Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

Unresolved

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

MartinPhi restricted

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

Subpage hasn't been edited in 2 days. Timestamping this section to allow archiving. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations by CarolSpears on Main page

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.

Discussion closed pending Carol's unblock and potential RfC.

---

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

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

The last paragraph is the most glaring copyvio:

Wikipedia, sixth revision by User:CarolSpears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is serious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plagiarism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh, something else; I don't seem to be making myself clear. My point was that, although academics see plagiarism as a serious issue, it is part and parcel of academia, and it's not the only reason that many academics won't contribute to Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

User is editwarring to restore her version of articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further copyvios by CarolSpears

Matricaria recutita

The long lists are exact copy-pastes:

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

Tripleurospermum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attempted bribe by CarolSpears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request that CarolSpears be blocked for personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those new to the discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI paragraph 2 is a public domain US govt source, so no copyvio (in fact, we should be copying and pasting all of these in). For honesty' sake, however, it should be cited as such. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to end this discussion

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

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

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

• Endorse - give her an honourable way out and focus on the future. Abtract (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - just a non-admin viewpoint here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- Carol's obviously feeling that she's beset from all sides right now, and it's going to be hard to help her improve without a breather. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse this one. Although I supported the siteban - that was only until carol showed some indication she knew what she had done wrong. Baseball Bugs - your opinion matters - admin or non admin. Viridae^Talk 10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse points one and two (but the mentor relationship must be friendly and should be someone acceptable to Carol); however, I don't endorse point three—if a block/ban becomes necessary, someone will surely propose one, but spelling it out at this point would create an expectation of that outcome were future problems to arise, compromising our ability to make a fair decision at that point. Everyking (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Someone needs to direct Carol to this discussion, in case she refuses to agree with the above - partially the 2nd statement. D.M.N. (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, she's acknowledged this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse with caveats: I endorse this as long as CarolSpears promises not to make personal attacks or insults, or create further copyvios. She should also help, in a big way, to clean them up. Violation of these conditions should result in a long (or even indef) block...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 13:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment "...small, light, punishment of carol." The purpose of a block or a ban is not to punish a user, but to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Nobody has volunteered to mentor, and CarolSpears has not requested mentorship. Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'll volunteer to mentor her in regards to "effective communication", but I am not by any means an expert in copyright law, so someone else will need to at least monitor the situation. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse: With Carol acknowledging this, I see no reason why this proposal cannot move forward. seicer | talk | contribs 17:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I will stand as a potential mentor, too. I am uninterested in applying my own judgment on what may be copyvio, plagiarism or sticking close to the source, but I am willing to act in regard to this editors dealing with such complaints and claims. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - good plan, IMO. Let's do this - Alison ^❤ 01:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A new addition:

4. I will do the favor of being the one who cleans up after her god forbid future things come up. Although I'm reallly on the hot seat doing that.^Mitch32^contribs 03:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal

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

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

More to consider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allow me to present a different perspective. CarolSpears not only disrupted my best work for months, but has interfered with efforts to expand its scope. I have been coaching and training new volunteers in this area. If this site had 100 such people, each doing 2 restorations a week, then we could gain 10,000 featured pictures a year. I run a workshop for that purpose in userspace and am building a tutorial on Wikibooks. I conominate with new people who are getting started in the area. If CarolSpears had been willing I would have loved to have collaborated with her. Instead she selectively drives new people away. This is quite frustrating to one small corner of Wikipedia, and perhaps an important one (image restorations may become featured content after all), but to the vast majority of volunteers it bears little relevance. Then Shoemaker discovers serial plagiarism and copyright violation--problems that have actually run on the site's main page. That is a major problem, one that should concern us all. In my opinion, and probably his as well, her resistance to feedback after that problem was identified constitutes grounds for an indefinite block. The full scope of her contributions requires review. This will be quite a task because she is a prolific editor. I was stunned--and I imagine so was he--that there was any resistance at all to such an obvious call; more so, to see senior administrators insist that she ought to remain unblocked and unrestricted without any mentor in place. She directs a series of insults at Shoemaker while the thread is ongoing, including calling him a prick, and when presents diffs of the personal attacks people who normally have good heads on their shoulders claim not to see them. I immediately accepted her apology when she provided one and was ready to hope she intended to reform, but it is already apparent that the apology was hollow. See this if you doubt that.[21] You suppose I seem shrill; your own priorities mystify me. I reserve my sympathies for Steve Crossin, a very talented and amiable up-and-coming editor who maxed out his ISP's upload cap last month trading interim work while we collaborated on an FPC drive between California and Australia. The image we worked on will almost certainly be promoted to featured picture, but he might never return to FPC again. After an ordeal like this who can blame him? And why should I keep trying to coach new people into this area when senior Wikipedians such as yourself divert the goodwill Steve deserves, and pour it upon the person who is driving him away? I coauthored WP:DE so we could deal with this type of problem before losing too many productive editors. This isn't about my personal interpretation; it's about applying a solution the comunity already accepted. Durova^Charge! 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Durova, it is clearly a given you're thinking more of the project than your own worries over this user: What do you think should happen now? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A conduct RFC has been suggested. Maybe that's the way to go. Durova^Charge! 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

LessHeardvanU: I don't care how it's settled that much. However, I was explicitly told to go away, and attacked in this very thread. [22] Your reaction to my comments about that, to ignore it and instead cast aspersions on me, claiming that there was no chilling effect, but I was just upset because I didn't get my way, is way out of line. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

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

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

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

I'm not sure I understand the context here. Why was the article redirected instead of rewriting it or simply removing the questionable material? Was Carol making a distinction between German Chamomile and Matricaria recutita where so distinction actually exists? Everyking (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

With all this plagarism, and dismissive defense of such actions, I support an indefinite block and community ban for a person so wholly intent on ignoring both Wikipedia policy and generally acceptable standards of writing. She seems uninterested in changing, and seeks to insult all who try to talk to her. Those who defend her as flippant ought to go look at my block record, and either undo most of my block history, or accept that her attitude is completely unhealthy at best, and downright permanently in opposition to the project at worst (not even 'at worst'). Block and ban. ThuranX (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The situation for Carol seems to get worse and worse. This latest revert was obviously very ill-advised, and especially baffling if Shoemaker is correct about these things being different names for the same plant. As an alternative to a ban, perhaps we could empower a mentor to guide her and, if necessary, apply blocks at his or her discretion. The mentor could require that she limit the pace of her editing so that he or she would not have so much to review. Everyking (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the redirect to German Chamomile was the last version before Carol's version. There is no page content at Matricaria recutita previous to that. I don't know why Carol made a new duplicate page at the Latin name, instead of reworking the page at the common name, but they really are the same plant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

She probably made the page at the scientific name because plants on Wikipedia are titled with their scientific names, and this one needs correctly moved to its scientific name. If someone had asked, she might have said that. However, this move, because the common name was already a redirect requires administrative action. If the plant is being moved back to the common name to revert Carol, that is wrong and is creating more of a mess. Someone could just explain the policy to her rather than continuing with the reversions. The article needs to be settled in at its scientific name, where it belongs, not at this or any other common name. --Blechnic (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not moved there to revert carol, the page was at German Chamomile for some time, then Carol made a second, completely different page on the plant by editing a redirect. Reverting her edits of questionable copyright status thus had to go back to the redirect. I'm all for moving the (as far as I can tell with google) non-copyright infringing German Chamomile over the redirect. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To try and explain this another way: German Chamomile has not been touched; the changes to remove the problematic material edited a completely different page on the same subject. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears from this she didn't realize there was an article at German chamomile. I didn't know it was the common name for the plant, and I use chamomile as a dye. Whatever, it's created a mess by not going by plants policy in the first place, then entrenching a version under the wrong name. I think Carol can be rather tough to work with, but I think this particular situation could have been handled with a bit of discussion and explanation rather than the reversions. Wikipedians ought to go for a 1 revert, then discuss it rule, rather than the 3rr. --Blechnic (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

At this stage, with all this controversy, there is also no way to ask for the proper uncontroversial move necessary to correct this situation. --Blechnic (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be bold and just tidy things up a bit there. I need to check though that this isn't some exception to the plants policy. Also, I believe Carol was trying to separate things out a bit. For example, having different pages on banana as a fruit, plant species and plant genus. I think the same idea was happening here: page on the plant species, medicinal plant and dye (or whatever). The tendancy should be to keep things together until there is enough length to justify a split. Sometimes keeping things together on one page makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. Carcharoth (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I was under the impression that Carol had moved the taxobox and image from the common name to the scientific name. I see that she actually wrote a new infobox (along with her other additions that have been controversial) and then removed the infobox from the common name article. The fact that the picture is the same in both, however, suggests she was working with essentially the same material, which is why I described this as a split. The point I was making, Shoemaker, was that when you did the redirect, you should have checked which title was the correct location for the plant, and whether any of what you were turning into a redirect needed to be merged into the destination page. As it is, Blechnic has now added the infobox from Carol's version. I will go and stick Image:Koeh-091.jpg in there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. Of our chamomile pages, only Roman Chamomile mentions a dye. Is that the only one used as a dye? Carcharoth (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth,you're forgetting I'm not an admin. I can't move a page over a redirect without doing a GDFL-violating copy-paste merge. There's no point criticising me for not moving German chamomile to its correct location when I can't. =) I am sorry about the taxobox, I've have been editing articles for which there is no taxobox of late, so didn't notice its omission. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've added a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Chamomile_soup - a discussion that Carol started at some point. Discussing the copyright/plagiarism issues at WT:PLANTS might also be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we let the plant editors figure it out and decide what is where under what name. They know what is going on, and they know their naming policy, and there are a number of plant admins who can handle the necessary moves. For now, there is a discussion on the requested controversial moves, and on the article's talk page, should anyone feel the need to weigh in, and so no one can accuse me of anything in requesting the move. --Blechnic (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Move?

This threads nearly 140kb long. Move to subpage? D.M.N. (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth it: It seems to have stalled. Probably just best to let it be archived, and, at Carcharoth's sugfgestion, I'll open an RfC after Carol's unblocked. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Pats1

Resolved

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

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

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

Now

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

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

Almost too late, no?

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

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

Possible threatening by Pats1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one cares, I fear it is over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pats1 explains why he was attracted to Jack Youngblood

"as soon as I saw all the IP's activity on the page in the contribs I went over and checked it out"

As an administrator who has been in a heated exchage with an editor he admits he looked at the activites of the user and went there. Upon arriving he made huge copy-edits and refused to pause (he was asked to pause) and he refused to participate in the WP:CONSENSUS that was going on. Yes or no, is this proper? Is this pouring gasoline on a fire? Is this civil? Is this wikistalking given the past bad blood? Have ANY users EVER been blocked for this behavior? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. I was popping back and forth between Chris Long and one of the various ANIs and didn't have the ANI on my watchlist, so I just used your contribs to find the right link. Pats1 ^T/C 02:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good one72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Below are the key principles that were supposed to be looked into 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Stalking

2) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor. If an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring can be appropriate, but constantly editing in another user's tracks is always a violation of the courtesy and civility expected in users. More limited stalking behavior, including making occassional edits made with the intention to harass, is also unacceptable. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Intentionally provoking other editors

3) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

My findings

My understanding is that if I had been better liked, if I had not been repetitive, if I had not been so hysterical then this matter would have been reviewed substantively. I think that is a policy that may need to be looked at. In the future if there is someone as bad or worse than me in terms of presentation then perhaps they can be told that from the outset. Let them know to cool their jets, that if there is a finding in their favor that article in question will be restored so that folks won't feel like there is no hope for justice. I confess I could have been better. I never dreamed it could end a case without review. Maybe there is a way to prevent it for others.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so funny, but I will always know I was right

[24] Annoying, hysterical, wore out welcome, consipracy theorist, and right. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Defence

Childish games and childish fights, have spread 'round,

And bring forth those who merely want to play.

Of course, our hero would be called unsound,

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

That they are unique, and problems they found,

That are just mere phantoms; but he must pay.

And so it begins, more who do not care,

Poor Wikipedia they will not spare.

To many, the poor Lass is just a tool

For venting their rage or spreading their hate;

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

You into thinking that it is our fate.

We can move on now, just follow the rule

And realize that they will never be sate.

People as these trouble to bring they must

But are their actions and claims really just?

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

Since there is nothing to claim for a ground,

Once you open your eyes and choose to see,

Everything here that's waiting to be found.

One who makes claims that all accounts are free

Of mention; And he only circles 'round

The same point, athough the proof contrary

Is given; his own mind merry.

And of the others, I will now proceed

To give account of their action and tell

How from that sacred truth they have receed.

The one he mocks, the one he tries to sell

A story of Verify not. This deed

He spread, edit made, and so pages fell

At his hand and inaccuracies spread

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

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

Since Melodrama has reared its large head;

That awful beast is here to ruin fun

As it demands in earnest to be fed.

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

Will be spared. I think that is enough said.

So shall I end; is it really too soon?

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

Editor I am, a Writer you see,

Who spends all of his time with research much

And gives my findings to sacred Wiki.

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

It is really more than what has to be,

And all this needs just a delicate touch.

So when there are those who rush to accuse,

It is poor Wiki who will surely lose.

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

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

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

But rather how you haul rhyme through the mud

Play loose with rules and end up writing prose.

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

The iambics limp, and almost anything goes.

The measured art that Wyatt and Byron used

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottava Rima blocked

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

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

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

His block log is really made up of only a few issues. A few cases of edit warring and a single legal threat issue (where it was greatly disputed if there was even an actual threat having been made). If you're saying your other piece of evidence of disruption is that he removes message on his talk page, then maybe I'm missing something. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, the thing is that apparently Ottava Rima actually has this whole bunch of books in front of him anytime he writes about something. So I'm pretty sure that whatever statements he makes are actually correct. And I can understand the tendency to revert someone when "it says so right here right in front of me!". <scratches head> The frustrating thing is that yeah, he's very much a prescriptivist (aka wikilawyer), and not good at the whole consensus building thing. I think it's mutually exclusive. I think we're going to get more and more people like him on wikipedia though, wikilawyering is very much creeping in (think of stuff like "this policy is non-negotiable" that's showing up in places). I'll go talk with him some. He has been useful occaisionally. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, call me crazy but isn't this not how blocks are supposed to be used? "Blocked till he admits he was wrong"? WTF? -- Ned Scott 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCK;

Important note – Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

(my underlining)- in which acknowledgment of there being a problem is a prerequisite to resolving the issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Block review

Ottava Rima has been labeled as a wikilawyer, but I don't think that's case here. A wikilawyer is someone who is trying to intentionally game the system, rather than honestly feeling that one should have a strict adhesion to rules. From my own experience with him, Ottava Rima seems to be the latter. Ottava Rima has really only been active for about six months, and I can understand that he still holds a very strict view about rules and Wikipedia.

I'm not sure if he's actually wrong on most of this stuff, either. Rather, it's the confrontational way he says things and his uncompromising approach that puts people off. I think that's something must of us will agree on.

Other editors are annoyed at Ottava. They're greatly annoyed at Ottava. They feel like a lot of time has been wasted trying to explain things. Wikipedia, in general, is very quick to dismiss people if we don't feel they're helping out, regardless of what they're actually doing. I understand that we can't hold everybody's hand, but a block like this doesn't seem appropriate. File an RfC, do a temp topical ban if you must, but don't twist his arm and go "say you were wrong". -- Ned Scott 07:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Some admins seem to have this approach though. It is fortunate that people who think that such admins are wrong in their approach do not adopt the same method of blocking them until they admit they are wrong. I'm not greatly enamoured with Ottava Rima's approach either, but then I don't agree with Moreschi's approach either. However, I don't think either should be blocked 'until they mend their ways'. However, blocking as a warning does help, sometimes. The recent block of User:Alansohn is a good example of this. People reacting badly to a block is also to be expected though. Don't judge people purely by their reaction to a block. Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole "prescriptivist" approach ("These are the rules, and thou shalt obey them") is confrontational and uncompromising. And it pisses people off. So a good approach is to wean people off of prescriptivism as quickly as possible, which is what I'm doing with Ottava Rima now.

Unfortunately, as it stands at the moment, there are a number of people pushing for a prescriptivist approach on wikipedia in general (and I've failed to stop them), so despite my efforts to help Ottava Rima improve somewhat, in future, you should expect more people to start behaving like Ottava Rima is doing now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC) And those people will start nominating admins, and the admins will then ban you for trolling. Cue the soviet wikipedia jokes  ;-)

Arbcom is leading the way on moving from descriptive policies to prescriptive policies. Maybe our sheer size makes this necessary. Perhaps its time to formally announce the death of "Being an admin is no big deal" and "Ignore all rules". Organizations need to change as they grow. Even in backwater articles where you can edit without anyone bothering you, bots come by and impose uniformity according to some guideline somewhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the sheer depth of animosity the prescriptivist approach has caused here, I don't think it's a good thing. Organizations do occasionally need change as they grow and the environment around them changes, but this does not imply that such changes should therefore be pathological! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Rather the opposite, the larger the organization, the more damage is caused by pathological changes. You say that organizations need to be able to change; so it should be easy to see that approaches which tend to which preclude future change (a property of prescriptivism) are pathological by your own admission even! :-P

Proposal for refactoring Ottava Rima's block

I propose to undo Moreschi's conditional block and to reblock for one week, unconditionally (and including time served, if I can ever work that out). A week seems about right, in view of Ottava Rima's block log and persistence in disruptive editing, attacks on users, and steadfast refusal to consider the effects of their own behaviour and demeanour. I do see an indefblock in Ottava Rima's wikifuture, unfortunately, if they stay on the track they're on, but I hope they'll be able to pull up. And if not, it's still proper for us to lead up gradually to a really serious block or ban, rather than going straight to indeff from 24 hours. If one week doesn't have the hoped-for educational effect, one month might suitably be next.

About Moreschi's block: I'm against using indeffblocking to squeeze apologies or acknowledgements out of people. Admins aren't here to humiliate users, however poorly they behave. While it's OK for a block to come with conditions for unblocking, those conditions should not go beyond purely practical undertakings for the future. For instance: a block of Ottava Rima might have the condition "You will be unblocked as soon as you undertake to not edit disruptively". (Note that such a condition would not require OR to admit that s/he ever has been editing disruptively, even though disruption would be the block reason. The user is not to be forced to admit something they don't believe, or in fact forced to admit anything.) Or, "as soon as you promise not to write bad poetry on ANI". Or ,"as soon as you find yourself a promising and willing mentor, to be vetted by the blocking admin". In the case of broken promises, even broken in good faith (see Friday's nice essay on competence), the user would be promptly re-blocked. Something like that would IMO be the second best way of refactoring Moreschi's block; but I prefer one week unconditionally, per above. What do you say? " Do you accept it, Moreschi? Bishonen | talk 14:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

• Blocks are preventative. Once there is an undertaking to contribute in an appropriate manner (which would include, if not necessary acknowledge, the problematic area) then there is no reason for a block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. But while you're about it, Less, could you also respond to my actual suggestion and question, (="I propose to undo Moreschi's conditional block and to reblock for one week, unconditionally...Do I have community approval for my proposed action?"), please? After all, most blocks are unconditional. It's the normal thing around here. My discussion of Moreschi's block and of the kinds of conditions that are unacceptable versus acceptable was more of a digression. Oh noes, have I entangled myself again? :-( Bishonen | talk 14:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC).
    • Um, that would be no to an unconditional block of a week. I do not see how, other than preventing OR from contributing for seven days, how such a sanction achieves the desired result. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• My only qualm with this is that Ottava Rima has shown no understanding of why he was blocked. At the risk of stating the obvious, Wikipedia is a community project. Ergo, we have to work with each other, ergo, there has to be compromise and give and take. Which usually means letting some things drop, not making things personal, and being open to compromise and the possibility of fallibility. If you can't go along with that, unless you're God, you're a tendentious editor. Hence the block - trying to make Ottava Rima realise that his current approach to his fellow editors is unacceptable. A crude way of doing so, yes, but I couldn't think of any other.
• But, yes, the block reduction is fine, though I would like it to come with a civility supervision and a "open promise" that further tendentious editing will be followed by a month-long-block, followed by indef. Accceptable? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • Are you saying you'd like to supervise their civility...? :P But, yes, sure, suits me. Stating the progression that I actually had in mind (one week—>one month—>indef) up front in the log at this time would be informative for the user and others, so why not. Fine. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC).
  • For the record, I still don't see anything wrong with a conditional block that says "No unblock unless you promise to change your ways for the better towards your fellow editors". Again, many 3RR blocks are kind of conditional: you can usually get yourself unblocked if you promise to stay away from the article you edit-warred over. But if we don't like that, I would like to see OR put on civility supervision, at the least. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the 3RR users aren't forced to say they've been bad. That's the sticking point for me. Ottava Rima must be allowed to insist that their way towards their fellow editors is perfectly fine, however far-fetched it may seem to some of those fellow editors. Leave people some dignity. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

agreed here . the assumption in blocking policy is that after a short block, people learn, and if not and they continue, we do sucessively longer block, at a reasonable degree of escalation, until they either do or they get to indef--and it takes multiple stages to get there--not 2 days--1 month--indef, but more like 24 h, 48 h, 1 week, 2 w, 1m , 2m, 6m, .... . The assumption being that they will learn at some stage--anything faster than this is punitive, Immediate use of indef must be kept for really outrageous disruption, not just over-persistent harping on a point. And we do not have a policy of blocking for 3RR or the like indefinitely until someone promises to be good--that has to be kept for people returning from a well-earning long block when the alternative is not to readmit them into the community because of the amount of distrust engendered. This is nowhere near that. OR is an editor I've run into conflict with myself, but the way to have dealt with the problems he caused at the wikiProject would have been to simply ignore his requests that they get involved where they didnt want to get involved, not start arguing the history of the Freemasons with him. It was a bad indef block for a vague offense, the conditions are unreasonable, and I am prepared to unblock without further ado or any conditions, with the usual understanding that resumption will cause a reblock for a slightly longer time than the present one, as usual. I think Moresci is not showing his usually excellent sense of proportion here. DGG (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• You're right- the longest block before was only 48 hours? We can do better than jumping from that to indefinite. He does need to change his approach or be shown the door, but we can give him a few more shots at this. I'm not sure explicitly spelled out future block lengths are needed; I think we can play this by ear. (But I've no major objection to them, either.) I don't care much for declarations of intent to improve- I want to see a demonstration of improvement. Maybe it sounded weird above for me to suggest that his blanking criticism from his talk page was a factor. But I think it's appropriate- most of the disruptive behavior we see here comes down to one basic problem: a lack of willingness of an editor to put observation of community norms ahead of their own whims or agenda. Any indication of an "I don't care what you say, I'll do what I want" attitude is a serious problem. Friday (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked, and Ottava Rima says he'll certainly do his best. I don't expect immediate perfection from him, but a willingness to learn goes a long long way with me. I was going to support Bishonen's position, but with that discussed, I'm willing to support DGG. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I think Ottava Rima has been classically disruptive just here on ANI—shrug. But then perhaps his worst actions in the thread above only stand out in their full ugliness for people who're aware of the background to them. Those are his flame-thrower attempts, here and here, to re-ignite the just reluctantly subsiding all-out forest fire between John Carter and Geogre. (Place any refs to WP:AGF on my talkpage, please.) Congratulations to John Carter for not rising to OR's siren invitations to join in a fresh round of Geogre-bashing. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

That was not very politic, indeed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it was. It didn't succeed, but it might easily have. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

Oof. ^^;; He shouldn't do that though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that Ottava has finally listed the material in some (but not all) of the sources at issue (most notably absent are the Masonic sources like Phoenix Lodge No. 9 and Masonic Records 1716-1886) in a section on his talk page. I have replied with my reasoning, and I invite the discussion participants here to view the documentation for themselves here. MSJapan (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I figure he's posting stuff you're asking for as quickly it comes in from the libraries. Told you so! I think he's pretty much acting in good faith here, not to mention working pretty darn hard, eh? :-) Frankly, there's no way I can keep up with him when it comes to sourcing.

Now if he could just be a bit better at cooperating with people. But he's willing to learn that too. Can you help him out on that count?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. He is making baseless statements on reliability of sources he's never seen, and is misconstruing statements in order to spin the argument off in a different direction to avoid admission of incorrect assumption (see the later comments on King Solomon's temple in that thread - I am very clear as to what I mean, and Ottava is interpreting it wrongly in order to show that i suposedly dson't know what I'm talking about). Until he is willing to admit that Freemasonry is not an area in which he is a qualified scholar and conducts himself as a willing student who will accept the opinions of others more experienced than he I can't help him. MSJapan (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that does sound familiar, in several different ways. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

+ One question, could you point out where in his recent edits he has made those baseless statements on reliability of sources? I'm no expert in the field myself, so that would be very useful information for me. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

+ I just asked on his talk page, he is getting the Phoenix Lodge 30 document (30, not 9, apparently) shipped to him from France. That might take a while. <scratches head>. He's definitely going out of his way to look up the sources you're asking for in more detail. Do you think that the sources won't tell him the whole story? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, read the thread; it's pretty obvious. Whenever I disprove something, he spins the argument in a new direction so that what ever I said about one thing is "wrong" in whatever new context Ottava makes up. Fundamentally, though, the baseless statement is Smart's status as a Freemason, and as a corollaey, his authorsdhip of A Defence of Freemasonry. Out of the seven sources Ottava provides (three of which are from the one scholar who blatantly asserts Smart's Masonic ties in the late 1960s despite admitting he gets all his Masonic info from a secondary and fanciful source (Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry) and the subsequent research by Rose in 2005), not one has any proof of Smart's membership. Without proof, a statement that smart is a Mason is baseless. Not one source asserts him as the author of Defence of Freemasonry, or asserts that the book was noteworthy (which was in fact the starting point of the whole debacle). The only Google hit out of the top 50 for "Christopher Smart" and "famous Freemason" that is relevant is the WP article, despite the hundreds of "famous freemason" pages out there. Conversely, Googling Robert Burns and "Freemason" has plenty of relevant GHits (WP article is 4) and his membership info is available (1781 in Tarbolton). So Ottava's claim of "loss of records" because of the time is baseless. He also claims Phoenix Lodge is the authority on British Freemasonry. Kim Bruning says the material is coming from France. Wouldn't Quatuor Coronati Lodge in the UGLE building, who has been publishing peer-reviewed transactions for 120 years, be a much better source for British Freemasonry? I posit Phoenix is an authority because it supports Ottava's viewpoint, not because he knows any better. That's the problem, really; he doesn't know any better, and acts as if he does.

This is why Ottava repeatedly asks for evidence (see his talk page for further developments as per the thread noted above), I give it to him, and all of a sudden, that wasn't what we were talking about. AGF is gone, and I do not support an unblock, because his attitude indicates that he is going to go right back to putting what he thinks things say in the articles. I'd note that John Carter replied to Talk:A Song to David#What Rose States supporting my assertion that Ottava is interpreting sources rather than stating their content. I'm wasting a lot of time dealing with tactics I've dealt with before from people unwilling to admit their lack of knowledge. Ottava shows no willingness to see anything but that which he believes, despite having no training or experience in the field of scholarly Masonic research. MSJapan (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the Quatuor Coronati Lodge the source where he should be getting Masonic Records 1716-1886? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about overall quality of research. The only Phoenix Lodge I know of that does research is not the one Ottava is talking about, which is why I'm skeptical as to where the material is actually from. A lot of people write things about Masonry; they aren't always accurate. QC, however, requires a minimum of a Master's degree in a field to submit papers (so one demonstrates knowledge of how to research); a lodge, even a Lodge of Research, generally will take whatever is sent in, unless a read-through shows blatant errors. Another problem is where Ottava's sources are getting their Masonic info, which is apparently out of thin air. In order to avoid addressing this, Ottava keeps changing the subject parameters. MSJapan (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean Phoenix #30 does not do research? <scratches head>... <checks website>. [25] "La Loge Phoenix est dédiée à la recherche..." . Am I totally confused somehow? I don't know much about the other sources though, like I said, that's not my area of expertise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion shows what i think is wrong with this block. There's a content dispute, and the place to resolve it is not here, and the way to resolve it is not by banning of the the people in the dispute for the same kind of receptive intricate and specialized argument that the other sides seems also to be using. I can see why people are frustrated at it, but the usual way to deal with this is to find a relatively neutral wording that leaves the question open--we arent trying to establish the historical truth here. To get involved in this sort of a situation over the exact status of someone two centuries ago who seems to have said he was a Mason but where there are no records to prove it is a little ridiculous here. This is a place for the specialized academic journals, where this sort of dispute can be carried on for years in the customary fashion there--and where almost certainly neither party will convince the other in the end, either. Time to end this here, and let someone help them find a suitable wording; out job is to tell them both to cool it.

If no one has anything else relevant to say, I'll unblock tomorrow. DGG (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing else, DGG. But I'm wondering if you might have overlooked this brief post in the reams of writing above. Or if it's irrelevant in your book. Geogre and John Carter have recently been in violent conflict, from which they have just emerged, battle-scarred and gingerly patted-down by many concerned users. Ottava Rima is himself in conflict with John Carter (what? really?)[26], and in the diffs I've cited above, Ottava attempts to get on John's good side by a string of nasty insults against Geogre. All happening in this very thread. I don't care so much about the insults—non-touchy Geogre clearly shrugged them off—but as for Ottava's cynical attempt to deflect John Carter's annoyance and get his support via a re-ignition of the John-Geogre flame-out... heck, if that's not disruption, I must not understand the word. That was one of the main reasons I offered to shorten Moreschi's block, rather than to unblock outright. Bishonen | talk 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

I have no issues with that, by the look of things. Did you manage to talk with Moreschi? If so, don't forget to link or summarize here! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what has happened is that the thing has gotten so far afield that nobody knows what the hell it is anymore. It started out as a request for assessment - the project said no, Ottava refused to drop it. On further investigation, the sources Ottava claimed asserted not only Smart's membership as a Mason but his authorship of a supposedly notable book didn't support the statements made with anywhere near the degree of certainty claimed. Ottava refused to accept this, and proceeded to editwar over this until he was blocked. Now we've gone from questions of Smart's Masonic membership to somehow talking about the historical veracity of the Freemasons having built King Solomon's Temple because David was connected to the Freemasons (which has on truth to it whatsoever, and no reputable researcher believes this, though it is stated in the article on A song to David and was also in the main Christopher Smart article until I removed it to Talk as redundant). This is not just a content dispute - this is an editor refusing to admit interpretation of sources, an editor ignoring sources that don't fit their viewpoint, taking material in sources out of context, claiming sources are things they are not, and spinning arguments in circles to get that angle where he's right and everyone else is wrong. This has nothing to do with content; it is in fact a pattern of remorseless tendentious editing. Once Ottava is unblocked, we're going to go through the same thing all over again because he's not going to leave it alone. MSJapan (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave my above comment, but I've got a better idea. Kim Bruning suggested on his talk page that he try to mediate the issue. I'll accept that, but I'm also certain that if Ottava is free to edit, he will simply revert everything back to the way he wants it to be, and try to do everything I've been pointing out to him should not be done for various reasons. There is at least one clear instance of source interpretation already, so I have concerns over the accuracy of those reversions. Therefore, if Ottava is to be unblocked, I would suggest he be topic banned from Christopher Smart and all related articles until the issue is resolved. MSJapan (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a point on either side of this debate (and often, I'd agree with Moreschi's line of thought on this). However, in this particular case, I think more benefits would be gained if Bishonen's approach is enforced, in combination with continued counselling where necessary (rather than with an editing restriction). If there is doubt that 1 week is not sufficient, then I don't see the harm in both sides coming to a common point of 2 weeks - no conditions. If he gets it, then the matter ends there. If he doesn't, and continues, then a month. How's that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced such a topic ban would be a net positive for wikipedia at the moment. I'll go talk with MSJapan a little bit. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban circumvent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back after block and cleans all notions of bad behavior on his user talk with first edit.

Then engages in edit warring again (User:24.205.234.250 on Talk:United_States)

• 1st revert: 12:16, 19 June 2008 User:24.205.234.250
• 2nd revert: 01:03, 20 June 2008 User:66.17.49.165 (during block)
• 3rd revert: 01:19, 20 June 2008 User:66.17.49.165 (during block)
• 4th revert: 05:43, 20 June 2008 User:69.239.171.174 (during block)
• 5th revert: 22:16, 20 June 2008 User:24.205.234.250

Engages in the same action on Potential superpowers he was edit warring and blocked over earlier. Using kommersant.com as reliable source for Russia being a superpower. And tries to use encarta as source for Russia being a potential superpower (this edit).

Confuses and misleads others with his multiple connections (possible open proxies as stated above). On Talk:Potential_superpowers he makes a comment with User:64.69.158.252 first 1, then refers to himself with User:24.176.166.135 and his other connection as some people 2, and asks others to give his other IP's a rest 3. Suggest anyone that has a problem with his sources must be hating Russia 4, accuses another editor of bashing articles 5 and makes other very unconstructive remarks 67.

IP he uses that was not mentioned in other entries before is User:64.69.158.252. Species8473 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This person was blocked temporarily with the IP User:24.180.3.127 at 30 May 2008 for "harassment and personal attacks" see User talk:24.180.3.127. And with that IP engaged in edit warring on Superpower (history). This caused the article to get full protection. The same happened to Great power (history) after edit warring involving this user (there with IP User:24.205.234.250). Species8473 (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The two accounts listed above by Species8473, 66.17.49.165 (talk · contribs) and 69.239.171.174 (talk · contribs), have been each blocked one year by ST47 as open proxies. I suggest that Species8473 should open up a WP:SSP report and list all the suspected socks there, since this editor appears to be a prolific sock factory. I've proposed a long block for the puppetteer, 24.205.234.250 (talk · contribs), over at AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Savvy10

Problem section: American Idol (season 7)#Elimination chart. User:Savvy10 is repeatedly making edits to the Elimination Chart despite general consensus to not include the information s/he is adding, and multiple reverts/undos from several users. In the weeks of 4/30 and 5/7, Syesha Mercado and the eliminated contestants for those weeks were the last two left on stage before the other contestant was eliminated. Because the show never expressly stated that that Mercado and the others were the "Bottom 2" for those weeks, and reality television in general attempts to create drama, regular editors of the Idol articles have decided that it would be wrong to include a "Btm 2" field for those weeks. Including bottom 2/3 information only when Ryan Seacrest explicitly notes it had been discussed at length or mentioned here, here, here, here, and here. The last link was the latest incarnation of this seemingly never ending debate, when editors new to the article had shown up and attempted to include "Btm 2" fields on the chart. It seemed that by the end of it, most people advocated to just leaving the chart as it originally was and moving on—after all, the show ended over a month ago. Yet, User:Savvy continually insists on including information on who was in the "Bottom 2"/"Saved Last" for those two weeks and the semifinals (in which no one but Kady Malloy was noted to be in the bottom): [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. No fewer than 4 users have undone hir edits, yet s/he still persists. I would like to request that s/he be blocked from editing that section of the article. MissMJ (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to give people the correct information. Am I wrong? Savvy10 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Wikipedia's purpose is not the WP:TRUTH, but only to report what is verifiable from reliable sources. (Without checking the details of anyone's edits on this article. Having never watched any of the American Idol shows (except for clips on "news" programs or late-night talk shows), I have no comment on the WP:TRUTH.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Notika

This user has vandalised many articles.

Just some of his recent edits:

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

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

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

More Moldovan/Romanian edit warring

Resolved

 – I indef'd Moldopodo. Enough is enough. See Wikipedia:AE#User:Biruitorul...next day, one month to comply with Digwuren.

— Rlevse • Talk • 20:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Biruitorul, being completely aware of the Digwuren general restriction accuses me of bad faith [34] with no justification, for the mere usage of my right as any user of comment and vote. I have perfectly justified my position: the sources are not credible and highly biaised, the article does not fulfil basic requirements of Wikipedia for notability. Besides a gross lie is being put through by those who insist on using UNHCR as an argument, as it has explicitely declined responsibility for the referred to source and the document itself is not even the result of the UNCHR's work, but of one of the unknown organisations.

Also please take note of this comment of User:Biruitorul, which not only is irrelevant on the discussion where it was placed, but also is located far beyond decency and civility.[35]--Moldopodo^talk 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That is exactly the point, please do not deviate from the subject. The source is not reliable, nor verifiable as it is a mere personal invention of Gribincea, based on references that themselves do not mention the notion of "moldovenism". The UNCHR has explicitedly stated it has no responsibility whatsoever for this writing. The following statements by User:Biruitorul: "and the UNHCR doesn't generally pick unreliable individuals to do their research", "although questioning the validity of the Gribincea paper certainly seems tendentious as well" - are his personal interpretation. User:Biruitorul, please refrain from personal subjective interpretation. Using bad faith argument against a user (me) who is merely stating that the source you provided is unreliable, (and subsequently proved it on this occasion as well as on the occasion of controversial King's writings with 30 sources saying the contrary) seems to me to be bad faith of User:Biruitorul himself.--Moldopodo^talk 07:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does not look like you are going to provide anything except blind unsupported accusations. Please, have a look at the difference (namely sources presented after line 70) supported bu User:Gutza, and User:Biruitorul, as well as User:Bogdangiusca - there are about 30 sources provides for what I writeDiscussion on the talk page of article Moldova on the usage of the term "cession" in the Bucharest Treaty 1812, therefore it's a lie to say I provide unsourced edits, or to say I push through POV of any kind. Another talk page - another almost 15 sources provided by me - History of Moldavian language, further - more: Moldavian language - attempts by some users to interpret a scholarly scientifical writing of Dimitrie Cantemir, trying to say what was never said in his work. Here is the edit, which User:Bogdangiusca described as "tedious adding of tags everywhere"; please, admins, and be convinced, that here again, the said does not correspond to the reality, therefore it is another lie, consequently uncivil[36]. On the article Moldovans, please check the sources I have provided[37], just as on the article Moldavia, where I requested move to the Principality of Moldavia, as these articles are separated on other Wikipedias, and it is the question of a mere logic reasoning: are we writing articles on Wikipedia on a specific subject or do we write one article to cover three different topics? As for redirect Moldavia - it should be directed to Moldova (as it is also the case on other Wikipedias) - which is the only political formation which always kept this name, being both subject of international law or a territorial unit inside of a bigger body. In fact the present article Moldavia was merged from Principality of Moldavia with an article apparently called "Moldavia as Romanian region" (please, bear in mind whether this is or is not an original research, as Romanian legislation does not provide, AFAIK, for any specific status, nor does it set any legal framework of any kind for any region with a name Moldavia, nor are Moldavians living in Romania recognised as Moldavians, for example during banal censuses) and some other article (honestly I don't remember, but I am sure experienced admins may check). I have also initiated discussion on the move of Moldovans to Moldavians as the article Moldovans describes Moldavian ethnicity and not Moldovan citizenship, so it's a complete confusion of terms. As for disruptive editing of User:Biruitorul - on the article Cinema of Moldavia - you may se it here (I apologoze, I think I said it was User:Oneil earlier by mistake). The article is clearly about the cinema in Moldavia - Moldavian SSR. Please see another move of [[User:Biruitorul] - again with no proper justification, nor any comment left on the talk page. (also, please check the talk pages' histories [38] and [39] of both articles, some of the diffs I am unable to find anymore, as I guess they disappeared with repetitve deleting and moving articles by User:Biruitorul - without any constructive contribution to the contents of the article. I hope this gives you a clearer picture (message to admins).--Moldopodo^talk 20:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Please provide diffs for your accusations.: your constant attempts to confuse the issue have proved disruptive. . Please, also provide a diff how you are: just trying to maintain some order and consistency? Is it by moving pages, independently from my numerous requests to stop your disruption as I was writing the article on the Cinema of Moldavian SSR (I have provided diffs above), or may be by changing all adjectives "Moldavian" to "Moldovan" (diffs provided as well above), whereas the period described is Moldavian SSR and the term "Moldovan" was never even applied to this period of Moldavian history, or by pushing through amateur propagandistic writings of an unknown "personality", whose statements are contradicted by more than 30 sources (at least the ones I 've found), or may be by adding this [40] to the article on the actual state of cinema in Moldavia? Do you consider all of this a constructive non-disruptive contribution to Wikipedia?--Moldopodo^talk 07:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And by calling the writings of Charles King "amateur propagandistic writings of an unknown 'personality'", you do nothing to further your own case. And please, kindly refrain from accusing me of disruption: as I just said, "Just as Cinema of Ukraine or for that matter Cinema of Germany can do with a single article, so too can Cinema of Moldova, and it is your constant moves, splits and other measures that are disruptive". Biruitorul ^Talk 07:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul, I have provided above detailed diffs, where your conduct is disruptive and have explained the reasons. Please, provide a diff (or rather diffS, as it seems there are plenty of them according to you) for your following statement: "and it is your constant moves, splits and other measures that are disruptive". May be you could also provide a diff where you explained all of this on a talk page? As a matter of fact, you didn't explain anything as you were moving the articles around, leaving all the relevant talk pages on Moldavian cinema - blank, be it Cinema of the Moldavian SSR or Cinema of Moldova, the articles to which you have never contributed constructively, except moving them around. As a matter of fact, User:Biruuitorul has never added any contents to these articles, except after I warned him of this fact, he added a phrase that there is basically no cinema in Moldova today and sourced it to.... Lonely Planet.--Moldopodo^talk 07:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please use your own user talk pages or the talk pages of relevant articles to carry on this dispute. If either of you think arbitration enforcement is required here, there is a separate noticeboard for that. However, neither of theses noticeboards is for debating the content of articles and carrying on your dispute. -- tariqabjotu 07:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that this is not the place to carry out mere content disputes. However, the problem is rather graver than that. Moldopodo, for no good reason (other than, I suppose, to deflect attention from himself), has hauled me before AE on totally spurious charges. And despite a final warning to cease the type of disruptive editing he has been engaged in for a long time, he goes right on, in this case continuing to try and cloud the distinction between Moldavia (to 1862) and Moldova (1991-). That should be addressed, right? Biruitorul ^Talk 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - my aim in raising this was to get an admin to look at the AfD which seems spurious to me as a detached observer. I'm concerned that a closing admin may not be aware of the bad blood and may take some of the participants' comments about the reliability of the sources, verifiability, OR and so on at face value. There's also clearly a much wider issue that's got to be addressed (a lot of the recent edits to Romanian and Moldovan articles are poisonous) but this certainly isn't the forum. andy (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I read "detached observer"... Did I? I think I need glasses, cause definitely nobody could be so hypocrite.Xasha (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed block to one month to comply with Digwuren. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Stolen Earth and NFCC

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

I agree, the image clearly doesn't comply with the non-free content policy, so I've nominated it for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. Not just because the page is basically a plot summary with no real commentary on what the image is depicting, but also because the image itself lacks an actual source. The description says "a press kit", but we cannot verify a press kit. For all we know, it could be fan created, it could have been hacked from the BBC's network of computers, or it could simply be a random promotional image not specifically tied to any particular episode. Some of these are a little more radical, but the point is that without a proper source to verify where the image comes from, it's all guess work as to how official this image actually is in regards to this episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that all discussion of this issue might be consolidated at the IfD debate and that it doesn't need to continue either here or at AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass still making PAs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fclass has promised to stop making personal attacks and I have unblocked him. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with IP user over Leo McGarry article

We're facing a problem on the Leo McGarry page and I wanted to get administrator input on how to handle this. An IP user added a section about the "appearance and taste" of the character [41] which consists of 1 paragraph describing his appearance as "unusually conservative." It is trivial and is an opinion ("unusually conservative" according to who?) and so I removed it [42]. The user then re-added it [43] and I removed it again, this time moving the discussion to the talk page [44] [45]. The discussion that has generated since then on the talk page (Talk:Leo McGarry)has opposed including that section (although only myself and one other user have contributed to that discussion). This user has refused to participate in that discussion and has repeatedly re-added the information, often with rather hostile edit summaries [46] [47]. I didn't want to start an edit war and so I addressed the user on his talk page. After that, the user responded with hostility on my talk page [48]. I have tried repeatedly to reason with the user and to get him to either respect the consensus or to contribute to the discussion [49] [50]. The user has openly refused to cooperate [51] and continues to re-add the information despite the consensus opposing the inclusion of this material. It is clear that this user has no intention of working together to form a consensus. I am not sure what to do in this situation. I don't want to inadvertently instigate or take part in an edit war, but I think I've been as reasonable as possible and am still faced with hostility. I've tried to assume good faith, tried to build consensus, and have even tolerated abuse from one other IP user [52][53], but to no avail. What is your advice? --Hnsampat (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

File a checkuser on the IPs. They're all obviously the same person. Jtrainor (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure how helpful a checkuser will be here. These various IP addresses are not attempting to evade blocks/bans nor does this user pretend to be somebody else. Usually, a situation like this would call for semi-protection of the page, but the pattern is infrequent enough (occurring every 1 to 2 weeks) that placing an arbitrary time limit on semi-protection won't do anything to stop this user's actions. Indefinite semi-protection also does not seem called for since it's not like the Leo McGarry article is inherently vulnerable to vandalism the way high-profile articles like George W. Bush or Barack Obama are. (Also, as disruptive as the IP user is being, he is not engaging in vandalism but rather is involved in a content dispute, in which I feel the IP user resorts to hostility, incivility, and premature assumptions of bad faith.) Other suggestions? --Hnsampat (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The anon seems to have followed Hnsampat to Josiah Bartlet now, too.  This flag once was red  05:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Notofied IP at IP available through barlet link above. ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Issued 3RR-warning, editor is up to 4 reverts now.  This flag once was red  06:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This slow brewing edit war seems unlikely to end in any fashion short of a block. Admins please review? ThuranX (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued disruption of BLP and personal attacks

Following on from a previous AN/I report, Agnistus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to reinsert contentious poorly sourced material on Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a BLP), which consists of content cited to a primary source wherein claims are made about a third party.[54][55] He seems to be under the impression that consensus is needed for the disputed new addition to be removed, and refuses to let it stay out of the article while discussion continues.[56]

Furthermore, he has continued to make personal attacks and uncivil remarks against myself and other editors, despite having recently come off a block for such.[57][58] [59][60] The attacks have escalated and he has now started swearing at me in Hindi while keeping it hidden using the comment-out feature ("voh gandu chutiye hayawan kalb", "are gandu chutiye hayawan kalb sala maduri chod") This is not the first time he's made extreme personal attacks in Hindi, as he has said of Zakir Naik (the subject of the article, no less): "voh salah kuttah behn chod". His continued disruption of a BLP and the torrent of verbal abuse are extremely disruptive and of unacceptable nature. ITAQALLAH 00:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

provided source appears inadequate for given claim WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a Hindi speaker to translate those comments? Your user page says you don't speak Hindi. My guess is they are insults, but verification would be good. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked my parents for a translation. They didn't give me the exact English translation, but as far as they know, it's all a bunch of Hindi curse words and derogatory language. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Derogatory language" doesn't quite cut it, one of those phrases translates to "fall back, you faggot asshole/king of the bastards who licks your mother's pussy." If this editor speaks anything less than sunshine and rainbows in a foreign language again, I'll block them myself. east.718 at 06:47, June 21, 2008

Glad to see someone caught that. Great job East. — _Maggot^Syn 06:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, Nishkid64 : Native hindi speaker here. And I am not surprised you parents did not exactly translate it. It basically is just a long string on expletives. Now I'm not sure if its a good idea to post the translation, but it has stuff to do with Moms, SOBs, jerks, assholes, sisters and the combination of these. Though not exactly what east guy said, but close. you get the gist.

Hi, I am the editor who made the insults. Firstly, a thousand apologies to Itaqallah. I just wanted to say that East's translation is rather incorrect, Itaqallah has the correct translation here. Also, the language is not Hindi, its a mix of Urdu and Arabic (langauges which both I and Itaqallah understand). Lastly, Please see my letter below. - Agnistus (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE-if this user misbaves in any way, let me know. I'm posting a stern warning on his talk page. Feel free to let me know personally and I'll block him. I may even make a ban proposal. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, maybe that's why they were reluctant to give me the word-for-word translation...or maybe they just didn't know it. Actually, the latter seems to make more sense for my parents. :P Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Letter from the criminal

Dear admins,

I noticed that you were deeply concerned by my (mis)behavior, so I thought it would be best if I dealt with matter fully here. First and foremost I would like to sincerely apologize for the highly-abusive/insulting and derogatory remarks I made to my fellow co-editor ITAQALLAH. I acknowledge that my comments were a blatant violation of WP:NPA and regret making the attack.

I was recently blocked for making such similar (but much milder) personal attacks in Talk: Zakir Naik. After the block, I tried my best to control my temper. It was after much stressful dialogues with Itaqallah, that the "voh gandu chutiye hayawan kalb" abuse slipped in. Regretting my comment, I reverted it in less than an hour (please see [61] and [62]). It seems to me now that Itaqallah has pulled this insult out from the Revision History page, to add weight to my criminal status. I request you to ignore this first one. It was later, as the discussion in Talk: Zakir Naik got more distressing that my temper took over me, and I left the second abuse (and never reverted it).

Let me assure you that Talk: Zakir Naik is the only place where I have indulged in personal attacks (you can verify by checking my contribs). I have been a Wikipedia user for about 2 years now (you can verify it here), and have never used such highly abusive language elsewhere whatsoever. The causative factor that lead me to act so inappropriately was the highly troublesome and stressful discussions at Talk: Zakir Naik. Please go through Talk: Zakir Naik (and archives of this talk page) and judge for yourself the gravity of the situation.

Despite my deepest condolences to ITAQALLAH (for my PAs), I must admit his method of editing has been a cause of distress to many editors, not just me. ISKapoor, Matt57, Enforcing Neutrality to name a few. In most of the cases, Itaqallah has removed significant content from articles using the reason that sources are unreliable. For instance take a look at User_talk:Enforcing_Neutrality, User_talk:Itaqallah#Fatimah and Talk: Fatimah; where content was removed from the article Fatimah because the source; al-islam.org is according to him a "religious polemical website", thus unreliable. While the primary sources I provided (for Zakir Naik) might indeed be unreliable, I doubt this is the case with sources like al-islam.org. I have personally checked the website and nothing in it indicates unreliability. Please look into the matter (of Zakir Naik esp. and others) thoroughly and please don't jump to conclusions based on fragments of information.

If I am wrong (regarding Zakir Naik and reliability of sources), do inform me; I am ready to accept defeat. If not and there seems no amicable solution to the problem, we should probably delete the article (Zakir Naik) or take it to the Arbitration Committee. As of now my capacity to handle Wikistress has reached its limit. I will be taking a rather long Wikibreak and not contributing for the next few months. BTW, apart from this Itaqallah is a rather nice guy (as indicated by this), so I gave him a barnstar. I hope all goes well. Regards. - Agnistus (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What in thre world?

I put smething here. Can't fing it 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It was probably reverted as vandalism or lost in the chaos that is AN/I. What precisely did you put? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI)} 03:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel-good thread of the day :) Jtrainor (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/72.0.36.36. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The threads here get archived automatically after 24 hour of nobody making a comment on them. Maybe it got archived. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ANDREA AQUINO CONCEPCION

I tried to move this to a more appropriately capitalized spot and it told me it was blocked from creation? Andrea Aquino Concepcion was where I was trying to move...can someone with a mop figure it out please? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as recreated material (G4) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That'll work too :) Thanks! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake on the CSD cat, has been deleted twice before by 2 different admins as a CSD G7 and by 1 admin as an A7, now twice an A7 and salted. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

deleted twice? Try 11 times. Lucky 13 if you include the two at the proper spelling of this title and 20 with the caps. I don't think there's even the slightest doubt that User:Wikiprompt is User:Andreaonline and have filed it accordingly - that will stick even if the username block doesn't since 'Wiki" is often allowed in usernames. Hopefully someone will see the SSP if s/he requests an unblock. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 05:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

P.E.O. Sisterhood

P.E.O. Sisterhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previously posted at WP:COIN. I've just semi-protected this page for a week because of an ongoing (about once-daily, since I've been watching) campaign to blank sourced content that alludes to the 19th-century origins of this group's name and it's allegedly "secret" meaning. If the semi-protection is effective and the problem resumes after it expires, I'll extend the protection for a longer period. I welcome any additional suggestions anyone might have. Dppowell (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As WP:V has been met, this is appropriate per WP:NOTCENSORED. I note that one of the "problem" accounts (the one with an edit summary of "The only worthwhile source should be the organization itselft.(sic)") has been on WP for some months, but with few edits. I suspect that it may become more active, at which point you might consider reporting the editor for slow edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments of User:J Milburn

Resolved

Please, explain how this user contributes constructively to Wikipedia with edits as the following [63] on my talk pagfe, without any diff provided.--Moldopodo^talk 06:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem obsessed with diffs. I really don't see anything for an admin to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's customary to tell other editors when you are discussing them on the noticeboards. For someone who takes offense at the slightest provocation, you are very bad mannered. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, could you explain please? What is customary, what you wrote on my talk page? Isn't it a personal attack "you are very bad mannered"?--Moldopodo^talk 13:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down before expressing any more responses. This thread needn't be a 'you did this' and 'you did that' conversation. We are here to discuss both the subject and the motives for opening such a accusatory thread. Rudget (logs) 13:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that diffs need not to be provided, if such evidence can be located in the recent contributions of the user in question. Rudget (logs) 13:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, as someone on his final warning, don't you think you should keep a lower profile, and perhaps refrain from cluttering the ANI like this? Biruitorul ^Talk 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo is now blocked indefinitely - I imagine we can consider this complaint settled, right? Biruitorul ^Talk 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Soytenly. Don't his signature look nice, though? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparent delete / undelete bug

• I have been working on the page Roman Catholic Diocese of Antwerp. I want to delete these edits:
  • 19:39, 30 April 2008 Benkenobi18 (49 bytes) (moved Roman Catholic Diocese of Antwerp to Roman Catholic Diocese of Antwerpen)
  • 07:17, 19 December 2007 Benkenobi18 (47 bytes) (moved Diocese of Antwerp to Roman Catholic Diocese of Antwerp over redirect)

by deleting the page, and then undeleting all edits except 5 edits (these 2, and 3 already deleted) which are redirects belonging to another page's history. But despite several times deleting, then at the undelete checking all edits except these 5 redirect edits, the above two unwanted redirect edits keep coming back along with the wanted edits. What is happening? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Help:Null edit, could this be the problem? Daniel (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, I hate to ask but what are you attempting to do? That deletion log is a real mess! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Like I said above, I tried several times to get rid of those two abovementioned redirect edits by deleting everything and then undeleting everything else, but every time those 2 redirect edits came back in the undelete even though I carefully unchecked them in the undelete check list. Finally I realized that it was a bug and not a result of me mistyping or mismousing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I just tried it again, and the 2 redirect edits came back in the undelete although I unchecked them so that they would not come back in the undelete. But the 3 other redirect edits which were deleted before, do not come back in the undelete when I do not check them for undeletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Move logs are not edits; you cannot delete them from the edit history, as they are part of the page log. They are only displayed in the edit history for convenience. Your attempt to clean up the edit history only made it worse by polluting the page log. — Edokter • Talk • 15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii

Would an admin please look at the evidence on this case as the closing admin admits they did not ! Fonez4mii was clearly socking using his IP pretending to be someone else as the evidence clearly shows, and gets away scot free because the admin did not bother to look at the evidence.Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Shalom or Shalom Yeichel is not an administrator. Rudget (logs) 14:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of admins looked at this. Fonez4mii acknowledged everything straight off and said he never meant to mislead (or at least, break policy). Let's look at current behaviour, not a new user's past misunderstanding of how accounts/IPs are used here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Threat from new user

Resolved

User blocked indef by User:Rudget--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A new account was used for the first time today, User:Ilovetimdickel. It's first edit was to the page Heracles here. That edit was reverted by User:ThatWikiGuy who placed a warning on the new editor's user talk page. The account's second edit was to the user page of the editor who issued the warning, here, which I reverted. The account made its third and to date last edit here, again to the user page of the edit who had first warned him, before I placed a 24 hour block. The new editor has since requested unblocking. However, his second edit seems to very much qualify under Wikipedia:Threats of violence. I would request any input regarding this matter, particularly regarding the length of the block. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sort of a threat but it's just a common response by vandals when they realize they can't roam free...:)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 14:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was me that reported him to AIV - I basically assumed that was a standard "angry vandal" response rather than a genuine threat. In terms of the block length I wouldn't have objected to an indef-block as it seems to be a vandalism-only account - but a brief block is no problem in case he does want to shape up and make decent contributions in 24 hours time. ~ mazca ^talk 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block was warranted. I'd certainly extend it to that if there was further consensus to do so. Rudget (logs) 14:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement. It is true that the first and to date only article edit was clearly vandalism. But I don't know how many other new editors have done that sort of thing as well, only to become useful later. If the answer is "not many", then I wouldn't object to a longer block myself. If that sort of thing is fairly frequent among new editors who later become useful contributors, there might be cause for keeping it short. I don't have enough information one way or another myself to make that call though. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few of new editors have this attitude to editing, sadly. I'm sure you can see this for yourself in many of the admins at AIV log of blocks. It's disappointing that these users find it acceptable to conduct such inappropriate behaviour. I'll lengthen it now. Rudget (logs) 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A review of the user's contibs(plus the username) and based on my experience with vandals the account is likely vandalism-only. Still there is (small) chance the user will make an about-face and become a good contributor though I'd suggest a rename as many vandals have their username in the format of Ilikepersonnamehere. Also visit User:J. Delanoy. His template on his talkpage has a link to a page of his revert criteria. One is: "Anything related to human reproduction". This user's edits fit that criteria. LOL I'm in the middle of the human reproduction and development unit in my science class right now.(I'm not in school,it's saturday,I mean we're on that subject right now) Did you hear about those teen girls making a pact to get pregnant.<sigh>Society nowadays....--Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 15:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

re last comment; I suspect there has to be a male involved somewhere... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless they're bringing frog DNA into the picture. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist

...is attempting to change every "List of basic X topics" to "Topical outline of X" (e.g. Topical outline of Italy). The latter is bad English and suggests "X in current affairs". He's met opposition to this at List of basic opera topics from me and some other users. Rather than discussing the arguments on the talk page, he's resorted to very pointy tagging of the page with a load of "citation needed" requests. He claims to have won consensus for his moves at WP:VP but I can only see three votes (including his) in favour at the discussion there. I don't think such "consensus" can violate good English usage. To be honest, I'm not sure we even need to discuss these lists on a Wiki-wide basis. --Folantin (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with The Transhumanist that "Topical outline" reads better, but I do concur that his 'consensus' for it seems to be rather small and underpublicised for a change that affects so many articles. ~ mazca ^talk 15:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Topical outline" is ambiguous jargon. --Folantin (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that "Topical outline" is suboptimum phrasing. "Outline of foo-related topics" or something similar would probably be preferable. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my original proposal, but a compromise was made at the Village Pump. I would prefer it be changed to "outline of". The Transhumanist    15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Though the meaning of the term "topical outline" is well established. Google it, and you'll see what I mean. The Transhumanist    15:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My concerns over the application of the term "basic" in the article are legitimate. I've been on the other end of the debate for almost two years, and so I understand Folantin's frustration. "Basic" is not defensible by Wikipedia policy, because who is to say what is basic and what is not? Sourcing all the items on those lists is impractical. Also, the pages were designed as a set, and having this particular page named differently disrupts the set. The consensus in the Village Pump discussion referred to above was that "List of basic" should be changed. "Topical outline" was the best we've come up with so far in a good faith effort to improve that set of pages. If a better title can be found, I'm all for it. One alternative is to source the items in the articles as to their "basicness" to bring them in line with WP:VER and WP:OR in relation to the term "basic". The Transhumanist    15:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There were no problems on that specific page until you came along and decided that everybody had to dance to your tune. If you object to "basic" (and I still see that as a violation of WP:POINT then we change the name to "List of opera topics". --Folantin (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"List of opera topics" is comprehensive in scope, and would be subject to adding every topic related to opera on Wikipedia. Once the article was expanded beyond the scope of those in the other set, a new one would be created for the other set. The Transhumanist    15:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there aren't that many "topic" articles about opera on Wikipedia, so I don't see much of a problem there. --Folantin (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just realized we're arguing over nothing. We both agree "Outline of" would be an acceptable title. Right? I wouldn't object to it being named to that. Would renaming the article "Outline of opera" be acceptable to you? The Transhumanist    15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. As Conti says below, there's no difference in "neutrality" between "List of basic X topics" and "Outline of X". How do you define your "outline"? --Folantin (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In the same way you define "article" or "list". An outline is just a form of article, in the same way that a list is a form of article. The Transhumanist    22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, why do we need sources to list "basic" topics, while we don't need any sources to list "topical outlines"? That doesn't really make any sense to me. --Conti|✉ 15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Outline" is just a format designation, in the same way that "article" is a format designation. All articles have formats (i.e., orders of presentation), and these do not require sources. That is, how an article is arranged isn't sourced. If it is, that's a content policy I missed. The Transhumanist    22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "outline" means "verbal description of essential parts only". You still have to define what's "essential" there. The selection problem remains. --Folantin (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Transhumanist, please don't make wide-scale changes without consensus first. Discuss first to avoid the follow-on drama. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Over the years, the only one defending "basic" in the title was me. The opposition to it accumulated to the point I could no longer defend the titles. It was argued that I was defying consensus. So I proposed the change at the Village Pump, and it is pretty clear from that discussion that "List of basic" was inadequate. The rename has gone over pretty well, with opposition limited to a single page. That's not bad. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but in this instance, we came pretty close. The Transhumanist    15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Um, would it be possible to not have references in the header sections for List of basic opera topics? There must be a better way of doing it than that. As for the title, I suggest List of opera topics. It does not need to be comprehensive - that is what WP:SUMMARY is for. Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, they look awful, but someone in the opera project decided to add them because today Transhumanist has repeatedly placed over 70 {{Citation needed}} tags on the List of basic opera topics. Like Conti, I question why, when none have appeared on any of the "topical outlines". One could argue that references are needed for the inclusion of particular topics on those too, after all they're still potentially subjective choices. The mass tagging gives the impression of some kind of 'punishment' for not accepting the name change, even if it might not have been intended as such. Also, I can see reasons for removing "basic". But the "topical" adjective is bizarre, ambiguous and misleading. For one thing, why did no one consider the standard English device of a modifying noun, e.g. Topic outline of X. But that's beside the point. How on earth can a decision which affects many, many projects and existing lists and has resulted in the wholesale renaming and redirecting of scores upon scores of pages be based on the votes of 4 people, when none of the relevant projects were even notified of the discussion? Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just "outline of x topics" or simply "outline of x" if you have to change it at all? 'Topical outline of' is not how the word 'topical' is usually used, which as people have said above is a word to describe current affairs and so on. Better grammar/a more commonly used phrase, which is what we use for page names on wikipedia, would be 'outline of x topics' or something. Although I don't have an objection to 'basic' being used in article's titles as long as judgement of what is placed there is common sense- it could even be sourced, for instance depending on whether an aspect of a topic is included in a basic textbook. Sticky Parkin 18:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Topical outline of" is merely what discussion has produced so far. I'm fine with improvements, and prefer "Outline of x", which was the original proposal before the compromise of "topical outline" was arrived at. The Transhumanist    22:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed over here at the Village Pump. I'm fine with the change, although we need to agree with a standard. I'm fine with Topical outline at this point too, seeing as its an accepted term among professionals. In the future, The Transhumanist should probably do a RFCstyle when embarking on a large change like this. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion is somewhat off topic here. The question at hand is the editing practices of The Transhumanist not about the rightness or wrongness about the actual name change in itself. I have put a three revert rule warning on The Transhumanist's talk page. As for a rename of the articles, I would suggest that all of the names be changed back to "List of basic .... terms" and a well broadcasted centralized discussion involving the entire wikipedia community organized on the issue. I personally think the word outline does not apply well to many of these articles (in their current form anyway). An outline infers that the there is a discussion or summary covering the main points of a subject. Therefore the terms in an outline would include a basic short definition or summary of each term given. These articles, however, provide no such definitions/summaries but simply list important terms, albight organized into subcatagories of the main subject.Nrswanson (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Transhumanist has single-handedly changed the name of this article to "Outline of opera" in spite of there being no consensus to do so in this discussion. He has not addressed the issues above where several editors have clearly stated that "outline" is no more "neutral" than "basic topics". I moved the page to the more "neutral" "List of opera topics" but he reverted. Either he is interested in enforcing a strict (ridiculously strict, in my opinion) definition of our neutrality policy (as would be suggested by the 70 citation tags he placed on the page) or he isn't. If the latter is the case the page should never have been changed from the self-explanatory "List of basic opera topics" in the first place. --Folantin (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"List of X topics" would seem to be the most obvious way to do this. Some think "basic" and "outline" imply POV-pushing (which seems like a stretch, but whatever) and the term "topical" means "current events", which doesn't seem to fit these lists. "List of X topics" is purely descriptive with no judgment implied that I can see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Once the technical difficulties have been solved, the page will be moved to the very neutral "List of opera topics" and this issue will be over. --Folantin (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well its not quite that simple. What about all the other articles he has changed the names of. He has changed the name on dozens of articles to "Topical outline of...". I think all of those articles should be changed as well.Nrswanson (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically about the first example given, about Italy. The editor should not have been making these changes without the kind of discussion that's occurring here. They will have to be moved again, to an appropriate title. If there's already an article there, admin assistance will be required. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've done the move to List of opera topics. Afterwards, I think there were some triple redirects to fix, but that's sorted too :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Article talk page

I just wondered if there is any way an admin could have a quick look at the talk page of Margaret Dryburgh please?[64] I created the page just a few days ago, but the inclusion of the phrase "The plight of Dryburgh and her friends in a Japanese prisoner of war camp inspired the TV series Tenko" has caused problems with a fellow editor. The situation is such that the article's talk page has several, I believe, very personal attacks on me now. Is there any way these comments can be removed? I always thought an article's talk page should be about the article, not anything personal.--seahamlass 16:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see anything that's a personal attack. There's criticism of your editing, but that's not quite the same thing. Telling someone they're wrong is permitted, although it's best to show why. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any personal attacks and don't see much for an admin to do here, other than remind that sticking to verifiable sources will tend to help, a lot. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, well thanks for looking. I'm sorry you don't feel able to support me, as I still feel that I have been thoroughly chewed up and spat out by this editor. Guess that's it.--seahamlass 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, both of you retreat to your respective corners, no, not really, but the whole spat seems to be, well... unseemly. Valid points were made by both sides but there was an issue more of hurt feelings that seemed to come across and a "so, here" haughtiness that can be disquieting. BTW, both parties could more profitably expend all the energy demonstrated on the talk page into writing a better article. Just an opinion, here, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

Admin error/page deletion needs to be undone.

Resolved

I just caught the deletion log entry for Colin James? Obviously an error. Perhaps there were two pages with similar spelling and the wrong one was deleted? "The" Colin James is a Juno Award winning recording artist. Now all his albums have a red link where the link to his main article used to be? Original delete was done by Ohnoitsjamie. Can that be corrected ASAP? Thanks, cheers and have a nice day. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, anger. The appropriate (and long standing) article was vandalized to be replaced with a one liner about a high school student and his proclivity for long walks on beaches. I restored the article to it's appropriate version. Marking this resolved. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Yoshihiko

Resolved

 – User blocked 31 hrs by Nancy --Jaysweet (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at User talk:Yoshihiko? He appears to have made some good edits and then all of the sudden uploaded a bunch of pictures with no info and a bunch of recipes. There may be a language problem as the user appears to be Japanese, but there's tons of warnings on his page and he's responded by reuploading the identical images? Help? Not sure what to do with this one? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked. If he/she continues when the block is over, maybe we can find somebody who speaks Japanese? heh.. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Significant Contributions

I've spent the past two hours trying to discover this users : Joshii's contributions...

I've found none...

This account I believe is a sock account of a troll or sock puppet... THIS ACCOUNT SIMPLY DELETES.........

THIS USER GIVES VAGUE DESCRIPTIONS OF HIS/HER ACTIONS AND IF QUESTIONED ON HIS/HER ACTIONS REPLIES ? "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Joshii. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. " WHILE GIVING NO EXPLAINATION OR ACCOUNT OF HIS/HER ACTIONS.

This user has made no contributions to wiki, this user just deletes and gives the standard reply above.

I suggest this account should be deleted.--92.234.248.31 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? ——Ryan | t • c 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Or this? And Joshii did explain his actions. Even if users' accounts were deleted, it would not be because someone disagrees with some of their edits, especially when Joshii has written featured articles and is being considered for adminship. This is not the definition of a sockpuppet, troll or vandal. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Joshii can be a lovely contributor, and still sometimes do things that are not ideal, as every person does. The user disliked his use of the word cr*p- and referring to other's edits, such language is undoubtedly bound to not be condusive to mutual respect and collaboration. I consider cr*p to be impolite and it is not appropriate to use on wiki about a real person's edits, no matter what you think of the edits it goes beyond bad manners. Sticky Parkin 22:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it is a breach of WP:CIVIL the part which goes on about creating an uncivil environment "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") or talk page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")." No matter whether someone said my account to be deleted or anything I would never respond with such language. Sticky Parkin 22:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jak68

This user:Jak68 is going around reverting my edits and is trying to develop an Edit War. This user reverted all my edits and seems to be having problems with me on this English Wikipedia. So far i've reverted the edits and user:Jak68 had reverted them again by 2, including people who contributed after. Could some admin inform this User to easy on the engaging of war. I have no intrest in this users edits or in user at all, seems to be having problems with mine. --Padan (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Padan is attempting to insert a fringe theory that links the Prophet Mohammad with the Bhavishya Purana (a Hindu text) in accordance with the views of a Muslim Ahmadiyya missionary named Abdul Haq Vidyarthi. User:Padan has inserted this fringe idea into 24 wikipedia articles in recent days (see his contrib page). He has also clashed in edit wars over this same issue with a variety of other users, see here, here, and here. He also has a history of sockpuppetry and has been banned in the past over this exact same issue, see discussion on the user names Rajivlal here and DWhiskaZ here, both banned over the issue of repeated insertion of this fringe theory linking Mohammad with the Bhavishya Purana from a source at Univ of Toronto. Please see here for extended discussion of the fringe theory in question.

And please, can we get a more permanent solution to this problem than the perpetual cleaning up after a committed activist? Jak68 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It clearly shows that RajivLal is concentrated on other articles that differ from mine and user:Padan is not even convicted please refer this matter to Wikipedia:Sock.

User Jak68 is clearly involved in WP:EW and WP:PA and needs an warning or block. --Padan (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser on both Padan and RajivLal would seem in order here has been submitted. dab (𒁳) 09:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. It isn't Jak68 that is the problem. Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Trilemma / What Happened

• User:Trilemma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Blaxthos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (reporting party)
• What Happened (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:What Happened (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm reporting that I have removed the talk page comments made by Trilemma (talk · contribs). I'm going to try and avoid bringing the content dispute here, but I wanted to make ANI aware that I have removed comments made to a currently active RFC in which inaccurate statements about me were made in an ad hominem attempt to influence its outcome. The editor is apparently willing to go to war to include them; I will not remove a second time. I would also note that Trilemma has openly stated philosophy of POV warriorism, and that other editors have already noted the "aggressive" agenda-based nature of his edits, and Trilemma's using misleading edit summaries and accusations of "vandalism". I believe it was proper for me to remove the comments, but I also feel obligated to report my actions here. I also believe the comments should be removed at this time. Thanks in advance for the help. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

An editing history will show that the comments were not incorrect. Blaxthos and I came to a mutual agreement on the article, the way it sits now, more than two weeks ago. Suddenly, when Scott McClellan began hist testimony before Congress, he began to remove entire sections from the page. I welcomed a response to my paragraph, but I felt it necessary to give the history of the editing of the page. If a third party feels this is inappropriate, I will not contest its removal. Furthermore, Blaxthos has repeated the slanderous assertion that I am a "POV warrior." This is the third spot he has made this claim. It is false. The most substantial of my edits (rewrite of Rwandan Genocide Template, namely) have occured outside the area of politics, but I would like to point out reverts of objective vandalism[65] [66] on pages that Blaxthos would doubtlessly assume I have a POV problem with.Trilemma (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The diff where Trilemma supposedly declares his/her "philosophy of POV warriorism" ([67]) is no such thing. Trilemma merely notes that there have been a lot of pro-Obama POV pushers on Wikipedia lately (which is undeniably true). Granted, I think someone who was truly unbiased would also note there are a lot of anti-Obama POV pushers on Wikipedia lately, heh, but Trilemma certainly did not state a POV-pushing agenda.

I don't have a big problem with the comment that was removed, assuming it was true. It doesn't seem any worse than the things you have said about Trilemma. It is probably a little out of place in an RfC, but unilaterally removing it is a little over-aggressive. I would probably not remove the comment again, but rather address it straightforwardly and honestly.

The one issue I do have with Trilemma's edits, and that is the same problem as the one addressed in the diff from Wikidemo you pointed out ([68]), is that Trilemma needs to be much more careful about throwing around the V-word, especially on politically charged articles. If somebody makes a POV edit, and due to their strong personal bias they don't realize it is POV, the last thing you want to do is label the edit as vandalism -- that will just piss them off and escalate things. I used to be much more liberal with my use of the V-word, but I have since learned how destructive that can be, and I'm more careful to reserve it for really obvious cases (if somebody blanks a whole article and replaces it with "i poop my pants", you can probably safely label that as vandalism :D ).

If either user wants to pursue the issue further, I might recommend Wikiquette Alerts as a better venue. I don't really see anything here that is admin actionable. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree -- the comments I removed are inappropriate for several reasons:

1. I absolutely dispute the factual accuracy of his statements -- I did NOT "misread SPS", nor did I "blank pages" or commit any act of vandalism.
2. The comments contain subjective accusations of motivation as fact, violating WP:NPA: "[Blaxthos] just recently he began surreptitiously editing out things to his dislike again."
3. The comments serve no constructive purpose, and can have no other purpose than an attempt to discredit the merits of the RFC by way of an ad hominem attack on me (using mischaracterizations noted in #1 above).
4. If I'm forced to point out all of this at the RFC, it ends up looking like a spat and completely detracts from the actual policy arguments I brought up in the first place.

It should be enough that other editors have noted the edgy nature of Trilemma's edits, coupled with his own admission of being on a mission to remove a particular point of view. I once again implore a review of this situation, and immediate removal of comments that are factually disputed and have no purpose valid to the RFC. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to provide more of a distraction from more pressing issues, but since Blaxthos has persisted, I feel that I need to make additional comments. Before I do so: Jaysweet, your advice is well taken. I'd noticed that my somewhat liberal use of the V-word to describe edits was counter-productive to a harmonious editing environment. So, I am making that adjustment. Being that each of the edits constituted an editor, several of which had declared political bias on their user page, blanking entire sections of articles, I don't feel that any of my edits were inapropriate, but I will not be so assertive with the V-word. Also, there has certainly been some editing done by partisan anti-Obama editors. Thankfully (or unthankfully, depending on your mindset), much (though not all) of this has been limited to petty vandalism and blatant nonsense, the type of which is obvious and easy to catch.

I was willing to let this drop, despite Blaxthos having smeared my editing style and philosophy, but here is the record which constituted my documentation of the editing history of the page:

After the initial inclusion of Dole's widely reported letter, Blaxthos removed the edit, asserting that it violated SPS. [69]. Note that this was an incorrect reading of SPS, as I later pointed out in the discussion. When I found a source that in no way violated SPS, Blaxthos removed the entire section (which, to me, constitutes blanking).

Now, you'll notice here[70] that Blaxthos was accepting the inclusion of Dole's letter and the selected other notable responses, saying that as long as McClellan's subsequent response was included, it would constitute a neutral point of view. I objected to this logic, but with no other people offering comments, I let the issue die, as did Blaxthos. We had reached an agreement...

UNTIL Mr. McClellan began his testimony before Congress. Then, without notice, Blaxthos proceeded to unilaterally edit out the section HE had agreed to [71], along with the language that we had likewise reached an agreement on, terming it "sneaky POV."[72][73].

Blaxthos subsequently took to calling me a "POV warrior" in his talk page, in the discussion page of the article, and now on here. This is rather reckless on his part and I am glad to see that this has been recognized as a false claim.

I do not know why Blaxthos is persisting in this campaign against me, and I will not speculate to why he suddenly, surreptitiously subverted our earlier agreed upon text. I am disappointed by his continued spurious claims and hostile attitude. Trilemma (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not bring a content dispute here; this is not the place. You're attempting to put words into my mouth, and attribute my agreement where it was never given. Stop trying to speak for me, put words into my mouth, and attribute positions to me that I to which I do not (nor ever did) support. The only issue here is whether your comments are appropriate to the RFC -- I stand behind my assertion that they are an ad hominem attempt to detract from the actual policy points I made in the RFC. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I did mention that the comment was out of place in the RfC discussion, but I thought all things considered it was fairly mild, and I thought you'd be better off solved by addressing it succinctly and straightforwardly and honestly than you would by unilaterally removing the comment. But let's dig a little deeper, shall we?

Before I make my next statement, let me reiterate that I agree that the comment in question by Trilemma is indeed somewhat of an ad hominem attack. I believe he was attempting to show a conflict of interest, but it still wasn't the most productive thing he might have said.

With that reiterated, I would like to also point out that Trilemma was not the first one to bring ad hominem attacks into the RfC. Here, Blaxthos says in regards to Trilemma, "I'm not going to address your stated philosophy of POV warriorism here, as it's not germane to the content discussion here." Heh, well, I am sorry to tell you this Blaxthos, but bringing that point up and saying you are not going to address it is the same as addressing it, i.e. even though you said you would not bring an ad hominem attack into the discussion, by mentioning the specifics of the ad hominem attack (and providing a diff no less!) you have essentially already made the attack. So we are looking at ad hominem attacks by both editors in this RfC, not just by Trilemma.

I don't think either of those comments were productive, but they aren't so egregious that I think typically we'd make a big deal out of them. It just sounds like you guys hate each other, heh, and other editors coming to the RfC will pick up on that and account for it. So that's why in my initial response I encouraged you to just address it and move on.

An alternative compromise proposal would be to strike both comments, thereby purging the RfC of any ad hominem attacks. If both of you agree to that, we could potentially move forward...? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

In fact, Blaxthos, this is a dirty trick and I am disappointed to see this kind of logical manipulation in a talk page. To paraphrase the exchange between you and Trilemma at that point:

• Blaxthos: I'm not going to bring up the fact that Trilemma is a self-proclaimed POV-pusher, because it's not relevant.
• Trilemma: Excuse me, but I am not a POV-pusher.
• Blaxthos: Don't defend yourself! It's irrelevant!

Come on. You've got to know that's inappropriate. You are basically incriminating Trilemma, and then saying he can't defend himself because the incrimination is supposedly irrelevant?

Perhaps this issue could be resolved, then, if instead of Trilemma saying "Blaxthos misread SPS and edits out content he doesn't like," he could say, "I'm not going to bring up the fact that Blaxthos misread SPS and edits out content he doesn't like, because it's not relevant." Right? heh... No, I don't think so.

I don't want do make it sound like I am defending Trilemma's comment -- I am disappointed he brought that up in an RfC as well. But like I say, if we want to keep ad hominem attacks out of this RfC, let's actually keep them out of it, okay? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there, Jaysweet... you've gotten the cart before the horse. If you dig a little deeper, you'll notice that I filed the RFC without reference to anything other than the merits of the content dispute, citing specific policies. Once Trilemma attempted to introduce an ad hominem claim did I respond to it. My response was limited to acknowledging his claim, providing context via a link, and again stating that we must stick to the issues raised in the RFC. I again requested him to limit responses to the merits of the RFC, and at THAT point Trilemma started aggressively posting material that is necessarily only an attempt to influence the RFC via ad hominem logical fallacies. I don't see how anyone could think that such statements have any other constructive purpose (or should be allowed to remain).

Now, as I've stated all along, my intent at ANI is to have the spurious accusations, attacks, and ad hominem statements removed. I don't really care what agreement underlies the removal, although I take exception to your claim that I'm essentially engaging in the same behavior. I've tried to do nothing but keep the discussion centered on the policy merits of the RFC, and have asked Trilemma to do the same. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos had already taken to calling me a POV warrior, an utterly false and manipulative assertion. Additionally, he had removed, completely, a section that we had discussed and agreed to let stand. I do not see how that was not blanking. That was not an attack on him, or on his editing philosophy, but rather on a specific action that he did. I am perfectly willing to compromise in this matter, to give a more unbiased presentation to users observing this RfC. It unfortunately appears that Blaxthos is declining to compromise. Again, he and I had earlier been civil with each other and reached an understanding that in until additional comments were given, we'd leave the article alone (and that was in regards to the subsequent McClellan response section, not even the prior one!). I am disappointed at what I can only judge as a change in behavior on Blaxthos' part, and that's why I posted the wikiquette alert. Trilemma (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I wasn't the first editor to note that you exhibit an editing pattern that appears to be biased towards a particular agenda.
2. After you openly proclaimed your intent to remove content from "declared and undeclared Obama viewpoints" did I call you a POV warrior. Someone who makes that open proclaimation is a POV warrior, and I do not back down from that statment.
3. I made that comment on my talk page only, and DID NOT reference in when posting my request for comment. One can effectively deal with a POV warrior without pointing out that they're a POV warrior -- it's irrelevant to the merits of the argument presented in RFC.
4. "Blanking" is a form of vandalism. I removed content with a clear link to and explaination of how the removal is justified by core policies, something quite different than "blanking".
5. I asked for the irrelevant comments to be removed from the outset, to which you flat out refused, which is why we're now here. Others have now recognized that your comments are nothing more than an ad hominem attempt to influence the RFC's outcome without having any relevance to the merits of the content of the RFC.
6. Anything beyond my request that those comments be removed immediately are beyond the scope of this posting. I'm not going to get in snark match or bogged down in ancillary discussions.

Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

I know it is very likely a joke, but given the legalities that go with these things, does this merit just a regular (WP:TPG, not forum) warning? Thanks Brusegadi (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Semi compitent" is right. If he has to ask, he doesn't know much. I would warn and watch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with anon's potty mouth please

Resolved

Hi I refactored 69.247.176.147 (talk · contribs)'s edits twice at User talk:Neil and they have reverted me here. This was all related to Admin Neil deleting an image (and citing WP:BLP) on twink (gay slang) and blocking two users for a month each. Neither user seemed to have been warned although arguably they should have known better? I didn't as I added the image in the first place. Also the BLP policy doesn't seem to address directly this issue, at all, so that may have added to the confusion. In any case the somewhat offensive language is on Neil's page and I didn't want to revert again and frankly the whole issue may need some clearing up to ensure the policy at BLP is more helpful. It may also be good to stress that warning users before a ban or block may be beneficial to all. Self disclosure: I was topic-banned without warning and still feel it's the most stressful experience I've had here. Banjeboi 06:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward attack/disruption/vandalism. Blocked for 31 hours. Tan | 39 06:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon attacking me for reverting

Resolved

I hope I'm in the right place here. I have reverted two edits from the same person tonight; [74] and [75]. Each time the user has attacked me on my talk page: [76] and [77]. The first one I silently reverted but then it happened again so I would like to know if any thing can be done about this user? I would warn them but I have a feeling that would only antagonise them further ... Thanks. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked for harassment. No need for that kind of behaviour round here. Pop back if it starts up again. Bencherlite^Talk 11:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 11:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP making legal threats

Resolved

Particularly bad instance of anon Turkish IP violating WP:LEGAL here [78]. I think someone needs to do something about this. Example: "My threat is no threat my friend, I am going to court and I will subpeona you as a witness to this overt discrimination of religious groups. I am going to show you Wikis what vandals really are - admins on a power trip." --Folantin (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by Antandrus. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I left him a note on how to proceed. Hopefully he'll retract the threat and use the regular dispute resolution process. Antandrus (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Diligent Terrier is abusing his editor power, corrupting mKR (programming language)

Despite my repeated attempts to reason with him, Diligent Terrier is making edits which result in nonsense being displayed for the article mKR (programming language). He has reverted twice, in the process destroying other edits of mine which he never even looked at. His last reversion was this morning, even though he is supposed to be "retired" and have no official function at Wikipedia. Rhmccullough (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Diligent Terrier's latest edit seems perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Can you explain what's wrong with it? (It would be a content dispute, except that DT doesn't seem to be talking.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. DT's reasons for his edits are always very vague. He never discusses them with me, or explains anything. 2. DT keeps changing "Major features" section -- a. It refers to examples - they don't exist. b. The title "Major features" (made up by DT) does not make sense. 3. When he reverts "Major features", he is deleting the real "Major features" section which I defined. Why? no reason. Does he even know it exists? I don't know. He has never commented on it at all. 4. FYI - DT's first interaction with me was to delete several sections, which I had added on the recommendation of a previous editor. Again - no explanation, no discussion. His "philosophy" -- whatever it is, contradicts that of the previous editor. But he won't discuss it. Rhmccullough (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You've cited no evidence of Diligent Terrier breaking any of Wikipedia's rules, and there's no evidence that this is anything other than a content dispute. It's not administrators' place to solve such disputes - please use the dispute resolution process. While "not talking" is perhaps unfortunate, there's no rule that compels anyone to do so, so this isn't an admin matter. -- 87.114.35.233 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more explicit about one thing. You asked me what's wrong with his last edit. In the literal sense, I don't know. I don't understand it. I don't know why he did it. In the philosophical sense, what's wrong is that he is hacking up the mKR (programming language) article -- I have my doubts as to whether I will be proud of it when he's through with it. Rhmccullough (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

One last question. You did not comment on the fact that DT is "retired". Is that not an issue at all? Rhmccullough (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Users can pretend to be retired all they want; it doesn't mean a thing. This might not be much of a case for admin attention, but I do see at least some edits by Diligent Terrier which are questionable. I don't see where he's commented on the talk page at all, but he's made substantial edits which there is apparently disagreement about. I recommend everyone go slow and explain their positions rather than just reverting. Friday (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops- for some reason my browser "find" function isn't seeing his edits. Friday (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Block?

Resolved

I don't want to carry out this block myself. Will someone take a look at User talk:Cazique's latest contribs, including my final warning and his response? I would appreciate it. Thanks! Tan | 39 15:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Escalated further to warrant indef block. Tan | 39 16:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Edit?

Maybe this is just out of my league, but I came across this edit. I'm not familiar with these tags, but it almost looks as if the IP placed a block notice on its own talk page, and then when you look at the IP's contributions, they are equally as confusing. Explination? Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, but it has been proxy blocked for 5 years. It appears to be a spambot, so I think the tariff is fine, and it may just be a glitch in the software that made it appear as if it posted its own template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A long story

This whole story started when User:Jack forbes filed a sockpuppetry report against User:Fone4My. Until then Jack had been a productive and active Wikipedian who hadn't ever (to my knowledge) been involved in a (major) dispute. As soon as he filed the report User:Fone4My admitted using an IP but only due to becoming logged out (albeit logging in and out serveral times in a matter of minutes). Jack forbes disputed this citing a number of diffs where Fone4my had referred to the IP in the third person. Jack also cited diffs where Fone's IP asked someone to make an edit, and with his actual account he made this edit. User:Alison kindly confirmed that the IP was indeed Fone4my. A non admin closed the report saying "it appears that Fonez4mii did nothing wrong and that Jack Forbes was a little too eager in suspecting him of ulterior motives". In his closing words the user claimed not to have read all the evidence and only to have read part of the sock puppetry discussion. Jack forbes, enraged at the decision decided to retire from Wikipedia but not before leaving a somewhat controversial message containing the following quote "next time you want to win an argument or besmirch someones name, use a sockpuppet, then when you are brought to account for it confess, pretend you did not mean it, despite all the evidence which won't be read anyway!". Thus the case was closed. A few editors expressed their unhappiness with the closing comments of the sockpuppetry report. Jack forbes later returned once more to threaten Fone4my physically and verbally. He was later issued a last warning by an administrator. Since then Fone4my has filed a sockpuppetry report against Jack forbes (checkuser pending). In my opinion it would be a good idea for an administrator to re-close the Fone4my sockpuppetry report after having read all the evidence and having checked all the diffs, that's all I ask. Hopefully we can then put this whole dispute to rest. Thank you so much! --Cameron (T|C) 17:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we need closure. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

user:Heatsketch and death threats

This user is currently blocked after I reported him to AIV, but I've noticed that he's made at least two death threats in his edit history that warrant an indef block. The most recent was in May when he stated in an article talk page of a convict, "Someone find out what prison this asshole is staying at and when he is due for release so the second he steps outside I can put a bullet in his evil head."[79]. The earlier one that I've found was a threat against Jimbo Wales when Heatsketch stated on his own talk page, "BAH YOU FUCK I have anthrax tell jimbo to check his mail soon."[80]. I don't know if there are more. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)