for more). On that page, Cevaner made these allegations (diff [69]).

Any ideas on how to handle this?

5:15 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So, to test my understanding here... nobody any longer believes that there is sockpuppetry going on here, correct? However, we do believe that the users in question unwittingly engaged in a bit of meatpuppetry. Is that about the size of it?

If so, I would suggest we just point out WP:MEAT to the users in question and let it go. Voldemore (talk · contribs) has already removed the content that resulted in the MfD, so in my mind the matter has pretty much resolved itself. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

User:Karabinier

Karabinier (talk · contribs) repeatedly deletes entire section in the Estonia article, which also are the best-cited and least controversial (based on Statistics Estonia) sections. He replaces some of them with non-cited statements that conflict with the deleted citations. He has reverted the article many times, including here and here. He has been challenged multiple times in the article talk page, but he refuses to participate in the talk page or explain deletions. His frequent deletions are a nuisance to contributors in the article.Turkuun (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Karabinier did attempt to engage Turkuun on his talk page [70], but Tuurkun's response wasn't very positive, templating Karibinier's talk page [71] in response.

Dispute seems to be essentially about style and layout, I'll volunteer to mediate between these two. Martintg (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manuela_Testolini

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manuela_Testolini Can someone fix this improper non admin closure? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Completely improper closure. Corvus cornix_talk 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the AfD was placed on the article by an anon, who can't create the AfD page, and, as is appropriate, put their comments on the article's Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, completely messed up. Will revert all changes, apologies for the inconvenience caused. Guest9999 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:Contextflexed harassing Wikipedians

As threatened on various talk pages, and outside Wikipedia, this banned user (see AN/I archive 404) has contributed to a 'zine called Haters Magazine a roaring "expose" of the evils of Wikipedia, with concentration upon "outing" various WP editors he has a hate on for, and (since I'm not anonymous) mercilessly mocking me, my union, my unique sense of style, and my occasional SF fanzine. Bizarrely, he did have the "courtesy" (if you can call it that) of dropping off a copy of the relevant issue of the 'zine at one of my places of employment. Contextflexed is also known as Robert Goodwin or "Flipside" and is a pretty strong hater. He is particularly engaged in a vendetta against IrishGuy, and claims that IG and I are in some kind of conspiracy against him, as detailed in articles on The Wikipedia Review like " I Declare World Wiki War on Admin Anonymity, Enjoy my first Wikipedia User Identity List". --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Stolen Earth and NFCC

There is an ongoing edit war that got referenced to AN3 at The Stolen Earth. It involves the inclusion of a promo-image on the page. My sense is that with the article as written, the image's use does not meet our fair use guidelines since there is no commentary about the image itself. I wanted to get a few more eyes over there. --Selket ^Talk 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass still making PAs

A day or two into a week long block, Fclass is still making personal attacks on his talk page. I've thought of lengthening the block but feel the need for more input first. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call it an out-and-out PA. He's making an observation, whilst it may be wrong or uncalled for, I don't think it's a personal attack per se. But I don't know his history and from speaking with a limited view of the overall situation. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have said, it seems to be (and very likely is) wholly uncalled for. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I think unfounded accusations of racism definitely qualify as a personal attack. Some context on the nature of the accusation is important: Fclass is finding article of people who are predominantly African-American but have some other ancestry as well, and removing the other ancestry. Mcelite has been undoing his edits. That is what prompted Fclass to call him racist. See this for Mcelite's side of the argument. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the edit warring and the incivility are problems, I support Fclass's removal of ethnic classifications if there are no sources for the claims. Corvus cornix_talk 21:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not about sourcing. The civility worry is, Fclass saying (over and over) Mcelite has a racist agenda, when there is no hint this is true. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cockerton

Could an admin please look into the recent activity on the Cockerton article by 86.3.231.84? From what I can gather, this user first created a hoax, had it picked up by the media, and now wants to perpetuate his "fame" by adding a whole section covering the incident back to the article. To be fair, it could be a shared IP. Should some action be taken? Gail (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

After several warnings, he appears to have stopped. If he does it again, turn him in to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with IP user over Leo McGarry article

We're facing a problem on the Leo McGarry page and I wanted to get administrator input on how to handle this. An IP user added a section about the "appearance and taste" of the character [72] which consists of 1 paragraph describing his appearance as "unusually conservative." It is trivial and is an opinion ("unusually conservative" according to who?) and so I removed it [73]. The user then re-added it [74] and I removed it again, this time moving the discussion to the talk page [75] [76]. The discussion that has generated since then on the talk page (Talk:Leo McGarry)has opposed including that section (although only myself and one other user have contributed to that discussion). This user has refused to participate in that discussion and has repeatedly re-added the information, often with rather hostile edit summaries [77] [78]. I didn't want to start an edit war and so I addressed the user on his talk page. After that, the user responded with hostility on my talk page [79]. I have tried repeatedly to reason with the user and to get him to either respect the consensus or to contribute to the discussion [80] [81]. The user has openly refused to cooperate [82] and continues to re-add the information despite the consensus opposing the inclusion of this material. It is clear that this user has no intention of working together to form a consensus. I am not sure what to do in this situation. I don't want to inadvertently instigate or take part in an edit war, but I think I've been as reasonable as possible and am still faced with hostility. I've tried to assume good faith, tried to build consensus, and have even tolerated abuse from one other IP user [83][84], but to no avail. What is your advice? --Hnsampat (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More spamming at the Refdesk

Diff. Is this cause enough for a block? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to get unlinked URLs added to the spam blacklist? Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[85] apparently so. Dang beaten to nit by RxStrangelove. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC). Updated to reflect Corvus' comment. user now blocked. Corvus - You can always ask to have it put on the local blacklist if there is a good reason. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys are really efficient! Thanks! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)