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

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletions by involved editor under claim of "close paraphrases"; Mkativerata

A colleague, Mkativerata, who is an involved administrator in respect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as defined by WP:ARBPIA, has today deleted variations of 2 sentences in an ARBPIA bio of Ilan Berman (3 times in half an hour).[1][2][3] Claiming that they are "close paraphrases". The 2 sentences were edited three times to seek to address his claims, and additional refs added.

Whether or not he may have been correct initially, certainly by his most recent deletion IMHO there was no merit to his claim. I'm concerned with the aggressiveness of his deletions, without talkpage discussion, especially given the ARBPIA aspect of this. I've myself opened up discussion of the issue on the article's talkpage, but not received any response there.

Perhaps an admin can keep an eye on this matter? I'm concerned that it is spiraling. I'm not asking for any other action as to Mkat. Full disclosure: In the past I've communicated concern to this editor about his behavior, and have felt that he responded aggressively and sought to exact retribution inappropriately for my having having voiced my view, so I am hoping that this is not a continuation of that, and that I will not suffer from retribution from him. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche is the subject of a long-running CCI that has uncovered a long history of copyright violations. I'm working through the CCI and I'm not going to be distracted by obstructionism. Working on a CCI requires the deletion of substantive amounts of a contributor's work. And I'm not going to be bullied out of it. And nor am I going to let the fact that I have declared myself "not uninvolved" in respect of ARBPIA stop me from removing copyright violations, being a non-POV matter. CCI needs whatever help it can get. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

My noting that you are "an involved administrator in respect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict" as defined by WP:ARBPIA is simply a reflection of what you have yourself indicated. Given the sensitivities in that area, and your being an involved editor, when you delete material such as the above under the claim that it is a copyright violation, and the claim appears baseless, that raises a concern that your "involvement" is an issue.

I agree of course that copyright violations should be addressed. Your most recent deletion, certainly, was nothing of the sort. You also failed to discuss the matter on the talkpage, despite making 3 deletions in half an hour. When unwarranted deletions are made by involved editors, that can perhaps be a problem. Involved editors can always alert other editors when they believe there is a problem, especially if it is not a clear-cut matter--I find it hard to believe that you felt that your last deletion, for example, was a clear-cut copyright violation. I'm not asking that action be taken against you. I'm simply asking for more admin eyes, as I feel you reacted with aggressive retribution in the past. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's possibly a copyright violation, it should be removed immediately pending peer review. There is no suggestion being made that Mkati is using copyright policy to game the system, which would be a problem. This would also be a problem if Mkati were ignoring some discussion that had already taken place, but the petitioner doesn't suggest that is happening. According to the complaint itself there is nothing here requiring administrative action. causa sui (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors can of course delete blatant vandalism. And I would extend that to blatant copyright violations. Mkat's most recent deletion was certainly nothing of the sort, however -- not a copyvio at all, and certainly not a blatant copyvio.

As with involved editors in wp:admin, by analogy, "administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor ... and disputes on topics". As WP:ADMIN indicates, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a stretch. Involvement is construed broadly so that we can discourage administrators from gaming the system to enforce their own positions in content disputes. According to your own account there isn't any reason to believe that that is what he is doing, and I don't understand you to be implying that either. If I'm reading you correctly, your argument is strictly procedural. Since it is a much bigger danger to include a copyvio than to remove a non-copyvio, it would be better to convince the interested parties that the edits aren't actually copyvios. Then we could move on. causa sui (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a stretch at all. WP:ADMIN clearly indicates the concern: "involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." Such is the case here. Repeated deletions, at an article in the ARBPIA content area, by an admittedly involved sysop. No credible claim of copyvio. Zero talk page discussion, while making the deletions. That this is being done in the highly sensitive ARBPIA area heightens concern as to the approach. There's no need to throw around an accusation such as "gaming the system to enforce their own positions", however apt it might be. Hopefully, the eyes of admins on this will help us avoid future problems.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. You violated copyright policies for years. Our policies now allow the "indiscriminate removal" of the information you added during that period. You are fortunate that I am not taking "indiscriminate removal" to the full extent to which it is allowed. Any editor can remove your information -- it has nothing to do with being an administrator, I am not acting as one, but even if I was, I will not hesitate to block you if you continue to disrupt the resolution of your CCI. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate removal should mean being fairly liberal in removing copyvios that are discovered from Epeefleche's edits, it does not mean removing information Epeefleche wrote just for the sake that he wrote it. That is disruptive. Silverseren^C 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does mean that. Policy is that "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically, once things reach the point of a CCI, all contributions by an editor are to be assumed copyvio unless proven otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems like it could be very disruptive though, especially when you're considering articles that other users have likely worked on and expanded afterwards as well. Silverseren^C 21:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of "assuming copyvios". We are talking about Mkat's deletions yesterday -- years (and 50-80,000 edits?) after I wasn't familiar with our copyvio rules. And the material Mkat deleted here was by no means a copyvio. His assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. Mkat wasn't "assuming" anything. He looked at the language and the source and made a completely unfounded assertion, without tp discussion, in his COI area.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, uploading copyvios is what is disruptive. That subsequent editors then rework the copyrighted content (making the Wikimedia Foundation a distributor of an unlicensed derivative work) that then has to be removed is disruption caused by the person who uploaded the copyvio, not the person who removed it. A lot of thought has gone into this and the legal implications of unlicensed derivatives combined with the high ratio of (effort to detect copyvios:effort to add copyvios) make wholesale removal of legally dubious content a cost of doing business around here. causa sui (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue here, above, involved Mkat hiding behind the dubious assertion of copyvio. I doubt an objective editor would find this -- his most recent deletion -- to be a copyvio. When an editor deletes material under such a dubious claim of copyvio, that could easily be seen as disruptive if it is part of a problem. He also failed to use the talkpage for discussion -- or even respond to discussion opened on the talkpage. That is also not good practice where one is deleting material three times in an hour. This is compounded by the fact that this matter is in the ARBPIA area, where sensitivities are heightened. And, of course, it is further compounded where (as here) the sysop is without question an involved editor. I've no problem at all with real copyvios being struck. But that's not what was at issue here at all, as you can see if you look at the diff provided.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My initial concern was prompted by the fact that Mkat: a) deleted material 3 times in half an hour; b) with a wholly dubious claim of copyvio (see his most recent deletion), c) failed to communicate via talkpage; d) in the sensitive ARBPIA area; e) where Mkat is an involved editor; f) without modeling best behavior as called for by wp:admin. I raised the issue here so others could keep an eye on this, and ensure that it does not inflate, as I've felt he has lashed out in the past when I've disagreed with him. I agree with Silver that Mkat's edits here were leaning towards the disruptive.

Mkat today appears to be reacting to my having disagreed with him, by seeking retribution. As background, when I first started at wikipedia -- many years ago -- I followed what I saw as wp practice; practice that was not in compliance with our rules. Not knowing our rules in this area, I did indeed make errors at that time, and years ago added some material that should properly be cited, revised, or redacted. I have years of editing since then, with tens of thousands of edits, and now that I have read our rules I've complied carefully with them.

But Mkat -- directly after I disagreed with him yesterday -- has now undertaken to delete in toto some articles I've worked on. Articles of Olympic athletes. As in this deletion of the Yves Dreyfus article today. And this deletion of the Vivian Joseph article today I can't see what he deleted, so I don't know whether some level of deletion is appropriate ; it may be. But certainly, I can't imagine that there is a need to delete such articles of Olympic athletes in toto. This is just this sort of retribution by Mkat that I was afraid of.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, this is what happens to serial copyright violators. I had to do it to User:Gavin.Collins. If it makes you feel any better, I'll do the next batch of content removal. If you could provide a list of all your copyright violations...but given the volume, I doubt you'd remember. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very transparent modus operandi: file an ANI report and then claim that any subsequent action is "retribution". Then canvas (for which you've been blocked before) your mates who tried to prevent a CCI being opened ([4], [5]) under the guise of being neutral (soliciting the uninvolved Yoenit as well [6]). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. causa sui (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mkat -- you've not addressed the concerns I raised above about your recent deletions. Instead, you seem to be seeking to deflect the discussion. Weren't you an involved editor, deleting material multiple times, the last time (at least) clearly not a copyvio (though you claimed it was), who despite being an involved editor failed both to engage in talkpage discussion and to -- given your being an involved editors -- post the issue elsewhere so it could be addressed? Rather than seeking to engage in character assassination, over what happened years ago (and I don't have clear recollections as to edits from five years ago), and many tens of thousands of edits ago, when I did not know our rules -- let's focus on what you did the past two days. As to your accusation of canvassing -- are you serious? Take a look at wp:CANVASS -- that is an absurd and unwarranted accusation -- it does little for the conversation when editors make baseless assertions. That's not canvassing -- quite the opposite, it is what wp:CANVASS indicates is not canvassing. As to "M.O." -- let's be clear. You are the involved editor who under the baseless (certainly, as to the most recent edit) guise of copyvio deleted material in an area you are involved in, refused to use or respond on the talkpage. And now in retribution, immediately after I disagree with you at a wholly unrelated article, you delete in toto bios of Olympic athletes. I've no problem as I've indicated with copyvios being redacted. But the fact that your reaction to someone disagreeing with you is to do this is problematic -- surely, the entire articles are not copyvios, and surely, the fact that athlete x, from country y, won medal z in the Olympics of xxxx is not a copyvio ... yet you delete even that.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata began working on your CCI in January 2011. It's pretty obvious looking at the history of the CCI that what brought him to the article in question was resuming work on your CCI. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Epeefleche&action=history>) He had never touched that article before. It isn't wholly unrelated; it is in fact intrinsically linked to the copyright work -- midway down this section, and he had moved to the next article in that list before you ever disagreed at the other article. Given that Mkativerata's approach to the CCI now is the same as it was in January, it's hard to see this as retribution.

I have in one capacity or another worked on most or perhaps all of the CCIs we've completed. Your CCI has not had much progress yet, so you may not know, but blanking articles listed at CCI where any copying is found is common. This flags that concerns have been located. Reviewers are not expected to rewrite content, although of course they can. They've done a service simply by confirming the problem. Once the article is blanked, you have a week at minimum to work on it. (Anyone else may work on a rewrite, too.) If a rewrite that fixes the problem is not proposed, the article may be stubbed or deleted if the content added by the subject of the CCI is extensive. This is standard operating procedure for CCIs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Moon -- I think its pretty obvious that, in this edit that kicked off this discussion, Mkat was not doing "CCI work", looking at old edits. But -- hiding behind an unsupportable and baseless assertion of "close paraphrasing", deleting material written that same day, that was nothing of the sort. Moon -- tell me honestly: Would you have deleted taht language under the assertion of close paraphrasing yourself? There have been attempts by some to ignore this issue. There have been attempts by some to ignore that he was doing this in a COI area, that he was making repeated reverts without any talkpage discussion whatsover (and not even responding to talkpage discussion), and that he was doing this in the sensitive ARBPIA area. It is perhaps telling that some editors who have commented here in his support have completely ignored these facts, and ignored how this diverges from the strictures of wp:admin as to how an admin should behave.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this below, since in substance it ties into your last note. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Come-on people; let’s cease with wikislogans like If it's possibly a copyright violation, it should be removed immediately pending peer review. Even Wikipedia sometimes uses *real evidence* here at ANIs. “Close paraphrases” are not copyright violations by any stretch of the imagination nor do they constitute plagiarism if it they are merely a “close paraphrase”; the litmus test is stricter than that. Anyone who editwars under such pretense has no leg to stand on. Given that Mkativerata is an involved editor, he must abide by the 3RR and edit warring restrictions everyone else are expected to abide by.

  I note Mkativerata’s fine posturing like how he won’t be “distracted by obstructionism,” but there are only so many ways short pithy English-langauge sentences that are grammatically correct can be constructed. The proper test for whether close paraphrasing must also be accompanied by an in-line citation is paraphrasing very closely. It is irrelevant whether a collaboration between Zeus and Oprah “uncovered a long history of copyright violations” and this caused Mkativerata to role his eyes *extra-extra* far into his forehead, nor does it matter if these two editors hate each others guts, nor does it matter if Mkativerata postures with Great Determination®™© and speaks of overcoming obstructionism; the only relevant issue here in this ANI is whether Mkativerata’s serial reverting has a proper foundation. And that means the basis must pass the “Reasonable Man” test: Let’s see hard evidence one way or another as to whether the deleted text is a paraphrasing “very closely” and is deserving of having an in-line citation.

  It might also be interesting to see if we have an 800-pound gorilla in the room no one is talking about. Is this about a pro-Israeli editor and an anti-Israeli editor bashing each other, trying to make substantial changes to the message point of the articles, and are trying to justify their actions by hiding behind the apron strings of misapplied policies? Who is *really* doing what, and why? Is there *really* “very close” paraphrasing? If that’s the case (and I see no evidence yet that it is) are Mkativerata’s remedies (wholesale deletion of text along with accompanying citations) best serving the project(?) or is are his edits just POV-pushing under a pretense that can’t be buttressed with real evidence? Greg L (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A close paraphrase of a copyrighted work is indeed a copyright violation as an unauthorized derivative work. T. Canens (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can be, but not always. Paraphrasing a single sentence is out of a long article is generally fair use and thus not a copyright violation. A cited statement that is reworded from a single sentence of a source is, AFAIK, generally acceptable in any setting as long as it is cited. Academics do this all the time (summarizing someone's work by using a close paraphrase of a sentence or two of an abstract is extremely common). Hobit (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The blanking Epeefleche describes is typical procedure in copyvio situations, and you need merely to look in the history to find what has been blanked. As to what has been covered over, let's take the Vivian Joseph article. The major source says:

They finished in fourth place, but in 1966, the silver medal-winning German team of Hans-Jurgen Baumler and Marika Kilius were stripped of their medals after they were alleged to have signed a professional contract prior to the 1964 Olympics. The Josephs were then moved to third place and awarded bronze medals. In 1987, however, the German duo was officially reinstated by the IOC and the original results were restored; the Josephs, who had held the bronze for over 20 years, were moved back to fourth place and the USOC does not officially recognize them as medalists.

This is what Epeefleche placed in the article

They finished in 4th place. But in 1966 the silver medal-winning team of Hans-Jurgen Baumler and Marika Kilius of Germany were stripped of their medals, after they were alleged to have signed a professional contract prior to the 1964 Olympics. The Josephs were then moved up to 3rd place, and awarded bronze medals. In 1987, however, the Germans were officially reinstated by the IOC, and the original results were restored. The Josephs, who had held the bronze medal for over 20 years, were moved back to 4th place. The USOC does not recognize them as medalists.

The rest of the Joseph article contains similar copy-and-paste-with-a-few-words-changed blatant copyright violations and its blanking was both utterly necessary and required. If Epeefleche does not want this to happen, then the best course of action would be to actually work with the CCI to correct the problems that s/he admits exists, before they get blanked. A much more productive course of action. --Slp1 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, "I can't see what he deleted, so I don't know whether some level of deletion is appropriate; it may be. But certainly, I can't imagine that there is a need to delete such articles of Olympic athletes in toto. This is just this sort of retribution by Mkat that I was afraid of. BTW -- can you tell us what date that edit was added? Also, Mkat -- directly after I disagreed with him yesterday -- has now undertaken to delete completely some articles I've worked on on Olympic athletes. It stretches the assumption of good faith past the breaking point to think that the timing of his deletions is not accidental, but rather direct retribution. And it is hard to believe that there is not material capable of saving--without any risk of copvio whatsoever--along the lines of "Joe T is an American boxer who won a gold glove in boxing as a heavyweight at the 1976 Summer Olympics".--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try again. Mkativerata has deleted nothing. He has blanked an obvious copyright problem, and the complete history, including when you added the information is still in the history. Mkativerata has posted it on the WP:CP board where other editors and administrators will, in 5-7 days, process the listing, checking Mkativerata's claim of copyvio and acting upon it or not as they find appropriate. At any point, you could rewrite the articles to avoid deletion or stubbing. This was explained to you by Moonriddengirl in January, and it is clearly written clearly on the page blanking the articles. Please stop these disruptive claims of "retribution". You added massive copyright violations, and have done nothing to participate in the clean up. Somebody else obviously has to do it for you, and you don't get to obstruct the process by attacking the cleaners. --Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Very good. Thank you for providing the much-needed, hard evidence, Slp1. Indeed, that is not merely the “close paraphrase” that Mkativerata cited for his deletions but passes the “reasonable man” test for being what plagiarism states as requiring an in-line citation (very close paraphrasing). So why doesn’t someone (Epeefleche?) just add in-line citations to the paragraph? This seems to be an edit dispute where the content and thrust of the article is being changed by the deletion. If Epeefleche objects to that, why not add a citation? Greg L (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have a very serious misunderstanding of copyright issues. In-line citations will not solve this issue in any way. This is neither close paraphrasing nor plagiarism. It is a very clear cut copyright infringement. May I suggest that you read WP's policies on this matter? WP:COPYVIO.--Slp1 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What I actually understand and what you think I understand are two different things. I’m done with you today, too. Adios. Greg L (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism is pretty clear that adding an in-line citation to closely paraphrased content taken from non-free sources is not a solution; of "works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license", it says "They cannot be closely paraphrased for copyright concerns, but must be substantially rewritten in original language." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

But ... the edit that Mkat most recently deleted, under the dubious guise of copyvio, wasn't copyvio at all. The fact that he failed to engage in talkpage discussion, and did it in a sensitive area in which he has a conflict of interest, merely compounds the matter -- if there were even a gray area of concern as to copyvio, and for some reason he was opposed to talk page discussion, he could simply have posted his concern on the appropriate noticeboard so that an uninvolved editor could address it. But the main point is -- Mkat seems to be asserting copyvio where there is none, in an area where he has a conflict of interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is your opinion, not an objective truth, that there were not copyright problems with that revision. Your judgement on copyright matters have to be taken with a pinch of salt, frankly, given your history. --Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The above-indicated diff speaks for itself. Anyone can read it. One needn't rely on anyone else's opinion. And it is an objective fact that he has a conflict of interest in the ARBPIA area -- he admits as much himself.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If Greg L thinks close paraphrasing is "not copyright violations by any stretch of the imagination" and indisputably not plagiarism then Greg L's opinion on this matter is to be actively mistrusted. In fact, given the precedent of long-standing editors turning up at ANI and making such statements, it'd be good if someone took a fine-toothed comb to Greg L's longer contributions to confirm that this wasn't indicative of additional copyvio problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can’t understand what others write, then you ought not spout off as you just did Thumperward. I now know I can ignore the nonsense you write here. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

An ad hominem response to a serious copyright situation is not helpful. Actively suspicious, in fact. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just trying to bait me. Try looking in the mirror next time when it comes to ad hominem responses. You started it with your “actively mistrusted” bit and then jump up and down and cry foul when someone gives you a dose of your own medicine. Then you further tried to bait me by writing it'd be good if someone took a fine-toothed comb to Greg L's longer contributions to confirm that this wasn't indicative of additional copyvio problems, which is straight out of 6th grade. How the hell old are you?? Stop acting childish and attacking others and try reading what they actually write before spouting off with something half-baked; the operative point in my above point was the adjective “very”; that point was obviously lost on you. I’m done responding to you today since I’ve got your number now, fella, and it’s obvious you enjoy personal attacks and baiting (I’d sorta bother with an ANI of my own for that hogwash, but that would be lowering myself to your level). Why not find another venue at which you can be an ornery, miserable cuss? There is ample electronic white space to get the last word. Happy editing and goodbye. Greg L (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've little interest in being drawn into some interminable flame war, especially not with you. My comments were directed at that wider part of the community whose concern with copyright both in the hard legal sense of "we are liable to be sued here" and in the broader sense of "Wikipedia is best avoiding a reputation for a lax attitude to potential copyright issues". Your comment in defense of presented diffs showing at least the latter was troublesome. My experience in this area on WP strongly indicates that editors who make statements defending such things are more likely than average to have made such considerations regarding their own edits in the past. Your response to this was "I now know I can ignore the nonsense you write here", which as a rebuttal is seriously lacking. Forgive me for also not taking you at your word that you're disinterested in having the last word here when my current edit conflict indicates you spent at least five minutes editing this response in order to add the "ornery, miserable cuss" comment, a readaibly blockable personal attack only overlooked because there are bigger issues here (serious allegations of copyvio). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we just topic ban someone for refusing to work on their own CCI? Why isn't the same thing done here, especially since this CCI has now been around for about a year and Epeefleche has yet to help clean up the mess he created? T. Canens (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here are the two sentences in question (AFICT)

Source

In the new book "Tehran Rising," author Ilan Berman notes that the U.S. war on terrorism has inadvertently removed two of the major brakes on Iranian power in the region: Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq and the Islamist Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.

Wikipedia

He wrote in his 2005 book Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States that in displacing Saddam Hussein, in Iraq, and the Taliban, in Afghanistan, the United States had unintentionally taken away two significant checks on the power of Iran in the Middle East.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=36

I think that the "inadvertently" is arguable a WP:OR problem (though common sense probably applies). I think that there are only so many ways to communicate the idea of the sentence and this one would seem reasonable to me. But others, more versed in copyright issues, should probably comment. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if you think that this version is adequate, it is worth noting what Mkativerata first removed as a paraphrase.

What mkativerata removed

In his 2005 book Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States], Berman noted that the U.S. had inadvertently removed two major brakes on Iranian regional power: Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan

which is much, much too close to the original source. Epeefleche made incremental changes[7] [8] all of which which Mkativerata stated, I think legitimately, remained too close to the source, before arriving at this current. --Slp1 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Does making incremental changes to a copyvio until the wording is sufficiently different from the original make it no longer a derivative? INAL but my sources say "no". causa sui (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. Otherwise we should just delete, rather than fix, any detected copyright violations. Plus, a quote that short in a non-profit (yes it matters) is almost certainly fair use so the issue is fairly moot. I personally think the first version is highly problematic, the last was fine and shouldn't have been deleted. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you don't overcome close paraphrasing with a thesaurus. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't have anything better. Could you provide a way to say that same thing without being a close paraphrase? Or is it the attempt to say the same thing, in a single sentence, that was in the original, as a single sentence, that is a problem? (Sorry that sentence sucked, did I mention I don't write well?) Hobit (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If an editor lacks the skills to do it (and I don't mean that perjoratively), in-text attribution is a safe way around the problem. And does the sentence need to be in the article in the first place? If the sentence derives from one sentence in one source, it's probably not important. So yes, it can be the very attempt to say the same thing, in a single sentence, that was in the original, as a single sentence, that is a problem --Mkativerata (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe I understand your points, but I will disagree. There are times that a single sentence can and should be paraphrased from a source. Ignoring if this is such a case, I think that the (final) paraphrasing used is about as far from the source as it could be while still making the same point. Would "In his 2005 book Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States], Berman claims that by displacing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from the Middle East, the United States left room for Iran to fill the vacuum they left." be any better? Eh. Like I said, I think the final version was acceptable, but I agree the first was certainly not. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree w/Hobit. And my focus is, as well, on the third deletion that Mkat made (in half an hour, without talkpage discussion). I don't think that unwarranted assertions of copyvio should be used by a sysop, who is bound by wp:admin, and who is without question an involved editor, to delete material he doesn't like. Copyvio is a serious and important concern. But simply saying "I assert it is a copyvio" does not entitle Mkat to bludgeon other editors, where there is no copyvio.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what hobit says but would make the further point that we are dealing with here may not even be a close paraphrase of the source stated - that is if the source "Tehran Rising," by Ilan Berman contains a sentence reading

the U.S. war on terrorism has inadvertently removed two of the major brakes on Iranian power in the region: Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq and the Islamist Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan.

then the first version is a correctly attributed quote. From memory epeefleche's CCI was mostly filled with examples like this where one secondary source correctly attributes a piece of information to another secondary source and this attribution has been closely paraphrased to wikipedia. The material being paraphrased in these cases does not begin to approach the threshold of originality required by law to assert a copyvio. That said in these cases our concern should be one of sourcing we should endeavour to cite the claim in the book rather than citing an article discussing the book as the latter is more likely to appear to be a copyvio even if it isn't. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This issue involves an article that has not received attention for most of a year, but appears to be being investigated as part of a CCI investigation.  However, the current dispute does not involve copyright violation, because we would not allow a copyright violation to be retained in the edit history of the article.  Instead, this is an editorial dispute over non-copyright-violating "close paraphrasing" by the target of the CCI investigation.  Regarding the initial recent edit to the article, the target of the CCI investigation does not dispute the concern of "close paraphrasing", and does not dispute the initial revert of the material, but instead seeks to restore the work product of the encyclopedia without the concern.  This is where the dispute begins, because the subject of this ANI review refuses to allow improvements to the encyclopedia, refuses to engage in talk page discussion, and on this ANI page escalates by threatening to use administrative tools.  This discussion can be resolved by reminding Mkativerata to discuss editorial disputes on the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not really an accurate understanding of how we handle copyright problems. We allow them to be retained in the edit history of articles routinely. User:Flatscan and I have just been talking about how that should be addressed. But even I only revdelete extensive issues. (And Mkativerata is more conservative there than I am: [9]) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating--Actually, there is nothing in Mkat's immediately prior edits to suggest that Mkat was looking at Ilan Berman as part of a CCI investigation. Nor did Mkat assert it. BTW, though Berman had not been edited in a year as you point out, Berman had just before Mkat's edits written a NYT article that brought him onto the radar screen. Second, I appreciate your bringing the focus back to the facts here. Finally, it was only after I differed with Mkat that he began deleting articles just now ... before I questioned his approach, he had not touched any articles that were part of the CCI investigation for many months. Immediately after I questioned him, he began vigorously deleting articles of Olympic medal winning athletes in total, not even leaving a stub.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is in response to this note and this one, as if I answer them separately I'm going to be doing a lot of repeating myself. :)

Mkativerata picked up working on your CCI (which is much appreciated, since nobody else has been doing it and your CCI was cited at AN a week or two ago as specific evidence that nobody cares about copyright problems) at 19:07 on 17 November. Before you edited that article, he had documented his change and moved on to the next article in line at 19:12 before you first "differed" with these two edits (at 19:16 and 19:18). I watch articles I clean for copyright problems routinely (although not always long enough, as yesterday I cleaned the same pasted content out of an article I cleaned up in 2008). If I disagreed with your rewrite, I would have left you a note at your user talk page explaining why after I reverted you, but, then, if I disagreed with admins actions related to my work, I would have left them a note at their talk page explaining why. I would not have opened an ANI without this step. I haven't looked at the text in question; I've been pretty much unavailable for CCI work myself for months. But the point isn't that Mkativerata may or may not have been wrong in his action. Sometimes there are good faith disagreements about what constitutes a close paraphrase. It happens. The point is that you are assuming a bad faith motive on Mkativerata's part (an agenda), and I do not see any evidence to support that. While Mkativerata had not done work on your CCI lately, Mkativerata has been a CCI regular in the past - this is why he is listed as a CCI Clerk. (Which just shows how out of date we are, since admins don't need to be...and that I really need to get User:MER-C some help here.) He's also been doing some much needed work at WP:CP. Sure, we can look at this in such a way as to suggest that he's been doing all this as some kind of smoke screen to allow him to press an agenda, but not without squinting really hard. :) WP:AGF says if we do any squinting, we should be squinting in the direction of assuming that people mean well.

In terms of avoiding distress, I'll offer you an idea: if you are unhappy with the way other people are cleaning up the CCI, why don't you do it before they get there? While you should not mark an article as resolved on your CCI, there is absolutely no reason that you can't put a note underneath the article title that you believe you have fixed it. Other CCI subjects have done this, and it can work well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Moonriddengirl. Her remedy (get in there preemptively to fix things) is more of a challenge than it is a solution I think Epeefleche will avail himself of. I think the best way for Epeefleche to handle Mkativerata’s deletions of his content is—rather than revert Mkativerata—to just revise the deleted text so it no longer appears as a “very close” (or merely “close”) paraphrasing of the original cited work. Thus, if Epeefleche perceives that the deletions had a POV-pushing effect, he can easily fix that problem by taking the time to address the plagiarism concerns. Mkativerata, for his part, can just make sure to leave pithy but accurate edit summaries so that Epeefleche clearly understands the true basis for the edits. Greg L (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

So if Epee is altering the text repeatedly to ameliorate the copyright violation, that's a good thing right? I'd imagine Mkativerata would, on reflection, agree that even limited cooperation from CCI subjects is better than no cooperation. Since the text has been adjusted significantly to the point that it no longer appears to be a copyright violation (demonstrating, by the by, how easy it is to avoid such a violation in the first place), and Mkat hasn't reverted it again, we're done here with this issue, yes?

And now the next issue: let's discuss (as with Richard Arthur Norton) if Epeefleche's activities should be restricted by topic ban to working with the CCI until his/her contributions have been fully cleaned. Nathan ^T 23:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Let’s be clear about something, Nathan. Epeefleche is a mature and highly educated editor; he’s not some sort of 16-year-old kid out to make trouble. Notwithstanding his education, he dicked up with some colossal plagiarism and he’s admitted that he screwed up. But part of why he keeps finding himself embroiled here at ANI is because he works in a controversial area: terrorist-related articles. That sort of area intrinsically brings editors with a pro-Israeli bias into conflict with those who have an pro-Islam bias (known, using the standard wiki-quoloqialism, as “POV-pushing where the respective parties have a hard time comprehending other’s worldview”). So…

I have a better idea. Rather than give a productive and mature editor the equivalent of an atomic wedgie (with a splendid public-humiliation tar & feathering aspect to it), we just sit back and watch how Epeefleche and Mkativerata collaborate on Targeted killing; Mkativerata just got through blanking the article for copyright violations. I propose we keep a keen eye for the sort of behavior that these two editors accuse each other of: Epeefleche’s alleged failure to revise very close paraphrasing, and Mkativerata’s alleged use of copyright violations as a pretense to POV-push. Let the sunshine of public inspection reveal the truth of the matter. Greg L (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Greg L's first two sentences. I don't think there's a need for any editing restriction. Fact: Everything I've seen Epeefleche create since the CCI started is copyvio-free. It's irritating in a way that the CCI remains on foot while Epeefleche enjoys full editing privileges, but irritation isn't a ground for an editing restriction. All I ask is that Epeefleche stays out of the way of editors trying to clean up the copyright violations. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we can move forward with that consensus: Epeefleche isn't uploading any copyvios since the CCI started; Mkativerata is using a blunt instrument to remove coypvios uploaded by Epeefleche in the past, but that is sometimes necessary; anyone distressed by this is invited to clean up coypvios in the CCI in whatever other way they see fit before Mkativerata gets to them. Resolved? :-) causa sui (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I had some trouble understanding some of the positions taken in this discussion. I found the urls and references in the diffs made it harder to see just what had changed between the versions. So I created a scratch page, in user space, where i could strip out the hidden material, and just use diffs to see how the text changed.

It is my understanding that ideas aren't copyrightable -- only how they are expressed.

We are all volunteers here. No one can force us to undertake a specific task. But, I think once we have undertaken a task we have a responsibility to see it through.

As an administrator Mkat is authorized to excise passages he or she thinks represent a problem. He or she did that here. Mkat edit summary said "Rm a couple of close paraphrases and fix a couple of quotes." -- I suspect most administrators wouldn't have thought any further explanation was necessary -- this time.

However their 2nd excision only said "remains a close paraphrase.. ." And their 3rd excision said "Synonyms and syntax changes do not change close paraphrasing. As a CCI subject you are treading on dangerous ground."

The contributor who made repeated attempts to rewrite the passage says they hoped for more useful feedback as to why their subsequent attempts were being excised. It seems to me that Epee's good faith efforts to draft replacement passages deserved more effort on mkat's part to explain what was wrong with the replacements. Am I missing something? Has mkat made any effort beyond those edit summaries to explain these excisions?

In particular, others have questioned mkat's third excision. I really don't think this thread should be closed without greater discussion as to why that attempted rewrite merited excision. I too don't understand why it was excised.

As I understand it, blocks and bans are not punishment, they are tools intended to preserve the integrity of the project. As I understand it contributors who return from a block, or who have had a topic ban, or other administrative condition agreed upon, should be entitled to the assumption of good faith, so long as they seem to have learned their lesson.

I was not aware that epee had been the subject of a CCI -- whatever that is. But he seems to have made good faith attempts to remedy whatever lapses he made in the past.

It seems to me that one interpretation of mkat's edit summary "As a CCI subject you are treading on dangerous ground" was that this may have been mkat's way of warning epee that he would be blocked if he made another attempt to draft a replacement passage. This really concerns me. I am really concerned when I see an administrator making a vague warning to a good faith contributor that they may block them in the future, when that warning doesn't clearly say what future behavior will trigger the block and under which policy they think the block is authorized.

This warning -- if that is what it was -- seems very problematic to me, if mkat can't offer a fuller explanation for the excision that accompanied it.

Included for your reading pleasure -- diffs with extraneous hidden material excised, so you can see more clearly, how the different versions varied. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

[10]	target of 'close paraphrase' claim
[11]	diff between target and verion 1
[12]	diff between target and verion 2
[13]	diff between target and verion 3	If you only click on one link here, click on this one. It is the excision of this version that I think most clearly merits further explanation.
[14]	diff between target and current version

New blanking by Mkativerata in his COI area; Mkat's threat to block

Mkat admits he has a conflict of interest in the ARBPIA area. In deletions that triggered this AN/I, he ignored his COI. (His claim of "close paraphrasing" was highly dubious, but even had it not been dubious his correct course given his COI would have been to post his concern on a noticeboard, where someone non-involved could pursue it). Mkat was alerted to this issue.[15][16][17]

Mkat responded above: "I will not hesitate to block you if you continue to disrupt the resolution of your CCI." But -- I haven't been disrupting any CCI. That sysop Mkat would threaten me with a block, for reporting my concerns above, troubles me.

Mkat has just now, after the above AN/I discussion, gone 1 step further. Blanking the entire article targeted killing. An article that is clearly within his COI area. (which I contributed to significantly this past year).

As an aside, it is highly dubious that this 194-ref targeted killing article was a copyvio. And that Mkat's blanking of it was proper--even if Mkat had not had a COI.

Mkat is thus continuing to delete material in disregard of his COI. And of wp:admin. And he only began blanking articles I had worked on after our disagreement 4 days ago on 2 sentences in the Berman article -- before the Berman article, he had not blanked or deleted material from any articles I worked on for at least 10 months, as far as I can recall, but after I disagreed with him he engaged in the above behavior. That adds to the impression that his blanking here is part of a pattern of retribution. By an involved sysop.

I gather that Mkat is displeased I disagreed with him 2 days ago, as to what constituted a "close paraphrase". And as to his failure to use the talkpage for discussion. But I wonder whether his blocking threat and his article blanking here, especially given his COI, are what wp:admin had in mind.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are attributing motives when there does not seem to be one. Frankly, at this point I'm sorely tempted to just write a script that adds {{subst:copyvio}} to all the articles referenced in the CCI. You are also totally confusing conflict of interest and involvement. T. Canens (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, here is the explanation for my self-declaration of ARBPIA involvement. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So the entirety of your "involvement" is having endorsed two views in an RFC in 2010? Honestly, I think you are being overly cautious here. That makes the claims here even more spurious... T. Canens (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have demonstrated, with diffs, that Mkativerata picked up on your work on CCI and was continuing to work on your CCI before you objected to the first edit. It's true he had not yet blanked an article on this go-around; had Mkativerata never blanked an article of yours before or if blanking articles for further evaluation at WP:CP wasn't standard, you might have cause for concern. But Mkativerata's behavior here is no different than Mkativerata's behavior was in January (for one example of many: [18]). It is the same behavior he has brought to bear on other CCIs in unrelated areas (for one example: [19]), and it is the same behavior others bring to bear on CCIs, where blanking articles is one of the standard operating procedures. (We even have a special template for articles that are blanked without evidence where presumption of copying is strong: {{CCId}}.) I have no reason to think that Mkativerata is handling your CCI any differently than anybody else's CCI has been handled. Actually, I think blanking is likely more prudent than text removal at this point given your presumption of bad faith on his part. That way, he flags the problem, but another administrator will oversee any proposed cleanup you place in the temp space and work with you through any disagreements on whether or not content has been rewritten from scratch. I have myself taken this tack when contributors personalize cleanup efforts of their CCIs to help minimize any feeling that I might be subjecting them to unfair scrutiny because I don't like them or because I have a bias against their subject areas. (That said, I don't at all mean to discourage Mkativerata from removing or rewriting the content directly.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:JaMikePA

I don't think I'm putting this at the right place, AN confuses me. Anyway, JaMikePA (talk · contribs), refuses to build consensus and would rather revert repeatedly. Recently, the Miami Marlins and and Toronto Blue Jays had a makeover of their logos and uniforms. As such the article for the two was updated. I updated the the colors using a graphic design industry trusted blog. Determined he was right he's revert me at least 20 times of the past 6 days saying blogs cannot be reliable sources and citing this failed proposal. As the blog is reliable, I and other have reverted him every time and asked him a couple times to stop and if disputes the reliability to start a discussion on the talk page. He hasn't, instead he's continued to revert and redo the colors. I would like someone to either tell him to stop or block him for disruptive edit warring. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you can try WP:AN3 - and be prepared with diffs of the revert war/3RR/edit war. Also be sure it is recent, and I'd suggest ensuring you did not engage in edit warring as well (ya know, the whole WP:BOOMERANG effect) - I haven't dug too deeply, but I haven't found a revert war in a very quick perusal. Regardless, AN3 may be the way to go if you have tried and cannot resolve this on the article's talk page(s). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Toronto Blue Jays article, why do the colours even need to be cited with that blog? It seems entirely superfluous; as far as I see, that data is already appropriately sourced. WilliamH (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

CRRays, perhaps you should follow WP's rules by not using blogs as sources. I have every right to revert something b/c you fail to follow the rules. Stop using blogs! JaMikePA (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the rules for WP:REVERT might not say exactly what you suggest. Yes, blogs are not WP:RS, but reversion is for vandalism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he's using the term "revert" Colloquially, and not in the terms that you and I have come to know as regular editors on wikipedia.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors are rather gaming the system and working to avoid violating 3RR. I've fully protected both pages and I remind them that page protection is not an endorsement of the current version, and that the onus on them to include their changes is establishing mutual agreement among editors. Since both pages are protected, blocking at this stage would only be punitive - the sooner consensus is established the better, and blocks would only delay this. WilliamH (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm gonna ask now that those pages be unprotected. The full protection is disruptive to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball and there are many league and team changes that need to be made to not just these, but all MLB pages, due to the winter league meetings and free agency.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not willing to withdraw full protection for an edit war incase it hinders constructive edits. Preemptiveness is no part of page protection, that's also why we do not protect pages for fear of unconstructive edits. Feel free to request uncontroversial changes via the established means. WilliamH (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is full protection necessary for an edit war involving just two users? {{uw-ew}} both of them, then start handing out blocks if they prefer to continue a battle rather than hash it out on the talk pages. Resolute 01:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this is overkill. See no reason to fully protect these pages. And there is no time table as well, since the protection is indefinite.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've lifted the protection per the two points raised here, remember that it can be lifted at any time, irrespective of how long it is set for. I would implore the two parties to not revert until they have discussed their proposed changes fully, because that'll probably cost them their editing rights the next time they do. My first inclination has been and always will be to see stuff upheld by consensus, not blocks. WilliamH (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this edit war is over, I'm done reverting him on this. I was being point-y and I apologize, however, I still think the other user at question was wrong for ignoring my requests for discussion on the talk page, if he had listened this wouldn't have happened. Then again it would have happened if I hadn't kept reverting either, so we're both wrong. From this point I hope the other user in question submits to consensus building on the talk page so we can put this to rest once and for all. Once again, I apologize for my behavior. One last thing, I request the other user quit citing that failed proposal since it officially has no barring on how Wikipedia is run. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 07:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, an indefinite full protection makes little sense. If it does need protection, a month-long semi seems to be called for. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Both editors are autoconfirmed, so that would be inconsequential. WilliamH (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by Udibi

The user Udibi made a personal attack against me, and indirectly against all the users in discussion with him, by calling me "profoundly insane, misogynistic, revisionist, sick-fantasy" on Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany. He also did the same on his talk page. Anonyma Madel 22:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No, he said "You have the audacity to make such profoundly insane, misogynistic, revisionist, sick-fantasy statements". It's a bit uncivil, but certainly not a WP:NPA. Have you discussed this at WP:WQA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

...and will you be notifying him of this thread, as required? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not discuss there. Yes, I did notify him. He was trying to imply that I am a Communist revisonist. --Anonyma Madel 22:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't find Udibi's comments much worse than yours. If you make comments as you did on his talk page along the lines of "your Feminist approach to the subject is inappropriate and can only serve to bring many Neo Nazi editors to Wikipedia" I think you should expect a robust response. My advice is for you to disengage from one another. 28bytes (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My intent was not to imply that he knew he was doing anything to cause that. --Anonyma Madel 23:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If you go back and read my posts, I said that the article was problematic because it offers voice after voice of direct quotes justifying/diminishing the rapes (all from Men, save one from a Russian woman that contextualizes the rapes), yet does not offer one syllable of a single word from a single woman who had been subjected to rape. I then suggested one way in which the article could be improved by giving a more dry account of the issue initially, followed by the ample contextualization already provided in the article, and at some point including some women's/victim's voices. In its current form the article is all contextualization. I'm sorry, but that is simply not a valid, balanced, or academically acceptable way to handle rape. The response by "Anonymiss Madchen" was to accuse me of abetting Neo-Nazis and, later, to directly state directly that the women were, likely, willing participants in their rape. I don't see how my possibly implying that he might be a Communist Revisionist can hold a candle to that in terms of civility or anything else. I made valid, scholarly criticisms, to which I got a response that IS frankly off-the-handle and then this user has the gall to report me for civility. If the two of us were to debate this on any university campus, he would be eaten alive for implying that my insistence that rape victims should have a voice abets Neo-Nazis and for his direct statement that rape victims were willing participants in their rape. "Anonymiss Madchen" is fortunate that I am not as versed in the ways of Wikipedia as he - If I didn't have other real-world concerns I would have reported him. If the Wikipedia community thinks that my position that women should be allowed a voice is somehow indefensible and/or that justifying rape is a valid and civil stance, then there really is no hope for this site ever to be taken seriously by academia. If the Wikipedia community feels that saying the statement that rape victims "wanted it" is "profoundly insane, misogynistic, revisionist, sick-fantasy" is somehow out of line, then the Wikipedia community has completely lost its moral compass. If you'll note, I even stated that I felt "Anonymiss Madchen" was trying to behave as troll and egg me on. This also means directly that I did not believe and was not calling the user himself any of those negative things (insane, misogynistic....). It means that his completely unjustifiable position that women wanted to be raped is so over-the-top that I did not believe he himself could be sincere in making such a statement. Many issues in this world are up for debate, however some simply are not. Rape is never ok, never justifiable and defending/justifying rape and blaming the rape victim is most certainly never something that can reasonably be viewed as civil or rational. It is absurd that I am now the one having to defend my position, civility, and my discussion posts against THAT. Udibi (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not say anywhere that women were willing particpants in their rape, which would be completely absurd. What I said was, which I am explaining for the third time, is that we should consider the fact that there were likely German women who had consentual sex with Russians and who would have reported being raped to the Nazis or their families because it was completely forbidden for them to interact with people who were considered subhuman. I also told you, which is also stated by reliable sources cited in the article, that the Feminist approach is a-historical and incorrect for this issue.

There were millions of women who were raped by the Russians, and that is worth studying, remembering, and is certainly bad, however, the rape of German and Nazi women should absolutly not be seperated from the fact that they started a war against the Russians with the intent of exterminating them. This is also supported by sources in the article and by other editors.

I also consider your incorrect pronoun use to be a personal attack, just as your claim that I am trolling you. I absolutly do not think that women should be raped, as you claim above. "that his completely unjustifiable position that women wanted to be raped" That is blatan libel (personal attack) and I also wish to report it.

--Anonyma Madel 01:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"That is blatan[t] libel and I also wish to report it." - You might want to take a read of WP:NLT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Psst... Anonyma Madel... I believe The Bushranger is subtly (or not so subtly) suggesting you redact and refactor the above comment, as making legal threats is a blockable offense until redacted. You can do so by using the strikeout tags (<strike>some text</strike>) around the text (since this is AN/I and you shouldn't remove comments after they have been responded to), then rewording it without the legal wording (such as libel). If not intended as such, it's still a good idea, as generally using such words will create such an interpretation. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Escuse me, but you wrote "I think we also need to consider whether this is not just a case of hundreds of thousands of German women getting lucky with their liberators". Getting Lucky??? Liberators??? Your accusation of libel is, again, over-the-top and litigious. On my talk page you threaten me that if I do not offer you an apology, you will report me. Report me? Sorry, but this unnecessary drama is simply too much. My interpretation is hardly libel and it would be more productive if you were to lay off trying to report anybody and everybody who takes a moment to call you on your striking statements. I find it fascinating that you are obviously well-versed in Wikipedia, yet your account is relatively new. A quick look at the history of your talk page shows that the entire history of your account is full of arguments and similar discussions to ours over these same issues. You have a history of reporting and complaining about people who disagree with you - it's there in black and white.

Giving women a voice - ANY voice - is hardly in itself feminist! You are so eager to contextualize-away mass rape in Germany, but somehow you also have had arguments about the same issue with Red Army rapes in Poland. Interesting...Then you come up with a claim to be an ethnically German woman living in America - as if that (true or not) were to give you some license to spread positions that are academically indefensible and report those who would dare say anything against your statements.Udibi (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, both participants of the dispute are too emotional to carefully read and understand each other's posts. I suggest to move this content dispute back to the article's talk page, although I don't think resorting to such terms as "insane", "libel" or "troll" is justified here. Please, avoid using the emotionally loaded words, because that is just a demonstration of the lack of arguments. @ Udibi's "I then suggested one way in which the article could be improved by giving a more dry account of the issue initially, followed by the ample contextualization already provided in the article...", we can discuss it on the talk page. However, before we started, could you please read the sources cited in the article, especially such reliable secondary sources as Grossman's, Heinemann's and Bos' articles?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your move to bring more civility to the discussion. However, the words "just a case of hundreds of thousands of German women getting lucky with their liberators" speak for themselves and can and must be condemned. If I made it too personal, it is merely because of my shock, not because of my intent. If I crossed that line, I am sorry. I do not know Anonymiss Madchen and cannot have anything against him/her personally, many of his/her statements, however, do warrant strong commentary.Udibi (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked Anonymiss Madchen (talk · contribs) for one week for trolling, POV pushing and personal attacks - I've included example diffs on their talk page, and this report seems to be another example of their trolling. I've also reviewed Udibi (talk · contribs)'s conduct in that discussion and it seems OK - while several other editors don't agree with the comments Udibi is making, they're being made reasonably civilly. I would suggest to Udibi though that you should either ignore or report trolling rather than respond to it in the future as it leads to heated and fairly unproductive discussions. Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This editor has a long history of disruption but has evaded censure by concentrating on articles which attract very little attention. Much of this has been directed against User:Paul Siebert who has not contributed to this discussion. I hope that this block will persuade her to behave better in future. TFD (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I had the same hope last time. I thought they had given up on this project as a soapbox. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha, this was the time before last time. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As I noted at User talk:Anonymiss Madchen, I came close to applying an indefinite block here and it's likely that any further misbehaviour will lead to such a block. I've watchlisted their talk page. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

@Nick-D - I am still learning Wikipedia etiquette and procedures. I have a feeing, for example, that there is a way I am supposed to tag you with this question. God forbid I should be in such a situation again, but just in case, how do I report trolling? Thank you for your suggestions and insight.Udibi (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If another editor makes comments that are outrageously POV and clearly intended to provoke a response (like saying that German women deserved to be raped because of the conduct of the Nazis in Russia for example), then don't respond, just report it here, with a link to the diff of the trolling (and to this discussion if you can if its Anonymiss Madchen, someone with block him/her indefinitely). If in future you encounter an editor who is just randomly rude, try not responding - we seem to have a lot of otherwise very intelligent editors who are blighted by an inability to express themselves without cussing or snark, and one can sometimes still have a fruitful content discussion if one just ignores that aspect. If a discussion seems to be turning into a dispute, WP:DR contains advice on all the dispute resolution processes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass of notablity violations in progress

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

No further administrative attention seems necessary at this point. The editor in question is taking a wikibreak. There is an RFC open about the notability issue. Any cleanup of the created articles is better discussed on other pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Two days ago, (202084) 2004 SE56, an unnamed speck among untold thousands way out in space, was a redirect to a chart of thousands and thousands of such rocks. Today, along with thousands more, it has been made into an article. This mocks notablity guidelines and if allowed to stand will may be forever pointed to as proof that Wikipedia has no effective notablity standards. Every minute that goes by, the creator of this astroidette article creates more and more, yet no one has yet acted to stop him. He has no consensus to do this even from the astrology community, let alone the community at large. Please act now. Chrisrus (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator I have notified the user of this question and asked them to pause while the matter is discussed [20]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In summary, the issue seems to be whether articles such as (101223)_1998_SW62 satisfy the notability criterion. I have asked the Astronomy WikiProject to comment, as it seems they have been discussing this very issue very recently. There is even a proposed notability standard at Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects). As an administrator, the first question in my mind is whether these articles would meet that proposed standard - opinions from editors familiar with that area would help.

There was a previous ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive228#Merovingian_mass_creation which did not seem to come to a clear outcome. In particular, there is a policy issue with this task and WP:MASSCREATION. I estimate that over 500 of these articles have been created in November, which certainly passes the limit beyond which prior approval is needed. But the main question for deciding that is going to be whether the topics are notable, so notability is the most productive issue for us to address. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure that would fail the proposed notability standard so hard it would leave a crater. (Pun not necessarily intended.) But yes, the Astronomy WikiProject is aware of this and that's why our notability guideline is in the works. Also, please don't confuse astronomy with astrology. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As a participant at WikiProject Astronomy, it is my hope that the notability criteria up for review will reach some sort of accord on the matter. I agree that most of the minor planet articles do not satisfy WP:GNG and have little prospect of doing so any time soon. But I'm not sure that the creation of such articles is intended to mock said guidelines. The objects just seem to be a particular interest of a couple of editors. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This editor has been creating thousands of these stubs for several years, and has been met with questions and opposition many times. WP:OUTCOMES only says that these objects can be included in list articles. The proposed notability guideline would clarify that. The consensus at WP:ASTRONOMY is that objects such as these are not notable enough for stand-alone articles, but also should not be deleted. Rather, their names should be redirected to the appropriate list. Right now the notability guideline is at RfC to be promoted to guideline. In terms of support, it has more than 2 to 1 support, with much of the objection over semantic quibbles. Some of the objectors do think that there should be articles for every object in the Universe, but that is not the consensus of the astronomy editors at WP:ASTRONOMY. I do not think this editor is creating these stubs as a way to make a point or to mock anybody. I think it is just a hobby for them. However, the editor has contradicted themselves a few times; in a conversation with me, he admitted that these objects were not notable, but justified their creation due to the lack of consensus to that point about notability. He is wrong to say that there is a consensus to keep them. With the creation of the notability guideline, a hard-work effort by the WP:ASTRONOMY community, it is better argued now that the consensus is that unless significant coverage (beyond a parameter listing in the JPL database) can be established, minor planets don't warrant a stand-alone article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What does the OP want administrators to do at this point? What are we supposed to delete, protect, or block? --Jayron32 02:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as an administrator I have already asked the person in question to pause. The next step is to let people comment here so that I can see if there is a consensus about the articles. Administrator tasks include more than just blocking, protecting, and deleting, we can also head things off before they get that far. So far there the opinion seems to be that the editor who has been creating the articles needs to stop and get consensus. But there is time to let more people comment before we worry about what the final administrative action will be. It will probably be some sort of admonition, but the content depends on what the outcome of the discussion is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on one point: Any editor has the power to "head things off before they get that far." Admins do not have special powers to force editors to stop doing things beyond the use of their tools, and their admonitions should not carry extra weight. If established editors have already told him to stop, then the words of an administrator in this regard do not carry extra weight. Admins are not empowered to be supereditors, and the things we administrators say do not mean anything more to any conflict than the things that any editor of sufficient experience and good standing do. That's why other dispute resolution processes exist, and that's why this board has giant bold letters at the top telling users to use those processes. --Jayron32 03:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A priori, we don't know whether other people have told him to stop, or whether the complaint is entirely frivolous. That's what I am looking to determine. It appears, so far, that the outcome might be an admonition to the editor to stop creating these articles (per WP:MASSCREATION) until a consensus in favor of them is obtained, at the risk of being blocked. That sort of warning is hard for a non-admin to give because they cannot actually perform the block. But the only way to tell whether that admonition is warranted is to ask others to comment. That sort of admonition does not address any underlying dispute about WP:N, and it does not prejudge the outcome, it just makes it possible for the matter to be addressed elsewhere. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Admins should not also unilaterally block for something like this; if an admin had a problem with behavior of this nature it should be discussed and decided by the community before blocking or otherwise using their tools. --Jayron32 03:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "unilateral". If someone is violating a community norm, like WP:MASSCREATION, and they are warned, then blocks are appropriate. But the first step is to find out whether the edits already have consensus. Again, the goal is not to decide the eventual outcome – it's just to get everyone to stop making disputed edits before a consensus is reached. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like I have to constantly justify myself about these articles to keep from getting run out of this place feeling like some kind of a bad person. I don't think all minor planets are notable. I do think they require articles nonetheless. I would be saying the exact same thing of railway stations, uninhabited islands, semi-professional soccer players, etc. I have always been a proponent of inclusion of articles, because I value verifiability, neutrality, and fact over notability standards. I believe that many notability standards are arbitrary to the point of harming this project. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 04:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like you're saying that you know the article creations are not in accoradance with policy (which requires notability), but that you personally disagree with policy and therefore will keep making them. If this is the case I think you are clearly engaged in WP:POINT disruption. If you have a problem with having to justify your actions then stop making those actions. I'll make it easy for you: Stop creating articles about topics you know are non-notable, or I will have to apply sanctions. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information it is also not a Directory. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Are (202084) 2004 SE56 and the rest of these things notable enough to have an article? Absolutely not. They are rocks in the middle of nowhere. That’s all.

Please have a look at this picture:

. They are in the process with no consensus of creating an article for each of these bits of dust. And that won’t be all. Even though it is theoretically possible that these will be the end of them, reason dictates that for each of these there must be many more smaller ones that remain to be discovered, and, if these editors, this editor, has his way, all of them will have articles. They will be a large percentage of all the articles of all the articles on Wikipedia.

What then will be said of Wikipedia’s Notability standards? If this is allowed, anyone can say “Oh, my uncle George doesn’t meet notability guidelines? (202084) 2004 SE56 has an article. Uncle George is much more notable than (202084) 2004 SE56. Or whatever. Anything is more notable than 202084) 2004 SE56. What could be less notable than (202084) 2004 SE56? My left sock is more notable than 202084) 2004 SE56. The existence of the article (202084) 2004 SE56 mocks notability guidelines. I don’t think it’s reasonable to put the onus on me to prove that this meaningless speck of nothing in the middle of nowhere that has nothing to do with anything is not notable. Instead, I would like to ask that someone prove it is. What’s notable about it? What could possibly be less notable? If I tried to start an article about my little elementary school, it would not be allowed on notability grounds. Yet my elementary school was very important in the lives of thousands of people. (202084) 2004 SE56 has not and will never be significant in the life of anyone, will it now. Well maybe, but it’s highly unlikely. And if it does happen, we can always start an article then. Thousands of people would actually be interested in reading an article about my elementary school. No one will ever want to read almost any of these articles, it’s reasonable to assume. Please put forward an imaginable scenario in which someone will benefit from the existence of the article (202084) 2004 SE56. Finally, what is the point in making these articles? What ever for? No one cares, no one will read them. I can only speculate as to why they are being created. I just edited out my speculation. It doesn’t matter. The existence of these articles are so blatantly violated notability standards that investigating why they are being created is not necessary. I’m trying to anticipate arguments against my position, but I honestly can’t. That they are in orbit about the sun? So are many kajillion specks of dust. What other argument could there be? Their existence does no harm? We are being hit up for cash on the grounds that we need more servers, in part. We don’t need to waste it on a bunch of dust. More importantly, how could we ever reject an article on notability grounds with these articles standing as proof that we have no effective notability standards? The existence of these articles threatens the existence of notability standards on Wikipedia, that’s the harm. If these dust mote articles are allowed to stand, we will owe an apology to everyone who’s ever had an article deleted on notability grounds, because I can’t imagine any of them could have been less notable than (202084) 2004 SE56. Name me something which could possibly be less notable than (202084) 2004 SE56. Name one thing that someone has in good faith tried to add to Wikipedia that was rejected on notability grounds alone that was not more notable than (202084) 2004 SE56. Actually don’t bother. Don’t even argue; give it up, speedily agree and let’s move on. It’s absurd to argue that they meet notability standards. Instead, let’s talk about what we should do next. Actually, I'll leave that to you. Over and out. Chrisrus (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if we allow this the next is someone entering in the phone directory. Likelihood is that there would be a greater percentage of actual notable articles there.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus - please, take a glass of tea and a deep breath. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad he quit because he was a productive, dedicated editor. It's very sad that he was not stopped long ago when he wouldn't have wasted so much effort. Unfinished business includes a forensic investigation into possible failure of the notablity check system for new articles: if I didn't happen to have one of the redirect talk pages on my watchlist I never would have noticed, either; and it's a bit late and sad once someone has created a thousand new articles to notice that they are a bunch of rocks in the middle of nowhere. Is there some way this could be prevented in the future?

Having said that, however, I should apologize for my last edit, written to end all discussion of whether these things pass notablity guidelines. I had not noticed or anticipated that he would have a split second earlier actually admited in so many words that the referents of all those articles were not notable, rendering my work unnecessary. If I had seen and read that post he snuck in before mine, I needn't have bothered. Chrisrus (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You needn't have written a truly nasty screed? No, you really needn't. Nice job running off a good faith editor. LadyofShalott 07:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please just study, just glance at Special:Contributions/Merovingian. Turn it on to "500", the max, and scroll back ten, fifteen, until you get some idea of what he refused time and again to stop doing. This is what I have finally brought to an end, you're welcome. While you're paging back through thousands of pages of shredding of Wikipedia's integrity, realize that it turns out he knew what he was doing and thumbing his nose at us all. He refused time and time again to listen to reason or to do anything but stonewall. This was no good faith editor. I've done my part to save Wikipedia from him, and am proud of it, and am finished here. If you want to help, join the discussion below as to how to clean up his massive mess. Good luck with that. Chrisrus (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with LadyofShalott on this, Chrisrus. It seems like you've lost a little perspective on this issue. No offense intended, but you might want to take a little break yourself. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me that all of these minor planet "articles" should be deleted. They are (tiny) stubs and will never become anything more than that. On the other hand we can't merge them into a list since such a list exists (it is the one Merovingian is using to write the "articles" from) - and merging them into a list would likely reproduce the entirety of that book and hence constitute a copyright violation. I do think it is a shame to have to undue someone's hard work like this - but I honestly think that they have noone but themselves to blame - having knowingly flouted our policies on article creation. They are wasting their own and the community's time, apparently mostly in order to make an ideological point. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Deleted? No, absolutely not. Redirected to the list? Yes, absolutely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

But how can we make a list without it being a copyright infringement of the actual published list, that Merovingian has presumably been working from?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A simple list of "minor planets by designation, discovery date, and diameter" shoudn't be a problem, I'd think - and, in fact, one already exists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the information about minor planets is freely available from JPL and the IAU's minor planet center. I'm not clear that there is any sort of copyright dispute. A concern for me is not that the data is being replicated, but that it is not being maintained on the Wikipedia side. Any updates at the JPL site may not be reflected on the Wikipedia article, so it is likely that we have a bunch of obsolete data. Regards, RJH (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen it and am not a lawyer, but the "actual published list" probably doesn't have enough creative content to be protected by copyright, any more than the main part of a phone directory or a table of pipe dimensions (yes, that came up in a UK copyright case once). WP:Public_domain#Non-creative_works discusses. NebY (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with redirecting. I see little value in a standalone article unless the object has been sufficiently studied to allow writing more encyclopedic things about it than can comfortably fit in a five column table. Kilopi (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

@Chrisrus - Was that previous histrionic diatribe really necessary? Sure, Merovingian may have flouted policy in a rather pointy way, but your rant basically rode the line of incivility. Your failure to assume good faith is reprehensible. --Blackmane (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sneeky! Why have you gone back and inserted this at this point? If you'd put it at the bottom, it would have been very clear that, below, he was angry not at me but at being accused of POINT disruption, flouting policies, and mostly the fact that he saw that thousands of hours of his work were about to be reverted and he had no one but himself to blame. Good faith was assumed on my part publically until after he'd quit, and by all until he admitted he knew that he was in gross violation of our standards and procedures but didn't think other people's opinions mattered so long as there was some way to stretch out debate forever. Good faith and was only questioned quite rightly by Maunus, below, who pointedly asked how we could assume good faith given these facts. Even if I'd said nothing, the two posts below which crushed him would have caused him to leave. If someone had put it as I did long ago he wouldn't have wasted a chunk of his life. Read on: Chrisrus (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am "clearly engaged in WP:POINT disruption"? I have "knowingly flouted [...] policies"? This is ridiculous. What happened to assumption of good faith? I have been patiently editing and trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage on minor planets for years. This did not just start. In the last few months the flak I have received for these edits has become unfair and unbearable. Why is there such a demand to limit what Wikipedia should be, instead of grow it? This is a public flogging and I will not accept it. I quit. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 04:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You are saying that you agree that these rocks are not notable yet you have created hundreds of articles about them because you disagree with the notability policy. If this is not a flouting of policy, and a classica case of WP:POINT, then please explain what it is? How can I assume good faith when you yourself state that you made a decision to violate policy? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"I don't think all minor planets are notable. I do think they require articles nonetheless." Since notability is a requirement for something to have a Wikipedia article, then you have defeated your own argument, and I have to believe you're competent enough to realise that. So what else are we supposed to assume? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic Shift

I do not know User:Chrisrus's level of understanding of English, but if I were User talk:Merovingian, I'd have trouble understanding and comprehending an edit summary like this: "Plea no undo until repl on talk re why redirect just now returned to article again despite previous astronomical editor's consensus to chart". I get some of what he's trying to say, but not much.--v/r - TP 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It was enough for him to understand given his awareness of context.

This is what it meant:

"This is another plea from Chrisrus. Do not undo this edit (it was a revert to a redirect toward a list of minor planets) until you reply on the discussion page of the article (202084) 2004 SE56, (which was where the edit summary was made). Explain why te redirect has just now been returned (by him) back to a full article despite the existence there on Talk:(202084) 2004 SE56 a long-standing conversation in which a person calling himself "an astronomical editor" declared that there had been a consensus to convert all of such articles to reverts to the chart."

This all in the space alloted by the editsummary box.Chrisrus (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The summary box is limited for a reason - it is not meant to be an exhaustive explanation of the reasoning behind edits, that's what a talkpage is for. GiantSnowman 16:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. He was ignoring it. You'll see I said the same thing on the talk page. He was just reverting redirect to article without addressing the points. Chrisrus (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Close thread?

If Merovingian has decided to take a wikibreak in response to this thread then it seems like no admin action will be needed, and we can close the thread. There is an RFC at Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) where the notability questions can be discussed, and editors at the Astronomy WikiProject can take care of redirecting these articles if there is consensus to do so.

Separately, I feel somewhat sad that this thread became so heated. I don't have any doubt that Merovingian was editing in good faith, although the article creations appear, at least based on the comments here, to be at odds with community ideals. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am overstepping my bounds, but does the fact that Merovingian is an admin not concern anyone else? Purposely flaunting the rules seems rather unbecoming. Rgrds. --64.85.220.244 (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Close it if you want, but open another to finish talking about how to clean up the mess. Chrisrus (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's an Admin his time would have been better spent helping out on notice boards. I've had an article unprotect request waiting for 20 hours, presumably due to a lack of admin. resource. FWIW, I didn't read your earlier remarks other than a straightforward statement of concern and fully justified criticism. Leaky Caldron 16:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the fact he was an admin isn't a major concern. Admins, when creating content, are the same as everybody else, and there was zero abuse of the tools regardless of one's opinion on the articles he created, so his adminship or not is utterly irrelevant here. And there is no need whatsoever to open another discussion to "talk about how to clean up the mess" - that's already been discussed and generally agreed, those that fail ASTRO's new notability guideline will be redirected to the appropriate list. Request close please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but before we close, but what will be done about all these articles: Special:Contributions/Merovingian? There was some talk that the astronomy editors would take that over, has that been agreed? What is the simplest way to undo them all? There are thousands. Chrisrus (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As I say, this isn't the place to discuss that, but the obvious answer would be to redirect them to the list articles. If there are thousands, you may be able to find someone who can do that automatically at WP:BOTREQ. Black Kite (t) 19:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then, it'll be WP:BOTREQ then, not the astonomy group. Given the context, it might be better if someone else started the thread there. Would you like to do the honors? Just explain to them what we've decided here and make sure they understand, please. Chrisrus (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get a ruling from the astronomy group before approaching the bot group, don't you think? And please, this closure was a tad premature. All we've done is stopped it getting worse. We haven't put things right yet. What about the Notablity noticeboard? Please either remove the closure marks or allow me to do so. Chrisrus (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Topic ban review

I've been under an indefinite topic ban on Indian history since April 8, 2011. While I never thought that this community imposed ban was appropriate and hold the same belief today, I've tried to stick to the conditions of the ban as I have understood them. If and when I inadvertently violated the terms of the ban while fighting vandalism or while editing a topic that sometimes strayed in to "ban territory", I (or others) have reported it to the relevant admin. I was told AN/I and RFC/U were possible relevant avenues to get the ban lifted. I chose AN/I because it is simpler and less time consuming.

• Subpage that made the ban formal
• ANI that led to my topic ban
• Subsection of the ANI that discussed the ban
• Other relevant diffs available from here

I am requesting the Wikipedia community to consider a review of the ban. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would be appropriate for some explanation to be provided. For example, was the original topic ban totally wrong, or was it at least partially justified? What has changed to warrant a change in the topic ban? I am involved, as I supported the March 2011 topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Although related to current affairs in India rather than history, the POV apparent in the wording of the first edit to a new article, and then the subsequent reinstatement of it later does not bode well. There have been other problems recently, at other articles, eg: see Talk:Kunbi#Shudra and Talk:Kunbi#Kunbis_are_not_non-elite (in fact, all over that particular article, there were insertions/removals of stuff that were of of clear POV-pushing nature). I know that Zuggernaut can do good things but the hang-ups about the British Raj and the promotion of a modern-day "nationalist" agenda still seem to be issues.

I do find the interaction ban with User:Fowler&fowler to be a little strange and perhaps that needs to be revisited. If nothing else, it is one-sided & has proved to be next to impossible reasonably to enforce.Was not involved in the original ban discussion but have had dealings since.. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The non-neutral canvassing was wrong and I've used neutral wording since then. There are no other changes, i.e:

1. I would definitely support the Ganges to Ganga move and help those who initiate it
2. I plan on initiating a move from Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to Mahatama Gandhi once every year as new sources are generated
3. The lead of the India article is highly POV and unbalanced. By jumping from the Indus Valley Civilization to the East India Company, it skips one vital line capturing the period in Indian history that has shaped Indian culture, the Indian mind and the Indian character, i.e, the period when concepts of the Atma (or also their Buddhist and Jain equivalents) and the Brahman, the unity of the two and various other philosophies were developed. I will work towards building consensus on the inclusion of this one line if the ban is lifted.
4. No new material on famines and Churchill has emerged so I will not edit anything in that regard for now. As soon as a new source other than Mukherjee and Amartya Sen (whose views have repeatedly been rubbished by POV warriors), I will attempt to update relevant articles.
5. I have little interest in the lists of inventions.

I have updated my original post to include a link to ArbCom where most of the relevant diffs can be seen. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Declaring a desire to pursue tendentious editing is a bad way to ask for a topic ban review. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Shakinglord

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

---

(rescued from IncidentArchive727 at 12:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

Shakinglord (talk · contribs)

Per this user's continued sockpuppet abuse and constant denial of it, I'm hereby proposing an indefinite ban. Calabe1992 03:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per proposal. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's better to make this official because that makes it easier for other editors to revert them and deny them attention. Hans Adler 18:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nothing really productive (e.g. article creation > vandalism-reversion) has ever came out of him. HurricaneFan25 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - but the frankly bizzare behavior of this editor leads to the conclusion he's WP:NOTHERE and that Wikipedia is better off without him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Claims not to be a sock, but then admits. Curious statement about sharing a sock account with another user. Nothing sounds right here. Glrx (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support; they seem to be a net negative to wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support: the less attention we give these individuals the better it is for everyone, including them. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• A little hasty methinks. Shakinglord only seems to have discovered the joy of drama relatively recently (pretty much a month ago today he started hanging around ANI), and up until then basically behaved himself. Leave it at indef and explain exactly what Shakinglord needs to do to get back into the community. As an aside, some of the above comments are pretty nasty, and people should remember that just because an editor is blocked that doesn't make him fair game for abuse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree on the comments comment, but an editor who creates socks or allows "friends" to create accounts indistinguishible from socks - for the sole purpose of harassing himself, then claims he has no knowledge of them at AN/I and SPI, is somebody who is WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Strong Support -- This user has exhausted our patience. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Can an uninvolved admin close this please before the bot ignores the do-not-archive thing again? :) Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Archive avoidance: The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:38 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by Sswonk

• Sswonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Evertype (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [for completeness only]
• User talk:Sswonk (edit | [[Talk:user talk:Sswonk|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User talk:Sarah777 (edit | [[Talk:user talk:Sarah777|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User talk:Thryduulf (edit | [[Talk:user talk:Thryduulf|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At user talk:Sarah777 SSwonk made a statement that I considered to be highly inappropriate [21], so I gave a "formal warning" explaining why I felt that way [22] (copied also to Sswonk's talk page). Perhaps this was over the top, and certainly Everclear has disagreed with my assessment. I disagree that it was, and would normally just continue to discuss it civilly so we could reach an agreement. If I had been presudaded that it was inappropriate, then I would have redacted and/or altered all or part of my statement. However, Sswonk's response to me [23] (also at mine and his talk) was full of personal attacks, "I formally reject your authority, because you use it to stifle critics, prop up your ego and spread fantastic, poisonous lies about other editors", leaving me disinclined to reconsider my original statement.

I would like independent validation that Sswonk's comments were personal attacks, that they are and were inappropriate and either a civility block of Sswonk, or a statement noting that a block was considered but rejected that explains why it was rejected (this is not saying that I cannot see any justification for not blocking, quite the opposite, but if a block is not considered appropriate I feel it would benefit all parties to understand why). Additionally, I would like independent eyes on my original "formal warning" and feedback on it's appropriateness or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I posted the above at WP:WQA, where it was suggested that WP:AN/I would be the better venue, so here I am. I'll notify people about the venue change with my next edits. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(As the request includes a ban request, I asked Thryduulf to move the post here from WQA but he has requested my feedback).

Sswonk's comments are undoubtedly incivil but do not rise to the level requiring intervention. It is my understanding Sarah7777 is under arbcom ban and showed wisdom in passing on comment. I do think Sswonk's request to quote her was ill-advised but not "seriously inappropriate," and did not warrant a harshly worded "formal warning." Simply leaving it at "Sarah is to be commended for her actions in voluntarily consulting with her mentor and then taking his advice" would have been sufficient. I generally don't consider single posts to talk page "hounding." While I commend Thryduulf for being willing to speak up in the situation, the best response to inflammatory replies is to ignore them and move on. Gerardw (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Congratulations to Sarah for dodging a potential missile and behaving perfectly. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well done to Sarah. Perhaps we could use this apparent storm in a teacup opportunity to relax her topic ban conditions as suggested on her talkpage by her mentor User:John. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine why someone at WQA said to bring it here ... blocks will not be handed out, based on what I see ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Imagination is not required as the discussion at WQA is available for review. Gerardw (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am Evertype not Everclear, and I think it is ridiculous that Thryduulf has escalated this to an Administrators "Incident". I think he overreacted in the first place, and that he owes Sswonk an apology twice over now. -- Evertype·✆ 16:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Recommend both editors 'forgive & forget'. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• First I just want to echo Kitty above, I've been a critic of Sarah777's for a long while so kudos to her for doing the right thing in the midst of this.
  That siad I sympathize with Thryduulf - Sswonk is and has been using Sarah777's page as a forum for a while - sometimes to do the right thing (ie talk to Sarah and try to help her see another perspective) but obviously this time not to. A warning for that outburst was appropriate (maybe not a 'formal final warning' though) and a reminder that his reply is not acceptable either wouldn't go a miss either. This instance may not warrant a block this time, but this kind of behaviour is close to that territory--Cailil ^talk 16:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As yet another party to the discussion that's been the cause of this discussion, let me say that I think everyone involved in the conversation with Sarah777 (whom I don't know) was acting reasonably and in good faith. One user asked a genuine question - were there editors who found the current page title of Republic of Ireland fundamentally objectionable. There may be circumstances I'm not aware of that meant asking Sarah777 about it directly was unwise or even risked getting her into trouble, but as far as I can see nobody (whether Sswonk or Dmcq) was trying to so anything other than make sure that all views were fairly represented in the discussion about the page title. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ComhairleContaeThirnanOg's assessment. -- Evertype·✆ 17:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My only problem with this issue is that at user talk:Sarah777, Sswonk suggested that Sarah type "What Sswonk wrote is accurate, I am exceedingly unhappy with the title, and do not want to participate in discussions due to discomfort with the atmosphere". Sswonk should be well aware that Sarah is topic-banned from the page in question, so her non-participation is not due to any "discomfort with the atmosphere." That said, I've no problem with the first clause of his suggestion. Agree with Cailil and Kittybrewster above - fair play to Sarah. There's no need for a block here, that would just escalate things unnecessarily at WP:IECOLL. Let's close this and move on? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed; and also as regards Sarah's response. However, Sswonk's response is distinctly problematic (this one, which I suspect people have missed in the links above, because it's buried in the middle of the text). Starting with "here is a formal warning, you are a WP:DICK" is not a promising start, and "For someone of your caliber to become an administrator after only six months of work in 2005, and proceed to consider that license hold the views you do and lord over people who disagree with you is a severe insult to the intelligence of the populations of wiki editors and readers alike. I formally reject your authority, because you use it to stifle critics, prop up your ego and spread fantastic, poisonous lies about other editors." is something which, had I seen it at the time (stale now), I would probably have blocked for. I would strongly suggest that Sswonk doesn't come out with that type of personal attack again. Black Kite (t) 20:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncooperative editor has serious problems with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS

Wheres Dan (talk · contribs) is always using sources (most WP:FRINGE) from the 1800s which contain information that modern sources don't bother to reprint. Dougweller, Heironymous Rowe, and I have repeatedly asked him to find the information in modern sources to verify that the information is still accepted by modern scholarship. To date, he hasn't (or hasn't found anything), and I know I failed to find anything as well (even though it's his job to find that stuff, not mine).

• He has previously been blocked for various personal attacks, including refering to good faith edits as vandalism (in that case, while reversing WP:BRD after I explained it to him elsewhere) and calling Dougweller an antisemite.
• Here he suggests that a 1938 occultist source is an appropriate source for to suggest that historians think that the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio is connected to the unrelated deities Kneph (more on that later) and Ahura Mazda, and unspecified "Japanese and Indian traditions."
• Even after his previous block, he shows contempt for anyone not supporting his edits, and makes up imaginary editors to support him.

The few good edits he's made (like this), do not begin to outway the amount of following after he is going to require, as he does not understand cooperative discussion in the slightest, and twists guidelines to his own ends (such as reversing WP:BRD to insist that other people discuss his edits without reversion, reinterpreting WP:RS so that outdated, unscholarly, or fringe sources have to be countered).

This is a highly uncooperative fringe-pushing editor, who one admin has considered blocking indefinately. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Were you going to let us know who it is, or just keep us in suspense? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Meant to put that in the beginning. Editted in. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE has steps for liberal blocking of longstanding pushing of fringe sources. Trying to link a mound in Ohio with Ahura Mazda is definitely way fringe. If the editor has been sufficiently warned and can be shown to have continued afterwards (diffs, please, if you have them) then escalating blocks are definitely called for, in my opinion. Just need an uninvolved admin to do it. (And what was the more on Kneph?) DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion we have too much patience for this type of editor. There are obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues, and that should be enough for a block. Hans Adler 16:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ack, forgot that (should really finish my morning Mt Dew before I do anything). At Kneph, Wheres Dan continued to push fringe and outdated material, taking a 19th century source (which should have been removed) that conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna and turning it into the primary source for the article, and citing a metaphysical text by René Guénon for historical information.

The histories for the articles Tribe of Dan, Kneph, and Serpent Mound show nothing but continued reversions after being asked to not use fringe and outdated sources.

Wheres Dan has just cited several outdated and fringe sources that were previously removed, claiming that Dougweller approved of all of them because Wheres Dan included two sources Doug suggested along with the fringe material.

He is also being a hypocritical when it comes to sourcing. This demonstrates that he understands that 19th century romantic, reductionist, and religious material are not reliable sources for historical claims, but when ignores this when it supports his point of view.

Even if it weren't for the fringe issues, that his concept of cooperation is a bit one-sided seems reason enough to not want him on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And now he's reported me for edit warring (even though I have yet to violate 3rr and have reverted no more than he has), where he accuses me of acting out of a religious bias by taking a comment out of context (at first, he tried to accuse me of an anti-Biblical bias, which prompted me to point out that I'm a Baptist). As I've stated over at WP:3RRNB, I will no longer be nice about this, he is useless to this site and should be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement that editors of this persuasion are given way too much leniency here. The user has shown, per this conversation at Talk:Serpent Mound#Tribe of Dan Egyptian gods nonsense, that they either have WP:COMPETENCE issues or are on an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles. The user couldn't seem to understand the difference or wouldn't admit the difference between the armchair philosophizing of a historian (if you want to call an author publishing in "Rosicrucian Digest" in 1938 an actual "historian") in the early 1900s and the 100 years of peer reviewed academic archaeology that has taken place since that armchair historian wrote his book. They have also yet seemed to understand our policies on WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, and WP:RELIABLE. It's not our job to tell a person what to believe, but surely, we can stop them from serially inserting this] sort of nonsense into history and archaeology articles? Heiro 18:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since they've been blocked before, I've just blocked for a week for edit-warring at Tribe of Dan during which they overstepped 3RR as well as WP:COMPETENCE. I've pointed out both in the block notice, and also noted how they can contribute to this discussion. But frankly, if anyone wants to up it to indef, be my guest. Black Kite (t) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna" — where have I seen that before — Caesarion and WillBildUnion (talk · contribs). Maybe.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Wheres Dan is citing a lot of 19th century sources, and a lot of people (whatever their beliefs) who wrote about religion in the 19th century were kinda stupid (IMO more so than in eras before or after). He doesn't quite smell the same to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there are generally very serious, questions about the current reliability of sources from the era of the source in question. Having said that, I think that there probably is, to some degree, information of this type which is relevant to at least some article, maybe a spinoff, in wikipedia. We do rather often have child articles which might address or summarize previous opinions regarding a subject, and it rather often is the case that such older premises, for good or ill, are in some way foundational to current theories, of varying reliability. I think maybe confining the editor to relevant talk pages, until and unless there is obvious and poorly-defensible editing abuse there as well, might be the best alternative. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

*Ahem* I'm thinking it's time for an indef. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clearer about my previous remark, a sockpuppet of Wheres Dan has been found and indefed. The block on Wheres Dan is still for a week. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

More socks have been found. This guy knows what he's doing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wheres Dan after looking at the various contribs of the socks at the SPI, which go back for weeks and months even, I think my above mentioned suspicion that WP:COMPETENCE may not be the issue but that an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles may be. One of the accounts (User:Sourced much) seemed to be overly drawn to articles on Nazis, specifically attempts to white wash their reputations(see here). I would like to ask for an indefinite block or possibly a community ban for this editor. Would there be any support for this? Heiro 03:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find evidence of him using the socks to votestack, vandalise or commit other offenses, then the block can be extended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal

• I support a community ban on Wheres Dan and associated accounts due to the systematic and planned disruption of the encyclopaedic process by pushing FRINGE. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban as per my statement above. Heiro 03:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, as Where's Dan is too academically and/or ethically incompetent to be of help here. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, with regrets, based on editors apparent inability or unwillingness to abide by basic standards of good conduct. While it is possible that some of the material he seeks to include might be appropriate, his actions to support that material very clearly are not. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable semi-protection of English Defense League

I have been around this article for a couple of years, most recently only to copy edit and revert vandalism. The article attracts its share of non-neutral contributors, ownership issues and inevitable arguments that flare from time to time. I noticed a semi-protection yesterday by Admin/CheckUser User:Tiptoety and discovered this brief exchange on their talk page conversation [24]. I requested clarification but Tiptoety has been off-line for 24 hours. I raised a request at WP:RPP which was not responded to until I approached the active patroller directly [25]. They declined to lift the semi-protection. This [26] is simply an enquiry, not a request. There is no WP:SPI request. I need clarification on (a) the validity of the semi-protection by Tiptoety and (b) the justification for using "Persistent sock puppetery" as the stated reason when there appears to be no such evidence. The claimant has identified 2 IPs which each have only made a single edit – that is not persistent editing, much less persistent socking. Can the situation be reviewed to ensure that semi-protection is in line with policy and to ensure that unregistered users are not prevented from contributing to article space for no valid reason. Leaky Caldron 17:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm ... if those 2 IPs are the same editors (and remember, User:Tiptoety is a CheckUser, so he would actually know if they were socks of banned users if he had used his CU tools), then the semi may be reasonable; you'd really need to wait for a reply from him though. Black Kite (t) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Tiptoety stated "Per the privacy policy, I can not link an IP address to a named user. That said, I went ahead and protected the article for a few days." So he's semi-protecting without evidence and using a plainly misleading reason by describing it as "persistent sock puppetry". I can think of hundreds of articles on my watchlist where I might suspected a SP at work. I wouldn't just expect a simple nod for any request I made. I don't agree with unregistered users but by policy we have them and by policy we should protect their rights. Leaky Caldron 19:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• By which I assume he means that those IPs are one of more blocked users, but he's not mentioning the user's names per privacy. I assume that, but as I say you'd really have to ask him, us mere admins can't help with this one I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) 19:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with Black Kite here; absent of any other comments, it is pretty obvious that one can read between the lines. Tiptoety knows who the IP addresses are; his Checkuser will tell him that. What he cannot do is tell you who it is (directly), but that does NOT prevent him from protecting the page to prevent disruption. You can easily put two-and-two together here, even if he doesn't come out and say it, not because he doesn't have good evidence, but because Wikipedia's privacy policy prevents him from giving YOU that evidence. --Jayron32 20:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• But you know as well as I do, that wikipedia policy doesn't and shouldn't use protections preemptively. Was there major disruption on that page? I didn't see anything that would result in a semi-protection. A few ip edits, even disruptive ones, has hardly been huge cause for alarm. Only when the vandalism and disruption is persistent or there is a major WP:BLP problem, does protection usually come into play. Although, to play the other side, semi-protection is not a major disruption for those who wish to edit. Anyone can create an account, and the 10 edit and three day rule, is hardly a major obstacle to get over in order to edit a semi-protected page. I'm sure Tiptoey had a good reason, and I would like to hear it, but until then, the semi-protection won't cause too much stress or harm to the project.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, it won't - so why remove it, since it won't? When it comes to IP vandalism and sockpuppetry, semi-protection is honestly pretty much the only recourse - dynamic IPs make blocking an exercise in fultility all too many times. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• So what about the Founding Principle that anyone can edit articles without registration? If SP was applied to every article where a couple of dubious edits turned up then that particular principle would be out the window. Leaky Caldron 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

← Sorry for taking so long to respond, I have been rather busy at work these last few days. In regards to the protection, I can't nor will I really go into much further detail regarding the socking but I will say that CheckUser evidence assisted me in making the decision to protect the article. If another administrator disagrees with the protection, I have zero issues with it being removed; but remember I purposefully set it for only 3 days. Additionally, Leaky_caldron, I agree with you that preventing anonymous users from editing the project tends to be a violation of the founding pillars of this project and if you did a little digging would see I have performed thousands of unprotections on articles for that exact same reason. I ask that in this specific situation you trust that I am trying to do what is in the best interests of the project. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Editor removing others' comments at Talk:C. S. Lewis

Please see this removal by Yworo of another editor's comment in a discussion at Talk:C. S. Lewis. The underlying issue is how C. S. Lewis's nationality should be described, British or Irish. Lewis was born in Belfast in 1898, which is prior to 1921, which seems to qualify under some style guide for describing him as being born in Ireland (I haven't studied this carefully), but conducted most of his career in Britain. I've left two warnings for Yworo about removing others' comments from an article talk page, but cannot seem to get his attention. Yworo has removed other editors' comments twice from the article talk. Article talk pages are subject to the WP:Edit warring policy like any other page, plus Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which I have to admit is a guideline not a policy. Advice on whether admins should formally caution Yworo would be welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I started a poll that clearly stated that it was a multiple proposal poll and that only support !votes were allowed. I consider that all editors who intentionally ignored these proposals to be intentionally disrupting the poll as presented. There have been claims that editors cannot construct a poll and then enforce the poll's formal form. I find that nowhere in policy. There have been claims that polls must allow oppose !votes. I also find that nowhere in policy. Maybe I'm wrong, but I personally feel that the multiple-proposal-support-vote-only-polls would be a much better way of weighing consensus than the current combination of endless discussion with support/oppose-polls than yield no clear result.

Also note, I started this poll before anyone brought up any policies which determined how C. S. Lewis should be described. Personally, I don't care if he is described as British, Irish, or even Martian. I do care about being able to conduct a poll as I describe it clearly in advance without it being disrupted by disruptive editors supported by admins without any policy basis for their actions. Voting "oppose" in a poll that specifically from the start excluded oppose votes is intentionally disruptive and talk page policy allows disruptive comments to be removed or moved to where they are no longer disruptive. Yworo (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Really people, really? To EdJohnston, did you bring this up with Yworo and try to work this out before coming here? To Yworo, wouldn't it have been more suitable to simply move the comment/vote to the appropriate section, rather than simply removing it altogether. I haven't looked through the whole situation on the talk page, but a little more communication between the two of you would be desired, if this whatever you two are discussing is going to get worked out.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I notified Yworo twice and asked him to restore the comments by other people which he removed. You don't see those requests now on his talk page because he immediately removed them. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed once, I added subheadings the second time rather than removing. Both were reverted by Snowded (talk · contribs). I've asked him on his talk page to support his actions with policy, but he seems unwilling or unable to do so. Yworo (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked through some of the revision history and the proposals on the talk page. I think I see what you were trying to do, and why you made those reversions. So I get it, "I" see your plan. Others may not have, but I don't think it was in the best interest of consensus to remove those comments, even if they were not the way t=you expected them to be. Those comments were made in good faith and it only appears that by removing those comments, (even if done in good faith on your part, which I believe), seemed to ultimately piss other people off, to put it bluntly. My advice to you is to be more careful in the future and maybe, if you ever create a poll like this in the future, add a section where other editors can express their displeasure at a particular proposal. Only my advice though, take it or leave it.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• This poll/!vote thing about nationality and citizenship is a shambles. Attributes should be determined by policy, including WP:RS not by a straw pole of editors. Leaky Caldron 20:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The poll was started before such policies were brought up. It any case, with UK nationalities, this question is sometimes left to consensus when there is no determining policy. When I started the poll, I believed we had one of those cases. Yworo (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

it's worth checking the full edit history. Yworo deleted two oppose votes to an option then edited the article directly arguing that option had the strongest support on the basis of two votes one of which was a one time Ip. A review of his/her edit summaries is also instructive. Lots of snarky comments. It should also be noted that this took place AFTER the policies per style sheets had been posted. Some days after in fact so the above comment is shall we say, interesting.--Snowded ^TALK 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I posted the poll first at 00:13, 16 November 2011. You posted the first comment about "policies per style sheet" under the heading "Standards" at 01:01, 16 November 2011, almost an hour later. Please retract your disinformation. Yworo (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference is not to your setting up the poll, but to your deleting two opposes to an option, then editing the article on the grounds that two remaining positive votes (one of which was a one time IP) represented a majority view. You did that after the policy guidelines were posted. --Snowded ^TALK 10:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I also note that you have not at all addressed what policy gives you the right to override the stated conditions of a poll started by another user, as you did here, striking one of the stated conditions of the poll. Yworo (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll? Really? What ever happened to verifiability and reliable sources? What did Lewis call himself? Until we have sources which verify that, the best thing is to say that he was born in Belfast and lived in the UK. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources say "British". However, edit warriors kept changing this to Irish. Then all mention of nationality was removed. The article was originally based on reliable sources until a small handful of editors started to disrupt both the article and the talk page with the intent of changing this to Irish. There were a number of arguments for British, a number of arguments for Irish, there seemed to be no progress toward consensus. What's wrong with a poll in such an ambiguous circumstance? Yworo (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an editor should be able to remove other editor comments from an article Talk page unless it falls within one of the stated guidelines or is otherwise removable for policy reasons. Although I have some sympathy for Yworo's frustration, essentially, he's saying that by starting the poll, he owns the topic and can therefore control it. That can't be right.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Why can't an editor own a section in order to administer a poll by stated rules? Other editors have the whole rest of the talk page to make other comments. WP:TALK says that disruptive posts may be removed under Removing harmful posts. By definition, an "oppose" vote where such votes have been disallowed by the definition of the poll are disruptive, thus they may be removed. It is not really possible to simply leave the comments, as they subvert the counting mechanism using ordered lists. Yworo (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: if you can remove oppose votes just because they're not part of your rules, what's to prevent your whole poll from being removed because it doesn't follow general talk page rules?

For that matter, what would the straw poll show, other than the most-preferred option? It would not demonstrate consensus to make a change; there'd then have to be discussion—open discussion, not just an up/down vote—on whether the option was supported by a consensus of editors. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yworo, if you read the entire part under "Removing harmful posts," it clearly wasn't intended to extend to posts that don't follow your rules, which, apparently, is your interpretation of "harmful" in this context.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Polls do not violate talk page rules. WP:POLL allows polls, states they should be clearly defined, and also states they should not be changed during the poll. If talk page rules prevent specific types of polling, there is something wrong with the rules and they should be modified to clearly allow a defined polling process. At the moment, there is nothing that prohibits defining a specific polling method when staring a poll. Starting a poll is not disruptive, responding to the poll outside the poll's stated process is disruptive. That's the difference. Yworo (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Best guidance I can find is WP:Prune. In other words, don't delete other editor's stuff. Leaky Caldron 23:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:POLL also points out a number of pitfalls with polls, including that they stifle discussion that builds consensus. I think this situation has turned into a poster child for that problem with polls. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure polls have pitfalls, especially the support/oppose polls usually used. They are not, however, prohibited. Discussion had been going on for weeks without resolution. How's a poll going to make that worse? In any case, discussion continued in the section following the poll without stop after the poll was posted. Claiming it stifled discussion could only be made someone who hasn't actually read the talk page or observed the order that discussion, polling, discussion occurred in. Discussion was continuing unimpeded. Just more "Wikipedia dogma" being spewed without any actual thought applied. Yworo (talk) Yworo (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussions have been going on without resolution, in part, because there was an rfc that never got closed.--FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

While I think Yworo set up the poll in good faith and that his removals represent a good-faith effort to keep order according to his concept, it's really not possible to conduct a poll on WP under those conditions, nor is anyone able to establish such ground rules and then enforce them by removing other editors' good-faith posts on article talk pages, and Yworo should not have done so. As I noted on the talkpage early on, such a poll isn't regarded as a valid means of arriving at a consensus. The RfC should be addressed; I was asked to look at it but did not feel comfortable doing so. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, polls are allowed. The ability to start different types of poll and have the polling process described is valuable and should not be eliminated just because some editors choose to ignore the stated process and make up their own rules. I will be taking this to both Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia talk:Polling is not a substitute for discussion for modification to these policies to allow creation, monitoring and maintaining of polls by their originator without regard to other editor's disruptive tactics. Yworo (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Other editors" aren't being disruptive simply because they choose to disregard your "stated" self-imposed rule format; that's why this is here at AN/I. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's impossible to have a specific type of poll, it's due to the disruption of intentionally rude editors. They should not have this power. It should be possible to start a specific type of poll without obviously intentional disruption. Yes, it's disruption, regardless of your opinion. Yworo (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You could suggest the parameters of a poll, but you don't have the authority to make such suggestions compulsory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Which leaves polling at the mercy of the lowest common denominator, which is stupid. The rules need to be revised to allow an editor to run the type of poll they choose to help resolve conflicts. Allowing the rabble to turn every poll into a messy support/oppose poll is completely counter-productive, and the current rules were certainly not made to create this situation intentionally. Different types of polls suit differing situations. Making it impossible to define what type of poll is being held and enforce it is certainly not by intentional design. It's an accident, an oversight, and it should be corrected. Saying "too bad, that's the way it is", rather than acknowledging that it's a problem and working on modifying the rules to correct it is simply Ostrich-behaviour. If you only intent is to stick your head in the sand and pretend it's not a problem, don't bother commenting, it only makes you look dumb. Yworo (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be skating on progressively thinner ice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear not be reading what I actually write and responding to something other than the thrust of my meaning, having a discussion with yourself about what you incorrectly think I mean. I know how people currently interpret the "rules". I am saying that these rules have a detrimental effect on polling that wasn't intended to obtain by those writing said rules. Are you asserting otherwise, that the rules were intentionally made to prevent selection of polling type? Because if you aren't, you're not discussing the same topic I've been discussing. Yworo (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you say when you call wikipedia editors things like "the rabble" and "stupid" and "dumb". But I doubt it. Good luck changing the rules so that "not just anyone" can edit, including the "rabble". Meanwhile, here's the way it is: You cannot dictate things on a talk page or anywhere else. You can propose alternative ideas, and see if consensus supports those alternatives or whether other alternatives are suggested by others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And this prevents selecting one of numerous polling styles that are useful for differing situations which arise. Nobody is saying that other editors can't express their opinions. They just should not be doing in in the middle of an established poll, but rather after the poll, in a subsequent section. When specific polling styles are used for elections, and somebody responds in the wrong way in the wrong place, this is rapidly corrected, buty apparently anyone can choose to disrupt a "show support only for multiple proposals" poll by adding an "oppose" vote in the middle of it. That in itself is dumb, and saying that's just the way it should be doesn't address the difficulty at all. Yworo (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm done here. Feel free to continue to chat among yourselves, I'm unwatching AN/I. Such a time-waster. Yworo (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

When the going gets tough... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yworo has now moved his vendetta on to Peter O'Toole since he cannot have his way on CS Lewis, and is now removing sources, claiming they are unreliable and calling the constructive work done by editor's on the article "vandalism", which is a lie in order to push his POV there as well, this is no longer edit warring on his part, it is transforming into vandalism, he has been warned enough times and he is ignoring us, admin intervention is needed. Sheodred (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yworo (talk · contribs) <<-- Looks like it's time to keep an eye on that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I now received a warning from SarekofVulcan, for posting a caution that he deemed inappropiate and excessive, which I strongly disagree with as the disruption caused is borderline IMO, and there has been no intervention with Yworo despite his "edits" (if you can call them edits) and personal attacks. Sheodred (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In words of one syllable - stop it. This is a content dispute, nothing Yworo is doing is vandalism. Leaving vandalism templates on his page is unhelpful, and will get you into trouble. Use dispute resolution for the content dispute, report him if he does actually vandalise something, edit war or whatever. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Very well, if that does not constitute as vandalism, it is the height of disruptive editing, and he has not been deterred at all yet, and why hasn't it? Sheodred (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's curious that after Elen's warning, and despite the fact that Yworo hasn't edited since early this morning, you felt the need to increase the warning level on his page from -1 to -2. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And to file an EWN report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

... which I have closed as "no violation". Sheodred actually had a good point - but his actions are screwing up any form of credibility that he might have had ... let's not allow it to detract from Yworo's WP:REFACTOR and improper and unique rules for polls (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

AgentPolkaDot removing information from Occupy Cal

Resolved

AgentPolkaDot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing lots of information from Occupy Cal saying that it's unsourced, and a violation of the BLP policy, while most of it (as far as I can tell) is not about people, and sourced, though some is poorly sourced. At least two people have asked him to discuss it, and has been warned about edit warring and blanking pages on his talk page. An editor expressed the concern that he may be a sock of someone, as he knows very much about WP policies, despite being created today. Because checkuser isn't to be used for fishing we thought that ANI would be more appropriate. Pilif12p 23:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone filed this a few minutes before I did this. Pilif12p 23:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a bad case of WP:BITE, with me assuming good faith with that user. CheckUser might produce interesting results if we had a known master, but we don't.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: User blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, not much choice really. The problem is that the material AgentPolkaDot was removing was poorly aourced, but it was sourced; and the identification of the policeman involved is also out there in reliable sources ([27]). I'd suggest that if anyone's going to put the information back, though, it's sourced properly and inline. Black Kite (t) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not a new user, as the following accounts are  Confirmed as each other:

• AgentPolkaDot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SkywardJesus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WheelAhead000001 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CurvyCurvacious (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Downwithsuits (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bigburlyguy408 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hibiscus86732 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Changling49-02 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EPiSoDE058082 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ShakerSJC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 911 is a joke (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cheekytrees (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RadioDancer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• An interested reader 555 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Can o' Clouds (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Model o' Bricks (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dalia327 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked, and I have ramped AgentPolkaDot's block to indefinite. –MuZemike 01:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the article for WP:NPOV. It had a lot of charged words and repeated content.--v/r - TP 01:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

AgentPolkaDot is clearly not the oldest account, but it doesn't matter, really.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion

Resolved

Blocked--v/r - TP 00:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP userUser_talk:202.3.77.183 got blocked for personal attacks and editwarring, but he is hopping IPs now to edit war. This is the second IP User_talk:202.3.77.205. In this diff he continued to editwar revert after being blocked on the previous IP (refer to article history) [28]. Though the article in question is now protected but the real issue was of personal attacks at different places including the AVI page and my talk page. Since he's already blocked does it call for a range block for block evasion? (he'll keep coming back otherwise with his personal attacks). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I WP:DUCK blocked the IP. The block will expire at the same time as the other IP's block.--v/r - TP 00:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou. Expecting another hop though. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Weird activity on fish stubs

This isn't a complaint, and it's not vandalism. I don't know what it is, but the editors won't talk about it, so I thought I'd mention it here. It's a bunch of SPA's editing fish stubs by pasting in what looks like term papers. Here are the three I spotted. It seems like a class project or something, given the sporadic and longterm nature of the editing. I also notified the fish wikproject:

1. Popeye Shiner by Lmb213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Etheostoma neopterum by Jkaitchu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Luxilus coccogenis by Jusabelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgetting for a moment whether they are term papers or not, what is the quality of the articles, in terms of content and references? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really random. At first it was super lousy, now some of them are improving, but they generally include a lot of off-topic material. Instead of being about the fish, they have sections like "recommendations for management". They could be turned into good articles, but they really need some guidance.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I just went ahead and deleted the entire "Management Recommendation" section in the Popeye Shiner article, and included a detailed edit summary. I don't have the time or desire to go through the rest of these articles, but if the others are like this one, there might be a big problem of an editor, or group of editors, though well intentioned, not writing articles in accordance with the NPOV policies. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 03:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The others are exactly like that one, and I'm sure there are some I haven't found. It seems that they're working off some kind of template. I left multiple messages for them asking them to tell their teacher to get in touch, but so far no responses.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If they won't talk, block them. It is possibly an unregistered school project or something like that done by people who are familiar with how we write articles here. That kind of stuff strays into WP:NOTHOWTO and the like.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't exactly block them. It's amazing how much they won't talk, though.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a temporary block for the accounts involved would probably solve the problem. It might seem harsh, but remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and there is clearly a threat to content; as alf said, we don't even know the full extent yet. After getting a block and decent explanation on the talk pages they'll probably get the message that wikipedia isn't the place to write a class project. Or the deadline will pass, they'll all flunk and the danger will pass. Happy days. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If these are good faith edits to stubs, blocks are grossly excessive. Correct deficiencies through the normal editing process — this should not be an ANI matter at all. I'm just finished watching an hour of Sue Gardner video before the UK Wikipedia Chapter, during which she touched upon the serious issue of Rogue Administrators. Tread lightly around new content creators!!! —Tim ///// Carrite (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Carrite. These appear to be good faith edits and I do not see anything here that would require a block. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 12:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No communication is a serious issue for any editor, new or old. It's very disruptive especially in the case of controversial edits. It's hard to miss people posting to your talk, even if you're a new user. that big banner is pretty obvious. While their edits may have been made in good faith, so were the attempts made to communicate with them and stop the disruptive behaviour. If they behaviour continues, and they don't respond, blocking is the only choice a responsible administrator can make. There is nothing else to be done with people who refuse communication.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? Are they reverting to a version with the bad content? Why can't you oversight them as an editor instead of getting out your great big disciplinary bit? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is not at all unreasonable to block the members of a badly done school project if you can't otherwise get their attention. Anyone who just dumps essays into article space and doesn't start communicating is fair game for a block. Hans Adler 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree. Blocking in this situation is excessive. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Reiterating Fifelfoo's point, have they edit-warred with anyone? If not, it would be interesting to see just what grounds there would be for blocking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• I recently made two fish stubs and was paranoid for a second I agree a blocking is not needed. There are other ways to get their attention before that, and it often takes me more than four hours to reply to a talk page message too. Not unreasonable for a seasoned admin, let alone a newbie. I don't think this ANI report was made with anything other than the best intentions, though. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I left messages on the article talk to try to get their attention that way. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Newbies may not understand how the talk page works. We need to be more patient, as long as they are not edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think blocks would be a bad, bad idea. I left a note here because I wanted advice on how to get them to talk, not because I wanted anyone blocked. If I'd known it'd get to this stage, I probably wouldn't have done it. But anyway, a big part of what editing WP can teach students is the sometimes contentious nature of collaboration, and they're certainly getting a lesson in that. My feeling is that their stuff must be due this morning, and their teacher will see what's been going on and probably get in touch and it'll all be OK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

They may not be communicating but it does seem like they are partially getting the mesage. For example User:Lmb213 self removed two of the more problematic sections [29] [30] which they had added back, I think because they were working on this externally and added the newest version. Also if you look at the edit history there, Lmb213 first appeared in 28 September and then did a small amount of of work until now which supports alf laylah wa laylah idea there's likely a deadline soon. Also this IP 216.96.195.102 once added content after Lmb213 appeared which looks a lot like the stuff Lmb213 has been adding so I think we can guess which university this project is for (unless it's a school not university project and the student was just there for research). Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems this isn't something new. Conasauga logperch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Yellowfin madtom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suggest it has happened before. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any indication that these accounts may be related to an education program. When the education programs started, this is what it looked like to me. They looked like SPAs adding term-paper-like material to articles that were common in some way. Failing/refusing/being unable to converse with other editors was an issue for some IEP students but not many. I'm not convinced that these accounts belong to students in an education program but the article should probably be checked for copyright violations if they haven't already. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah revert them first, and if they edit war with you, then block them. causa sui (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone else think "Weird activity on fish stubs" is the most surrealistic AN/I section header we've had in a while? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought something was fishy. Alexandria (chew out) 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Could be worse - could have been weird tasting fish sticks... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try not to take that as a challenge to come up with something surrealisticker next time...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I figured initially that fish stubs are something you would have with tater tots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

List of culinary vegetables

Resolved

 – Lawmakers are idiots, vandals will vandalise. Film at 11. Page protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

List of culinary vegetables‎ has has a spate of anonymous edits attempting to add "Pizza" (usually with foul language as pseudo-latin species names) as a culinary vegetable. They've been from a variety of IP addresses, which is puzzling. Each has been reverted, but they keep coming back. Would this be a good case for semi-protection? Waitak (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If it continues, you could report it to WP:RFPP. You'll usually get pretty fast action there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth the Feds have classified pizza as a vegetable regarding school lunch menus, so perhaps that is what is provoking this bout of vandalism. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 03:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pizza in the United States is fully protected right now for precisely this reason.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Reported to WP:RFPP. Thanks for the feedback. Waitak (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If our government actually has defined pizza as a vegetable, maybe removing it constitutes vandalism (except for the bogus Latin stuff). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly? Pizza is no more a vegetable than ketchup, despite what one nation's government may declare at the behest of the food industry. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say at least a mention of the controversy should be allowed in Pizza in the United States (and it's not as if it's a great article anyway). The story has been reported worldwide, admittedly quite often in a "Hey before we go today, here's a funny story about how stupid Americans are" way, though Americans themselves have contributed too (I liked this; "Because we live in America, where people, who have been elected to public office, do not believe in climate science, but do believe pizza is a vegetable." [31]). Black Kite (t) 07:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That, or perhaps even Pizza as a vegetable along the same lines as the ketchup article. But certainly not "The US Congress said it's now a vegetable, so it must be so." --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A tomato is technically a fruit, so no vegetable classification is possible. Talk amongst yourselves. Doc talk 08:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the Tomato article, it is botanically a fruit, but from the culinary standpoint it's a vegetable. (For example, you'll find tomatoes in vegetable salads but not fruit salads.) Presumably pizza being considered a vegetable has to do with the use of tomato sauce on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Botanically is the key, of course. Cucumbers, pumpkins: seed-bearing plant ovaries are all technically fruits. Sweet things is what we call fruits. Carrots... ah, forget it. Doc talk 13:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Carrots are root vegetables. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure tomatoes actually are, for legal purposes, vegetables, not fruit. (Ketchup, on the other hand...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking the ingredients of Ketchup, I could argue that Ketchup is even more of a vegetable than a plain tomato is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that newborn humans are called "fruit of the womb" (not to be confused with newborn underwear called "Fruit of the Loom".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who would put Fruit of the Loom on a newborn deserves the consequences. Ntsimp (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not underwear on newborns, but newborn underwear, i.e. hot-off-the-loom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting such a classification was possible. Ketchup as a vegetable doesn't suggest that ketchup is a vegetable—it just covers the moronic USDA proposal in the 1980s that would have classified it as such in school lunches, and the subsequent reaction. A pizza article could do likewise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No argument. Thread's... dead. "Grape-Nuts contain neither grapes nor nuts. Discuss." Doc talk 09:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How about the carton of eggs whose label declares: "May Contain Eggs"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Or the bag of peanuts that said "Peanuts" on the front, and "Warning, contains peanuts" on the back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

At least they admit there's no doubt! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find reliable refs for this at the moment, but it would appear that The Colbert Report will soon be running a story about how the consumption of pizza by Wikipedians has tripled over the past 24 hours.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Hurricanefan25/Pizza as a vegetable for AfD DYK... HurricaneFan25 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Threat against head of state

I just noticed an edit that included a death threat against a sitting head-of-state, made from an IP address within that country. Personally, I don't think it's credible, but there it is. I seriously wonder what that editor was thinking, though, given reports from HRW et al concerning that particular country. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The prime-minister is not the head of state, but whatever. Just revert and ignore.--Atlan (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Another editor had blocked the IP in the meantime (well, I could have done that...). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

98.100.197.206 (talk · contribs)

This IP has a long history of vandalism (iover three years). It seems like it's obviously a school IP but a whois doesn't show that it is. They've never been blocked as they usually vandalize with one to three edits then stop for about a week, making a block quite useless. Is there a common practice when dealing with such IPs? OlYeller21^Talktome 20:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the low volume I think just reverting and moving on is easier than giving it a second thought. causa sui (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this sort of stuff ok?

I mean this [32] [33]. He's talking about me. (P.s. No, you're not dreaming, its a Direktor thread containing less than 1,000 words :)) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I smell Kohs. Alexandria (chew out) 21:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert Friedland white-washing

Someone calling themselves User:GlobalMM has been white-washing the biography of Robert Friedland. Freidland seems a modest guy, he calls his company Galactic Resources Ltd, so I can't think who would choose a username of GlobalMM... Anyway, the work of GlobalMM has made the article look like the shiniest CV of the greatest guy in the world.. Any mention of his ethical lapses - http://www.newint.org/columns/worldbeaters/2006/08/01/ - seems to be missing. Worth watching. - Leroule (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a resume. Why not revert the changes? causa sui (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a template and discussion about how the lead section should include a summary of the article's negative points. Right now it has only positive material. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo, disruptive editing after unblock

Stephfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked Sept 3rd for disruptive editing, but was unblocked late October after agreeing to work with a mentor on his talk page. This week, his problems have resumed, and he's been contacted by a slew of editors requesting that he work more productively. I notified his mentor when the problems began, and his mentor has been contributing actively to Stephfo's talk page, but to no avail. Recently, he's begun edit warring, making personal attacks, and slinging accusations of disruption and vandalism at other editors. I, his mentor, and other editors have requested that he stop editing until he can resolve these problems. He responded that he wasn't interested, and planned to continue editing anyway.

Please review his talk page for a small sampling of the issues. I'm afraid that, either due to competence, tendentiousness, or intentions, he's unable to contribute productively to the project, and is only serving as a disruption to the community. I feel that he may need to be reblocked.

Prior to bringing this issue here, I made my intentions clear, and asked him to reconsider, but instead of responding to me, he continued editing and then (presumably) logged off. For context, here's a previous ANI case, but most of his history is contained on his talk page (some of which has been deleted). I can provide more diffs if necessary. Notified Stephfo, Alpha Quadrant, Amatulic, and Dominus Vobisdu. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe the issue is due to the fact that he currently doesn't have a good grasp on several Wikipedia policies (in particular WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, WP:VANDNOT, and WP:NPA#WHATIS). Part of the problem is due to the fact that he appears to have a strong opinion regarding religion, creation, and evolution topics, resulting in further difficulty in remaining neutral when writing in these areas. Eventually, he may make good contributions in the area. I believe he needs to edit in other less controversial areas, where he can gain editing experience. I suggested he do this, but he continued to edit the in the topic. Before he is indefinitely blocked again, perhaps we could just try a six month topic ban from the areas of religion and creation/evolution. After that time period, he should have gained enough experience in editing and would have a better grasp on Wikipedia policies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern here is that he has previously said he will not do X or Y, and then has done X or Y. I am not sure that just a topic ban will do the trick. I may just be cynical, but, that is my opinion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(Stephfo has never specified gender, and for that matter neither have I for myself. For some reason I have always thought of Stephfo as "she" but I'll use "he" established by precedent in this section unless Stephfo feels the need to correct it.)

I was one of several admins who declined one of Stephfo's frequent unblock requests back when Stephfo was indef-blocked. I also supported Stephfo's unblocking.

Since then, Stephfo has made the mistake of creating disputes in controversial areas, activity which resulted in blocking in the past. For the most part (except for in Christian terrorism), Stephfo has adhered to the spirit of WP:BRD, in that he actively uses talk page to challenge reverts. Unfortunately, Stephfo's conduct on talk pages, while civil and polite, borders on tendentious, causing the patience of others to wear thin. Whether deliberately or through misunderstanding, Stepho has given the appearance of ignoring explanations, demanding clarification for answers that have been given repeatedly, as well as some amount of Wikilawyering.

There's a battleground mentality evident here, where Stephfo sees atheism or anti-Christian bias everywhere, and feels that it is proper to "correct" this, not by attempting to re-write anything neutrally, but to introduce opposing bias, regardless of whether that bias is non-neutral, relies on fringe theories, misrepresents sources, or otherwise quotes sources out of context.

I think Stephfo can become a good contributor to Wikipedia. Re-enacting the prior indefinite block would be a mistake. At this point, however, I support the view of Stepho's mentor (Alpha Quadrant) above for a temporary topic ban of areas in which Stephfo evidently has a conflict of interest, namely articles with topics that would be controversial to fundamentalist Christians (creationism, evolution, articles critical of Christianity, and so forth). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem I see is that the editor plainly doesn't have the English as a first language, but unfortunately has taken it as a personal attack that someone asked them about it. A good deal of the disputes seem to centre around not understanding what others are saying, and their own communications are not that great either. We could try a topic ban for a month - tell them to edit anywhere from architecture to zoology, but avoid creationism and intelligent design. I don't want to stop them creating articles - the notability hurdle seems to have eventually been got over, and they can always just use a sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing on article Spartacus

Hi all, despite all the reasoning on the talk page the user User:ian.thomson has persisted in changing the WP:Style of the article Spartacus from BC/AD to BCE/CE.The article was created in 2001, and for the last ten years, with the exception of edit wars, the article has been BC/AD. User:Ian.thomson has been at the forefront of these edits and has put the message (see below) every time he has made this date change.

<!- THIS ARTICLE HAS 'BCE' FOR A LONG TIME, SPARTACUS IS UNCONNECTED TO CHRISTIANITY, DON'T SWITCH IT TO BC! ->

Point 1: other users have explained to him that this is NOT a valid reason to change the dating system. Even if BCE were to be used, Spartacus not being a christian has absolutely no influence in the matter at all.

Point 2: Ian.Thomson has also used the argument. "You're being ridiculous. The earliest version that we can find is a change from BCE. We can see that. That is all "BCE -> BC" can mean and it is only insanity or some other mental deficiency to deny that. We cannot find any earlier version. Ergo, the earliest version, for all intents and purposes, is BCE. Period"

and "Actually, the oldest oldest material was lost in the transition from Nupedia to a Wiki format, which is why we end up with this curious diff featuring an edit by an apparently time travelling conversion script bot. The first edit saved summary indicates that the article was changed from BCE to BC. There would be no reason to do that if there was no older version, it would actually be ridiculous to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)"

I have at length tried to explain to him that judgement on something that you cannot see (i.e Nupedia) or have evidence for is not valid at Wikipedia. The first available source for the article is here and is clearly NOT BCE, also being called insane is not pleasant either. This edit war has being going on for the last 6 months or so with no decisive action being taken.

Additionally, there was no consensus on the talkpage] and so no change to BCE/CE is merited. Please read the recent disscussion of the BCE/CE problem here. All the arguments are laid out in full.

If you require any more information please let me know. I shall notify all those involved, thank you. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so concerned about it? What POV are YOU trying to push? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The earliest version that can be found is a switch from BCE to BC, thus the earliest version is BCE. I am not the only editor to restore it to BCE, and I am not the first, that has been shown on the talk page, you are lying when you say I'm at the forefront of all those edits.

How else can "BCE -> BC" be read? You have failed to answer that in any sane or thoughful way. That is the edit summary for the earliest stored version, hence the earliest version that we can see is really BCE. You'll find that I leave a number of other articles alone, so your accusation of me being the POV-pusher here is false. That, combined with your misrepresentation of my claims and edits here, along with calling good-faith edits vandalism, and making an ad hominem attack by comparing those reverting to BCE with Obama birther conspiracy theorists, really show that you're the POV-pusher here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me Baseball bugs, but shouldn't you be saying that to the person who made the changes and not the person who is reverting them? Please read the arguments. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Could it be that you're wrong? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is no fun for anyone, so I bothered to write this out here. If you can suggest a better option other than letting people change the dating system surreptitiously, then I'm all ears. Wrong about what? the first version is clearly BC, as is made clear on the talk page, and there was no agreement for change. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)