Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive466

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User: 74.205.209.250[edit]

Resolved: WP:AIV Tiptoety talk 06:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This anon user has made two edits, both times using edit summaries as vandalism/personal attack without actually vandalising the article content. [1] I know there's a way to delete a user's contributions from the article history... can someone do this? I've blocked him in the meantime. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a way, but it must be something only certain admins can do. Meanwhile: "2 men practicing immortal techniques to one another"??? Where do we sign up for this service? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Elmer Fudd, Bugs bunny is in another rabbit hole Tiptoety talk 06:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO this is not a case to be reported at AIV, but the user is clever enough and this may be a new technique of vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Erm, vandalism in edit summaries = vandalism. Tiptoety talk 06:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Blimey! That's right! Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Bugs and Elmer are already immortal. :) Yeh, making a useless edit like a space while posting a personal attack. A great new trend. Not. There is a way to obliterate those, I just don't know how. But someone reading this will know. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The only way to alter or remove edit summaries is by having a developer remove them from the database, and trust me, thats not going to happen. ;) Tiptoety talk 06:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there's a way, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Question: Oversight does not work? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 06:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about that. I'm talking about removing not just the edit summary, but the entire edit plus, of course, its summary; as if it never happened. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose you could try to convince an admin to delete it and restore it minus those revisions. They'd still be in the deleted contributions for admins to see, but not for us commonfolk. :) Enigma message 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

←(undent) NuclearWarfare: Yes, oversight would work, but would not just remove the edit summaries but the edits themselves and to be honest those edits are not oversight worthy, and Baseball Bugs, trust me, not going to happen. Tiptoety talk 06:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is, if someone posts someone's name in the edit summary, what can be done about it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thats what oversight is for =) Tiptoety talk 07:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
But you've already said oversight wouldn't be interested in this case. So it just stays as-is forever? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, take a peak at WP:OVERSIGHT for a better explanation for what oversight is used for. In all honesty, what makes this so much worse than regular vandalism, I mean, we do not oversight those edits. Tiptoety talk 07:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I should think that would be obvious -- when you remove vandalism from an article, it's still there in the old revisions, but no one sees it in the article itself. In this case, there's no easy way to remove the vandalism and it's seen by everyone who checks the article's history, which is not quite as many as read the article, but still too many people if the vandalism is a personal attack. For instance, see the edit summary for my edit before this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what an egregious personal attack. Just for that, I'm giving you a 5-second block. >:) That reminds me... wasn't there a movie about that? Something about mysterious goings-on in a chocolate factory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...? Carry On Up the Khyber? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it was Willie-something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You're talking about Willy Wonka. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oversight needed?[edit]

Resolved: Tiptoety talk 06:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the latest edits of Special:Contributions/70.154.7.194. I don't know if the phone number is real or not, and these edits have been reverted, but perhaps they should be oversighted? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the edits and sent a email to oversight. Tiptoety talk 06:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Past content lost in moves: Talk:National Parks of New York Harbor[edit]

Resolved

Thanks to Lifebaka

can someone help here. In the process of moving an article and its talk page, I seem to have lost the original talk. I think its content is important for those involved in the RM discussion, but I can't find it to restore it, even though it says I have below:

  • 14:08, 15 August 2008 Travellingcari (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Talk:National Parks of New York Harbor" ‎ (12 revisions restored: restore all)
  • 12:14, 15 August 2008 Travellingcari (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Talk:National Parks of New York Harbor" ‎ (deleted to make way for move (CSD G6)) (restore)
  • 12:13, 15 August 2008 Travellingcari (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Talk:National Parks of New York Harbor" ‎ (deleted to make way for move (CSD G6)) (restore)

I have no idea what I did, but I did something. Help anyone? Much appreciated, thanks! TravellingCari 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You managed to move a redirect with the history under it. I believe the version you lost content from is this one. I restored the content to the bottom of the talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, lifebaka, much appreciated. That looks like it had everything. TravellingCari 15:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Vufors[edit]

Vufors (talk · contribs) came in the article List of UFO organizations on 14 August 2008, and added an empty section [2]. The previous version of the article was this. I removed a lot of collection of external links from the article which were not accompanied with reliable sources per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTLINK. My deletion resulted in this version. I have asked this user to remove the empty sections repeatedly, in response he posted a thread in Talk:List of UFO organizations accusing me I incorrectly removed the links. The article at present contains several empty sections. Needs neutral eye. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on anything here, but I stuck {{section stub}} on the empty sections since they appear useful for requesting content. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the empty sections are added with stub templates, but what about those vast collection of external links? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
about.com is generally considered to be a poor external link. ufoinfo should only be used if it can be determined to have some degree of reliability. My first glance at it indicates that, no, it is not very reliable. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua disruptive edits of National Football Team Articles[edit]

Time reported: Aaron carass (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Originally reported on 3RR noticeboard. Was redirected here.

The user Fasach Nua is performing mass deletions, of sections about 'Notable Players' on 'National Football Team' articles, after repeated attempts to get him to discuss things. See User talk:Fasach Nua#Edit warring of Italy national football team, User talk:Fasach Nua#Vandalism and User talk:Fasach Nua#Vandalism 2.

Examples

See also the histories of the following pages for more examples:

Finland national football team, Sweden national football team, Lithuania national football team, France national football team, Club América, Northern Ireland national football team, Serbia national football team, Czech Republic national football team, Russia national football team, Netherlands national football team, Republic of Ireland national football team, Brazil national football team, Ecuador national football team

Have you discussed it with him? His main problem seems to be that nobody has come up with a definition of "notable". Corvus cornixtalk 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There were several tries to ask him to discuss the changes with the WP:FOOTY-Wikiproject (see the user's talk page), yes. SoWhy review me! 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


His initial and recurring argument was WP:PROVEIT see his edit comments for example.
When pointed to the fact that all the removed players have articles, which in turn have reference(s) (some good/some bad) about that players international career. He has not followed up or switched arguments.
He talks about consensus but then goes against what appears to be the consensus (ie. keeping these sections) by removing such sections from more and more 'National Football Team' articles rather than reaching resolution through discussion.
Aaron carass (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. So then, by notable, you mean "has a Wikipedia article". Have you then made sure that every single football player with a Wikipedia article is listed under "notable" in their respective country's page? Corvus cornixtalk 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't take 'notable' to mean "has a Wikipedia article". But I think the wholesale deletion of these sections isn't the answer. I, and others, have asked him to enter into discussion about players who he objects to being in such sections. Or even to discuss it on WP:FOOTY-Wikiproject. He has justed continued his 'policy', which doesn't appear to be the consensus.
Aaron carass (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

TBH, Fasach Nua has a point. These sections are by their very definition WP:OR unless there is some sort of criteria set (which there isn't). пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be beneficial if some criteria for 'Notable Players' existed. Fasach Nua has, however, chosen to not offer one, in any forum let alone the appropriate one (WP:FOOTY-Wikiproject). He has instead continued his editing 'policy'.
I think, for the most part, the player articles do go into detail about that persons international career and it's 'note worthiness'. But as mentioned earlier some are better at this than others.
Aaron carass (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It isn't his job to offer one. It's the editors demanding the inclusion of this section. As far as I'm concerned, he's upholding policy, and the editors reverting him aren't. I have added such sections to articles, but with clearly defined criteria (see Sudbury Town F.C.#Notable players). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the sections where in place for a long time, so noone who reverts him does actually include the sections themselves. But I think the point that Aaron carass tried to raise is not whether this is a legitimate manner of policy interpretation but whether it really should be done in this way or whether a discussion prior to removals would be in order, given the large number of reverts on both sides. SoWhy review me! 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Many of these sections need improvement, but people who disagree with the way they appear now should propose deleting them, or attempt to define an adequate set of inclusion criteria on the article talkpage, or at WP:FOOTY. Wholesale deletion without even attempting to reach consensus on the issue goes against the the spirit of colaberation that makes Wikipedia work. The idea that stating that these are famous Argentine players is Original research is laughable, although I admit well defined inclusion criteria (such as 50+ caps, top 10 scorers, World Cup winners, multiple Copa América champions and long term captains of the team) would be better than a slightly recentist list of "famous players", the way to get better criteria is to discuss it, not delete the whole section time and time again after repeated requests to discuss the issue. EP 21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Fasach Nua's edits. Let's just take the Italian team - there are very few players renowned for the Italian team who are famous for their exploits for their national team - Dino Zoff, perhaps - references justifying their inclusion would be easy to find. However, the likes of Luis Monti and Alberto Aquilani are not - the former was a good player in his own right but was never famous for playing for Italy, while the latter is young and unproven for the Italian team. Which is exactly the spirit of WP:PROVEIT - in order for anyone to be on these lists, one has to justify why, otherwise it is WP:OR.
You say consensus is against Fasach Nua - I'd like to see whether this is the case, through perhaps WP:FOOTY, or some central discussion area. It's probably the easiest way forward. But (non-admin) I agree with Fasach Nua.
Here are two of the many discussions on the subject Discussion - No consensus, Discussion - No consensus to keep or delete, there are many more attempts to talk on his talkpage. It is important to note that these discussions were conducted against a backdrop of near constant edit warring over the issue with protagonists on either side refusing to wait for consensus to form, which totally undermined the discussions. These discussions will never lead anywhere when mass deletions and addition of hundreds of utterly pointless {{fact}} tags (often in violation of WP:3RR) and the reversions are going on simultaneously. It shouldn't matter if you agree with his piont when the way he goes about it is so disruptive. EP 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember, of course, that we're talking about X national football team and anyone on this list has to be famous (notable) for their national team exploits, not the fact that they are a famous footballer in X. There are many players, excellent in their own right, who were never famous for their exploits on their national teams. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for dog's age. There has been widespread related debate in several areas such as notability of athletes, both in general and specifically in WP:FOOTY. There has been back and forth about famous player lists as well as lists in general, which are recognized by their very nature to be potentially contentious. Everytime it comes up there is some wrestling back and forth and the folks who make up the footy community settle on leaving it be in the meantime. I think that there is a sense that the lists are useful, but no strong definition yet as to how they should be handled. The group tends to be self policing insofar as additions made to the lists that are way offbase tend to get nuked sooner or later. I'm sure a standard will eventually emerge, but in the meantime mass deletes and tendentious editing does not contribute to resolving the issue or help foster a productive, respectful community.

This is also the fifth or sixth time that FN has been to ANI over this and related behavior. There are opinions on all sides of the issue(s), and right or not, it is inappropriate for him to continually ingnore concensus, to refuse to provide meaningful edit summaries, to be unresponsive or obstructive when questions are put to him, and to choose the policies and guidelines that suit him while ignoring those that actually might be helpful in resolving disputes with other editors. His approach almost invariably ends up causing another futile riot because it is insensitive and close minded. Other editors are not just a "mob" to be so rudely handled as he imposes his vision of what is "right". He has a duty to be civil and communicative and to respect other editors here. That is not his approach and that's why we are here repeatedly. There is no consensus for the edits he is making nor for the sweeping manner that it is being done. The individual issues involved should be subject to genuine debate and not the arbitrary imposition of a single editors views. Wiggy! (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus he has a duty not to breach WP:3RR. Jheald (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I started this incident report for these reasons (ie. Disruptive edits, without making any effort to reach consensus, and possible violation of WP:3RR). I guess the question I would like to have answered is whether this behavior is acceptable or not ?
Aaron carass (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, think that FN's behavior in relation to this and other issues has been the furthest thing from acceptable over the last several months. If you look at the archives of his talk page around the time of the two archived discussions from WT:FOOTY linked to above, you will see that several times I had tried to open a dialogue with him about his edits and his view of policy, but all of my edits to his talk page were reverted, often with an edit summary of "rv - unread." Quite simply FN is a dick and seems to relish in his endless struggle against "the mob" (read: the entire WP community). I think at the very least he should be given a heavy dose of WP:TROUT, if not a lengthy ban for repeated and unapologetic abuse of WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, and several other policies until he figures out how to be a more constructive member of the community. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I'm more in support of FN's edits here. It is the duty of people wishing to insert content to provide verification for their edits. However, the conduct after that is not appropriate — it behooves all editors to engage in discussion rather than revert and ignore messages.
I see there was an RFC opened six or seven months ago regarding images, but it seems to have died out. If, as has been mentioned above, this issue has been here several times before, it might be worth opening a new RFC, or moving to RFM, with a view to arbitration if the situation doesn't improve. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Tend to agree. That's Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua, however. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


I've added several headlined paragraphs in subsections called New Dispute to the RFC. I hope people can look past my inability to come up with a sensible format and offer comments about this dispute. Aaron carass (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be tidier to start another one? That one seems to be about something entirely different. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the addition to the existing RFC, as correct procedure should be followed as x42bn6 suggests Fasach Nua (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Created a new 'request for comment' specifically about 'National Football Team' articles.
Aaron carass (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have added my support for Fasach Nua in the RfC. Corvus cornixtalk 19:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

SPA User:Recbon being disruptive[edit]

Recbon continues undoing a consensus based merge[3][4][5], falsely attempting to close a topic with the claim that consensus now supports a split[6][7][8][9] (despite a nearly unanimous consensus to leave the pages merged), and leaving false final warnings on the talk pages of any editors who revert him[10][11] and removing warnings left for him with no reason or as "vandalism"[12][13] while changing his talk page to read "only put it here if its the wikiproof! this means you collection and masamage!". This is an SPA account whose sole purpose seems to be to continue causing disruption of the project backed clean up of the various Dragon Ball articles and he has yet to do a single constructive edit. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He also denies he's doing anything wrong and doesn't seem to understand or care about the purpose of his user talk page (even after I explained it). For an example, see this note on my own talk page. I've just delivered him a final warning; if he does this again, I think a block is in order. I'm ambivalent about the length. --Masamage 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I got left a "uw-vandalism4im" warning because I dared revert his obvious vandalism to the talk page. This kid needs a timeout. JuJube (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have issued a 24 hour block. From the editing patterns per the contrib history it is possible that the sanction will not effect them, but it should serve serious notice that their previous behaviour is not appropriate. I didn't think that leaving a(nother) final warning would have the same effect. I would request that the above editors give Recbon a good chance to see if they have changed their style when they do resume editing, if the block is to have any chance to make an effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:BusinessSavvy[edit]

Resolved: issued warning Toddst1 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BusinessSavvy (talk · contribs) has for the past few months been editing out information on the Parsons Corporation article, he/she removes information about the company's founder and any negative information about the company (notably their bad work in Iraq and criticism from the government and media), this is a smallish article but it is for a huge company, and without someone continually checking the article, (as i have been doing for a couple of weeks) the article quickly gets wiped by this user. He/She appears to have a conflict of interest.

I have warned BusinessSavvy (talk · contribs) twice, they have not responded and show no signs of giving up removing these sections/paragraphs, and as you can see from BusinessSavvy's contributions the user lives only to make these edits on this one article. Would you consider blocking BusinessSavvy (talk · contribs)? Whistler 18:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No - that wouldn't be appropriate. I've left a warning for the user. If the actions continue, please report the editor to WP:AIV not here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:192.252.76.200[edit]

Resolved: warned Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this IP address is being used to make a number of inappropriate and/or malicious edits and has been consistently warned since April of 2007. Perhaps it would be appropriate for an Administrator to consider corrective action. –– Flag of the United States.svg  Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs  Flag of Maryland.svg 20:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP seems to have made a mixture of constructive and unconstructive edits, at widely spaced intervals. To me it looks like it's a dynamic IP that gets intermittently used by various different people, so there's not much that can be done in terms of a long-term solution... although obviously any currently-occurring vandalism sprees can be reported for a shorter-term block. ~ mazca t | c 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a proxy server for J. B. Hunt Transport Inc. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Openjurist[edit]

This user, a company account for openjurist.com[14], decided to mass upload a Federal Appeals Case database onto Wikipedia. They are, however, using a bot that was never authorized by the BAG[15][16][17]. Considering the mass file size of each of these articles (100kB+), would it be prudent to ask for a temporary block? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't personally think a block is necessary, as it appears that they have been in communication with an established user about this current series of list creations. A problem with the account might arise, though, if it's revealed that there are multiple people editing from this one account. S.D.Jameson 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • User has been notified and asked to stop posting until this is resolved. —Travistalk 03:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • ☑Y Blocked -- communication or no, the bot was still running at 3:03 UTC, 20 minutes after the original complaint at a rate of about one every ten seconds. - Revolving Bugbear 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I must admit, it was clogging the hell out of NPP when I tried to do some patrolling. S.D.Jameson 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Openjurist has requested unblocking, and claims to be running a PHP script of some sort rather than a Bot. That's as may be, but it still does nothing to address why he kept posting after being told to stop pending discussion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe with his setup he just didn't see the orange new message bar? -- Ned Scott 04:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The way I understand it is that the PHP script was off-wiki, and the individual editor was manually cutting and pasting the formatted text it generated onto the appropriate page name. He wasn't even using a script of any kind, it doesn't sound like. S.D.Jameson 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
We have his word for that. 500 new pages in three hours? That sounds an awful lot like a bot to me. Check his contribution log. He needs to cut it out. - Revolving Bugbear 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Tabs. In any case, if the only problem here is the amount of creation, why not unblock him and do one of the following: A, ask him to limit himself to a certain amount of article creation, or B, have him request a bot flag (on another account). -- Ned Scott 04:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

__PLEASE NOTE__ This user is in good faith in all respects. They are just new to Wikipedia and enthusiastic about helping us extend our articles about case law. I am assisting them and I will advise them from now on on Wikipedia policies and procedures. I therefore request this user be unblocked as blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this good faith user says they will not do it anymore then we can not keep them blocked. --mboverload@ 04:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did ask about a temporary block. I am confused though, as to why you, as their mentor, did not inform them about this. (Also note that I am not an admin and can't do anything about this) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I just got in. I am not on Wikipedia 24/7 and was not aware of their plans to mass create 500 articles. Proof he is not a bot: [18] --mboverload@ 04:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone mind if I unblock with a couple of helpful, very friendly warnings? I think the block was ok for so long as editors thought it was a bot, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, blocking admin was correct in his response. Just a misguided new editor. =P --mboverload@ 04:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that it was a good-faith block, based upon the facts present at the time. I also support an unblock now, given that the user very clearly appears to be editing in good faith, and is trying to understand what all is going on here. S.D.Jameson 04:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do, Gwen; I was just reading this over and thinking the same thing. Perhaps a proposal to do the uploading during a specific time, with arrangements for a dedicated editor to conduct the new page patrols for the account, might be a good way to coordinate this. Mboverload, do you think you might be able to work out such a plan with Openjurist? Risker (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good faith block to me, but I agree with the account now being unblocked. Tiptoety talk 05:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've unblocked, asking the editor not to start up again at speed until a consensus has been reached on his talk page, so I think any suggestions having to do with things like timing and watching can indeed be made there. Again, this was a good faith and fitting block through and through, the account behaved like a bot, but as it happened, wasn't. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at what they want to do, I don't think these pages belong on Wikipedia but rather, as MzMcBride suggests, the content would fit on Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Further looking into this, I think these contribs are CSD A7, carrying no assertions of significance (and indeed, red-linking to mostly non-notable court cases in an unencyclopedic context). What do other editors think? Can these contribs be speedy deleted? Should they be sent as a group to AfD? Or rather, should these pages be kept as a skeleton for some day in the far future when one could dream that they held mostly blue links to articles which the community thought were notable? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I agree, they are A7 and probably A1. One has to ask whether these lists, per se, serve any encyclopedic purpose. – ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on deleting these A7 as a batch in a few hours unless... Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Gwen, would it make sense to move these to Wikisource instead of deleting as others have suggested? ... including you:

"I do agree this content likely doesn't belong on Wikipedia (WP:NOT, WP:N) but would be so helpful on Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"

MZMcBride: "All of this is to say that perhaps Wikisource is the best place to contribute what you want to contribute."

Openjurist (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving the content to Wikisource means deleting it from en:Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

That is fine, but isn't there a process to move it over ... That needs to be done before it is deleted here?

MZMcBride said:

"There are mechanisms to move the articles from Wikipedia to Wikisource pretty easily. ... I realize that you want to help Wikipedia, but the ultimate goal is to create and share free content, and Wikipedia truly doesn't seem to be the place for what is being created here. Wikisource is a sister project and obviously if we were to move the content there, links could easily be established between Wikipedia and Wikisource."

Openjurist (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is an automated way to do this, however I was thinking that given the semi-automated way you were doing this, it would be easier and safer to start over. Now that we know thousands of these opinions are indeed already at Wikisource, automation doesn't seem to fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--- It took many many hours and lots of copying and pasting - manually to do this. Is there any way that you might consider saving me the headache? Please. Openjurist (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The "hard/mean admin" answer is, you should have looked into what you were doing much more thoroughly before you put in your own time carefully (and very skillfully, professionally, in utter good faith) showering Wikipedia with over a thousand new articles. The "caring/nurturing admin" answer is, yeah, wow, I understand but the time it would take to run down all those duplicates at Wikisource and rm them from the automated script would also amount to at least several hours, likely more, with no assurance of accuracy, given the likelihood that some page names are not the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---The honest answer is that I did look into it carefully. I conversed with MZMcBride who wrote:

"It's interesting that you all are working on these case lists, as it's been on my to-do list for a very long time to convert these lists to use templates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Openjurist#Re:_Open_Jurist

I was trying to do a service ... that I guess turned out to be less useful for Wikipedia than MZMcBride - and I anticipated.

Is there someone I should speak with to be "more thorough" before putting these pages on Wikisource so that a similar saga does not unfold?

Openjurist (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please understand, I think it's been widely acknowledged you meant to help out with a wonderful plan! Yes, I think you should first ask at the Wikisource scriptorium and get some knowledgeable help there before trying to tackle this again. Also, keep in mind, it was only a few hours lost and truth be told, you very likely learned a lot for having spent them this way, as happens to all of us here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Batch deletion pending I'm going to do this in an hour or so and am giving another alert here since deleting over a thousand articles through CSD is kind of a big deal. Please speak up if there are any worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion's on hold for now, still discussing how to move the content to Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---Thanks Gwen. I have posted a message one the page you mentioned above and have not heard anything back. Wikisource does not seem as heavily trafficked or administered as Wikipedia... have not heard anything from anyone ... yet. Openjurist (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen - There seems to be some discussion going on here that I thought you should be apprised of. Openjurist (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

en.wikipedia has importing disabled, but is that the same for wikisource? -- Ned Scott 06:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nobody with the import privilege on en.ws, but we could just bot-move them over painlessly after filling out the appropriate forms there. east718 // talk // email // 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Admins have the privilege automatically if it's enabled. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by Doncram[edit]

Since the beginning of July, User:Doncram has been stalking me. Of the 35 edits in July he made on on Template talk:Did you know, only six did not involve me, and almost every one was him trying to disqualify one of my articles, which he did not do to anyone else. (As we are talking 29 instance, I am not now linking to each one, but will if need be). He was pointy in trying to get an article of mine deleted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana in the American Civil War, making it clear the only reason why was because my name is on it. Similarly, regarding the Idaho equivalent, he post on ACW task force trying to stir sentiment against me, and strongly supported something I'm against regarding the naming of the Idaho in ACW article, when the only ACW articles he deals with are those I work on. Even now he's trying to disqualify many of my articles on TT:DYK, and he does not bother with any other articles. You do not see me trying to hamper any article writing of his, or even fool with anything he's working on, but he does not share this courtesy. I want him forbidden from working or commenting on any of my articles, . It is difficult to want to add anything to WP if I am constantly being bothered like this.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that ANI is not the right place for this discussion. You created an RfC/U on Doncram in July, but it was deleted due to lack of certification. One editor commented ..this RFC would need a lot more work (i.e. clear explanation of what's going on, with diffs as evidence) to get approved. If you still have concerns about User:Doncram I'd suggest a more serious effort to create a believable RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved user page to article space?[edit]

Resolved
I went ahead and reverted the moves, someone else deleted the redirects. Tiptoety talk 04:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Images not resizing?[edit]

Is anyone else having a problem with images not resizing? It started about an hour ago. Images before that point were resizing fine, now any change of the previous dimensions just comes up with a no image or a broken image. I've cleared my cache, checked to make sure it's not the browser (no - same problem under IE, Firefox and Safari), but I'm still not certain if this is a local problem on my end or a WP problem. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Help desk#Imbedding an image and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Problem images.
For what it's worth, I've also just seen this. Plenty of chatter about it in #wikimedia-tech at the moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's good to know, I'll stop trying to fiddle with stuff at my end and wait for the wizards to do their thing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved

Can someone please deal with this?: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredfickle. I hope I'm able to post this here. If I'm not able to, sorry. Schuym1 (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety talk 06:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued baiting and harassment by User:GoRight[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As noted in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, User:GoRight is topic banned from edits to pages related to William Connolley. There is no consensus at this time for a topic ban on BLPs and Global warming-related articles, though I do ask GoRight to be more careful in any edits to those, as a topic ban could happen in the future if problems continue. Wizardman 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Backstory: Over the past few days, User:GoRight and myself have found ourselves on the opposite sides of a scuffle over on The Great Global Warming Swindle. GoRight is part of a small but ferocious contingent of somewhat-tendentious editors who came to the article after some conservative commentators wrote bitchy Op-Eds about how unfair the article was to noble global warming "skeptics" who falsify data. For backstory, check the history of that article.

To get to the point of this post: Yesterday, I received the following post on my talk page: [19]. While under most circumstances this would be a friendly reminder (and a great alternative to a uw-template!), under these particular circumstances I take it as nothing more than baiting from Stock Character #593: "The Civil POV-Pusher". He and his cohorts have behaved the exact same way on the talk page of TGGWS, demanding sources that say the sky is blue, opening a RfC using perhaps the most inflammatory "civil" language possible, and so on.

I responded [20], asking him to kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. There are other editors and admins on the Global Warming Swindle page whose judgement I actually trust who would no doubt be happy to warn anyone who was crossing the line in this regard.

This morning, I received this message: [21].

I would appreciate the voice of a third party, since he was clearly unable to comprehend my request, and seemingly unable to stop himself. I am not adverse to a "mutual agreement" that would keep both of us off the other's talk page, if that's the only "comfortable" solution. Thanks in advance, and sorry for the tl;dr --Badger Drink (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I would appreciate a third-party being the one to inform him of this thread - I know it's customary for the complaint-issuer to do the informing, but in this case I believe that a warning from myself would be taken poorly. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As clearly documented in my second reply, I am merely following the recommended dispute resolution processes. Where they direct me to leave a message on the user's talk page I don't know that I have any choice. Under these circumstances should I instead move directly to WP:ANI as Badger Drink has done here? It seems that there are a number of dispute resolution steps to be applied before this, but I will defer to the judgment of the administrators here on this point.

Regarding the notices I have placed on Badger Drink's user page I have no specific quarrel with him other than he treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. I am not contacting Badger Drink for any purpose other than to stop his aggressive behavior against me. I think that the record will show that I have been nothing but civil in this discourse. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that any user has the right to provide such a warning; however, I have come to consider it improper (not by guidelines, but personally) to be the one to warn someone with whom I'm involved in a comment. The reason is that being in a conflict can defeat the purpose of warning, because the one warned may take it as simply an extension of the conflict. While I can understand GoRight's desire to stop what he sees as Badger Drink's aggressive behavior, there are better options, generally, starting with ignoring it. Deal with the articles, not the users. If "aggressive behavior," for example, leads to improper reverts of your edits, that are not being dealt with by other editors, use WP:DR. That includes discussing issues of substance with other editors, and a warning is not really a discussion, it is more like a threat. (Folks, if I seriously warn you on your Talk page, it means that I have concluded that I've decided you should be blocked, and I'm giving you a warning as a prerequisite. If I warn you somewhere else, such as in article Talk, it means that I'm hoping to be able to resolve the issue in a relatively friendly manner, because I have not set up the block prerequisite. And, in fact, you could be utterly and totally uncivil to me, and I doubt I'd warn you. But someone else might. Be that uncivil to someone else, though, I might act. I consider all editors to be quasi-administrators, we really should conduct ourselves in more or less the same way.)
In spite of this, warning, unless there is so little basis for it that it is mere harassment (which would require substantial repetition of improper warnings), should never be a cause to bring a matter to AN/I. If done civilly, it is not an offense. Even if wrong, it's not an offense. I've been warned, sometimes properly, but more often otherwise, in my opinion, many times. I wouldn't even think of complaining about it. If you are going to get involved with contentious issues on Wikipedia, it's best to cultivate a thick skin. Listen to complaints, by all means, but then take from them what you can, and let the rest go. A user blows off some steam by dropping a warning. If there is some specific behavior that one is being warned not to repeat, it's highly advisable to consider whether the behavior is important enough to stand before the community, holding to it and trying to justify it. Part of the question would be political: "Can I find support for this now? Is it worth being blocked over?" --Abd (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
GoRight has a substantial history of disrupting these pages. Looking at his RFC, a plurality of editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment that everything I said in my initial discussion (summarizing GoRight's misbehavior, including his BLP violations) there was accurate, and further that he contribute virtually nothing to the encyclopedia and has a history of disruption to make a point and inserting "laughably wrong" material into the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the second most supported comment said (essentially) that GoRight has misbehaved, but so have other people. I think administrative action is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have an analysis of the comments and endorsements at User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. It's true that more editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment, but Stephan and most of the endorsers, including Raul654, were editors who had been involved in edit warring with GoRight and others. There were 13 endorsements. Of these, 8 had been involved in edit warring or other conflict with GoRight, leaving 5 for which I have identified no prior involvement. In contrast, the comment by JeremyMcCracken was endorsed by 10 editors, of which 3 have shown prior support for GoRight's edits, leaving 7 apparently neutral. That summary is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GoRight#Outside_view_by_JeremyMcCracken. The neutral plurality is with McCracken's comment, at this point. We can expect that if there is a faction of editors cooperating to maintain a set of articles on a hot-button political issue, they would come to comment preferentially in an RfC involving those issues, and we see many of the same editors active here in this AN/I report, which, considered together with the RfC, I consider harassment of GoRight. I became involved with the RfC because I saw wikilawyering -- on his part -- attempting to prevent its certification, and I cut through that and enabled it. And then I read it, and researched it, and was horrified at what I found. GoRight was greeted with entrenched incivility and edit warring by a number of editors, with the worst incivility being by Raul654, who also wrote the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-but-few-diffs RfC, and there have been other admins who have been involved whose behavior was improper. See my comment in the RfC, my extended RfC page as referenced there, and my evidence page. This is not a report on Raul654, but I'm mentioning him because he's been part of the problem, and looking at his suggestions for a solution would be a serious mistake. Incivility breeds incivility, and incivility on the part of administrators is a very serious issue. GoRight made mistakes, but has largely amended his behavior. I haven't seen that from the others.--Abd (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I find your analysis deeply flawed and your statement not reflecting your analysis at User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I will point out the following in response:
  1. As one of the certifiers in the above mentioned RfC, Raul is not a neutral party.
  2. Raul's comment does not actually address the topic raised in this incident, but is instead an attempt on his part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me when he has failed in his last two such attempts.
  3. I have taken the RfC process to heart and have been voluntarily adopting a WP:1RR policy (although there may be rare exceptions) and I have been consistently WP:CIV in my edit summaries and talk page comments.
  4. I draw everyone's attention to the last two paragraphs of Wikipedia:NPA#Personal_attacks.
  5. Accordingly, my past behavior is not at issue here. What is at issue, or should be at least, is the fact that I am receiving uncivil comments and personal attacks from Badger Drink and I merely want them to stop.
--GoRight (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone reading GoRight's claims that he's taken the RFC to heart should bear in mind R. Baley's observation that "GoRight can be exceptionally polite when at a noticeboard". R Baley had previously had no interaction with GoRight until he blocked GoRight for harassing WMC. GoRight feigned a change of heart and claimed to have self-reformed and convinced R. Baley to unblock him early. However, the fact that we are now here clearly unmasks this deception. And GoRight's absurd claims aside, both his past behavior and the fact that he has never stopped are very much at issue. Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Given that just a few days ago GoRight was restoring a character-assassinating screed ([22]) to the BLP on William Connolley using an astonishly disingenuous two-wrongs-make-a-right policy-wonkery justification, I don't see that he has taken the RfC results 'to heart'. In that instance, he chose to justify his violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT purely on the basis of another editor's error in citing WP:VAND. From the ensuing discussion, he still doesn't seem to get why there was a problem with his actions there (GoRight's final comment) and I see no reason not to expect this type of problem to continue.
For the record, I had never interacted with GoRight before encountering him at William Connolley (which I think I got to from an AN/I discussion), and didn't know that he had been the subject of an RfC until after trying to reason with him on the William Connolley talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And as I clearly stated on the talk page, once it became obvious that the consensus on that addition would be against me I accepted it, and I have not attempted to restore it ... even throughout the course of our discussion there. In our discussion I was merely defending my initial actions based on what I viewed as a violation of wikpedia policy. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your initial actions were indefensible under Wikipedia policy. Re-adding text that talks about a biographical subject's "ruthless subversion of the rules" and includes a section header that says "Connolley's Censorship Over Global Warming Articles Brings Wikipedia into Disrepute" is far beyond what's acceptable under WP:BLP, and any experienced editor should be aware of that without requiring a discussion to establish a consensus on the point. You chose to disregard WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT because you thought (correctly) that Kim had erred in citing WP:VAND for the removal of the text (which happened to be sympathetic to your own point of view). You can't claim 'I was sticking up for policy' if you're going to enforce some policies while ignoring others—and thereby harm the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
As the record clearly demonstrates the material was properly sourced and attributed in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V and did not constitute WP:VANDAL as you admit above. Therefore it should not have been deleted as such. Regardless I have accepted the consensus of my fellow editors.
And yet again I will remind everyone, this is not the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic of this discussion is my attempt to get User:Badger Drink to remain WP:CIV in his interactions with me and to refrain from making personal attacks against me in violation of WP:NPA. --GoRight (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, on the RFC I argued for a 0RR restriction on the Global Warming related pages fo GoRight precisely for this reason. Count Iblis (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
True, but others including WMC himself argued that WP:1RR was sufficient. In any event, my actions are purely voluntary. No official action resulted from the RfC itself. Have I not stopped the edit warring subsequent to the bulk of the discussion on the RfC as I claimed here? Can you point to areas of wide-spread edit warring on my part after I indicated I was intending to adopt the WP:1RR restriction?
But again, this is not even the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic is my attempts to get User:Badger Drink to stop violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA in his comments to me by placing appropriate (per wikipedia dispute resolution process) notices on his talk page. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No, if we're going to be children about "topics", the topic is your continued baiting and, to bring said baiting in context, your tendentious editing pattern, which I now see seems to be a rather established part of your history. Frankly, though, I see no reason to refrain from letting conversation evolve naturally from the original topic as it seems to already have - but then again, considering the way you treat the current "RfC" (term used very loosely) on TGGWS (see here and, of course, the "vote section" (like I said, "RfC" only in the loosest sense) here), it would seem, in all good faith, that the concept of conversation eludes you at times - willfully or accidentally. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a third, fairly neutral, opinion. Based on the opening statement here, it looks like Badger is being more uncivil. When someone asks you to refrain from jabs, you shouldn't raise a fit. And certainly a brief notification that personal attacks are not appreciated is not harassment; I'm sorry, that just looks like immature drama-whoring, and it reflects very poorly. II | (t - c) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And when someone (who, for the sake of argument, is "raising a fit" in your own words) tells you to stop posting on his talk page, you tickle the dragon's tail (or talk page, in this case)? Please. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Eh. One thing I've noticed is that you don't deny making personal attacks on GoRight, and GoRight hasn't provided diffs on it. So -- would you say you've made jabs, or not? I noticed you describe GoRight as "somewhat tendentious" in your intro. Perhaps accurate, but at this point it would not be remiss to call you tendentious either, especially after your repeated ignoring/misreading of CAT. Is calling him tendentious necessary? Perhaps it is better to show, rather than tell. Rather than "GoRight is tendentious", you can more neutrally state "GoRight edits only global warming articles and only inserts the skeptical POV", or "Although I've explained [argument], GoRight ignores the argument (IDIDNTHEARTHAT)". If you have personal attacks, by the way, then reacting to the request to stop with a "don't edit on my talk page" is probably irritating for GoRight, to say the least. If you haven't made personal attacks, maybe it's a different situation. I just don't understand why you would get so worked up over such a relatively small matter, except as a weapon to use against GoRight. II | (t - c) 09:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Diffs were provided in my entries on his talk page, here and here. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Jabs? Sure, I'll cop to that if it makes you happy. Personal attacks? Get real. If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable. While I'm uneasy to utilize South Park as an example, for the lack of anything more accessible immediately springing to mind, it'll have to do: One thing South Park does incredibly well is illustrate exactly what editors like this are doing, through the character of Eric Cartman - witness his "yes ma'am, no ma'am" approach to getting Family Guy taken off the air in Cartoon_Wars_Part_II. Surely there are other, more "high-brow" shows, movies, books and songs that illustrate this basic principle, but let's keep the example moderately accessible. As far as your reading of WP:CAT is concerned, it's completely incorrect. Straight from that page: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. Bolding mine. No reliable sources were shown that anyone, anywhere (outside of three or four tendentious POV-pushers on a Wikipedia talk page and the two or three editors they suckered in) took issue with this being a denialist work - for all the bitching on the talk page, the "anti-denialism category" contingent was pretty short on actual hard evidence to support their endless kvetching, and this is exactly why the "civil POV-pusher" sort is the most malignant presence on Wikipedia today. I already stated this several times on the talk page, and while I expect an editor of GoRight's type to pull an IDIDN'THEARTHAT, it's rather dismaying that other editors such as yourself seem to be taking a "hit and run" approach to talk page participation. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable." - Ironically, this is likewise a personal attack, IMHO. I am not being pompous or sanctimonious, I am being WP:CIV. Even more ironically, my first complaint of a personal attack was for having been referred to as a pig, making the claim that I am the one being pompous even more laughable. --GoRight (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Figurative language, hth --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)

Is there a point to continuing this? This seems to be dissolving into a standard garden variety finger pointing exercise which seems like a major waste of WP:ANI space. As long as Badger Drink agrees to treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA I will, as I have already indicated multiple times, be more than happy to agree not to post anything on his talk page.

If the administrators here tell me that I should bring any future complaints in this regard directly to WP:ANI rather than following the recommended dispute resolution process, then I will be happy to follow those instructions as well. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering where Mr. GoRight sets the bar for what defines a "personal attack" (apparently saying "I don't mud wrestle with pigs - I get all muddy and the pig just likes it" constitutes a personal attack in his book), I unfortunately cannot make such an agreement. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, what would you call it if not a personal attack? I assume you directed the comment at me and I am supposedly the pig, is this not correct? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
chuckle I guess you don't mind me calling you a dirty rat with the habits (and the unseemly girth) of a pig? :p I agree that it's a dumb insult, but it seems insulting nonetheless. You might be right on the category thing; it does look like it places the burden on them. I'll think about changing my vote again. I really just would prefer to end this discussion. It is just a cat. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but with all due respect, if you don't understand the difference between your hypothetical example and what I posted, I don't see anything positive coming from continuing this particular conversation. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban Request[edit]

While I obviously preferred to follow the recommended dispute resolution process in this case:

  • In consideration of the fact that I have provided examples of Badger Drink being uncivil (see the edit summaries at [23] and [24]), and issuing personal attacks against me, see [25].
  • In consideration of the fact that I attempted to follow the recommended dispute resolution process as described in WP:CIV and WP:NPA by first placing polite requests on his user talk page explaining my objections.
  • In consideration of the fact that Badger Drink's response was to open this WP:ANI incident report against me.
  • In consideration of the fact the he has continued to be uncivil towards me in this WP:ANI incident, see [26] "the concept of conversation eludes you at times"
  • In consideration of the fact the he has demonstrated a pattern of being uncivil in general in this WP:ANI incident and elsewhere, see the edit summary for [27] "since everyone's a fucking literalist these days...", and the edit summary for [28] "penis"
  • In consideration of the fact the he has continued making personal attacks against me in this WP:ANI incident, see [29] "... GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese ...", and [30] wherein I was characterized as the "type of editor [who] is the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind."
  • In consideration of the fact that these personal attacks are already escalating in severity.
  • In consideration of the fact that he has indicated his refusal to restrain himself in his interactions with me, see [31] "I unfortunately cannot make such an agreement.", and [32] wherein he demonstrates that he does not understand that his commentary is offensive.
  • In consideration of the fact that as the target of these uncivil comments and personal attacks I should be the one to decide what is considered offensive, or not.
  • In consideration of the fact that WP:NPA specifically states: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."
  • And finally, in consideration of the fact that the above documented pattern of behavior clearly lies outside both the letter and the spirit of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and as such fosters a corrosive environment which is detrimental to the goals of the Wikipedia project.

I must respectfully request that the administrative community enforce the policies stated above by instituting an indefinite topic ban on Badger Drink wherein he is required to refrain from making uncivil comments and personal attacks against me anywhere on the project, subject to appropriate administrative actions for violations thereof. Such a topic ban would not affect Badger Drink in any of his activities here on the project in any way, other than to require that he remain WP:CIV and adhere to WP:NPA in his interactions with me personally which, as I stated above, is all that I ask.

What say you? --GoRight (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • His behavior, while not great, has been *far* better than yours - certainly not warranting of a topic ban. If we are going to be issuing a topic ban, I see a far more worthy candidate. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The obvious difference, of course, is that I am voluntarily offering to restrain my behavior whereas he is explicitly stating that he will not. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • No, the obvious difference is that he hasn't disrupted the global warming articles nor violated the BLP policy, whereas you have. The worst that can be said about his behavior is that he's been moderately uncivil to you (and only you) in response to your baiting him. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I offer the following in response for the benefit of others who may be following along:
          1. On the issue of purported disruption, I have voluntarily adopted WP:1RR in response to the comments on my RfC and my record since making that pledge will demonstrate a good faith effort to adhere to it (although perhaps an imperfect attempt to do so).
          2. On the issue of purported BLP violations, I still maintain that my attempts to add reliably sourced and properly attributed criticism to the BLP page of WMC are within the bounds of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V as they stand today and as they stood at the time I made any edits thereto. I understand and accept that a consensus of my fellow editors disagree on this point, and I assert that honorable people should be able to agree to disagree on such matters without prejudice. As long as the consensus is maintained there is no harm done. In addition I am now pledging to not attempt to add criticism to WMCs BLP, the only area of contention in this regard, without first obtaining consensus on the talk page which is a substantive concession on my part given that obtaining any such consensus would amount to a nearly impossible task when considering the number of other editors who support him in this regard.
          3. On the issue of my supposedly having WP:BAITed Badger Drink, the actions on my part that have brought us here, namely my having placed two polite notices on his user page in accordance with applicable wikipedia dispute resolution recommendations, were in each case a response to actions initiated by Badger Drink, namely uncivil comments and personal attacks, not the cause of his actions. If anyone has been WP:BAITed here it is me.
          4. Finally, as with all of your posts in this WP:ANI incident thus far, this is merely a distraction from the point at hand and an attempt on your part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me. In accordance with what Ncmvocalist points out in the opening to his statement on my RfC, [33], any purported misbehavior on my part should not be construed as justification for misbehavior on Badger Drink's part. This is a concept that I had already embraced for myself as exhibited by my removal of counter-charges against you in my RfC, [34], even before Ncmvocalist had made his comment.
        --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Raul, I have to disagree with you. GoRight may do things that are disruptive, but he has shown willingness to be reasonable and civil and listen to consensus. Badger's edits to The Great Global Warming Swindle have been tendentious and uncivil. It is difficult to tell whether his repeated misinterpretation of WP:CAT and asking the same question again and again was accidental or intentional, but he seemed unable to accept a consensus against him. Oren0 (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you please show me the diffs where this question of mine was actually answered? Can you please show me the diffs where someone showed where, exactly, my reading of WP:CAT is faulty? Surely this isn't more smoke-and-mirrors from the esteemed "Wikipedia Global Warming Skeptic" community? --Badger Drink (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Diffs really provide both, as they tend to answer your question and explain your misinterpretation of WP:CAT: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. I'll stop there. Five different editors explaining (some directly to you, some in general) that categories need to be sourced in reliable sources and uncontroversial. This category was neither. Despite that, you reinstate the category and then you post this, indicating that you still want a source that it isn't controversial and admitting that there aren't sources that it is (apparently it's so obvious that sources wouldn't even need to comment on it), completely disregarding or misunderstanding WP:CAT and WP:V (though you still repeatedly removed the unsourced category template on the grounds of some mysterious "reference on the talk page": [40] [41]). Are these enough diffs for you? Oren0 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really enough, no, as my question remains unanswered. I'll try once more, though I already sense a brick wall banging against my head: Given that WP:CAT says, quite clearly, "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article"; and given that the central argument (at the time of my originally raising this issue) was that the category was somehow controversial (in this case, due to being "POV" or something - keeping in mind that truly "objective" categories would be near-useless, as I touched upon somewhere on that god-forsaken talk page in a post about Reefer Madness), can you - or anybody, really - show me a source that establishes that labeling this silly flick as denialism is, in any way, truly controversial? Badger Drink (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what else there is to say, except perhaps that maybe you have a critical misunderstanding of the logical disjunction. The idea that something that can't be shown in any reliable sources would be self-evident is so absurd that I don't even know how to argue with it. Oren0 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal[edit]

Hi all, I didn't see the addition GoRight made to William Connolley's article pointed out by Raul earlier (diff). My bad, this is unacceptable and it has been pointed out to GoRight many times. . .going back to June 22 of this year (diff).
We either protect our good faith editors from slanderous accusations by fringe POV-pushing accounts, or we don't. But we need to decide that one way or the other. Allowing this to continue will mean that there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here. The end result is that we provide the platform for personal attacks that can sometimes make it into the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media. We are losing good editors who contribute to a variety of scientific (and general!) topics due to these fringe campaigns and single purpose accounts. I propose a community ban for GoRight, this user is actively working against the editors trying to produce a reliable and neutral encyclopedia. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All of my personal edits and the restoration of another editor's work referred to above were properly sourced to reliable news media. Opinions were attributed to the authors in question. As such they met the standards set forth in WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. The criticism of WMC has now been published in not one, but three, reliable news sources: National Post, National Review, and CBS News. Censoring this criticism creates a WP:WEIGHT issue in the article. --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can't believe that I am going to voluntarily offer up a suggestion here as I still believe that I have not violated the wikipedia policies of WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V (at least as they are currently written). As a sign of good faith and a thanks to all those independent editors who have commented both here and on my RfC in my defense (even though they may agree that the criticism I wish to include in WMC's BLP is "inappropriate") I would propose that in addition to my current voluntary adoption of WP:1RR as normal practice to also agree to voluntarily adhere to WP:0RR specifically for and limited to additions of criticism to WMC's BLP refrain from adding criticism to WMC's BLP without obtaining consensus on the talk page first. (Turns out I was confused about how WP:0RR actually operated, this is what I originally meant.) This would seem to address the specific area of most concern w.r.t. this call for a community ban, correct? Would this satisfactorily address the concerns of the uninvolved editors expressed below? --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It's too to claim you haven't admitted wrongdoing when you did just that on your RFC - "editors on both sides have made accusations of bad faith, been uncivil, directed statements at editors in the summaries, etc." Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Meh. I stand corrected. Allow me to clarify my statement above: I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy with respect to my addition of criticism on WMC's BLP in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If you still don't understand why this is a BLP violation, that's all the more reason for a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this is premature to the extreme - a gross overreaction. My view was made on 3 August in the RFC (1 day after that edit was made), and this proposal comes quite some time later. In response, as a first step, the user has said he's voluntarily taken on 1RR to help address edit-warring concerns (i.e. the so-called civil-pov pushing). He's aware of my concerns over BLP editing - if he edits inappropriately, then there are other remedies to deal with that. As I stated in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#Disruption_by_GoRight, I'm pretty sure that a topic ban is where to start - and even that would need some more thought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

His agenda is clear and unproductive and sends the message that if you are a recognized professional contributing here -you can be defamed, no problem. And if your stature is such that you get an article as well, even easier. Good message that. R. Baley (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
He's a self-admitted single purpose account. A topic ban is equivalent to a full ban. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Opposed to community ban. I haven't really gone through this case in full detail - having mostly read the above as well as looked over the RFC and a few diffs - and I'm not convinced a community ban is warranted at this point. I could get behind some form of restrictive measure - such as a topic ban, or, better still, some kind of 0RR prohibition in certain topics, would be more called for. A community ban would be more suitable following a failure to obey a less harsh editing restriction, imho. Shereth 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He had already been informed that to add that defamatory info it would need to have -at the very least- a consensus behind it. That was not respected. R. Baley (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That may well be the case, and as such some administrative action does need to take place - I am just unconvinced that a community ban is required. User:S. Dean Jameson says it best below, in that community bans are a last resort after other methods of controlling the situation have failed. Shereth 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, though I agree in principle with everything R. Baley says. I just think, in this particular case, that we're getting ahead of ourselves just a little. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I strongly oppose this, as a community ban should be a last resort, when all other methods have been shown to have failed. While R. Baley is not wrong in his assessment of the underlying facts, a topic ban would accomplish all that needs be done here, without restricting GoRight's access to editing of other portions of the project. We need to go a bit easier here, in my view. S.D.Jameson 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't edit on any other portion of the project. He's a self-admitted single purpose account. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
By "topic ban", I mean that he would be banned from mentioning WMC in any of his edits, anywhere on the project, not just on the page of the main article. If he wants to try to make certain the skeptical view of global warming is presented in other articles, he would be free to do so. S.D.Jameson 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that this would be the case even on talk pages and such? That would not be practical, IMHO, on the GW pages. For example, how would I refer to an edit or comment made by WMC? Would, for example, "in reference to WMC's edit" be considered a violation? --GoRight (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that you've made a rather uncomfortable bed for yourself. It will most likely continue to get less comfortable if you continue to edit as you have in the past on GW and WMC-related articles. S.D.Jameson 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That sort of depends on one's definition of "topic" here. If "Topic = WMC's BLP" then this assertion would be false. If "Topic = Global Warming Related Pages" then this assertion would be correct. Let us take note of the fact the WMCs BLP is not a Global Warming Topic page, per se. It is merely a BLP for William M. Connolley.
I freely admit that I am a WP:SPA but this in no way should prejudice people against me as there is no requirement for accounts to be broadly based. My purpose here is specifically to work towards WP:NPOV on the Global Warming pages. I admit to being an AGW skeptic and by WP:NPOV I specifically mean making sure that the skeptic's views are equitably represented here in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Please take note of the fact that my being an AGW skeptic makes me unpopular with all of my detractors listed above who just so happen to be AGW proponents (uninvolved editors excepted, of course). --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. I fully agree that "there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here." In fact, we make it policy. As such, I fully support a community ban on William M. COnnelly. Given that he's managed to star in multiple major MSM publications discrediting the project, it's time for him to go. ThuranX (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misreading exactly what it was that R. Baley meant by that remark - it took me a couple tries as well. I believe what Mr. Baley is saying (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that by allowing such slander to continue, we make Wikipedia a very inhospitable enviornment for those editors whose knowledge in their field leads to notability - editor such as WMC and Elonka spring to mind. i.e., "we are giving them no reason to add their expertise to this project". --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm sure of what I've said. POV warriors who bring the project into disrepute by censoring opposition viewpoints in all manner of behavior need to go. Throw WMC out. He doesn't help the project, and he's editign as an expert in his field, which is prohibited. ThuranX (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

'Support - well deserved. Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Support topic ban - on the fence as to whether or not a community ban would really be valid at this point (no matter how tempting it may seem from a purely selfish and subjective perspective! =)). This thread is a bit convoluted to follow, and the diffs I provided hardly illustrate the whole spectrum of GoRight's behavior - it's too easy to see this as a single slapfight, as GoRight himself said above. The single "incident" which triggered this thread (posting on a talk page after being requested not to) should, itself, most likely be met with a warning, perhaps a warning and a trout. It's only once one factors in the other behavior, and GoRight's particular history, that a topic ban becomes truly, easily justified. As I said above, this particular type of editor is the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose that I am not justified in considering you ascribing this characterization, "the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind.", to me to be a WP:NPA violation either? --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I see it that Badger Drink's comment above is isn't assuming good faith nor is it helping to solve the issue. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Get real. WP:AGF isn't a noose. Badger Drink (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am real. Making comments like this ("the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind.") does not help. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. But I do see the need for some action. We need to first officially impose a 0RR rule for RoRight. GoRight has said that he voluntarily sticks to 1RR. On the RFC, I argued that 0RR would be more appropriate. Under 0RR, if GoRight adds material that has been previously removed then that would be a violation and it can be reverted without discussion. If GoRight continues to violate the restriction he is under, then one can discuss banning him. Count Iblis (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support a community ban (first choice), support a broad topic ban (second choice), or support a 0RR restriction on all article space (last choice). This is an editor who has failed to take on board any guidance he has received in how to work constructively on this project. The repeated, tired arguments above about his addition to William Connolley clearly illustrate the problem. Even if we take at face value his statement that he has "not violated...WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V" – which is false, as WP:BLP includes WP:NPOV by reference – his edit was both disruptive and a clear violation of WP:NPOV's provisions about article structure and undue weight; it probably was also meant to be a violation of WP:POINT. Our core policies aren't a buffet where you pick just the ones that you want, and GoRight's stubborn insistence that his editing is responsible because it follows some of our core policies holds no water. Whether it's wilful blindness or just an incurable inability to understand, Wikipedia has no place for editors who persistently fail to follow WP:NPOV—particularly where those editors insist on editing BLPs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. This diff [42] would be bad enough posted to a Talk page, but seeing it as an edit to an article, I have never been more tempted to reach for the trout. Reading through GoRight's posts to this thread leads me to believe that 0RR restrictions are simply not going to prevent the disruption GR is causing. Otherwise I agree with TenOfAllTrades' assessment. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a 0RR ban is better, because then GoRight would not be able to edit in this section ever after having it done earlier. If he does so, then no matter what his arguments are, it is an immediate violaton of 0RR and he can be banned for some time. Now GoRight does also edit some other articles (mainly on politics subjects), so he won't be able to edit those aticles if he is banned for a 0RR violation.
A topic ban would allow him to continue editing the politics articles while not being confronted with his bad editing habits. Note that on the politics articles this sort of bad behavior is tolerated. From time to time we see editors like GoRight who usually edit politcs article come over to the global warming page and bring their bad editing habits with them. Count Iblis (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The conditions which GoRight has already willingly taken up (1RR on GW articles, 0RR on Connelly's BLP?) seem fine. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, given that GoRight has offered concessions that have a good chance of solving any problem here, I don't think it would be wise to apply sanctions right now. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support community ban or topic ban. I agree with what TenOfAllTrades says above. I also see that an RFC has been tried. The POV pushing and BLP violations are detrimental to the project. --Aude (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per above. --DHeyward (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Reverting isn't the problem so 1RR or even 0RR solves nothing. The problems are tendentious editing and argumentative, unconstructive behavior on talk pages, especially wholesale disregard for WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOR (with a good dollop of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for seasoning). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose community ban, support topic ban on any pages related to William Connolley (which I'd suggest GoRight does regardless, not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley). This forum shopping to try to ban GoRight is getting old. Nothing short of an ArbCom case is going to generate enough agreement to ban him. The RfC was nearly an even split. GoRight is far from perfect but several regular global warming editors are regularly less civil and more tendentious than he is. Oren0 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, "pages related to William Connolley" is a pretty narrow topic; as far as I know it would only include Connolley's page and RealClimate, though perhaps there are a few others. Oren0 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I thought that WMC no longer had a relationship with RealClimate, see [43]. Has this changed? Please note that I explicitly tried to maintain such an association, see [44] and [45], but apparently a consensus of my fellow editors have decided that such a relationship no longer exists since my addition has been subsequently removed and the page no longer mentions him. I accept that consensus and have not tried to re-establish a linkage. So why would you ban me from commenting on RealClimate? --GoRight (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
While WMC no longer contributes to RC, it is still a topic that is related to him historically and I think it'd be best for you to stay away from it. Oren0 (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban (on the wider topic of Global warming), at least for a while. From my experience with GoRight, he not only pushes a POV (which may be solved with good will), he also simply does not understand the topic very well. As a result, he cannot distinguish good from bad edits, and he apparently cannot distinguish good from bad sources. A temporary topic ban would allow him to get some or experience with Wikipedia in less contentious areas, and to demonstrate that he is interested in improving the encyclopedia an general, not just support his personal interpretation in a very limited field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban in terms set out by Oren0 two above me, no opinion on wider measures. Orderinchaos 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose a community ban but Support topic ban. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus for a community ban - see next section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

Clearly no consensus for a community ban. But possibly growing consensus for a topic ban - consensus (or lack thereof) cannot be called either way because there is an apparent confusion on the area of editing (the topic). I'm neutral on topic ban proposals for now, but I'm making 3 separate topic ban proposals to hopefully get a clearer view from the community. I ask the community vote on each of them (these proposals can run concurrently if the community chooses though - in which case, the community would indicate support for all 3 together, or 1&2 - not 3...etc.)

1) GoRight topic-banned from editing BLP articles.
2) GoRight topic banned from Global warming-related pages.
3) GoRight topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support all three per above discussion. Vsmith (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support all three per above discussion. Edits such as this belong on the New York Post, not an encyclopedia. Badger Drink (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean the CBS news website, since he seems to primarily quote them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1 and 2. Support 3. He provides opposing viewpoints. No reason to topic ban over opposing viewpoints no matter how opposed the other editors are. --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support all three - well deserved. Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose all three. Sick and tired of propping up the censorship of disagreement over major topics which gets us shit-tastic coverage in major presses. GoRight's one of the few forcing a balance into some of these articles, and while I'd support it if he was pushing articles into a right wing POV, I can't support blocking an editor who sees us get ripped to shreds and tries to fight it. ThuranX (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • When GoRight edits the global warming article to make laughably false statements (global warming causes earthquakes!) he is not improving them. When he gets reverted, he is not being censored. Your statement is an insult both to the people who want our articles to be scientifically accurate and to people who have to deal with real censorship. Raul654 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • (EC's)No it's not, quit getting hypersensitive. When he puts in crap, you take it out. But when you revert evertyhing he puts in, including the legitimate criticism under a 'cry wolf' sort of mentality, the entire project gets written up for censorship. It's THAT level of censorship I refer to. I've seen it before in articles, on AN/I, and off wikipedia. Consider similar reactions at Barack Obama, and I'm sure that there have been other recent MSM coverages. I don't care if you revert crap like 'earthquakes' without citation, and I'd help but there is a trend here to avoid countering viewpoints on major, mainstream topics. I'm all for FRINGE, go look, i'm a huge proponent of the guidelines, but when we can't include anything but the most fleeting criticisms, and get ripped apart by actual writers and journalists, then we do need to look at what we're doing, and how we're doing it. That's my point. I saw that some of GoRight's edits worked toward that goal, and for that reason we should NOT ban him from the topics. As for people who "who want our articles to be scientifically accurate", I'm one of those. There IS scientific criticism of global warming, and it should be included.ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Scientific criticism of global warming is a small-minority position that already is included in the articles in much greater proportion than its prevalence in the scientific literature. Here are the mastheads for Journal of Climate[46], Geophysical Research Letters[47], and Journal of Geophysical Research[48], Where are all the articles showing the raging scientific controversy over the existence of global warming, show them to me please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
AN/I is about user actions and not content disputes. We should be focusing on how to ensure that people treat each other with respect, follow the guidelines, and try to form a consensus, not who may be "right" or "wrong". The "right" or "wrong" belong on talk pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It is not his views but his utter disregard for WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and others of our core policies that are the main issue here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That's some lovely hyperbole and posturing, but you already know where the letters in question are, if you've been following this, and what i've been referring to. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Boris is exactly right and you are completely wrong. You claim our GW articles are biased against the alleged hordes of scientists who disagree with the consensus represented by the IPCC, and that this supposed bias somehow justifies GoRight's misbehavior. You are wrong on both counts.
First, "But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the "big" debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." - [49] Boris is *PERFECTLY* justified in asking you to cite some scientific articles that support your claims. And your hand-waving "you know where to find them" is not an answer, because I certainly have been following this discussion and I don't. So - put up or shut up. Point out some articles from the long lists he just provided that support this claim.
Second, even if what you said was true (and it's not) it does not justify, excuse, or in any way mitigate GoRight's behavior. Our articles are not made better by the misinformation he spews; they are not made better when good editors have to take the time to debunk the patently false claims he tries to put into them (over and over and over again) or to revert war with him over it; they are not made better by his BLP violations (and subsequent refusal to even acknowledge they were BLP violations); they are not made better when he cites new studies funded by ExxonMobile that show global warming is wrong. And the list goes on and on. Raul654 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure it's true. Wikipedia gets shit on for the ease with which a given side hypes their issue. This is no different. WP:V not WP:TRUTH and all that applies to all our articles, right? All I've been saying all along is that by preventing every single editor who puts up work representing a balancing side, we play into the hands of those who claim we censor topics and actively push a left wing view. Are we here to promote ONE RIGHT VIEW, or are we here to write an encyclopedia? If the former, then soldier on. If the latter, then we need to be aware that that means finding ways to incorporate things we don't like. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, Raul; it's like you're being obtuse on purpose. If we can't work out a way to make sure our articles are genuinely balanced AND accurate, we're going to keep getting tarred and feathered. One way to prevent that is to allow editors whose views we aren't personally thrilled with to edit here nad be part of the process. It's really that simple. When usually well intentioned editors whose views we don't like keep getting tossed off the project, we stay 'biased' in the eyes of real journalists. This attitude that real journalists can't judge Wikipedia because that's like our 'no experts allowed' rule is absurd, yet I see it here over and over. GoRight's not perfect, never said he was, but this doesn't look like a Civil POV Push to me. There has to be a better solution. ThuranX (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
So then as long as he provides "balance" there's no need follow WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYN and the rest of our policies? That's an interesting perspective. 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talkcontribs)
Still not what I've ever said, but good to hear that your'e more interested in pushing the truth than follow our policies. I never said break WEIGHT, I invoked RS and V FOR inclusion, and SYNTH? Really? Where did I say dick about SYNTH? I said we need to find ways to present both sides of these major issues, or Wikipedia will continue to only be the butt of jokes among academia and the press. I said that blocking off editors every time they work to give our articles the needed balance (and balance does not eliminate WEIGHT and you know it) only makes it tougher to get articles which can get journalistic respect. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought our goal was to create a credible, balanced reference work rather than to gain "journalistic respect" from partisan editorialists. But maybe that's just me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Not all our critics are "partisan editorialists". and "create a credible, balanced reference work rather than to gain "journalistic respect"" are one and the same, really. If we write good, solid articles, we'll get the latter. If we think we're doing the former but failing the latter, we need to examine the former. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support all three --Aude (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support all three Opposing viewpoints are great. Opposing viewpoints tendentiously pressed with utter disregard for Wikipedia's standards of sourcing and appropriate emphasis, not so much. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support banning Raul from all global warming related pages. LFOD (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet based on checkuser-l discussion. Raul654 (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Mind telling us who this user was a sock of? You didn't say on the user page and I was unable to find the RFCU. Not questioning, I just prefer transparency. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
        • As I said on my talk page when Ottava brought it up - we were unable to determine who the sockmaster is. Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't understand; how can a user be determined to be a sockpuppet if you don't know who the sockmaster is? Doesn't knowing that someone is a sockpuppet require a shared IP and coordinated edits with another user? Oren0 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
            • I do not discuss checkuser techniques with non-checkusers. I will say that his contribs are pretty obviously those of a sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I could only support a ban on him editing directly on the article page, but not a ban on editing the talk page. We should encourage users to discuss with each other, work as a community, and build an article that meets consensus, which requires everyone, not a simple majority. The user's problems center on reverting and unwillingness to compromise. This can not be solved with a topic ban, but only solved by him being limited to the talk pages and forced into a position that he would have to discuss and work with others. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) A cycle of sock puppetry support has appeared and I don't believe that there isn't enough encouragement at this time for this to work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    I have been focused on other issues the past couple of days. Could you please clarify what you mean by "A cycle of sock puppetry support has appeared"? Is this some sort of allegation thereof? I affirmatively declare that I have not created, used, or relied upon any sock puppets in any form on Wikipedia. --GoRight (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, I see that there is a discussion of me at User_talk:Raul654#Question wherein Ottava Rima specifically asserts that "Upon new evidence, it seems that it would be far too late to keep him from starting down the path of sock puppetry." This would appear to suggest that I am now a suspected sockmaster. I believe that Ottava Rima was acting out of good intentions but I doubt that he understands the damage he has just done to me. One can never dispel these suspicions since it is impossible to prove that one is NOT using sock puppets. And to put it right in User:Raul654's lap is beyond the pale. Raul is obviously already gunning for me so now in addition to being the most disruptive editor on the project I will also be a suspected sock master. This his how Raul will likely use this in the future, forever. That is his way.
    User:Raul654 is a check user capable administrator. I have no doubt that he has been monitoring me closely for the use of sock puppets and if any had been found that would have come out immediately. However, given this turn of events, I would ask User:Raul654 to declare here whether he has any evidence, any at all, that I am a sockmaster. --GoRight (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose all three; GoRight offered concessions above, and this extended discussion should give him good cause to avoid such problems in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1 and 2, support 3 per discussion above. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose all three per ThuranX. Does anyone stop to think that when we ban editors like GoRight, we prove the critics right? ATren (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support 3 but Oppose 1 and 2 for now. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support all three. This editor has a personal, small-minority POV – which is fine – and pushes it without regard for core content policies like WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:STRUCTURE — which is not. His response to criticism puts a civil gloss over a thick layer of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. At this point, it doesn't matter whether he is unwilling or simply unable to 'get it'; it's not worth the time of good editors to clean up after him any further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose all three. I generally refrain from voting in actions against myself, but if we are going to continue to contrive new votes over and over until one finally sticks, it seems I have nothing to loose. I am beginning to consider this to be harassment since this entire section is, as was pointed out above, an example a WP:FORUMSHOP to begin with. --GoRight (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1 & 2, Support 3. GoRight, what happened? As this [50] thread shows, you appeared to be doing things right- following the correct process in the right way. But, the evidence here appears to show that you went overboard on WMC's article since then. Why? Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support all three. Though a consensus for the 3rd condition was previously arrived at in the above section. Until there is a consensus to lift it, I consider "3" active. GoRight is, of course, wrong about this being an example of forum shopping. Should it turn out that 1 and 2 aren't supported by consensus, I hope that condition 3 will be enough. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there is consensus for 3 - someone uninvolved will need to inform him. I'm not willing while he's being disruptive and hurling meritless accusations that directly conflict with the stated purpose of this subthread. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on how I am being disruptive, what meritless accusations I have made, and how they directly conflict with the purpose of this subthread? --GoRight (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • WTF? Can GoRight explain why he's adding votes for another account? If he can't, i'll switch my response from oppose to full support plus an indef ban. ThuranX (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Look at the whole diff (scroll down) - he merely moved it. For proprietry, I would suggest not ever moving "supports" or "opposes" relating to you, GoRight, but it's not a Big Deal. Neıl 10:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I apologize for the confusion. As noted I merely moved the "Points of Order" discussion (which I started) to it's own section below so that it wouldn't be a distraction to the flow of the voting. Technically, at least from my POV, I moved the discussion not KDP's vote which remained where it was and unchanged in the voting roster. Besides, why would I add a vote that goes against me in all three cases? --GoRight (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Oops, I did, somehow, miss that the first time. Apologies to GoRight. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1 & 2 - not needed for now, unless GoRight broaches his self-imposed restrictions. Support 3, just leave the William Connolley article alone. As global warming IS an article related to Connelly (very related), then I would suggest "William Conolley and related articles" be clarified to be just the Connoley article. Neıl 10:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support #3 only (oppose #1, 2), with a note that the topic ban on #3 may extend to Global Warming-related articles that are related to William M. Connolley. In response to questions raised at the below discussion: a consensus to overturn this ban at a later date may be sought from the Community on this noticeboard, or any other relevant forum; however, the duration is intended at the moment to be indefinite, and I would imagine that the sanctions would not be lifted by the Community without evidence of a solid improvement in conduct (and, as such, I recommend Go Right does not file for a lifting of the sanctions until he feels (as do others he seeks the advice of) he has sufficiently improved as an editor of the project). Anthøny 16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support #3 only as above. Personally I would have preferred a 0RR restriction. Shereth 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support all three per above discussion. Splette :) How's my driving? 23:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support 2 an