Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User page text copied

A recent User page, created by User:MrRohanM on 26 January 2010 has the opening text copy pasted from my Userpage, including the Babel tower and the Barnstars! The design format however is not mine original, rather a standard one. Are there any wiki rules that cater to this situation?!! If yes, please guide/intervene. Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 08:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The user has been recently blocked for ignoring copyvio notices too. It is definitely a mis-representation of himself, especially indicating years of work on articles and displaying barnstars from established editors! Here is another complaint raised by an editor. prashanthns (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I presented the barnstar to Ekabhishek, not MRohan. AshLin (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Material here is released by you per the GFDL guidelines. I will however leave him a note about this discussion and about the false use of barnstars awarded to others. JodyB _talk 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as a followup, I left a note asking him to remove the false Barnstars. I removed the one from User:AshLin referenced above. JodyB _talk 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them all as they were misleading. I've run into users like this before who have copied a user's page, which resulted in 7 users being errniously added to a project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether somebody's User page edits are released or not, the person who copies them to their User page must still follow the attribution rules. Woogee (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the licensing issues raised above, there is the issue of misrepresentation too. prashanthns (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. As a side note, since user pages are often edited solely by their owners, the wikilinks for the page and author may be the same. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

LirazSiri

LirazSiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is co-founder of TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user's history shows that he has engaged in a prolonged campaign of promotion of his commercial interests, creating the article on his product (twice), and recently edit-warring over his insertion of his product at {{Cloud computing}}, e.g. [1] where he describes removal of his addition of his product as "vandalism". I propose that LirazSiri be restricted as follows:

• user:LirazSiri is banned from TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library and from making references to TurnKey Linux elsewhere in the project, other than to point out simple errors of fact via talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library.

The history of the talk page and its deleted comments [2] shows that the user cannot possibly claim, as he appears to do on the current version, to be unaware of the problems of his conflicted editing. He was warned in February 2009 about COI edits [3] and when Abd warned him in Feb 2010 his response pretends he was not previously aware of this [4] (note that edit also removes warnings about copyright, removal of deletion templates and so on). There is no doubt that this editor is aware of our policies, the history of his talk page indicates numerous previous notified deletions of material due to rights issues.

Alternatively, since this is effectively a WP:SPA I guess a siteban would be possible, but I prefer to think that if we could prevent him from spamming he might still try to contribute some useful content on areas where he has knowledge. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Despite their obvious potential in contributing to Wikipedia in an appropriate manner, their insistence on using WP as a promotional tool is presently a nett deficit to the project. Since there is the potential, I concur that a article ban is the best option. This may be reviewed should their contributions start reflecting policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, this may be a good idea, if only to avoid future problems. That said, the above description isn't entirely accurate:

• The editor did recreate the page after it was first speedied, but the current version was userfied and developed before being sent, by the editor, to DRV, where it was approved.
• The COI is in regard to an open source project, so it isn't clear that there is a direct commercial interest, and the editor is generally very upfront about the COI.
• As I understand it, the major spamming involved placing a link to the article in the {{Cloud computing}} template, where, when it was first removed, the editor sought consensus on talk.
• The current dispute, and accusations of vandalism, came after that template was modified, without discussion, by Samj with the somewhat inflammatory edit summary of "%!@$#! spammers!". Samj also accused the editor of vandalism for readding the link well before LirazSiri returned the favour, including placing a final warning on LirazSiri's talk. I note that LirazSiri suggested that Samj discuss the template rather than edit waring on at least three occasions ([5][6][7]) prior to either editor escalating to accusations of vandalism.

Short version - it looks like two editors managed to get caught up in a fairly wide ranging and heated edit war. While sanctions may be needed, I'm uncomfortable with coming down on LirazSiri without noting that there was bad behaviour on both sides, and that LirazSiri wasn't necessarily the worst of the two. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• If I recall it was deleted, userfied, moved back to mainspace, deleted again, then userfied again. It was a while back, though. That doesn't change the fact that this is an account whose primary if not sole purpose on Wikipedia is, and always has been, promotion of his own commercial interests. And the template was first modified by LirazSiri [8], who added an "appliances" section as a WP:COATRACK for his product. SamJohnston was merely reacting to this promotional editing and was not the first or only one to do so, see Template:Cloud computing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It's also worth noting that when LirazSiri proposed the Appliances section on Talk (after he'd added it and it had been reverted), he neglected to mention his conflict of interest. Nor was it mentioned when a "see also" section was added to Amazon Machine Image (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with just one entry: [9]. Nor was it mentioned when he added it to Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), [10]. Or Software appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [11]. Or Virtual appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [12]. Or Just enough operating system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [13]. Or Turnkey (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [14]. Or List of live CDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [15]. And who might 79.180.13.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) be, I wonder? Because the only edits from that IP are adding TurnKey linux, for example where it's been removed from articles. In fact, I found it hard to find a single article to which LirazSiri has made non-trivial edits where those edits did not include linking TurnKey Linux, and where it's linked from other articles it usually turns out to be either LirazSiri who added it or an anon whose only edits to articles include adding links to TurnKey. The more I look at this the more blatant it looks, frankly. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• There was certainly a mess when the TurnKey Linux article was created, and a lot of argument, mostly instigated (or at least furthered) by LirazSiri. I guess my point there is only that that he seemed to get a clue, eventually, fixed up the article, and went through DRV. So the current article isn't necessarily suffering from the same problems, and he did improve his approach. I don't dispute that he is an SPA, and nor do I dispute that he has a COI. But I think the characterization of the editor's recent problems fails to take into account what was going on - while you're right that an editor had previously reverted the change from the template, LirazSiri took it to talk, and the result was (between the two editors) seeming acceptance of its inclusion. Then Samj turned up, two months later, removed it with an overly aggressive edit summary without discussion, and the two edit warred - with escalating commentary - over its inclusion, expanding the fight to TurnKey Linux. My hassle is that LirazSiri responded badly, and that he was arguably spamming the article with wikilinks, but it seems worth remembering that this wasn't the case of an editor reacting without cause, but two editors behaving badly, and that it was LirazSiri who seemed to be making moves to resolve the dispute (admittedly while reverting to his preferred version, of course). A topic ban might make sense, especially with the linking you mentioned, but it still seems worth keeping in mind what was pushing the reactions over the last few days. - Bilby (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• If that had been an end to it, yes. But one of those diffs, [16], is from December 2009 and the edit war that started all this is recent. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I had planned to stay out of this but so long as I am being persistently criticised in a public forum using my real name by User:Bilby (who I note is a long-term contributor to the TurnKey article FWIW) I'm going to exercise my right of reply. First of all, and most importantly, my sole motivation is to maintain a very high standard in cloud computing related articles. In contrast, User:LirazSiri is a single purpose account for promoting TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library (and indirectly the associated commercial entity, Sterile Security, not that a subject need be commercial to give rise to WP:COI).

I don't own the Template:Cloud computing article, but I did create it with a specific purpose in mind (now described in the template docs) and I do care about it. What User:LirazSiri did in adding an "Appliances" category to advertise their flagship product is comparable to adding a new layer to the 7-layer OSI model for the same purpose - obviously that would be unacceptable and would be immediately and persistently reverted by other editors (as was the case here - note that I was not the only editor to remove the category and the consensus is that it should not be there). Furthermore, the template is intended to illustrate by example each of the three main cloud computing layers (infrastructure, platform, application) using the best examples available - it is not intended to promote unknown entities. So far as I am concerned this is without doubt spam and given it changes the meaning of the template consider it vandalism too. Note that "[Template vandalism] is especially serious, because it will negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds of pages."

Also note that the template was a relatively minor part of the problem (albeit the one that initially caught my attention). There is also the far more serious matter of 10 problematic images having been uploaded AGAIN, containing TurnKey's logo grafted others' registered trademarks along with the claim that "I (LirazSiri (talk)) created this work entirely by myself". These were then persistently inserted and re-inserted into many non-image categories, with reverts summarised as "hotcat abuse"(?). When I then partially resolved the copyright problems by applying {{Non-free logo}} and {{di-no fair use rationale}} (calling for fair use rationale) this was quickly reverted. I was heavily criticised by both User:LirazSiri and User:Abd for my cleanup efforts, for listing the images for deletion, and even for my choice of tool! When User:LirazSiri removed the deletion templates (more vandalism) he used the edit summary "reverted vindictive edits by SamJohnston" and repeatedly claimed in the debate that this constituted "more cynical wikilawyering and harassment".

Now I may not come across as the friendliest editor (especially to those who seek to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion) and this one edit summary may have been a bit abrasive, but I feel little remorse for hostility towards such disruptive and tendentious editing, particularly in light of the abuse I have received both on- and off-wiki (here, here, here and of course this). Maybe I do take it "insanely seriously" but we have policies for a reason and they generally work well. User:LirazSiri has shown they have no respect for the rules and that they "will continue to express [their] opinions and advocate for what [they] believe in despite threats to censor [them] for 'making waves'". It seems the only way to avoid continued disruption is with a ban of some sort.

P.S. If you're looking for an explanation as to how routine spam cleanup turned into a full on dispute snaring multiple editors then look no further than User:Abd who has a history of same and an editing restriction "[prohibiting them] from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties" that we are seeking to enforce. -- samj _in^out 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It was pointed out to LirazSiri at least a year ago that Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. This has been studiously ignored. Only supportive comments have been accepted and the promotional edits have continued unabated. What we have here is a completely unrepentant promoter of their own commercial ends. We normally block such people, an editing restriction is definitely lenient here. But don't be tempted to start flinging mud at Bilby, he seems to me to be acting in good faith, I don't see any evidence you and he would have trouble agreeing on anything of importance if you set out to try. I know what it feels like to be on the end of one of Abd's crusades, don't let the feeling poison you against others who are trying to discuss the matter in good faith. The problem here is LirazSiri, plus the emboldening effect Abd has had, which has actively impeded LirazSiri's progress from a COI spammer into anything else. Now we're going to have to take action to fix that. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I would Support a topic ban rather than a block (and I should hope banning the TurnKey article will temper User:LirazSiri's interest in others, including the template where I see they have been busy even today criticising my work and pushing the point about linking). Alternatively, or perhaps additionally in light of the disruption caused, I would propose a short block (somewhere between a day and a month) in the hope that they finally understand that they are at fault as nothing else seems to be getting through to them. An indefinite block just gives them reason to criticise the project and to be honest (thanks in no small part to assistance from other editors, including User:Bilby) the quality of the TurnKey article is not *that* bad so they may yet become a productive contributor rather than a "net deficit". -- samj _in^out 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of User:LirazSiri's attempted outing of User:JzG in response to notification of this incident (grounds in itself for an immediate block per WP:OUTING) and their persistence on Template_talk:Cloud computing, I no longer believe that a topic ban would be adequate. -- samj _in^out 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Update on LirazSiri's status

I was unaware of this discussion until a few moments ago, but participants will likely be interested to know that I have just placed an indefinite block on LirazSiri. S/he just attempted to out another editor, and s/he should remain indefinitely blocked until s/he expresses an understanding of our harrassment policy. (Unfortunately, I was subsequently forced to disable talk page editing by LirazSiri, because s/he continued to attempt to identify this editor.) If any admin sees fit to unblock after that, I would stipulate that it be under the condition that any further attempt to violate any other editor's privacy will result in a permanent block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LirazSiri immediately took this off-wiki and violated WP:OUTING "for the record" for the third time. He also abused me about it even though I didn't enact the block:

• Warning: never use your real identity on Wikipedia. The rules of the game are rigged to punish you for transparency.[17]
• @samj you are the most cynical and disingenuous professional I have ever come across online. And that's saying something. For shame. [18]
• @samj I'm tempted to write a blog post exposing what really happened. With evidence. When you live in a glass house don't throw stones. [19]
• @samj OTOH, this text MMORPG drama has wasted enough of my time and sociopaths like you self destruct on their own eventually. Good day. [20]
• @samj Drop the Dr. Jekyll routine. You sound reasonable on Twitter but on Wikipedia you are a vicious (yet still clever) Mr. Hyde. [21]

This was in addition to their earlier posts:

• @samj Wow. Just wow. Did you get on the wrong side of bed today? Take a deep breath. [22]
• Why do intelligent people create unnecessary drama online? It is boredom? Hopelessly misplaced ape-like aggression? Here, have a banana [23]
• staticnnonsense @lirazsiri because they're human. drama follows humans like flies, intelligent or not, intentional or not. we just sorta suck like that. [24]
• darkuncle @lirazsiri http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ explains it pretty well. [25]
• That penny arcade comic is hilarious. And true. Good combination. Thanks @darkuncle! [26]
• This week's lesson: watch where you step on Wikipedia. Some people take it insanely seriously. [27]
• Wikipedia is like this giant text MMORPG nation with a complex legal system and culture only an insider can truly grok [28]

This is exactly what I was trying to avoid above, but now that it's done I think we have little choice but to leave the indefinite block in place until LirazSiri agrees to abide by the rules. -- samj _in^out 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I will note as a follow-up that LirazSiri emailed me requesting an unblock, and forwarding me a copy of an email he wrote to Samj (after he, LirazSiri, was blocked) in which he threatened to extensively discuss details of Samj's identity and occupation. He also intimated that he would consider socking as a response to an extended block. I was not comfortable with unblocking under those circumstances, and said so. I am not prepared to get into extensive on-wiki discussion involving editors' (purported) identities, nor do I feel that I can unblock this editor in good conscience. If there are other administrators familiar with the issues here, I will defer to their judgement on when or how LirazSiri might be unblocked. (I further waive any requirement that I be consulted before further administrative actions. Frankly, I thought this would be a simple indef-until-you-promise-not-to-do-it-again one-off block; I wasn't expecting to get sucked into interpersonal disputes and emails full of private and semiprivate information.) Emails will be made available to BASC on request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect to LirazSiri, while I felt there was a reason for some of his earlier actions, there's no justification for his later ones. It would take something quite different to continued threats to out a user in order to warrant unblocking. - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly suggest a few other admins to have a look at the deleted versions. If AGF is given any weight at all, this wasn't exactly an "attempt to out" as is being interpreted here. LirazSiri's explanation (followed by "sheesh!") is actually quite plausible, bringing both the block and the talk page restriction into question, which in turn might explain (though not excuse) some of the email and twitter reactions. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy's name is hardly a secret, as he had a link to his own wiki with identifying information on his talk page for a long time. I certainly wouldn't have thought of a mention of his surname as being "outing" - simply a statement of fairly common knowledge. DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed about JzG. But isn't the subsequent threat made in email to TenOfAllTrades re SamJohnston what's being discussed here? Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The mail was apparently made after the block and restriction of talk page editing. Again, that would explain, but not necessarily excuse the email/tweet stuff. If TenOfAllTrades' initial reaction was disproportionate (which it certainly appears to have been), I'd like to at least see someone else review the email and see if there is room for resolving the issue in a less heavy-handed manner. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The initial block for "outing" JzG as Guy Chapman was incorrect, as JzG has identified himself as Guy Chapman for copyright purposes relating to Wikipedia images. See [29]. DuncanHill (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was quite an over-reaction, yes. As did LirazSiri, it seems (admin only link, see bottom paragraph), and it's hard to see how his/her reply to Ten's concerns could be interpreted as warranting the reaction it got. I strongly support lifting the block under the circumstances. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• My name is not really a deep secret (though it's fair to note that I don't currently make the link here and others, such as THF, have arbitration findings underscoring a user's right not to have a link made even if they originally made it themselves). The issue here, though, is that LirazSiri seems to be unable to accept that his conflicted edits are a problem. IMO the major cause of this escalation is that Abd has spent a lot of time bolstering his sense of injustice and entitlement, resulting in the user receiving a very mixed message. Instead of being steered firmly away from promoting his product he's been told, in effect, that he can ignore the advice and warnings he's being given because of the person giving them - of course he's going to want to hear that rather than that he should stop promoting his commercial interests on Wikipedia, that's natural. LirazSiri showed signs of donning the Spider-Man suit but later Tweets seem calmer - I don't know if he's been outing SamJ as well though. I don't have a problem with sticking to the original suggestion of a topic ban. I think he's angry, not evil, and we've failed to fix a bad situation caused by someone giving him the wrong kind of feedback. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed on most points. My sense of the (since interrupted) discussion above is that you were looking for a topic ban to help things along, rather than an indefblock, which strikes me as a reasonable approach. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly that. Obviously we need to ensure that the user receives sound advice in future and not axe-grinding, and this should include guiding him to stick to usernames, not take on-wiki disputes off-wiki and vice-versa, and all the other usual stuff. It's not really his fault that he's become a pawn in a game he didn't even know was being played, it is our fault for not realising that the involvement of grudge-bearers was going to have this effect on what is, after all, a pretty routine matter. It needs an uninvolved admin who is not obviously part of the dispute or "teh cabalz", is all. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm willing if there are no objections. Looks easy enough to unstir the teapot in this case, but closure to the topic-ban discussion would be helpful. I'll check back in a bit and unblock with appropriate warnings if there's no problem with that. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Considering Guy's not too fussed about his identity being known, even if there was intent there was no harm done. The first attempted outing had a similar "I know what you did last summer" ring to it as the email (which threatened to "expose" me for a couple of uncontroversial edits I made when I first created my account 4 years ago as well as crying wolf about WP:COI) and I didn't see the second. As such I would (as the original originating party) again Support a topic ban rather than a block. I would even support lifting the topic ban if the user were to indicate that they understand and agree to abide by the relevant policies, in particular the suggestions in WP:COI. -- samj _in^out 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The paranoia over "outing" gets quite ridiculous around here, extending to the making and enforcement of "shut the barn door after the horse left" policies against revealing information that the subject himself revealed, then tried to take back. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now unblocked, hopefully the issues can be concluded without further drama. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, let's see if this editor is able to contribute usefully to areas where they don't have a conflict of interest and a poor editing history. This is the kind of problem we get when editors listen to disruptive influences. Verbal chat 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Unsurprisingly, it turns out this is not the first time we've discussed User:LirazSiri at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive513#Handing_off. -- samj _in^out 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here's another 8,000 words from a year ago following the usual pattern of "my subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines, so let's change them": Notability_criteria_for_entries_on_free_software_projects -- samj _in^out 06:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The accused responds

Hi Everyone. This is as closest I've ever been (and ever hope to be!) "on trial". A lot has been written on my behavior and motives and it's strange to read that as a bystander. At least now that I'm unblocked I can respond.

I originally intended to include a description I compiled of SamJ's problematic edit history, cross referenced with his public employment record and peel away the pretense from his "I'm-just-trying-to-protect-Wikipedia" charade. But I won't do that. Not because I think it would be wrong, but mainly because it would be a big waste of my time to engage in a debate about this and that would be akin to the territorial retaliation I've been on the pointy end of this last week. I won't stoop to that. I'll merely conclude that this was an editorial content dispute that got out of hand [30] and there is blame enough to go around. At a couple of points I did get angry and loose my cool in and off wiki, but I got my sense of proportion back pretty quickly afterwards and calmed down [31] [32]. For the record, I've decided to forgive Sam for any real or perceived aggression against a fellow editor and cloud computing enthusiast. To his credit he did seem to tone it down a notch towards the end [33]. Unfortunately, this was just after he had me blocked for "outing" Guy so it's a mixed bag.

I haven't yet decided how involved I want to be with Wikipedia in the future. I've been contributing anonymously to areas of interest since not long after the project's inception (with the first Slashdot waves). I only created an account with my real name to facilitate full transparency regarding edits I had potential COI with. I was tempted to rationalize that there wasn't really a COI because there wasn't a commercial interest involved, but I realized what a slippery slope this was (there's a difference between being rational and rationalizing) and decided to consciously limit myself in this regard. Unfortunately, I feel that's made me particularly vulnerable to ad-hominem attacks which I am compelled to respond to in defense of my reputation. Instead of discussing content on its merits it becomes all too easy to simply dismiss edits as tainted with COI (at best) or even evil spamming. Last year the article on TurnKey was even "speed deleted" as spam instead of going through the normal AfD process for determining notability. It was then moved to my user space for improvement but since I had messed with the wrong admin it was speed deleted even from there. That felt abusive. Sure, the article was eventually restored by unanimous decision at Deletion Review [34] but it was frustrating to have to go through that and get dragged through the mud first.

Wikipedia's anarchic bureaucracy suffers from many perversions. The attempt to codify good behavior in policy has created a complex virtual legal system that can be easily manipulated by savvy individuals to their own ends (e.g., my blocking for an innocuous, lighthearted greeting). To paraphrase Lincoln, we all link to the same wiki policies, but in doing so we do not always mean the same things. In practice, many valuable would-be contributors to the project are being driven away through attrition, leaving the most obsessive, territorial contributors with free reign. Bad things can happen to good editors with the best of intentions and for all the wrong reasons.

Fortunately just when your head is about to explode from the insanity of it all comes along someone like Abd and offers neutral, positive guidance [35] [36]. What troubles me the most about this whole affair is how much mud had been slung in his direction. Some people in the community seem to really have it in for him. That's a shame. Wikipedia embodies so much of the good and bad in human nature and we need more people like him to tip the scale and prevent the project from further disintegrating.

Cheers. LirazSiri (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Liraz, you emailed me and threatened to "expose" me for uncontroversial, factual edits to the Citrix Systems article like this one, for creating the completely neutral System Administrators Guild of Ireland article and then got into a whole lot of hand waving about how I had been "so successful in pushing a POV on cloud that serves [my] employer's interests" and that "this makes [me] one of the most cynical and disingenuous professionals [you] have ever come across online" (conveniently ignoring the fact that I have literally just started working for my employer and that your accusations are conspicuously absent supporting evidence - presumably why you threatened to "out" me off-wiki with "a quantitative visual analysis of [my] edit history in the last 4 years with correlation to your public employment record" rather than using the usual processes). We have a word for that. I explained to you why a WP:COI accusation absent evidence is a type of personal attack (An interest is not a conflict of interest) and yet here you go again, going so far as to call me a single-purpose account in your emailed response.

As for User:Abd, who narrowly escaped sanction for violating his editing restriction and who will not be so lucky next time following clarification, here's a more typical sample of his "neutral, positive guidance". -- samj _in^out 06:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Two things immediately spring to mind from LirazSiri's comment: WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The "neutral positive guidance" offered by Abd is no different from the counsel you were offered a year ago, had you heeded it then you would not be in trouble now. Instead you chose to follow what you presumably thought was "neutral positive guidance" from Abd back then, which turned out to be a serious mistake because the grudge-bearers managed to persuade you that you could safely ignore our documented aversion to promotional editing. You can't. Or at least not without getting into trouble, as you've found out. I think you are being distinctly disingenuous here, notwithstanding that you have been counselled badly by some people who are primarily grinding axes. I am not persuaded that you have yet shown any understanding of why your promotion of your commercial interests here is unacceptable. You continue to use distraction fallacies, as you did then, in an apparent attempt to excuse continued conflicted editing. I'm sorry, that is simply not good enough. The evidence above is pretty clear: your primary purpose here is and always has been the promotion of your own commercial interests, apparently because nobody but you thinks your product is of such pre-eminent worth as to justify adding it at high-level articles. So you do it. Again and again and again. Even though you've had WP:COI pointed out. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support a "topic ban from making any edit relating to TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library, except to point out simple errors of fact at Talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library. But as I have not finished looking into this, this will have to be something I come back to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename CAT:CSD

Please express your opinions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 28#Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. (discussion closed, timestamp added) Fram (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

New filter may be in order

It may be time for a filter to help alert us to a very persistent character. User:Channel 6 has been nurturing a very single-minded sockpuppet farm almost certainly via proxies. He's been trying to promote a totally non-notable singer named Sarey Savy since at least December 2008. He simply keeps creating variations on the title as each variation is salted. "Sarey" is consistent among all the variations; could we create a filter that would alert us to "Sarey" and/or "Savy" or perhaps "Savvy?" --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, he's also over at Simple English. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem with template deletion process

Please investigate I decided to take a look at {{First Class Matches}}, {{Infobox Canadian police service}}, and {{Infobox Canadian police service}}—all of which I recently nominated for deletion and all of which were voted for deletion. Even though the discussions were over, {{tfd}} was still on the pages and {{being deleted}} was not. This lead me to Category:Templates for deletion, which includes (amongst others) {{Saudi Arabian political parties}}, which was nominated and kept last November. I don't know how widespread this issue is, but I suggest an admin take a look. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the issue here, I'm a bit unclear: what's the issue with {{Saudi Arabian political parties}} being nominated and kept last November?

You're right that {{First Class Matches}} seems to have been overlooked, but the TfD templates had been removed from both Infobox Canadian police service and Infobox Police Department. I don't know that {{being deleted}} is necessary, because the closure of the TfD discussion seems to have been to redirect those two. Redirecting is, of course, a form of keeping. Pending some clarification, I'll go ahead and remove the "being deleted" template from those two. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, I've asked an admin who does a lot of work at TfD to help clarify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "voted for deletion" isn't an accurate description of the results for {{Infobox Canadian police service}} and {{Infobox Canadian police service}}, so a {{Being deleted}} template would not be appropriate. {{First Class Matches}} was just closed this morning (UTC), so I'm not sure if it was "overlooked" or if the admin just didn't bother because he expected to have the deletion finished quickly enough for it not to matter. Leaving the TFD notice on {{Saudi Arabian political parties}}, on the other hand, was clearly a mistake. The result tag on the talk page was also forgotten, so I added that. A quick scan of the category also found an incomplete close for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 20#Template:Bihar State Highways Network, where the Tfd template was left on the page after it was userfied, and a few false inclusions (templates that show up in the category because a nominated template is transcluded into them). But the vast majority of the templates in the category are current nominations, so I don't think there is a widespread problem here. --RL0919 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, missed the obvious there. The problem with it was that the TfD template had remained. :) Not a problem with the TfD itself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you check the links to {{First Class Matches}}, you will see it's on my todo list. I didn't see a need for the {{being deleted}} since it was going to be handled within 24 hours. This is not always an instantaneous process, especially when there are hundreds of templates being nominated in the span of a couple days. Next time you can always just ask the closing admin about it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Right I didn't think it was a problem until I saw the deletion from November. Obviously, things take time, but things this simple don't take four months. 24 hours on the other hand is completely legitimate. Thanks for the input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea to check Category:Templates for deletion, as you did, every so often. You will frequently find templates which were tagged, but no discussion was started, or templates which have closed, but never deleted, redirect, or orphaned. It would probably be fairly straightforward to write a script to check for members of this category which were not currently listed on the TFD page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at DRV

Resolved

 – Several somebodies did. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close the two discussions remaining open at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 17 before they disappear? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions poll by Jimbo Wales

Please visit and comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Fram (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has started a poll about whether or not we should simply turn on flagged revisions ASAP using the same settings as the German Wikipedia. This would seriously reduce the time it will take to implement, but it will likely mean we have considerable more work to do than we would have with the settings we actually want. It looks like Jimbo is advocating that we would switch off the German version and switch over to our own version as soon as it's ready. Anyway, enough from me - Go vote! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving old BBC News articles

BBC has announced that several sections of its old websites would be axed and its old content pruned, owing to a funding shakeup to BBC Online. I'm concerned that this is likely to include old versions of BBC News articles dating back to 1999, which an awful lot of articles heavily depend upon for reliable sourcing (some of them the only source, in fact). I think we should start converting them into WebCites before they are removed and then we'll have a huge sourcing problem in our hands. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This problem crops up more and more. What happened to User:WebCiteBOT? And can't AWB be extended to allow rapid WebCiting? Rd232 ^talk 13:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It is useful to Webcite such references even if, at this stage, citations are not edited to link to the archives. Thincat (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:US_War_on_Terrorism

Resolved

Can someone help with this template please? I tried renaming it to US_War_on_Terror, but I broke the template in the articles where it was used. I tried renaming it back, but that didn't fix it. Thanks in advance. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what happens...

...when you indeff an editor . Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I told them; a thousand year block would have been more appropriate! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interrrestink... but stupid! Guy (Help!) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Best... video... ever... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Obvious troll - they misspelled "indefinitely. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Moderator?" We have moderators? —DoRD (?) (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of times where admins are called mods because of the way we block and delete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. Just alluding to the fact that those unfamiliar with WP often use an imprecise term. —DoRD (?) (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the term is derived from neutron moderator. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect's current block of Abd.

I believe that Future Perfect has made a bad block of Abd. My argument can be found here. I believe that FP simply wanting to throw his weight around, IMHO, as there is no clear violation of Abd's sanction as far as I can see. FP is needlessly harassing Abd with this block (like there is ever a need to harass someone). I would appreciate some independent oversight of this block. --GoRight (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I shall notify FP of this report on his talk page in that same section.

FP also seems to be under the impression that he is allowed to bar Abd from filing his own Arbcom requests: "And to forestall another misunderstanding you hinted at: you will not be allowed to file Arbcom requests about that dispute either." This is presumably in reference to this: "... because disruption, including extensive comment about me and my actions across many pages, from editors who should know better, is continuing, I may have no recourse left but to file an RfAr" I find that premise to be completely absurd. Abd's sanction doesn't even hint at such a notion that Abd is barred from filing his own DR requests concerning matters directed at him. --GoRight (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your own history of involvement in other people's disputes is... inglorious. I would strongly advise you not to get involved. There is a process for appealing blocks and bans, Abd can follow that process. I would be greatly surprised if your involvement did anything other than make things worse at this point. Incidentally, FP's actions have real-world parallels, see vexatious litigant. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am only the messenger. I have raised the issue and provided pointers to the relevant information so now uninvolved admins can decide for themselves. As to you final point, if you are suggesting that FP is being vexatious in his actions I certainly won't argue with you. --GoRight (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. You crack me up. What a glorious joke. Really. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do you think he meant by "Incidentally, FP's actions have real-world parallels, see vexatious litigant"? It is probably also worth noting that he himself has a rather checkered history with Abd. I, on the other hand, have very little with FP. --GoRight (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not, but you have plenty of history with Abd. He scratches yours, you scratch his. Badger Drink (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

[37] --GoRight (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Not Wikipedia specific but good wiki advice none the less.

• Abd escaped sanction at the ArbCom sanctions board because he said he would step away form the LirazSiri dispute which, after all, existed primarily because of his history of bad advice to LirazSiri. This edit: [38] is just yet another example of Abd interpreting everything as validation of his actions. Abd needs to learn when to STFU and cut his losses. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• (non-admin) This appears to be a good block. FPS clearly stated the interpretation of Abd's sanctions he wold aqpply, Abd agreed, and continued nonetheless. Prefectly straightforward. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • GoRight seems to be forum shopping and dramamongering at the moment. Abd started making personal attacks in the ArbCom request, contrary to his prior good faith promises. The block by FPaS is appropriate. It's also worth bearing in mind that on wikipedia review Abd's recent personal attacks on WMC go far beyond what was criticized by arbitrators in the original Abd-WMC ArbCom case about which he is currently seeking clarification. GoRight was unblocked conditionally a little while back. Is he currently not contravening the conditions of his unblock? Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    How am I forum shopping? This is the only forum where I have raised the issue. I did place a notice of this discussion on the Arbcom request for clarification and on FP's talk page if that is what you are referring to, but I did not ask for any discussion in either place. Was that somehow inappropriate? --GoRight (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    If the block was an inadequate interpretation of the Arbcom restriction then I'm sure that the arbs will say so on his replies to the request for clarification. And even then, this belongs to WP:AE because it's related to arbitration enforcement. Oh, wait, an AE request was just closed with no block because Abd had agreed to stop commenting on a certain dispute, and FP blocked Abd because he had kept commenting on that dispute, thus breaking his part of the agreement. Soooo, this was already handled at the proper forum (AE), and arbitrators (the guys who have the last word on the interpretation of arbcom restrictions) will already be able to review it at the request for clarification. That's why this thread is looking like forum shopping: you are raising an issue at an unproper forum when it has been handled or is awaiting handlement at proper forums. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, WP:AE does not seem the correct forum to me since I am not asking for any enforcement of any Arbcom sanction which is what I thought that forum was for. If the uninvolved admins here believe that WP:AE is the more proper forum then let them indicate as much and I will be more than happy to close this discussion and move it all over there. I only seek some independent review of FP's actions.

    "you are raising an issue at an unproper forum when it has been handled or is awaiting handlement at proper forums" - Where else has a review of this block been requested and by whom? --GoRight (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    "[GoRight] causes significant waste of time and disruption by nit-picking, lawyering, and not getting it on talk pages and in dispute resolution. If you want a meaningful restriction, ban him from climate change talk pages, and from noticeboard discussion and dispute resolution where he is not one of the primary involved parties." Stephan Schulz, posting one month ago on GoRight's talk page in objection to the laxity of the restrictions placed on GoRight by Trusilver. Indeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh Please. FPaS helped broker the agreement at AE so that Abd didn't get blocked for the first violation and then Abd throws that back in everyone's face with a follow up violation after agreeing that he wouldn't. A block seems a very reasonable outcome and some advice for GoRight. If users like you spent less time enabling and cheering on Adb when he is behaving disruptively and aggrevating other disputes, perhaps he might have got the message that there are limits and that sometimes we needs to pull back. I'm amazed you haven't been restricted from sticking your nose into other editors' disputes yet, IMO that kind of restriction would solve a lot of the issues with your participation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block; Abd failed to comply with his agreement, and went much further than that by referring to users as criminals. I agree with the views expressed above, by Guy, Beyond My Ken, etc. Spartaz raises an interesting proposal to impose Abd's restriction on GoRight also, and I'd be inclined to support (though I do wonder whether it would be sufficient, given that he is already subject to 3 other community sanctions per WP:RESTRICT - I don't believe we've had an user where 4 community sanctions were imposed). I do see signs of a general problem editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "General problem editor" = "one who stands up to the cliqueistas ganging up on him instead of sitting down and shutting up." *Dan T.* (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a creative interpretation you've come up with, but one that is severely misguided too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with most comments here, this was a useless block. Also the attacks on GoRight are ridiculous, he has the right to ask for a review of a sanction imposed by an administrator if he so wishes.  Dr. Loosmark  19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The block is enforcing an arbcom-imposed restriction, the review should have been posted at WP:AE. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• As the target of Abd's personal attacks and filer of the enforcement request I fully endorse the block (as a non-admin) and only wish it was done sooner, and for longer (as a week is clearly not long enough for the intended purpose). I may be Australian, but that does not make me a criminal (at least not by default!). I would further suggest that User:GoRight be subject to similar restrictions as the two of them are like peas in a pod, sapping the project of vulnerable volunteer time (our single most precious resource) with constant wikilawyering, hair splitting and unwanted and unwarranted involvement in others' business. Finally, with any editor who has ever in any way criticised either of them being declared "involved" it seems we run the risk of exhausting our supply of "uninvolved" people - it's not up to the named party to declare who they will and will not be sanctioned by (though perfectly acceptable to point out blatantly obvious, provable conflicts). Conversely, using the same logic one could argue that GoRight is the last person who should be filing on behalf of Abd. -- samj _in^out 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen Abd and GoRight don't claim that "every" editor who has ever criticized them is involved, far from it. In any case if Abd really broke an Arbcom's restriction in an obvious way then there is no need that a specific Admin does the block as any neutral Admin should be able to routinely detect such an infraction. Unfortunately many Admins on wikipedia think that if they don't do the block then the Earth will stop to rotate. As if we don't have a little million other Admins, most of them are really uninvolved.  Dr. Loosmark  22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for topic ban of User:Steaphen

Moved here from WP:ANI. Pcap ping 01:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Steaphen arbitration page it was suggested that a topic ban seems to be appropriate for prolonged user misconduct, and that the case could should be taken here.

This complaint is about the conduct of Steaphen's on the Talk:Zeno's paradoxes. His behaviour makes him a disruptive editor Wikipedia:DISRUPTIVE in my opinion.

Steaphen has been a Wikipedia editor since 2006, and has almost exclusively edited on Zeno's paradox, the related talk page, and pages related to mediations attempts [39][40][41][42][43]. During this time Steaphen has pushed the same point, from 2006 [44] until now [45], [46], [47].

He refuses to provide sources or respond to other editors questions [48], [49], [50], is threatening mediation and arbitration [51], [52], [53] uses the talk page as soapbox [54], [55], [56], and mocks, insults, or attacks other editors [57], [58], [59], which in the end is driving away productive editors. The above examples were just a selection of examples taken from the current talk page, and did not consider the archive, except for the first example from 2006. Of the 998 main edits on the talk page accounted here [60], 362 were by Steaphen.

I want to stress that this is not about the editing of one particular statement or phrase, but about the disruptive behavior Steaphen has shown over the years, and continues to show. In the last day Steaphen did use the talk page not only as a soap box [61] but he also discriminated other editors [62] and violated their privacy [63].Ansgarf (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a lengthy topic ban (say for a year) for User:Steaphen for edits related to Zeno's Paradoxes. I'll basically repeat here my comment from the arbitration page. I have not had any involvement in this dispute (and I don't think I have ever edited any articles or pages related to Zeno's Paradoxes), but after looking at the diffs provided by Ansgarf above and at the article's talk page, it appears to me that Ansgarf's assessment of the situation is basically correct. User:Steaphen has started editing Wikipedia in November 2006 and since then he has managed to remain essentially an SPA user, concentrating on a single article and a very narrow issue related to that article. That, in and of itself, is indicative of a problem. Steaphen's contribution record appears to be largely non-constructive, with a combination of POV pushing and civility problems that are, apparently, continuing. The Zeno's Paradoxes page has been dragged through several mediation cases already and there is an arbcom request pending. I personally think that a broad and lengthy community topic ban on User:Steaphen for any pages related to Zeno's Paradoxes would be desirable and beneficial under the circumstances, which also will spare us a full blown arbitration case. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This is the 2nd arbitration request in this area. The previous one was declined [64]. Pcap ping 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That arbitration case was brought by Steaphen and was presented essentially as a content dispute; of course the case was declined. The current arbcom request is about user conduct issues. Given that there have been three mediation cases already, it seems likely to me that the arbcom case will be accepted, unless the issue becomes moot, that is unless a community topic ban is adopted. Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if this is still relevant, given the note below on the ban. But I'll respond anyway with respect to the previous two mediation and arbitration attempts in which I was involved. I might not be objective, but I got the impression that Steaphen might not have been really interested in a consensus. He might have just been playing the rules or trying to intimidate.

For example, Steaphen mentioned in his very first response to me on Wikipedia already the need of "setting up formal mediation/arbitration" [65]. Before I ever replied to him on the matter. This was on 29/10. On 30/10 he said to have a "justification for mediation (more likely arbitration)" [66]. On 31/10 he referred to an "impetus for mediation (-> arbitration)" [67], and later that day to the "necessity of arbitration". On 6/11 he mentioned "the need for arbitration" [68], and that "arbitration is inevitable" [69]. On 8/11 he concluded that "grounds have now been well-established for actioning formal mediation/arbitration" [70], and later he thanked me for "sufficient, ample grounds for actioning formal mediation/arbitration" [71]. The mediation request was initiated within an hour.

From this stage on Steaphen eluded to a coming arbitration. On 9/11 he said that "if necessary arbitration" will sort out the matter [72], on 18/11 that he would call "if necessary, arbitration as well" [73]. On 25/11 he mentioned the necessity for "in all likelihood, arbitration" [74]. There were similar comments made in December and January. Steaphen had a break of a few weeks which started with the statement "Email me when a mediator shows up. Otherwise I'll pop back in a few weeks or months to initiate arbitration." [75] on 18/12, and he effectively ended his break on 22/01 with a reference to the "mediation (come arbitration)" [76]. To cut things short, he initiated arbitration on 11/02 and the case was declined and closed on 13/02. Later the month he started mentioning arbitration again [77].

To be fair I should mention that I met Steaphen once in person before I joined Wikipedia - and only then - at an event I organised. He himself used our brief encounter once as argument on the talk page, so it in not a secret. He probably has for that reason my university email address, which I use for announcements. We did however not discuss Zeno paradoxes, but the paradox of the absolute infinite, decidability and his theory of one-and-all, which he has mentioned in the past on Wikipedia as well. We continued this discussion briefly on his blog.

I also want to point out that Steaphen did already use the threat of arbitration before I met him or joined Wikipedia against other editors. For example on 17 August he suggested to Jim and Blippy to "bump this straight to formal mediation, followed by, if necessary, arbitration."[78].

As said, I am not sure if this is all still relevant, but this way it is at least on record.Ansgarf (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked indef over that "bringing your school into disrepute" edit above (#71 at the moment), since Ansgarf does not seem to have clearly indicated an affiliation. Feel free to reduce that without consulting me first, but I would object strongly to voiding it without a clear indication from Steaphen that he understands why it was problematic and agrees not to repeat it. Note, however, that he claims to be severing all ties with Wikipedia in his most-recent userpage edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the edit leading to this block was this one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been briefly involved with Steaphen's edits, discussions and the above issues, and I can understand the feelings that have led up to this particular set of accusations. However, I do not concur with such a block. But then, I'm not all that crazy about censorship of any kind. No matter what Steaphen has done, we've all seen lots worse. To gang up on him, block him, and induce him to desert Wikipedia is no more, no less than a travesty of justice. I've had an account with WP for just over a year now, and I truthfully can say that the vast majority of administrative decisions have been fair, just and untyrannical. But this idea is completely unconscionable to me. Just my take, but that's how it looks to me.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what in the world are you talking about? Steaphen was blocked for a violation of WP:OUTING, after a warning[79] to which he chose not to respond. Nobody "induced him to desert Wikipedia". An arbitration request has been filed in relation to a long-running dispute that he has been involved in. Steaphen himself had initiated an arbitration request on this dispute (which was declined) earlier this month and he has been involved in several mediation cases, so he knows quite well how the dispute resolution process works. The current arbitration request has not even been accepted or declined yet at the time when Steaphen declared his intention to leave the project[80]. Note that the latter declaration also happened before the block. He had and still has plenty of other options. He could have presented additional evidence and further arguments at the arbitration request case. He could have responded to the warning about WP:OUTING violation and explained his edit that led to the warning. Before the block he could have commented in this thread (note that this thread initially suggested a topic ban; a discussion has started and no decision either way has been reached). After the block occurred, he could have requested an unblock. Instead he threw a temper tantrum and left. If he was a newbie who did not know the procedures, that would have been one thing. But he is an experienced editor who knows quite well how various dispute-related processes work on Wikipedia. He had other options here which he decided not to exercise. That's his choice. On a last note, I have no sympathy for cries of censorship in the face of a long record of persistent POV pushing. I had suggested a topic ban for Steaphen, not an indef block. As far as I am concerned, that is still a preferred option, if Stephen choses to respond to the block and address the WP:OUTING concerns that led to the block. Nsk92 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's cool Nsk92, and as I said, I understand your words and feelings on this matter. We'll just have to "agree to disagree", for unlike you (apparently) I see this as censorship and a form of majority-rule heavy-handedness. Steaphen is argumentative and seems to feel very strongly about his philosophical beliefs. He also appears to be misguided as to what should and shouldn't be discussed on Talk pages, as well as WP's stance on "truth" vs. "verifiability". And lastly, as intelligent as he seems, he is persistent (or stubborn depending on one's viewpoint) when he thinks he's right thusly making him largely uneducable. He lacks wisdom as well as sensitivity. Such editors always seem to piss people off, sometimes to great extent as in this case. Each and every descriptor I've used could have also applied to at least one founding father of the United States, Thomas Paine, one of the most outspoken men to ever live. Would we ban Paine? Probably. We would ban him, too, because like Steaphen, Paine would wound the hell out of our sensibilities. Unfortunately, the situation aligns administration with the wrong side, doesn't it? We are not tyrants, nor are we babes whose sensibilities send us into such gray areas as this. Steaphen should not be blocked from editing in any way. Like I said, this is just my take. No one is required to agree with me, and I certainly do not say these things because I have any love for most of Steaphen's arguments, nor to misalign myself with WP administration. I just think that sometimes these situations are more a case of people putting up with so much that they refuse to put up with any more. These are the people who might want to rethink their tolerance levels.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to censor Steaphen on content. I think that I was very patient, if not too patient, to reply to his various objections. But I learned a lot about Quantum Mechanics in the process.

When Steaphen initiated arbitration against me I checked what common outcomes of arbitration are. When I later filed for arbitration I expected that Steaphen would be put on notice for calling people stupid, a shame for the scientific profession, idiots, witch burners, etcetera, and for claiming that the onus was not on him to prove anything, and for telling them repeatedly that their opinion should be banned from Wikipedia, their contributions removed, and if they wouldn't stop he would have them banned. I also expected that other editors (like me) would get reprimanded for feeding his disruptive behavior rather than ignore it.

I was surprised that after I filed the arbitration request, Steaphen didn't try to justify his behaviour, but instead, for example, told Paul August in his reply on the arbitration page that he wasn't sorry if his behaviour drove editors like him away, thus confirming my complaint. I expected him to know that in arbitration for disruptive behaviour attack is not the best defence. Also, after arbitration was filed, Steaphen made a veiled threat to talk to my assumed employer [81], and then went ahead and insinuated that Paradoctor is some kind of fascist [82]. He knew that there was a complaint about his disruptive behaviour, and he still went ahead; this was his doing, his choice. I didn't ask for him to be banned for any of those, but I am not surprised that he was. Ansgarf (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Nsk92: "Steaphen was blocked for a violation of WP:OUTING, after a warning[41] to which he chose not to respond." That looks like its confounding two different problems. The warning was about incivility towards me rather than outing Ansgarf. I can't really tell whether Steaphen had a chance to address my request before all hell broke loose. I would have preferred a considerably slower escalation, but I still have to say that Steaphen was cruising for a block. I also have to admit that I made a breath of relief when I saw it, followed by a small pang of guilt. When he appeals the block, I'll be available to try my hand at mentoring him. He is an opinionated thick-headed bastard, but so am I. ;) IMHO, despite his long presence and number of edits, he is still a newbie. I've been here almost as long as he, editing all over the place, racked up several times his edit count, and I am still learning important new things about this madhouse every other day. Paradoctor (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect to my outing. I notified Steaphen on 1 March, 13:24 that I had filed arbitration for disruptive behaviour [83]. He outed me on 1 March, 23:46, [84]. I added this edit to the arbitration request as proof of ongoing incivility on 2 March 1:31 [85]. Steaphen did respond to the arbitration a few times after, including 3 main edits [86][87][88] over a period of 24 hours, without addressing it.

With respect to incivility towards Paradoctor at 2 March, 11:12 [89]. He was warned by Paradotor on 2 March 13:30 [90]. Steaphen's next edit after that warning, on 3 March, 2:08, was to remove his user page [91], so he probably had made up his mind to leave, and chose not to respond anymore. Ansgarf (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

user:174.3.98.236 & user:174.3.99.176

174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs) / 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) is trying to endrun around WP:TFD by removing all instances of {{for2}}, even though consensus at TfD is shown to keep using it (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_18)

This user also seems to have an obsession with disambiguation hatnote templates, replacing one with another, and nominating them for deletion. Several people have complained about this behaviour on the user's talk pages.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Image undeletion

Hello, could an administrator please undelete File:CIMG0773.JPG? The photo was incorrectly transferred to Wikimedia Commons, and has to be placed under a fair use rationale. The title is blacklisted, so I couldn't create with {{ImageUndeleteRequest}}. Thanks, Blurpeace 06:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't find a file at that location. Did you get the name wrong? Also, if the name is blacklisted, could you suggest a better, more descriptive name to move it to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It may help us to find it if we knew which article it had previously appeared in. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was deleted and renamed on commons, now at File:Seaworld_2006.jpg. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well tracked. :) Isn't that image problematic? I don't do much with visuals, but the prominence of the Sea World sign would seem to make this a derivative work; I think one could make a case that this is a statue or sculpture and hence a no-go under freedom of panorama. Perhaps that's why Blurpeace says it should be hosted locally under fair use claim. Where does Commons stand on decorative signs? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, MRG. The sign appears to be a three-dimensional one, so perhaps Freedom of Panorama could apply. This is really an issue for Commons though. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

MRG, precisely. Expounding on their response: the United States does not have a relevant freedom of panorama exception, therefore the image should be hosted here. The logo is not simple enough to be claimed as public domain. If necessary, I will have the the photo deleted at Wikimedia Commons first and request its undeletion here afterwards. Blurpeace 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for your review

• Caleb Murdock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seth Material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Background reading:

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/39#Seth Material from December 2008, showing that the same problem existed then, and Caleb Murdock's attitude has not changed over the past year.

I have closed a recent edit-warring case at WP:AN3#User:Caleb Murdock reported by User:2over0 (Result: Topic ban) with a topic ban of Caleb Murdock from the Seth Material. (The Seth Material is a collection of psychic texts by the author Jane Roberts, who lived from 1929 to 1984).This is a case of long-term edit warring by Murdock who is an enthusiast for the Seth Material and has repeatedly taken maintenance tags off the article after they were placed by regular editors. The 3RR was closed with a proviso that the decision would be offered here for review. Attempts to explain Wikipedia policy to this editor were not successful. He thinks it's a two-person edit war between him and User:Verbal, who in his view, inexplicably prefers a shorter version of the article. So far as I can tell, Verbal has been trying to make the article an encyclopedic summary rather that a large dump of primary source material. Caleb Murdoock is a single-purpose account since he has no editing interest besides this article. Murdock will still be able to participate on the article's Talk page. This is a long-running problem, and I'm not optimistic that his attitude will change, but if it does so, I think lifting of the ban could be considered in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good call, IMO - that looks like a classic collision between WP:NPOV and WP:TRUTH. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good, although I question the wisdom of allowing him to comment on the talk page. That is a violation of the topic ban. He's banned from the topic, not just the article. That would also apply to the Jane Roberts article and talk pages, as well as any other pages that mention or deal with it. It would be wise for him to stay away from paranormal topics for awhile and ask for permission from the banning admin to edit anything like that. It's up to that admin to interpret what is included in the topic ban. A topic ban means "the topic", not just articles with that name, no matter where it is mentioned. If he sees anything that mentions those subjects, he should run the other way and resist the temptation to comment. It's time he ended his dubious status as a single-purpose account. He should edit articles on totally different topics and get some experience and learn what is acceptable and what is not. He doesn't understand that yet. He probably won't believe this, but I actually wish him well and hope he will mature into a more well-rounded editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good work, thank you EdJohnston. If he becomes disruptive on other articles or talkpages we can look into extending the ban then. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• You folks just don't understand what's wrong with Wikipedia. By allowing editors who are ignorant of the subject-matter to make extensive edits to an article, you are insuring that the information in any controversial article will be either incorrect or missing altogether. This policy has spawned an army of editors who are more intent on censoring articles that they don't like than building the encyclopedia as a whole. It is this policy that allows so many editing wars to occur. It allows editors with a bias -- such as those who fancy themselves to be skeptics but are actually atheists -- to impose their will on a large number of articles. You assume that all editors who are knowledgeable about and focused on certain topics are necessarily biased, but that is only your assumption. By favoring the censors on Wikipedia instead of the knowledgeable editors, you are insuring -- quite clearly -- that Wikipedia is a less informative encyclopedia than it might be.

I made it abundantly clear that Verbal was refusing to collaborate, and the evidence was right there on the talk page for everyone to see. By punishing me and not Verbal, you are enforcing a clear double standard. The fact that administrators, who should be impartial, would impose a double standard is evidence that they are also biased. On Wikipedia, the wolves are now guarding the hen house. In the area of religion (at the least), Wikipedia has become a haven for narrow-minded cranks who are afraid of any information that contradicts their narrow world view. Verbal did as much edit-warring as I did. My only real crime was that I got too passionate, and that I wouldn't assume good faith (and after three years of dealing with the jerk, that was not about to happen).

WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME CORRUPT, WITH BIASED AND BUREAUCRATIC EDITORS RUNNING THE SHOW.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's it, talk offensive to me, baby. So you're saying that you should be allowed free-reign because you've got one POV, and others shouldn't because they've got another? And this is different to what you claim the MedCab has done because...? Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's MedCom you're referring to; I don't remember a MedCab case with this user. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the last straw. Ban him. Wikipedia won't miss him. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:137.164.225.235

137.164.225.235 (talk · contribs) is trying to make unconstructive edits to an article (Pacific Ring of Fire) such as The Pacific Ring of Poo Tards (or sometimes just the Ring of Poo) instead of The Pacific Ring of Fire (or sometimes just the Ring of Fire).

Nascar1996 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC needs closing

Resolved

 – The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can one of those legendary univolved admins determine consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RFC: Every playmate is notable? It's been open for a month now. Pcap ping 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how to fix

Found this during scan of recent changes but didn't have an undo or rollback option on page, not sure of the proper way to fix this now ? File talk:Keiko-weighing.jpg Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. You couldn't revert or undo because it was a newly-created page; there's nothing to revert to. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Understand. so posting it here was the thing to do ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In the end of the day, either posting here or on the talk page of any admin will be fine. :) SGGH ^ping! 23:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) In future, you can mark it with a speedy deletion tag, (in this case {{db-vandalism}}, but there's a whole list at WP:CSD), and it goes on a list of files for admins to review and delete. No, the report doesn't technically belong here, but no worries, really, it's still (theoretically) not a bureaucracy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Closer needed for the BLP RfC soonish

Nearly 150 editors have !voted in a proposal to close the second round of the BLP RfC (116 agreeing with the proposed summary, and 32 disagreeing at least in part). While this RfC hasn't been a model of organization (and in fact probably led to Rd232's RfC on RfCs), it should still be possible to see if at least some limited consensus can be extracted.

The current phase of this RfC has been open since 6 Feb, so the standard 1 month timeline would suggest an ending on Mar 6. (Phase I of the BLP RfC opened on 26 Jan and was closed by Risker on 6 Feb.) Given that this is a bit of a mess of an RfC, I thought it might be a good time to see if any admin would be willing to attempt to read a consensus for anything from this RfC. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion in need of closure

Resolved

 – Discussion closed, articles redirected. I'm holding off on protection unless someone actually reverts. --RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song). Open for six days, no participation since February 26. There is a 100% consensus in this discussion that Politics, Religion and Her (song) be redirected to Politics, Religion and Her and High-Tech Redneck (song) to High-Tech Redneck. I am asking for any uninvolved admin to close the discussion and redirect both articles accordingly. Note that both redirections have been edit-warred over in the past, so I would highly recommend that both redirects be locked to prevent another edit war. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Endorse the decision & agree that protection at this point is not necessary. –xeno^talk 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:The Pythons

I've removed the email addresses for the individuals that were listed on the User:The Pythons page, because the page itself says they're 14. Should those email addresses be oversighted? Woogee (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism/Copyvio Allegations

Please continue this elsewhere, if it is really needed at all (appears doubtful to me). Killiondude (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

---

I have discovered that administrator Ironholds (talk · contribs) has engaged in some disturbing patterns of editing behavior. Some of the below examples are more egregious than others, but as a whole it is quite a disturbing trend, detailing a pattern of "borrowing" by Ironholds that is distressing. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples of plagiarism/copyvio

Jean-Pierre Warner Article: [92] Source: [93] Article: Warner was born on 24 September 1924 to an English father … and a French mother. Source: Warner was born in 1924 to an English father and a French mother. Article: Ste Croix de Neuilly and then at the École des Roches, before transferring to Harrow in 1938. Source: Ste Croix de Neuilly, and then to a boarding school in Normandy, École des Roches, before being sent to Harrow in 1938. Article: Harrow he went to Trinity College, Cambridge to study history before being commissioned into the Rifle Brigade as a second lieutenant Source: Harrow he went to Trinity College, Cambridge, to read history, but left after four terms to join the Rifle Brigade into which he was commissioned. Article: He later served on Lord Mountbatten's personal staff, becoming an acting major … at the age of 22. Source: At the end of the war he joined Lord Mountbatten’s staff at GHQ Far East. He was an acting major by the age of 22 Article: After demobilisation in 1947 he returned to Trinity College, reading law for a year and graduating with first-class honours. Source: Demobilised in 1947, he returned to Trinity to read law for one year, duly obtaining a first Article: junior counsel to the Registrar of Restrictive Practices, and in 1964 became junior counsel to HM Treasury. Source: junior counsel to the Registrar of Restrictive Practices … In 1964 he was appointed junior counsel to the Treasury in Chancery matters. Article: He was appointed Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in 1998. Source: In 1998 he was awarded Luxembourg’s Grand Cross, Order of Merit. Article: He was awarded honorary degrees from the University of Leicester,[7] University of Exeter and University of Edinburgh. Source: He had honorary LLDs from the Universities of Exeter, Leicester and Edinburgh. John Gurney Article: [94] Source: [95] Article: was called to the Bar by the Inner Temple on 3 May 1793. Source: was called to the bar at the Inner Temple on 3 May 1793. Article: he was knighted and made a Baron of the Exchequer on 13 February 1832 Article: on 13 February 1832 was knighted and made a Baron of the Exchequer Source: On 13 February 1832 he was appointed a baron of the exchequer and knighted. Article: Gurney later defended Robert Thomas Crossfield for complicity in the Popgun Plot Source: defended Robert Thomas Crossfield, who was charged with complicity in the Popgun Plot. Article: then prosecuted Lord Cochrane for spreading rumours of Napoleon's death to make money on the stock exchange. Source: prosecution of Lord Cochrane and Cochrane Johnstone, accused of spreading false rumours of Bonaparte's death to make profit in the stock exchange. Article: as an independent, albeit harsh judge, Source: was an independent and acute, but severe and somewhat harsh judge George Hammond Whalley Article: [96] Source: [97] Article: eldest son of James Whalley, a merchant and banker from Gloucester Source: eldest son of James Whalley, a merchant and banker of Gloucester Article: was educated at University College London, gaining a first class degree in Metaphysics and Rhetoric, and entered Grey's Inn in 1835, being called to the bar in 1839. Source: was educated at University College, London, where he gained first prizes in rhetoric and metaphysics, and entered Gray's Inn in 1835, being called to the bar in 1839. Article: During the Irish Potato Famine in 1837 he established several fisheries on the Irish west coast Source: During the Irish famine of 1847 he established fisheries on the west coast of Ireland Article: In 1866 he claimed to have evidence that Vatican machinations had caused the defeat of British troops in New Zealand, that Cardinal Cullen, the Irish primate, intended to place a Stuart pretender on the throne of England, and that the pope had taken control of the British artillery corps, the police, the telegraph office, and railway companies. Source: In 1866 he claimed to have evidence that Vatican machinations had caused the defeat of British troops in New Zealand, that Cardinal Cullen, the Irish primate, intended to place a Stuart pretender on the throne of England, and that the pope had taken control of the British artillery corps, the police, the telegraph office, and railway companies. John Stonor Article: [98] Source: [99] Article: part of Edward III's policy of replacing high-ranking officials after he began his personal rule, although there is no evidence Stonor was ever involved in politics. Source: part of Edward III's policy of replacing earlier officers once he began his personal rule, though there is no evidence that Stonor was ever involved in politics. Article: the disturbances at Bury St Edmunds and Abingdon Abbey in 1327 and at Oxford in 1335, the misconduct of officials in 1323 and 1331–4 and the trial of rebels in 1323, 1327, and 1331. Source: the disturbances at Bury St Edmunds and Abingdon Abbey in 1327 and at Oxford in 1335; the misconduct of officials in 1323 and 1331–4; and the trial of rebels in 1323, 1327, and 1331. Article: A review of the trial of Otto Grandson for misgovernment of the Channel Islands in 1319 and diplomatic missions to France in 1324 and Spain in 1325. Source: A review of the trial of Otto Grandson for misgovernment of the Channel Islands in 1319 and diplomatic missions to France in 1324 and Spain in 1325 William Tresham Article: [100] Source: [101] Article: he audited the accounts of royal officials in southern Wales. Source: auditor of the accounts of royal officials in south Wales Article: was retained as an Apprentice-at-law from 1444 to 1447 Source: was retained as an apprentice-at-law from 1444 to 1447. Article: calls for reform of the royal household. Source: call for the reform of the royal household Article: continued to receive an annual fee until at least 1447 Source: continued to receive an annual fee from the duke until at least 1447 Article: to investigate concealments of royal revenues Source: to investigate concealments of royal revenues Article: the value of crown lands, again in Northamptonshire. Source: the value of crown lands in that county Article: favoured at court, leading to his appointment to politically sensitive legal cases Source: Favour at court led to Tresham's being employed in politically sensitive legal cases; Ralph Sandwich Article: [102] Source: [103] Article: younger son of Simon of Sandwich and his wife Gillian, and the nephew of Henry of Sandwich Source: younger son of Sir Simon of Sandwich … and his wife Gillian … and nephew of Henry of Sandwich Article: attended the coronation of Edward II in February 1308, and on March 24 delivered the custody of the Tower of London to John Cromwell. Source: attend the coronation of Edward II on 8 February 1308, and on 24 March delivered the custody of the Tower to John Cromwell Article: Sandwich was pardoned in 1266 but maintained a close connection with the Leybourne family, acting as an attorney to Roger's widow in 1272 and then as the executor of her will in 1276. Source: Sandwich was pardoned in November 1266, and thereafter maintained close connections with the Leybourne family. In 1272 he acted as attorney for Roger of Leybourne's widow, the countess of Winchester, and was to serve as her executor four years later. Charles Jocelyn Hambro Article: [104] Source: [105] Article: suffering from cancer of the tongue (although radium therapy and surgery later allowed him to lead a relatively active life). Source: suffering from cancer of the tongue. An operation and radium treatment nevertheless allowed him to lead an extremely active life thereafter. Article: through his contact with the anti-Nazi journalist Ebbe Munck Charles formed links with the Danish resistance Source: through the anti-Nazi journalist Ebbe Munck, initiated contacts with resistance-minded Danes Article: Between December 1940 and November 1941 Charles was also in charge of overseeing the French, Belgian, German and Dutch sections of the SOE, and from November 1941 he was deputy leader of SOE for 5 months. Source: From December 1940 to November 1941 Hambro added to his responsibilities the oversight of SOE's nascent French, Belgian, Dutch, and German sections, and from November 1941 for five months he was deputy head of the whole organization Article: as head of the "British raw materials mission" in Washington; actually a cover for information exchanges between Britain and the United States Source: as head of the British raw materials mission: this was cover for supervising the exchange of information between the United Kingdom and the USA Thomas Reeve Article: [106] Source: [107] Article: the son of Richard Reeve, and was admitted to Trinity College, Oxford in 1688 at the age of only fifteen, and to Inner Temple in 1690. Source: the son of Richard Reeve, … Admitted to Trinity College, Oxford, at the age of fifteen in 1688, and to the Inner Temple in 1690, Article: in 1722 became attorney-general of the Duchy of Lancaster, succeeding Alexander Denton Source: in 1722 succeeded Alexander Denton as attorney-general of the duchy of Lancaster. Article: was apparently courted by Lord Sidney Beauclerk, … in hopes of a legacy Source: was vainly courted by Lord Sydney Beauclerk in the hope of a legacy Roger Hillary Article: [108] Source: [109] Article: Sir Roger Hillary (d. 1356) was a British justice. He was one of five sons of William Hillary and his wife Agnes. The Hillaries were a prosperous landowner family holding properties in Lincolnshire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, and Leicestershire, and appear to have been related to the Bereford family, whos members included Sir William Bereford, previously the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Source: Hillary, Sir Roger (d. 1356), justice, was one of at least five sons of William Hillary and his wife, Agnes. The Hillarys, a well-propertied family holding lands in Lincolnshire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, and Leicestershire, appear to have been related to the Bereford family of Coleshill, Warwickshire, whose members included Sir William Bereford, … a chief justice in the court of common pleas … Article: the connection is likely to have been a useful one Source: The connection is likely to have been a useful one Article: in 1335 he was appointed to investigate the activities of administrators in the West Midlands Source: in 1335 he was appointed to investigate the activities of the king's officers in the west midlands Article: inquire … into the fate of the jewels, plate, and money of the second earl of Arundel, executed in 1326 Source: enquiring as to the fate of the jewels and plate of Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel, who had been executed in 1326, George Treby (judge) Article: [110] Source: [111] Article: was the oldest son of Peter Treby, an attorney at the Court of Common Pleas and his wife Joan, daughter of John Snelling Source: was … the eldest son of Peter Treby … an attorney of common pleas, and his wife, Joan, daughter of John Snelling Article: Exeter College, Oxford in June 1660. He left before completing his degree, and was admitted into Middle Temple on 24 October 1663, being called to the bar on 2 June 1671. He became a bencher of Middle Temple on January 28 1681, a reader in 1686 and the treasurer between 1689 and 1690 Source: Exeter College, Oxford, in June 1660. He left Oxford without a degree, and on 24 October 1663 he was admitted to the Middle Temple, where he was called to the bar on 2 June 1671. He became a bencher of his inn on 28 January 1681 and a reader in 1686, and was treasurer in 1689–90. Article: In 1675 he married Anna Blount, a widow from London, who died some time before September 1677. Source: a London widow, Anna Blount, whom he married on 15 November 1675. … some time before September 1677. Article: in June 1679 that Treby might be elected as the new Speaker of the House of Commons, but nothing became of it apparently because he was so short sighted he could not distinguish between different Members of Parliament. Source: in June 1679 that Treby might be named the new speaker of the Commons. Nothing came of this, ‘because being so short sighted, he cannot see to distinguish members in the house’ Article: Once the Third Exclusion Parliament had been dissolved … Fitzharris was charged with treason. Source: Once the third Exclusion parliament had been dissolved … Fitzharris was charged with treason. Article: He was active in the Green Ribbon Club promoting the idea of a "free state", and suggested that James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth should be king. Source: he was active with the Green Ribbon Club, where he allegedly promoted a ‘free state’ and suggested that James Scott, duke of Monmouth … should be king. Article: King Charles and his lawyers attacked the city's charter with a Quo warranto action. Source: Charles's legal advisers decided to attack London's charter by quo warranto. Article: Mary Brinley, who reportedly brought a £10,000 portion Source: Mary Brinley who reportedly brought a £10,000 portion. Article: In the elections to the 1685 Parliament Treby stood against and lost to Richard Strode, partially as a result of the remodelling of the Plympton corporation charter, which had damaged Treby's political base. Source: In elections to parliament in 1685 Treby again stood at Plympton against Strode, though this time Strode prevailed, in part because Plympton's 1684 charter had remodelled the corporation and thus destroyed Treby's political base.

Discussion

Have you discussed this with Ironholds? If not, why did you not take it to his user talk page or WP:CCI first? AN is not well-suited for this type of discussion. NW (Talk) 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• It suited Ironholds just fine to discuss Davies' "issues" here first, so it will do well to discuss his here as well. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not plagiarism, that's, at worst, unimaginative paraphrasing. Paradoctor (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NW that the user's talk page is the place to start. (If his own past behavior was to take things to AN too quickly, that should not be the standard.) Also, I'd suggest cutting down the examples to just the strongest ones. The list is way long, and several of the early ones looked like acceptable rewording to me. It was only farther down that I saw long verbatim passages that seemed inappropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, RL, I've already reworded the later ones :P. Not only is Unitanode being pointy, but also being inaccurate. Ironholds (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply following Ironholds' own example. If he had taken his concerns to Davies first, I'd have extended him the same courtesy. He didn't, so I'm not. Now, let's deal with the problem here. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Dear pot, I have recently been drawn to curiosities concerning your hue.." Ironholds (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT much? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely ludicrous. I posted evidence of the same type of behavior Ironholds decried from Davies, in the same manner he dealt with it. There's a whole lotta' deflecting goin' on right now. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidently this is from a list that has been circulating via email (oh, the irony!). I am perfectly happy to attempt to rephrase those bits people have a problem with; a quick glance at my talkpage would show that some of these have already been brought to my attention, and accordingly rephrased. Thank you, Unitanode, for demonstrating the kind of maturity and reasonableness you credited me with last time plagiarism came up. Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you to explain why you plagiarized and committed copyvios in the first place. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unitanode; I am not an administrator, and you could try and be a bit less WP:POINTY. Sorry to shit on your parade, but almost all of the examples you've brought up here were posted to my talkpage by Moonriddengirl and have been corrected. I will try and be a bit less of a party pooper next time. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  I'm asking you for an explanation of why they happened to begin with. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  They were not deliberate, and many were made rather a while ago; where you can show bits that have not already been fixed as soon as they were brought to my attention, I will be happy to correct them. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Remind me again, did you accept, "They were not deliberate" as an explanation from Davies? Or did you continue to badger him, even after he opened a user subpage for discussion? As for recent examples, the very first one on my list (Jean-Pierre Warner) is from one month ago. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  And the second one on my list (John Gurney (judge)) is from two months ago. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Your most recent examples are also those where people have called it "unimaginative paraphrasing". I find it highly ironic that the person who shouted at me most for the Roger Davies thing is using exactly the same attitude here as some kind of petty, rather pathetic revenge. Have you considered using WP:POINT as something other than cut-price toilet roll? Ironholds (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  In regards to Jean-Pierre Warner, particularly, I can't actually see the problem. All are paraphrased, all as different as I can make them from the source without losing information, and I'd love to see how you'd rephrase some of the things, since that's a requirement for plagiarism accusations. Ironholds (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  If you don't like the way Ironholds behaved in some previous incident (which I am not familiar with; not every admin reads every discussion here), behaving in a similar way as a tit-for-tat is entirely WP:POINT-y. If you have a legitimate copying concern (and I make no judgment either way on that), take it to WP:CCI. --RL0919 (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ironholds methods were basically endorsed when he grabbed the pitchfork against Davies. As these methods have been endorsed, I'm simply following them in dealing with similar concerns about his own editing behavior. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  That makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps you should put down the POINTfork before you work it even further up your intestinal tract? Ironholds (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  What part of the fact that I'm simply using the method that you yourself endorsed in your previous complaint "makes absolutely no sense"? Did it make no sense to do it that way then? Or is it just now when that method is used to report your own errors? And don't "refactor" anything. You wrote what you wrote. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  The fact that we both agree said method was incorrect? And that you spent most of said complaint harping on about it and therefore should know better? But since you consider WP:SOCK optional, no wonder WP:POINT is in the same sort of category. Ironholds (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Ironholds, would you consider refactoring that please? I don't see merit to this complaint either, but it's better to set the right example about civility. Durova⁴¹² 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Having now looked up the previous discussion, I would hardly say the comments there "basically endorsed" the approach. And with this discussion being what it is, I agree with Pcap's call below to get this closed. --RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone just close this? This is obviously not the proper venue for dealing with a non-admin, WP:CCI is. I had closed it already but been reverted [112] and "warned" [113] by you guess who... Pcap ping 01:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

disatisfied

i am a disatified customer and am not sure i woul continue or recomend to some one else why you cant transfwer to another phone is beyond me even if phone does come from different system you could at least givwe my money back or a credit as by the time i get rthe money for another phone i will have lost $20.00 dollars because you wont help at least i have a phone if it was any other company they would tranfer or give a credit to the user for when could afford another phone thank you miss [name redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.78.53 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you meant to post this on Citizendium. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Premature archiving of this board

How the hell is this okay? No one has even dealt with the PROBLEMS I raised yet? I guess it's okay for Ironholds to hound an arb here (on behalf of a currently banned user), but if I raise some concerns about his editing here, it's prematurely archived. This is fucking pathetic... Scottaka UnitAnode 01:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, this is not the way to resolve your problems. Venting like crazy (like above) ain't going to get anything done. Have some tea, relax and take a short WikiBreak. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't angry at all until people just ignored the substance, and the started prematurely archiving it, and finally removing my comments. That's what fucking pissed me off. And no amount of tea and cookies is going to get me to shut up about it. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The "PROBLEMS" have been addressed. Has Roger fixed his "PROBLEMS" yet? What, precisely, is the administrative action you're requesting? Lara 02:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shortly before opening this new thread Unitanode was edit warring at ANI with several administrators, and he received edit warring and civility warnings at user talk from different people (which he rolled back). Unitanode, would you consider withdrawing this thread please? Better to step back before things head in a bad direction. Feel free to remove my response with your post. Durova⁴¹² 02:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you even talking about? Bait much, Durova? Scottaka UnitAnode 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I mean, are you blind? The thread that was prematurely archived wasn't at ANI, it was TWO THREADS ABOVE THIS ONE! Good lord... Scottaka UnitAnode 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of wrong venue can't you comprehend? If there are issues unaddressed, you've been told repeatedly where to list them. Ironholds isn't an administrator, thus, what is your goal here? What administrative action are you requesting? Lara 02:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped that some uninvolved admins would look through what I'd found, and have some serious discussions with Ironholds about the repercussions of (A) introducing copyvio and (B) proxying for a currently banned user. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplying diffs as requested. Edit warring at AN.[114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121] Edit warring warning at user talk,[122] rollback,[123] civility warning,[124] rollback,[125] edit warring warning,[126] rollback,[127] followup on civility with additional edit warring block warning,[128] rollback.[129] This pretty much all occurred within the last half hour. Unitanode, please step back and slow down. Durova⁴¹² 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)