Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720

Abusive email

Resolved

 – Ttbddy has been indeffed by Floquenbeam -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've received a nasty anti-Semitic email from Ttbddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so can they please be hard-blocked ASAP? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 00:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Care to share it to us? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked with no email or talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User notified, as is required, at User talk:Ttbddy. As the user has no on-wiki edits (or deleted contributions) whatsoever, it's not clear to me there's anything actionable here. (I do see I've been pre-empted by Flo; c'est la vie.)  Frank  |  talk  00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

TT has a stalker using email to send abusive emails. They don't edit. Best to WP:DENY --Errant ^(chat!) 08:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar problem a while back which actually caused the creation of the e-mail block function. Have we sought out the technical information to keep this individual at bay?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:DENY would strongly suggest that bringing this to the highest-profile drama board every time (what is this, the fourth time TT has gotten a new email stalker? The fifth?) is not going to make the problem go away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just forward the emails to an admin who will just indef the sender without email access. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's been repeatedly suggested to TT. I'm not sure why it hasn't been taken up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:AngeloADiamond

Resolved

 – I've closed the AFD as "keep" and told the article's creator not to remove the AFD tag from articles nominated for deletion until the discussions are closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is my first time ever coming to ANI, and I take this matter quite seriously. I am requesting a short block of User:AngeloADiamond This new editor has repeatedly removed the AFD tmplate from the article article on Eliza Swenson.[1] The editor was warned by a bot, warned by User:The Mark of the Beast and warned at least three times by User:Monty845 but has continued the disruptive behavior. See [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] with the last incident being some few hours after User:Monty845's "final warning". I request an admin perform a to temp block to end the disruption until the AFD is concluded. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There's probably nothing actionable right now as the user isn't actively disrupting. I've got it watchlisted. N419BH 08:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I anticipate the next template removal in a few hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

AFD gone astray

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Ann Raphael --Penbat (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed as keep - if someone wants to renominate, feel free. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Block request for Mosaica1 and content revert request

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Dear Administrator, I respectfully request that you review the content dispute on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amigo_Energy and put a block on account user Mosaica1. Recently Mosaica1 posted false and defamatory information regarding Amigo Energy and an employee that was terminated, as well as re-posting previously refuted information.

To protect the quality and relevance of Wikipedia content, I request that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amigo_Energy be reverted to the 02:31, 20 April 2011 version and locked for editing.

Explicit Violations and Inaccuracies: Header, “Key People”: “Javier Antonio Vega, founder, former President/CEO, wrongfully terminated.” Mr. Vega was not wrongfully terminated, and there is no claim or judgment stating that he was. He has not been associated with the company for more than 3 years, and does not qualify as a “key person”. Listing prior employees in this area is not appropriate, and disputable information about those employees needs a reference.

Section 1, P1: “Wrongful Termination of CEO Javier Vega” is false, as the employee was rightfully terminated under U.S. and Texas employment law. Reference #2, (County Clerk Website) shows a contract case that is in “Hold” status pending judgment.

Section 4, P1: “Residents in the Houston, Texas area of Amigo Energy have recently complained…” – no complaints submitted since early 2009, and do not qualify as “recent”.

Section 4, P2: “The agreement between National Power and Amigo Energy was reported by the Public Utility Commission of Texas that the current Terms of Service and rate structure of the National Power variable rate customers would be carry over to Amigo Energy.” – This is false and contrived information, reference not valid.

Section 4, P2: “Amigo Energy is currently accused of not meeting that clause by not sending out a new Facts Label before increasing the rates charged more than 80% in one month.” - Information is false and is demonstratively contrived, as it is in conflict with the 61% number stated in sentence 1. No reference.

Section 4, P2: “Most of the former National Power Company customers had their rates go from 11.1 -12.5 cents per kilowatt hour to 19.9 -24.69 cents per kilowatt hour in the first month after the customer transition completed” – Information is false and contrived, no reference.

This is not an exhaustive list, but I have shown an abundance of evidence in support of my claim. I trust that you will agree that the editing behavior of Mosaica1 is both false and defamatory. 64.125.194.66 (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the content issue for a moment, it does look like Mosaica1 has fouled WP:3RR. This may or may not be an ancillary issue to the content question. Looking back at the article itself, this should be a WP:BRD matter which doesn't require admin intervention; at the very least, it should have gone to dispute resolution prior to coming here. Finally, my instincts all scream that WP:BLP should apply. I've removed the material in question and asked for commentary on the Talk page regarding it, under WP:BRD. Just my 2p worth; save up the change for a root beer or something. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rather than edit-warring, you should have discussed the problem on the talk page of the article. And you should have put the ANI-notice on the other user's talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User removing CSD notification from non-free images used solely in userspace.

Hello, I have been attempting to tag four files (File:DCFC0003.JPG, File:DCFC0004.JPG, File:DCFC0004.jpg, and File:DCFC0001.JPG) for CSD as copyright violations (derivative works of copyrighted material). The uploader, User:JamesAlan1986, has consistently reverted this. Examples: 1, 2, and 3 and responded to with aggression. I have already reverted his reversion twice per file and given him warning twice, including mentioning ANI. Could an admin intervene? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have warned the user, and reverted the CSD removals. However, I'll point out that JamesAlen1986's user page now states that he is "Offline Forever" and has "Washed his hands of the whole Wikipedia mess" (paraphrase). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And I am, I'm done. I'm tired of the drama on here. I'm tired of getting attacked for following Wikipedia standards (check the entire history page of "Sparks Fly") and now this. I got enough on my plate without this crap and feeling like I don't have any rights. My mother has done it my whole life. I'm worried about losing my best friend. I don't get on here for drama and people to start stuff I get on here to help contribute. But I'm done with now I can't deal with this anymore and I shouldn't have to so just delete the d*** pictures so I can get off here. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 11:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's not mis-state those uses as copy vios. The are violations of the Wikipedia policy intended to try to get free images by discouraging fair use and use-with-specific-permission of non-free images North8000 (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I wish I could say this is an isolated incident. Those are non-free images, and should be deleted, however because trans-photographic copyright (the issue here) can be difficult to explain, because there really wasn't a terrible amount of explaining going on, and the person on the receiving the explanation wasn't making a great effort to listen, we get these situations. What is needed is a bright and colorful one page PDF that explains trans-photographic copyright in language that a third grader can understand (not to say anyone here is a third grader, just to say that any legalspeak in the document is too much legalspeak). Sven Manguard Wha? 12:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, using a term "trans-photographic copyright" that doesn't come up with hits in Wikipedia or Google is not a good start.  :-) North8000 (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I made that term up a while back because I've yet to find a better term for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd support a simpler explanation, as long as the title wasn't too clunky (it's a nice one though) Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• As a side question, if it is not a copyright violation per se, how would it be classified? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it is a copyright violation, plain and simple, the issue is explaining how it is a violation. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I misread North's comment "Let's not mis-state those uses as copy vios"; in that case, why not call a spade a spade? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The creator of the files chose to nominate them for speedy deletion per WP:CSD G7, and they are gone. Favonian (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a suggested nutshell: "If you make a copyrighted work of something to which someone else holds a copyright, then nobody can use it unless they both give a license." — Coren ^(talk) 16:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's called a derivative work, if anyone's interested. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Typically, when making a derivative work, the original copyright holder's licensing must be compatible with the derivative work copyright holder's licensing (usually, that'll work the other way around, too, but it's not a requirement). — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to really tell it like it is, while one may know that something is WP policy violation, other than making an educated guess, nobody in Wikipedia ever really knows that anything is a copy vio. A copy vio is use without permission for that use. This is because Wikipedia is unwilling and unable to record all of the normal type permissions for use, such as permissions for specific uses, permissions restricted to not-for-profit uses etc. The only thing that it is willing or able to record is essentially unlimited permissions for unlimited use (including for-profit) by others. So, in Wikipedia, completely lacking that information, other than taking a guess, nobody has any frigin' clue as to what other permissions have been granted and thus no basis for saying that something is a copy vio. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about exactly what a "copyright violation" means. The only licenses under which we can make use of content are the Creative Commons license under which all of our original content is released and those strictly more permissive than that (such as public domain). Any other "specific permissions" mean that we would therefore be violating the copyright of the holder by including it here under a more permissive license than that under which it has been released. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really. For example, if an image owner gave permission for an image to only be used in Wikipedia, placement in Wikipedia is not a copyvio. Such placement (including meaningless "assenting" to other uses by the editor placing it) may lead to a copy vio, but it itself is not a copy vio. And since Wikipedia has no way to record or recognize such conditional permissions, there is no way to know that a copy vio exists. What IS known is that such is a violation of WP policy. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The act of uploading a file here is the same as the act of publishing it under our copyright license. The minute a file is uploaded we are explicitly distributing it under our terms, and the minute anyone looks at it that person has had the file distributed to them under our terms. Where our terms are more liberal than those under which the file was offered to us, we're breaking the license terms (implicit or explicit) under which the offer was made, and as such we're engaging in copyright violation by distributing copyrighted works without permission. This is why "permission is given to Wikipedia only to distribute this file" licenses are broken by design, as we distribute only on our only license terms and (optionally) under more liberal terms than CC-BY-SA for certain files (where distributing as CC-BY-SA is permitted by the more permissive license by definition). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec / "thinko") I'm afraid I disagree with North8000. Although I am not a lawyer, but by uploading an image to Wikipedia, the uploader grants certain redistribution rights (the CC-by-SA 3.0 license). If he doesn't have those rights, he's granting a license he doesn't have the right to. It may not be technically be a "copyright violation", it is illegal. I would call it "induced copyright violation", rather than "contributory copyright violation", in that the uploader should know that the material would be automatically distributed in violation of copyright.

But I'm not a lawyer, and I don't think it's ever been established whether quoting on and archiving of Usenet is legal, and that's been around a lot longer than Wikipedia.

(end ec) But I agree with Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) that it's wrong. I would say it's illegal on the part of the uploader, but it doesn't really matter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it's a bad idea and violates policy. Not about copyvio. And keep in mind that accusing someone of copy vio is accusing them of a civil or criminal offense. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse, NLT has developed particular exceptions whereby we are permitted to warn editors regarding particular areas of legality: specifically, libel as it refers to negative and unattributed commentary about a living person, and copyright violation. There's next to no chance that this will change. As for whether the problem in question is directly copyright violation or merely "inducement to copyright violation" as Arthur put it, in practice the distinction is academic and a far cry from your original point (which was, so far as I can see, that Wikipedia should collect data under whatever license it can, and pass the buck onto readers to wade through licenses individually should they wish to redistribute our content). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Meow's edits

Resolved

 – Meow has apologized. Content disputes can be handled on the article's talk page. 28bytes (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Meow vandalizes the article 2011 Pacific typhoon season by removing well-sourced and verifiable content (ie. Blanking) and use foul language in the edit summary (Edit summary vandalism) in the edit at 05:10, 12 September 2011. Administrators should take appropriate action to prevent further damage to the article.2011typhoon (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You are a liar. What people can see is only your vandalism. I only recover that article from your mess. You keep:

• Adding unreliable and incomplete information.
• Reverting new things to old things.
• Editing with vandalism and cheating.

--Meow✉ 09:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about yourself? You keep removing reliable information. Also, as I have mentioned many times, incompleteness is not a valid excuse to remove any content. Any article in Wikipedia is incomplete!!! That's why information need to be added.2011typhoon (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

2011typhoon, nobody is vandalising, here; this is just a content dispute. You should follow WP:DR, to try and solve it by discussion. At the moment, you're edit warring with Meow; if you keep this up, I'll protect ther article. Now, Meow, this edit summary is a blatant violation of WP:NPA; pleaseconsider this your only warning: if you do something like that again, you'll be blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"You are a liar" is also pretty inappropriate. Oh, and Meow, while you're here you should be aware that using images in your signature is a no-no. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Both of you, show some respect to WP:CIVIL. No offese Meow, but calling people a liar is a personal attack IMO. Please stop. Thank you.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The original poster really needs to provide proof of their claims that Meow is using foul language in the edit summaries, because I sure don't see it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that, thanks, Chris. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

page ownership

user Mattinbgn seems to have set himself up as the de facto arbiter of what may or may not be posted on articlr Bowls' talk page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bowls&diff=450017154&oldid=450016526] is this legitimate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.195.250 (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a clear case of WP:NOTFORUM, and Mattinbgn acted correctly. Article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not discussing the subject of the article ("It's ludicrous to call this a sport! We will soon have conkers. marbles, hopscotch and hoopla clamouring for 'sport' status.") -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Now hang on! The IP went about this the wrong way but did have a point to make. Yes, "article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article". The IP asked whether bowls was a "sport or game?" which was fair enough, but then he got a bit shirty with the comment that it is ludicrous to call bowls a sport. I disagree with him, but (hypothetically) had enough people agreed it was a game and not a sport, then the article might have been changed -- improved. So yes, his point was justified there, especially as Wiki's sport/games delineation leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, the intro of our Tug of war article defines tug of war as a sport, but has an image with a caption calling it a game. The main illustration of our Game article has an image of a tug of war event. Hmmm. Moriori (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've notified Mattinbgn of this thread, since the original poster failed to do so. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur that the removal was proper, in accordance with WP:TPO. I also note the reporting IP is from the same range as the IP which posted the removed material. I've added the {{notforum}} flag to the Talk page header in an attempt to forestall development of the issue beyond this point. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys. There has been a bit of a low level vandalsim campaign in the article to replace the word "sport" with "game" for some months now. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Serial copyright violator has resumed under new identity(s)

In June 2009, Ernestobelmonte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for repeated copyright violations, mostly with regard to articles concerning horse racing and horse race broadcasting. In April 2010, the editor behind that account appears to have resumed editing as Wantobereporter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), creating and editing articles in the same field; the substantial edits resume the pattern of overt copyright violations. (See, for example, List of HRTV commentators, which seems to be little more than a cut-and-paste of the copyrighted promotional biographies found here [9]. Wantobereporter, like Ernestobelmonte, ignored warnings on their talk page and reinstated copyvio articles after deletions. The Wantobereporter account stopped editing in June 2011, but there are IPs which seem to pick up the editing pattern (User:75.5.0.129, User:75.4.236.228, for example).

There are probably other accounts/IPs that I haven't spotted. It also looks there are a lot of copyvios to be cleaned up, possibly dating back to the Ernestobelmonte account. For example, spotchecked List_of_TVG_commentators#Nancy_Ury includes text cut-and pasted from here [10] and here [11]. It's not clear to me (yet) how many of the articles/entries involved call for outright deletion and how many should be let stand following a thorough copyvio scrubbing. I certainly think we need to look for other accounts/IPs which may be associated with the Wantobereporter account (the already-blocked account data is presumably stale). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to sock-puppetry investigations. --S Larctia (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:CCI. CCI is very backlogged, but WP:SPI will not organize copyright cleanup. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe to WP:Pass the buck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you offering to file it, Bugs? Marvelous. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

SPI's are a waste of time and effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons: (1) They are difficult to set up and then the checkuser closes it because he doesn't feel like looking outside the box; and (2) The occasional passing checkuser here, if he's in the right mood, will go ahead and take action without a formal SPI being made. As with the original discussion in this section: If an admin feels like taking action, they will; if not, they tell the OP to go someplace else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This train looks like it's going to have to run on multiple tracks; I am hoping for guidance on how best to organize things and what sequence /timing to start them up in. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CCI is the place to go to note the copyright issues. We (by which I mean most probably the wonderful User:MER-C) will create a page listing all of his contributions so that they can be checked for copyright concerns. WP:SPI is the place to go if you want admins to look into the connection of the accounts. However, I think now that I've had time to look into it that the quacking is strong here. For instance, I see that Ernestobelmonte created the article Caton Bredar, which was G12ed. The new account recreated it as a copyvio of the same source. I think there's enough behavioral evidence at this point for me to take action on the named accounts. I haven't looked closely at the IPs, but at least one of them seems to have been dormant for a year or so? I'll look more into that as soon as I figure out why the copyvio template isn't working. :P --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fixed the template for now and blocked the named account. I'm going to go ahead and set up the CCI on both accounts as well. The IPs do seem to be a bit stale. If you become aware of any that are active, please take it to WP:SPI. I'll make sure all probable socks are tagged, which will help establish location. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Preemptive protection of World Trade Center.

Resolved

 – 9/11/11 has passed. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 00:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an unusual request, but it's not without any justification. Seeing as the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is just a day away, should we have a preemptive protection of the World Trade Center, knowing there WILL be a lot of trolling on that article on 9/11/11? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 12:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there's been some vandalism over the last few days, there might be reason to protect the page even if the preemptive reason given above is rejected. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a spectrum of a couple of dozen articles that are starting to see vandalism, such as United Airlines Flight 93, , but not yet to excess: I'd just protect per usual policy if it starts to get out of hand. World Trade Center and its companions will become de facto featured articles for a couple of days, and should be watched accordingly. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just lots of eyes for now. There will be a lot of trolling/Obama is teh gay lol/general rubbish on the articles. I would encourage people to watchlist them and report excessive vandalism in the usual manner. But preemptive semiprotection is something we just don't normally do. N419BH 17:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

30 minutes to Zulu Hour. Huggle at the ready... --Cerejota (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest watchlisting links from the current TFA, American Airlines Flight 11, including the other flights in particular. I note that Daniel M. Lewin has received some unwelcome attention, for instance. I wouldn't expect any significant changes at 2400 hours EDT, though. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've signed up several pages for Cluebot NG's ANGRY MODE^CC-BY-SA. Cluebot will now ignore its 1RR restriction on all these articles. Today's featured article, American Airlines Flight 11 is automatically patrolled in Angry Mode. N419BH 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the enthusiasm, but be careful, please, we'll have a lot of folks who are new to WP visiting. Acroterion (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh - I was just in Manhattan today. Parts of it are like an armed camp, and they're taking it mighty seriously there. I agree that discretion is wise on this subject. Doc talk 04:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ground Zero is flooded. I should know because my office is next to the location. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 13:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the pages from ClueBot NG's ANGRY MODE^CC-BY-SA, as 9/11/11 has passed in the mainland US (or whatever you call it). --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 07:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Was going to do that in the morning but it's probably okay to do it now. N419BH 07:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of User:DIREKTOR

Hi. I have problem with User:DIREKTOR who pushing his POV in article Serbia under German occupation. Seems that this user is trying to push his POV by all possible means and to ignore any sources that I presented to him. I tried to discuss with him on both, article's talk page and his personal page, but there is no use since this user decided to solve issue by revert warring. Please see this edit: [12] - user DIREKTOR included false info that Serbia during World War II was part of the nation of Germany, while it was a foreign country occupied by German forces. There is no source that support claim that Serbia was part of Germany. He also included files with misleading descriptions. User DIREKTOR uploaded files GNS_Flag.svg and GNS_CoA.svg, which he created from files Flag_of_serbia_1941_1944.JPG and Coat_of_arms_of_serbia_1941_1944.JPG - I uploaded and scaned these two files from a book that explicitly claiming that these were symbols of Serbia, while DIREKTOR uploaded modified versions of these files using false description that these symbols representing only government of Serbia but not Serbia itself (He did not provided a single source that claiming that these symbols represented only government). Generally, he simply trying to annihilate name "Serbia" as a name for WW2 territory wherever he can, as can be seen from this edit: [13] (he simply replaced name "Serbia" with "Government of National Salvation"). In this talk page comment DIREKTOR explicitly said "There was no country or political entity called Serbia", which clearly reflecting the POV that he wants to push. In this edit he also annihilated infobox that representing subject of the article (i.e. Serbia) and replaced it with two infoboxes that are representing only administrative bodies that governed Serbia. This is completely against Wikipedia practices because similar articles about countries and territories usually containing infoboxes that representing countries and territories, not governments of these countries and territories. Note that he did not presented a single source that support claim that there was no Serbia, while he ignored all sources that I collected that are claiming opposite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 Can somebody please stop this user to edit articles based simply on his unsourced POV and against sources? Also note that this user was recently banned from editing of Balkan-related topics by an administrator (User:Fainites) (See reasons for ban elaborated here, but seems that this ban was lifted due to DIREKTOR's appeal and opinion that user:Fainites was involved in dispute with him. However, the fact that an admin was involved does not mean that behavior of user DIREKTOR was not disruptive - his behavior should be further examined by uninvolved admins. PANONIAN 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute issue. I won't go into the details but this report seems to be the preferred alternative to responding to a request that the user indicates a source properly and in accordance with WP:V (the name of the publication + a page number). The user simply posts a link to this page of his full of dozens of links to various texts and images and says: "here's the source". It would also be futile to list the numerous, numerous incidents reported here which offer an insight into PANONIAN's own behaviour and the nature of his involvement. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Cross-accusations and policy-shopping solves nothing. Have either of you looked for a third opinion or otherwise sought dispute resolution? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That will definitely be the next step it seems. Though after having been engaged in a mediation for almost two years :P, I've admittedly lost faith in WP:DR's ability to resolve complex and obscure Balkans issues. I will be going on vacation (again) in a few days, when I return I think a good idea would be to request more eyes on this matter. Its really a boring, irrelevant, fringe issue - but its been going on for ages now (imo because of PANONIAN's insistence on referring to a Nazi German occupation zone as "Serbia", implying the existence of a historical country). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not try WP:DRN? There is no admin action need here...--Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I asked for third opinion long time ago and this is response to it: [14]. Problem is that DIREKTOR simply does not accept that third opinion. What Wikipedia policies requiring in the case when someone does not accept third opinion? PANONIAN 04:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anything short of WP:RFAR will solve the problem. And that problem is not Panonian, at least not in this case. No such user (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Snettie: POV warring, possible copyvio concerns, WP:CIVIL as well

Snettie (talk · contribs) is POV warring on Political positions of Ron Paul, adding long POV quotes directly from Ron Paul [15] [16] [17] are just a few of the many diffs that demonstrate this. S/he is also namecalling in his/her edit summaries, including accusing editors of vandalism [18], book burning [19], and other statements. I am stepping out of this so I don't violate 3RR, but until something is done, s/he is going to continue to push long Ron Paul monologues into the article. Kansan (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

At the least Snettie should get a block for continuing to edit war after being warned. aprock (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

He's done it again; reverting. Quotes are automatically copyrighted aren't they? N419BH 06:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

He's also running amok on Rick Perry. Same MO. Reverted to version prior to edit war. N419BH 06:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson / Septentrionalis and MOS

User:Pmanderson was recently "Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year." per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson. Recently he has begun commenting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and making changes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Would this not constitute a violation of his ban? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Titles and naming were specifically left out of the topic ban, so he's only violating it if he commented on "technical aspects of the use of the English language." I'm pretty sure that was intended to cover "usage" comments such as he has made there in "...English-speakers overwhelmingly call the islands the Falklands, except when discussing the dispute." I suppose he'll argue that this is not a "technical aspect"? Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Naming conventions are part of the Manual of Style. Wikipedia:Article titles is the summary page for all naming convention pages, and it itself is a spinout of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles. That is not 100% clear at first glance, but he should now consider himself informed. I'll block him if he continues to edit those pages. NW (Talk) 03:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The page linked specifically bans him from article titles as well. It isn't like it is hard to interpret. The Option N+1b stated "Indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia:Article titles and any related discussion, construed broadly" and passed unanimously. I would say that discussions of article titles meets the definition of a broadly construed discussion of article titles. I would even venture that this is a rather narrowly construed violation of the topic ban. --Jayron32 04:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I edit WP:AT and discuss in there frequently, and I agree that a narrowly construed view of what you posted. "Naming conventions" guidelines are basically there to hyper-explain policy, a recognition that WP:AT is too broad in focus and that instead of having thousands of simultaneous discussion on how AT applies to names of things such as geographic names, we have naming conventions. But naming conventions are completely subordinate to WP:AT. If I am not misremembering, this was made clear on the RfC that established that WikiProjects couldn't make MoS calls without engagement of all of the community: the buck stops at WP:AT, and no MoS can go against it.--Cerejota (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Given all that, what's the explanation for Edelweiss? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Easy: WP:IAR :P --Cerejota (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

One key factor in IAR is "to improve wikipedia". Such as by using common names. Just today I was watching The Sound of Music, and it's always a poignant moment when they sing, "Leontopodium alpinum, Leontopodium alpinum, ev'ry morning you greet me..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because you're not singing it like a botanist would. All together, from bar 32, "L. alpinum, L. alpinum, bless my homeland forever." --Shirt58 (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cerejota: It's pretty clear that PMA isn't supposed to be in discussions related to the titles of articles at all. It has nothing to do with the venue or the name of the specific pages; the community decided (unanimously among those that participated, I might add) that he wasn't supposed to be concerning himself with the naming of articles in any way. --Jayron32 04:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's true that the community agreed (unanimously, or nearly so, I forget which) to ban him from title discussions. But the closer declined to represent that explicitly in the statement of the topic ban, so it remains a bit ambiguous just where the line is. I expect that's why he's testing it with otherwise innocuous comments and edits. I agree that we should warn him that he's over the line. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that the ban proposal agreed on and the implemented ban are different things. The ban proposal was

Pmanderson shall be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style (e.g. WP:MOS & WP:MOSNUM) and any related discussion, construed broadly. This includes naming policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:TITLE), move (title re-naming) policies and guidelines (WP:MOVE) and any related discussion, construed broadly.

While the actual ban was different. It was not indefinite and did not explicitly include titles.

You are Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language, including this talkpage, for a period of one year.

I find it highly unfortunate that Elen of the roads in this way decided to forgo the community opinion and implement her own ban and that way nullify a long discussion and it's final consensus, but this is what happened. It is as of such unclear if Pmanderson is banned from discussion title changes or not. Since this has been a constant flash point for Pmanderson it makes sense that he is, but only Elen can clarify if this was intended. In any case these edits on title issues can not be seen as violations of the ban, as the ban isn't clear on the issue, unless the discussions he is having relates to technical aspects of the use of the English Language. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to delve too deeply into the constitutional law of wikipedia here, but aren't such bans are usually founded on some kind of consensus? If the text that subsequently summarised the consensus wasn't entirely accurate, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't change the consensus (hopefully).

If you owe your broadband provider €30 per month but due to some billing error they only send you an €8 bill this month, don't be surprised that they come asking for an extra €22 in the very near future - the debt hasn't been erased. We may, of course, forgive somebody for their nonpayment in the interim since they've been sent the wrong bill... bobrayner (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

An administrator can only implement a community ban; he/she can't implement a proposal that differs from the community consensus. The community banned Pmanderson from the topic areas, including article titles; I have no doubt that the lack of explicitness in Elen of the Roads statement is a mere oversight, and will assume good faith that this is the case. We are certainly not bound by technicalities here; Wikipedia is not a court of law, and definitely not a bureaucracy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, the phrasing of Elen's version of the topic ban was a deliberate personal choice. The omission of page moves and discussions of article titles was not an oversight. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to judge Elen's actions, but Elen does not have the scope to implement a decision that differs from that of the community. The only conclusion compatible with WP:AGF is that Elen accidentally mis-worded the closure. In any event, the community consensus is pretty clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked Elen by email about this exact point a while back (26 August) and I am just paraphrasing her response. She wrote that the only way to change the scope of the topic ban was for her version of the topic ban to be overturned by another administrator and the process restarted again to put in place a wider topic ban. You can ask her yourself directly. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What a mess. I told you all a 3-month block would have been better. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is the mess? Here, yes, but that is normal for ANI discussions where there is a lack of clarity. What I can't see here is any mess resulting directly from Pmanderson's edits. Seriously. Go look at them (I gave a link below) and ask yourself which of them have resulted in a mess like the one at Crepe that led to the ban discussion. None that I can tell. He's avoiding areas involving diacritics and spelling, and that has to be a good thing. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems less messy than I thought, since it is now clear that Elen had the right to give whatever ban she pleased. So the only mess now is what you mentioned below. So not that messy, just a bit confusing on what the ban actually was and what it covered. This seems to be cleared out now. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what action is required here. The topic ban does not mention AT and community consensus is encapsulated in whatever explicit statement of the ban is provided to the editor. The only actionable course of action I can see here is to seek a new consensus that includes AT in the topic ban. While we're not bureaucratic around here, it doesn't seem right to add elements to a ban after one has been enacted (without new consensus, that is). --rgpk (comment) 21:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone could ask Elen to reconsider her closure of the ban discussion. I think she consciously intended to make PMA's topic ban only for one year, but I'm not sure if she wanted to exclude article titles from the scope of the ban. She stated 'He has already agreed to leave this area alone, so I do not anticipate an enforcement issue.." which may suggest she thought (at the time) that it was unnecessary to sweat the details of the ban. If Elen agrees to review her close, she could be asked to re-examine this part of the ban discussion to assess whether there is consensus to exclude PMA from discussions of article titles. The proposal to ban PMA from WP:TITLE and WP:MOVE discussions had 13 supports but some conditional opposes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• The reason pages about how to treat article titles are not (and never have been) part of the manual of style is because article titles are a matter of both content (what name to use) and style (how to write or spell that name). No style guide will ever help decide things like the Ireland naming disputes or the Macedonia naming disputes or the Falkland Islands naming dispute (those are actually content/NPOV issues, not style issues). Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles is (or should be) a summary of the style aspects of Wikipedia:Article titles, which is the main, parent page.

  If this is not dealt with properly, my prophecy there will come true: "If things are not made clear now, you can be sure that Pmanderson will arrive at a discussion citing WP:COMMONNAME and claim it is a content/NPOV issue, not a style issue, and you can be just as sure that someone will haul Pmanderson off to a noticeboard and demand an immediate indef block. So please can we be crystal clear as to what the topic ban means." Part of the problem here is precisely that the Manual of Style reaches into nearly all areas of Wikipedia, so if you end up being critical of the overall approach taken by the Manual of Style (including its tendency towards instruction creep), then it becomes very hard to do anything on Wikipedia.

  Also, please note the discussion here where Cynwolfe (an editor I respect for their content contributions) says this:

  "I have to say one thing out of loyalty and fairness: I consider this a serious loss to the Greece & Rome project, where PMA's experience and knowledge are one of our greatest assets. I assume, however, he can still answer questions about content? And if I wanted his opinion on what to name a new article, would this be considered within the topic ban? And you seem to emphasize "English related," meaning he could address, say, questions about Latin? I'm really not trying to make a point; I would want to support behavior that allowed him to remain on WP, but I'm … I'm … well, OK, I'm plenty pissed that his opinion can't be asked even where it's welcome. (Not pissed at you; you're doing a needed job.) I suppose it's no secret that I would rather deal with a hundred PMAs than one politely passive-aggressive POV-pushing ignoramus."

  In that discussion, Elen of the Road's says explicitly that the ban is on style only and that "Discussion of content is fine" (the title of the article on the Falklands Islands is clearly a content issue). Another discussion on Elen of the Road's talk page that is worth looking at is here. Though in fact that discussion didn't really bring much clarity at all. The real crux of the issue here is whether article naming issues to do with content and/or NPOV are style issues. I don't think they are. To me, style issues are things like spellings and diacritics. But it seems some think that the Manual of Style is now the ultimate arbiter on what the title of Falkland Islands should be. I really hope that is not the case.

  Another point I want to make is that Jayjg doesn't seem to have interacted with Pmanderson at all in recent edits. I presume Jayjg just happened to be reading that page and decided to come here and object to the edits in question? A better approach would be to look at Pmanderson's edits since the ban was implemented. What I see in his edits is discussion on naming issues, but careful avoidance of style issues. I also don't see any objections from other editors at those discussions to the edits and comments he made. Rather than editors who participated at the ban discussion jumping into this discussion and dividing along the same lines again (I participated at that ban discussion, as did Jayjg and several others commenting here), what is needed is someone new to all this to look at Pmanderson's editing and to clarify the ban on that basis. Is anyone willing to do that? Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I would prefer not to have been brought back to discussing this subject. Whether article titles are included was brought up to Elen, who imposed the ban; I notice that none of the people who support this section bothered to ask her (or me) before commenting. She replied that she didn't intend to ban (me) from discussing whether it should be called Shiloh or Pittsburg Landing. She also discussed the same issue with one of the participants in this section here; please note that she was thanked, by a participant in the original discussion, for her wording. Is this whole thread asking the other parent? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The discrepancies was pointed out already when she closed the discussion, so she was asked already. So claiming she wasn't asked is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you "presume" incorrectly. I don't know what Pmanderson's edits were, and have no opinion on them. Please don't "presume" about me again, or attempt to re-direct the focus of this discussion. The issue at hand is not whether or not anyone approves of disapproves of Pmanderson's edits, but whether or not he is topic-banned. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Something must have attracted your attention. One approach would have been to first ask Pmanderson and/or Elen what was going on, rather than come here immediately. It just seems strange that weeks after the discussion was closed you return to this issue, and return here rather than to Elen's talk page (as I suggested below and as others did immediately after the discussion closed). You commented at the previous discussion on 22 and 25 August. Elen closed it on 26 August. There was discussion at Elen's talk page which seemed to either conclude reasonably or peter out after a few days. You opened this ANI thread on 11 September, which is 16 days (more than 2 weeks) later. You've been active on many of the days in that 16-day period. Clearly there was no urgency (as you left it for more than two weeks before doing anything), so why didn't you ask Elen or Pmanderson about this first?

Anyway, putting that to one side, the central point here is whether Pmanderson should be following the topic ban Elen communicated to him on his talk page, or whether he should be following the interpretation you and others have of what he is banned from doing (remembering that you and other commenting here took part in the discussion, so are not best placed to interpret it). It is clear that Pmanderson needs to follow what Elen told him, and if that should be changed it needs to be done properly (notifying him of any new formal discussion so he can say something if he wishes), and then the new conclusions restated to him. And then hopefully this can be put to rest.

The first question to ask is whether a new discussion is needed or not. But consider this: if you are able to object to Elen's close and ask for it to be re-evaluated, what is to stop Pmanderson then asking for any new close to be re-evaluated in turn? And then you object, and so on. Where does it stop? Who gets to ask for a re-evaluation? Only those !voting and not the person being topic-banned? Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I would challenge anyone to identify a consensus out of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson. "The community" voted on every sanction from hitting him with cushions to hanging, drawing and quartering. The claim that there was a clear consensus on any one of the two dozen proposed versions is a bit thin in my opinion. I do think there is a difference between arguing over whether its called Shiloh or Pittsburg Landing, and arguing whether it should be crepe or crêpe, and I could not see that anyone had come up with a reason to ban him from content based discussion. That said, if the argument gets down to "it says in WP:MOS", then at that point he has to back out, because that IS covered by the ban. If that doesn't suit, and you guys prefer to start the whole thing over again and see if you get a different outcome, be my guest. On the other hand, if his editing is problematic for other reasons than you think it should have been topic banned, then let's discuss that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got a crisp Finn that says that PMA will be back up here again for problems regarding article title discussions and the like; I give the over/under of 4 more ANI discussions of his behavior in the next 6 months. It is unfortunate that, despite explicit language and high participation which indicated that the community didn't want him involved in this issue that Elen specifically chose to leave that out of the ban. In the case its like convicting a man who shot the convenience store clerk of shoplifting. The greatest source of his disruption has always been article title issues, and to specifically avoid placing that in the ban only emboldens him while doing nothing about the core issue. --Jayron32 02:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can count you know, and would challenge anyone to read the discussion and conclude that the most supported option was the ban that included article titles and moves. At least 45 people offered an opinion of one kind or another - only 13 supported the titles and moves ban, while 27 supported the MOS ban. And not everyone agreed that the content side of article titles was a contentious area, while pretty much everyone agreed that MOS and nitpicking over use of English was the flashpoint. Mum has spoken. Stop asking Dad. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so now you are immune from having to answer for your actions as an administrator? That's an interesting tack to take on this. I appreciate that you have provided a rationale here, but providing a rationale does not mean that other people cannot disagree with your rationale. Merely having a rationale doesn't make you above criticism. --Jayron32 03:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You (Jayron32) don't think it is a bit demeaning to lower yourself to laying bets on matters like this? What if I said I had a book running on you about something? How would that make you feel? It would be better, as Elen said, to actually assemble diffs of problematic contributions to article title discussions. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson where the focus was on civility, not on any specific topic area. Though now I look more closely at that, I see that you (Jayron32) closed that RfC. May I ask if your strong views on Pmanderson developed from that RfC, or whether you held those strong views before you closed the RfC? I also notice that Elen participated at that RfC. But looking at the closure of that RfC, you seem to have largely ignored the second-most endorsed view (the one by Cynwolfe). Might I suggest you re-read that RfC and try and see how it looks to others when they compare what you said there to what you are saying here? It would help if you disclosed in future discussions of this sort that you closed that RfC and have since developed a view of your own to the extent that you would (presumably) be unable to close any future discussion of that nature. You will also see there the history that OpenFuture has with Pmanderson - something I had almost forgotten about.

This all goes to reinforce my view that people develop views of other editors based on where they encounter that editor (i.e an incomplete view), rather than a view based on an editor's contributions as a whole. In other words, the only way to get a genuine global picture of an editor is to go through their contributions as a whole, not to rely on what others say about them (which will inevitably be focused on specific interactions). And editors who disagree about another editor's contributions will almost certainly have different mental pictures in their mind of that editor, a mental picture coloured and shaped by where they encountered that editor. This 'different sides of an editor' aspect of Wikipedia is exacerbated in editors who have been around for a long time. The single best way (when a dispute doesn't arise from article content) to really see what an editor is made of is to edit an article with them, but sadly not enough people who get involved in meta-article disputes (e.g. MOS and naming disputes) seem prepared to work together on articles, preferring to throw brickbats at each other and then wait until next time to resume arguing again. Carcharoth (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've not really, to my rememberence, interacted with PMA directly on any editorial matter (if I had, it was so fleeting and unmemorable as to escape my notice). I was aware of him as an editor, and closed the RFC in question because I had never had any significant contact with him. If I had, I would not have closed the RFC. My annoyance in the matter is largely because of the large volume of ANI space that PMA has taken up over the past, an occurance I would like to see stopped, especially since he seems to cause disruption on matters whose consequence is out of proportion to the effort spent on them. I'm not any longer going to contest Elen's choice in closing this. She is within her rights to close the matter as she sees fit, and she made a reasonable interpretation (one I disagree with, but not because it was unreasonable) of the consensus, and I concede (but do not support) the results of her closure. I do not wish PMA ill, and hope that he will learn to avoid the sort of problems that lead to the most recent unpleasentness. In closing, Carcharoth, you are correct. I definately overstepped the bounds of civility in my criticism of Elen of Roads, an admin I respect, and I owed her more courtesy then I gave her above with my flippant comments. This is my apology to Elen: I am sorry that I said what I did, while I disagree with you, you did not deserve to be put down like I did above. You have no reason to accept my apology, but I offer it unconditionally nonetheless. --Jayron32 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Accepted, and apology from me - I did not see this edit earlier, and would have reacted differently if I had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Elen, challenge accepted, finding consensus in that discussion is trivial.

There was a long discussion with loads of opinions and voting and out of that came a final move to close with explicit terms set out, which got a clear consensus. Identifying the consensus is hence trivial, even for someone like me who does not really think the terms are any good. The proposal including titles (N+1b) was made as a *clarification* of the slightly badly worded N+1, and added after most people supporting N+1b had already supported N+1. It is hence not really a different outcome, but a clarification with a clear support from the 27 N+1 supporters. Saying that only 13 people supported the title and moves ban is completely incorrect. Firstly we have 15 supports of N+1b in the original discussion. In the move to close everyone (18) except three supported N1+b, and none of those three that opposed it supported N+1. Of those 18 in support of the N+1b close an additional 11 supported N+1b (6 of which earlier had supported N1, but N1+b, and 5 not supporting either), giving a grand total of 26 support votes for N1+b, with three against, this out of 45 people having any sort of opinion at all. As such the consensus was clearly for N1+b, but you decided to go for something closer to N+1, despite the criticism that is was fuzzy and would lead exactly to situations like this.

I think you are doing a great job as an admin. But this time you made a mistake. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can count, and read, thank you. And it's not fuzzy at all - is he arguing that more sources call it Shiloh, or is he arguing that WP:MOS isn't applicable. The problem is that you and Jayron and Mathsci don't like it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth, Elen. I have just relayed what you told me as the result of an email enquiry I made shortly after you finalised the topic ban. I would tend to agree with what Carcharoth has written here, if you really wanted to know what I thought at present. If there is not a problem at the moment, there is no need to fix it. Mathsci (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, and have struck your name. I did think we had ended our conversation agreeing to see if Pmanderson got into any more trouble, and take prompt action at that point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Elen, and thanks for striking my name. Although I never sent a final "fair enough" reply, that was my understanding then also :) Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

BS, Elen. I don't care what the terms are, as I've made abundantly clear I think all sorts of topic bans for Pmanderson are pointless. With or without titles, one year, indefinite, whatever. I don't care. Assuming good faith you made a mistake. When this is pointed out you come with accusations towards the messengers. That's not the right behavior.

You applied the ban you wanted instead the ban the community wanted, and that is the direct reason for this section here since some thought the consensus had been implemented, but it hadn't. It would have been better if the community consensus would have ruled or if you had made clear in your ruling that titles was NOT included , as this confusion would then not have arised. And then we wouldn't have had to waste this time on Pmanderson, again. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: Jayron32 disagrees with your conclusions and your method of "vote counting" to determine consensus. I don't have an opinion of the closure on the "like-dislike" scale. My level of likedness is completely neutral on the matter. I don't hold a negative opinion of you, Elen, because of the way you closed the discussion and the conclusions you drew, I just disgreed with those conclusions. One may disagree with something without haveing a dislike of it. --Jayron32 13:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• @Jayron, I believe that's mincing words, but I have no problem with phrasing it as "disagree". What I have a problem with is being bombarded with demands from a small number of editors asking me to change the decision. I'm not going to do that, so you need to find another mechanism. If you have evidence of Pmanderson displaying problematic behaviour while editing outside of the advertised ban, then please list it below, and the community can decide whether its patience is exhausted.

I'm not even going to grace OpenFuture with a response to that shocking display of bad faith. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Just to be clear, also, Elen, I have not called for you to change the outcome. You will see above that I specifically said that I am not, would not, and am continuing to not do so. That doesn't mean that my disagreement is moot or invalid. I think it is appropriate to express disagreement in this case not because I expect you to change what you have done (which I do not expect you to do), but rather because I would hope it would change what you will do. I think you made an error in your assessment of the ban discussion, and I would hope that you not make that error the next time you make a similar assessment. It doesn't mean I wish to undo the past result, just that I think that your expressed method of judging consensus (raw votecounting, as you have explained several times you have done), is what I wish you would not do in the future. Does that mean that I wish PMA would act disruptive in the face of his ban: No, I hope he has learned his lesson and will not be as contentious as he has been. It would be ludicrous of me to wish that he would screw up. I hope he is able to participate in article title discussions from now going forward without being tendentious to the point of disruption. My frustration is that I have had the same wish for years, and having that wish has not had an effect. Maybe today that wish will come true. I have no evidence to suggest that it will, but as you said, the matter has been closed, and PMA should be free from harassment in this venue until someone can produce evidence that he isn't behaving himself. Let me state that again, just to be clear. You, Elen of the Roads, are correct when you demand that people need to present evidence that PMA is being disruptive before any further sanctions should be considered. That is correct. However, that isn't necessarily to say that I agree you assessed consensus correctly on the ban discussion. That is a different matter entirely. --Jayron32 17:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Elen, the RfC made clear that Pmanderson was topic-banned from MoS issues, including article titles. Ohconfucius left titles out of the discussion in error, assuming it was obvious that it was included (see here). When this omission was pointed out to him (see here), he went back and fixed it, and people repeated their support for the inclusion of article titles in the ban (see here). The closure on those terms was confirmed here. Best thing now would be to make that clear to Pmanderson for the future, but without sanctioning him for any lack of clarity between then and now. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you see, I'm not reading events that way at all - which is why I keep telling people to find another mechanism to get the discussion re-evaluated, because I'm not going to change my close. As far as I can see, the decision was made to put up options - initially a civility block and a ban from MOS. The ban from MOS was very widely supported, but when the discussion got on to banning from article titles, there was disagreement in the discussion precisely because some editors did not support banning Pmanderson from content based article title discussion, and did not want to construct ban wording that would prevent him from doing that. So while there was a fairly clear consensus for the MOS ban, there was not the same consensus for the ban on all article title discussion, and indeed some concern about it was expressed.

I do invite all uninvolved editors to read the entire discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and perhaps there can be further discussion and more sets of !votes, _{until we all die of old age, or hell freezes over, or something.} Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you link to the section of the RfC where people seemed to oppose a topic ban regarding article titles? If you read this section, it says:

Pmanderson shall be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style (e.g. WP:MOS & WP:MOSNUM) and any related discussion, construed broadly. This includes naming policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:TITLE), move (title re-naming) policies and guidelines (WP:MOVE) and any related discussion, construed broadly.

Fifteen people supported, and one asked a question. That's over and above the earlier question (in this section), which said:

The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style and any related discussion, construed broadly.

Twenty seven supported this, with three opposes and one question (note: construed broadly), so consensus seems clear. Can you link to the specific section where you feel people wanted the ban not to apply to article titles? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's observations are compelling. GFHandel ♬  10:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I spent some time looking over the discussion (and am sorry I missed it) and SV is right that about the numbers relating to the AT topic ban. However, and there is always an however :), there are a couple of extenuating points that point to Elen having called the consensus correctly. First, the number of supporters for the AT topic ban is lower than the number of supporters for the MOS topic ban leading me to believe that there was a lot more support for the MOS ban than there was for the topic ban. Second, the number of !voters in the latter part of the discussion is considerably lower than the number of !voters and commenters in the earlier discussion. Since the discussion was moved out of ANI, it is not unreasonable to assume that it is possible that the final set of !voters is a self-selected one (note that I'm not saying that that was the case). Given these two factors, I'd say she made the right call. Finally, and this is a hated bureaucratic point, her actual ban was up there for everyone to see and any discussion about the ban should have been done at that time. It's just too late now. We need to look for a new consensus if we're going to ban Pmanderson from everything related to AT. --rgpk (comment) 13:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's too late now. In everything else you are incorrect, see my summary above that already clarifies it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Look guys

I called it how I saw it, and I am not going to change my mind. So please find another mechanism that is acceptable to the community (who I notice are contributing in droves to say I'm wrong.....) to come up with an outcome that is more acceptable to yourselves. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Several admins here are saying you misjudged consensus, which is easily done when lots of people are responding to an RfC. Asking people to come up with another mechanism isn't fair and isn't needed, because that was the mechanism, and it delivered a clear answer. (If you're saying otherwise, please link to the discussion where you saw dissent, because I've looked and can't find it.) What's important is that there's clarity for Pma's sake. NW said above that he considered Pma topic-banned from article titles, so maybe that's something that should be communicated to Pma so he knows where he stands. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you not have this section [20] on the page you are reading? Or Bkonrad saying "Oppose. I could support if this were limited to discussions of policy pages, with some additional caveats with regards to participation in other forums, such as move discussions. I.e., if PMA can contribute responsibly and civilly in such discussions (and I've seen that it is possible for him to do so), that should be encouraged. There could perhaps be some sort of escalation clause, if such discussions get out of hand based on interpretations of WP:AT, but such a blanket prohibition is tantamount to giving PMA's antagonists another stick to poke into his cage."

And what part of I AM NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND. Get an uninvolved admin to reclose the discussion are you not understanding. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, Elen, comments like that, and "Mum has spoken. Stop asking Dad"—it's just not an appropriate way to speak to people.

The section you linked to above was superseded by the section following it, where consensus was clear. That's all I'm going to say because I'm just repeating myself now. The only issue here is that it's unfair to Pma to have this lack of clarity, because he's in danger of being banned completely if the topic ban doesn't work out. He has a good mind, so I wouldn't want to see that. That's why I commented here. Over and out. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly, fewer people took part in the last knockings of the discussion, so no, consensus was not clear. This isn't a Japanese game show where the last man standing wins - I read the entire thing, not the last 25 lines. Second, I'm completely clear that the ban currently enforced is the ban logged at the discussion, on his talkpage, and at the log of bans. And that does not include content based article title discussions. If he's not arguing that WP:COMMONNAME is a load of bollocks, but is arguing over which option is the more commonly used name (as for example in the lengthy discussions about what to call the practice recently known as Tree shaping) then he is not in breach of the topic ban. If he strays into any territory either to disagree with WP:MOS - or even how to interpret WP:MOS - or any new daft arguments about the English language, then he is violating the topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if he continues to edit making civil and useful contributions, I would hope no-one would make the kind of bad faith allegations one sometimes sees in this venue. At the same time, if he edits disruptively and incivilly, I don't think it's going to make much difference whether or not the topic ban is involved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good in areas outside his topic ban area. However, where he is topic-banned, he can, of course, make no edits, good, bad, or indifferent. That's what a topic ban is about. It was a topic ban that was enacted by the community, not a civility parole. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, this doesn't matter. The point of the topic ban was to try to see if a topic ban works. Exactly what topics are banned are not relevant, except that the change between the consensus and the ban caused confusion, but confusion that has now been cleared up. That was a waste of time and regrettable, but don't waste even *more* time on it, and on Pmanderson. The problems have never been the topics, Pmandersons behavior has been the same on all topics he is involved with. The question is if a topic ban will make the penny will drop and make him change his behavior or not. If titles are included in the ban or not is hardly going to make a difference. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say we agree 100% on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The scope of the topic ban very much does matter. If the community didn't want to be topic-ban him, then it wouldn't have done so. One cannot, after a topic-ban has been enacted, say "well, he can still edit whatever he likes, but we'll watch his edits very closely now". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

He is not editing whatever he likes. He is (as far as I can tell) sticking to the topic ban communicated to him by Elen and avoiding style issues. You could at least acknowledge that. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not implying that Pmanderson is "editing whatever he likes", I was responding to OpenFuture's implication that Pmanderson could still do, as long as he behaved himself, regardless of the topic ban. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I implied that. I did say that it didn't matter what the topic ban covered. Obviously he should follow it, regardless of what it covers. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that "what the topic band covered" is quite relevant - that is, in fact, the very topic of this AN/I section. If an editor were, for example, to be banned from discussing issues of pseudo-science, and another editor stated "his edits on the topic of Guam have no issues, so therefore the topic-ban is working", that second editor's statement would be viewed as ludicrous, and rightfully so. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but that's because it is pretty weird from the start to give a generally problematic editor a topic ban in the hope that he will stop to be problematic across the board. But that was the community decision, and that means that as long as he is behaving the topic ban can be said to be "working". --OpenFuture (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think that was the community decision, you must not have been there. The community decision was to explicitly include article titling discussions in the ban, since that's where most of the trouble was; Elen didn't get that, so here we are. He's "behaving" while testing the limits of his topic ban, naturally. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Which leads us back to my original statement that exactly *what* the ban covers doesn't matter, so I think we are stuck now. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson - actual problematic editing since topic ban

Please list edits that are actually problematic (not ones that you think should have been banned under the topic ban that isn't the one that is in force). If he's still being incivil, we can start that discussion about a site wide ban - I am serious about that. If all that is wrong is that he is disagreeing with you in a content based discussion, then I'm afraid you will have to live with it. If what is happening is that certain members of the community are following him round trying to start trouble (as I have seen alleged), then that can be dealt with also Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I'm sorry, but you don't get to unilaterally re-define the scope of the issue here. The issue is whether or not Pmanderson is banned from this topic, and secondarily, whether or not you're allowed to enact a different sanction than the community consensus. And, by the way, I don't know about others, but he's certainly not "disagreeing with [me] in a content based discussion". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The point, really, is that things have calmed down considerably. The whole issue was quiescent until you brought it up again and there didn't seem to be any objections from the others that participated at the previous discussion. If there is not an immediate problem here, what is the problem you are trying to solve? Did you not follow the discussion or did you enter a !vote and then drift away and only come back days later with an incorrect presumption about what the result was? I can understand that the result puzzles you, but if that is the case you should have gone to Elen's talk page first and then come here, and left a polite note on Pmanderson's talk page stating that you intended to question the precise nature of the topic ban as enacted by Elen, rather than immediately opening it up to community discussion again here. The fact that you came straight here first indicates that you wanted immediate admin action, rather than attempting to talk with the relevant people first.

One other thing I should say here, is that the whole concept of those !voting in a discussion like that producing a motion to close is the most bizarre thing I've ever seen. AfDs don't get closed by motion by those !voting in them, and neither do (topic) ban discussions. The whole concept of proposing a motion to close is an indication of a need to exercise bureaucratic control over a process, rather than letting it close the normal way. It is also a way to discourage new participation - would you participate in a process where those who had already participated were voting on a motion to close? There were deep flaws in the way that (topic) ban discussion was conducted. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all puzzled by the outcome - it was clearly that Pmanderson was banned from all MOS-related pages, including pages about article titles. And the only "deep flaws" I can see the ban discussion was that the closer decided to unilaterally impose a different sanction than the community consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, your interpretation of the issue seems unduly harsh on Elen. Your userpage says you've been an admin for 6 years, I'm sure in that time you've had to exercise your judgement in interpreting the content of a discussion so that you can assess an appropriate consensus statement, and I'm sure you understand that real consensus can be at times very difficult to determine, and that it has far more to do with the content of conversation than the number of bolded support/oppose bullet points. Elen has made it repeatedly clear that, acting in good faith, she reached a particular conclusion of consensus, based on her reading of the discussion. You clearly disagree with that conclusion. However, Elen was the closing admin, not you. It was her job to use her judgement to assess consensus, not yours. Undoubtedly there are avenues available to you if you disagree, but leveling somewhat unpleasant accusations of unilateral changes and violating community consensus (as you personally interpret it, I might add) is hardly appropriate and certainly unexpected from someone in your position. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your point relates to the one to which you are responding. This discussion is not about Pmanderson's current behavior, but about the extent of his topic ban. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My reply was to your statement, that the issue is whether or not Pmanderson is topic banned from article title topics. My understanding of your reading of consensus in the discussion was that he should be, and that Elen made a fundamental error in assessing consensus. My understanding of Elen's reply is that she did not make an error, but simply differs from you in her interpretation of the consensus. So to answer your question, no, it would appear Pmanderson is not banned from article title topics. Elen's assessment was not an error to be retroactively corrected, but a difference of opinion that has grounds to remain in effect. I don't see any justification here for implying she has tried to act unilaterally or in contradiction of consensus, as you directly stated in your response above. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see any confusion. The ban is the one that is logged on the ANI page, on PMa's talkpage, and at the log of bans, and anyone can go and read it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• The cup i half full... I am happy to report that part of the ban that was not reinterpreted is working as anticipated. The temperature at WP:MOS, and other related such as WP:MOSNUM, has returned to an acceptable level, and the editing and commenting there is noticeably more collegiate. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to Block User:92.236.180.51

Please block IP address 92.236.180.51 from editing pages on wikipedia indefinately. He , tom constantly break all pages wwil eventually lead phioloshy rule. by creating an architecture loop. it is Vandalism Particulary tthe page tools — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srappan (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

1: IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely.

2: Other editors (including at least one admin) have already taken note of this IP's activities.

3: In future, please follow WP:VANDAL, and report at WP:AIV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Very new user, thanks for reporting this. I have blocked for 48hrs. Next time try WP:AIV - although I don't think the template for reporting is any easier to use. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • AIV is very easy to use: Just an asterisk, a userlinks, and an explanation. The only catch is to find an admin willing to do their job - which they will, most of the time, but there are no guarantees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, my markup is so bad I can screw up anything. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Pray tell the admins don't go on strike anytime soon. –MuZemike 14:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Example:

• 92.236.180.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is only a test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No markup needed. No problem. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RPP

Would a couple admins please sort through requests for page protection? It hasn't seen any admin attention in 8 hours. N419BH 08:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

To their great credit, GedUK has cleared the backlog. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Unmerger by IP after a merge was agreed

On June 13th a discussion was initiated at Talk:Complementarianism about merging Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Danvers Statement to Complementarianism. It was closed (by the nominator) on August 1st after two other editors had agreed and a third (who has not edited since) disagreed. Last night an IP (an apparent SPA) came along and unmerged it, then posted on the talk page they didn't see a consensus. This was followed a minute later by an editor with an account agreeing they didn't see a consensus, then another editor agreeing with the merge. I reversed all of this as not according to process, but a related IP came along and unmerged again. Before I do anything else I'd like some advice. I strong feel that since the merge discussion did run for quite some time it shouldn't be this easy for an IP and another editor to unmerge two articles, but I'd like some advice at the very least. I don't care one way or another but this isn't the way to do things, and the IP is obviously an experienced editor. I'll post to the talk page about this as it isn't clear if the IP is just hopping or dynamic. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm disturbed that the IP took to reverting the merger without discussion. The merger discussion enumerated how these articles could merit a content fork, and any reversion that does not attempt to meet the basic criteria for a content fork seems in really bad faith to me. Combined with some apparent WP:Canvassing (by a previous editor), and this looks bad. I would like to see these articles reverted to merged and protected until the new discussion is complete. Can an admin do that? VanIsaac_WS 10:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there are (at least) three editors that oppose the merge, so that if there was a consensus, it has changed. However, the original discussion close by the merge proposer seems to me a little doubtful, at the least. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Then that's something that needs to be discussed, not unilaterally undone. VanIsaac_WS 10:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:CCC. It is not an invitation to anarchically overturning previous consensus, it is a guideline that says that previous consensus alone is not a valid reason to oppose a proposal. VanIsaac_WS 10:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that we generally don't have unmerger discussions on Wikipedia. What happens if one thinks a merged article warrants an article by itself? One re-creates the article. For my part, I was just about to revert this edit when I thought I'd look up the Danvers Statement on Google Books. I was pleasantly surprised what I found there - it is easily notable enough for an article - and so I added a couple of references to the article. It seems that the IP editor is genuinely wanting to improve Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure we do, it's just a lot more informal than merge/delete discussions. What happens is, 1) a person adds a bunch of content to a section within an article, and then another editor comes by and says to himself "You know what? That section is really too bulky for this article. It could probably stand on its own.", then he searches for the term, find it redirects back to the page he's looking at, and he decides to remove the redirect and puts the content in that page. or 2) the original editor (or another) goes to the talk page and says "Hey, I know we had a merge before, but this section is starting to pull the rest of article into it gravity well. What do we think about a content fork?", and everybody says "Yeah, it's probably time now." It's simple, before you overturn the previously decision, you either meet the terms of the merge discussion and get confirmation (by discussion or confirming actions) that you've met it, or you start a new discussion to review the previous decision. VanIsaac_WS 11:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There's a big difference between:

1. Looking for an article, seeing it was merged, and then unmerging it to improve it; and
2. Looking for an article, seeing it was merged, undoing that and walking away

The latter is unproductive, and rare is the day that an unqualified call of "no consensus" has had any value on this project.

Anyway, moving forward: typically, this is resolved in the long run (if editors continue to filibuster) by AfDing the articles up for merging and then, assuming that the AfD closes with consensus to merge, protecting the redirects. This is a horde of red tape to go through, but it's the closest thing we have to a formal process for dealing with it.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is de-stubbed (triple the length it had when the merge was originally proposed), reliably sourced, and would almost certainly pass AfD as keep. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

True. It's been suggested to me that the IP is in fact the banned editor User:Alastair Haines who has edited both of these articles and created Danvers Statement. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not, in fact, Alastair Haines, although obviously that would be difficult to prove. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And I would like to strongly protest the deletion of the sourced, notable material I've added to Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. -- 202.124.74.150 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was me who reverted the changes to the CBMW article, and as I said on the other talk page, I would like for you to make those edits in the merged location at complementarianism where they can be peer reviewed. I was uncomfortable making the move myself as part of the merge because I thought it would result in an implied endorsement of the edits not present in the original discussion to merge. We wouldn't have had this problem if you had not unilaterally reverted the merge. I will maintain your content within a comment tag for you to merge the content to its proper home if you choose, or so it returns if/when the consensus says to undo the merge. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that you both made the edits and removed the stub tag, there was no 3rd-party review that said 'yes, these are good additions and I feel the article is no longer a stub'. That might very well be the case, but the fact that you yourself removed the stub tag is not evidence in-and-of-itself that the article is no longer a stub. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and conflict of interest of Community Security Trust

Community Security Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While doing new page patrol, I came across Support Trustee Limited, which seemed to me to be a fork from Community Security Trust, so I changed it to a redirect. I then reviewed the history of Community Security Trust, and discovered an edit war that had been going on unnoticed for a few days. It also appears that one of the edit warriors, User:Commsectrust has an obvious conflict of interest, given the username.

I really only accidentially discovered the history of this article, and I don't have time to mediate an edit war, etc. Can an admin look in on this page, deal with the SPA, and maybe throw a semi-protection in place? Singularity42 (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Softerblock in place for that editor. Can't look at the rest right now; perhaps some other kind soul can. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of this stuff has spread to Geoffrey Alderman - that article needs some eyes and some love. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User blocked without being blocked?

Can an Administrator have a chat with User_talk:Jobin_RV - it seems that he is blocked from editing pages but I can't see any block message on his page or in his page history - he was able to edit talkpages but now says that is locked to him as well. As I don't have the broom, I can't really him very much with this issue if it is either a) some technical issue or b) a block that has gone wrong somehow. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he is editing through a hardblocked, talk-page disabled IP or IP range? A checkuser would be necessary to rule that out, I think. NW (Talk) 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was just an IP autoblock. Unfortunately this is an unavoidable and necessary inconvenience that can come about when we try to enforce blocks at the IP level (which we really have to do most of the time). Collateral damage for these blocks happens all the time. When a person is blocked that way, they're given instructions on how to properly request an unblock but he must not have noticed or understood the instructions. The autoblock has since been lifted. -- Atama頭 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

ALL-CAPS text in Towel

Text slipped past recent-changes patrollers and bots: What are the appropriate notice-board(s) for the following incident. The patrollers failed to correct the addition of the bolded, 2-word phrase "HORRIBLE WEBSITE" near the top of article "Towel" as added by an IP in Australia at 09:00, 9 September 2011 (diff-5578), but reverted 3 days later. The phrase remained during most of 3 days, with about 900 pageviews. I think this incident reveals an anti-vandalism loophole. Perhaps expanding the team coverage, for recent-changes review, would help to correct such problems in the future. I thought that anti-vandalism bots would detect insertions of "ALL-CAPITAL-LETTERS" text, or have been shutdown(?). Otherwise, perhaps it is time to semi-protect all articles with pageviews > 200-per-day, after a single IP-numbered hack edit. Remind IP users that a username-login can remain remembered for a 30-day period in the current WP system. It is no longer necessary to use IP edits to avoid a login every day: one login can last for 30 days. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you're proposing something ... so WP:VPP might just be the place. Can't fix it here, and one would have expected that at least one of the article's watchers might have caught it. Vandalism happens, every single editor is supposed to fix it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but we can't catch 100% of the vandalism on Wikipedia. Catching it a few days later and reverting it is what matters in the long run. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted this vandalism, and there is a whole thread on this at Jimbo's talk page, discussing possible solutions etc etc etc... there is no admin action, and lets try not to split the convo please ;). --Cerejota (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked editor returning as IP

In a discussion at Talk:George Carlin, an IP editor has admitted to previously being a blocked editor who made (and refused to retract) legal threats. He did so here [21]. While he seems to be editing in good faith and discussion at this time, I still thought I should at least bring it here for admin attention. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Without taking this opportunity to retract the legal threats, this user should not be here at all. VanIsaac_WS 19:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Good (and necessary) block ... the block is against the person, no matter how they edit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Niabot

• Niabot (talk · contribs)

Niabot recently updated his/her userpage in protest, and it was nominated for deletion in what is apparently good faith by PCock (talk · contribs). Niabot has proceeded to edit war to remove the notice or place it at the bottom of the page under the header "Invalid claim and vandalism by PCock" ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]). Other users have explained that this is inappropriate (via templates, via polite messages, via less polite messages), and been met with the usual wikilawyering and reversions. Throughout this, Niabot has been incredibly abusive, with threats, and accusations of vandalism, general aggression and so on. I'd block Niabot for general disruption myself, but I'm probably "involved" now, so I'll leave it in your hands... J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Yes, my nomination was a good-faith action. Had I been aware of some German editors' threats of disruption surrounding a certain WMF proposal, I might have anticipated the WP:BATTLEGROUND response and proceeded differently. Peacock (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Carefully trying not to inflame the situation further ... but, unless the account is a bot, aren't usernames that end in "bot" not permitted anyway? Deli nk (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't. See: [29] --Niabot (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

the bruhaha surounding the issue aside - the page and mfd are worth a visit. Agathoclea (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone does not notice a caricature as a caricature, then i can't help him. But i have to leave a comment about ganging up against a single user (well known supporters of the image filter) and it's own user page. It contains a single caricature and link to the German poll, that the WMF tries to ignore, in face of the image filter "referendum". Since i found the banner disrupting i moved it to the bottom, and declared that this deletion request is an attack against my opinion and therefore vandalism of my user page, repeatedly changed by this group of users. --Niabot (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think, Niabot, the XfD templates go on the top of every single page they're used on. Don't move it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Niabot, the MfD isn't the issue here, in fact it has already been closed as "snow keep." Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the "threat", since it's merely a threat to open an AN/I thread, and I'm not too concerned about whether {{mfd}} is above or below the image being debated... but Niabot definitely needs some education as to what vandalism isn't. 28bytes (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have dropped a note on their talk page to that effect. It looks the {{mfd}} location is a moot point now, as Salvio has closed the MFD. 28bytes (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the other issue this should clear it up. Agathoclea (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note. I've just snow-closed the mfd. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So, what, we ignore the edit warring, wikilawyering, abuse and general cluelessness, and just wait until it happens again next week? This is hardly the first time Niabot has shown that (s)he has severe difficulty comprehending that others may have different opinions without being vandals... J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen Wikipedia:Mentorship work well for some users that have trouble comprehending Wikipedia policies on their own. Deli nk (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Must I provide the cross and fire wood myself, or is this just an attempt to silence the opposition (just in case, of course). --Niabot (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You have not been silenced. But you will be blocked if you continue to edit-war or make spurious accusations of vandalism. Hopefully you won't do either of those things anymore and we can close this thread. 28bytes (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not speak about the discussions after the deletion request was inserted. --Niabot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What does that even mean? J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikilawyering over precisely where the objectionable comments were made. Anyway, we're done here. The MfD is closed, and Niabot's behaviour will be monitored more closely in future. Any future blatantly inappropriate accusations of vandalism will almost certainly result in swift blocks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe we all need education that vandalism is defined as "any edit in which another user disagrees with". –MuZemike 21:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism and slanderous commentary added to Ektoise page

Resolved

 – whilst discussion takes place on notabiity at article talk page. User is - correctly - blocked for NLT. Article AfDed

New user Buddhifer is persistently editing the page for Ektoise, adding derogatory and personal comments about the group. The information has not been backed up with any references and has been implemented in a scattershot manner without any use of standard formatting.

The content is clearly intended as an act of vandalism as no attempt has been made to support any of the claims and several of the edits made at 4:18, 13 September are of aesthetic value only and seem to have been executed for the sole purpose of making the page appear to be improperly formatted. Several attempts to correct the vandalism have been re-edited by the user, with the degree of vandalism increasing each time the page is re-edited.Tetsuo the cat (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide some DIFFS of some of the vandalistic edits? I can't tell from your most recent edit to that page where the "vandalism" is. Dayewalker (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

[30], [31], [32], [33] and [34] will prolly suffice, although thats only about half of them. Seems like a disgruntled former fan or member. Heiro 04:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I gave them a warning and directed them to the article talk page. Also, Tetsuo the cat, you are required to inform editors when posting about them on ANI. I have done this for you. Also, it would have been nice if you had tried to contact them before coming here. Heiro 05:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, this is the first time I've had this sort of thing happen, I'll read through the procedure more thoroughly so I can do it properly if anything like this arises again Tetsuo the cat (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

HR, it looks like you were right [35] about the editor's motivation. Good call. Dayewalker (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I took to 3rr noticeboard after their last revert of me, since they are way past 3. So, if anyone wants to deal with this guy.....Be my guest. Heiro 05:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)In the future he can be reported to WP:AIV for a quick block. N^oformation ^Talk 05:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(Somehow your last EC removed my last post, restoring) Wow, hadn't had a chance to look at that yet, upping it to LEGAL threats I guess. Shouldnt be long now. Heiro 05:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And the crazy just keeps on coming haha. Reported to AIV. N^oformation ^Talk 05:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Whilst the user clearly needs to be blocked, they are absolutely correct in that the history of the band has been airbrushed from our article, presumably by sources close to the current incarnation of the band. The article is, as a result, now very misleading. I'm going to work now, but I'll fix that shortly. I'm also not sure that the band is actually notable at all, given that all of their releases appear to be CD-Rs on their own label, but that's a separate issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this addition to ANI by User:Buddhifer be considered a legal threat and the user be indeffed immediately? VanIsaac_WS 07:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess he was.VanIsaac_WS

(edit conflict)The user has been indeffed per NLT. Having just looked at the article in question, I'm not sure that it meets WP:BAND, so I've PRODded it. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I felt that notability was established through the group's involvement with the international electronic scene, including working with several established artists. Also there are numerous references that are independant of the group themselves. I can understand that notability would be questioned as the group is not signed to a major label but the music industry is at a point now where many acts are following the lead of Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead and releasing their own music independantly of a major and this will likely become more evident on Wikipedia as time goes on. Tetsuo the cat (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Seems to me, then, that User:Buddhifer was a victim of WP:DOLT. If true, then this should be used as a learning experience for the involved editors, and not dismissed so quickly. --64.85.216.130 (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's actually the exact opposite of the scenario in WP:DOLT. The editor in question is using WP as a means of promoting what could be considered defamatory and slanderous claims - claims that are distinctly and unambiguously unsourced. Prior to this editor's additions, this was a very neutrally written article that was well sourced, and presented a narration that seems consistent with those sources. There was nothing even about this particular person in the article. Now there seems to be a considerable history between this editor and the subject of the article, but without documentation, we have no evidence of the nature of that relationship, nor any means of writing about it in WP:NPOV. Let me repeat: there was absolutely nothing, negative or otherwise, written about the editor in this article, so the legal threats defense in WP:DOLT that he was somehow harmed by the contents of this article do not hold any water. VanIsaac_WS 09:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you're wrong there. It wasn't neutral at all, because the blocked editor is clearly mentioned in the sources that are currently in the article (i.e. discogs.org). He's even mentioned on the band's own website! I agree that there's nothing negative about the article, but the blocked editor has simply been written out of the article completely, along with practically all mention of the previous incarnation of the band (presumably because he was in it). Do you realise that the "first album" of this band is actually just a re-release of their album under that previous name, with the track that the blocked editor sang on removed? This is wrong, and needs to be fixed; if the article is not PRODded out of existence, I will do so. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Then the course is very simple here. You simply add mention of him, based on the contents of those sources, and you cite that content. That's it. Just because the content is not currently comprehensive does not mean that WP:DOLT is any more applicable. He was not slandered, nor was anything unflattering written about him. I repeat, WP:DOLT applies when a person is removing unflattering information, not when they add it. VanIsaac_WS 11:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention was made of the blocked editor in the article as there are no sources that I can find that discuss his part in the group. He was listed in the former members section which he himself deleted though. It seems as though the blocked editor's contribution was limited to the one removed song, as the band shows continuity of sound across releases regardless of whether he was in the group. A browse on the cited reference Discogs.org shows the blocked editor has not been involved with any other musical project and has not released any music of his own. Tetsuo the cat (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"They started in 2007 and changed their name to Ektoise partway through 2010 due to the departure of founding member Steven Cameron." ([36]), thus, technically, he was right to remove his name from the "former members" section because he was technically never a member of this band - however it is the lack of mention of what was effectively the same band under a different name that appears to be the issue. Having said that, the more important discussion seems to be whether this band is notable. I note that the PROD has been removed, so it looks like AfD may be the next stop. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I agree that DOLT doesn't apply - my "you're wrong" was referring to the neutrality of the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And I vehemently disagree with that interpretation. Simply not having mention of former members of a band is not a violation of neutrality. Having a section on former band members that fails to mention inconvenient former members would be a violation of neutrality, but that was never the case. If what Tetsuo says above is true, then the user himself is the instigator of that supposed NPOV problem, though like I said, I do not believe it is the case. VanIsaac_WS 18:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There were several former members listed [37] but again, no mention was made of any of them in the text as no info was available other than on the Archive page on the band's website, which lists only what performances they attended. The user was not being singled out, it's just impossible at this stage to determine what his role was in the group. What he is asserting is that he was of primary influence but this is not evident from any sources online. If the question is the absence of information on the Wiki about these former members, I could certainly add a section noting what they played and when they were in the group. I could not comment on what they did or did not compose though. Tetsuo the cat (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

PROD was removed, so I nominated for deletion, even though I am on the fence. Hopefully, we'll get some good feedback and resolve this. VanIsaac_WS 19:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell

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

No real administrative action sought. HJ Mitchell should have asked another admin to remove MONGO's rollback rights, but the end result would have been the same and we are not a bureaucracy. lifebaka++ 02:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

---

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and I have had some disagreements as of late....

• Here HJ Mitchell stated, "and this comment sent what sympathy I had for MONGO out of the window. I think the article would be better off without people who hold opinions like that."
• Also, "And the idle threats of the likes of MONGO are more of an amusing occupational hazard than anything to be concerned about."
• And "I think it would be helpful if John and MONGO kept their interpersonal dispute and their own personal biases out of the question of whether or not the article the article meets the GA criteria." ( I am opposed to even a link to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories)
• ...In response, I stated here "We have a plethora of 9/11 related pages dedicated to conspiracy theories...this one should be dedicated to the facts"
• .....HJ Mitchell returns with,his retort, "In your opinion. And it's because vocal people like you are used to getting their way on the talk page, one way or the other, you've forgotten that your opinion is no more or less valid than anybody else's. But the fact of the matter is that any article that omits—suppresses, even—relevant, notable, and easily sourced details about its subject cannot possibly meet criterion 3a or 4. Frankly, I don't think the article ever will meet the GA criteria (never mind the FA criteria) until you depart from it or start considering that, just because you and the clique who behave like the article is their sovereign territory hold a contrary opinion, does not mean that a topic is not up for discussion."
• HJ Mitchell states, "The problem is that the local consensus on that talk page is that the article is dandy, and that anybody suggesting otherwise is just being stubborn or disruptive"

Subsequently, HJ Mitchell unilaterally removed my rollback ability for a series of both accidents (I learned the hard way to not edit from my blackberry)...and carelessness on my part. I deserve to lose my rollback ability and do not want them back...the question is, does an administrator, who has had some disagreements with an editor on set pages, have the right to use his administrator ability to remove user rights when that editor misuses them on the same pages there have been some disagreements on?...shouldn't a neutral administrator be involved?

• Rights removed
• I responded that this instance was an accident, which it was...
• and he reinstated it
• here I recommend he should take such matters to a neutral admin...but after seeing a few more examples, he
• disabled it again
• I again urge him to seek a neutral admin at AN/I repeatedly..but instead he
• retorts "you're wikilawyering over a technicality (and you're wrong; the removal in no way advances my interests or diminishes yours in any area where we disagree). If you think I've abused my tools, you're welcome to take me to ANI or ArbCom, but they'll tell you the same thing."*Yet again I suggest AN/I and urge him for feedback from AN/I...yet, he doesn't...so here I am. Is HJ Mitchell abusing his administrator tools by removing user rights from an editor who has misused the rollback tool on articles they have had disagreements on?--MONGO 00:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:INVOLVED: "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." A completely uninvolved admin has already endorsed HJ's action against you. Furthermore, you still have not undone your "accidental" reversion of me at September 11 attacks, nor have you provided any explanation for the other two good-faith edits you reverted on the same article, which I pointed out on your talk page. I do not feel it is necessary to go digging for any more. Even if HJ crosses the threshold of WP:INVOLVED, and I don't know you nearly well enough to make that determinnation, any administrator would see your recent reverts, and lack of self reverting, even after the mistake is pointed out, as blatant violations. N419BH 00:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It depends if the removal of the tools was justified or punitive. In this case it was justified, and you recognize this. Hence, his action was both correct in content (ie you shouldn't have rollback rights) and correct in form (he is an admin, explained the reasoning, and was not being unilateral - he has the implied support to protect the wiki using his discretion). I do not see WP:INVOLVED being violated in letter or spirit, although perhaps he should have asked an admin with a bit more distance to take the action he did. Also, losing rollbacker doesn't affect your ability to edit the topic area in anyway, so sanctions etc do not apply in this case. I try to never use rollbacker, even against vandals, in controversial areas for this reason - I value the usefulness of the tool in fighting vandalism, and don't want to lose it because of misinterpretation and accidents. And yes, never edit from smartphones.--Cerejota (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My violations were mostly accidental...seriously, I learned the hard way now to never edit anything other than my own talkpage when on a blackberry. One of the rollbacks cited was carelessness..the issue is whether HJ Mitchell should have sought out a completely neutral admin to deal with this...since he and I have had disagreements on the content in question that I did the rollbacks on. Based on his commentary to me and about me, this appears to be partly based on an effort to get me.--MONGO 00:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think I have nothing better to do than watch you so I can vindictively use my tools against you when you abuse rollback? You need to get out more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your commentary indicates otherwise...and your insults here do you no justice...you should have sought out a neutral administrator.--MONGO 01:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have insulted nobody, please provide evidence for that accusation or strike it. And I am a neutral administrator; I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary, just vague assertions that because we hold differing opinions, I must refrain from removing your rollback rights even though you are clearly (ab)using them to edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Above..."You need to get out more" Below..."even if he chooses to manufacture one with me"...I stated correctly and checkuser would validate it that it was inadvertant...however, admitted one wasn't...a neutral admin that has NOT had disagreements with me on the subject matter would have been better suited to revoke the user right. Explain why YOU and YOU alone is best suited for this role.--MONGO 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. He was the one who saw your misuse of rollback on his watchlist and as an administrator chose to act, then gave you the benefit of the doubt, then acted again after making the determination that you didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Even if he is involved with you, and you have shown no evidence that he is, his removal is completely within process and multiple editors have now told you so. N419BH 01:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter...admins should never use their abilities/tools against another editor they have disagreements with and especially not when those disagreements are on the article in question.--MONGO 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have no dispute with MONGO, even if he chooses to manufacture one with me. He and I (and dozens of other editors) hold differing opinions in a discussion, and it is nothing more than wikilawyering to suggest that that might make me "involved" when it comes to removal of rollback for obvious abuse of it in an edit war. If admins were barred from using their tools in a way that affected any editor they'd ever disagreed with, nothing would ever get done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Your absolutely wrong, admins should never use their abilities against anyone they have had disputes/disagreements with...it can lead to desyopping and there is ample precedent of this.--MONGO 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  WP:INVOLVED states otherwise, and you have yet to show where exactly this "dispute" between you and HJ took place. N419BH 01:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  That way lies madness. There are only about 700 or so active administrators, and it would likely be fairly easy to engineer some kind of disagreement with at least the most active of them, thus rendering them powerless in your scenario. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with Malleus and N419BH; HJ Mitchell was within his rights. Saebvn (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• MONGO, you have successfully shown that you and I hold different opinions. You have successfully shown that I acted against in my capacity as an administrator. You have not shown that the level of disagreement rises to a level of dispute between you and I that would preclude me from taking an administrative action against you. I have shown (on your talk page) that you have a pattern of, at best, very poor use of rollback and have given ample justification for its removal (an action which you do not contest). Thus far, not a single editor has endorsed your unusually conservative interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. So what do you hope to achieve here?

  If I may say so, you seem to take any suggestion that you might be wrong as some sort of insult, which may explain your increasingly heated responses, but I can assure you I bear you no personal animosity. I am an administrator enforcing a behavioural guideline (and an editor who holds a differing opinion on a tangentially related matter); nothing more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  "a pattern of, at best, very poor use of rollback and have given ample justification for its removal"...you best check my full editing history....I made one real error with my regular computer, 2 with my blackberry and those 2 were accidents. You didn't give the benefit of the doubt...you had the opportunity to ask me, but you didn't, you just acted, and you acted after we have had some disagreements as to that very link I rollbacked. Never use your admin tools against anyone you have had disagrements with...always seek out a neutral admin.--MONGO 01:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  That's a very self-serving version of events, but even if it's true, it more than justifies removal—misuse because you can't use it properly does not somehow justify the misuse. One use of rollback in an edit war (and you were edit warring, to believe that you reverted a similar edit by two different, well-established editors twice in a few hours and that it was an "accident" because you were using your phone stretches credulity, and I say that as somebody who has been criticised for assuming too much good faith in the past) would justify removal, but three in 36 hours? Now, it has been made clear in the posts here that I acted reasonably and properly—I even gave you the benefit of the doubt until a pattern of misuse emerged—so what do you want this thread to achieve? How many editors have to tell you that you're wrong before you believe them? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  This is part of the dispute resolution process.--MONGO 02:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but a very specific part: this is the place to request urgent admin attention not covered elsewhere. There is nothing in your report that requires admin action - except perhaps reversing the rollbacker rights removal, and this is something you explicitly said you didn't want back. --Cerejota (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: What administrative action is sought here? N419BH 01:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• MONGO claims no injury here because he admits he should lose the rollback rights (though he backtracks a bit). He does not complain about the dispute. What's left is moot. There's no cause for any sanction again HJ Mitchell because his judgment was appropriate even by MONGO's standards. There's no remedy to render here. Glrx (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. I'd close the thread on that note but MONGO would probably cry involved and we'd have even more dramaz. So I'll let an uninvolved editor do it. HJ was acting completely within policy and this thread confirms. Nothing more to do, moving on. N419BH 02:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Incorrect...HJ Mitchell should not use admin tools against anyone he has had a dispute with. He needs to openly state this.--MONGO 02:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
      • You should try listening to yourself MONGO. You're talking crap, of which you seem to have an unlimited supply. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks...your addition to the first post is even better.--MONGO 02:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow. After reading the first couple responses I actually believe something is needed from the admins. The guy should not be stripped but he needs to be publicly admonished since his behavior is not OK for an admin and if he does it again a few months ago an editor should be able to point to it.

1. He should not have used his tools. He and the guy have a poor history and it would have been in the best interest of everyone if he would have requested someone else (IRC is fast). Since he didn't, the question was raised (as it should be) and now he is drug here (maybe a little far). Asking for an assist from someone who has never had tense conversations with the editor would have been simple and the right thing to do.
2. But then he made a a snide comment: "You need to get out more.". That is condescending and a lame thing to say to someone. I think the bigger deal is that he actually does not understand why that comment that would needlessly raise the tension during a discussion: "I have insulted nobody, please provide evidence for that accusation or strike it."Cptnono (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

   You seem to be missing the point, perhaps deliberately. Has anyone argued that MONGO ought not to have been stripped of his rollback bauble? Has even MONGO argued that? Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

An admin has attempted to close the discussion but was reverted by MONGO. Are we now straying into WP:BOOMERANG territory? N419BH 02:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How about a completely neutral admin?--MONGO 02:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict... again and again!)Consider that you missed the point. He should not have pulled the trigger himself. This thread is part of that reasoning (no possible transgression means no dispute). And since he followed up questionable behavior with snide comments I think there is reason to have a discussion. Instead of saying "maybe I should have asked someone else" he decided to be rude. And then he did not understand why it was rude or chose to pretend it wasn't.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to everyone here except you and Cptnono, HJ is a neutral admin. Several of those commenting are totally uninvolved admins too, and they have all endorsed HJ's action. I'm sorry if you don't like it. N419BH 02:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You assume that everyone in a 24 time zone world is on wiki at once but then again, perhaps this is the judgement, sadly, of some neutral editors as well as some partisan ones, who used IAR as an excuse to override 2 previous Rfc's and months of discussion...for which I will not apologize for using rollback to revert their IAR vandalism.--MONGO 02:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict response to N419BH)I'm sorry you are wrong. Was that a comeback to your IDONTLIKEIT argument? An admin has previously had less than colegial discussions with the guy. He might be neuteral in the editing dispute but he is not neutral when it comes to his impression of the editor. He made it clear by being rude to him. How is he getting a pass on this? Instead of discusing BOOMERANG, admins should be focusing on why this situation became so tense. Admins should consider telling the other admin that he could have gone about it in a different way. I know it is fun to be contrary (what BOOMERRANG and this whole discussion seems to be about) but it is better for the project to not have editors being jerks to each other. If asking another admin to pull the trigger makes that a better possibility than HJ should have done it. And no, I am not asking for a discussion on stripping him. I just want a simple acknowledgment from HJ that he could have done it better and that he understands why his follow-up was out of line. Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

After saying "the likes of MONGO are more of an amusing occupational hazard", it would have been better for HJ Mitchell to ask someone else to take a look at Mongo's use of roll back. There doesn't seem to have been any particular urgency. Once Mongo suggested it shouldn't have been him that did the action, it would have been better for HJ Mitchell to bring it here for a check. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So we're left with, "okay, maybe HJ shouldn't have done it, but he did, but he was right to do it, and this has been endorsed by uninvolved admins." I will actually agree with the negative analysis of the gruff comment above, but MONGO's insistence in the matter is partially to blame for it being said in the first place. By the way, I did NOT use IAR to override the previous discussions, I used IAR to implement expressed community consensus at Talk:September 11 attacks, which was that the link to 9/11 conspiracy theories should be included. You then edit warred with rollback to remove my good-faith edit, a serious breach of WP:ROLLBACK. The only reason why I have not re-added it is because of the ongoing RFC, which by the way is running at an overwhelming percentile toward including the link. At its conclusion a completely uninvolved editor will judge consensus and act as appropriate. I will say it again, HJ was within policy to remove your rollback right, a completely uninvolved admin on your talk page has already endorsed the removal, and all we're doing here is creating drama on the board that's designed for issues requiring immediate attention from administrators. You've got your uninvolved admin there's nothing more to do. N419BH 02:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That community consensus is still being debated...it is not yet closed, nor was there any consensus when you implemented IAR, and based on precedent of those who come and go adding the CT tag to the article, on first inspection, my use of rollback over your IAR justification would have all the appearances of what it was, a vandalism revert!...but this is another matter for another day. Today, it's time to see if administrators will acknowledge that they should never use thir tools against others they have had disputes with.--MONGO 03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Obvious sock

Resolved

 – Blocked by Elockid --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 04:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone block an obvious sock? User:Gadaiiad See their contribs and then User:Oinsighiads and User:Sain123s, the sockmaster. Thanks, Heiro 03:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, nice one. But seriously, can someone block now? He is still at it. Heiro

The user is at AIV. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

G.-M. Cupertino, once again

I'm doubt blocking his latest sock in itself is worth an entry here, especially based on the comment to his edit here. However, there are a couple of points worth a second pair of eyes -- with more time to devote to this matter than I -- to look at.

(1) I'm a bit concerned that the IP address may be part of a DHCP pool, which means it shouldn't be blocked indefinitely.

(2) More entertainingly, a couple weeks after I asked this question at WP:FT/N about G.-M. Cupertino's spamming references to the work of one Christian Settipani, I found this post on my user page, with Mr Settipani's signature to it. I'm a little surprised that an outsider would know about WP:FT/N, let alone look there for a chance mention of his name. Further, G.-M. Cupertino has demonstrated an obsession on Settipani, inserting references to his works in hundreds of articles, some arguably useful & relevant, but in many cases Settipani is clearly not a reliable source, or his books are irrelevant. Maybe I did have a message from Settipani himself -- at the time I assumed it was & answered accordingly. Or maybe our sockmeister is taking his game to the next level. (Or maybe I'm just seeing things that don't exist, & ought to just keep to providing sources & cleaning up articles on early medieval European history.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism and slanderous commentary added to Ektoise page

Resolved

 – whilst discussion takes place on notabiity at article talk page. User is - correctly - blocked for NLT. Article AfDed

New user Buddhifer is persistently editing the page for Ektoise, adding derogatory and personal comments about the group. The information has not been backed up with any references and has been implemented in a scattershot manner without any use of standard formatting.

The content is clearly intended as an act of vandalism as no attempt has been made to support any of the claims and several of the edits made at 4:18, 13 September are of aesthetic value only and seem to have been executed for the sole purpose of making the page appear to be improperly formatted. Several attempts to correct the vandalism have been re-edited by the user, with the degree of vandalism increasing each time the page is re-edited.Tetsuo the cat (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide some DIFFS of some of the vandalistic edits? I can't tell from your most recent edit to that page where the "vandalism" is. Dayewalker (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

[38], [39], [40], [41] and [42] will prolly suffice, although thats only about half of them. Seems like a disgruntled former fan or member. Heiro 04:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I gave them a warning and directed them to the article talk page. Also, Tetsuo the cat, you are required to inform editors when posting about them on ANI. I have done this for you. Also, it would have been nice if you had tried to contact them before coming here. Heiro 05:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, this is the first time I've had this sort of thing happen, I'll read through the procedure more thoroughly so I can do it properly if anything like this arises again Tetsuo the cat (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

HR, it looks like you were right [43] about the editor's motivation. Good call. Dayewalker (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I took to 3rr noticeboard after their last revert of me, since they are way past 3. So, if anyone wants to deal with this guy.....Be my guest. Heiro 05:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)In the future he can be reported to WP:AIV for a quick block. N^oformation ^Talk 05:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(Somehow your last EC removed my last post, restoring) Wow, hadn't had a chance to look at that yet, upping it to LEGAL threats I guess. Shouldnt be long now. Heiro 05:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And the crazy just keeps on coming haha. Reported to AIV. N^oformation ^Talk 05:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Whilst the user clearly needs to be blocked, they are absolutely correct in that the history of the band has been airbrushed from our article, presumably by sources close to the current incarnation of the band. The article is, as a result, now very misleading. I'm going to work now, but I'll fix that shortly. I'm also not sure that the band is actually notable at all, given that all of their releases appear to be CD-Rs on their own label, but that's a separate issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this addition to ANI by User:Buddhifer be considered a legal threat and the user be indeffed immediately? VanIsaac_WS 07:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess he was.VanIsaac_WS

(edit conflict)The user has been indeffed per NLT. Having just looked at the article in question, I'm not sure that it meets WP:BAND, so I've PRODded it. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I felt that notability was established through the group's involvement with the international electronic scene, including working with several established artists. Also there are numerous references that are independant of the group themselves. I can understand that notability would be questioned as the group is not signed to a major label but the music industry is at a point now where many acts are following the lead of Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead and releasing their own music independantly of a major and this will likely become more evident on Wikipedia as time goes on. Tetsuo the cat (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Seems to me, then, that User:Buddhifer was a victim of WP:DOLT. If true, then this should be used as a learning experience for the involved editors, and not dismissed so quickly. --64.85.216.130 (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's actually the exact opposite of the scenario in WP:DOLT. The editor in question is using WP as a means of promoting what could be considered defamatory and slanderous claims - claims that are distinctly and unambiguously unsourced. Prior to this editor's additions, this was a very neutrally written article that was well sourced, and presented a narration that seems consistent with those sources. There was nothing even about this particular person in the article. Now there seems to be a considerable history between this editor and the subject of the article, but without documentation, we have no evidence of the nature of that relationship, nor any means of writing about it in WP:NPOV. Let me repeat: there was absolutely nothing, negative or otherwise, written about the editor in this article, so the legal threats defense in WP:DOLT that he was somehow harmed by the contents of this article do not hold any water. VanIsaac_WS 09:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you're wrong there. It wasn't neutral at all, because the blocked editor is clearly mentioned in the sources that are currently in the article (i.e. discogs.org). He's even mentioned on the band's own website! I agree that there's nothing negative about the article, but the blocked editor has simply been written out of the article completely, along with practically all mention of the previous incarnation of the band (presumably because he was in it). Do you realise that the "first album" of this band is actually just a re-release of their album under that previous name, with the track that the blocked editor sang on removed? This is wrong, and needs to be fixed; if the article is not PRODded out of existence, I will do so. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Then the course is very simple here. You simply add mention of him, based on the contents of those sources, and you cite that content. That's it. Just because the content is not currently comprehensive does not mean that WP:DOLT is any more applicable. He was not slandered, nor was anything unflattering written about him. I repeat, WP:DOLT applies when a person is removing unflattering information, not when they add it. VanIsaac_WS 11:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention was made of the blocked editor in the article as there are no sources that I can find that discuss his part in the group. He was listed in the former members section which he himself deleted though. It seems as though the blocked editor's contribution was limited to the one removed song, as the band shows continuity of sound across releases regardless of whether he was in the group. A browse on the cited reference Discogs.org shows the blocked editor has not been involved with any other musical project and has not released any music of his own. Tetsuo the cat (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"They started in 2007 and changed their name to Ektoise partway through 2010 due to the departure of founding member Steven Cameron." ([44]), thus, technically, he was right to remove his name from the "former members" section because he was technically never a member of this band - however it is the lack of mention of what was effectively the same band under a different name that appears to be the issue. Having said that, the more important discussion seems to be whether this band is notable. I note that the PROD has been removed, so it looks like AfD may be the next stop. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I agree that DOLT doesn't apply - my "you're wrong" was referring to the neutrality of the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And I vehemently disagree with that interpretation. Simply not having mention of former members of a band is not a violation of neutrality. Having a section on former band members that fails to mention inconvenient former members would be a violation of neutrality, but that was never the case. If what Tetsuo says above is true, then the user himself is the instigator of that supposed NPOV problem, though like I said, I do not believe it is the case. VanIsaac_WS 18:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There were several former members listed [45] but again, no mention was made of any of them in the text as no info was available other than on the Archive page on the band's website, which lists only what performances they attended. The user was not being singled out, it's just impossible at this stage to determine what his role was in the group. What he is asserting is that he was of primary influence but this is not evident from any sources online. If the question is the absence of information on the Wiki about these former members, I could certainly add a section noting what they played and when they were in the group. I could not comment on what they did or did not compose though. Tetsuo the cat (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

PROD was removed, so I nominated for deletion, even though I am on the fence. Hopefully, we'll get some good feedback and resolve this. VanIsaac_WS 19:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell

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

No real administrative action sought. HJ Mitchell should have asked another admin to remove MONGO's rollback rights, but the end result would have been the same and we are not a bureaucracy. lifebaka++ 02:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

---

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and I have had some disagreements as of late....

• Here HJ Mitchell stated, "and this comment sent what sympathy I had for MONGO out of the window. I think the article would be better off without people who hold opinions like that."
• Also, "And the idle threats of the likes of MONGO are more of an amusing occupational hazard than anything to be concerned about."
• And "I think it would be helpful if John and MONGO kept their interpersonal dispute and their own personal biases out of the question of whether or not the article the article meets the GA criteria." ( I am opposed to even a link to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories)
• ...In response, I stated here "We have a plethora of 9/11 related pages dedicated to conspiracy theories...this one should be dedicated to the facts"
• .....HJ Mitchell returns with,his retort, "In your opinion. And it's because vocal people like you are used to getting their way on the talk page, one way or the other, you've forgotten that your opinion is no more or less valid than anybody else's. But the fact of the matter is that any article that omits—suppresses, even—relevant, notable, and easily sourced details about its subject cannot possibly meet criterion 3a or 4. Frankly, I don't think the article ever will meet the GA criteria (never mind the FA criteria) until you depart from it or start considering that, just because you and the clique who behave like the article is their sovereign territory hold a contrary opinion, does not mean that a topic is not up for discussion."
• HJ Mitchell states, "The problem is that the local consensus on that talk page is that the article is dandy, and that anybody suggesting otherwise is just being stubborn or disruptive"

Subsequently, HJ Mitchell unilaterally removed my rollback ability for a series of both accidents (I learned the hard way to not edit from my blackberry)...and carelessness on my part. I deserve to lose my rollback ability and do not want them back...the question is, does an administrator, who has had some disagreements with an editor on set pages, have the right to use his administrator ability to remove user rights when that editor misuses them on the same pages there have been some disagreements on?...shouldn't a neutral administrator be involved?

• Rights removed
• I responded that this instance was an accident, which it was...
• and he reinstated it
• here I recommend he should take such matters to a neutral admin...but after seeing a few more examples, he
• disabled it again
• I again urge him to seek a neutral admin at AN/I repeatedly..but instead he
• retorts "you're wikilawyering over a technicality (and you're wrong; the removal in no way advances my interests or diminishes yours in any area where we disagree). If you think I've abused my tools, you're welcome to take me to ANI or ArbCom, but they'll tell you the same thing."*Yet again I suggest AN/I and urge him for feedback from AN/I...yet, he doesn't...so here I am. Is HJ Mitchell abusing his administrator tools by removing user rights from an editor who has misused the rollback tool on articles they have had disagreements on?--MONGO 00:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:INVOLVED: "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." A completely uninvolved admin has already endorsed HJ's action against you. Furthermore, you still have not undone your "accidental" reversion of me at September 11 attacks, nor have you provided any explanation for the other two good-faith edits you reverted on the same article, which I pointed out on your talk page. I do not feel it is necessary to go digging for any more. Even if HJ crosses the threshold of WP:INVOLVED, and I don't know you nearly well enough to make that determinnation, any administrator would see your recent reverts, and lack of self reverting, even after the mistake is pointed out, as blatant violations. N419BH 00:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It depends if the removal of the tools was justified or punitive. In this case it was justified, and you recognize this. Hence, his action was both correct in content (ie you shouldn't have rollback rights) and correct in form (he is an admin, explained the reasoning, and was not being unilateral - he has the implied support to protect the wiki using his discretion). I do not see WP:INVOLVED being violated in letter or spirit, although perhaps he should have asked an admin with a bit more distance to take the action he did. Also, losing rollbacker doesn't affect your ability to edit the topic area in anyway, so sanctions etc do not apply in this case. I try to never use rollbacker, even against vandals, in controversial areas for this reason - I value the usefulness of the tool in fighting vandalism, and don't want to lose it because of misinterpretation and accidents. And yes, never edit from smartphones.--Cerejota (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My violations were mostly accidental...seriously, I learned the hard way now to never edit anything other than my own talkpage when on a blackberry. One of the rollbacks cited was carelessness..the issue is whether HJ Mitchell should have sought out a completely neutral admin to deal with this...since he and I have had disagreements on the content in question that I did the rollbacks on. Based on his commentary to me and about me, this appears to be partly based on an effort to get me.--MONGO 00:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think I have nothing better to do than watch you so I can vindictively use my tools against you when you abuse rollback? You need to get out more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your commentary indicates otherwise...and your insults here do you no justice...you should have sought out a neutral administrator.--MONGO 01:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have insulted nobody, please provide evidence for that accusation or strike it. And I am a neutral administrator; I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary, just vague assertions that because we hold differing opinions, I must refrain from removing your rollback rights even though you are clearly (ab)using them to edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Above..."You need to get out more" Below..."even if he chooses to manufacture one with me"...I stated correctly and checkuser would validate it that it was inadvertant...however, admitted one wasn't...a neutral admin that has NOT had disagreements with me on the subject matter would have been better suited to revoke the user right. Explain why YOU and YOU alone is best suited for this role.--MONGO 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. He was the one who saw your misuse of rollback on his watchlist and as an administrator chose to act, then gave you the benefit of the doubt, then acted again after making the determination that you didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Even if he is involved with you, and you have shown no evidence that he is, his removal is completely within process and multiple editors have now told you so. N419BH 01:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter...admins should never use their abilities/tools against another editor they have disagreements with and especially not when those disagreements are on the article in question.--MONGO 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have no dispute with MONGO, even if he chooses to manufacture one with me. He and I (and dozens of other editors) hold differing opinions in a discussion, and it is nothing more than wikilawyering to suggest that that might make me "involved" when it comes to removal of rollback for obvious abuse of it in an edit war. If admins were barred from using their tools in a way that affected any editor they'd ever disagreed with, nothing would ever get done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Your absolutely wrong, admins should never use their abilities against anyone they have had disputes/disagreements with...it can lead to desyopping and there is ample precedent of this.--MONGO 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  WP:INVOLVED states otherwise, and you have yet to show where exactly this "dispute" between you and HJ took place. N419BH 01:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  That way lies madness. There are only about 700 or so active administrators, and it would likely be fairly easy to engineer some kind of disagreement with at least the most active of them, thus rendering them powerless in your scenario. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with Malleus and N419BH; HJ Mitchell was within his rights. Saebvn (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• MONGO, you have successfully shown that you and I hold different opinions. You have successfully shown that I acted against in my capacity as an administrator. You have not shown that the level of disagreement rises to a level of dispute between you and I that would preclude me from taking an administrative action against you. I have shown (on your talk page) that you have a pattern of, at best, very poor use of rollback and have given ample justification for its removal (an action which you do not contest). Thus far, not a single editor has endorsed your unusually conservative interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. So what do you hope to achieve here?

  If I may say so, you seem to take any suggestion that you might be wrong as some sort of insult, which may explain your increasingly heated responses, but I can assure you I bear you no personal animosity. I am an administrator enforcing a behavioural guideline (and an editor who holds a differing opinion on a tangentially related matter); nothing more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  "a pattern of, at best, very poor use of rollback and have given ample justification for its removal"...you best check my full editing history....I made one real error with my regular computer, 2 with my blackberry and those 2 were accidents. You didn't give the benefit of the doubt...you had the opportunity to ask me, but you didn't, you just acted, and you acted after we have had some disagreements as to that very link I rollbacked. Never use your admin tools against anyone you have had disagrements with...always seek out a neutral admin.--MONGO 01:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  That's a very self-serving version of events, but even if it's true, it more than justifies removal—misuse because you can't use it properly does not somehow justify the misuse. One use of rollback in an edit war (and you were edit warring, to believe that you reverted a similar edit by two different, well-established editors twice in a few hours and that it was an "accident" because you were using your phone stretches credulity, and I say that as somebody who has been criticised for assuming too much good faith in the past) would justify removal, but three in 36 hours? Now, it has been made clear in the posts here that I acted reasonably and properly—I even gave you the benefit of the doubt until a pattern of misuse emerged—so what do you want this thread to achieve? How many editors have to tell you that you're wrong before you believe them? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  This is part of the dispute resolution process.--MONGO 02:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but a very specific part: this is the place to request urgent admin attention not covered elsewhere. There is nothing in your report that requires admin action - except perhaps reversing the rollbacker rights removal, and this is something you explicitly said you didn't want back. --Cerejota (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: What administrative action is sought here? N419BH 01:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• MONGO claims no injury here because he admits he should lose the rollback rights (though he backtracks a bit). He does not complain about the dispute. What's left is moot. There's no cause for any sanction again HJ Mitchell because his judgment was appropriate even by MONGO's standards. There's no remedy to render here. Glrx (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. I'd close the thread on that note but MONGO would probably cry involved and we'd have even more dramaz. So I'll let an uninvolved editor do it. HJ was acting completely within policy and this thread confirms. Nothing more to do, moving on. N419BH 02:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Incorrect...HJ Mitchell should not use admin tools against anyone he has had a dispute with. He needs to openly state this.--MONGO 02:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
      • You should try listening to yourself MONGO. You're talking crap, of which you seem to have an unlimited supply. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks...your addition to the first post is even better.--MONGO 02:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow. After reading the first couple responses I actually believe something is needed from the admins. The guy should not be stripped but he needs to be publicly admonished since his behavior is not OK for an admin and if he does it again a few months ago an editor should be able to point to it.

1. He should not have used his tools. He and the guy have a poor history and it would have been in the best interest of everyone if he would have requested someone else (IRC is fast). Since he didn't, the question was raised (as it should be) and now he is drug here (maybe a little far). Asking for an assist from someone who has never had tense conversations with the editor would have been simple and the right thing to do.
2. But then he made a a snide comment: "You need to get out more.". That is condescending and a lame thing to say to someone. I think the bigger deal is that he actually does not understand why that comment that would needlessly raise the tension during a discussion: "I have insulted nobody, please provide evidence for that accusation or strike it."Cptnono (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

   You seem to be missing the point, perhaps deliberately. Has anyone argued that MONGO ought not to have been stripped of his rollback bauble? Has even MONGO argued that? Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

An admin has attempted to close the discussion but was reverted by MONGO. Are we now straying into WP:BOOMERANG territory? N419BH 02:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How about a completely neutral admin?--MONGO 02:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict... again and again!)Consider that you missed the point. He should not have pulled the trigger himself. This thread is part of that reasoning (no possible transgression means no dispute). And since he followed up questionable behavior with snide comments I think there is reason to have a discussion. Instead of saying "maybe I should have asked someone else" he decided to be rude. And then he did not understand why it was rude or chose to pretend it wasn't.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to everyone here except you and Cptnono, HJ is a neutral admin. Several of those commenting are totally uninvolved admins too, and they have all endorsed HJ's action. I'm sorry if you don't like it. N419BH 02:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You assume that everyone in a 24 time zone world is on wiki at once but then again, perhaps this is the judgement, sadly, of some neutral editors as well as some partisan ones, who used IAR as an excuse to override 2 previous Rfc's and months of discussion...for which I will not apologize for using rollback to revert their IAR vandalism.--MONGO 02:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict response to N419BH)I'm sorry you are wrong. Was that a comeback to your IDONTLIKEIT argument? An admin has previously had less than colegial discussions with the guy. He might be neuteral in the editing dispute but he is not neutral when it comes to his impression of the editor. He made it clear by being rude to him. How is he getting a pass on this? Instead of discusing BOOMERANG, admins should be focusing on why this situation became so tense. Admins should consider telling the other admin that he could have gone about it in a different way. I know it is fun to be contrary (what BOOMERRANG and this whole discussion seems to be about) but it is better for the project to not have editors being jerks to each other. If asking another admin to pull the trigger makes that a better possibility than HJ should have done it. And no, I am not asking for a discussion on stripping him. I just want a simple acknowledgment from HJ that he could have done it better and that he understands why his follow-up was out of line. Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

After saying "the likes of MONGO are more of an amusing occupational hazard", it would have been better for HJ Mitchell to ask someone else to take a look at Mongo's use of roll back. There doesn't seem to have been any particular urgency. Once Mongo suggested it shouldn't have been him that did the action, it would have been better for HJ Mitchell to bring it here for a check. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So we're left with, "okay, maybe HJ shouldn't have done it, but he did, but he was right to do it, and this has been endorsed by uninvolved admins." I will actually agree with the negative analysis of the gruff comment above, but MONGO's insistence in the matter is partially to blame for it being said in the first place. By the way, I did NOT use IAR to override the previous discussions, I used IAR to implement expressed community consensus at Talk:September 11 attacks, which was that the link to 9/11 conspiracy theories should be included. You then edit warred with rollback to remove my good-faith edit, a serious breach of WP:ROLLBACK. The only reason why I have not re-added it is because of the ongoing RFC, which by the way is running at an overwhelming percentile toward including the link. At its conclusion a completely uninvolved editor will judge consensus and act as appropriate. I will say it again, HJ was within policy to remove your rollback right, a completely uninvolved admin on your talk page has already endorsed the removal, and all we're doing here is creating drama on the board that's designed for issues requiring immediate attention from administrators. You've got your uninvolved admin there's nothing more to do. N419BH 02:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That community consensus is still being debated...it is not yet closed, nor was there any consensus when you implemented IAR, and based on precedent of those who come and go adding the CT tag to the article, on first inspection, my use of rollback over your IAR justification would have all the appearances of what it was, a vandalism revert!...but this is another matter for another day. Today, it's time to see if administrators will acknowledge that they should never use thir tools against others they have had disputes with.--MONGO 03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Obvious sock

Resolved

 – Blocked by Elockid --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 04:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone block an obvious sock? User:Gadaiiad See their contribs and then User:Oinsighiads and User:Sain123s, the sockmaster. Thanks, Heiro 03:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, nice one. But seriously, can someone block now? He is still at it. Heiro

The user is at AIV. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

G.-M. Cupertino, once again

I'm doubt blocking his latest sock in itself is worth an entry here, especially based on the comment to his edit here. However, there are a couple of points worth a second pair of eyes -- with more time to devote to this matter than I -- to look at.

(1) I'm a bit concerned that the IP address may be part of a DHCP pool, which means it shouldn't be blocked indefinitely.

(2) More entertainingly, a couple weeks after I asked this question at WP:FT/N about G.-M. Cupertino's spamming references to the work of one Christian Settipani, I found this post on my user page, with Mr Settipani's signature to it. I'm a little surprised that an outsider would know about WP:FT/N, let alone look there for a chance mention of his name. Further, G.-M. Cupertino has demonstrated an obsession on Settipani, inserting references to his works in hundreds of articles, some arguably useful & relevant, but in many cases Settipani is clearly not a reliable source, or his books are irrelevant. Maybe I did have a message from Settipani himself -- at the time I assumed it was & answered accordingly. Or maybe our sockmeister is taking his game to the next level. (Or maybe I'm just seeing things that don't exist, & ought to just keep to providing sources & cleaning up articles on early medieval European history.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request/block review of indef-blocked editor

Resolved

 – NOT UNBLOCKED. A review of the below, and of the editor's talkpage show one large concern: the editor still does not admit/understand to what was wrong with any of his behaviours. A significant aspect of the unblock process is that understanding. This editor focuses on "winning" and simply being unblocked. I admire the desire to mentor. What I don't like is the editor's response of "I GUESS that might work". I think consensus is that there needs to be understanding and desire for real change - this can be done via some tutoring, even while the user is blocked. At some point, when they're ready (or when WP:OFFER occurs), they can request unblock again (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi all, some time last week, Ezekiel53746 was indefinitely blocked by Courcelles for disruptive editing after canvassing inappropriately on an MFD against a few of his user subpages. CheckUser data shows that while blocked, Ezekiel logged out to vandalise and make personal attacks, something which he admits. Courcelles and Tnxman307 both declined an unblock request on the basis of the checkuser results, but I have offered to step in to mentor Ezekiel under strict conditions laid out at User:Ezekiel53746/Mentorship 2011. I am asking the community give him one last chance on my debt, and to give me the chance to at least attempt mentorship before writing this young editor off as a lost cause. I have made it abundantly clear to Ezekiel that if he messes up even once, any admin is free to step in and renew his indefinite block without discussion. I ask the community/admin corps to please consider an unblock. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to get assurances from Ezekiel that (s)he not only wants to be unblocked, but that (s)he wants to be mentored. I think that the understanding of the MfD should be a prerequisite before any discussion of an unblock. But, I'm not an admin, so it's really not up to me. VanIsaac_WS 03:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Ezekiel has not actually "signed" the agreement on that mentoring page. At the very least, I would expect him to do that. In addition, his behavior in engaging with Strange Passerby about setting up the mentoring does not really make him look great. I see a lot of "ok, if you say so" and "well, I guess" and not so much "yeah, I'm totally on-board with this and want to improve." I just don't have the impression that he wants to work on this stuff so much as he just wants to be given his head.

That all said, however, I could live with him being unblocked if the community agrees to it - as long as there's an understanding that one strike, and he's out, and any admin who sees him misbehaving or disrupting will remove his editing privileges accordingly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

He can't sign it as he's still blocked. I have made it very clear to him I will personally request an indefinite block if he messes up. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Then he needs to get back his talk page editing privileges so that he can actually join the conversation and speak for himself. VanIsaac_WS 03:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

As a point or order, he still has talk page privileges, but the page linked to is not his talk page. Courcelles 03:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Then the conversation needs to be taken there. You can still link/transclude to the preexisting pages, but the one person we need to hear from cannot currently contribute. VanIsaac_WS 03:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The conversation is there too. The conditions laid out on that page are also on his talk page. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The link is at User talk:Ezekiel53746, and hoy! I'm not impressed. It doesn't seem like he even understands what he did in the past to get himself banned. This is not looking good. VanIsaac_WS 05:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Overall I'm not impressed. I'd like to see more evidence of a user who wants to improve. Seems more like he's just trying to get off the hook. Nevertheless, I'm willing to support giving the guy a chance; rollback is quick and blocks are easy to reinstate if he messes up. N419BH 07:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No comment on block/unblock right now, but someone should point this user in the general direction of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. This sort of thing is what it's there for. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

'Twas the first thing I mentioned when I proposed the mentorship restrictions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out...he was not blocked solely for canvassing on the MFD. He was blocked for his overall pattern of disruptive behaviors. Like, for example, this edit. I'm actually becoming convinced that Ezekiel is just here to troll us. He knows what he's doing and is asking this way for his own satisfaction, attention, and entertainment. either way (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A younger editor under the immense stress of having one of his user subpages put up for deletion ≠ a troll. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The user, at 13 years old, just seems to be keen to me, under tutelage I think he could contribute something here. If he's unblocked he'd have to seriously understand that he can't vandalize and needs to read up on the guidelines, but I'm all for supporting his unblock. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said on Courcelles's talk page when Strange Passerby asked for an unblock there, I really can't believe anyone is entertaining a thought of unblocking him after the edits he made (post-block) with his IP, 70.57.205.20 (talk · contribs). And here we are 10 days later saying "no, it's cool, he's just immature and needs a mentor"? Why did he use that IP? Well he saw another IP do it and wanted to do it himself. Let's let him explain:

The IP got mad for reverting his edits, so he put the message "Fück Off Paul you zealot cünt" twice on his userpage; One of a userbox, and another on a sectioned (Titled "My brag sheet"). It was so funny, I had to do this myself, vandalizing my own talk page. However, this make me go into a state of craze, and led me to anonymous trouble.

Do we really want to unblock someone who acts like this and is prone to "states of craze"? either way (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your point has been sufficiently made. It's abundantly clear you're against unblocking, there's no need to continue to ram that down the throats of people who want to give him a chance with someone guiding him. I will ask that you stop trying to negatively influence the issue further. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And your point's been made. Several users you asked rejected you asking for an unblock for him. Later you went on to say "well, don't unblock him for his sake...unblock him for my sake so I can mentor him." It seems like you're more in this for proving yourself than for his benefit. Can you please explain what benefit you think we'd gain if we allow him to be unblocked? How will his unblocking lead to positive contributions to Wikipedia? I'm not attempting to "ram that down the throats" of supporters any more than you're attempting "ram down the throats" your view. I'm sorry that presenting the other side of the case is an attempt to "negatively influence" the outcome. In my opinion, your asking for his unblock will lead to a "negative influence" upon Wikipedia and I am well within my rights to present that. either way (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Get your facts right. I only asked Courcelles, not "several users"; when he declined I informed him I would be seeking a wider community consensus. I don't appreciate your attempts to skew the facts. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought that you had asked Tnxman307, too, but I remembered it incorrectly. either way (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Having seen the edits made while this user made while logged out, I think they should remain blocked. Calling other users c***s is simply not acceptable. TNXMan 14:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I might have spotty Internet the next few days. If this editor is unblocked while I am away, I have arranged for Demiurge1000 to temporarily step in for me. Again, I urge the community to give Ezekiel a chance with a mentor. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• In glancing at the user's own talk page, it seems that he can't even be patient with the people who are trying to help him get unblocked. If this is the case now, what are the chances of him being patient enough to work with a mentor at all in the future? I vote oppose to the unblock. NJZombie (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose to unblock as well. I went through his talk page, the AFD and many of his contributions and it's clear that this editor has issues with selfcontrol, respect, and understanding WP procedure. While the latter can be worked with, a lack of self control is an issue deeper than a mentorship is equipped to handle. N^oformation ^Talk 08:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now, in order for the mentorship to 'take' Ezekiel needs to stop talking and start listening. He was non-committal to Strange Passerby's offer at first, made an unblock request after being asked to leave it to SP, and even now seems unaware of how imporant it is that he should be taking in what his mentor is saying. He needs to soak up some of the nuances of WP, and learn to work with other editor's viewpoints instead of darting past them to the 'goal'. There is every possibility he can do this, but that would involve stopping rushing around and being more receptive, and this unblock request itself feels like it's being rushed. If Ezekiel can slow down a second and work with Strange Passerby then he should be able to draw a line under this and move on, without that the mentorship is WP:ROPE, which is the polar opposite of Strange Passerby's good intentions, I'm sure. Someoneanother 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

updating to prevent archiving Toddst1 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

I need some eyes on an article

Resolved

 – Both editors have been warned extremely clearly about edit-warring, and the article full-protected until they come to consensus either through DRN or the article talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am dealing with an editor who has done a lot of work on Haven (TV series), and am encountering a lot of resistance to changes. I am not going to go so far as to suggest an OWNership issue, but it's moving in that direction. To whit, the editor seeks to include just about every reference to the works of Stephen King alluded to in the series (which is a lot, but at least three editors thus far have considered it a lot of trivia). I sought to bridge the gap and stop the revert-warring (of which I was admittedly a part) by converting the list to prose and trimming out all but the more prominent references. I even found a citable reference to X-Files, which the editor removed. The recent edits by the author seem like sour grapes, and I am running out of ideas on how to respond.
I need a little help. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest WP:DRN?--Cerejota (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cerejota - I filed there. It must be one of them new-fangled noticeboards; I don't recall hearing about it before. Does it work? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by KoreanSentry

User:KoreanSentry reverted my edit with an edit summary "Undid revision 449302007 by Phoenix7777 (talk) WTH is Ba-gua? reverted edit done by right wing Japanese"[46] without any reason of the "right wing Japanese". The user violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please note I am not discussing the revert itself here. However the revert is unconstructive because Ba gua is clearly the origin of the South Korean flag[47] which I will address later in the article's talk page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you looking for here? A block? Page protection? This is for immediate administrative action. If you'd simply like for an editor not to call you names you'd be best taking it to WP:WQA. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I reposted to WP:WQA#Personal attack by KoreanSentry thank you. Please comment there. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You say you're not discussing it, you but you go ahead and discuss it anyway. While Koreansentry's edit summary is crass, we do have a history of calling a spade a spade here, and a google image search does not a reliable source make. You creating that conclusion based on an image source is original research, and no reason was given for the replacement of the image. You also introduce speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL with the sentence about what "could" be done.--Crossmr (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I just presented a clear evidence contradicting KoreanSentry's revert. I am preparing the more reliable source like [48] and more. Please wait for a moment until I am ready for the reliable source presented to the talk page, thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A moment? You came here to complain about the edit summary nearly 3 hours ago. If it takes you that long to assemble your reliable sources, you probably weren't ready to be making that edit. As for being a reliable source, that book doesn't provide anything about the Korean flag and that symbol.--Crossmr (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but 3 hours are quite precious time for me. Please note I am not a frequent editor here. Please be patient until I am prepared for the discussion. And the book says "The Bagua is found on the Korean flag" ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay, I see it now. I typed Korea in as a quick search on the left and it didn't show the reference to the flag. Keep in mind though this doesn't appear to be an academic source. This is a self-help book on relieving pain, not a book written by a recognized historical expert. Who knows where he's pulling that conclusion from.--Crossmr (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The username "KoreanSentry" did raise an eyebrow. It suggests that he's here to "guard" a "Korean" point of view and a look at his contributions supports this. Many of his mainspace contribs are reverts and undos, a few with similar crass edit summaries such as Undid revision 416406252 by Imbonwwwww (talk) Again, Chinese nationalistic views. However, to his credit he does discuss his edits but he really needs to stop with these "defensive" edit summaries and consider changing to a neutral sounding username. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Marshallsumter disrupting Wikipedia for "research" purposes.

Marshallsumter, a previously productive editor, has recently created multiple articles which contain the words "Dominant group" and are essentially WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations. Dominant Group was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group, while the others at Dominant group (disambiguation) are all at WP:AFD and heading for deletion. It is obvious from this page at Wikiversity that Marshallsumter is creating these pages for a somewhat arcane research purpose. I am not clear exactly what Marshallsumter is trying to do, but it certainly seems to be disrupting Wikipedia unduly. Marshallsumter is furthermore keeping copies of pages nominated for deletion/deleted in his userspace, as well as multiple drafts of similar "dominant group" articles, which is in violation of WP:WEBHOST and suggests that he intends to place them back in articlespace. The wikiversity page clearly states that the "research project" will last a year or more - "hopefully a conclusion can be reached in one year", and overall suggests that Marshallsumter is purposefully creating articles not to improve the 'pedia but to reach a conclusion about "dominant groups". Marshallsumter has produced other problematic pages recently, including Metadefinition and Repellor vehicle, but I cannot understand why. --S Larctia (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Conclusive proof that Marshallsumter is 'contributing' to Wikipedia for purposes other than improvement of the encyclopedia. He seems entirely unconcerned that his "target population" has given no consent for his research, nor that his actions have already caused considerable disruption. I can see no course myself but to block him on Wikipedia. And as for Wikiversity, I suggest that they should point out to him that such 'research' is unlikely to do their reputation any good. And incidentally, now that we know what he is doing, his results are going to be useless anyway (not that there looks to be much evidence that his 'research' was in any way useful in the first place). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

An interesting discussion can be found at User talk:Tom Morris#Request for comment, where Marshallsumter tries to gain support for a Request for comment on his now deleted article Dominant group (art) - a clear case of him attempting to waste Wikipedians' time for the sake of his "research". --S Larctia (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Could it be seen as canvassing to post a link to this discussion in the ongoing AFD's? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support block- I have looked at a handful of Marshallsumter's articles currently at AfD and his research proposal over at Wikiversity. I have to agree that he is only here to waste people's time with his "research", which is irrelevant, incoherent crap. Reyk _YO! 22:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Changing opinion to oppose block- It seems MS is capable of writing credible articles on astronomical topics. As long as we get a commitment to leave his original research out of Wikipedia, there is no reason MS cannot be a productive editor. Reyk _YO! 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the articles were a response to a suggestion made here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group to disambiguate and mentioned here User talk:Spartaz/Archive15#Dominant_group. I also asked User talk:Spartaz/Archive15, "I just read the next entry regarding another article where you are asking if the article creator is asking to have you review the close. If this is possible, and you can, please do so for 'Dominant group'." To which there was the response "I will come back with a response to your comments later today as I'm about6 to take my kids out to play in the woods for a couple of hours.", which I guess was done but not in writing. The close allowed a later article to be created if the new one was different, which I believed (still do) it was sufficiently. But the admin decided it was not and deleted it. So now we are here. And, I am still a productive contributor: Cometary globule. No further 'dominant group' or related articles will originate from me and be put in article space, nor will I contribute further unless asked. Further research will be filed elsewhere. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose to continue adding incoherent garbage on other topics, as with your Repellor vehicle article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, you know I don't always approve of your grumpy words, but the gist of your question is valid (see my comment at the AfD). Drmies (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• I see that the editor has shown no interest in contributing to the AfD discussions. That is troubling already. Their response here is a bit heartening, though. Anyway, it is clear to me that these articles are synthesis, and this is no place for it. That these articles were asked for sounds specious to me. Moreover, the AfDs clearly indicate that community consensus is against them. I was going to call for a block, even a ban, edit-conflicted with Reyk and Marshallsumter, and the latter's response takes the wind out of my sails. Anyway, what I would propose is a ban on creating new articles unless User:Marshallsumter agrees to study WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and agrees to not create any more articles that fall foul of those guidelines. I would construe that broadly, very broadly--and I don't know if that would be acceptable or not, but that is a way to prevent further disruption. Leaving the current articles alone while the AfDs run their course (they're on a fast train to deletion, on a snow-covered and therefore fast track) is a good start. If Marshallsumter can keep their word, "No further 'dominant group' or related articles will originate from me and be put in article space", to which I'd like to see them add "or user space", then I'm satisfied. Marshallsumter, you know that you interpreted this 'request' all too broadly; please don't do so again. Contributions are appreciated, but here we are, with an ANI thread and a dozen AfDs to plow through and close, and that is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As it seems my understanding of 'original research', even after reading all of wikipedia's text on the subject differs from this group, may I suggest the following: I like to have people read my contributions, especially before put into article space, but my efforts in the past to get them read has been frustrating. If you would like, the next one I create I would be happy to request whomever's input where ever that might be convenient. My only restriction is this: you need to be a registered user and have written at least 20 articles that have been here for more than a year. Hopefully, this is fair. What do you think? Marshallsumter (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• In a nutshell: putting together Darwin's uses of "dominant" with "group," that's a kind of synthesis. That's the work of scientists, not of Wikipedia editor. If a person is both, that's legal (at least where I live), but scientific writing (which really by definition is synthesis and/or original research) is not for Wikipedia. As far as editors are concerned, you're talking about a kind of mentorship. The list of interest editors at Wikpedia:WikiProject Science is not regularly updates, and I don't know anyone active in your field (whatever field that is...). I'm tempted to nominate User:Materialscientist, but I nominate him for everything. Anyway, you will want someone with both a knowledge of Wikipedia and some working knowledge of science, I imagine. We have such editors here; maybe some of them frequent this page and are able and willing. I have no desire to block you; I'd rather have good contributions. But I also like a place that requires less mopping, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support indef block. This editor cannot understand Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. His creations are too often incoherent. His articles frequently get nominated for deletion. If he were unable to edit it would waste less time for productive editors. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have to admit some confusion. I think that Marshallsumter has been productive in the past, he created a number of articles and was granted the "autopatrolled" right (which he still has). He also received a DYK for Io as an X-ray source. So what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atama (talk • contribs)
  • Who are you asking? (I'm not being facetious.) Drmies (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Marshallsumter's forays into social science have been disastrous—plagued with synthesis, incoherence, lack of clear topic and full of original research. Here are the relevant deletion discussions, the ones which ended in delete: Sex integration and ageism, Sex integration and patriarchy/matriarchy, Violence and sex integration, Achieving sex integration, Religion and sex integration, and Sex integration and homosexuality. This discussion ended in a redirect: Occupational sex integration. This discussion resulted in a 'keep' decision with the article trimmed by 33%: Egalitarian mortality. The editor is best suited to astronomy and other hard sciences, but is at sea in the social sciences. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to insert a comment here: other articles in the social sciences that are doing okay: Sex-neutral skill, Sex integration, Religion and sex segregation, Origin of sex segregation, and Occupational gender segregation. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Binksternet, that is a pretty damning list of diffs. I wonder if Marshallsumter has any comment. But what do you think? Do you have any proposals? Drmies (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell from my skim of his edit history (below), the problem is that he has not demonstrated any ability to tell what is and isn't WP:N, WP:SYN, and WP:NOR. If "Sun as an X-ray source" and the resulting WT:AST thread is any guide, I'd wait for "Io as an X-ray source" to be vetted by WT:AST//WT:ASTRO before endorsing it as an example of a good article (as opposed to a content fork of the relevant section of Astronomical X-ray sources). I am not convinced, based on the history skim, that the autopatrolled flag or the DYK selection is a reliable quality indicator. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support non-indefinite block. This came up at WT:AST over Sun as an X-ray source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've just taken a look at M's last 2500 edits or so (and that's just this year), and the vast majority seem to be synthesis-related (albeit with a substantial minority being things like minor linking). He's extremely prolific, and while I'm willing to assume he's acting in good faith, it's going to take person-months of effort to vet what he's done and clean up all of the messes that have inadvertently been created. Per above, he also has a large collection of both drafts he's moved to user-space and personal forks of articles, which means all of this is likely to happen again in the future. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • True dat, on the user subpages. They need to be removed. There are articles also which I'm not qualified to judge (a quick look at Star fission reveals that the writing is certainly not wholly encyclopedic). But block or ban or not, those need to be perused anyway. The critical point, IMO, is article creation, also per Lady below. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• At the very least, the "autopatrolled" status needs to be removed immediately. That so many articles so clearly in violation of NOR were created by one user indicates that other people need to be reviewing his or her work. With that addition, I could agree to Drmies's proposal. LadyofShalott 23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, no one who gets more than 10 articles deleted in such a short amount of time should be autopatrol...--Cerejota (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

autopatrol is removed. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• oppose indef, support remove autopatrol and remove article creation rights (ie force WP:AFC) - I am the nominator of a large number of the Dominantgroupcruft, but indef here seems excessive and punitve. Marshallsumter is communicative and has not been uncivil or performed vandalism, but clearly cannot be allowed to create articles for now. I suggest an indefinite ban to be revised upon request either every three months or after successful creation via AfC of ten articles (ie if denied then create ten more). Some people here are out for blood, but lets focus on the real problem: lack of judgement in creating articles.--Cerejota (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Quick comment. Understanding the essence of the whole WP:NOR guideline can be difficult; I've had problems in the past properly grasping exactly what it means, although I grasp it now. It sometimes takes time to get the hang of it, particularly if a person is predisposed to thinking and researching.Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree WP:OR can be hard to grasp and contentious when talking about article content, and in particular WP:SYNTH is an issue, but I disagree that is the case with article creation, WP:NOR is fairly straight forward: if a topic only exists in your mind, then it is not worthy of inclusion. And the deletion discussion of Dominant group made that clear to this user. This becomes an issue of willful ignorance and we must take action to protect the wiki. THis user can take the elimination of the privilege to create articles directly as an opportunity to learn the letter and spirit of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH.--Cerejota (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems rather fierce and somewhat punitive. Some of us Wikipedians (myself included) have learnt by making mistakes. That's all I'm saying. I am not familiar with the specifics of this user or those articles. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Punitive is the indef block proposal, which I suggest be reversed by those who support it and proposed it. Removing the privilege of article creation from someone who in this very thread is telling us he disregards our article creation policies, is not punitive, it is the every definition of protecting the wiki. When the community is satisfied the rules are understood, then the ban is removed - no harm done.--Cerejota (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd see a block here as preventative, not punitive: the point is to not have even more volunteer-months of vetting and likely cleanup to do. I'm open to other options, but at minimum, whatever option is chosen should result in the articles-to-vet queue shrinking rather than growing. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support removal of article creation rights - having spent the better part of a morning last week looking through this editor's history, I think they clearly need more practice editing articles and learning wikipedia protocols. I'm not convinced at all that this editor is willing to do so, but at the very least, they should not be allowed to create new articles.AstroCog (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Guys, that isn't possible. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Not through technical means, but a topic ban certainly is possible. Reyk _YO! 01:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict)Entirely possible, its called a ban. Or bans are only for interaction and topics/articles? --Cerejota (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think an edit filter could do it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that we should perhaps look further into the content of the article posted by Marshallsumter at Wikiversity. In particular, I refer to the section entitled "Hoax hypothesis": "Specifically, the principal investigator (PI) is perpetrating an elaborate (or maybe not so elaborate) hoax on the Wikiversity community by passing off nonsense as real research and fact". I would like to see an explanation as to what 'research' he considered that he was conducting on Wikipedia, and an indication as to whether he intends to continue with this supposed 'research'. Given what he has written in Wikiversity, I think there may be strong grounds for assuming that his disruption was intentional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea is to disprove all hypotheses except the 'Term hypothesis' and to determine what type of term it is. I have found one source that's helping with that: "One dictionary has been found which does contain a definition of dominant group: "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society." Moseby's Medical Dictionary. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that definition is bollocks too. Nobody with any real understanding of the social sciences will assert that a society has a single 'value system'. Ridiculous. Still, if you use medical dictionaries for definitions of social science topics, what do you expect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, when I read though his articles last week, my first thought was "This reads like the Sokal Hoax."AstroCog (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I second that, when I first saw the Dominantgroupcruft farm, mfw: WIKISOKAL. Then I thought this was the guy from San Diego with autism that has created one of the largest sock farms ever (I forget the name) but then I saw the coherent communication at Dominat group so then I decided this was willful. Hoax or not hoax, no article creation and lets see what the edits are to see if further blocking is warranted. I think this should go to ArbCom if its more serious because of the interwiki component...--Cerejota (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Having now had time to read the Wikiversity page, I am also concerned about this "research project". It is one thing to research how a particular topic is treated on Wikipedia. It is quite another to deliberately provoke reactions from people and then collect those reactions... If that is not what has occurred here, I would like an explantation of how I'm misinterpreting it. None of us gave consent to participate in someone's research experiment. LadyofShalott 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You haven't been but you've made comments that I consider valuable and I noted them there. Unless I'm mistaken these are in the public domain. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The above comment was added by marshall while i was writing my comment below. If what he just wrote is what it sounds like, that he is using our current comments as part of his research, he needs to be banned indefinitely. if i am mistaken, heres my thoughts before he wrote the above statement:

I havent read the Wikiversity page from start to finish, and i havent reviewed all of their edits, but im struck by the notion that they may be contributing material to the target "population" (hopefully this refers to articles not people) they are studying. If they are in fact editing material (WP) that they are using as the basis for their research, thats really, really, really bad research practice, like "lose your funding, your tenure, your job" bad practice. So we have either have an editor who is clueless as to original research, an editor who is deliberately writing bad articles to gauge responses, an editor who is using us editors as unwilling research subjects, or an editor who is engaged in flat out unethical research in their field (or some other as yet undetermined activity). I would support a total ban on article creation, a topic ban on any specialized fields where the technical level of discourse make it hard to judge content, and before that a time limited ban, say 6 months, along with hopefully someone who can mentor them. I also need an explanation from the editor that makes sense of all this arcane language at the wikiversity page, and explains in laymans terms what they were doing, and full Mea Culpas if they were doing any of their editing here as a research project with WP or the editors of WP as the subjects. I also would need to see all their subpages deleted that in any way mirror deleted articles or appear to be new articles blooming. I just dont feel comfortable with this material and this editor, and dont trust they are being upfront with us. I do, however, greatly appreciate that they are willing to talk with us and at least make some effort to stop some of the contentious editing. If they are actually a respected scientist in their field of expertise, i would love if they could tell someone who they are, who can confirm that without "outing" them. I would hate to lose an actual scientist or academic to our project.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether Marshallsumter is an 'actual scientist' or not I don't know - though what he is doing is self-evidently not 'actual science'. So, I'll put something else into the 'public domain' too - he is either a troll, exceptionally stupid, or just plain nuts (or any combination thereof). His last response suggests that he either doesn't understand the problem, or doesn't care - either way, he needs to be given the boot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've skimmed the linked wikiversity article about three times so far. As far as I can tell, it'd be best described as an "armchair research" hobby project: something he's doing for his own purposes that would be better described as "inspired by academic research" than called "academic research" itself ("goal is to disprove hypotheses A, B, and C and prove hypothesis D" was an especially clear indicator of this). Wikiversity isn't a university; it's a repository for people to create content that they feel might be useful to universities (much as WikiBooks lets you create textbook-like content). Long story short, the "research" appears to be a harmless personal project rather than any form of actual institutional meddling in Wikipedia.

That said, I don't know exactly what he's trying to do or how Wikipedia comes into this. I've found that I usually have an easier time of things if I focus on peoples' actions on Wikipedia, rather than trying to delve too deeply into their motivations (ObCaveat that you guys may be better at understanding people than i am). For practical purposes, the Wikiversity page doesn't matter much (beyond potentially giving reason to ask M, "are you deliberately writing articles that violate WP:V/WP:OR?"). What mostly matters is the article creation spree on this wiki, with mixed quality and a lot of review hours needed. How to deal with that is (justifiably) under debate. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban on article creation, but disagree that it is sufficient: in the first round of mass AfDs of sex integration-related articles, I seem to recall that the user responded to the impending deletion by adding the material in question to other articles (without indicating that it was a "merge" from an article about to be deleted). From what I've seen of his contributions, I think a topic ban on social sciences, broadly defined would be appropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I also read the Wikiversity article, and it seems to show a clear intention to use Wikipedia for something in direct contradiction to its fundamental purposes. If I understand it correctly (and no promises that I have--that thing is a mess), the logic is that xe uses Wikipedia itself as a test to so whether or not a definition exists for "dominant group", basically by throwing up every single possible definition in each field xe can think of, and then see if any of them survive our editing/deletion process. That is using Wikipedia to create new knowledge; we simply aren't here to do that. Would we allow a user to upload hundreds of images under various fair use rationale to test what a common understanding of "fair use" is among Wikipedia users? Would we allow someone to deliberately vandalize with the intent of testing human or AI ability to spot vandalism of various types? It is absolutely disruptive for dozens of other editors to now have to sort through xyr contributions to see if there is any actual, non-original research, verified information in the articles that is worth saving. Since Roscelese pointed out that this information extends to adding information to existing articles, an article creation topic ban is not sufficient. Since some of the articles, like Repellor vehicle fall outside of the social sciences, a ban there would be insufficient. More importantly, since Marshallsumter's fundamental purpose in using Wikipedia could easily be re-adapted to any topic, while retaining the same type of disruption, I cannot see any way to safely allow the user to keep editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Give him a cookie for good faith effort. He/she created ~270 new articles, and at least some of them (like Perinuclear space) are very much valid. Unfortunately, I do not have time to look at all pages created by him. Perhaps some of them should be deleted, but this must be decided by consensus at AfD. Biophys (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Site ban and nuke all pages created. The user clearly does not intend to abide by our core policy WP:NOR. After a look at their page creations, it is transparent that most or all of them are original research and that Marshallsumter does not intend to stop engaging in such. For instance, their most recent creation, User:Marshallsumter/Radiative dynamo, appears to be entirely original research by synthesis: while I have very little knowledge of physics, the term "radiative dynamo" is found almost nowhere on the Web except on Wikipedia and its mirrors, according to Google. It appears a reasonable assumption that all their contributions are at risk of being likewise deficient, and so require deletion as a precautionary measure. A ban on article creation is not sufficient, as that would not prevent the addition of original research to other pages.  Sandstein  05:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, it turns out to be a WP:SYNTH-ish spin on a real concept. That triplet of articles (Radiative dynamo, Shell dynamo, and Distributive dynamo) describe various components of the interior flow within stars that generates their magnetic fields. The problem is we'd need a dedicated astrophysicist (with a university subscription to appropriate journal databases) to figure out what's synthesis, what's not, and what the final merged-and-trimmed article should look like (probably merged into stellar magnetic field and solar dynamo, though it'd be a shame to lose the more detailed content if it turns out to be verifiable). I made WP:AST aware of this triplet; what's needed is a long time spent with a mop while about three different wikiprojects work through the full article list and do merge/cleanup work. Preferably without any more such articles being generated in the meantime. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ummm, this one pretty clearly falls into the category of "crazy shit". Yup, ban it, nuke it, get rid of it. And stop wasting people's time by trying to take it seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support three week block + indefinite ban on article creation - seeing the extent of Marshallsumter's creation of synthesis pages, including the sex integration ones. As s/he has been a productive contributor in molecular biology and astronomy before, some form of mentorship might be appropriate. I don't think Marshallsumter should be allowed to edit until we've sorted out the mess s/he's caused. S Larctia (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I came across this user's articles a few months ago, and they certainly had a distinctive style which made them easy to spot without checking the history. I notified MS of this here (diff) and he then sent a very reasonable reply indicating he had accepted some of my criticisms. This 'research' seems misguided but I don't think a block is called for, certainly not indef. The user appears to be willing to self-impose a ban on article creation by having them vetted first (AfC?) Jebus989^✰ 07:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've seen AfC proposed a few times here, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that's probably a bad idea. I've seen a fair amount of dubious material pass through it despite the best efforts of the people manning the queue. It mostly functions to stop pages containing blatant vandalism, prank pages, or completely meritless content from being created. For articles like M's which take a specialist to make heads or tails of, I'd fear that AfC would function as a rubber-stamp and we'd be back to the status quo. Mentorship might work, but you're going to need experts in at least three unrelated disciplines to vet all of the topics M has been writing about over the last year or two, and he's prolific enough that it would be a full-time job to evaluate everything he wants to write. I'll be the first to cheer if you find volunteers for this, but I'm not sure it'll end up being practical. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with this actually, AfC would likely not pick up the issues we expect to see in this editor's articles. And the volume of articles produced thus far has created a significant workload; I tidied a couple myself before leaving him the above message and would not fancy repeating that on a hundred more. The fact that the user responds reasonably to criticism, though, makes me hope that this thread will be a wakeup call and serious action can be avoided Jebus989^✰ 08:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support block with a caveat - Obviously this user has some issues that need worked out, though I see no reason to take it any further than the minimum required to achieve the desired results. I see way too many people above that are quick to jump on the bandwagon of an indef block based on information they don't really understand. I'm an educated man, I took college-level astronomy, and I will be the first to say I'm nowhere near qualified to pass judgment on the legitimacy of most of this user's articles, I don't think there are more than a handful of people on the project that truly are. Typically absurd Sandstein-style hyperbole like "nuke all pages created" just show a disturbing level of cluelessness that makes me remember why too much Wikipedia gives me migraines. Action obviously needs to be taken, but I don't think that it involves more than the minimum block needed to protect the encyclopedia (blocks are not punitive. period. full stop.) and to recruit the correct people to verify this user's other created content. For the time being, I think we need to start with removal of article creation rights, and see where we stand after that. Trusilver 07:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ban and nuke. MS seems to be continuing his behaviour despite this AN/I thread (see User:Marshallsumter/By definition, especially the section on Impredicativity: the individual sentences make sense and are true, the article as a whole is utter nonsense) Sampling a few of the articles, they seem to be created by copying and pasting sentences from various journal papers into an incoherent whole. Unless someone is willing to vouch for the accuracy of particular articles, I strongly suggest indiscriminately nuking all articles he created. —Ruud 11:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Having previously extended good-faith to this user, I checked one of his articles for evidence of the above claim. The entire article was copy and paste. Several setences were copied from their respective 'main' articles on wikipedia (e.g. hypotrohpy section, RUNX2 section) while other sentences were copied word for word from their cited sources; examples:

article: The HY box is the core promoter element responsive to RUNX2 in the human gene COL10A1 promoter

source: the HY box is the core element responsive to RUNX-2 in human COL10A1 promoter

article: The Runx2 site on the type X collagen promoter is required for canonical Wnt induction of col10a1.

source: the Runx2 site on type X collagen promoter is required for canonical Wnt induction of col10a1

Both of these were copied word-for-word from the abstracts of the respective sources, both under copyright. I retract my earlier good-faith assumptions, a large number of this user's articles may be copyvios Jebus989^✰ 11:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The same is true for other articles, e.g. Phosphate transistasis has:

"positive feedback loop in which Ras signaling promotes CD44v6 splicing, and CD44v6 then sustains late Ras signaling, which is important for cell cycle progression" (without quotes) verbatim from this; and

"the dominant feedback mechanism [in this cell type] appears to be Ca2+ stimulation of phospholipase C once this enzyme has been activated by hormone receptors" (without quotes) verbatim except for 4 bracketed words from this.

-- 202.124.75.185 (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ban. Like Jebus, I also retract my earlier good-faith suggestion. Given the (admittedly barely comprehensible) mess at Wikiversity, the odd answers and suggestions given here and the general cryptic nature of their communications, the extent of dubious article creation tainted by charges of plagiarism and doubt about the facts, the broad reach of their original research and synthesis and their apparent unwillingness to understand those basic concepts (I thought it was incapability, but I know suspect bad faith in the existentialist sense), I think we have little option but to block/ban and hope that we can clean up this mess. I don't know if nuking is the way to go; I'll leave that to the experts. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• In light of the copyvios, and mostly because of the research, I've blocked Marshallsumter indefinitely. I've encouraged him to read over WP:COPYVIO to help with that problem, but I don't see that he can remain a contributor while he is conducting this research; it can have a chilling effect much like a legal threat. Users will need to go over his contributions to check for more copyvios, which the below should help with. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support nuking the articles, a topic ban and an article creation ban might be sufficient here instead of a full Site Ban. This user since 2008 has 8,821 live edits still, which suggests that they were contributing before this recent mess which is really bad. If this user decides to give up this disruptive "research" project he/she might want to come back as just a normal editor. Hobartimus (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure "8800 edits" is a good thing. The 2500 that I skimmed looked a whole lot like more of the "recent mess", and I have a nasty suspicion that all of them might end up being the same mixture (some wikignoming, quite a bit of synthesis, and quite a lot of linking to his synthesis articles). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban. We have a prolific and credentialled editor who is generating lots of content. Unfortunately, that content cannot be trusted even though it may have lots of citations. High productivity and questionable content creates a lot of work for other editors. On the whole, there's a lot of damage to WP. It reminds me of an editor adding a lot of cited material about ancient mathematicians: half the material was right, but half of it was wrong. The problem is bigger than just creating articles. Stop the damage. Glrx (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ban - the "research", the copyvios... this editor is a net drain on the project, not an asset. LadyofShalott 21:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Site ban and nuke all articles - per Sandstein. I took the time to examine a number of the articles, and too many of those I could understand were totally OR. The ones I couldn't understand need to be examined by an expert, but I feel that given the quality of the other articles, the assumption should be that an article created by this editor is suspect unless someone with expertise clears it. In any case, we are not a specialist encyclopedia, and an article on any topic with is not comprehensible to a reasonably intelligent adult shouldn't be here. The safest choice here is deletion of all the editor's articles, and a permanent site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that it would be great if the articles could be cored sooner rather than later: I have a feelinng we may be in Sokal territory here (deliberately or not), and the longer these suspect articles are in the project, the more our reputation for accuracy takes a hit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I analyzed a few articles where I had sufficient knowledge to do so Basically they consist of a random sampling of material from sources somewhat related to the topic. So, while each sentence had some legitimacy somewhere, as articles they were random gibberish. We have a big problem here. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ban and delete It's clear we have a massive problem here, and if North8000's findings ring true for the whole list, we basically have a series of worthless articles. Combined with the copyvios and the copy-paste moves into userspace, we are left with a huge amount of cleanup to do. N419BH 18:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm up to 4 articles, and the situation was the same on all 4. I have a new theory. This is a second experiment about Wikipedia... generate random collections of material as hundreds of articles, intelligent-sounding, where each sentence is legit somewhere but where the article is gibberish. And see how long before it gets discovered.  :-) North8000 (talk)

Category

I created Category:Articles created by User:Marshallsumter based on the list from Soxred93's tool. Currently has top 100, but will add full list soon. This is to aid on cleanup. A cursory look revels most of the material is not deletable, but alot is mergable, some of it redundant (as such WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK) and otherwise problematic. I am tagging with "expert" attention tags as I get time. Please help by tagging the articles with the category and deleting from the list.--Cerejota (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I've pinged the astronomy project about it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I update the cat with the list, and added a few to the cats and commented them out of the list, please help with that part too ;)--Cerejota (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Before too many AfDs get under way/too much cleanup work is done I suggest waiting until the copyright status of these articles becomes clear (see above). All the ones I have seen have sections copied from other WP articles without attribution (WP:CWW) and at least one contains copy-and-pasted copyrighted material (I would bet many more do) Jebus989^✰ 12:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that most PubMed abstracts (such as that one quoted at above) are available under NIH free access policy, and therefore their use is not a copyright violation per se. And even if there is a copyright violation, one should only remove a part of the text, not the article. Looking at Structural phosphate, some parts of the text are written by someone who was well-intended, but did not clearly understand the subject and terminology ("The structural phosphate becomes the hydrolyzed nucleotide" or "EC 4.1.3.8 contains one structural phosphate"). This is all fixable. Biophys (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Free access does not mean public domain material, it just means they are granting you access without charging you. See the PMC copyright notice at NIH. —SpacemanSpiff 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

also when dealing with non-attributed copy-paste, make sure the material is restored in the original source, some of these were forked with material removed.--Cerejota (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Cerejota is in my understanding correct: the abstract is publicly available, but in most cases it otherwise remains under the same copyright restrictions as the article, and may be viewed, but not republished. NIH copyright policy--the abstracts are not written by pubmed staff, but transcribed from the article. Open access is much less than "free" in the sense WP uses it. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I was not the one who commented on pub med, I simply spoke about internal attribution, a topic I am very familiar with (see below soon).--Cerejota (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• More generally, under our own copyright policy, anyone may use Wikipedia content as they see fit as long as they preserve attribution. This does not mean they may contribute to Wikipedia content as they see fit. Wikipedia:Research isa guideline, not policy, but I think it has wide consensus, and says "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, even if that point is in the name of research." If these articles are true research, it appears to me that the point is to examine what a community of people judge to be a fixed phrase as distinct for am ad hoc combination. Introducing a large number of very questionable articles under this guise is indeed disrupting Wikipedia. It might have been reasonable to test a few articles, choosing ones where acceptance by the community would be a real possibility, and be guided by the results. I doubt it would ever be acceptable to introduce articles that any reasonable person would know to be unacceptable, just to see how we get them out--certainly not in such numbers. There are quite enough genuine AfD discussions to observe. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I draw your attention to {{Notice-history-incomplete}} and {{Notice-history-incomplete-multi}} templates I created in 2007 for the purpose of drawing attention to attribution issues. So I am very familiar with these questions, and for some time :) I know we are now CC etc, I am just giving you an idea of the time frames we are talking here...--Cerejota (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated {{CWW}} and {{CWW-multi}}--Cerejota (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• DELETE IT ALL. I strongly suspect that there is a lot of copyvio buried here along with all the synthesis. I think the only clean way to root it out is just to delete it. Example: I tried some searches for phrases in calibrated camera (a topic that I believe can be encyclopedic) and found many long phrases copied from this 1987 paper. Together with the other known problems in this work I believe the cost of trying to salvage anything from them is too high, and the benefit too small, to do anything but delete them all. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That was pretty egregious. Article deleted. — Scientizzle 17:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That was one of the ones I reviewed in depth and found to be a random gibberish collection of material. So we have a random gibberish collection of copy vio's. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as much as possible. I'm an astrophysicist, and I tried to edit some of Marshallsumter's bad articles (Proton-proton annihilation and Stellar surface fusion among others. They're incredibly disruptive articles---they seem to consist of vague keyword searches, assembled into boilerplate pseudo-articles citing every Google Scholar hit on a few related terms; furthermore, they link densely to one another, creating a tiny distorted walled-garden-pedia which I presume is the point of the disruption. Please scour it away before any more editors make my mistake---and waste time trying to "improve" this hall of mirrors. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 02:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as much as possible I analyzed some where I had the knowledge to do so and found them to be a random gibberish collection of material from elsewhere. I'm starting to suspect that this is some kind of a giant HOAX. North8000 (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Some texts indeed remind computer-generated combinations of paragraphs taken from wikipedia and other sources like texts in WikiGenes [49]. But such texts can be used as initial version for human editing, and some articles created by him have been corrected by other editors (like here. So, please respect their contributions. No blank deletion without review, please. Biophys (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the linked example. First, it appears to have the same problem, though I am not an expert in that field. Other than the first sentence, it appears to be a random collection of related material from elsewhere. Again, each sentence is legitimate/correct somewhere and has some relationship to the topic, but there is no real article writing writing here, and, as an article it is total gibberish. It has had only a tiny amount of work (like adding a ref) by others, no rewriting. Plus, regarding building a real article, the current state is "less than zero". Trying to edit such a random mess into a article would probably start with, after dozens of hours of careful deliberation, removing 100% of the content and then starting over. North8000 (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the Perinuclear space is not a good coherent article. But it is not a "total gibberish". No, this is more "than zero", because it defines the subject and provides some sourced information about the subject. I have seen many articles much worse than that. Neither of them was (or could be) deleted after AfD discussions. This is wikipedia, not Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Biophys (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There might be a problem with using Category:Articles created by User:Marshallsumter to hold the list. I assumed incorrectly that it was a category (WP:Categorization applied to individual pages). Since it's in Category: space, the page cannot be moved or renamed normally. Moving it will require a cut/paste + list of authors, so sooner is better than later. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio issues

A number of instances of copyvio were noted above. Perinuclear space is also a problem, since that article talk page includes an admission of WP:CWW. -- 202.124.74.191 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Should I open a WP:CCI? MER-C 02:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a wise move at this point. LadyofShalott 02:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I still favor the nuclear option. No offense to the diligent folks who work there, but cleaning up through CCI can take a long time, and there are serious issues here beyond COPYVIO, particularly NOR and possibly HOAX. I don't believe this editor is any longer worthy of AGF: nuke now and ask questions later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The easiest option might be to PROD every article this editor has created, on the basis of probable WP:OR and copyvio, and then handle the ones that survive. -- 202.124.73.9 (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Prod isn't even necessary. Just delete them. A CCI will identify his contributions to existing articles. MER-C 03:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef block and delete all Please do not open a copyright investigation. As others have stated, whether intended or not, the text introduced by the editor is indistinguishable from a hoax (albeit clever enough to waste vaste amounts of time from WP:AGF). Accordingly, the editor should be indefinitely blocked and all content should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it mean that Wikigenes is a copyright violation? The entire resource consists from computer-generated combinations of phrases taken from PubMed abstracts [50]. No one complained about copyright violation in wikigenes. Biophys (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't comment on WikiGenes, but it's copyvio for Wikipedia to copy from copyrighted abstracts. -- 202.124.73.227 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiGenes can probably claim "fair use" in a way that Wikipedia's licensing terms do not permit. -- 202.124.73.227 (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• No CCI, just G12 A CCI seems an incredible waste of time and space for this given all the other problems. In this case if two editors identify copyright issues in parts of the article they just ought to be deleted. A modified version of G12. {{db-G12|url=See Marshallsumter discussion at ANI; text in this article has been copied from xxx}} —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I second that and get all the open AfDs closed as delete per SNOW or G12.--Cerejota (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest that, per normal practise, we G12 cases which are obvious copyright violations, and send others (such as Io as an X-ray source) where the copyright violation is much less clear, to the copyright noticeboard. S Larctia (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Io as an X-ray source was not an unclear case. It had many long phrases copied from this 2002 paper. Someone else replaced its content with a copyvio notice and I have deleted it per G12. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Site ban, and delete most articles. All of the articles by this editor I have looked at have WP:CWW problems, many of them have direct copyvios from the references, and most of them seem in fact to be barely coherent juxtapositions of quotations from the cited sources. It may be possible that there is some small amount of worthwhile content out there, but I suggest that articles be deleted with prejudice unless a very good reason can be found to keep them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment the user also seems to be copying articles they created from main space to a subpage of their user page User:Marshallsumter/Repellor vehicle is from Repellor vehicle. In doing so they seem to be copying the most recent version ([51] is in their subpages), regardless of changes by other users in the interim and without noting the source which is a likely to be deleted article. I.E. They are violating contributors copyrights. It seems they don't understand they need to request an article be moved, along with the history, to their user space if it contains contributions not their own. Given this problem (although it sounds like this should be obvious due to the possible copyvios with their content in general), I suggest all their user page sub pages be deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that we need to deal with his user space articles, probably deleting them all, certainly templating and noindexing. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, delete them all. Additionally, they are WP:FAKEARTICLEs created solely to circumvent the community consensus that his articles should be deleted. MER-C 02:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Marshallsumter's continued Wikiversity activity

Over at Wikiversity, Marshallsumter is recreating many of his synth/copyright pages - i.e. [52]. You can find a catalogue of them at his userpage [53], although there are several more. --S Larctia (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Are any WikiVersity admins watching this discussion? I have no idea what the policies are over there, but I would assume that copyvios are verboten there too. LadyofShalott 03:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Count Iblis (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Judging by his talk page on 'versity, I'd assume that at least someone is aware. I couldn't locate anything akin to WP:AN to leave a general notice at, however, so I didn't try to get more eyes on it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The closest there is to WP:AN over there is [54]. However, don't expect to get a positive response. Abd, a banned sockpuppeteer on en.wikipedia is a custodian there, and has essentially told Marshallsumter on his talk page that 1) his en.wiki block was uncalled for 2) his research is suitable for Wikiversity 3) he should copy all the pages that were deleted from Wikipedia for copyright reasons to Wikiversity. Apparently original research, hoaxes and minor copyright violations are alright there as long as they are "educational". Good grief. --S Larctia (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity got exactly what it deserved, if they chose him as a custodian after all the bullshit in wikiversity:Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Abd_2. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So the Foundation doesn't care about copyright there? I don't understand that, but then Wikiversity seems to be a place where almost anything goes - if you write a rubbish article here and it's deleted because it ignores all our policies and guidelines, you seem to be able to add it there. It's almost a reason not to donate to the Foundation. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a general Wikimedia noticeboard to comment about the way that banned Wikipedia users are now running Wikiversity ? :S --S Larctia (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't exactly on topic. I'd suggest starting a thread at one of the village pumps or the mailing list if there's more to discuss. We ain't gonna' be able to solve any such problems here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just popping a few words here from the perspective of someone who has had some positive experiences with the English Wikiversity:

1. Wikiversity is actually a pretty good place for university-level instructors to organize collaborative projects. That's mostly what goes on these days if you look at the RC feed.
2. Wikiversity's mission and scope is poorly defined. This has been good in some ways, but very problematic in others.
3. Like most WMF wikis that aren't the English Wikipedia, there's a certain resistance to following the lead of the English Wikipedia. This sometimes reaches the point where anything the en.wp community says is just assumed to be wrong-headed.
4. There's been a disproportionate amount of "drama" over the past 3 years or so, which has led most of the admins to give up and just ignore anything that might involve yet another drama, so the only people willing to "take on the mantle" these days tend to be people like Ottava Rima and Abd. Speaking for myself, I've pretty much given up now that Abd has yet again become an admin.

If you want to fix en.wv, just become an admin there and fix it. Seriously: I'm a 'crat there, and will happily give tools to any sane admin from WP who's willing to spend a minimal amount of time watching over a very slow project. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing to put out there: Abd is pretty much the guy in charge of RC patrolling and doing admin chores these days. He's also done his share of doing experimental research on the WP community. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The only good thing about Wikiversity is that no-one outside the project has heard of it. If anyone does re-open a "Close it all down" movement, please flag it clearly here too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus here for a ban...

Resolved

 – There is clear and overwhelming consensus for a ban. Deletion issues are being discussed in the sections below. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

...and for deleting all the articles. I know that we try to give ban discussions a good amount of time to come to fruition, but in the meantime, I would think a mass deletion of all the articles would be a good thing. The ban discussion can continue, but deleting the articles protects the project from potential harm -- and DRV can undo any mistakes. I'd like to say again that our rep is at issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I withdraw my previous statement that the articles should be refactored. With this much copyvio, it becomes easier to write new articles from scratch instead. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, having participated in discussion with this editor (for example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (Moon), it is obvious that nothing short of a ban and a wholesale delete will adequately protect the project, as the user in question seems to want to intentionally cause a problem as part of his "research" and so many issues exist with current creations. Moogwrench (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ban - Marshallsumter's extensive copyright violations and deceptive responses are a major issue. Deleting all the articles per CSD G12 is probably the way forward if the copyright violations are ambiguous. --S Larctia (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete all of the articles, and block the individual Offer them due process before a ban. I'm up to checking about 6 articles, and the story was the same on all of them. As an article, random gibberish. A random collection of related material from elsewhere, each piece of material correct and legit elsewhere, but the collection is uninformative random gibberish as an article. And for those topics where an article is in order, the current state is less-than-zero. It would be much easier to start from zero than trying to modify those random messes. Also, all of the 6 IMHO either shouldn't have been a topic or didn't need to be a topic. So even keeping these as one-sentence stubs (which I contemplated suggesting) may be a less-than-zero value situation. Again, this was based on reviewing about 6 articles. My theory is that this is a big hoax which successfully showed a Wikipedian weakness...that (except for copy vios) our policies/guidelines look much more favorably on random messes such as these than they do on the editor activities like summarization and material selectivity that create informative articles. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose to deletion of all his articles without review because some of them appear to be valid (see my comments above). There is an ongoing review process using prods and AfDs, and this is way to go. Biophys (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose deleting all articles without review. Some are okay. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose deleting articles. How about some people do something totally amazing and actually do a little research before giving a dismissive shrug and saying "delete everything"? I've spent a day and a half now picking through these articles one by one and checking the references for them. A majority of them are so filled with OR and SYNTH issues that they are totally beyond redemption, but there's still a sizable chunk of legitimate articles here. Trusilver 15:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Any examples of legitimate articles which make sense, aren't made up of copyvios and non-attributed CWW and are devoid of OR? Jebus989^✰ 17:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, even ONE example of an article which informs, makes sense, and was actually written about the topic vs. a random collage generation would certainly sway me to say slow down. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I went through fourteen articles yesterday that this individual created, about half of them I am in agreement to delete, a few I'm unsure of, but I'm supporting keeping Propulsion system, List of human hair color genes needs work by someone that knows what they are talking about, but is still legitimate. List of solar X-ray astronomy satellites is good. Sounding rocket X-ray astronomy looks like it has some potential or at least some worthwhile information to merge into Sounding rocket but I've spent 10 hours in the last two days reading this guy's writing, and I'm too burned out at this point to even consider doing any more today. Trusilver 17:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see an articlre for this editor that held up under close scrutiny. Propulsion system, for example, has massive WP:CWW. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but IMHO that "better" article Propulsion system isn't even a legit article topic and as an article is worthless. That's like writing an article on "wheels for movement" and then putting in material on various things in the world that move with wheels. A section describing automobiles, a section describing trains, roller skates etc.

I spent time fixing articles months ago (e.g. HY box and degenerate nucleotide) but I've seen enough in the thread above and in this user's contribution history to honestly think deleting everything is going to save a number of users a lot of time and effort, at little or no loss to the encyclopedia. When you add to this the legal implications of the copyvios (which appear to be widespread in these articles) and to a lesser extent the CC violations of copying from other articles without attribution, I think a quick mass delete becomes the only viable option Jebus989^✰ 18:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate the idea of deleting content that is good, but at the same time I DO have a very easy time seeing your point. I have wasted two days worth of free time reading and researching just a small fraction of this user's articles. So I'm not about to say I don't see the benefits of your suggestion. Trusilver 18:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fair. And I'm not trying to 'drive the point home' but taking a look at List of human hair color genes, which you give as an example of a legitimate article, 'White hair' section is copied from Achromotrichia#Grey and white hair, the dermal matrix melanocyte section is copied from melanosome and possibly others, each other section is copied from its respective "main" article (all unattributed, falling foul of WP:CWW). The table at the end appears to be synthesis, as it bears no reference and links together several gene functions Jebus989^✰ 18:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC) edit: I just picked this one out of your examples as biology is my subject of interest, a quick look at the others suggests the same issues.

• Nuke articles created by MS, reluctantly. I don't think salvage is worth the effort. I'd like an alternative such as propose-delete each, but then we're trusting that someone who removes the tag has also vetted the article against copyright and other problems. I don't think we can choose that alternative. We are aware of many copyright problems, so it is our duty to find them rather than just wait for a copyright holder to complain. I don't think there is a viable half step. Glrx (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Plan B. Propose delete all articles on the list for copyvio, or, and synthesis. After that cycle has run, look at the surviving articles on the list and decide their fate. If too many remain, nuke could still be on the table. Esoteric subjects will still be a problem to judge, but many may not survive propd. Glrx (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I support a community ban. It seems clear that most of this editor's contributions have been deliberately designed to disrupt the project a la the Sokal affair. There's always the Wikipedia:Standard offer. The condition of which that I would like to see enforced is that this editor must make a full public disclosure of his attempts to inject nonsense into the project. It is clear to that this was willful disruption: the admission of a research project is particularly damning in this regard, but the pattern of nonsensical articles also speaks for itself I think. As for whether his articles should be deleted, I also prefer to deal with them on a per case basis. However, I am inclined to err on the side of accidentally deleting possibly good, copyright clean content, rather than to allow bad, misleading, nonsensical, or potentially infringing material to remain in article space. If there is a question about copyrights, plagiarism, copying from other Wikipedia articles without attribution, or OR/SYNTH/nonsense, I am prod'ing or AfD'ing them. About 80% of the articles I have reviewed have had multiple such issues (the other 20% were inconclusive). I don't wish to be overzealous in issuing prods. I would welcome the opportunity to work with any editor on improving any article that I prodded, if someone sees that the content can be rescued. Please stop by my talk page if you wish to discuss this with me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  I spent a few more minutes on Greenland ice cores, and verified a source, [55].  It wasn't a source that would reveal a copyvio.  There was an error in the citation, in that the page listed, 23, was the page that the Acrobat PDF reader reports as the page number, not the page number, 21, that would be found in hard copy.  Here is the comparison from another source with the article:

• We report here measurements of [SO4 2−] and [NO3 −] in firn samples spanning the period 1895–1978. Samples, each covering 1 yr, were taken from a 70-m core drilled at Dye 3, South Greenland; [NO3 −] and [SO4 2−] both increased by a factor of ˜2 during the period.
• Dye 3 1978 to 90 m, measurements of [SO₄^2-] and [NO₃^-] in firn samples spanning the period 1895-1978 are from the Dye 3 1978 core down to 70 m,

In conclusion for this source, no copyvio.  I'm new to the issue of WP:CWW, but at Greenland ice cores it seems that the articles from which the text is copied are clearly identified.  My initial impressions continue to be "keep".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

But this article has image copyvio problems. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• (e/c) I've found copyvios in that article that I won't repeat. See the AfD discussion if you're interested. Let me reiterate an observation that I made there, though: with this editor, if you don't find a copyright violation, then you simply haven't looked hard enough. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• I found even more textual copyvios in the same article. See the AfD for details. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete all articles. There is too little value, and too much copyvio. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • 202, that's not on point: much too vague. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Too little value" -- the overwhelming majority of articles have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues, and even articles that looked OK to me (e.g. on astronomy) have turned out to be problematic when experts looked at them. "Too much copyvio" -- most articles I've seen from this user have copyvio of some kind: copying from sources, WP:CWW, or image copyright problems. The presumption has to be that copyvio exists in them all, unless someone does a very careful check to exclude it. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We still have to look at these on an individual basis. I cited Vertikal, below, as an article that in my opinion (now) is unproblematic. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

202 is overstating the case about image copyright problems and it is not helpful.  One of the "image copyright" issues mentioned at WP:Articles for deletion/Greenland ice cores is a public domain NASA image of Greenland used in 50 articles.  There are two new issues posted within the last hour on two other images from the Neils Bohr Institute, issues that I don't understand, but appear likely to be resolved with return email.  Certainly none of these "image copyright" issues rises to the level that they should be given any weight whatsoever at the current time toward a consideration of banning.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone ever suggested there was a problem with the NASA image at Greenland ice cores, just the others. And it turns out that Greenland ice cores also has text copyvio problems. -- 202.124.72.232 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ban but not nuke. Some articles are OK (see Vertikal), and as tempting as it is to delete the lot and not deal with it, that's probably not something we can do. It's not all gibberish or plagiarism. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

@Drmies - Even in as simple an article as this, there are copyvios. Consider:

Vertikal#Vertikal 10: Electrostatic analyzers aboard Vertikal 10 detected fluxes at night of cold ions moving from the mid-latitude plasmasphere to the ionosphere after launch on December 25, 1981, at 22:35 MLT.[11] The flux velocity is approximately 1000 m/s with a flux density of 0.8-4.0 x 108 cm-2 s-1.

Original source: Electrostatic analyzers aboard the Vertikal'-10 rocket (launched on December 25, 1981 at 22.35 MLT) detected fluxes of cold ions moving from the midlatitude plasmasphere to the ionosphere at night at L = 2. The flux velocity was observed to be approximately 1000 m/s, and the flux density was (0.8-4.0) x 10 to the 8th/sq cm s.

The passage is reffed to the abstract, but the degree of difference between the original and the resulting text is not enough to take it out of the realm of copyright violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Marshallsumter is currently working on his page on Wikiversity, by integrating the discussions we have here about him. His page on Wikiversity even link to delete discussions on Wikipedia. Example: His article "Dominant Group (moon)" was deleted because it was not a valid subject. The discussion about it is now used as a reference in his own research: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dominant_group#Astronomy. He is using us as a jury to decide the existence of some concepts he put as titles for new articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin7x (talk •contribs) 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - he started editing in October 2008. How did this not get picked up before? What was the earliest article created and is it possible to create a complete list of all articles created (including those deleted before this discussion started) rather than have just Category:Articles created by User:Marshallsumter? A complete list of all articles edited might be needed as well. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Manually crawling his contributions and adding the cat is likely to be the best we can do, unless someone wants to write a bot to find everything (and it'd need viewdeleted rights to see many of them). As for the earliest, it appears to be Inhibitory peptide (admin-only link), which was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inhibitory peptide. The second, Riboside, looks fairly kosher at first blush (though I haven't checked for copyvios myself). And the third article he created, List of human ATPase genes, is currently at AfD for the same reasons many of his other articles have problems, so I don't know what can be concluded other than what we already knew. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Is it good for Wikipedia to have a contributor who presents himself as a possible impostor? http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dominant_group#Hoax_hypothesis If he is not an impostor, he should clarify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin7x (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I just took a close look at the first article Riboside that they put up as they initially put it up in 2008 and the gibberish-regarding-being-an-article pattern is already there. It started with a 6 word sentence "defining" it: "A riboside is any glycoside of ribose" and linking to the entire articles on those two words. End of explanation about Riboside. Then it immediately changes the subject to all kinds of sophisticated material which is not about the topic. The only thing in the rest of the article that was about the topic is a brief statement stating that a particular item is an example of a Riboside (taken from a source). I see no attempt there to really write anything about Ribosides nor inform the reader about them. North8000 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete all and ban the creator - I've just been looking at astronomical X-ray source and that is another mish-mash job that seems to have involved pasting together bits from different articles. This is all absolutely horrendous, and I'm still puzzled that no-one spotted these before now. I can only think that they were a walled garden unto themselves and people searching for articles vaguely on these topics were ending up at the real articles with different names (which would rank higher in Google searches, I hope) and that these fraudulent articles were only linked to themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing on two common scenarios on how they "got by" this long. #1 Someone reads it, looks impressive, but they get nothing out of the article. They just think: "I guess I'm not smart enough to understand this article" #2 For folks who know better, but don't have the big-picture context of the overall suspicions, it just looks like one badly written article. There are also sincerely written technical articles with issues that look similar. A lot of piecemeal material which sort of "talks around the edges" of a topic without really explaining / defining it. It takes someone with the rare combination of empathy for the non-expert reader, strong expertise on the subject, ability to write/summarize (violating wp:nor if taken literally) & willingness to spend the time to fix the article. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ban I was initially inclined toward just letting the indef stick. But no fewer than seven articles have been found that are laden with copyvios. Additionally, his behavior at Wikiversity could put the WMF in great legal danger. Seal the vault. Blueboy96 12:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Ban to protect the project, for the reasons given above by Carcharoth and Blueboy96 above. Moreover, even after the mass-deletion of articles created by this user, there is still an immense amount of material to wade through checking for copyvios: the effort involved will soak up many editors' efforts for some time to come. The Wikversity hints about this being a "research activity" are the last straw. -- The Anome (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Exile to WikiVersity. Count Iblis (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Needed: Bold appplication of WP:IAR

I think this situation is precisely the kind of circumstance that IAR was designed for. Sure, we could limp along dealing with this with our usual processes, but as we do, our exposure is greater and greater, and the probability that people will try to use these articles becomes higher. I think it would be much better to speedy delete them under IAR, then if people have concerns that perhaps a good article or two was deleted in the process, specific ones can be userfied for expert examination (or looked at on Wikiversity). Doing it the other way will be much too slow, and too dangerous. Let's start undoing this mess instead of worrying away at it.

If a bold admin (or two or three) isn't willing to step up and do the right thing, then the only other option to cut short our slow-motion car crash would seem to be opening an arbitration case, and who the hell wants that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 Doing..., using the list from X!'s tool. T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The category might be better, because it list those that already survived AfD or otherwise not kosher (ie in AfD). Also gave you barnstar.--Cerejota (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, T. Canens!! I hope you don't get a lot of blowback from this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Orphaned talk pages and broken redirects can be handled in the usual course. No objections to any admin undeleting at their own discretion without consulting me. T. Canens (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the most awesome things I have seen any admin do in a big while... this should go into WikiHistory--Cerejota (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, excellent work! I think we are supposed to have spent at least another week debating whether obvious junk should be deleted, but sometimes common sense does win. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm impressed. Did we get the ones he userfied too? Also, does someone want to judge consensus for a ban? N419BH 07:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

All the self-userfied pages and drafts are also gone. -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

An editor who is indef blocked and just had every article he ever created deleted from the encyclopedia is unlikely to be unblocked any time soon, so there's a de facto ban in place -- but it might still be a good idea to formalize a community ban, just in case somone comes along who doesn't understand the enormity of what this editor did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Now formalized. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• (←) Kudos, T. Canens. AGK [•] 11:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Full support for this sensible action. Dougweller (talk)

11:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good move on the deletions Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• After reading the Wikiversity page, this action was more than needed. I thought we were just dealing with sneaky copyvios, but what this guy is doing is so far from what Wikipedia is that it isn't even funny. Blueboy96 12:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

ATTENTION

If you think any of these articles was worth it, or the topic notable, simply userfy a deletion and work from that (if you are a regular user ask any admin to userfy it for you). Otherwise, simply start the article from scratch - but be careful with WP:CWW issues if you userfy. In my case I already got me one userfied, but I am planning on skipping any WP:CWW by only using infobox and the bare sources/links. I want to minimize giving credit, but do it in a legal way.--Cerejota (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Existing article contributions

While the creations have all been deleted, there are still other articles that have to be checked. e.g. X-ray astronomy. Between this revision and this revision he has added more than 160KB of content to the article, there were a few minor edits by others, but I don't doubt that at least 95% of the added content is from Marshallsumter. In fact, the amount of content added to this article is more than the size of many of the creations. I'm sure there are other articles like this, but these need someone from the relevant wikiprojects to look at them for OR/SYNTH issues and possibly a CCI to address copyvios. —SpacemanSpiff 09:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

On further looking at the history, I see that content was split off from the above example to X-ray astronomy detectors, X-ray astronomy history, and X-ray astrophysical sources and also partially merged to X-ray astronomy satellites etc. So, it's not just direct contributions that need checking. —SpacemanSpiff 10:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Geez, that is a nightmare. What we need is some magic way to lift his contributions out, leaving behind everything else, and then fix the article from there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a list of the articles he edited that weren't article creations. I've gotten through 2008 & 2009. I'll post again when I'm done.Cloveapple (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The contribution survey does that automatically. (It's intermittently broken, just hammer reload a few times. I have a copy saved to my hard disk.) MER-C 10:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, Sounds like I should quit working on my list. Can we put a copy of the contribution survey somewhere central so people could see what articles have been checked and what remains to be done? Maybe something like the list on page Category:Articles created by User:Marshallsumter? Cloveapple (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've dumped it at User:MER-C/Marshallsumter for now. It may be moved under WP:CCI. MER-C 11:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I'd gotten farther on the list then I realized. The list on page Category:Articles edited but not created by User:Marshallsumter has 198 out of 221 contributions. Should I put it up for deletion or would adding the articles to a category be helpful? (I'd only categorized one so far.)Cloveapple (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think in this case a diff listing is more helpful. I have no opinion on the categorization. MER-C 13:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A big chunk of that diff are blatant pastes from various NASA articles, including [56] [57]. Although it's public domain, it doesn't look good. The duplication detector fails on the most used source. I should note that all a CCI is is a listing of major contributions by one editor. While the intention is to look for copyvios, a contribution survey can also be used to eliminate (say) systematic additions of OR or poorly sourced BLP material throughout Wikipedia. MER-C 10:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with MER-C that a diff listing is more helpful. Also, the other articles he has touched have also been edited by multiple other editors and most of them are likely to be regular topics (for lack of a better term), so adding the category, even if it's hidden isn't really a necessity IMO. The article list is available, based on the categories within the articles they could be divvied up to wikiprojects and at least announced on their talk pages as those needing some special attention. —SpacemanSpiff 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

[58] contains a copyvio from [59]. MER-C 10:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at Pulsar, Astronomy, Earthworm, Mosquito, Lightning, Gliese 412, Brown dwarfs, Comparative anatomy, SN 185, Phosphate, and Nuclear Fusion. None had the problem where the article was significantly gibberish. I just gave those articles a quick overall look for that problem, nothing else. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because an article was created by this editor doesn't mean it needs an out of process deletion, which is what has happened here (anytime somebody invokes IAR you know they've broken rules). I can't get uncited BLPs deleted as fast as you've deleted all of Sumter's articles!! So how do you justify THAT?

Because of this "bold" move (why don't you bold people go work on the 1000 BLPs with no source?), I now can't go over gamma-ray production or list of astronomical gamma-ray sources to see what it salvagable. I did contribute some to the first article (as I recall) and that's gone, too. If the second article involved copying a lot of lists from NASA, so what? Many list articles are straight copies, and if the original is a government document meant to be disseminated and copied, so much the better. As a result of this purge (what else to call it??) Wikipedia no longer contains a list of astronomical gamma ray sources. I can invoke WP:IAR to point out that you've harmed the encyclopedia thereby. SBHarris 17:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the "ATTENTION" section above. If you'd like one of the articles userfied in order to fix it, please ask any admin. N419BH 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a pretty strong consensus for the move, a strong rationale for it, and consensus that it was important for doing so. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, neither of the two pages you cited has ever existed on Wikipedia. T. Canens (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the exact names are Gamma-ray generation and Astronomical gamma-ray source. Consider this an asking of an admin. SBHarris 19:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've restored them. If they contain copyvios, it'll be up to you to identify and remove them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Gracias. I will attempt to do so. SBHarris 20:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You may also want to spend a bit of time searching for similar content elsewhere in Wikipedia. M had a history of copy/pasting and forking content, so I'd strongly suspect that the contents of the two articles you link are already represented in some form. If so, consider merging any useful content back into them (after googling phrases and checking the in-article references to check for external cut/paste work). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio is not the only problem here. Given that Marshallsumter has exhausted any benefit of the doubt, these should be deleted again unless Sbharris can positively vouch for the contents being of a coherent and encyclopedic nature (unlike the vast majority of Marshallsumter's work). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. I think this situation is exactly analogous to what happens when a banned editor makes a productive edit, one editor comes along and deletes it by right (as the contrib of a banned user), and another restores it because it's good material. The editor who restores it takes responsibility for the veracity and quality of the edit, as if they were the originator of it. The same thing needs to happen here: articles should probably be userfied rather than directly restored, so that the requesting editor can go over the article and vouch for its contents. Then it can be moved back into articlespace, under the auspices of the vouching editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No problems with deleting all the contributions - there is a provision within WP:CCI that this can be done. In this case, I'll give Sbharris a day or so then follow up with him as to what he's done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read the article Gamma-ray generation, it seems to be ok. except for one paragraph. I don't know anything about the copyright violation issue that is suspected to be at play here, but that can be dealt with by rewriting and expanding some sections. Count Iblis (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? The article was constructed as a pasting together of stuff copied from other articles with the editor demonstrating no understanding of the topic. The articles I looked at that were like this appear to have been machine-generated following a fairly simple and formulaic algorithm. This becomes clear when you compare the content listings for articles such as astronomical X-ray sources and astronomical gamma-ray source:

• 1 X-radiation/Gamma ray
• 2 X-ray source/none
• 3 Astronomical source/Astronomical source
• 4 Celestial X-ray source/Celestial gamma-ray source
• 5 Astronomical X-ray object/Astronomical gamma-ray object
• 6 Extrasolar X-ray source astrometry/Extrasolar gamma-ray source
• 7 X-ray astronomy/Gamma-ray astronomy
• 8 Spectral energy distribution/Spectral energy distribution
• 9 Temporal distribution/Temporal distribution
• 10 Spatial distribution/Spatial distribution
• 11 Diffuse X-ray background/Celestial gamma-ray background
• 12 Visibly dark X-ray source/Visibly dark gamma-ray source
• 13 X-1 X-ray source/First gamma-ray source
• 14 Astronomical X-ray source catalog/Gamma-ray source catalog
• 15 Astrophysical X-ray source/Astrophysical gamma-ray source

And the wording of some of those sections is identical, and nonsensical to boot: "An astronomical source is the start, beginning, or origin of something that suggests or indicates the presence of an astronomical object or astronomical body, where a source is the start, beginning, or origin of something." That is meaningless and self-referential. The same applies to : "The terms astronomical objects and astronomical bodies differ from "celestial objects" and "celestial bodies" only in that the latter terms do not include the Earth." That is not a meaningful thing to copy and paste into articles and seems to be there only for padding due to the lack of having anything really meaningful to say. Ditto for: "Astronomical objects are naturally occurring physical entities, associations or structures that current science has demonstrated to exist in outer space. Such an astronomical object may be only an astronomical gamma-ray object. The term astronomical object is sometimes used interchangeably with astronomical body. Typically an astronomical body refers to a single, cohesive structure that is bound together by gravity (and sometimes by electromagnetism). Examples from visual astronomy include the asteroids, moons, planets and stars. Astronomical objects are gravitationally bound structures that are associated with a position in space, but may consist of multiple independent astronomical bodies or objects." This is just pasting together poorly worded definitions to pad the articles. And the extensive and similarly identical 'see also' sections just confirm that these are walled gardens of formulaic cookie-cutter articles pasted together using extracts from other articles. If you look at a version of gamma ray generation edited by this editor, such as here, you will likely find the text in question copied over from the articles linked to as the 'main article' for each section. The equivalent 'article' for X-rays is X-ray generation, which was turned into a redirect but should probably be deleted. In fact, the articles created by this editor that were turned into redirects should go as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that version of "gamma ray generation" clearly reads like written by someone who doesn't understands what he writes about. But this particular article has undergone some editing by knowlegable editors (like Sbharris), and it seems to me that one can keep this article, rewrite and expand some sections, add some other sections etc. etc. I think that Sbharris who was aleady involved with that article is going to do that. Count Iblis (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be better if any remedial work and initial seeding of any potential article was done by someone who has studied astrophysics to some verifiable level, or is prepared to rigorously use sources (i.e. not making unsourced corrections and additions of proofs like you did to 'Helmholtz free energy'). This can't be left solely to those with an interest in this area of science, or to physicists or doctors who studied different areas of science. There will be those at the Astronomy WikiProject able to do a proper assessment of what is needed here. Please don't risk compounding the mistakes made here by building on something that may mislead those trying to correct it. There are those on Wikipedia who study astrophysics who are able to correct what has happened here. It is those people that need to step up to the plate here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing that amazes me is how he was able to keep this up for over a year--an eternity in Wiki-terms--before getting caught. Especially since he was editing in an area that gets a lot of traffic. Blueboy96 22:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

These aren't the most prominent astronomy related articles, so they don't get the scrutiny other articles get. But I have seen much worse cases. Some core thermodynamics articles were fundamentally flawed for many years. I rewrote quite a few of them in 2008, e.g this article. The problem here was a lack of expertise among the regular editors at the time. At the time, I argued on some policy talk pages that one has to re-think the approach to editing articles on technical subjects, but most editors didn't want to go there. A year later, after a bad experience with an editor on the entropy page, I thought that it is high time to propose a new policy, so I wrote up WP:ESCA, but that went nowhere. It's Wiki-politically incorrect to make such suggestions :( . Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That edit you made to Helmholtz free energy may have corrected things, but it still reads like a high-level textbook page rather than an encyclopedia article. Not many readers will actually learn anything from that article in the state it is in at the moment. Most will just walk away more than a bit befuddled and wondering why there was a need to include a proof and lots of mathematical symbols and formulae. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In contrast to many other thermodynamics subject, Helmholtz free energy is mostly a theoretical physics subject and things like the "Bogoliubov inequality" are notable and they are also used a lot in computations. I would guess that many people do read this page, people who read the technical stuff are mostly physics students and professionals who want to quickly look up things.

The Gibbs free energy is similar to the Helmholtz free energy, but this quantity is used a lot more in chemistry, and then there is more to write about those applications. But there is still some fair amount of math in that article. I have never edited that article though, because the math wasn't flawed when I checked all thermodynamics and statistical physcis articles back in 2008.

And then there are other statistical mechanics articles that are even more heavy in math, some have only been edited by math editors, like Yang–Baxter equation. This article should be rewritten more in the spirit of my edits to Helmholtz free energy, i.e. expanded with more context so that studens can read how it is used. Count Iblis (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

At least it is coherent and has explanatory statements, a step better than many highly technical articles in Wikipedia. But doesn't achieve the ultimate which would be to explain it to the average person of those who would be trying to learn from the article. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for the proton antiproton annihilation article, for which the links exist but not the page. In following up to see what the problem was, I stumbled on this page. Gosh. I just cannot believe you all spend so much time on such discussions, and I am unsure whether to be grateful for your vigilence, or disappointed at your subjectivity. I don't know all the details about the infringements, but in a quick perusal I didn't see any actual factual evidence of copyright infringement -which seemed to be the main complaint - and the whole decision-making process seemed simply a lynching. So you just go and 'nuke' (your words) every article that this person has ever written, regardless of merit? You feel that is a rational response? I'm glad I came and sat in the court spectator gallery - but I don't think I saw a fair trial. John Pons (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It frequently takes something more than a "quick perusal" to uncover copyright violations, and since all the editor's original articles have been deleted (properly so), you have no basis for evaluating the original research and synthesis they contained, so perhaps your judgment might be a little hasty. It may seem like a "lynching" to you, but it took four or five days of evaluation, consideration and debate from a large number of editors before someone acted for the good of the project on the consensus which had formed. If you are familiar with any of the deleted articles, and want to have a go at fixing it up to be a useful and informative contribution to the encyclopedia, you can ask an admin to userfy it to your usespace, where you can work on it until it fulfills our requirements.

On the other hand, with 53 edits in 4 years, 10 of them deleted, and a deleted article which apparently was WP:FRINGE, you may not be in the best position to pass judgement on the proceedings here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence above, some provided by myself. I urge editors entering this discussion to assume good faith and read the above investigation in its entirety before commenting down here and jumping to conclusions Jebus989^✰ 09:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this most recent thread seems to be missing the main stuff from the main discussion. North8000 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I know nothing about this user, but I checked a few biology-related articles created by him. Although relatively poor quality (just as many other wikipedia articles), none of them deserved deletion. This is my conclusion, and I work in this area. Biophys (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There might be a mixup. Which articles did you check? The recent thread went off the section topic and into articles that are already deleted. The more recent listings (and this section) are about articles where they we just a contributon and deletion looks unlikely on those. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's a mixup. This user has commented several times demonstrating a misunderstanding of copyright policy, saying it's perfectly acceptable to copy verbatim from pubmed abstracts (which it's not). Article quality had nothing to do with the deletions, they were entirely copypastes from other wikipedia articles or from sources under copyright. Any original text was unreferenced and synthesis or original research. None of the users involved above were able to produce a single reliably-sourced article composed of original text... Jebus989^✰ 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. With the added note that the result was things that were random gibberish rather than articles. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about articles like Perinuclear space, which was placed for AfD discussion, where no one provided a single example of copyright violation, and no one provided valid arguments for deletion during the AfD discussion.Biophys (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

By all means ask to have a copy of the article userfied, before doing so I thoroughly recommend reading the above conversations and all the evidence presented; you may especially be interested in the above section where another user asked for articles to be restored (Gamma-ray generation and Astronomical gamma-ray source, for reference). They were (unsurprisingly) exactly what we expected—unattributed CWW, synthesis, incoherent jumbled together sentences etc. Jebus989^✰ 16:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no intention to userfy and restore any of these articles (there are more interesting/important subjects to edit). They had to be simply kept to allow contributions of multiple editors, as time allows. Biophys (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

With respect to that specific article, I did a search on a few random text strings: first string, closely paraphrased from a journal, second, copied from another article, third was copied either from Nuclear envelope or this 2001 page. I need to go look into that content at Nuclear envelope. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Which means I was wrong about this. Sorry. T.Cannes was right by doing the blanket deletion. In fact, all relevant information should be in Nuclear envelope, and we hardly need Perinuclear space. Biophys (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how about:

• Centaurus XR-2
• Centaurus XR-3
• Centaurus XR-4
• Neutron-antineutron annihilation
• Sagittarius XR-2
• Scorpius XR-6
• Scutum X-1
• Index table for X-ray and gamma-ray sources

Are they properly stubs? WERE they previously stubs and are now deleted? You see, if you just delete long lists, nobody else can TELL what was in the deleted articles. Given the extreme specificity likely from looking at just the titles, it seems to me that there isn't much room here for anything but useful information. Considering the totally squalid state that most WP articles historically start in (do you all really get the historical idea of Wikipedia??), I think the level of picky-ness being shown here decends very far toward DICKishness. Vandalism, I cannot abide. But deleting every article created by a poor writer (I mean a writer who writes poorly), not having even looked at some of them first, is really going too far. Especially on Wikipedia. SBHarris 16:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, from the articles I've had a closer look at, anyone willing to "restore" these article is much better off starting from nothing than from what was there previously. If you're unable to create a stub on these topic from nothing then you're not the right person clean up what was there previously either. —Ruud 18:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's quite a bold inductive statement from somebody who hasn't seen any of the aricles in question. But let's do a bet: take Index table for X-ray and gamma-ray sources. I haven't seen it, and neither have you. You go ahead and start it from scratch, and I'll watch. Keep track of your time. By and by, I'll obtain the old copy and cut it, or add to it. Then we'll see who made the foolish prediction, you or me. How about it? If the possiblity of black swans doesn't bother you, then you should have no problem. SBHarris 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"from somebody who hasn't seen any of the aricles in question" Wrong. "go ahead and start it from scratch" I know next to nothing about astrophysics, so I'm not going to do that. "I'll obtain the old copy and cut it, or add to it" Unless you do happen to have a degree in astrophysics, you won't be able to differentiate between what's right and what's nonsense and just end up copying and pasting more factual inaccuracies and gibberish. —Ruud 19:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is better to have no article at all than a deliberately disruptive article which consists largely of garbage which looks sensible enough for well-meaning editors of an overly inclusionist bent to consider salvageable. There's already strong consensus for that above. Unless you are quite literally promising to remove the garbage from these articles then there is little rationale for keeping them, as potential is not a guarantee. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I have no evidence that an article like Index table for X-ray and gamma-ray sources is a "deliberately disruptive article." Here you are claiming knowledge of another editor's malicious intent-- do you have prima facie evidence of this? Let alone that this article "consists largely of garbage which looks sensible enough for well-meaning editors of an overly inclusionist bent to consider salvageable." That's a complete straw man, if you mean to apply it to every one of the articles we're discussing, or even the ones I've named above.

Right now we don't actually have a case where we can say this or that article clearly does not belong on Wikipedia, and how in the world did it ever get there? In the one I've just looked at, on the contrary I see an editor who seems very pleased with himself that he's finally been able to get rid of gamma ray generation and redirect it to segments of gamma ray, which essentially merges the two at the cost of absorbing one. Alas for this approach, it's not really very respectful of the way Wikipedia naturally grows. The astronomical parts of gamma ray that gamma ray generation is now redirected to, had been expanded by myself, starting last May. Before that time, this article was almost entirely about radioactive decay, and had only a few thumbs about anything else. I expanded the astronomical sections largely using information from gamma ray generation, gamma-ray astronomy, their sources, and some web content. In other words, in no small part from articles you just deleted (gamma-ray astronomy is left, but it doesn't have all this info). The gamma ray article needed a summary of the astronomical content and the astronomical mechanisms of gamma production, per WP:SS. Apparently this worked so well, that somebody has now decided that the main articles on astronomical gamma sources are no longer needed, or can be subsummed under gamma ray astronomy. Guess my writing was better than I thought, hey? But none of it really makes the case that Marshallsumter is there writing "deliberately disruptive articles full of garbage." In fact, the worst I can find from him (I did not know him) is bad writing. And if we removed all the bad writing from Wikipedia, there wouldn't be much left. And if we are committed to that, could we please start with the soccer trivia, the comic book trivia, and the local sports stars BLPs? Including the thousand BLPs still with not a single source? Not the astronomy articles where I hate to re-create data on astronomical objects and instruments just as much as any of you do? SBHarris 21:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sbharris, there is a policy that when someone gets over a certain level of copyvio, all of their contribs can be deleted, which is what happened here. You want any of these articles, just ask - only proviso, could you check for copyvio promptly, and if you don't think they are worth anything, just let me know and I'll delete them again. How did you find the two I restored yesterday? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I picked an article at random that Marshallsumter had contributed to (SN 185) and ended up having to delete essentially everything that he added. Only about 25% of the article is left, and the only one of his additions that I didn't remove was adding an image. Seems like there's going to be an awful lot of hatchet jobs required. Modest Genius ^talk 21:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent example. Sbharris, please look at this and compare it to the current version. That is typical of what Marshallsumter was doing, which was dumping lots of references into articles (often copying and pasting directly from the source) without properly integrating the information into the text, or being selective about what he was adding. If you are really prepared to do this tidying up for all the X-ray source articles listed, please do so, but many people agree that it is better just to start from scratch as there was too much indiscriminate copying and pasting. I've looked at three of the deleted articles you listed above, and Centaurus XR-4, Centaurus XR-3 and Centaurus XR-2 are all of the form (with slight variations): "1 Extrasolar X-ray source astrometry; 2 Astronomical visual source; 3 Astronomical X-ray source; 5 Visibly dark X-ray source; 6 Astronomical gamma-ray source", with an essentially incoherent catalog listing in prose form of the discoveries made in this region of the sky in these wavelengths. What Marshallsumter appears to have been doing is generating bot-like articles from journal papers and catalog listings. The same is true for Sagittarius XR-2, Scorpius XR-6 and Scutum X-1. For an example of a restored and remediated article, see Abell 2147. See here for how another editor handled that. That is what you (sbharris) need to do here if you want to work on some of these articles. Please, just take one article, ask to be provided with a copy, and see what you can do with it, and then come back here and see whether you have changed your mind about this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been going through a few of these, and I haven't yet found an example that wasn't better off being deleted and then either turned into a redirect, or re-started from scratch. -- The Anome (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let us start with the example you both started with, which is the article on SN 185, in which all the X-ray and optical remnant work that Marshallsumter added was deleted by user:Modest Genius as being "gibberish". Well, I beg to differ. If you read [60] you see that what Marshallsumter added is a rather compact but essentially correct description of the work going on to identify a possible X-ray and optical remnant of this supernova remnant (RCW 86) G315.4-2.3, a.k.a. MSH 14-63 which would strengthen the case that it was indeed a core-collapse type supernova (type Ib/c or II) because it left us a core. That would be a neutron star, but perhaps not a conventional radio puslar but an anomalous X-ray pulsar. This work is not easy to summarize because there isn't a clear object where X-ray and optical images overlie, the ROSAT and Einstein observatories don't always give perfect alignment with optical telescopes (ROSAT has an attitude error), because data is limited, and because the putative optical counterpart of the ROSAT/Einstein X-ray source, a star in the USNO-A2.0 catalogue, is faint and not pefectly placed. That's a typical problem in astronomy, and actually the authors of the preceding paper are inclined to think that their X-ray source in this area is NOT from a remnant of SN 185, but is rather the active star they have from USNO-A2.0 catalogue. The SN 185 article mentions that (or used to). However, I don't see any cut and paste, and I don't see any "gibberish." The references are to the correct literature, which is about this supernova remnant and this area of space, which contains X-rays sources, SN 185, and RCW 86 which is the remnant of SN 185. I see no statements that are clearly wrong, save perhaps one statement that suggests that the well-known Centaurus X-1, a very well-known X-ray-emitting neutron star in orbit around a massive companion, is the remant of SN 185. It probably is not. However, Wikipedia now contains very little data about the X-ray sources in Centaurus, and I cannot find out if that error is repeated or systematic. If the ones it did contain before you all deleted them were badly formated, you should gone to the author and complained (I have to deal with format-box-happy editors all the time, and using headers in format-like style is always annnoying).

In any case, if sections of articles are too compact, and do not lay out the problems they address clearly enough, there are remedies for this, other than to simply delete them entirely with the comment "gibberish!" Perhaps they are gibberish to a modest genius, but a super genius could see what they were driving at, and could fix or tag them to be fixed. Or use the TALK page of article or TALK page of the author (okay, I admit attempt at humor).SBHarris 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with a lot of this user's contributions - they do indeed present 'facts' and cite them to literature, but as a whole they're completely unintelligible. I'm a professional astronomer, and well aware of the uncertainties involved in this sort of research. But I couldn't follow the text, which just listed sources and positions, without any indication of what they meant or why. That's the sort of material that should on a page of a researcher's notebook, not an encyclopaedia article. If you can add a coherent description of the studies to the article - perhaps based on what you said above - then please do. But what was there before I deleted it was worse than nothing. Modest Genius ^talk 11:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I think you should edit that article to add what you are saying above, and discuss with other editors on the talk page of that article to work out how best to present this. If you can demonstrate this approach works for a number of articles (some were in a far worse state), you may be able to file a successful DRV (deletion review) for selected articles. But given the other concerns expressed above, it looks unlikely that more than this will happen. You may disagree with that approach, but that looks like how this is going to be handled. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• The community might be interested in this thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Marshallsumter. -- I have listed four more articles of interest there. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• This has been consolidated at WT:AST#Articles edited by Marshallsumter. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/User:Marshallsumter Incident Article Fix-up Coordination Page

The contents of the category have been moved there.--Cerejota (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Being spammed

Resolved

 – User:Reaper Eternal fully indef blocked User:My password is qwerty for abuse of Special:EmailUser--Cerejota (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Help please. User:My password is qwerty is spamming my wiki email with hundreds of this message:

Subject: dirty rag head

Go back to Arabia. Tiamut^talk 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest first that you change your password? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My password is qwerty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think he means that a user called "My password is qwerty" is spamming him. The most obvious things for the OP to do are (1) disable receipt of wikipedia e-mails and/or (2) add the sender to his e-mail spam filter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I misread the issue. *pours another cup of coffee* --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Why would Tiamut need to change their password? User:My password is qwerty has been reblocked without email access--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) You can ignore those emails, and I reblocked User:My password is qwerty without email access. Your password isn't compromised; it's a troll abusing Special:EmailUser. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems the spamming user's username is misleading .... Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is Jarlaxleartemis (aka "Grawp"), who has been using a vandalbot to mass-send emails for the sole purpose of harassment. –MuZemike 15:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't really want to give him any attention, so I left him out of my reply, but that's why I also semiprotected Tiamut's talkpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I have previously reported similar email abuse and death threats from accounts My password is foo and My password is acalamari. This is clearly the same person. I suggest that someone finds a way to filter out similar account names in the future. Also, Tiamut will also have the email address from which this racist abuse was sent; perhaps she could forward this to an appropriate admin, who could take steps to block future account creation from this address. RolandR (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about anyone else, but I already report "My password is ..." usernames to UAA on sight. I can't think of a good reason to have a username like that, and I haven't seen a single one that didn't turn out to be a troll. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

But the problem is that these accounts are not being used for visible vandalism, but for email spamming. I don't know whether there is any way to check what accounts have received such spam; we may only know of those who report this. So we really need a way to stop this from the start, ie block the creation of such accounts, rather than just reacting after pages are vandalised. RolandR (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I blocked every account beginning with "My password is ..." without talkpage or email access. Most were already blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone familiar with MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, i.e. not me, might inert a regex there to prevent the creation of accounts whose username is "my password is..." or something along those lines, though usernames such as these make it very easy for us to catch these trolls and quickly block them... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The email he used is from mailinator.com and it contains an abbreviation of death to Arabs in the user name. I can send the exact email to whoever wants it. Its obviously not a personal account. Thanks to everyone for their prompt attention and help. Tiamut^talk 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"This is Jarlaxleartemis (aka "Grawp")"........ really?? STILL???? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's the reason for things like this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

After this many years of gross harassment why won't the Foundation step in and file criminal/civil complains against this miscreant? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Usernames that begin with "My password is" ought to be on a bot list to be immediately reported at UAA. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some sort of e-mail throttle built into the software? Or can somebody just sign up for an account and immediately send out 10,000 messages? 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like something that ought to be fixed. 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Until then, as the folks at WikiAlpha wanted you to do (a while back), disable your email. –MuZemike 21:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume the idea behind these "My password is..." accounts is to trick people into logging in as that account to see if that really is the password, thus triggering autoblocks for themselves? 28bytes (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

GADZOOKS! Think of the children! -- Atama頭 22:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I LOL'D--Cerejota (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If only there was a whole group of users who automatically have ipblockexempt so they wouldn't have to worry about that... lifebaka++ 00:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seriously tho, this account was created a long time ago, so there seems to be a farm somewhere. Can we WP:IAR on the prohibition on fishing CU and find out all the related accounts to this one? In this case the issue is not just massive disruption to the end user, but the possibility of the Wikimedia email servers being graylisted as spam is pretty urgent, and  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me so it stands to reason all of these accounts are intended to be used only to harass editors. Am sorry if I am breaking WP:DENY, but I like the email facility and think we should protect it above any other considerations.--Cerejota (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

CU data has expired for all these accounts. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We use time rather than item/diskspace as our logs? Dayum, no wonder long-term vandalism is so prevalent. Best practice in most high volume sites is to have an item/diskspace limit on user logs, rather than a time expiration precisely because of the sleeper account problem. Are user creation logs also expire like this? Its been a while since I looked at the guts of MediaWiki but I will check...--Cerejota (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Best practice is moot when the foundation considers time is necessary for privacy reasons Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a facility to retain information on persistent and trackable vandals in the Checkuser wiki. Data on dearest Grawp, or Bambifan101, for example. If this joker is a persistent threat, and there is any meaningful data, he should be put in there.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I should mention that as I go through piles of unchecked email, I found more spam in my mailbox, this time from User:My password is foo. Those were titled 'Arab whore' and the text said 'I will behead you and blow up your house. Get the fuck out of Israel and go back to your shithole country Saudi Arabia, you towelhead bitch.' That account has a hotmail address if anyone is interested. I'll let you know if I find more. At my talk page at commons, I've also been left a charming one word message from a User:Bloated, semen-stained corpse. seems like I have a dedicated fan? Creepy ...Tiamut^talk 19:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Bloated, semen-stained corpse has been globally locked 2 weeks ago, and I blocked all the "My password is ..." accounts without email or talkpage access, so that should help stop the problem. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My password is foo sent me a similarly charming message from a hotmail address; the same address was also used by My password is acalamri and My password is poopvomit. That last account sent me almost thirty abusive emails; at the same time, User:Captain Thoster, using a gmail address, sent 85 abusive messages and death threats before email access was removed. I made abuse reports to Microsoft and Gmail, but nothing seems to have come of these. Surely it can't be that difficult to devise a tool to filter out such vandals before they abuse the email system. RolandR (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How long ago was this? I found one from him from August 1st threatening to kill my husband by hanging him from our roof and torturing me to death via something called Slow slicing. I shouldn't be worried right? Tiamut^talk 19:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Foo and Acalamari on 6 August; Poopvomit and Thosteron 30 June. It is particularly worrying that he was able to use the same email address for abusive messages on both dates. RolandR (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of racism, bigotry etc by User:JesseRafe

Can I have a second pair of eyes please as I'm really not happy with the accusations being tossed against me by this user? The situation has occurred during this deletion debate. JesseRafe is the page creator and has stuffed the page with several dodgy refs which in my opinion don't merit notability. One of them is simply a newspaper endorsement by El Diario La Prensa a newspaper described as having "an emphasis on Latin America" of a candidate of Puerto Rican origin, with them saying: "His election could pave the way for fresh representation of our communities. We back Gonzalez’s bid. More than half of the more than 127,000 residents of District 54 are Latinos. September 13 is an opportunity to usher in a new leader. Grab it!" I asked: "Does such sycophancy (basically a Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own) establish notability? I'd say no."

The user in question has taken umbrage at this: "How can this vote be taken seriously with such an ignorant blatant racist such as yourself?" with an edit summary of "Valenciano's opinion on article deletion should have no merit as an unabashedly anti-Latino racist agenda." This is way out of order.

I responded: "if a newspaper called the "Voice of Canadians in New York" endorsed a Canadian candidate for a seat, I definitely would be sceptical of the notability that that confers on the candidate, being mindful of WP:POLITICIAN."

Despite my reminders of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA JesseRafe responded with a further diatribe against me: "I called you out on being racist (which is a generic term to include being prejudiced to ethnicities as well, as the term "ethnicist" has no usage that I'm aware of, and also is often extended to those who are prejudiced against others based on national origin). And I said it was hard to be civil to you, because you're clearly guilty of bigotry saying it's no surprise "a Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own"" I referred to you as being a racist with regards to Latinos, something that I know first-hand exists in Spain (I've lived in Barca for a while and have seen how dark-skinned Mexicans are treated and looked-down upon there."

I never mentioned anything about it being "no surprise", nor said anything at all about Mexicans, nor expressed any hatred of particular races or ethnicities, either there or in the 11,000 plus contributions I've made over six years here, not surprising considering I don't hold such views. I would like this user to stop these unfounded accusations immediately. Valenciano (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've issued a 48 hour cooldown block.--v/r - TP 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, we don't do cooldown blocks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately it wasn't phrased that way on JesseRafe's talk page. 28bytes (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhh ok, I must have missed that meeting. Noted. What I meant to say was, the NPAs were ongoing despite warnings in the AFD and requests to stop and I've issued a block to prevent further disruptive personal attacks. Hopefully, when the block expires the user will no longer engage in personal attacks that disrupt the AFD. If they do not, another admin may want to extend until after the AFD is closed.--v/r - TP 19:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bit late here, but I see no reason not to deal a cool-down block if a user is being disruptive and isn't heeding warnings. Obviously, sysops shouldn't go blocking solely because they think a user may be upset - however, Tom's usage of the term to describe this block seems acceptable. m.o.p 21:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

TParis's block was perfectly fine: he blocked a user for personal attacks and/or disruption and said so on their talk page. Calling it a cooldown block (as above) generally raises eyebrows and/or hackles, though, given WP:COOLDOWN. 28bytes (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Understandable, but a bit silly. Just because it's taboo to say something doesn't mean we have to gasp in horror when somebody uses the term to describe a perfectly-suitable action. Just my take, that's all. m.o.p 22:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Any block short of indefinite is a de facto "cooldown" block, whether they want to use that term or not. Obviously, the reason for the block is disruption, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Blocks are to protect the wiki from disruption, and are subject to appeal and discussion (unless they are part of an indef ban or indef for puppetry). Cooldown blocks are not cool themselves, and I find it alarming that admins think they are or that any block is for the purpose of "cooldown". This implies that they cannot be ended before they are over, that they are punitive etc.

Maybe a big ass RfC needs to happen to clarify the question, if the reality on the ground has changed and I am no longer speaking consensus speak. --Cerejota (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Cooldown blocks are not necessarily punitive, but can be preventive - if an editor is agitated and committing stupidities a cooldwn block may be preventive of further disruption. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not a cooldown block, that is preventing this user from disrupting the wiki. The difference is not semantic, but explains some of the weird blocks I have seen in the last few years. The issue is that blocks should never be punitive, period. They are to prevent disruption. The minute a user shows reasonable understanding that their behavior was seen as disruptive, that's when the block is lifted. Calling it "cool down" implies a fire-and-forget attitude, with no intent on the part of the blocking admin to deal with the issues at hand in any manner other than tool use. This is why I say perhaps the principle needs renewed attention from the community, because if admins are taking a different road, this needs to be known. --Cerejota (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree primarily with Cerjota here. It depends on if, but at a point where a reasonable request shows the blocked party understands their error and agrees to constrain themselves, the purpose of the block is achieved. To leave it in place solely to effect a "cool down", would be an improper extrapolation, IMO. My76Strat (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a point missing here

While it is true that User:JesseRafe shouldn't have called User:Valenciano a "racist", I find, upon reflection, that his comments weren't very kind either.

Calling sources that belong to the same ethnic group as the subject "sycophantic" is extremely problematic - in his first use, in his clarification using "Canadians" and in the general attitude that his argument was not a problematic one at all - he seems to think his comments are true and not a provocation.

User:Valenciano is suggesting that British sources mere sycophants when it comes to Her Majesty The Queen, or that Jewish sources are mere sycophants of Israel. People have been banned from British or ARBPIA topics for saying those things. User:Valenciano is skirting very rocky territory with this comment, and people seem to be distracted by the other behavior to look at it this way.

Such blanket dismissal of sources because of their ethnic affinities is problematic, and the punitive 48 hour (48 hours for a first offense, with a clearly communicative editor is punitive) block of a user for not wording his opposition in a correct fashion is pretty disheartening if not accompanied with community reaction to what prompted the misbehavior. Two wrongs do not make one right, but addressing one wrong and not the other is not right either.

I am not asking for a block, but a rather large trout and a formal warning not to use provocative language like this. And a general reminder that reliability of a source shouldn't be linked to their ethnic provenance or other basic criteria, it should be linked, as per policy, to how other RS see it, its general reputation, and when neutrality is at hand, its general political outlook on a given topic.--Cerejota (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, using the phrase basically a Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own was completely uncalled for and JesseRafe is justifiably pissed about it. It's the same as if Jet magazine endorsed an African American politician and it was dismissed as "a black magazine endorsing one of their own". Don't poke the bear. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the AFD, would you not agree that ample warnings were given and not heeded? Nearly 50% (est) of that AFD was over this issue and it was disruptive to the discussion.--v/r - TP 02:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not questioning the need for a block, I am questioning the need for it to be 48 hours - and that for example, you haven't declined or accepted the appeal.

However, that is not the issue I am raising here, as that is done and no need to dwell on it: the issue I am raising is the disruptive ethnic baiting on the part of User:Valenciano. Or you do not agree his comments where offensive, against Hispanics, Canadians, and in a more general sense, the entire project? --Cerejota (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota: FYI, the blocking administrator does not accept or decline an unblock request. That is done by a different administrator (in this case, me.) 28bytes (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If JesseRafe believed in good faith that systemic bias was over half of the problem, it is not disproportionate that they would devote over 50% in effort to expose its affect. Racism, prejudice and systemic bias is an inflammatory subject, and I strongly suggest participants who engage in such debate prepare themselves to hear comments they may not have imagined, like: "did you know how racist you are perceived?". My76Strat (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What to say here? First off where I live Hispanic isn´t a pejorative or even racial term. It refers simply to any Spanish speaker. You speak of systematic bias, are we now to define/prohibit terms purely how they´re seen in North America? Cerotaja, according to his userpage, is a Puerto Rican from New York, same city as Jesse where Hispanic appears to have different conotations. I´m sorry if my comments caused offence and will word them more carefully in future.

That said, I don´t believe people should cast votes in any election based on the colour of a candidate´s skin, their national or regional point of origin or their religion. An endorsement which says: "His election could pave the way for fresh representation of ′′′our communities′′′. The challenge now is to get out the vote. ′′More than half of the more than 127,000 residents of District 54 are Latinos′′ definitely seems to me to be a call for a vote based on those factors and is therefore reprehensible. I definitely reserve the right in a deletion debate about sources to call a source into question on that basis and if, by some convoluted logic, I´m a racist for opposing endorsements on ethnic/racial/religious lines or whatever, then I´m afraid this place seriously has lost the plot. Valenciano (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not from New York, I live in New York. I am from Puerto Rico, and only moved here well into adulthood, so some of these issues are even today bewieldering to me . I understand what you are saying, and really appreciate your commitment to be careful and your apology.

I think this all begs an explanation: just like calling someone a "racist" even if it is true is something not to be done (and hence Jesse needed to stop), claiming a source that makes an ethnic call is unreliable is in itself reprehensible, a form of both WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:UNCIVIL - Jesse's reaction was wrong, but understandable because we are human beings who make mistakes - he simply became blinded with rage and forgot where he was and lost decorum. It reminded me of users who have been (rightly) blocked for accusing others of being "antisemitic" when responding to incorrectly formulated criticisms of a source by saying variations of "This source cannot speak of the Palestinians because it is Jewish". An editor who says that is not necessarily antisemitic, in fact, probably isn't, but I can completely see why a Jewish person, or a non-Jewish person who is sensitive to issues of antisemitism, could think so. What you did was exactly the same thing - I know this was not your intent but Jesse's reaction was not a blind one either. We are not here to fix how other people think, and in the interest of civility such arguments should be avoided. For example, in this case, instead of focusing on the ethnic loyalties of the source, or a critique (as you do above) of "ethnic voting", the fact that the source in question was endorsing the candidate made it a partisan source, and hence unreliable. No need to go into commentary or other potentially rocky or uncomfortable terrain. I have learned that even cooperative relationships can be built with people you share very little in common, if we avoid such emotionally sensitive issues and concentrate on the actual task of building an encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, my comments were badly phrased and unfortunately led to unnecessary controversy. I do regret that. I didn't mean any offence but apologise to anyone who took offence and that includes Jesse. I was simply pissed off at being made out to be some kind of anti-Hispanic third reich revivalist when Hispanic to me means someone from a Spanish speaking country and I've spent a lot of time on here writing about Spanish politics and other Spanish related issues. I rarely edit articles about American politicians but like I say I'll definitely tread more carefully if I do. Valenciano (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have accepted JesseRafe's unblock request on the condition that he refrain from further commenting on the statements of Valenciano's that he found objectionable. 28bytes (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Linas

I set this aside for about a month assuming that it was flagrant enough for someone else to catch it without me having to step in. As that is not the case, I'm hoping I can get someone to address this.

Thanks,

— Bdb484 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Bdb484, blocks are punitive, not preventative; they exist to prevent violations of policy. If you've left it for a month - in other words, if the most recent thing you can complain about is a month old - no admin worth their salt is going to block. There's nothing to suggest the behaviour has continued; if it has, provide evidence accordingly. Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you reversed it... blocks are punative? Have another beverage and try again LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! Too little sleep :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's not worth anything, but the only reason I'm bringing it up is that it's a continuation of past behavior that has needed to be dealt with, as you may have seen from the block log.

If that kind of post is not worth addressing, though, that's a decision I'll leave to the admins. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't template the regulars. If you're not being courteous, don't expect to be treated politely yourself either. —Ruud 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. He's lecturing, on fundamentals, to a guy who's been here for nearly 7 years... and then reported him a month after he has apparently left wikipedia. Not good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the template made him react like that. Was there a bullet hidden in the template code? If some regular loses their marbles over being templated then we really don't need them here to be honest.--Crossmr (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but when a user cops a patronizing attitude, he shouldn't be shocked when he gets yelled at for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We actually do need more bright editors like Linas. It's quite unfortunate he isn't as active any more as he was a few years ago. —Ruud 23:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bdb484 - we issue blocks here in ANI for immediate protection of the project. If you are trying to show a long-term pattern of activity, that's what an WP:RFC/U is for. This user has not edited in some time, and immediate protection is not required. If you think you can prove long term behaviour, and if the editor is likely to repeat that behaviour, see RFC/U. Otherwise, poking sleeping bears is not wise. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bdb484, when you template an editor , it would be courteous to sign your post. Moriori (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is the same slow-moving pattern of questionable behavior within the past 2 years at least, and absolutely nothing has changed since then. See the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive72#Perhaps a third party could say a few words?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Nuclear meltdown at User talk:Linas
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#User:Linas again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Linas, soapboxing on wikiprojects (and userpage)

How long is this going to keep going? Indefinitely? –MuZemike 06:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The user does have issues. - and it is a repeated pattern - leave a note - last warning - Off2riorob (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Linas (talk · contribs) seems utterly incapable of behaving in even a marginally civil fashion. On the other hand, he's only very sporadically active, as MuZemike has outlined. I don't think it's right to give Bdb484 (talk · contribs) a hard time for reporting this, or for templating Linas. Surely Linas' behavior is orders of magnitude more problematic than templating a regular, or forgetting to sign a post? Forest, trees? Anyhow, I'm not saying we should block Linas - it's probably equally effective to just ignore his consistent outbursts - but let's not jump all over someone who's been the victim of one of Linas' outbursts either. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My interactions with Linas never been anything less than polite, so I'm not sure were you get the idea from he is incapable of civil behaviour? —Ruud 19:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Those discourteous words from Linas (talk · contribs) do deserve a warning, but nothing more as they're a month old and anything further would be solely punitive. That said, I can see why Linas may have been frustrated. Bdb484 gutted John Henry (folklore) and, when that was reverted, rather obstinately edit-warred with Linas and at least two other editors to keep his version. This was followed by a frankly absurd tag dumping, further gutting, and digging in his/her heels on the talk page. This was an example of an editor's good-faith contributions being detrimental to actually improving article content and facilitating collaborative editing.

To take an example of a good-faith-but-actually-unhelpful edit, Bdb484 deleted all discussion of John Henry as a literary figure as "uncited". However, just going to the articles John Henry Days or John Henry (novel), or reading sources already cited in the article, one could readily fashion a cited, comprehensible discussion of John Henry folklore as a subject of literature. (Roark Bradford's works on Henry alone merits a lit section.) However, the content was just deleted and the present version of the article notes nothing of this topic...Furthermore, when viewing the proximate cause of the above outburst, I interpret Bdb484's templated warning as rather snide. In particular, the line "The verifiability policy is really a very easy one to comply with, and I hope you'll take the opportunity to do so" is condescending to someone who has edited since 2004 and hypocritical because Bdb484 made no apparent effort to verify the content prior to deleting it. I'm not calling for any action against Bdb484, nor excusing Linas's outburst, but this occasion of incivility didn't occur in a vacuum. If Bdb484 spent as much effort on building the article's content as he did deleting and defending his actions with policy wonkery, there could be a useful, informative literature section in John Henry (folklore) right now...and he probably wouldn't have raised anyone's ire. — Scientizzle 19:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

GiveWell, user:Green Cardamom, and assuming good faith

I'm in the midst of a somewhat uncomfortable situation on talk:GiveWell this week. Green Cardamom (talk · contribs) is a long-term maintainer of the article, and was not at all pleased when attention was drawn to it on Metafilter and users, including me, started making changes on the article. There is a dispute about how promotional the article is/was, but that's actually getting resolved quite well through general user comment, and it's not my big worry. What I am worried about is how glaringly and repeatedly Green Cardamom is failing to assume good faith of anyone who's not him/her on that talk page. Comments like "a hotbed of angry editors who appear on occasion to paint the company in as negative light as possible within Wikipedia guidelines" and "It seems evident you want to emphasis the negative aspects of GiveWell" were GC's opening shots, and despite me begging, pleading, and cajoling them to please, please AGF, hits like "Ask yourself, when will you stop hating GiveWell", "Further example of the inability of people to edit this article in a neutral manner even when they try", and "it seems like a way to highlight or emphasize it over other shortcomings, which is a form of bias" kept rolling in.

GC does genuinely seem to be trying to moderate their ABF-ing, but minutes before saying "Yes I fully admit my behavior was inappropriate. I will no longer assume bad faith in Wikipedia/Metafilter users unless there is clear reason to support it.", they posted this to the talk page of a user who been engaging extremely openly and calmly on the talk page. This is not the first time GC has accused someone engaging on the GiveWell talk of canvassing, and after being warned and reminded so many times, I'm concerned that he or she is simply unable to AGF on the topic of GiveWell.

My desire here is for someone uninvolved on the topic to look over these diffs of GC's behavior and either do what I've been unable to and convince GC that it needs to stop, or make the call about whether this may be a case where a well-intentioned user must nevertheless be restricted from a topic on which they cannot engage constructively. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that GC's very last comment was the apology, it would seem that the prudent way forward will be to wait and hope it improves. To be quite honest I'm far more concerned about Jessamyn West's blatantly instructing MetaFilter users to game 3RR and try to stealthily add negative material to other articles to skirt around it than I am with GC's having called her out on it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see Jessamyn's post as mostly explaining how DR works on Wikipedia, not as instructing users to game. Step 1, engage. Step 2, if engagement fails, find an admin. If the person is reverting while not engaging, 3RR comes into play. Her point seems to be that the Metafilter users posting angrily in that thread should be aware that Wikipedia does have processes to handle stonewalling. The point about adding something to Astroturfing is debatable; given that Jessamyn is an experienced Wikipedian and serves on our advisory board, I'm inclined to think she probably meant it in the sense of "this is a notable controversy and could probably be added to the article about the topic" rather than "yes, my shock troops! go spam!" But obviously I'm seeing all this through a filter of frustration with GC's behavior, so i won't be making any definitive claims about who meant what on this one. Since her behaviour has been brought up, I'm going to go drop her an ANI notice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Fluffernutter, I posted on your private talk page an honest and open question so that I could better understand the situation, your interpretation of that as a hidden accusation is an assumption of bad faith. You are also a member of Metafilter, you did not mention in your post above the thread at Metafilter contaning 196 posts concerning "giving GiveWell hell". You will find in this thread users giving a call to arms to manage the GiveWell wikipedia article along with a deep assumption of bad faith of the GiveWell Wikipedia article, some examples from that thread:

• "Maybe we can fix up their Wikipedia page?" posted by LarryC
• "GiveWell stooge [Green Cardamon] cleaned up their company's Wikipedia entry.." posted by Blazecock Pileon
• "the wikipedia edit is deeply suspicious.." posted by Durn Bronzefist
• "I know some Mefites are very active in Wikipedia -- what on Earth is going on here?" posted by pH Indicating Socks

Jessaymn, who is on the advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation and I believe also an administrator and paid employee of Metafilter, then posted a series of instructions on how to edit Wikipedia in disputes including tactics like "involving your favorite admin" and trying to force a 3RR block to get problem users out of the way. Her post was in response to the question "I know some Mefites are very active in Wikipedia" ie. she appears to be encouraging users at Metafilter to get involved in the GiveWell page.

Some users expressed discomfort with the Metafilter thread, and even requested the thread be shut down:

• "This thread is kind of weird and stalkery." posted by empath
• "this thread, which IMO should be closed because it's turned into little more than unsubstantiated "I think GiveWell is still awful" comments." posted by mkultra
• "Turning this MeTa [Metafilter] post into a back-channel forum for discussing changes to GiveWell's Wikipedia page is lending a lot of credence to the Wiki editor's [Green Caradamon] claim that MeFi is continuing to hold onto this grudge way too long." posted by mkultra

However Jessaymn rejected any calls to shut down the thread, saying:

• "We're not closing this thread. Folks can do what they want with that information."

We have no direct control what happens at Metafilter, but a look at the time stamps of that thread, and the time stamps of the GiveWell Wikipedia page activity will show a one to one relation. Further the number of new editors who showed up at the GiveWell article is overwhelming and can only be explained by that Metafilter thread drawing in editors within minutes. Is this canvasing? I honestly. have. no. idea. I don't know if this is against the rules of Wikipedia, or not. To me it just feels deeply wrong, in a moral sense, in particular when two senior members of authority are involved. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, you may be just misunderstanding canvassing here, since I know you said on Jessamyn's talk that you're not too familiar with it. Asking me where I "posted" to bring people to the discussion? That was an accusation of canvassing, whether you used the word "canvass" or not, and it was assuming incredibly bad faith of me.

To address your hinting that I am trying to hide my affiliation: I am a Metafilter member, which I openly acknowledged both on my talk page and on the GiveWell talk page. I am more than happy to have anyone examine my behavior both on Wikipedia and on the Metafilter thread in question if they'd like, because there is nothing untoward there, though my preference is to not publicly link the two usernames.

Now, as to your highlighting the contents of the Metafilter thread in general, I find that to be beside the point, in the same vein you have been operating in for days: we are on Wikipedia, we are working in a collegial manner, no one has made horrid, abusive changes to the GiveWell article. And yet you are attempting to discount people's neutral contributions on the talk page because you believe they are linked to metafilter. Let me say this clearly: It does not matter if they are from Metafilter. It does not matter if people are commenting, on Metafilter, unfavorably about GiveWell. It matters if they are editing on Wikipedia in accordance with our NPOV and COI guidelines. Your assumption that people on the GiveWell talk intend destruction, when there is no evidence that anyone is doing anything on Wikipedia but talking, calmly and rationally, is exactly what I am concerned with, and exactly what I am asking be addressed here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think now is as appropriate a time as any to remind ourselves that Wikipedia is not the only online community where people discuss issues and go for support. It is not self-evidently nefarious to start a thread on a forum or participate in a thread which mentions a wikipedia article. Where we should be concerned are when those discussions concentrate on gaming the system here. We should welcome outside discussions on articles from reddit, metafilter and other sites rather than immediately assume those sites are bad because they aren't us. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In case this is useful, I think people may have been concerned with my use of the word "trick" in talking about the 3RR. I have, in the past, been involved in problems on Wikipedia with people (since banned, if that's useful for perspective, it may not be). In the past examples I've had to deal with (visible on my talk page) the issues were sometimes resolved because the user did not abide by the 3RR and wound up hamstringing themselves. There were other problems, and in many cases I found the admins to be helpful and friendly in assisting me with working some of these things out. So, MetaFilter is a website where we talk informally amongst people who know each other, at least somewhat, and I may have used language that sounded informal enough that it obscured my meaning. I certainly didn't expect people to go swarming on to the GiveWell page and start hassling any other user or even doing anything but working to improve the page. I understand that tempers are a little hot here, but as an admin at MetaFilter and a regular old editor here, I can assure you that all I was trying to do was encourage some fruitful cross-site communication and understanding. I made this clear to Green Cardamom on my talk page and while I'm a little surprised at what I perceive to be an accusation, it's pretty easy to sort it all out, though I get a little confused with timing and converting between UTC and EST as far as what exactly happened when.

If anyone has additional questions about how MetaFilter works, relevant to this duspute or not, feel free to contact me. We almost never close MetaTalk threads unless there is a totally dead issue or some sort of emergency situation. Not closing that thread is a matter of policy more than preference. Jessamyn (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Persistent copyvios by User:Nosadahmed

Resolved

 – Nosadahmed indefinitely blocked

Nosadahmed (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this should have been filed at AIV or CCI. Feel free to redirect the complaint to a more appropriate noticeboard if necessary.

Noasadahmed has been blocked multiple times in the past for constantly creating copy/paste articles. It appears the user is back at it (see Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, N.C. Autonomous College, and Dhenkanal Autonomous College, the last of which was what led to the prior blocks). The user does not seem to understand that Wikipedia does not allow copy/paste articles from non-free sources. Given the escalating blocks for the same reason, I reluctantly think an indef block is required. Singularity42 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• After looking at and deleting a couple of them, and after seeing the block log, it's clear to me: I've blocked indefinitely. If anyone feels this is too stern a measure, feel free to change the block--and then to mentor the editor, which strikes me as impossible. Thanks Singularity, Drmies (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I made the mistake of unblocking a persistent copyright violator upon request that they would be mentored and still regret that decision. The only article this user has created that still exists, also started as a patent copyvio. I note also that File:MIET logo.gif , apparently the official seal of the Mahavir Institute of Engineering and Technology, was uploaded by this user and tagged with cc-by-sa-3.0, with no other information provided. I think we better delete this or at the least assume it's a copyvio and place a FUR in its place. Given the warnings and blocks without response, I certainly endorse an indef block.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    Aha. Same user originally uploaded the image to the Commons and it was deleted as a copyvio there. I have deleted it under F9.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Get User:U-Mos of wikipedia - vandalism only account

Resolved

 – Blocked indef

User Enforcer22 has created an account purely to, well, campaign for my removal from Wikipedia. I'm assuming this is IP 78.145.115.98, who has taken up certain ideas about me due to the discussion that can be seen on his and my talk pages concerning the letter "e", which for my part I considered to be perfectly civil. Oh well. Clearly needs sorting in whatever way is correct. (Apologies if this is in the wrong place also, wasn't sure of the correct way to bring this to admin attention.) U-Mos (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Admin has left

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

No action required. 28bytes (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Grutness has announced that he has stopped editing on Wikipedia due to one editor on his talk page. If he doesn't edit for awhile, should it be requested for his admin privileges to be revoked? I personally find what he did very drastic. SL93 (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If he was engaged in copyright violation as this revert alleges,[61] that is indeed drastic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That should be discussed first between the editors and on the article talk page. I'll add a note there. Walking away never solves anything. If someone has made a false (though good-faith) allegation, that needs to be addressed as well. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We do have procedure in place at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators for administrators who do not edit for a year. So, either we wait for that year to come, or he would have to resign the tools voluntarily. either way (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I wasn't sure in a situation where the admin said that he quit. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Per this comment it seems that Grutness is taking a break, not quitting. People can and do change their minds, especially when they make a declaration at an emotional moment. -- Atama頭 00:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

He posted that he was just taking a break after I posted this. This can be closed. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Gratuitous insult

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

Closing per OP. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

---

This kind of engagement is unhelpful and inflammatory.[62] Could someone urge the user to avoid remarks like this? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, Tom? What do you expect to come of this? It's hardly a flattering comment, but it doesn't really lower the tone of that discussion any further than it already is. Besides, it was made hours ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom - The general level of all that was pretty bad. But Mongo hasn't complained and asked the others to leave him alone, and it's his talk page.

He's a big boy and if he feels put upon he can do something about it, either responding himself or asking them to leave or asking for an uninvolved admin to intervene.

As an attack out of the blue I'd be more concerned about this, but there was clearly a lot of back and forth that preceded it. Jumping on the first person to break some arbitrary threshold in a multi-way insult fest is not exactly well balanced or drama reducing.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There was worse than that, before that comment. I question the "being provoked" part. You can't be provoked unless you choose to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think this level of incivility is inappropriate and damaging. We should avoid direct insults. Name-calling is bad for the project, and makes it that much harder to collaborate. I first asked the user on his talk page to avoid saying stuff like that, but he dismissed my request. I thought maybe someone else would have better success. I hope this hasn't become the community standard for how we talk to each other, but if it's generally thought to be okay, I guess it has. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's inappropriate. But the both of them are throwing insults at each other, so maybe they should both be blocked. Would that fix anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If blocking could fix it, we wouldn't be where we are now. I tried asking him not to do it and was dismissed. If remarks like this are contrary to community standards, could someone urge the user(s) to avoid making them? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know that warning both, blocking both, or any other admin intervention would actually help things, personally.

I understand the "this is inappropriate and damaging" feeling, but I don't know if we can respond in a drama-reducing manner. It's not bad enough to justify intervening in a likely drama-increasing manner, IMHO. We've had far far worse elsewhere in the past.

Even a "Please knock this off" to both of them is likely to increase drama. So... Shrug. For the moment, at least. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Feel free to archive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I really wish editors wouldn't talk to each other that way on user talk pages, because readers from the general internet population might stumble onto it and wonder what kind of operation we're running here. Blocking established users for incivility causes so much grief for the blocking admin, however, that I'm not surprised that the policy is enforced so inconsistently and selectively. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Edit Filter 390

Resolved

 – Taken care of by an admin via talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, could an admin or edit filter manager put edit filter 390 back in service, please? Seems the vandal it was meant for is back. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Spam-only accounts

Two accounts, user:ssky and user:ssky2 have been used exclusively for spam to create the articles Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga and Swami Budhpuri Ji, and to create links to these articles in other articles. Both articles are patent self-promotion by these users, who, judging from their user names, are close to the subject of the articles. The former article has already been speedy deleted as spam, and the second has an AfD in progress. Furthermore, the second article was created the same day that it had been speedy deleted under a slightly different spelling, Swami Buddhapuri Ji, and the accounts were started with the obvious purpose of circumventing that deletion. Neither article contains anything of encyclopedic value. The accounts are two years old, and flew under the radar until one of them started adding links to other articles yesterday. Neither account has ever made a constructive edit. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your allegations. Since both the articles Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga and Swami Budhpuri Ji were related so I had interlinked them. You can't judge that an article is self promotion by merely looking at their user name. I was about to add more reliable source to Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga but it has been deleted without even giving me some time. Swami Buddhapuri Ji was created in 2009 and at that time I was a first time writer on wikipedia so I understand that an article shouldn't have been copied from a website, due to which it was deleted. The actual name of the person in question is Swami Budhpuri Ji and the page has plenty of verifiable references. Ssky (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2011 (GMT +5.30)

These look to be single purpose accounts, not to mention WP:SOCK. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Stupid question Has any one actually tried to explain policy to these accounts? I frankly dislike how Dominus has handles these users, calling them "Perps" at FTN and and gernally assuming bad faith. I see good faith attempts with general ignorance on how Wikipedia works. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have given them the benefit of a doubt if they had made any constructive edits during their two-year history. The fact that all of their edits were promotion related, as well as the fact that they resurrected a freshly deleted article under a slightly different name convinced me that the only reason they were here on WP was to promote the Swami in question, and that there was little hope of them becoming constructive editors. In other words, the only thing they have done on WP in two years was to use it for their own purposes.

As for ignorance, I find that a poor defense- they knew enough to recreate the deleted article, and the way they sourced that article makes it clear that they were very familiar with sourcing policies two years ago- the sources were added an hour and a half after the article was recreated. They clearly knew that they were using WP for their own promotional purposes- that was the only reason they came here in the first place. Whether they knew that this was against WP policy is irrelevant, and a very poor defense.

I am giving them the benefit of the doubt as far as SOCKing is concerned. I haven't seen any evidence of deceptive SOCK type behaviour. I can't figure out exactly why there are two accounts, but evasion and deception clearly have nothing to do with it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably uncharitable to pursue the SOCK except as a style issue. I'll put a message on the accounts letting them know about the alternate account userpage template. The WP:SPA thing is a bit more worrying, however. For two years, they've done absolutely nothing except edit on this subject. With a username reminiscent of the subject matter, and a resurrection under a different spelling, I'm not encouraged. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 22:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Probable sock

Bcsadhak (talk · contribs) - only action was to remove a template pointing out the page is a copyvio of http://www.shabadsuratsangam.org/?page_id=32 (The page contains exact quotes and close paraphrasing, with occasional changes I suspect are just from people removing unsupported claims) Not at all suspicious! 86.178.193.2 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• There appear to be several participants in the AfD that are either accounts created today (eg Svechu (talk · contribs) and the account above) or IPs that have made their first edits to WP today. No comment. Mathsci (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If it helps, anything from BT is probably me. BT uses dynamic IPs, which I can do little about. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Leandrod

Leandrod (talk · contribs) was just released from a block for making pointless edits against MOS. Previous recent discussion of this matter took place at two ANI threads here and here. After his block expired, he has gone right back to making the exact same type of edits, all without any discussion whatsoever. He needs to be reblocked. N419BH 03:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks bad, doesn't it? I don't see how we're going to get his attention unless he's blocked until such time as he starts talking. VanIsaac_WS 05:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to some diffs since his last block ended? VanIsaac_WS 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look through recent edits, and can't figure out which ones contravene guidelines. If the new edits are MOS related, but are correct, then I don't see a need for further blocking. However, these changes are very nitty-gritty, so maybe the "incorrectness" is more readily apparent to those intimately familiar with all of the nooks and crannies of the MOS; if so, please point out which edits are a problem. If they are consistent with previous problems, I would agree that a block is in order. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The following are four examples of him changing dates and page numbers from the accepted 1991-1997 format to the unconventional and confusing 1991-97 format, and page numbers from 221-253 to 221-53: [63] [64] [65] [66]. N419BH 16:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As part of a previous ANI thread I decided to block Leandrod for 48 hours. This was on the theory that a short block was needed to get his attention. If you observe his lack of any response at User talk:Leandrod#September 2011 you will probably conclude that a 48-hour block did not make any impression. If he had filed a request for unblock it would have given an opportunity for him to explain his thinking. We get no response whatsoever. Though it might seem drastic, I suggest that an indef block is the right answer now. A previous case (for anyone who can remember so far back) is User:Mac, who made strange edits over a long period, and would not discuss anything. Mac was finally indef blocked in 2008 after about a zillion complaints. Leandrod is a person who has made 20,000 edits many of which are wrong-headed, and will not discuss. What he has in common with User:Mac is that they both appeared to be editing in good faith, but were seriously misguided as to what constitutes a useful edit. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the key point of the User:Mac case: editors are expected to *communicate* when people express concerns to them about their edits. The point is not so much that the edits are wrong or that they are usually reverted (both of which are true in this case), but that the editor will not respond to the concerns expressed to them and offer their rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• User Indef Blocked with an explanation that the block was mainly about the user's refusal to communicate and answer questions about their editing. If they start to do so, they can be unblocked by any admin at any time without conferring with me. --Jayron32 17:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, this discussion has not been linked on the user's Talk page. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've left Leandrod a link to the new discussion here. I'm watching his talk page in case he makes an answer which might be copied here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef block and of course we can reconsider if and when the user communicates with someone. --John (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Email address in an edit summary - bad practice?

There are two accounts active this morning, Megan.pat-bach (talk · contribs) and Antpb (talk · contribs), making edits related to the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority. They apparently have a conflict of interest, but that's not the issue. The problem is that they're embedding a contact email into every edit summary.

Can I get a second opinion on whether that's a bad idea? I'm a little too close to the situation because I mass-reverted Megan's edits for leaving redlinks in articles, before I looked closer at the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway and realized it should be moved (and fixed Megan's edits). So, I'd really like it to be an uninvolved admin making the call on this one. —C.Fred (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. It's not part of the article. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea, especially for someone with an apparent conflict of interest. Could be seen as advertising. Their edits are visible in the history. If it is so important to link them to so and so, make it prominent on their userpage that this account is the official spokesaccount of so and so and have the email there. Syrthiss (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea that it could be perceived as advertising in this context is nonsensical. The editor is clearly just trying to disclose her identity and relationship to the subject: [67]. It's perhaps a little too much detail for an edit summary, and it may expose the editor to spam, but it's not in any way harmful to the project or abusive of our resources. A new editor was bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of a concealed conflict of interest, and you're waggling your finger about imagined "advertising" and self-aggrandizement. Just because a newbie is associated with a corporation doesn't mean that we need to assume (or suggest) the worst.

By all means, encourage this editor to put contact and identity information (as appropriate) on her user page, and invite her to use article talk pages for anything that's likely to be contentious. Advise her that most Wikipedia editors tend to communication through their user talk pages for day-to-day matters, rather than via email. It may also be a good idea to encourage her to try to separate minor copyediting from substantial revision, just to make it easier to see the 'meat' of each edit (and, hopefully, to avoid situations where C.Fred might need or want to revert all the changes, good and bad). So far, though, there isn't really anything to complain about with her editing, and there's no reason to be snippy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh believe me, if I thought that it was blatant advertising and self aggrandizement they'd already be blocked. Its pretty clear that they were editing in good faith. C Fred asked for opinion and I gave it. I apologize if I came off as brusque, though. Syrthiss (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if that's considered bad practice; I didn't know. We were only trying to provide a way for you to verify that the information is accurate and comes from a verified source. You can probably see that the edits were made because of the organization's recent name change. It was done in an effort to update completed expressway exits, ramps, and name/logo information. I hope that helps to clarify the situation! C.Fred (talk · contribs) Antpb (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But primary sources really are not always reliable sources. Editing from a position of "power" undermines the WP:CONSENSUS aspect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Since when has Wikipedia ever treated the representative of a company as being in a position of 'power'? (Yes, I know you linked to COI under that, but still the implication is distasteful and off the mark.) Being openly associated with an article topic in any way is an invitation to more scrutiny and (usually, and sometimes unfairly and unfortunately) harsher treatment; it carries no authority on the project whatsoever.

A company representative should be treated like any other subject matter expert—as long as they endeavour to follow the spirit of Wikipedia's core policies, we should welcome and encourage their participation. While their status does not obviate their need to employ reliable sources or to write from a neutral point of view, it should make us at least a little more reluctant to dismiss their input out of hand. I will note that in this case, the editor in question has been nothing but cooperative, and has politely sought to understand our policies and practices. In response, we have offered dark mutterings about advertising, abuse of power, and undermining consensus. And really—while there are limits (appropriately and deservedly) on the use of primary sources on Wikipedia, it's overkill to demand secondary and tertiary sources for a simple factual matter like "The Second Avenue exit on the Wikipedia Valley Tollroad has been completed and is now open to traffic." Get a grip, people. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they are not always reliable sources. In the case of a company's name change and completion of construction projects, how should one proceed to update and verify that information? --Antpb (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For straightforward factual matters (company name/logo change, construction schedules, new exits/lanes open, etc.) it will usually suffice to link to the relevant announcement or press release on the tollway's web site. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will go ahead and look for the appropriate materials to link to and resubmit edits with that in mind. Also, thanks for understanding my position, wasn't looking to cause any problems, just trying to update information. I appreciate it! --Antpb (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• (sorry that my overgeneralization was supposed to just that ... general ... and not specifically focused ... it was not intended to denigrate the editor(s) in question) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is mostly bad practice for two reasons. One, edit summaries go into change feeds which are scraped by bots for email information. If you want your email address added to more spam lists, by all means add it in plaintext to a wikipedia edit. Two, the email address clutters up the change list. The summary should provide helpful information about a change so that someone can tell at a glance what has been altered in a page. Sources for into can go there, but are only sparingly (e.g. "removed claim about XYZ because of J. Doe et al. 2009"). An email address is relatively low content. I don't think it constitutes advertising or anything nefarious. Protonk (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades' comments. (This seems to happen reasonably often. I'll have to get him to run for some committee or other.) I also agree that e-mail addresses should not appear in edit summaries (and are probably best avoided altogether in most cases). Antpb, are you familar with the Wikipedia e-mail system where you can link an e-mail address to your account here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's feedback and am reexamining edits and also familiarizing myself more with Wikipedia rules. I apologize for my mistakes, as I am relatively new to this whole thing. I now know about linking an e-mail address to an account, so thank you for that suggestion. --Antpb (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yu klose and WP:COMPETENCE

Yu klose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unfortunately I have to bring this user here. He is a Japanese editor who likes to come through and update the Asia League Ice Hockey rosters. The problem is, communication is basically impossible without a translator and he frequently introduces issues in the article, makes errors, messes them up, and without several warnings and a translator, won't provide any sources for his edits. The one time he did provide a source it didn't say anything to support what he wanted it to support. He does seem to get information ahead of official league updates. I'm not sure where he gets it as he won't source it. Recently he introduced issues on High1 by adding several foreign imports to the roster [68] but failing to remove ones which had left the team. Per league regulations they can only have 3, and he'd listed 5. Several days later when the team finally updated its roster on their website I was able to clean it up. However at that time, neither the league (in English or Japanese) nor team website had this information. Attempts to communicate with him went unanswered. Today he just moved all the foreign players on China Dragon to the past import player section, but only removed a single one from active roster, thus leaving several players as both active and past players at the same time [69]. In the past he's introduced incorrect citizenship about players like this: [70], unlike Japan, Korea didn't have dual citizenship laws at the time, and it was impossible for this player to be a dual citizen (dual citizenship was only allowed until 18 at which point they had to declare one or default to Korean). He tried to introduce a source , but of course it didn't call him a Korean citizen. It called him an American one. We'd had similar issues over some Japanese players that have dual Canadian/Japanese citizenship, you can see that outlined on his talk page, I had to bring in a translator for that one. While I appreciate his work in updating the rosters, trying to deal with him as become a burden and a time sink trying to verify the things he's doing and correcting mistakes he's making. His inability to communicate makes the task even more difficult, so I'm asking he either be blocked or banned as it seems he's not able to effectively work with this community.--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've gotta give this another time stamp. If no one is saying anything, can I assume that means no one here objects to my assessment? Is there an admin here willing to handle this?--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That is emphatically NOT a safe assumption to make. It generally means that no one believes the situation is particularly urgent. Often people are just waiting for further developments. This guy is on people's radars, and if this problem continues, please bring it back here, but right now it just seems like there are some communication deficiencies, but it seems to still be moving towards some sort of progress at the talk page. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 00:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What progress? This has been going on for 2 years. There is in fact zero progress being made on the talk page. Look at the time stamps. I've made 3 attempts to communicate with him in the last 2 weeks, and he's come back to edit, but not respond. He's not a high volume editor, so his error to good edit ratio is far too high. The last time he responded on his talk page was over 2 years ago--Crossmr (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, what's the proposal? If his edits aren't a net positive then it would seem an indef block would be appropriate. Otherwise, are we talking about a shot across the bow in the form of a shorter block, or a topic ban from specific areas? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A short block would be the equivalent of no block unless there is a roster change pending for him, as he does little other editing. His last 50 edits take us back 1 year. But in that time we've had a citizenship debate he couldn't communicate over/understand at all, and he's introduced several roster issues in that time because of his unwillingness to cite reliable sources at the time of making the edits. At least during the season the league keeps on top of the roster pages, but off season they don't touch them, so unless he actually works for the league or something, I don't see where he's getting this info. He only made 29 edits in 2010 so that's why there wasn't much talk generated from that year. As I specified above either an indef block/ban (likely to amount to the same thing for him) or a clear ultimatum delivered to him (with the help of a translator) that he has to start paying attention to the messages on his talk page and respond or be blocked indefinitely. Even if he can't understand my messages, I do link the articles I'm talking to him about, or name in the subject, so he's got to know that I'm talking to him about it, and by now he should realize I'm not sending him a message congratulating him and that he should try and find someway to discuss it with me or stop.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, point taken. He hasn't written anything in 2 years. On the other hand, there's been basically no activity at all on his talk page for the last two years except in the last week and a half, so that's not particularly damning. The point still stands, however; people are just waiting and watching to see what happens next. A lack of response doesn't mean you're right, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that nobody really has anything to add either way. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to communicate with him both in February and March of this year. Oda Mari also translated for me in March, and that got no response from him either. Again, look at the time stamps.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Flagstaff1

Could I please ask to have an admin look at user Flagstaff1? It's a new account from today, the editor claims that he has been watching the actions of the alleged plagiarist Grutness for a long time, the editor knows his way around Wikipedia policy and I thus conclude that this is a sock puppet account. The editor's behaviour is uncivil (see the previous diff and this example. His allegations of plagiarism on my part are not what drives me to bring this up, as I hardly ever adopt sentences from NZETC word for word, and where I do, I point out that the source is PD (e.g. here). For the record, I have previously enquired with Gadfium how to react to this editor; he advised that I could ask for action here. Schwede66 09:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

He's made vague accusations and was extremely impolite, was warned, and acknowledged the warning. We'll see what happens from here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be quick to jump to the conclusion that people are sockpuppets. Unless you have undeniable evidence, making those claims is very counter-productive. It's entirely possible for a user to edit as an IP editor or read our policies before creating an account. m.o.p 22:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he really jumped to a conclusion there. He merely asked that an admin check it out because it doesn't pass the smell test. Right now, this seems to be in wait-and-see mode, and that's probably a good place to be for now. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 23:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

People are getting pretty lenient around here. I would probably have blocked this on sight as a single-purpose harassment account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite. When a new account states that its owner has been around Wikipedia for long enough to understand policy, said new account is presumably aware of the dim view taken of editors whose only edits are attacks on other contributors. No further edits since then, so this may have just been a throwaway account, but if it happens again a block is in order. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

More admin eyes needed on Unblock-en-l

Once again, I am posting here to request that more admins subscribe to and respond to requests on the Unblock-en-l mailing list. This list receives unblock requests from editors who have been blocked for misconduct, who are entitled under the blocking policy to appeal their blocks and get a reasonably prompt review and response. A greater portion of the e-mailed requests are from editors or would-be editors who are caught up in rangeblocks or IP blocks. Many of these are newcomers who will conclude that there is something wrong with our claim of "anybody can edit" and wander off for good if they don't hear back from someone reasonably promptly.

At present, just one or two administrators are handling the entire burden of this mailing list (in particular, DeltaQuad has taken on a heroic share of the workload recently). This inevitably means that requests fall through the cracks or are delayed in being answered. As I've said before, I think it's extremely important that we have more admins participating in this list.

If anyone can think of somewhere useful to cross-post this for greater attention, please feel free. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How does one subscribe, Brad? --John (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like here, best I can tell. Could someone please confirm? — Satori Son 01:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to see what I can do to help. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Signed up. I am ashamed that I have been an admin for 5 years without knowing of the existence of this mailing list. --John (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also just joined the list. LadyofShalott 03:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NYB, I have an intro letter for all of you if you can email me (deltaquadwikigmail.com) with the subject exactly "request intro unblock" you should get an Automatic reply with my letter. This contains some info about the list for you. Please do not use the email this user, it sends the email to wiki@wikimedia.org. Thanks guys, -- DQ (t) (e) 07:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks DQ! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Amusingly, the first request I handled was from an IP that I had blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

AFDs of articles created in India Education Program

Some AfDs have been raised on articles which have been (or may have been) created as part of Wikipedia:India Education Program.[71][72] In the first case this is stated at Talk:Strxfrm, in the other case it simply looks likely from the creator's user page[73] and the IEP description.[74] Some are tagged here. This may well be absolutely fine and perhaps one role for the Wikimedia Global Education Program[75] is to demonstrate that articles are regularly shot at dawn. However, maybe someone can check this out and do something, if necessary. Thincat (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, so far we've only had other problems -- copyvio, OR, NPOV, and MOS, not notability issues. I'll notify the foundation liaison of this discussion. Perhaps they ought to add this to their list of to-dos. —SpacemanSpiff 09:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems a good idea to me. Thank you. Thincat (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the project page Wikipedia talk:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Data Structures and Algorithms#Unencyclopaedic content the project lead and ambassadors about this discussion.

Quite a few articles are also on Prod Abort (C standard library), complex inverse hyperbolic sine, Cpow, Frexp(), Sqrt (C standard library), and Strtok are all proposed for deletion. Several others have already been deleted or moved to userspace. eg Iswlower has been userfied to User:Nupuragrawal3/Iswlower. Look at the list I would say about half are likely deletion targets. --Salix (talk): 11:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Resolved

 – User has been blocked. Mato (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone could look into this I would be grateful, but there may be reason to suspect that Special:Contributions/86.144.245.254 is evading a block based on the edits they have made. Regards. Mato (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Battle of Tali-Ihantala article

Page in question: Battle of Tali-Ihantala Some of the related diffs:

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

By user: User:YMB29 - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So what is disruptive about that? It is your editing that is disruptive. I am trying to balance the POV in the article but you keep removing or manipulating any edits that do not agree with the Finnish POV... You also have a habit of misusing sources for citations; your sources don't support your edits or you make your own conclusions from the sources, hence the tags.

I did not make reverts but you keep on reverting and altering what I add to the article.[80][81][82]

So it is ok if you add "according to some researchers..." or "according to Russian sources...", but when I do that it is disruptive?

I will comment more on this later. -YMB29 (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In the latest diff you first erased non-Finnish citation from a comment and then added "according to Finnish sources" to it. If that is disuptive editing or POV pushing i do not know what is. But this matter should be left for the admins to decide, if you have further comments on this topic please post them either to article talk page or to my talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What did I erase? The sources you use often don't match the statements you cite them for. You even use sources that actually contradict the statements you are citing them for.[83] This is really disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me, which means there's no administrative action needed. Have either of you sought a third opinion or otherwise attempted any sort of dispute resolution, such as a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked about the matter in IRC and this was the place where i was instructed to post. I suppose matter could be handled elsewhere but that was the information that i got. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I mention it because I don't see any communication on the article Discussion page in over two weeks, and without discussion, WP:CONSENSUS can't be reached. I'd suggest that if the two of you can't find common ground between you, start by asking for a third opinion or other outside comments (see WP:RFC). If that fails, head over to WP:DRN. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page abuse at User talk:Antmfan1233

Resolved

 – Indeffed.

Antmfan1233 (talk · contribs), despite multiple messages (which they ignored), continues to use their talk page as the (alternate?) scoreboard for some kind of reality show. Your input and actions are appreciated. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this sort of thing at the Simple English Wikipedia, though not sure if it is for the same show. It amounts to trying to use Wikipedia userspace as a free webhost for something completely unrelated to the site's goals. Kansan (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I would have blocked them had I not been the one who warned them a few times already. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you've given them ample warnings to knock it off, so I've given them an indefinite block. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User creating redlinks and redirects en masse

I'm experiencing difficulty with an IP editor who is making a large number of edits to biography infoboxes, particularly with regard to changing the wikilinks of placenames to redirect pages or in some cases, redlinks. Here are a few examples: [84] (2 redirects), [85] (3 redirects, 2 of them the same), [86] (1 redirect, 1 redlink), [87] (1 redirect, 1 redlink) etc etc. I've asked him on his talk page, but he just responded with a personal attack [88]. What's next? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I put a couple of comments on civility and joining this conversation on his/her talk page (as well as instructions on signing talk page additions), so hopefully we'll hear from him/her in the near future. Breton, if you see any more similarly destructive edits being made, please post a few more diffs here. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 23:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do, much appreciated, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually thought some parts of their edits were valid. In the first example, they added parameters to the info box for place of birth and place of death, which is an improvement over what was there before. The sketchy part of the edit could have been fixed by changing the links to more appropriate ones. Here is a diff showing a way the edit could have been tidied in a less bite-y manner: diff. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I started doing that, but it was very time-consuming given the dozens and dozens of articles affected, and the result to the visual aspect of the page was negligible. You say it's an improvement, but there's no noticeable difference to the page itself. The damage he is doing far outweighs any negligible benefit. Why should people have to trawl around after this guy fixing his bad edits, undoing only the parts of his edits that were damaging? Initially, I did not bite this guy, I was perfectly polite, and he ignored me. This isn't a kindergarten, and I have better things to do than clear up the elementary errors of someone who is meanwhile telling me to screw off. He has clearly ignored this discussion, and he is still making bad edits by the way: [89], [90] etc etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa, here [91], you restored his crappy redlink. Was that a mistake? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, we don't need to wikilink country names and big cities like London as per WP:OVERLINK, and why is the USA the only country that doesn't need a mention in the infobox? London gets "England" tacked on to it like there's any doubt as to where London is, yet Whynot, Mississippi doesn't need a country name? This is the kind of thing this guy is doing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did make one mistake tidying up after the guy. Sorry. I see he is continuing to edit, so I will post another explanation on his talk page. --Dianna (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I fixed the ones I saw. I have no problem with him adding the fields, just everything else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am gonna template him for adding unsourced material. Please continue to watch the user. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This guy is still going [92] and he's adding straight vandalism to his work now [93]. I've been tidying up after this editor all evening. Bored now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Following your provided diff, it's clear to me this editor needs to be restricted, blocked for 72 hours and recent edits reverted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I can now catch up with fixing all the redirects. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

User: Shail kalp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shail kalp, besides being generally difficult to understand, has now personally attacked me twice, at [94] and [95]. User was warned for WP:NPA at [96]. Now, I'm the one being attacked, so I can't act, nor can I adequately judge whether or not this really rises to the level required for an attack. I'd at least like an uninvolved admin to make it clear that such behavior isn't acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep quite! You'll only make him angrier! Doc talk 06:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian without no or very less knowledge is involving in discussions which are definetely not for him. He should stick to his knowledge and not to act like a super-editor.Shail kalp (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's the fact that I have little knowledge on the subject that makes me useful to this particular debate. You clearly have a lot of knowledge--which is great. The problem is that you're expressing it as if everything you know is true, and that we should just accept your opinion. You sometimes provide sources, but cover them with so many other words and your opinions that it's hard to sort out what's what. See, Wikipedia requires that all information come from WP:RS; my goal on that talk page is to try to help editors there focus on our sourcing requirements so that the article includes all relevant viewpoints, which may well include viewpoints you or others don't like (you express significant disdain for Marxist and Muslim scholars, for instance). I hope that I can continue to do so without being attacked. If you provide all of your sources, for others to examine, then we should all have enough knowledge to help figure out what goes into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a read through the talk page of that article and much of what I see is another one of those Indian disputes, although this time it is not caste related but a regional thing this time. Shail Kalp tends to write huge walls of text which make it somewhat difficult to follow, but for the most part he sticks to dealing with the content and references, personal attacks aside. Nonetheless, it's obvious that battle lines are being drawn, with camps being divided into pro-Marathi and pro-Kannada sources. I think for this report, a very stern final warning from an uninvolved admin to Shail Kalp for violating [[WP:NPA]. Shail Kalp, if you read what Qwyrxian is writing on the talk page you'll see he's trying to get you to provide sources that abide by WP:RS. Your accusations of bad faith, vandalism and personal attacks are not helpful. Also, you should use edit summaries when editing. Only a few of your edits have summaries and in general it is considered helpful to other editors to provide a summary of what you've done. --Blackmane (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Shail Kalp warned and encouraged to edit more collegially. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

These things happen and people wonder why some of us say that opposing "verifiability, not truth" is such a bad idea... WT:V#First sentence - often those who claim to have the "truth" are those who do not have it... or if they do, do not have the tolerance and patience to develop it *cough* ScienceApologist *cough*--Cerejota (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Another neglected AFD - seems to be a trend

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adultism --Penbat (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed. The problem was that the AfD is not listed in the log at WP:Articles for deletion and so could not be noticed by closers. This may be due to an unnoticed error in the execution of the script that relisted the discussion.  Sandstein  15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

its not the first time this has happened recently so there may be a systematic issue here.--Penbat (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

After the initial period the discussion was inconclusive, so user:Causa sui marked it relisted and correctly commented it out of the August 7 log. I think it should then have been added to the August 15 log but wasn't. The cumbersome nature of AfD transclusions makes little slipups like this difficult to completely avoid. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It was definitely script assisted, though I don't have much memory of this one. I use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js for all my AFD closes and relists. Maybe some better fault tolerance could be built into the script. I remember a few times my internet connection would hiccup while I was in the middle of closing or relisting an AFD and something like this would happen. Usually I catch it and finish the job manually, but in this case I must have missed it. Good catch. causa sui (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:DumbBOT used to catch these cases. I wonder what happened to it... T. Canens (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

ip continually adding falsified information

The article James King (Royal Navy officer) has been the subject of some low level vandalism by an ip user , who continually adds a demonstrably false piece of information concerning the subject's place of birth. (see the article talkpage for how the present information is sourced). Repeated attempts to get this user to engage with the evidence have failed, and a single purpose account the ip used to disrupt the page, User:Skellands, was eventually blocked indefinitely. It has now become a simple matter of the ip, having ignored all requests to stop or to engage in discussion or otherwise present sources for his single edit, reverting anyone who restores the correctly sourced information. Simply applying a temporary block does not seem a practical solution given the user's edit pattern. Benea (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverted the IP. The source utilized is authoritative, the IP is using conjecture. N419BH 21:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• IP blocked 2 weeks for block evasion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Flood of nominations for userboxes at WP:MFD

Hi there. There is currently a flood of nominations for unused userboxes at WP:MFD. A discussion ensued at Unused userboxes about how to handle those nominations and/or whether to close them for now. As WT:MFD is not the most frequented area of the project, more eyes here would be appreciated. Regards SoWhy 16:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A related speedy deletion criterion has been proposed at WT:CSD. →Στc. 05:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

user Sitush and MatthewVanitas are extremely biased.

Resolved

- reporting IP blocked 3 months - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

user Sitush and MatthewVanitas are extremely biased. Even after so many discussion and references they have completely hijacked the article YADAV and have put in incorrect information. Due to them wikipedia has become like a personal blog. some one please be unbiased and correct the article and put in the correct information. Sitush and MatthewVanitas have a tendency to put in their personal opinion in article YADAV and dont care about neutrality. They have completely ignored all references provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.192.2 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I have notified MatthewVanitas. Just off to notify myself ... - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry Sitush, I took care of that. Let's hope they come here to defend themself. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the reporting IP user's address listed as having contributed any edits to either the article itself or to the Discussion page for the article. Is there another registered user involved here, one that perhaps doesn't wish to be hoisted on their own petard? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Their edits to Talk:Yadav tend to be deleted. There is some discussion at User_talk:EdJohnston about this, in relation to Truefact1979. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Both these users show a distressing tendency to prefer reliable sources and to insist that both sides of contentious topics be reported with such. They show a lack of combative and tendentious editing which is very regrettable, and severely reduces the amount of drama here. Moar dramaaah! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Very valid points. I propose that the community compliment them severely, and that a sticker be placed in their permanent record. Let's not have any more of that sensible stuff; it totally destroys our reputation. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a block-evading IP of User:Dewan357. –MuZemike 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Coming late to the party, but Dewan357 has been traveling a bit lately (and therefore jumping IPs), but this one's him for sure based on behavior alone, especialy at Raja Raja Chola I.—SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Will this be added to Dewan's SPI archive then? He was heavily involved as TrueFact79 and blocked just days ago. This ed really has some strong opinions and a desperation to express them... MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Many of his blocks aren't logged in the SPI, they are in the two sock cats only. Just add {{IPsock|Dewan357|confirmed}} to the IP user pages, it'll sit in the category after that. —SpacemanSpiff 18:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Given the fact that this Dewan357 has been disruptively socking since 2009, has anyone considered floating a ban proposal? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

IP editor(s) at National Maximum Speed Law

I've been involved in a long running disagreement with an IP editor (or perhaps many) over at National Maximum Speed Law. In particular, he RVs most of the edits I make and does not talk to me about the substance of this. This has been going on very slowly for a few months now.

In a recent incident I proposed a change on the talk page, waited several days and made the proposed change after there were no comments. An IP then RVed that change and wrote a comment on the talk page that was primarily about me and not about the article itself. I asked the user on the talk page to engage about the substance. After five days, I'm here.

I'm not really sure how I even want to proceed.

Some more history: I summarized the edits and talk page activities here. Here another user is accusing me of edit waring. I'm not really sure how to deal with an IP that RVs and won't discuss (nobody has ever told me, except another Admin's suggestion to go here, to ANI) except to say that I'm somehow supposed to "work things out on the talk page" with someone (or people) who don't use the talk page to talk about the article. After that I worked out some edits with a registered editor (who I have no dispute with) and update the page. Then it was RVed by an IP. Then I proposed my changes bit by bit and the rest is what is the incident above.

One more question, who am I supposed to put that template on? Again, I don't know if I'm dealing with one or more IPs. For now, I will add it to the IP that last RVed me. 0¹⁸ (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently taking a look at it. Generally if someone reverts without discussion you can request that they be blocked for edit warring. If multiple editors/IPs are reverting you can also request that the page be protected from editing, which will force discussion to occur. N419BH 20:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're trying to promote pro-55mph viewpoints and suppress anti-55mph viewpoints. Per WP:NPOV this is not a good idea. I would probably revert you too. N419BH 20:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Look again. I'm promoting inclusion of references (pro- and anti-55) that meet WP:RS. I have added both types of reference and since there was only anti-55 on the page when I got there, it is true that I have removed only anti-55 references. That said, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of various edits on the talk page with whomever would like to talk there. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're going, but I agree with the IP that placing the pro-55 viewpoint in the lead sentence is not a good idea, and I would have reverted you in most of the diffs I looked at too. You need to provide both viewpoints, reliably sourced, and allow the reader to make their own conclusion since there really isn't a definitive answer one way or the other. You might of course point out that the safety of automobiles in general has vastly improved since 1973, so you're comparing apples to oranges in a way, which is why there is no definitive answer. You're much more likely to survive a crash these days thanks to airbags, crumple zones, roofs that don't crush, and stricter enforcement of seatbelt and DUI laws. You could probably write a whole series of articles on traffic safety for that matter; in fact, I bet such a series already exists. N419BH 21:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

After another editor started talking with me about that, I dropped changing the lead. But is "what should happen to the article" the topic here? I thought that was the topic on the article's talk page (where I'd love to talk to you or others about edits). I think the point is that I'm getting RVed but no discussion and I want it to stop. 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see anything actionable from an administrative standpoint. This is a content dispute, and you and the other editors at the article need to figure it out. If you get reverted you need to figure out why and fix your edit so you don't get reverted again. I'm now watching the article and will help if the issues persist. But now myself and an admin have agreed with the IP's reverts, so I think you need to look at the contents of your own edits rather than the reverts of others. I'm not saying your edits are bad, I'm saying you need to look at how they're likely to be interpreted. The goal is WP:NPOV. We're not here to convince someone one way or another, we're here to present facts in an organized manner and allow the reader to make their own conclusions. N419BH 21:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could describe the process by which I "you and the other editors at the article need to figure it out." when the other editor will not engage in discussion. You also write, "if the issues persist" two months isn't long enough? Is this for real? 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're pretty much doing it. Make an edit, if it's reverted make a different edit and request the reverter to explain on the talk page. I see discussion on the talk page from both you and IPs so I'm not quite sure where this "no discussion" is coming from. It does seem like the IP is engaging in some WP:OWN behavior but not enough to warrant blocking them. N419BH 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Show me two edits where the IP engages me in with respect to the article. (this excludes the IP concerned about 55 vs 85 who I am sure is a separate editor). 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of different IPs, and they all engage you with their edit summaries (I don't like the bad faith accusation in that one but the rest has merit) and point out exactly what they think is wrong when they revert. If you look at the entire article from June until today, you'll see that many of your changes, as well as the changes of other editors, have been accepted. N419BH 22:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So... no then, you can't. I mean get real, "restore viewpoints that O18 removed" complete with removing sources I added in the edit and the fact that there was a place where I had started a discussion at the time is just a little beyond the pail as, "discussion"? Another is, "This person is acting in bad faith and converting the article to have his POV and alos deleting valid pop culture references.)" and the "pop culture reference" in question might be the link to regression towards the mean which is not what this is a case of. I'd be happy to explain that on the talk page, if the editor asked or made clear that this actually was the pop culture reference. More than an edit summary is needed. 0¹⁸ (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you think it is okay that I proposed an edit on the talk page, waited five (5) days where there was no comments, then I made the edit, and then had it undone, and the editor wrote out a massive rant about my editing and continued to not comment on the edits themselves on the talk page. 0¹⁸ (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The rant was not ideal, and if he keeps it up he'll end up blocked. N419BH 04:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry block review - Afterthetruth

User talk:Afterthetruth Afterthetruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - I blocked after quick comparison with Blogging4truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blogging4truth/Archive. It seems rather straightforwards, between user name and the particular content focus (see DRV filing by Afterthetruth). I've gotten several emails from them proclaiming innocence, however, so I am throwing this out for independent review... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obviously socking. (Endorse) N419BH 22:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First edit is to a DRV about Michael Crook, and only edits have been related to Crook. Yep, the quacking is so loud it echoes down here. Blueboy96 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ssriram mt's edits

I'm having a few problems in explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines to User:Ssriram mt. The user has been violating some of Wikipedia's policies and not heeding my advice.

For example, consider the following articles which the user had created.

• Thiruppaarththanpalli
• Thiru Vanpurushothamam

When I moved this articles to "Taamaraiyaal Kelvan Perumal Temple" and "Purushotama Perumal Temple" explaining that the name in the infobox should be the same as the subject of the article, the user had reverted it back. Now, I need some help and also some expert opinion on what the name of the article should be.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 03:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This might be better served with a discussion at WT:Hinduism (I saw you posted on WT:INB). I see your point, but both names are being used within the article (although the primary name within the article and the title appear to be in conflict) and for a couple of articles that I checked, I could find much help through Google either.—SpacemanSpiff

Vandalism only account

User:Mlawrence14 is a new account with a total of 4 edits, all of them being vandalism to the same article. [97], [98], [99], [100]. Given progressive warnings. Notified of ANI here[101]. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked them based on a report at WP:AIV. In the future, for simple vandalism like this, WP:AIV is the better venue than here. --Jayron32 05:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• They usually tend to be slower in my experience. Either way, it got taken care of. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's all the admins?

I've been looking at WP:RFPP. We have at least 22 requests that have not been answered, some of which that have not been answered for over 24 hours. Where are all the admins?OpenInfoForAll (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 DoneAll cleared now (note, not all done by me!!) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Can action be taken against an IP user who constantly refuses to follow guidelines on Talk pages?

I'm not sure if this warrants a block, but I think action of some sort needs to be taken against an IP user who refuses to follow the normal Talk page etiquette. In particular, he never signs his posts, and does not create new section headings properly. He has been shown how to do things but seems to take no notice, and is still claiming that he doesn't know what to do. There have also been incidents of abusive posts, sockpuppeting and deletion of other users' posts, but thankfully these seem to have stopped now.
See Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan#Merger Proposal and subsequent sections. There is a post in the Signing Posts section where I have linked to other examples of misconduct.
Whilst a block may be harsh, I'm not sure what else to do - we have tried and failed with normal negotiations. Bazonka (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

His latest post is here. This just about sums it up. Bazonka (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And then he deleted this thread from the noticeboard: [102]. I feel that the case for blocking is getting stronger. Bazonka (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

He has used three separate IPs on that talk page since 12 September. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left a lengthy note on xyr talk page explaining why what seem like trivial details actually matter. Let's see if this leads to any improvement; should we instead see a defiant response, I have no qualms with another admin blocking. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If they are using multiple IPs, then it's possible that some comments/advice in user talk space won't reach the intended reader... no? bobrayner (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User has since created an account User:Sascha30. I suggest an admin pop by and give them the run down on how to behave on Blackmane (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing for an AfD

BabbaQ (talk · contribs) has been clearly canvassing for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack. He created the article so therefore has a vested interest to keep. He wiped my recent warnings for canvassing off his talk page [103]. and gave some response here [104]. clearly this is a pattern of selective notification of users known to vote keep. the message is neutral but that's besides the point. "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions "

User:Yaksar has also tried to ask a reason for this selective notification with little success [105].

Evidence of selective notification:

• [106]
• [107]
• [108]
• [109]
• [110]
• [111]
• [112]

it is no surprise that 2 of the users contacted have turned up and !voted keep.

BabbaQ has a history of trying to sway AfDs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BabbaQ/Archive

LibStar (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to WP Administration LibStar has made false accusations about my voting record. On multiple pages LibStar is stating that I usually !vote Keep. Please check my voting record, I have not voted in any AfDs since this accusation. I have voted in 30 AfDs. I have voted 13 Keep, 14 Delete, 1 Merge/delete and 2 Redirect. Please put LibStar on notice for false accusations and harassment as he spreading this false statement "this !vote was canvassed given that Ryan.germany !votes keep at almost every AfD." about me. --Ryan.germany (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Without weighing judgement one way or another on the CANVASS question: man, I think there will be more "notes to the closing admin" in this AFD than there will be votes... either way (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• comment the idea of wasting your time canvassing to get this complete not encyclopedic trivia kept is just amazing. In twelve months this article will be only seem by robots - it a one day news story - AFD here should be renamed Do you like it discussion - WP:DYLID - Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Not really an issue in this AFD but I never give much weight to the "nobody will notice it" argument. LibStar saw it and he's not a bot. The fact that attempts are made to get an article deleted demonstrates that an article has been noticed. A point I made in this AFD early in my wiki "career". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• My point was more directed at the news-ness of the article and its limited notability. It can be written in a single sentence and will not require any expansion, perhaps a conviction addition in about six months - when the suspects are nor convicted of terrorism the title will seem a bit incorrect. - At most its a line in a parent article. Please note, I myself have made edits to improve the article even though I don't support it as a stand alone article on en wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have asked him on his talk page how he came to choose these particular editors to notify. I'd like to wait until we hear from him before doing anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Its perfectly OK to notify users of an AfD as per one of the first paragrpahs inn the Canvassing page. If some users percieve it as Canvassing I do apologize, but it is how they percieve it. But this in my opinion seems like an overreaction by a few users that are of an strong delete opinion. Off2riorobs, comment is a perfect example, how can we tell that this will be a "one day news story" that is pure speculations as three of the men will be further prosecuted for these events. I dont have a crystal ball. --BabbaQ (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Also I have to say that its quite strange that Libstar brings this up, a user that answer with a "how can you !vote like that,please change your opinion" kind of argument to every single keep !Vote that is recieved on his AfDs, this is one good example. It always gives me the impression that Libstar wants people to change their opinions to his, and its not only me that think its inappropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My edit is irrelevant to this discussion and an attempt to sidetrack this ANI. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • • User:Yaksar has also tried to ask a reason for this selective notification with little success - Is wrong I have answered your questions it only took a few days, here. Also just because I dont agree with you Libstar doesnt make my opinions wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ, you didn't answer the question Floquenbeam asked you, which is critical to determining the difference between neutral notification and canvassing. Again: what criteria did you use to select those specific people to "notify"? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ, we are not discussing the notability of the article here, we are discussing your behavior specifically why you contacted a select bunch of people? your avoidance of this key question is noted. trying to pretend you did nothing wrong, only emphasizes to me the willingness to breach WP:CANVASS. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if this were a canvassing violation, is there any claim that BabbaQ should know better and is doing this repeatedly over time despite being asked to stop? Because if not, the most you could expect is that someone would caution them to be more careful in the future. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All I could find was a mild warning in March[113]. On the other hand, in May he was twice blocked for using sockpuppets which gave him support in debates. While that is not the same as canvassing (where you can only hope that the others will agree with you, instead of the certainty you have with socks), it is another indication of being inclined to sway discussions by improper means. Fram (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there was canvassing going on here, yes, the expectation would be that he no longer does it in the future. However, it still impacted this AFD if it did occur, so the continuation/outcome of the AFD would need to be examined. either way (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have said I am apologizing if it was percieved as Canvassing. Now I know how to handle it in the future. However I still stand by that users can make their own decisions on AfDs even if notified by a user or not.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So you would canvass and commit fraud off wiki for consensus making decisions? Or because this is just a website, do you think it is acceptable? Either way, it has been whitewashed on the discussion page regardless of your canvassing. Colofac (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note to BabbaQ You might want to reread WP:CANVASS. There are four parts to determining if canvassing has occured. Scale, Message, Audience, and Transparency. You appropriately handled scale, message, and transparency; but it is the audience that is in question. You have been repeatedly asked about how you chose your audience. Please simply clarify how you picked your audience without the continued claim of innocence. WP:CANVASS contains more than just a single line. Infact, had you read the "This page in a nutshell", you would've seen "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." (emphasis mine). That quote comes before the line you continue to quote us. Please clarify how you chose your audience.--v/r - TP 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have. To the best of my ability.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think it's time to accept that user:BabbaQ approached people based on their voting history in a vain attempt to keep his article about a non event (that should have been csd'd) from being deleted. As a side point, when is the discussion due to end? I think the outcome is clear. Colofac (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems more like your personal opinion about the article then true facts.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• There are only a few possibilities I can see (let me know if there are more I haven't thought of).

1. BabbaQ notified these editors because they previously had something to do with this article. This would be either not canvassing, or canvassing, depending on how confident he was in what their opinion would be.
2. BabbaQ notified these editors because he has interacted with them on other articles before ("friends", if you will), and was looking for some additional input from people he knew. This would be fairly significant canvassing, but with a large enough dose of AGF, I can see how it might not be intentional deception, and would be worthy of a "don't do that again".
3. BabbaQ notified these editors because he had seen their typical AFD positions, and knew they generally voted "keep". This would not only be canvassing, but could really only be considered intentionally deceptive canvassing. I do not believe people should get a warning the first time they do something that they already know is wrong. Especially if there is a previous history of deception during discussions. Warnings are not intended to give someone "one free pass" for intentional deception before being sanctioned.

It is important that BabbaQ provide a believable explanation of how he chose these editors. Further avoidance of this question is going to lead me to assume the third possibility. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Hi Floquenbeam thanks for contacting, I would say that number 2 is the most accurate one. I contacted "wiki friends" that I actually thought would give their honest opinions about the subject like for example User: Jivesh, I have contacted him/her atleast one time before and it hasnt been a keep decision on that AfD so I was fairly confident for example that, that user would give his/her honest opinions without my notification influencing the decision. And I honestly contacted the other ones with the same assumption that they wouldnt be influenced by the notification. If that is still canvassing I guess I do apologize for the third time in this thread. Simply putting it I contacted only users that I know has good knowledge about notability and non-notability both in a Keep and in a Delete direction. Per AGF if anything.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC with above) BabbaQ said 'However I still stand by that users can make their own decisions on AfDs even if notified by a user or not'. Whether or not this is true, it's completely moot here. If the issue was a non neutral message then it may have some relevence (but the community does not believe it's enough to excuse non neutral messages). But the issue, as several people said before your reply and several people have said after is the people you chose to notify and how you chose them. Are you really going to tell us you can't understand why only notifying people you have reason to believe will !vote in one way will generally indeed skew the !vote in that way even if the people involved 'make their own decision'? Because it's hard to imagine how anyone could not understand that. Of course, if you didn't chose the people who you felt were friendly to your POV, then you need to clarify how you chose who to notify as people said before and after your message. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now answered Floquenbeams question to the best of my ability. I will not respond to the same question asked in different ways for the fifth time in this AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In which case I move that the article be immediately deleted and the user indefinitely banned. You haven't answered the question and you have made it clear that you are unwilling to comply with community requests, this I feel, indicates that you are here only to further disrupt the project. Colofac (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, we don't block people, let alone ban them, for a single incident of canvassing, if that's what happened, and if is indeed canvassing, a message on the AfD to the closing admin is sufficient. Your call for blood is completely disproportionate to the scale of the incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a block let alone ban as necessary. While as noted below, I'm still concerned about the fact they don't really seem to understand the problems with their actions and worse they don't seem to be interesting in trying to, they have finally offered an explaination of sorts of how they selected the people they notified and have claimed they weren't influenced by what they expected the people's opinions to be. If we AGF on their statements, I agree with what FQ said before they replied, we should just give a clear cut 'don't do it again' warning. And they have actually stated a while back they won't do it again. As I noted below, if they are unwilling or unable to understand the problem with their actions, this suggests to me we'll be back here sometime in the future but it seems to me it's best if we leave them be for now. (As for what happens to the article, I can't really be bothered looking in to it.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC with Colofac) In case it's not obvious my message was written before your reply to FQ (actually I was planning to write it before I even saw FQ's reply but was busy with other stuff). BTW the reason it was asked so many times is because you failed to respond to it despite repeated requests and several replies on your part until very recently. It is good that you have finally clarified and it is also good that you did not notify people based on what you believed their opinions would be. However I still find it troubling, and I suspect I'm not the only one, about your apparent inability to understand it is nothing to do with the message, but all to do with who you notified. Even more concerning is your apparent inability to understand why selectively notifying people who's opinion is likely to be in one direction is harmful, even if they give their 'honest opinions' without your notification influencing their opinions.

Note that even though you did not intentionally notify people based on what you felt their opinions would be, this is still the reason of concern here as several people have said several times. While we can WP:AGF you do not believe you were influenced in what you believed their opinions would be in who you chose to notify this time, an ad-hoc 'people I know' list is always going to be problematic since there ultimately no way we can verify why these people are on the list. Furthermore, even if you honestly believe the composition of this list was not influenced by how you felt they would !vote, it should hopefully be obvious that without an objective criteria it's easily possible the composition was in fact influenced. Either directly in that even if you were equally friendly with 2 people you would be unintenionally more likely to put someone who's opinions tended to be closer on your own on the list or indirectly in that you would generally be closer with people who's opinions are closer to your own. (And of course if you have a list of people you always notify, it's a fair bet by random chance you're going to be influencing one way or the other.)

These are key parts of the reasons why your behaviour is likely to be seen as canvassing even if that was not the intention. I say this because even though you may have apologised (in some fashion) and said you won't do it again, I think it's far more important you understand why we see your behaviour is unwanted. However, it does seem you aren't really interested in understanding why, which is perhaps my deepest concern in the whole issue, but that isn't really an issue for ANI yet (although one of the reasons it's so concerning is it's likely to result in future visits to ANI) so I guess there's no point for further discussion here.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, so in this case, the canvassing that occurred seems to have been basically countered by the more neutral attention brought to the discussion by this ANI. But has BabbaQ now shown that he understands the issues with his actions? I want it to be clear why this was wrong so that we don't end up here again, because if we do some sort of action will need to be taken.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Massive sock farm?

Try this internal search in user-space for "my background is in biology, with a main interest in snakes". See, for example, User:Alexis4567001112000, User:Shashankg1303, User:Nonayobusiness, User:Vojislavrad... and hundreds more.

Is this a giant stealth sock farm, or is there (just possibly) a more innocent explanation such as boiler-plate text being inserted by ACIP?

If the former, a mass-blocking, an SPI, and inspection of any edits made by those users, would seem appropriate. If the latter, we should use the edit filter to prevent accounts from being created with such clearly misleading boilerplate text in them. -- The Anome (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's already been discussed and resolved here: [[114]] and [[115]] Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see where it's resolved by an action to stop it from happening again. However warm and cuddly ACIP is meant to be, auto-spamming WP with bogus machine-created user pages seems not only pointless, but actively counter-productive. Could we at least mass-delete these user pages, since they contain bogus information that helps no-one, and no-one, particularly the users involved, seems to have ever read them? - The Anome (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I couldn't find out who maintains this ACIP software. They should certainly be told en-wiki doesn't want this snake infestation. One way to avoid this might be: (a) at MediaWiki:Customusertemplate-ACP1-welcomecreation, change the caption on the button from "Create my user page for me now!" to "Create my user page with the text above now!", and (b) keep this command button deactivated untill the user has actually changed the contents of the text box above. Unfortunately, the actual implementation of all this seems to be hidden in some program code I can't find. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The incantation '<div id="signupuserpagefillmagic"></div>' on that page is clearly where the stuff is getting inserted, aand then the trail goes dark -- as you say, it must be happening by some program code that is beyond our reach. -- The Anome (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: Got it! It's in MediaWiki:Common.js -- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I just took out the whole bit of example text from Common.js, just leaving the "replace this text with something about you"? -- The Anome (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The maintainer of this project is User:Hannibal. See also WP:VPR#Account Creation Improvement Project: Test results, one clear suggestion and some vague ones. MER-C 12:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message for him on his talk page: User talk:Hannibal#Misleading boilerplate text in user pages -- The Anome (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

THERE ARE TOO MANY SNAKES ON THIS FREAKING WIKI! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MUTHERFSCKING SNAKES ON THESE MUTHERFSCKING PAGES. EVERYBODY STRAP IN. I'm about to open some fscking windows. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"replace this text with something about you" is a fine alternative. bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the code in common.js. In the meantime, we have almost 9,000 user pages that contain the exact same bogus text, most of which presumably have never even been looked at by their own users, let alone anyone else, and just serve to add confustion to Wikipedia. It would seem to me to be a good idea to delete all of these, excepting only those in which the boilerplate text has been altered, or which have been edited subsequently. Does this make seem like a reasonable course of action? -- The Anome (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting these user pages could be very confusing to new editors, who very likely would have a minimal understanding of the reasons and might think they did something wrong. Wouldn't it be better to have a bot go through and replace the boilerplate with a "replace this text" boilerplate using an un-bitey edit summary? VQuakr (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That sounds like a much better idea, and can easily be done by a bot. I'd be happy to do it with my bot, but I'm uncertain as to the best way to get this sort of one-off task approved without going through the entire bot-approval process from scratch: can anyone clue me in as to the best way to do this? -- The Anome (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be courteous to notify the ACIP folks that you're planning to do this... they may be able to offer some useful input as to what the "replace this text" boilerplate should be, or suggest an alternative approach. 28bytes (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. See User talk:Hannibal#Misleading boilerplate text in user pages. I've also put in a bot task request. -- The Anome (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll: Should Equestria Daily be fully considered as a legitmate source?

Resolved

 – Essay/poll deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment and ask you to look at this poll concerning the use of Equestria Daily as a legitmate source.

Thanks, Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You not only created that "essay", but you're also asking others to look at it? Is it April Fool's Day? Am I missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Probable need to remove Administrator rights

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

Bureaucrats have been notified. 28bytes (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

---

User bahamut0013, an administrator here in Wikipedia died last night and although its unlikely that we need to worry about anyone accessing his account we should probably revoke his Administrator rights just in case. --Kumioko (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This should be posted at WP:BN so that the bureaucrats can take care of it. --Rschen7754 01:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I gotta say, even if I have never met bahamut0013, that this thread, both the heading and the comments are terribly cold. The dude died, show some humanity! :/--Cerejota (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the lack of humanity. It's customary to salute a deceased U.S. Marine with the motto "Semper Fi". –MuZemike 01:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines is the official guideline. We desysop as a procedure for account security, but we don't indefinitely block unless the account is compromised. --Rschen7754 01:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually did know him so I apologize if offense was taken, none was intended. I was simply trying to notify the Administrators of the event so that the procedures could be followed. --Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Mlillybaltimore

This user has been deleting genres from band and album articles a lot. The user, as seen on his/her talk page, has been blocked once in the recent past for this type of behavior. (S)he has since been given four warnings from two different users about the genre warring since that block, but has not stopped regardless. He or she removes genres due to an alleged lack of reliable sourcing, and has performed edits involving a removal of the allmusic citation. Affected pages include The King of Limbs (history), Clinic (band) and respective album pages (such as Visitations (Clinic album) and Winchester Cathedral (album)), Gorillaz (history) and Gorillaz (album) (history), Radiohead (history). It's one thing to occassionally remove genres due to being unsourced, but I feel that this is a case of WP:POINT. I'm not going to attempt or care to go into a multi-page genre feud with this person, because there are already too many of those, generally speaking. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Trying to clean up Wikipedia pages to make sure that the inclusion of reliable, third party sources are included when it comes to describing the genre of a band or album is not a radical, or unreasonable endeavor. If User:Backtable has an issue with my removal of tenuous genre affiliations, he or she needs to simply cite a reliable third party source. It's that simpleMlillybaltimore (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If content is unsourced, and if there's any doubt over it, then removing it is a Good Thing; this is supposed to be an encyclopædia rather than a collection of lots of factoids which each editor believes to be true. However, we don't need a source to say that the sky is blue. If there's any disagreement over whether or not specific sources justify particular claims of genre, then the reliable sources noticeboard might be a good place to ask.

Genres are a magnet for trouble anyway. If in doubt, leave it out. bobrayner (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The sky is blue analogy is troublesome and not applicable when it comes to the genre of bands and albums. I'm trying to ensure some semblance of uniformity and verification. It's not that hard to determine what should be included based on the collective information found in reliable third party sources. If someone is insistent on calling Clinic for example, an alternative band, then there needs to be some sort of citation to that effect.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm failing to see what the problem here is; the answer, to my mind, is quite simple. Music articles should, I should imagine, be categorised on genre based on what WP:RS references say about the bands, not about what editors think the genres should be classed as (which would surely be WP:OR). If the genre is not universally applied to the artist and is something localised only to the Wikipedia coverage of the subject, there's clearly something wrong. If the genre is widely applied to the artist in reliable source references to the artist, it seems obvious that it should be stated. Am I missing something wider here? --Tristessa (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So why this change from one genre to two new ones - without citing a source? Radiopathy •talk• 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's about trying to maintain uniformity across the band's main page and the specific album's page. A page for an individual song should hew closely to the album's main page. As I said, if you want to include a tenuous genre tag (like alternative rock to anything related to Radiohead in the post Kid-A era), then just cite a source.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

repeat vandalism

Resolved

 – page protected by User:JaGa

Some unknown ips are doing repeat vandalism on Vellalar page since several weeks.Rajkris (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Future requests should be made at WP:RPP. It is generally faster there. Thanks, →Στc. 20:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's the case now recently. For some reason, it takes a much longer time to get an answer for page protection now. It can sometimes take over 24 hours now in order to get an answer for a request.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Colofac (talk · contribs)

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

We really don't need another separate section for this, it's already under discussion above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

---

User keeps adding random barnstars to my talk page, also he is spamming my talk page and removing AIV reports, also user is Attack me (check talk page history) --ChristianandJericho 11:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

I can't believe this. Why wont you just leave me alone? Why do you always have to pop up with more harassment. Someone ban him before I go to Arbcom because this is really taking the piss now. Colofac (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

How's this for an idea: avoid each other. That way, no one gets their knickers in a twist, and the admins don't have to use any of their admin tools. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 18 September 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Future timestamped to prevent archival.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Move help needed

I did noob mistake when closing Talk:Kefallinia_Prefecture#Requested_move and forgot to check if I could move over redirect. I can't. Please someone with Mop mop it up. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty bold call for a non-admin to make, but it has been sitting at the bottom of the backlog for weeks now. Anyway, if you don't get any joy here you can tag the redirect with {{db-g6}}. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, nothing bold in cleanup ;). Can someone move it please?--Cerejota (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. As Jenks24 says, in the future you can expedite the process by adding Template:Db-move to the target page and specifying which page should be moved there; the CSD patrollers will see that and take care of the move for you. 28bytes (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that after I moved it for you, you moved it again "Per WP:IAR and WP:BOLD" in contradiction to your own closing statement. Were you planning to do that when you started this AN/I thread? 28bytes (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that Elonka has since reverted the second move. Jenks24 (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Flood of usernames with "NNU" and random numbers

As of late, there has been many, many new users joining the project, all using "NNU" in their usernames, all of which have attempted to add articles related to China. Is this a cause for concern? I ask as the edits all seem to be following one pattern .

Account creation logs of some of the users:

• NNU-11-22100506
• NNU-01-05100116
• NNU-10-24100112

Is this some sort of university project?

Colofac (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an organized college project form Nanjing Normal University, China. There are hundreds of students involved: See these results China is very repressive regarding Wikipedia, These students are not without risk for their participation. I am confident the numbers are a way to reduce vulnerability. They are contributing content in good faith, and are not at all here to disrupt.--My76Strat (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely there is some form of way to stop this. They are introducing many articles that are totally inappropriate for the English Language site. Colofac (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that we would want to stop it. It's bad enough their own government is intent to stop them. They are each an individual editor, participating of what free will they have. We should treat each account on its merits, and guide them to productive contributions. I have sampled some of the articles I see them writing, and so far I haven't seen an egregious thing.--My76Strat (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that they will try and push their vile propaganda through the site. Colofac (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Vile? Jiangdu middle school ? Xu yuanchong? Not seeing any propaganda so far. But since the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, stay sharp and stay frosty, soldier. --Lexein (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just endless streams of articles about unknown Chinese people, obscure cultural items, non-notable shops etc. Colofac (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we know who is in charge? They should be pointed to WP:SUP. It is discouraging for the students, as well as disruptive for the rest of us, if they are just told to make articles without being properly briefed. There is an Indian project running which has produced a number of problems with copyvios and NN snippet articles. JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bearing in mind wikipedia's current problems with systemic bias, any assumption that foreign editors are, by default, going to push "vile propaganda" should be kept well away from places like NPP or other forms of patrolling. I don't think that attitude would do much harm to article content initially (as AfDs and tags &c tend to get seen by other editors who may counter prejudiced actions), but valuable new editors are more likely to get bitten, which isn't going to help wikipedia improve quality in the longer term.

• "removing unintended welcome. I'm not here to welcome." is a particularly worrying attitude;
• "Maybe he is famous in your closed society, but not in the free world he isn't" is a shockingly harsh thing to say to a newbie after wrongly trying to CSD their article;
• The notion that Women's clothes in ancient China "is not important enough to warrant an article of it's own" beggars belief.

Some of these new users have made good edits; some have not. Tarring them all with the same brush is a Bad Thing, as is deliberately biting them. Stop this now. bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We do not know how this was organized. It is not part of the WP:AMBASSADOR program. I invited someone from WikiProject:China to consider if they can help.--My76Strat (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is not a problem. The problem is xenophobic biting behavior from what should be welcoming colleagues. This is the sort of thing that should be welcomed because it is one little step on the way to make wikipedia less biased towards unknown and irrelevant American topics, like midwest highschools and NASCAR race drivers nobody in the rest of the world cares about. We do of course need to keep an eye on the contributions for language quality and sourcing, but frankly I am appalled at the way some people here are reacting. Having seen some of the harsher comments by colofac I am now stating frankly that if I see you engaging in similar conduct I will block you, to give you time to understand our policies on civilty and WP:BITE. That kind of conduct is unbecoming and damaging to the project. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What is worse is that for example Hong chen was tagged and deleted as speedy when it clearly was not a speedy candidate as the article asserted notability (finalist in TV competition). If that claim was correct and if the event in itself would be notable could be discussed at an AFD. Obiously sources would need to be supplied. BLPProd would have been the way to go. Chinese article? Shoot first appologize later. Agathoclea (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Same problem with Yang Gensi. Notability was clearly and unequivocally asserted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored. T. Canens (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

These numbers are likely some sort of student ID, to make them easier to track for the staff of whatever course these students are taking. I can't really expand on what Maunus has said above. Anyone who's doing something like this should not be even near NPP, period. T. Canens (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Going back to an earlier comment: "It's just endless streams of articles about unknown … people, obscure cultural items, non-notable shops etc." That sounds like a typical day at [116]. :) Seriously, a lot of new editors experiment by creating a page about themselves, their teachers, local shops, etc. Standard operating procedure for those situations is to speedy delete them under CSD A7 and point the user toward the notability guidelines and writing about topics that are notable. We don't need to be more harsh on this subset of new users just because of geography. I'm not saying they should get a free pass, either, but given the circumstances, maybe we need to do a better job of explaining why the edits aren't appropriate. Anybody up to translate "Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the community has set certain minimum guidelines of notability that the subjects of new articles must meet. Your article, unfortunately, did not meet that guideline. If you want to continue developing this article to meet the guidelines—or need it recovered as part of a class project—please reply to this message to request it be restored into your user space"? —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You are completely right.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not just allow the school project to proceed uninterrupted and when they've finished their articles to sort out the mess afterwards. Surely, the overall result is positive for Wikipedia. Some might enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and continue in their spare time. It seems silly to alienate them all on their very first contribution. It's a bit hypocritical to accuse the Chinese of censorship and then to censor them whilst they are editing their first articles as they are editing them. It really is not very polite. Who in the English-speaking world is going to be bothered with looking up articles beginning with NNU* anyway?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not the articles which have names beginning with "NNU", it's the users. The articles are called things like "The ending of 10 years' love relationship" and "A TV play". We can't really leave buckets of articles like this around until the project ends (at some indefinite time in the future, having created an indefinite number of articles). However weird ranting about "vile propaganda", deleting welcome templates as "unintended" is unhelpful to say the least. I note that Colofac has been blocked. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A different direction

Bearing in mind the pattern of usernames &c., there is surely somebody organising something at their end; perhaps their college tutor or whoever.

• Since they appear well-intentioned, I think some engagement would be very helpful, but we would need to figure out who to engage with.
• I would be happy to put in some hours of mentorship/ambassadorship or whatever, but I lack Chinese skills.
• Obviously, like many new editors, they are a bit lost in wikipedia's thicket of rules and guidelines; but if we can guide them through that I think they could make positive contributions in areas where en.wiki is currently quite weak.

How else can we turn something negative into something positive? bobrayner (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyway to get a list of the articles they have contributed? Then it would be possible to cleanup and fact check them one by one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have created a list of users here. Will add a list of articles shortly. Some of the usernames appear to include names as well as numbers, and they generally have earlier creation dates; these people might be tutors. bobrayner (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Some also appear to be drafting articles in userspace; for instance User:NNU-01-05100122 or User talk:NNU-01-05100504 bobrayner (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from a resident of China

Comments what I have read above:

• The serial usernames are probably because the teacher issued number for the students to use. China is an ordered place. Simple as that.
• China is not very repressive regarding Wikipedia.
• They are here to be constructive. This is no insane conspiracy.
• There is no need to stop this, but guidance would be helpful.
• If they introduce inappropriate articles, treat them as you would others. They are acting in good faith, with constructive intentions, and not here to be disruptive.
• Their own government intending to stop them? Really?
• "Push vile propaganda"? Are you kidding? That is an absurd edit.
• Please don't bite them.
• I will post at their talks to offer assitance. Can someone dump a username list in one of my sandboxes? I have to do something else now, and it would be helpful. I will put something together ASAP.
• Please don't post edits for them from secure.wikipedia

Please be kind and welcoming and understanding. Many thanks to all. (By the way, I am a Canadian/(British) living in China for years and years. Remember these are Chinese students. They are good kids. ) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped the names (in bulk) in your black sandbox. Thanks for doing this.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Received and welcome message sent to each. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am sorry if I misstated the editing atmosphere in China. Blocking of Wikipedia by the People's Republic of China and correspondence with a wiki friend who is in China right now have given me pause to assume the government is not favorable to their efforts. Perhaps I am wrong, and mostly it is irrelevant (I suppose). What is relevant is that each account is an individual contributor who desires to participate in good faith. We should support that idea as in keeping with core Wikipedia tenets.--My76Strat (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The only thing the great firewall software does is cut your connection to the site if you try to access sensitive articles, and often cuts it for no reason for 30 seconds because of triggering some sort of keyword it doesn't like. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Anna, and I agree with you guys. We should be as kind and welcoming as possible. For what it's worth I've had a rather mixed experience with a class project from Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, which hits us every year in late November/early December, as a flood of users named "S + six numeric digits" comes and makes edits of varying quality to articles on music history (their instructor never replies or makes corrections, leaving it to us to clean up the mess). That one is harder to manage in some ways because they edit existing articles, adding references, often to books we don't have access to and often without understanding the topic at all. With this class project, they seem to be adding new articles, which can be moved into user space if they're questionable. In my opinion we stand to get some good new content out of this, on topics that would never get articles otherwise. Antandrus (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We can expect a bit of unconstructive edits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Anna's analysis. We should be extending every bit of good faith to the students and what support is available to the supervisor. On another note, I find Colofac's comments reprehensible and atrocious, and lacking in good faith but given he is a british nationalist, such a POV is perhaps not unexpected. --Blackmane (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Colfac's comments: I would be instantly blocked if I spoke my mind about the gross inaccuracy of his comments. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's get to work

I've tidied up a list of users and their article creations, and put it here: User:Bobrayner/NNU

• Feel free to review the articles listed there; tag, fix &c as appropriate. Bear in mind that these appear to be well-intentioned users who might not be totally familiar with wikipedia's rules (though some are already using real references, headings &c and others are writing userspace drafts) so deviations from the norm should be met with help rather than criticism.
• I'm going to welcome each user.
• If you want to edit/improve that list in anyway, go ahead.
• Dwelling on past misdeeds is not going to help. Colofac appears to have taken a 1-week break from editing and I'm sure Colofac will not bite these Chinese users on their return.

bobrayner (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your sandox list.

The forthcoming welcomes will be appreciated.

I will be watching Colofac. One nip and I will snap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talk • contribs)

Watching the list, checking Facebook for friends who speak Chinese. There are some articles that under normal circumstances I would be redirecting, like Barley Gruel to Gruel, without moving the content. I suppose I should look for sources for the new material and move what isn't opinion, right? I guess I'll also move the article creator's stuff to his userpage so he can save it. Seem like an appropriate general approach for this? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I tripped over a couple of these accounts creating articles in similar styles and unfortunately the first case I came across a speedy deleted article being recreated moments later. Consequently I raised an SPI report before being made aware of this background. If someone is taking care of these new users, perhaps they might put some sort of welcome banner that might welcome them as a student editor (if that is what we think they are)? At the moment with no coordination, at first glance this seems quite disruptive and I dare say more of these users will get unfortunate warnings as possible meatpuppets. --Fæ (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

On the "barley gruel" thing, it seems to be about some specific variety of barley gruel which may well be notable in its own way (much as Ravioli has its own article rather than redirecting to Pasta) but which won't have much coverage in English-language sources. It might be worth pausing before redirecting articles like that. With a little help & encouragement, the editors may be able to find better sources which establish the notability/importance of this particular subject. bobrayner (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Many sorts of gruel are staples in China. First stop would be to check for existence of corresponding entries at zh.wp.

Agreed that this is not the threat that is usual with this pattern of activity, and I appreciate the efforts of those who have spent time investigating the editors/edits whilst thorough assuming good faith. It's a shame that the lecturer hasn't made this project transparent as far as we here are concerned. Let's just monitor the progress if we cannot contact the person centrally responsible and deal with the articles/edits on completion of the project. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, yeah, that's possible. Well, I've already left a copy of an older version in his userspace just in case. I'm for providing userspace back-ups so the students will have something to show for their work. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I found a powerpoint presentation on Hong Kong Google that is entirely about Danyang Barley Gruel. I'll keep looking for more stuff. Silverseren^C 16:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I created several of these accounts myself through ACC. I remember many of the comments indicate the English language as being part of their course objective. I think this group is poised to communicate in English, and we don't need to be overly hindered by the presupposition of a language barrier.--My76Strat (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Also consider that many accounts were created in this form as well.--My76Strat (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat, thanks for that extra list; they have already been added. bobrayner (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the language barrier will be a huge issue. These students are quite good at understanding written English. The issues are more likely to be unclear guidance given to students, strange formatting, and copyvios. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Not language barrier as such in communicating with them. I noticed that contributions often have poor English, and are often sourced to Baidu. One has already been tagged OR. Under ordinary circumstances, I would have personally put many of these efforts up for deletion. I have now added interwikis to some of the new creations, so these can be tracked to their zh.wp counterparts. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

Many thanks for your understanding and support for this NNU Class Project. As you know, new editors, including myself, are liable to make errors to begin with. Though we have looked at Citation style and article notability questions in class, I also felt that the best way to get students engaged with the project would be to encourage them to begin contributing to the subjects of their choice. The numbers reflect an effort to keep up with students' work systematically. I have now seen the school and university portal, which is very useful. We will look at successful and discarded articles in class and work hard to improve our contributions. We are very grateful to those of you approaching our good faith contributions with sympathy and help, and we do not expect special treatment. Writing successful contributions should represent a tangible achievement for students whose real-life contact with the international community is necessarily limited. I will be very glad to receive comments, corrections or suggestions on my talk page. Please note that the smaller number of students registering with NJNU usernames also belong to the project. With gratitude,

Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful to let them know that Baidu isn't a reliable source. →Στc. 03:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted, thank you. Will discuss this with students in this week's class. Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that even failed/unsatisfactory articles have useful learning points for the group. I would suggest to admins that non-qualifying articles be userfied with a note to the talk page to Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk · contribs) rather than be speedied. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to userfy or email anything deleted related to this. Njnu-ban-xueshenghao, feel free to contact me on my talk page or have your students do the same if any of their articles do get deleted. Also, in light of the above, I've added a few more users to Bobrayner's subpage. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 04:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As a quick pointer, the students' account names are similar to the supervisor's username in the format, NNU-(class number)-(student number), though I may be pointing out the obvious. --Blackmane (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Massive splurge of recreation of deleted articles by user: WölffReik

WölffReik (talk · contribs) has recreated about 20 kickboxing results articles in a 24 hour period when they all have been recently deleted in AfDs. for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K-1_Fighting_Network_KHAN_2006_in_Seoul I marked 2 for speedy delete but realized there's a whole heap. I believe wolffreik's behavior is disruptive as per WP:POINT. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just tagged another two, before seeing this here, he knows not to re-create, he has other G4 notices on his talk page. Mtking ^(edits) 09:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have warned WölffReik not to continue. Although he did have one previous G4 notice on his talk page, he has not continued these re-creations since being asked to stop on 17 Sept, so I do not think any further action is needed unless he starts again. All his K-1 recreations have been G4-ed. Incidentally, if these K-1 events are found not to be notable, List of K-1 events shows that there are still dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, about them. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Zenbb

Zenbb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be editing in order to get around a block or ban (not sure which). This editor has pushed an pro-Iranian (or at least anti-Western) POV on the 2009 Iranian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. I don't know whether or not this user is Xonus (talk · contribs), who has been indeffed for abusing multiple accounts. I'm minded to indeff Zenbb, but would welcome the view of others as I'm not sure there is enough evidence to make a block valid. Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got more than enough grounds for a block - aside from Zenbb's (pretty blatant) admission that they're editing to get around a block, both users behave in the same manner, edit in the same time range, and Zenbb definitely isn't a new user. If anything, you've got grounds for a Checkuser. m.o.p 15:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've indeffed Zenbb. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

User talk:27.110.166.40‎ has been warned 5 times now to stop disruptive edits and are obviously not getting the hint. Can something please be done about this? Thanks. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 16:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi James, was a request sent to WP:AIV to look into the issue? That's usually the best place to go for an ongoing vandal editor, be it IP or registered user. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I believe them to be a sock puppet of User:Sparks Fly(Taylor Swift song) and have started an investigation on it and informed Fastily as she's dealt with them once already. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 16:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Even better then. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it started to become obvious when the edits I've been reverting are all the same. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 16:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Complaint against Redthoreau: Dispute over lawsuit sources at Porter Stansberry

Article: Porter Stansberry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redthoreau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Complaint

I removed potentially contentious content sourced to a court document pursuant to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Redthoreau has twice restored this content [117][118] in spite of a warning I placed on his talk page [119]. What is bizarre is that he restored the improper source even though he was aware acceptable sources had been posted on the talk page [120]. Very odd he would intentionally use a source which exposes the Wikimedia Found to unnecessary litigation when he could've just as easily used one of the better sources on talk. Anyway I'm not going to edit war to keep the court filing out when he is Hell bent on including it. If it takes a block to prevent him from re-adding it then so be it. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The material is relevant, worthy of inclusion and sourced to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. If you believe that the SEC is not a WP:Reliable source on their own lawsuit then you are free to challenge their usage. As for WP:BLPPRIMARY it states that court records should not be solely used to "support assertions about a living person." However, the way the SEC source is currently used it does not do that. Nowhere does it definitively call Stansberry a "fraud" or even say he was guilty of anything. The source is only being used to display the stated charges filed against him. Obviously his rebuttal or counter claims could be included as well from reliable sources. Moreover, you also earlier removed the corroborating source about the lawsuit referenced to Brian Deer of The Sunday Times. However, your misplaced bull in a china shop bravado about "blocks" which you have no ability to carry not notwithstanding; you have provided no talk page rationale about why you believe the material violates any Wiki policies. As for additional sources, they are always of course welcome and preferable to the mass deletions you started off with. I haven't had a chance to thoroughly look at the ones mentioned on the talk page, but will try to if you don't beat me to it.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Please do not refactor my posts. This report is about your behavior, not about content. If you want to file a report about the SEC feel free.
2. Your excuse for repeatedly violating WP:BLPPRIMARY is unacceptable. The "worthiness" of an addition is not an excuse to use unacceptable soucing. It doesn't matter if the source alleges fraud or not. BLPPRIMARY is clear:

   Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

(Emph. from original) It says do not. It says assertions. And, note that you did not add secondary sourcing when you re-added the court document. It seems readily apparent that you have no intention of following policy.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the difference here is that the original content wasn't an assertion. It was simply a description of the legal dispute. The purpose of the BLPPRIMARY note about court proceedings is that you should not make a claim "X is a murderer", and cite it with a court filing. But "X was charged with murder" seems to be a different animal. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 02:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well at least VanIsaac's logic meter isn't broken. Ah well,  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the semantics of assertion for the moment, would you say that sourcing this to an unacceptable reference violates the spirit if not the letter of BLP:

alleged that he "engaged in an ongoing scheme to defraud public investors by disseminating false information in several Internet newsletters", while using the pseudonym Jay McDaniels

– Lionel ^(talk) 02:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the WP:BLPPRIMARY was very carefully written. It talks about using primary sources with caution. That assertions should not be backed by a court filing, and that items with personal details should not be linked. It explicitly does not say that you cannot use these as a source, only that there should be other coverage of a particular incident. It also does not say that you cannot use these primary sources as a citation for a description of the allegations, only that you cannot back an assertion with them. Well, there are several independent sources that talk about this case, and the court filing is only used as a source for details about the allegations. I think this very instance is why the BLPPRIMARY guidelines don't simply say "Court records cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia articles". VanIsaac_WS^contribs 03:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I posted some acceptable sources for this incident on the talk page ([121]). I'm waiting for one of you two to rise to the occasion and incorporate them into the article, although I guess if you keep going back and forth with this feud I'll just do it myself. MastCell ^Talk 02:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)WP:BLPPRIMARY here is intentionally written in a very broad manner, and I believe means what it says, not what Redthoreau wants it to mean. No court document may be used to support BLP info, period. Not about charges filed, not alleged wrongdoing, not about statements made in court, not even about a person's age and occupation. Court documents are not reliable sources because they have not been vetted by independent, editorial judgment. If there are, as Lionelt says, other sources that say substantially the same thing, use those. Until that point, take out the court citations. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree. That's not what BLPPRIMARY says in the slightest. It says that assertions in BLP articles should not be cited with court records. A court filing is absolutely a reliable source about what a person was charged with, because it is the official record of just that fact. The BLPPRIMARY guidelines do not say "Never use court filings", they say that assertions about a subject should not be solely backed by a court filing, which is a principle I wholly believe in. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 03:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Who does this Vanisaac guy think he is, using all this thinking and stuff? Ban him!  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've actually posted a notice over at the BLP board asking for their input on this matter, so let's just cool it down and see if some people with more experience can offer us some perspective. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I flatly dispute any use of a court document in a BLP on the basis that your legal opinion about the meaning of the document is POV. If you took a court document from one American state and gave it to a lawyer in another state, he could not with any confidence render an opinion about the meaning of that document without knowing the laws of that state. This characteristic of requiring a legal opinion to determine their meaning is a characteristic of all court documents irrespective of venue and means that all such opinions about such documents are POV. Please stick to reliable secondary sources for BLP details.Jarhed (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Without getting involved in any other aspects of this dispute, I can readily affirm, as a practicing lawyer with 25 years' experience, that Jarhed's view is significantly overstated. I would not presume to give conclusive advice about the law of another state than the one in which I practice and am licensed, but I certainly could read a court document from another state and have a good idea of what it says and means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I could put a point on it by asking you to prove your qualifications to judge my legal advice.Jarhed (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To be a little bit less succinct, any talk page post that starts out with the words, "as a practicing lawyer with 25 years' experience", is on its face, PURE POV. I don't care what your experience is and you shouldn't care about mine. All I care about are reliable secondary sources for facts in BLP's. The difference between my statement and yours is that I am quoting out of the BLP guideline and you are pulling yours out of your secret lawyer place.Jarhed (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been informed that my remarks are intemperate and I apologize. I want to emphasize that what I said was not directed at any particular person, especially not at editor Brad. My remarks are strictly general in nature, and my vehemence has to do with ensuring strict compliance with BLP. I apologize for my abruptness.Jarhed (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If I could restate my above comment to Newyorkbrad it would be this: Thank you for defending your fellow legal professionals. However, the issue under discussion is BLP policy, which is a completely different subject. The American military has the concept of the "guardhouse lawyer", that is, an unqualified person who believes himself to be more competent at interpreting legal issues than he really is. In my humble opinion, WP is replete with guardhouse lawyers. For my part, I attempt to prevent guardhouse lawyers from making BLP mistakes and do my best to help them be reasonable and productive editors.Jarhed (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you believe you're in a position to make unqualified assertions on the interpretation of legal documents, but if another editor challenges your assertion on the basis that they're a lawyer themselves and they disagree with you, you demand they provide proof of their qualifications? The hypocrisy of this exchange aside, you may consider changing your method of argument, because you sound like a prime example of the "guardhouse lawyer" you believe you're protecting Wikipedia from. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess my question is, how do you reconcile that the BLPPRIMARY guidelines say that when primary source material is discussed by RS secondary source, the primary source can be used. That seems to contradict your "disput[ing] any use of a court document in BLP" (emphasis mine). Do we have a record as to why the BLPPRIMARY guideline doesn't just say that court records are not RS? I guess I'm trying to get to the bottom of what the drafters of this guideline considered to not be an "assertion". If they meant to apply the assertion label to all content, as you seem to apply the guideline, then they flatly contradicted themselves by saying "it may be acceptable to rely on [primary sources] to augment the secondary source." So what does and doesn't constitute an assertion under BLPPRIMARY guidelines? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 22:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit war over section heading

Redthoreau: for the moment I'll ignore the fact that you did not "discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread" per WP:TPO, and just ask: why on Earth are you edit warring over a section heading? And at all places ANI? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt, both MastCell and I have provided secondary sources on the article talk page which support all the information Redthoreau added. Instead of starting a new subthread, which seems unhelpful and unduly confrontational, why not check those sources, re-add that information with Redthoreau and let this matter drop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean no block?– Lionel ^(talk) 07:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, don’t be so hard on yourself. I mean sure you were misguided in filing this complaint – but blocking you over this would be harsh. Just treat it as a learning experience and try to do better next time ;o)  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of comments are not helpful, and a persistent pattern of similar comments can get you blocked under WP:UNCIVIL. I expect better from you. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No administrative action seems to be required at this stage :) Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, I agree with you that the court transcripts alone are not appropriate sourcing. On the other hand, this incident clearly can be covered using appropriate sources, some of which I provided on the talk page. I'm disappointed that Redthoreau has kept fighting to insert the legal filings (and changing section headings). I'm also disappointed that you're pushing for a pound of flesh instead of just rewriting the section using the better sources that were handed to you. That suggests that both of you are more interested in fighting rather than building a better article, at least to me. It's entirely possible that an admin will block Redthoreau, and I can't say it would be undeserved, but the whole situation is disappointing all around. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, please just add this content yourself, if you have time. As a further green light, Off2riorob has looked at the WP:RS listed on the talk page and agrees that the content should be included in the article.[122] Continued discussion of court transcripts is completely irrelevant in the light of these other sources. Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. How should I put this... based on this showing, if Lionelt and Redthoreau are the two most active editors on this particular page, I don't think I want to be the third. MastCell ^Talk 04:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not other sources?

The BLP problems would disappear if sources such as this one were used for the SEC suit. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-sense questions at the reference desk

The following user was notified to AVI for posting trolling questions at the reference desk:

• 82.234.207.120 (talk · contribs · logs)

I warned him/her to stop saying it would be his/her only warning since they appeared to be only engaged in wasteful activities. However, he/she has continued.

Other users have said that these posts may be in good faith and a block is not fair. What do others think? --RA (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'm biased, but I think except for when I clearly say that something is not serious, it is a legitimate, if quirky, participation. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would encourage a block based on a weird question that I got sucked in by (September 19, Humanities), thinking it might be good faith, but just totally unclear. So many people write rubbish on the ref desk (especially Humanities) but although they step far outside the bounds of the prescribed format of the desk, their contributions are in good faith, and not intended to derail the project. This is clearly just a nuisance contributor, and a temporary block should do the trick. It's been emotional (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: that was indeed the same link provided by RA - weird question about jokes, clearly not in good faith, no clarification provided. It's been emotional (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify what the user is saying, they have admitted trolling before [123] [124]. Their claim 'except for when I clearly say that something is not serious' is disingenous since in the past they have only admitted they were trolling after they have wasted peoples time. And in some cases it's almost impossible to draw any conclusion other then them trolling, e.g. [125] yet there was no clear cut admission (unless the 'troll juices flowing' is an admission). Some of their questions may indeed be serious, but it's entirely resonable people are going to have a low tolerance for questions from them which seem odd and they have no one to blame for that but themselves. Since they seem to troll at random, IMHO a short block will serve a preventative function. However even if they have been warned before, I guess an assurance from them that they will not troll anymore will also be okay if it is heeded. P.S. And just to be clear I don't have a personal grudge against this user despite their comments to me in one of the linked diffs, other than my personal dislike for timewasters on the RD. What they don't seem to have understood, which I guess isn't surprising given their mentality is my response wasn't directed at them, but at other people on RDT who I strongly disagreed with. And I don't regret using them as an example regardless of how it may have 'gotten their troll juices flowing'. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. Why has this person been allowed to do this since 2009? I could go on, but, you know, WP:DFTT. Blocked for 1 week; IP address appears to be static, so if it picks up again after a week, or if the IP suddenly hops, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Joca

Mr. Joca created a new account today and is trying to enforce false statements in some articles related to the Portuguese nuclear energy policy, includind the high visibility article Portugal. I reverted his edits twice, warned him in his userpage an started a discussion on Talk:Portugal. But it is not working. Could someone help, please? Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like he has now added sources; this is a content dispute and while you may have had an issue which could use our help if he'd continued to add the content without sourcing, this is now something you need to work out with him and other editors of the article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But the problem is the sources are not serious. Please look again. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You filed a complaint here two hours after his single reply on the talk page - a reply that was both prompt and to the point?! Are you serious?!?! Why don't you try actually using the talk page to discuss this content dispute. Sure, he might be a bit loose with the sources, but I see nothing from him on talk:Portugal, or his user talk page that is anything but a good-faith effort to resolve the content dispute. You need to put a lot more effort into resolving this dispute with Mr. Joca. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 00:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeated harassment by User:TomPhan (350 sockpuppets and counting)

Per many previous discussions, I again request a block of User:Buff Saturd. It is ridiculous that I have to continually put up with this kind of harassment and waste time dealing with more wikistalking (reference the previous block request...note that nothing has changed...Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive711#Long-term_stalking_by_User:TomPhan_through_User:Sregor_Ylloj). Request immediate block for sockpuppetry (clear pattern of behavior: revert what I put in with no significant reason or discussion with an "uncanny" ability to cite WP policies in an edit summary or !voting simply to cancel out my !vote). Block with all speed and prejudice! Buffs (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't research the history of this further, but if nothing else the username alone is grounds for a block, and I have done so on that basis. Another admin is welcome to tag as a sock, etc., as appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly TomPhan even without CU evidence; that being said, I couldn't find any other socks. –MuZemike 00:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

<COMMENT REMOVED>. 大一堆马粪 (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

These socks come from the user GENIUS(4th power), who is banned from editing the English Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

TomPhan predates GENIUS. Buffs (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI 大一堆马粪 has also been blocked. Buffs (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we get this user's edits redacted? Additionally, the first user name is quite insulting and serves no purpose to keep in WP except to insult me and all 4 edits will remain in perpetuity otherwise; delete it ASAP. I have no problem keeping the second name as its translation is apropos for the sockpuppeteer in question (hey, HE chose to identify himself this way, not me!). If someone could investigate the underlying IPs and ensure there aren't other socks, it'd be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The user's small number of edits were reverted, and I concur that the name should be erased from view [to the extent possible]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Good luck on getting the name suppressed! I tried getting a highly derogatory username suppressed without any luck. Bidgee (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would read that username as revealing too much information about its creator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Typical behaviour from the St Kilda anon by using anything to insult anyone who disagreed with them. Bidgee (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just. Wow.

If I get the name supressed, I'll let you know how it was accomplished and support your request to do the same. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that usernames can be suppressed, and as a matter of fact, I would bet that if it hadn't been brought up by Bidgee, no one would ever have seen it. All of the potential initial hits on "Bidgee" in user search are to userspace sub-pages. The cost of doing business on Wikipedia is that not everybody will like you, and frankly, to a certain extent, it shouldn't matter. The problem is being exacerbated by a blocked username being taken seriously seven months later. MSJapan (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it simply take a Bureaucrat changing the name to something less objectionable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've revdel'ed their usernames from their contribs, so it shouldn't show up in article histories. You'd need a 'crat to rename the accounts, but my advice would be to not bother; now that it isn't on any pages or article histories, I don't think there's a point. Bidgee, I've deleted that account's talk page, but the same advice goes for you re: the name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I already asked a 'crat (on IRC) about 8 months ago or so but they refused who stated it wasn't policy to rename highly derogatory usernames. I've seen worse usernames however and no doubt more in the future. @MSJapan, even though user talk pages are not meant to be on Google, that username's talk page was on Google search results. Bidgee (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we need to change the policy. Let's do it!!! Buffs (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• How about renaming them to a different name like User:IndefBlock00001 and then salting the previous name? This allows us to keep the edit history without allowing them to circumvent policy? Buffs (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rbandal2

Resolved

 – Blocked. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A block request for multiple vandalism on-going. Span (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Span (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Future requests are generally more fitting at WP:AIV. It is generally faster there, as it is the dedicated anti-vandalism noticeboard. →Στc. 01:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

While I agree, one minute from post to block is nothing to sneeze at. Quick work, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Andering J. REDDSON

Andering J. REDDSON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I have exhibited patience when corresponding with this one but he seems intent upon being uncivil. In March, I responded on Talk:Non-lethal weapon to Reddson's concerns. He placed a POV tag 1 and in June, with no dialog occurring on the talk page, I removed it as stale...2. He was apparently disgruntled and filed a MedCab case in which he wrongly named me as having reverted him in a content dispute. He did not prevail against others in the dispute.

More recently, he started a dialog on the Mythbusters page. He accused me of stalking his edits although I have been editing that article well before his arrival and AFAIK we have not met at any other article. Rather oddly, I agreed with him and tried to assist in his requests but was met with hostility which I have ignored. He accused me of attacking him in that thread although I don't see it...so I backed away and let others handle it.

I frequently help out at User talk:Misza13's page concerning archiving and try to setup archiving where appropriate. When I noticed Reddson wasn't signing his posts with a datestamp, I politely requested that he do so. He responded with this; I do not feel that I have given him cause for the incivility which I have been receiving and feel that admin help is needed at this point.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the comment and left a level 2 warning for the attack.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

While I can imagine you may have been unhappy waiting for admin action Berean, I think it was unwise to remove Andering J. REDDSON's comment on his own talk page. If he had left it on your own talk page of course I'd have agreed it was perfectly reasonable of you to do so. He has indeed been unnecessarily stubborn about not signing pages, and his remark was childish. But if you can't be childish on your own talk pages.... Just leave him alone, he seems to be getting on OK with other people and editing well enough. If he escalates his incivility others will take action. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

“If he had left it on your own talk page of course I'd have agreed it was perfectly reasonable of you to do so.” If I had done that, I submit I should have been banned. Right then and there. “He has indeed been unnecessarily stubborn…” This is true; I am stubborn. A. J. REDDSON

These allegations are lies, except that I replied “Go away you little troll” to his attack against me at my own talk page.
Further; Berean Hunter has chosen, any time he sees my name, to insist on commenting. On the NLW page, I objected to the inclusion of Batons and caltrops on the page ass they are NOT considered “non-lethal” and to the neutrality of Amnesty International on the same page. He has been consistently obstructionist to defend a faulty position; He changed the standards when I started asking questions on another page (it was a question, not even fully formed position). He has also in fairly technical terms called me a liar (“it doesn’t say what you think it says”). I tried being civil; It got me told off.
Eventually his “I’m right, you’re wrong, shut up” attitude led me to file a mediation request; His reply was that there was no right to complain. After he was told the source was biased (but got some of it back), this campaign of harassment began, including coming to my talk page to start another fight.
Furthermore, I believe this is retaliation for his partial defeat on the NLW/AI neutrality issue and to ensure I will not be able to take the NLW/Caltrops-Batons issue up, and to ensure the MythBusters issue is never brought up.
¿Has he been uncivil to me? YES. ¿Am I going to ask an apology? Not worth the effort. A. J. REDDSON

Seems to me we have someone who isn't here to build an encyclopedia. [126] N419BH 00:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry this is my introduction to you, but you’re only seeing half the story. Try to reserve judgment until you have the facts, rather than the spin. I want factually correct information, that is true; I also dislike people hiding agenda behind “facts” that are pointedly in dispute. A. J. REDDSON

I have never attacked Reddson and challenge him to present diffs where I have. Where have you been "told off"? Please do not try to put words into my mouth. I'm not the one lying. There is so little truth in what you speak that it is laughable. No one has changed any standards on you and others at Talk:Mythbusters have told you so but you seem to not hear to suit your convenience. I welcome other editors and admins to look into this situation to see which one is telling the truth. I have presented diffs above but Reddson has presented nothing but gross distortions of reality.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

[simply, that I don’t know what I’m talking about after I quoted the CPC section applicable.]
[is incorrect process here.] The quote pretty much speaks for itself.
As to “shifting standards”: He stood by his position that ONE biased primary source was sufficient for Non-Lethal Weaps “Allegations of Torture” section (specifically the much repeated AI section), but decided that THREE sources for controversy on the MythBusters standards of measure were insufficient to even start a dialog about how to address the controversy; One of those sources was the MythBusters themselves admitting that there were issues to be addressed. (If Albert EINSTEIN had called E=mc² garbage, then no one would ever have questioned it.) This before even I’d stated a position on it. A. J. REDDSON

I take note that Reddson has made another attack.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I “take note” that this whole thing is harassment against me and a fraud against senior members intended to draw your attention away from the fact that elsewhere on that same page I’ve already presented the case that he’s “made factual errors” elsewhere on the NLW page; He’s afraid if I take that to mediation (a possibility) then he’ll lose. Period. Furthermore, I am considering asking Administrators to review all of Berean–Hunter’s activities over time. A. J. REDDSON

You are patently wrong. You have refused to understand what others have said to you. On the Mythbusters page, someone else correctly asked you for multiple sources to back up your assertions about controversy. You came back with a school newspaper and a private website instead of published sources. Multiple people keep telling you the same thing. That is simple. We don't craft our writing in a contentious matter to fit our own viewpoints and we certainly don't add material surrounding controversy without references from reliable sources. I see that you have been doing precisely that on Non-lethal weapon. It is unacceptable for you to add material with several ''citation needed'' tags. You are just writing what you feel ought to be there with a notion that someone else can do your legwork and find sources to back you up (if they exist). Stating that the process at MedCab was wrong was correct. You went straight for dispute resolution rather than inquire at the Reliable sources noticeboard as to whether the Amnesty International source was acceptable. Nothing about that is an attack...it does speak for itself.

You have yet to present any diffs where I have done something wrong and certainly nothing to warrant your egregious behavior. What I see is loads of faulty logic reasoning.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point my position can not be any LESS clear, and with that I leave the matter to an impartial Admin to address. A. J. REDDSON

You got that right. Your position could not be LESS clear. (lmao) Well, at least we agree on something.

(Note to admins) Reddson has now filed a bad faith 3RR report on me.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I leave the matter to an impartial Admin to address.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Andering J. REDDSON, in the space of 258 edits has managed to misfile a request for mediation, file a mediation request, file a rejected 3RR complaint, act in a generally aggressive manner, fall foul of WP:NPA. Those are just selected highlights. Anyone else see a battleground mentality and refusal to work collegially here? Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at their userpage seems to indicate we have a fairly obvious case of WP:SOAP, and the contributions breakdown reinforces that assessment. We also have a signature that does not comply with guidelines and further reinforces the soapbox conclusion. A quick look at the individual contribs will show a similar pattern. N419BH 19:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to work with him on that matter; He refused to even try to meet me halfway. The entire page’s tone is distinctly anti-police, but the section in question was pretty blatant (as was determined at mediation). I admitted I entered the mediation request incorrectly and already apologized for that (and later filed it correctly with some help).
As for this “soapbox” allegation- Over exaggeration. People come here looking for information, they find propaganda in it’s place. (Again, that went to mediation; I was proven mostly right.)
As to my Signature: Comparing Wikipedia to the Weekly World News is nothing new. Go to any college; It’s not permitted to be used as a source. (I’ll let you in on a secret; Having a paper rejected because I used Wikipedia as a source is what began my quest.)
With the exception of some very minor edits (a typo or something of that nature), I have tried to avoid direct editing of pages until it’s been reviewed in the effective talk page; That’s not BOLD, but it does avoid problems in the long run. (For example I’m waiting for someone to comment on my Libyan Civil War contribution before I add it. If someone adds it for me, well I know what they based it one, and since I know I added something good and correct without a spin, then good.) That is why so many posts and so few page edits.
Again, I tried to work with those complaining about me; They stonewalled. I mis-filed a mediation complaint, then did it correctly (I’m not apologizing for it forever, it was a mistake I learned from it and now I can do it correctly). The Mediation ruled in my favor; Again I tried to work with them: Now they’re stalling (I’ve added to the Mediation to that to keep it under one roof, rather than here and there and everywhere). I’m scratching my head wondering how I’m wrong. Really.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the concern is that your signature doesn't include your actual username. Right now we don't officially require a signature to include an editor's actual username, but that may be changing, see this discussion. At the very least it's courteous to have your username so that it's easier for people to know who you are and to address you by name, otherwise folks might start calling you "Weekly World News". Oh, and just an FYI, there's no way that a mediation "ruled in your favor", I've been a mediator for years and mediation only helps people compromise in a dispute, it doesn't offer rulings or make decisions. I will say that mis-filing a mediation request isn't a big deal on its own. -- Atama頭 17:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have interacted with Reddson at several articles, especially Non-lethal weapons, and I agree that he has a battleground mentality. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Harassment by Distributor108

Resolved

 – User has been blocked for 1 month by Fut Perf.

Distributor108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has attacked me with abusive language and accused me as a "traitor" for the edits I made in Sri Lanka article. This is an extreme personal attack and a clear violation of WP:PA. The user and I were involved in a lengthy and unproductive discussion at the DRN. During the discussion also, he used pretty inflammatory language, for which I refrained from making replies in the same manner. The discussion with him at a mediation cabal case also suggests that his style of editing cannot be separated from engaging with other editors directly. The user has been given at least 7 warnings by 5 different users for disruptive editing and persistent vandalism. He has constantly removed Tamil as an official language of Sri Lanka, a fact on which the country's constitution clearly disagrees. His edits like this shows disturbing insensitivity towards minority concerns of the country. These are a few of out of a number of unreferenced, poorly or incorrectly referenced edits by him. Various talkpage discussions like this amounts to gross incivility personal attack. The user has also been accused of giving false warnings for other editors, as it is evident on this case. His continous disruptions has made editing Sri Lanka related articles extremely difficult. In addition, I suspect that Hareendra12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock puppet of the user Distributor108. These facts have contributed towards my suspicion:

• Throughout 18 September 2011, both editors have edited the Sri Lanka article one after another.
• On 19 September 2011 as well, both editors have edited the article with a small time gap between their edits.
• Hareendra12 has added a series of images, which seems to be copyright infringements.
• Both these editors' editing style is similar, thoroughly disruptive to the manual of style of wikipedia.

I think evidence I've produced is enough to take some serious action on the editor/s. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Distributor is nothing but trouble--look at their recent contribution to Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. Then there's the name-calling, the many copyvio problems, the pretty obvious POV editing...I am a bit hesitant to push the "indef" button before getting more input, but these disruptions should not be tolerated. I would like to hear what the editor has to say. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All these allegation are unjustified,and not substantiating. I was removed Tamil language as it was in violation of section 17 of the talk page. I was enforcing a consensus created among editors. I did not mean any personal attacks, if you think it is a personal attack I will remove it. Distributor108 (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You honestly don't think that "you can F yourself now- traitor" is anything BUT a personal attack? Seriously? Ravensfire (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Distributor did not, I see, choose to retract an obvious breach of our guidelines, and rather followed it up with this beauty. I encourage editors and administrators to look at section 17 of that talk page, where you'll find Distributor trying to lay down some law and being rebuffed. Since I have taken something of an interest I won't block for this, but I will for a next violation of good faith, disruptive editing, and attempting to cajole an editor into agreement with a fake warning. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Involved or not, I think you're well within your rights to block here. Obvious need is obvious. N^oformation ^Talk 06:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Distributor108 for a month for persistent disruptive editing. About the sock suspicion, could you open an WP:SPI? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, folks. Wish it didn't come to this as the editor started off seemingly like a decent but new editor. The continued backhanded insults, refusal to accept anything other than their view as acceptable and finally the last couple of shots painted an ugly picture. Maybe he'll come back in a month better prepared to work with others. Ravensfire (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)