Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Uncivil rollbacker

Fieldday-sunday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fieldday-sunday has been very uncivil. He blatantly attacked User talk:82.41.247.200. In addition he has made some very uncivil edit summerys such as [1][2] and [3]. Looking at his talk page it seems that others have had issues with him. I have given him a only warning for the personal attack, what should we do about his other uncivil behavior though? Peter.C • talk • contribs 02:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Uhhh ... talk it over with him instead of a template warning? Vandalism, especially some that targets a specific group, is quite frustrating and he probably just was overexcited for a bit. No action needed currently, IMO. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (editconflict) I'm sorry, I disagree. This is a totally uncalled for and uncivil attack that to be honest I'm a bit surprised he wasn't blocked for when the edit was deleted. The attack is WAY overboard (not just a bit overboard)and even the vandalism itself is questionable. The edit he removed from this ip was this which while you I can totally understand why the rent boy part would appear to be vandalism I'm not actually sure it is given that the same ip made 4 subsequent edits right after ( here ) which all appear to be relatively good and good faith. Given that it's a possibility it was just a nick name done either as a joke or in good faith. Even if it WAS vandalism the edit was done in MAY 2010 and the IP has not edited since November 2010. An only warning is not only called for I'd seriously consider blocking (I'd take rollback away but it doesn't really appear he uses it much.. so of little use). His vulgar edit comments just make it worse. James of UR (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you might misunderstand. The last edit made by that IP was in November 2010; there is no recent vandalism. Even if Fieldday-sunday was frustrated, such vitriol isn't acceptable on any page, certainly not on an IP talk page, and absolutely not for an edit made months ago. In fact, it is a blockworthy action in almost all cases. Risker (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC) (Note: Admin-only link to the edit referred to in this report[4])
    • (edit conflict) Hm, I did indeed somehow miss the tirade on the IP for an edit made a long time ago. Fortunately, however, it seems he's stopped now, and I don't know what effect a block would have other than to anger him any more. Some discussing the issue wouldn't hurt, I think, but if he attacks someone again, a block is definitely in order. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

      Have you looked at his other edits (and edit summaries)? This doesn't seem to be someone who got upset once—it's a persistent pattern. "Who cares, you narcissistic shithead?" is never a reasonable edit summary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The contents of the deleted revision (linked by Risker, above, a small portion of which includes "What kind of a fucking shiteared twatwanking spastic retarded cretinous mong spastic cunt are you?") and an ongoing pattern of needless unpleasantness for unpleasantness' sake are worrying, to say the least. His most recent edit here includes the gem "...Sadly, it would appear that university rugby lads live up to their reputation for thickness and homophobia, and so there is a good chance they will keep coming back with their metaphorical crate of cheap lager until they eventually get banned....". This is part of a comment on a rugby article's talk page where he is proudly announcing that he has removed vandalism–and is declaring (with a complete lack of self-awareness) that we need to take action against immature and obnoxious behavior more promptly in the future. This isn't a bit of garden-variety frustration with vandals; he's waaaay over the line of acceptable conduct. A block would certainly not be out of place here for the egregious personal attacks and battleground approach. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What a tirade. But he forgot to say, "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Smelt". Smelt of elderberries. Get the accent right, will ya? Sheesh... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

But how do you get a bad French accent right? -- llywrch (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I know he said "smelt". I was translating from a British English parody of a French accent to an American English parody of a French accent. Besides, if you say "the smelt smelt fishy", that sounds fishy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wee wee. -- llywrch (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that deleted revision was way over the top, as was his most recent tirade noted by TOAT. I am presently blocking him for one week for gross personal attacks. He's been warned before about this behavior. This is simply over the top. As always, I assume that any action I take is always wrong, so feel free to unblock him if anyone feels that his comments were appropriate for making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. --Jayron32 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that you put it that way ... heh. Definitely not making WP any nicer, and I still and trying to figure out how I missed the diffs with the egregious attacks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, the abuse is all over the place - here's another gem -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, more F's than my average report card. Is he still editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• On further inspection of his Talk page, this editor appears to have a history of misusing Rollback - I propose the removal of Rollback -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This won't move the encyclopaedia forward. Can someone analyse the editor's abuse and see if it is topic constrained? If the editor has a particular topic based problem, then a community topic ban may prevent the core problem without being punitive. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He's editing on all sorts of topics. It looks more like general Recent Changes and Vandalism patrol to me rather than anything specific -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sheesh. Yes, most vandals are miserable so-&-sos who need to get a life. But handling both Recent Changes & Vandalism requires a certain minimal level of tact & social skill, which this individual has failed to demonstrate. (A well-known fact is that vandals enjoy the vulgar diatribes this Fieldday-sunday has been shovelling out, while it drives away the well-meaning newbies who simply make a mistake.) Anyone object to BsZ's suggestion of removing the Rollback bit from his account? -- llywrch (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I support removal of rollback, given the circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This user doesn't appear to have had rollback since 2009 - maybe it's WP:TWINKLE? --Rschen7754 20:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see what he has to say before jumping in and removing privileges.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's not a rollbacker, he had that tool removed almost a year and a half ago for, um, "repeated hasty usage of the rollback tool when reverting good-faith edits". We can't remove a tool he doesn't have. What we can do is scrupulously watch his behavior from now on, and be prepared to enact further measures to insure that this behavior stops. Including stopping the behavior ourselves if he decides that is better than stopping it himself. --Jayron32 20:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is possible to forcefully remove Twinkle from a user's account. --Rschen7754 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, he is using Twinkle - my mistake, sorry. But yes, Twinkle can be forcibly removed - there is a blacklist that prevents listed users using it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Twinkle. Never touched the stuff myself. Have to let someone who knows how to fix that problem, fix that problem. --Jayron32 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Added to the blacklist. --Rschen7754 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Man, my statement above is the second time today I've managed to come across as half-cocked. I blame it on rushing to click on the "Save page" button before a certain three-year-old runs up to me & announces it's "rough-house time". (Yeah, I have obstacles to contributing that few of the rest of you face. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As the father of a 2 and a 5 year old, I feel your pain... --Jayron32 23:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Snakefan55

• Snakefan55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eastern brown snake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been nothing but disruptive, and clearly shows no intent to stop. The user has been doing lots of edit warring on snake topics like Eastern brown snake and doesn't show any intent to compromise or reach WP:CONSENSUS.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

While his edit warring is not wanted, yes, I must question the people reverting him when the changes he is making are correct. For example, on Eastern brown snake, he was changing it to say that the LD50 test is done on mice and not just on animals in general. Saying mice specifically is important, because it defines the specifics of the test and also the downfalls. "Animals" could mean anything. See this for one, though there's many other sources for the statement from a search. Silverseren^C 05:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He inserts them without complying to MOS, and doesn't put his sources into the article, and insists on edit warring and other disruptive editing.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly violated MOS in changing animals to mice? And do any of you guys that are reverting him actually check for the accuracy of the information before reverting his edits? If it's MOS problems, then explain those to him and fix the MOS issues, but I think I would also get extremely frustrated if I was adding in obviously proper information and was getting reverted for it. Especially since, from what I can tell, the source that was already there in the first place specified mice and not animals as it was, so the information in the article was already incorrect as it was. Silverseren^C 02:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fully involved in this dispute. I commented on this, trying to settle it as a neutral 3rd party. If you'd like to know what the problems are, contact Materialscientist or another involved editor besides the user in question. I was just trying to make this user stop the edit warring, though I like the fact that Snakefan55 has stopped personal attacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to note: you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion here (that's what the big orange notice on the edit page tells you). I have done this for you here; please remember to do so for any other threads you start here in the future. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, Joe - please take a second look at Snakefan's talk page., JD did notify [5] him of this discussion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and you prevented my posting of that (see below) with an edit conflict. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's really hard to avoid ec's on this page as it is quite active. :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Not a problem, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I just noticed that you actually did, though you did not sign your notification or make it really all that visible. It's best to place it in a new section, and always sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ so the casual viewer will know who made the comment, and when. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I offered to debate people on numerous occasions... I have evidence that supports my claims..Jasper don has no idea what he is talking about and quite frankly he is a terrible moderator( or whatever he is). The only point I am trying to make is that the title of most venomous etc is extremely misleading as the tests are only conducted on mice...and ALL animals react differently to different venom's... Their is NO such thing as "the most venomous snake" or "2nd most venomous snake"...only the most venomous or 2nd most venomous to a particular animal.. Since we have never tested snake venoms on humans( or closely related primates) their is absolutely no proof that any snake is the most venomous to humans. So the title is extremely misleading.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakefan55 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is no excuse for edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but why exactly are you offering to debate people? This is the English wikipedia not some debate forum. Also note that Jasper Deng is not a moderator. There is no such thing on wikipedia. He? is just another editor like you. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What he means is that other editors have refused to discuss his idea. Materialscientist (who I have notified already) supports this user's actual idea, but, refused to discuss it on his talk page, which led to this user complaining that no-one wants his idea accepted. If he had done it according to WP:MOS and WP:CONSENSUS, then his idea would surely be accepted. However, he outright edit wars a lot, and that comment (in the diff I provided in the original post) was the one that prompted this thread.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• @Jasper Deng: Bringing Snakefan55 to ANI and proclaiming "edit war" is a grave overreaction. Snakefan55 has a total of 41 edits, with the first being under four weeks ago. What is needed is someone sufficiently patient and with an adequate grasp of procedures to explain how things are done here. It looks like Snakefan55 could be a very helpful editor, but that's not going to happen with the current approach from onlookers. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet unblock review

On 8 March, I blocked Mjs2010 for incompetence, copyright violation, and personal attacks. Sandstein declined and unblock request later that day. On 13 March, the account B.Davis2003 was created, and edited until 15 April, when MuZemike blocked it as a confirmed sockpuppet of Mjs2010 (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjs2010) Later that day, JamesBWatson declined an unblock request. Today there was another unblock request, that at best, only superficially addressed the reasons for the original block, and failed to discuss at all the copyright violations. Nick-D (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) granted this unblock request without consulting any of the four previously involved admins, and when asked about this unblock, and asked to reverse his unblock for discussion, has declined. I'd like to see this unblock reviewed by other parties. Courcelles 03:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Despite the fact that I had declined an earlier unblock request, I do see that there is an arguable case for unblocking. However, I do not see that there is a case for unilateral unblocking without consultation or discussion. In fact I think that the blocking administrator should almost always be informed of an unblock, and in most cases consulted in advance, rather than just informed. There is no way that this unblock could be seen as clear cut and uncontroversial, and for one admin to take unilateral action against the clear consensus of several other admins without even an attempt to discuss it was not appropriate in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If any of this person's accounts were to be unblocked it would only be the original one: Mjs2010. That said, the English composition and comprehension skills of the editor are not at encyclopedia level. There is no compelling reason to bring this editor back after socking. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Courcelles for notifying me of this (though I would add to his or her chronology of events that I also declined an unblock request from this editor yesterday, explaining the conditions they needed to meet to be unblocked). As I stated on my talk page, when reviewing this editor's actions (in both accounts) I came to the view that the problems with their editing were being driven by youth and inexperience rather than outright malice. As they had nominated the account they wished to use and given a reasonably detailed commitment to stick to the rules I couldn't see any grounds to continue the block. When agreeing to the unblock I told the editor that they would probably be re-blocked without warning if they broke their commitment, however, and watchlisted their talk page so that I could respond to any further complaints the editor received. As such, I think that the unblock is justified on the grounds that the editor deserves a final chance, though I wouldn't be at all bothered if other admins come to a different conclusion. I'm also happy to take a trout for not discussing this with Courcelles first as well. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this getting all so confusing, if you want me to use my old account and then appeal for an unblock on that account, I will, I just need to find my password for the old account, as I have misplaced it. Courcelles, I repeat, I have noted and expressed my remorse now for the issues surrounding both my accounts on my copyright warnings and personal attacks, and have complied with everything i've been told since. Please admin, if you could tell me what would be preferred, and If you could please, take time look at my contributes to wikipedia on my new account, and know that I have supplied sources and remained calm in edit wars. B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Unarchived, as someone moved this from AN without retimestamping two hours ago. Courcelles 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is as follows: Unilaterally undoing an administrator action, without prior discussion with (and, normally, consent of) the blocking administrator is not only impolite and uncollegial, but also a misuse of administrator tools, because it arbitrarily substitutes one's own judgment for that of the blocking administrator, disrupts administrative processes and (in the case of unblocks) may enable continued disruption of Wikipedia. We need to recognize that our own judgment is just as likely to be wrong as that of our colleagues. Administrators should therefore respect the decisions of other administrators, even if they themselves would have made a different decision. They should only undo the admin actions of others with their consent, or after a community discussion that resulted in consensus to overturn the action. Administrators who unilateraterally undo admin actions for no compelling reason, as Nick-D did here, should be desysopped for disruption if they do so repeatedly. Conversely, and for the same reasons, administrators should not normally take unilateral administrator actions after a colleague has already reviewed the matter and come to the conclusion that no action is necessary.  Sandstein  11:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I have already criticised the unblock, I actually think that Sandstein is being too harsh. Nick-D did not simply arbitrarily undo another administrator's action, as the situation had changed. The issue had been discussed on B.Davis2003's talk page, and B.Davis2003 had made undertakings not to do the same again. Consequently Nick-D was not retrying the same case as Courcelles had already judged, but assessing a different question from the question that Courcelles had already assessed, and even from the ones that I and Nick-D himself had assessed in considering previous unblock requests. Consequently I see "arbitrarily substitutes one's own judgment for that of the blocking administrator" as an unfair description, as it was one's own judgement of a different question than the blocking administrator had judged. I do think that, in a case where several admins had supported a block (on one or other of the user's accounts) it is usually a mistake to unilaterally make the decision that the situation has changed enough to justify a change in judgement, but I cannot agree with the very strong terms in which Sandstein has condemned it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur with JamesBWatson. If nobody is able to act on an unblock except with the blocking admin's permission, why even have unblock requests that go into a queue at all? I am certainly no soft heart when it comes to reviewing unblock requests, and at the same time I trust the rest of you to unblock people that I have blocked. I am not infallible. Syrthiss (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, all administrators are able to unblock users. The question is under which circumstances they should do so. The reason we have an unblock request system is that it allows uninvolved users to voice their opinion on the block, and if they come to a consensus conclusion that the block is wrong, the blocking admin (or if need be another admin) will lift the block. There are also some circumstances where unilateral unblocks are unproblematic, such as when the blocker is no longer active or if there has been a very obvious error. But where unblocking is a matter of judgment, the unblocker's judgment is just as likely to be wrong as the blocker's. For this reason, and also out of simple collegiality, other admins should defer to the judgment of the first admin who has examined a case, unless consensus tells us that this judgment is wrong.  Sandstein  15:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think than if the situation changes, and it arguably did in this case, then there is no need to wait on the unblock. I don't think this unblock was a case of the unblocking admin disagreeing with your call (in fact his first unblock decline says he agreed with it). I think waiting for the blocking admin could, in many cases, delay an unblock where unblocking is clearly acceptable. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein's comments are rather over the top. I agree with James' summation and Syrthiss' comments. As I've said above, if other admins disagree with my judgement to unblock here I've got no problems at all with it being overturned - I welcome scrutiny of my blocks and unblocks (and, from memory, I've had one block overturned and this is my first unblock which might be overturned in three and a bit years as a reasonably active admin, which I think is a pretty good record and hardly warrants the kind of comments Sandstein has posted here). Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be fair to Sandstein he is currently involved in a case where an issue of this nature is being evaluated. I do not know what the norms are here for admins and blocking but I'm usually impressed with Sandstein's judgment and hope all parties can reduce this event to a non-issue. Lambanog (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein's view here is thankfully not in accordance with current practice or policy. Admins do not require consensus to revert an admin action, wheel-warring is considered to begin when a revert is reverted without discussion. We have to allow some degree of flexibility in these matters. Fences&Windows 02:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• On the "abuse of admin tools" issue: Sandstein's take on this seems far more aggressive than current practice. It would cause a certain amount of paralysis if gaining consensus or permission from the blocking admin were required in order to avoid threats of desysopping. I realize Sandstein qualified this with "...if they do so repeatedly", but since there's no reason to think it is a recurring pattern, mentioning this seems about as collegial as, well, unblocking without discussion.
• On not checking with the blocking admin or previous admins who declined to unblock: That probably would have been wise, if for no other reason than to avoid causing others to feel slighted, and also because they might have more knowledge that the unblocking admin doesn't know about. Borderline trout-worthy, but since Nick offered to self-trout, that seems a reasonable response.
• On unilaterally unblocking after previous unblocks are declined (in general): I think this can be OK, but depends on the particular circumstances. If circumstances change, or conditions are set and agreed to, it seems reasonable not to require agreement, even if it is recommended. If the user is unblocked and there is consensus to reblock, that can be determined here. Reblocks are easy.
• On this particular unblock: Seems OK. Nick-D engaged with the editor, set some conditions, and will watch the editor for any further trouble. If he'd checked with Courcelles first, I imagine Nick might have mentioned the copyright issue too, but it's been made clear to the editor now. Reblocks are easy.

I suggest allowing the user to remain unblocked, on whichever account they prefer, making it clear this is a last chance.--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement with Floquenbeam, though I would personally go for "trout-worthy" rather than "borderline trout-worthy". Since Nick-D has accepted the troutworthiness of the incident, and since there seems to be a general consensus that consultation would have been a good idea, but no support for Sandstein's more uncompromising position, I suggest we consider the incident closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can compromise, and say that it was on the borderline between borderline trout-worthy and trout-worthy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I'm not sure whether it quite reaches that borderline. I think it may be only borderline for doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

At User talk:Vugar 1981, has been waiting for two days now and the editor seems to be getting a little impatient - anyone able to help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Note the block occured because the user showed up 4 months from absence [6] to simply make reverts on Azerbaijani people (check history) without any discussion to the version by Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs). He appears after 4 months absent after the day a call went out for meatpuppeting in the Azerbaijan wikipedia: [7] by Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs) (an SPA account which simply added unreliable numbers to demographics which he claims to belong to in the talkpage) for blind reverts on the particular article Azerbaijani people. Both users failed to discuss any of their edits (where a discussion was opened on the talkpage about the random authorless self-published websites) and the reliability of their sources (which they actually manipulated by attributing false numbers to it). Given that there have been two Azeri-Armenian arbcomms in the area, I think admin took the correct action. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, you're an administrator. What prevents you from reviewing the request? On the merits, I believe that the editor should explain why he suddenly made these unexplained reverts before we decide to believe his claim that he is not a meatpuppet.  Sandstein  18:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been an admin long and I don't feel experienced enough to deal with this one - I'm really just observing unblock requests as an educational exercise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto here. My work is mostly in "deletion" and I have little experience playing "wikicop" so I'll just give my opinion. A true "meatpuppet" is someone who creates an account for the sole purpose of participating in an edit war, AFD discussion etc and has no editing history prior to that. The user in question here has previous edits. I didn't examine them in detail but most of them look gnomish. It's possible that his only mistake was answering a "call for help" at the Azerbaijan Wikipedia and he might not have even realized he was doing anything wrong. (I'm not sure how close the rules about canvassing/EW/3RR etc. over there match the ones here) He received no warnings about his reverts, as a matter of fact his talk page wasn't even created until he requested an unblock. Unless someone provides evedence that he's a problem editor on his home wiki, I would support an unblock or a shortening of his block duration here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

sulutil:Vugar 1981 rather makes the meatpuppet claim questionable. T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Declined. See my reasoning there. T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Self Promotion by Spurkait

Hi, I would like to bring into notice the Additions and Contributions by the User Spurkait (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please check all the Contributions by the User [8]. All are Aimed at promoting a company called Nettech.

1) The Page of this Company Nettech [9] looks like a Marketing brochure thanks to all his his contributions to the page [10].

2) Many general keyword based Pages are being redirected to this company's page, thanks to the user. Example: Summer Training [11], Winter Training [12], Certificate in Network Management [13]

3) He has modified the Pages of Premiere Educational Colleges/Universities of India and made references to the company. Example: [14], [15], [16], [17]

Kindly look into the matter.

Sonakshi87 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried to communicate with Spurkait, give warnings, etc? I see nothing on their Talk page since 2007. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No I did not. Considering he was blocked previously for Advertisement and he is doing it again. -- Sonakshi87 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And a closer look shows that Spurkait hasn't edited since January, and the changes to the Nettech article seem reasonable. The redirects, redirecting unspecific English phrases (eg "Winter training" and "Summer training") were promotional, so I've removed hose - alll you needed to done here was tag the redirects for speedy deletion, rather than report them here. You are free to remove the material that you consider to be promotional from the colleges/education articles yourself (which were added as long ago as 2009) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Information added on the Page is added by Spurkait. I am quite sure he is an employee/owner of the company [Refer to all the images uploaded. Different locations and time, mentioned as own work]. Wouldn't this be a problem against Wikipedia's NPOV Policy? I understand I can modify most of the stuff. The reason why I am reporting it is to see if the user can be blocked since he has been editing other articles and promoted his company multiple times. Check some of the articles I have linked above, his additions have been removed a few times and he adds them again. [18] -- Sonakshi87 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, seeing as he hasn't edited since January, a preventative block would be pretty hard to justify now, 3 months on. And the additions to those educational articles are from as long ago as October 2009. I'd think the best approach now is to revert his additions, and then keep an eye on him - and we can take further action if he comes back and does it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up and shortened Nettech some. But the entire timeline and photo gallery should probably go too, really, and most of the references. There is still some promotional bloat. At least there isn't a "we" telling the story now... Bishonen | talk 23:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

Thanks you Bishonen & Boing! said Zebedee! - Sonakshi87 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:CORP anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edits

• 75.194.32.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (29-30 March)
• 75.194.206.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (30 March)
• 75.213.146.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (30-31 March)
• 75.194.217.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (31 March)
• 75.213.164.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (6 April)
• 75.194.159.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (8-9 April)
• 75.213.152.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (9 April)
• 69.98.84.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (14 April)
• 75.251.6.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (18 April)

An IP-hopping editor has been making what seem to be problematic edits involving voice-cast credits for animated films and TV programs. The edits may or may not rise to the level of vandalism, but any one of them that I've looked into I've been unable to verify using standard sources such as IMDB. I've left messages on the talk pages of several of the IPs, but either because they don't see the messages (because of the dynamic IP address) or because they are ignoring them, there's been no response. Articles involved include Pat Buttram, Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series), Shining Time Station, Thomas and Friends and the articles of other actors involved, and they have been reverted by numerous editors, including myself.

I'm not sure how to proceed. I turn to the admin corps for assistance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All the above IPs notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also left notices for other editors who have interacted (or attempted to interact) with the above IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start on dealing with this problem, but much more remains to be done. I have semiprotected Shining Time Station, Pat Buttram and Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series) for three weeks. I am reluctant to do the same to Thomas and Friends because there is a huge amount of IP editing to that article, and I would not like the amount of collateral damage. That is assuming that there is not a large proportion of vandalism in the IP editing. If that is so then the article should be semiprotected. I have not checked for lack of time, so someone else may like to look at it. There are numerous other articles affected, but I have not checked them all to see how much of a problem there is on each one (again because of lack of time), so perhaps someone else would like to do that too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Given this edit, brought to my attention by Doc9871, I've added 75.213.146.101 to the list above, and The Little Engine That Could (2011 film) and Firebreather (film) should also be added to the list of articles affected which should be semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Added another IP based on the diff above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Notified the two new IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Other articles: Adventures from the Book of Virtues, Michael Dorn Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Given edits such as this, it's now clear to me that this editor's contributions are essentially creative vandalism. They should probably be reverted on sight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I wiped out the "Additional Cast" lists from AFTBOV as completely unsourced. It is vandalism, it's certainly "creative" and it causes massive headaches when they "cross-reference" these fake roles onto living actor's filmographies (as well as onto actors' who have been dead far longer than even possible for them to have lent their voices). Aside from you, me and a few others who have helped: this looks like a cricket-chirper of a thread. Annoying and childish behavior from a budding young troll/trolls. Doc talk 09:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have now looked back at Thomas and Friends in more detail. It is clear that all or nearly all of the IP editing is either vandalism or at least highly questionable unsourced editing, so I no longer have such concerns about collateral damage, and I have semiprotected it after all. I have also done the same to The Little Engine That Could (2011 film), Firebreather (film), Adventures from the Book of Virtues and Michael Dorn. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added various related articles to my watch list, as I'm sure others have, so hopefully we'll see the next attack as it happens and be able to revert the edits before they get too embedded in the articles. Thanks much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you James and BMK! MarnetteD (talk · contribs) also helped ferret out some of the bad edits from the earlier incident, and I see that BMK has made them aware of this thread. Several others have helped a lot as well, and it's good to know there's a handle on this. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

For the record; just three minutes after this personal attack was posted on Talk:Jim Hawkins, from a BBC IP address, BBC presenter Jim Hawkins said on Twitter "I must not tease the Wikipedians. It's not their fault". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably down to you insisting against the advice of WP:DOB for many months that we must include his d.o.b. You should drop the stick and stop antagonising the subject of an article. Fences&Windows 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Grow up and get a life, Mabbett" is not much of an insult anyway, certainly not without the smell of elderberries. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Jim Hawkins does not want an article to exist at all. The article has been to AfD twice and consensus is that he is notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia - basically, it's a control issue. Jim Hawkins has a Wikipedia account (Jimhawkins64 (talk · contribs)) so the use of the BBC IP to post an insult may be straying into sockpuppet territory. Personal attacks on Wikipedia are not acceptable per WP:CIVIL, although this is at the lower end of the scale. Off-Wiki attacks are not acceptable either, but these need to be addressed off-Wiki. In response to Fences and Windows, Andy Mabbet has not edited the article since December 2010, and that was only to update Hawkins' Twitter address. Consensus is that his Twitter posts are not to be used to reference his birthday, and that consensus has been accepted by those editors who disagree with it (including myself). Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Can we now drop the pretence that his birthday isn't known publicly, known at his instigation and discussed by him? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 7:29 pm, 19 March 2011, Saturday (1 month, 1 day ago) (UTC+0)". That post on the talk page was what prompted Hawkins' reaction. So he hasn't let it go. I get the impression that Andy is enjoying sparring with Hawkins too much and should leave that BLP well alone. Fences&Windows 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of issues on the talk page is what the talk page is for. The question was asked, and it remained unanswered for a month. The information was not added to the article (which would be "not letting it go") against the prevailing consensus that a WP:RS must be provided for this, which a Twitter post is not. I am aware that Andy also has a Twitter account. Should it be found that he has been taunting JH via Twitter re the Wikipedia article, then I would not look upon it favourably. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this the direction that we want to go

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism is now being canvassed for. If there is an equal and opposite project than I guess that they will offset each other (see Yin/Yang) but I am not sure that this project should be trending toward Conservapedia. Nor should there be canvassing to ask other editors to contribute in either direction. 216.160.141.128 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Canvassed for" what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh... "canvassed for new members". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also a Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the project as necessarily trending toward biasing Wikipedia. All projects at WP are open, and those interested in a properly neutral and documented coverage of US politics can appropriately join. (Though not stated, the US seems to be the focus, not political parties elsewhere.) I and many others have sometimes joined projects in which there was some doubt of their direction, andI have joined this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much chance of wikipedia devolving toward conservapedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that the founder of the Conservatism project originally had a US-centric outlook for the project, and steered it that way. Others have broadened the scope. I joined to help keep its scope as wide as possible and to help keep its focus on article improvement rather than advocacy. Political activism should never be encouraged on Wikipedia, only neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as there is a very clear difference between WikiProject Conservatism and say Conservapedia (i.e. the WikiProject follows neutrality and sourcing policies) there isn't a problem here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the project's main page, it exists to improve coverage of topics related to conservatism. That's rather different to slanting articles towards a conservative perspective, so unless there is POV-pushing going on under this project's banner I don't see the issue. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The existence of the project isn't a problem, in theory, but perhaps the IP user is referring to the distribution of invitations to the project, which seem to be directed at editors whose contributions promote (inadvertently or intentionally) a conservative view, rather than simply at editors who edit articles on conservatism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

...where the United States Constitution and Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations have both been tagged as being under the project's scope. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Which aren't specifically related to conservatism, which is presumably the concern. This is what we don't want. And Baseball Bugs, do you realise 'liberalism' in the Wikiproject name you mention means Libertarianism, which is usually seen as a form of conservatism?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Jasper Deng and COI

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

---

• Jasper Deng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Jasper Deng apparently misunderstands WP:COI, and in trying to explain to him the policy, he keeps reverting my messages to his talk page with comments in his edit summaries that illustrate a lack of regard for the policy.

Here's the background: Vrsti (talk · contribs) joins Wikipedia as a new user. Vrsti inquires about the "systematic" removal of hundreds of links to a website s/he is associated with on Wikipedian2's talk page here. Jasper Deng leaves a message on Vrsti's talk page about Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest (here), which is per policy, but then leaves a, IMO, bite-y message on Wikipedian2's talk page under Vrsti's comment, "This user has a conflict of interest and should refrain from editing Wikipedia." Vrsti leaves a civil message on Jasper's talk page regarding the COI notification left on his/her talk page, [19], to which Jasper replies, "You still have a conflict of interest regardless of whether you've edited or not." User:Buttercrumbs commented on Jasper's talk page that he believed Jasper bit the new user and clarified WP:COI(here), and Jasper responded with an undo of this message and "Still COI" in the edit summary. Clearly Jasper still misunderstands COI.

Feeling that Jasper still does not understand that he is the wrong, I left a "don't bite the newbies" message on his talk page (here). He removed my message, and in the edit summary, responded with res. @Eagles247: Did not intend to bite. Please AGF before doing something like this again. I tried again by leaving him a message explaining that he is hypocritical to ask that I assume good faith, when he himself did not assume good faith with Vrsti. Jasper undid my message with an edit summary of ... I did AGF. Since it appeared he did not want the messages to stay on his talk page, I tried again to get through to him, this time via edit summary: "Telling an editor to "refrain from editing Wikipedia" completely is NOT acting in good faith". He responded with "Was per COI - do not want to continue this discussion." Obviously this was not per COI, but yet Jasper still refuses to discuss this. Finally, I made one last attempt to make him understand (here). In this diff I fully explained how Wikipedia treats users with conflicts of interest, and a word of advice for him regarding his behavior (admit you are wrong and re-read COI). Jasper removed my message with the edit summary "If I delete your comment it means I acknowledge it. If you continue, you will be reported at ANI for harassment."

Lastly, User:28bytes attempted to make known to Jasper that his behavior is not very efficient and that discussions should be kept on talk pages (here). To which, Jasper responded "I acknowledge them by deleting the comments." (here).

As a last resort, I have come to ANI to maybe ask someone to get through the Jasper on everything he did wrong in this situation and the ensuing aftermath. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly, I've seen nothing but a track record of unhelpful, unclueful, and incompetent edits by Jasper Deng since he first joined. I support a one month competence block and mentorship. Because if he doesn't clue up fast, the next block will be indef. I don't have tolerance for editors that act like children. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This isn't a full view of my edits. Other users would not agree. I seriously ask you to reconsider or refactor that comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Here's a thread that may interest some commenters here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Wow. The "This user acts like he/she is an administrator on the English Wikipedia but really isn't" box pretty much sums it up. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasper is correct that he is permitted to delete comments from his own talk page, and such deletion indicates that he acknowledges having read them. If he's now finished biting newbies, it's not ongoing disruption. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is correct to remove messages per WP:BLANKING, but his failure to acknowledge his blatant misunderstanding of policy is what troubles me. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2) Right, but the priority is not making sure that any editor that "still does not understand that he is wrong" is made to understand that he is wrong. Lots of people are wrong on the internet all the time. If they're not disrupting the encyclopedia, then "making sure they know they were wrong" is irrelevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I do it by accident all the time, and I meant to include "related to that user." I was being frustrated by Eagles247 trying to tell me of something I know, and he could've refactored my comment instead. But repeatedly telling me about this is something that frustrates me and led to those edit summary. It does not warrant a block though.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It was simple frustration. If I delete a comment, try not to talk to me about it until much later. I thought I could do this because of what Ohnoitsjamie did regardng an SPA content dispute comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"try not to talk to me about it until much later" - what? Why would other editors need these special instructions for how they must deal with you on your talk page? "what Ohnoitsjamie did" - have you informed them that you've just mentioned them here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No. This is in relation to an old WQA thread. I learn from what other users do. I did not notify because he is not involved in this. That habit I wrote seems to be the norm here.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone is not involved in an issue here, then it's much easier just not to mention them here. As for whatever habit you consider to be the norm, it's not clear what you mean. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"try not to talk to me about it until much later"Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs that should clarify my above comment: "Wikipedia may remove at its discretion anything on its site and you cannot have a say in that." to a new user who obviously did not understand the inclusion guidelines, misunderstanding of CSD#A7, "strong oppose because MediaWiki's edit conflict handling is shit???? WTF???, refusal to discuss calmly; terse attitude, calling "lmfao" a personal attack, and updating edit count almost every day. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

lmfao is a personal attack if you expand it. I would also like you to see WP:Civility out of you. If a user thinks we have no right to delete something, I give them the same thing, especially for repeat offenders. In no way do these diffs constitute a full review of my edits.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

One, this thread is about you, not me. Not sure why I'm now being discussed. Two, lmfao means, "Laughing My Fucking Ass Off". There is no personal attack in there. It's my ass and I'm laughing. It's not that hard to understand. In addition, your comment perplexes me: "If a user thinks we have no right to delete something, I give them the same thing, especially for repeat offenders" – please clarify; they are new users who do not understand our policies, why the hell aren't you explaining it nicely to them? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the lmfao was me. Sometimes users have bad faith. As I was told in an earlier incident, judging faith is hard, and, I normally feel a template message is fine for new users. And Boing! Said Zebedee (the commenter below), is right.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How on earth does that even make sense? The subject of the lmfao is me. I am laughing my fucking ass off. My ass! And not at you, either—at your hilarious comment. And re template messages ... oh heavens. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are doing the action, because you seem to be amused at me. You are the one doing the action, but I'm the one you are doing the action at.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you even read my last post? I said I was laughing at your edit, not you. You're not funny, but your edits sure can be! ;) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoever the subject is, it's aimed at me. I want you to stop making fun of me.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making fun of you. You, however, are covering your eyes up and pretending not to have read my last two posts. I was not laughing at you—therefore, it was not aimed at you. For the last time, I was laughing at what you wrote. It was funny, OK? No one is making fun of you. (Btw, the sense of humor store is thataway.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is anyone actually asking for any admin action here? (I see perhaps some weaknesses in communication, and perhaps a few misunderstandings and a little over-sensitivity, but I don't see any call for any admin actions) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• A block may potentially be necessary. I thought that this thread might wake Jasper up, but he is still stubborn to believe he was wrong. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I called for a block above. But if we let this thread go on, I might get a few extra laughs out of it :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

http://xkcd.com/386/ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

@Eagles247:By deleting your comments I acknowledged them, and do not dispute them, but, you repeatedly adding them to my talk page frustrated me, causing those edit summaries.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse the edit summaries. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. If I remove his comment, I acknowledge it, and him readding them frustrates me, and I had to tell him to stop.

Jasper, I kept sending you messages because in your edit summary replies (such as [20]), it appeared you still did not understand what COI meant and you failed to acknowledge your mistakes. That's fine if you merely acknowledge them, but when you include in the edit summary something that makes no sense, I had to continue the discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledged I was wrong by the 2nd-to-last deletion of your comment, but was not in a mood to say it out.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

...and that makes it alright? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain:I refused to believe you for the first few edits, explaining the first few deletions' summaries, and then, when I agreed with your comment, you kept adding it back, explaining the summaries of the last two.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask for clarification here, Jasper? Re COI: If I have a COI, I am not allowed to edit at all. True or false, and why? That was the original issue raised here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Depends. If the user represents a publicity company, then yes. If the user is like that behind MyWikiBiz, then yes, but otherwise, no. In the end, this was a simple accident, and, I am not used to being talked to like this for an accident on WP.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, at the risk of making your head explode (and that is a risk I'm perfectly willing to take), allow me to point you to Alex Konanykhin, former Russian *cough* "oligarch" *cough* and now owner of a company formerly called WikipediaExperts (and now called something else). User:Eclipsed works for him, as do several other editors. You should note that your interpretation of WP:COI does not reflect either what it says or current policy. WP:COI is a "behavioural guideline", not a policy. It does not prohibit paid editing, it simply suggests that it is "discouraged". There is no policy which prevents paid editing. The owner of MyWikiBiz is banned for reasons other than paid editing. Perhaps you should read the guideline over again, slowly... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Jasper, what Eagles and others are saying here is that even if an editor has a conflict of interest regarding a particular article, that doesn't mean we can't be friendly and helpful as we inform them of our policies. For example, in this false positive report, the editor in question (someone associated with a museum) gave a well-written explanation of what they were trying to do, and you just brushed them off with a "You have a conflict of interest" statement. Maybe they do, but that's not a super-helpful response to an apparently good-faith edit attempt from a new user. When they were then (correctly) blocked for a username violation, they apologized and offered to change their username, and you offered another fairly terse, if not hostile, statement on their talk page. That's what Eagles and Fetchcomms are talking about when they are asking you to assume good faith and not bite newbies. This is a new user, and all you seem to want to do with them is inform them they're breaking policy, without actually trying to help them. 28bytes (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. You're being much more helpful than them. It just shows that I ABF more than usual.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper. I appreciate that you're trying to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia from spammers; that's a very good thing to do! But as you say, you do ABF quite a bit; but recognizing that is a great start towards fixing it. Showing less ABF and more AGF to new users will make things go a lot smoother for both you and them. 28bytes (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to pester, but do you think mentoring would be a good idea? I'm sure 28bytes here would be glad to help out. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, my door is always open. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know of mentoring. Explain please (perhaps move to my own talk page as we've solved the original issue but not my overall behavior).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:MENTOR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Meh, just posting here for the sake of keeping a conversation together: Wikipedia:Mentorship. Basically, another user would review your edits regularly, and work with you to improve any instances where he/she thinks you were ABFing instead of AGFing. When he/she thinks you're improved sufficiently, then the mentoring is over. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fully ready to agree to that though. I'm stuck.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK ... how do you plan to ABF less and AGF more, then? (I realize you've acknowledged the issue already—great!—but how will you go about fixing it? etc.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I was told, if in doubt, do not act.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am concerned about this user's ability to AGF. About a month ago (I don't remember the exact diffs/article), somebody posted something about the theology of Jeremiah Wright that was technically correct, but the user was ranting against Obama. Rather than remind the user that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Jasper Deng called the user's posts "racist" (they dealt with the issue of race but persented factual content), and the user got riled up and continued ranting until they got blocked. I remember discussing this with Jasper, who simply insisted they were racist. Maybe the user was racist, maybe they weren't, but jumping to that conclusion violates AGF. I bring this up here not to pile on or "get him into trouble", but as an examlpe of the type of thing that might be discussed should this user eventually agree to mentorship (which I highly encourage). Kansan (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Referring to this? Jasper has his faults, but I don't fault anyone for how they handled yet another old and tired "I know the truth about Obama and it must go into the article!" type of POV-pusher in that discussion. AGF is straight out the window with that type of person. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think saying "AGF is straight out the window" is not the message we want to be sending given the past AGF concerns. Yes, this particular case probably was inevitably heading for an indef, but what of the more borderline cases? My concern isn't with this particular editor, who no doubt had a major axe to grind, but with how he handles new editors in general. My main concern in this case was that Jasper said the specific "racist" comment was "but a kind of black identity religion, based on the collective guilt of the white race and the destruction of America as the tool of the white oppressor, which according to the doctrine will bring on the millennial Utopia" about Jeremiah Wright. I really do think that could have been a good faith (but misguided) effort to try to describe Wright's theology, and dismissing it as "racist" isn't the way to go about it. Kansan (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • "collective guilt of the white race"-there has to be something wrong with that.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • You're right, it wasn't a correct edit. However, that isn't my point. This was an incredibly racially charged issue and many people did mischaracterize Wright as having beliefs like that, so it was not correct to jump to calling somebody a racist. Even if you think somebody is a racist, it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt after one edit if there's any doubt. (i.e. if somebody is posting racial slurs, or saying "____ people are bad/smell/etc.", yes, you can call that racist.) This cuts to the core of AGF. Assume good faith even if you're not sure it's worth it. Kansan (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • How about this then? In too much of a rush to revert (without evaluating the content of an edit), Jasper edit-warred to keep BLP violations in an article. When the situation was explained to him, he responded with a frivolous SPI case and well dug-in heels. While the now-departed Lar (talk · contribs) could have been more straightforward to start with, he did nothing wrong and Jasper's non-apology that closed out the SPI and admission that he hadn't even considered AGF in that whole saga seem to be examples of a mindset within Jasper Deng at odds with Wikipedia policies and community norms requiring significant shifting. The case presented here suggests that the twelve days since this last example hasn't brought that adjustment. Mentorship is reasonable, and should occur posthaste. — Scientizzle 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have gotten over this, and at the time, was a rather new editor in the sense that I did not know of BLP. I will not post the link per WP:DENY, but, I now immediately remove BLP violations, which I usually ABF on if the info is negative.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, there's a distinction between bad faith BLP violations and good faith, unintended BLP violations (they don't know the RS or BLP policies, for example). Unless the edit is like "[X] raped his children multiple times and then murdered them" when it's unsourced, then we need to take some time to explain WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. to them—and not just by tossing them links, but by carefully explaining. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, to add to Fetchcomms' comment: if you have trouble explaining a policy to someone (for example, you've told them they have a conflict of interest and they disagree or don't seem to understand what you mean by it), a good idea is to ask another editor to help explain it. For example, a few days ago an editor was adding poorly sourced contentious statements to an article I was watching, but she seemed to be doing it in good faith. I was having difficulty getting her to understand why the sourcing wasn't sufficient for the addition she wanted to make, so I asked the other editors at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to help. After all, there's never any shame in saying "I'm not explaining this policy well, maybe these other experienced editors can help." 28bytes (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yes indeed, it is vital to always start with an assumption of good faith. Bad faith must never be assumed - it always needs to be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. For BLP, there are plenty of valid reasons why people can add unsourced negative material in good faith - for example, they might simply be unfamiliar with our sourcing rules - and the material might actually be true! We absolutely must not assume all newcomers are fully conversant with all our rules, and we should always give them friendly and helpful assistance unless bad faith becomes incontrovertible. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think, at this point in time, there is probably no need for immediate administrator intervention, but the above conversation would be good to continue with a mentor. Jasper is a good editor who seems open to changing his editing styles to better match up with the community guidelines, and I think mentorship would go a long way toward helping him. Kansan (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, this really only seems to be an issue of understanding and communication - I don't think there was ever any justification for admin action at this stage -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Things seem to be coming to a close since Jasper looks to be seeing how his actions were not the best. Perhaps the remainder of the discussion re mentoring and other things be taken to his talk page rather than on a high visibility board. --Blackmane (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

He would first need to agree to mentorship, of course - he earlier stated he was reluctant to do so (but several of us have urged him to change his mind, as it wouldn't have to be a permanent thing at all and would only be about helping him.) Kansan (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Still, it would be better to discuss on my own talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Multiple non-English essay articles on same topic—I smell a class assignment

• Wikitagalog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PANGKASARIANG PAGKAKAKILANLAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've stumbled across these two articles this morning, created by separate new accounts, both written in Tagalog. Running the text through Google Translate, they both appear to be essays on the topic of gender identity.

My hunch is that there's a class assignment (possibly at Southern Miss, based on this version of the first article), and essays are getting posted to Wikipedia. I think the creators of these two pages are acting in good faith but just posting to the wrong place. I hope the instructor hasn't told the class to post the essays here (though I can't rule that out).

My hunch is also that there will be more of these today. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you find the teacher out and contact him? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left messages on the two article creators' talk pages (plus a Google Translation to Tagalog of the message) but haven't gotten a reply. —C.Fred (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The version of Wikitagalog ([21]) pointed out by C.Fred is specifically a translation of http://voicelab9.wordpress.com/non-western-cultural-norms/gender-roles-within-the-philippines/ . -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the remainder of the situation, I deleted it as copyvio. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Zombie433 evading ban

Resolved

 – he gone. --Jayron32 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just two days ago, after a discussion here at ANI, Zombie433 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was banned from Wikipedia for continual block evasion and disruptive edits. He's taken no notice, and is now back with yet another new IP - we are now up to 48 IPs that we have found and tagged, plus God-knows how many more we haven't yet come across. Can stronger action be taken please? Regards, GiantSnowman 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken that new IP would have been stopped by the proposed rangeblock. 28bytes (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It would have, yes. But no rangeblock was ever instigated, due to concerns over 'collateral damage' - good-faith editors caught up by it. GiantSnowman 16:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to our world (say the administrators). Due to the nature of how this user (and the hundreds of thousands of others that also use the same ISP) accesses the internet, there is literally nothing we can do except play whack-a-mole with him regarding stopping him at that end. If his disruption were limited to a few select articles, we could semiprotect those; but it turns out that his spectrum of target articles is too huge; there's no way to pre-emptively semiprotect everything we think he is going to edit. So, back to whack-a-mole. Just a lot of revert block and ignore is all we have. Frustrating, yes, but given the limitations of this system, short of getting his ISP to cut off his service (chance of that happening before the heat death of the universe = nil) there's literally nothing more we can do than what we are already doing. So, revert his edits, report the IP and let an admin block it. --Jayron32 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the "pending changes" thing that would prevent IPs from making direct edits? Count Iblis (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It didn't go over well. See [22]. --Jayron32 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That said, this may be the kind of user that can be stopped via an WP:EDITFILTER. That entire process is something akin to black magic for me. Perhaps an administrator who knows how to cast the right spells can make that happen... --Jayron32 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Zombie433 still vandalising

I'd like to point out that blocked vandal User:Zombie433 is still putting false informations into the articles. He hasn't got a new usermane but now he is using a dynamic IPs, list here:[23] So now it's even harder to track him to revert his edits. Could you do a range block to finally prevent him from faking wikipedia? I already removed false information from hundreds of articles faked by Zombie433. I can't watch them all, and this cheater keep putting fake number of matches and goals to the articles I previously cleaned from his cheats like there:[24].--Wrwr1 (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See several discussions above, where this is already an ongoing issue. It is not technically feasible, given the ISP he is using, to institute a rangeblock without knocking out an unacceptable number of positive contributors as well. Given that, we just need to be vigilant and revert and block him as he appears. Just report him at WP:AIV each time he shows up, reference the sockpuppet list for a comparison of IP addresses and behaviors, and revert all of his edits from that range. --Jayron32 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have run a CU again, and this vandal is the only person who has edited behind 79.213.64.0/18 for the past month at least. Why some people think this construes collateral damage is beyond me. But perhaps I forgot to read my daily dose of Dianetics this morning... –MuZemike 02:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. I can second MuZemike's findings for anon parts. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I was only passing on information above where people claimed there was collateral damage; being that I am not a checkuser I have to take prior claims to such as true. Thanks to MuZemike for doing the actual checkuser and to Elockid for doing the rangeblock. Shall we consider the matter closed? --Jayron32 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help guys! GiantSnowman 15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts? Two previous closures include Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Welcome new users and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow IP editors to create articles. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Duck of someone banned/blocked?

Resolved

 – Blocked by Iridescent for abusing multiple accounts

Temporaire1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• If any Admins is reading this, please take note that the abovementioned user has made 26 tendentious edits within the span of 10 minutes, all done without any explanation given whatsoever. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oversighter needed

I have just emailed the oversighter list about a problematic userpage. Anyone on duty tonight?

The matter is quite pressing, I don't wish to disclose anymore on-Wiki. Pol430 talk to me 22:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Without giving specifics, let's just say an e-mail to the Oversight address makes a lot more noise in the right ears than an ANI posting. If you've emailed the address on WP:RFO an ANI thread is quite unlikely to make things any faster. Courcelles 23:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've emailed you with some further info Pol430 talk to me 23:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The fastest way is supposed to be "Wikipedia's quick form", see [25] Bishonen | talk 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Check your email. My experience has been that Oversight emails sent using the quick form get a response within 15-20 minutes, and I've sent more than a few. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing Archived RFC

A recent RFC on the village pump was archived by a bot without being closed. Are bus routes Encyclopaedic? I'm not sure what policy is on how to go about closing something like this do we Unarchive close then leave to rearchive or just close in situ? I was hoping an admin here can sort it out - the situation is complicated by another editor commenting on the RFC today whilst archived; this may require some sort of history merge to preserve their contribution and it may require to remain open to allow comment on their contribution. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica Drama

Encylopedia Dramatica dropped its role as home of the /B/tards and is now "Oh Internet" which more akin to Know Your Meme than the old NSFW stuff. So We have a slow motion edit war between various "just auto-confirmed"/new accounts/trolls and Genuine Wikipedians over including EncyclopediaDramatica.ch A fork of ED. Genuine Wikipedians have removed it at least 5 times since I started watching this afternoon. However genunine content contribution is high enough so Page protection would be silly and harm the Wikipedia's coverage.... So can we black list "EncyclopediaDramatica.ch" or create an "edit filter" or what? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I requested semi protection the other day. LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

On not I think I am found one good faith Genuine Wikipedian who has added it in. Also ED was considered a WP:ATTACKSITE The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully Wikipedia:Attack sites no longer has consensus. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats actually totally unrelated here. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED and WP:NPA#Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the NPA policy page refers to links which are disruptive or problematic while the failed policy "attack sites" refers to sites which where characterized as inherently naughty. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm very hesitant to make a broad distinction between editors and "real" wikipedians. But if the article needs to be protected in order for this dispute to be settled on the talk page I'll protect it. Protonk (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, consensus is against them. LiteralKa (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine. My question is simple. Is this something liable to be solved by normal discussion and would that discussion be moved along by a page protection? Protonk (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate to use that distinction but the reality is these largely our drive by hits by people who are upset OhInternet has replaced ED. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since encyclopediadramatica.com is on the meta-wikimedia.org blacklist already, shouldn't websites that duplicate its content be added to it too? I've mentioned it at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#encyclopediadramatica.com, so I haven't received a response yet. Blacklisting the website is preferable to continually having to lock the article from any revisions, including improvements. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ED being on the blacklist is a tangential topic. You can feel free to add ED mirrors to the blacklist but that doesn't really have anything to do w/ this dispute. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont know what else to do here but bring it here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already taken the .ch domain to the local spam-blacklist's TP after a user spammed MONGO's talk page with it. While it was there, another user reported two more forks of the same material, but I'm not sure if they're actively being used as of yet. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely ED is a caricature of Wikipedia, not an attack-site? It doesn't call for violent action to be taken against Wikipedia, it only makes fun of Wikipedia and its editors. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We had a whole Arbcom case over it actually which is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

take note of the age of that case. At the time of the case the article was "permanently deleted" and no one envisioned that a real article would ever be created. Its bearing 5 years hence on any discussion which doesn't involve spamming someone's talk page w/ links to ED is minimal. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The remedy stands just the same that why its been black listed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and an arbitration decision made clear that the recreation of the article about ED was no longer completely ruled out, but did not change the ruling regarding its status as an attack site. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And still the arb case has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct or content issue before us, nor does the blacklist. This is the same as any other site which is forked. We have difficulty determining whether the article should describe a particular fork, the old site, or all of them. See WoWWiki for a similar dispute (with no blacklist or arb case involved). Protonk (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WoWWiki&limit=500&action=history – I wouldn't say the WoWWiki article was significantly disrupted or spammed, and there was more discussing than reverting. I don't see the two events as comparable. Wowpedia also has sources. At the moment, ed.ch proponents are basing their arguments solely on their ideology rather than Wikipedia policy, precedents, practices, or sources. At the moment, ed.ch proponents are using come-and-go accounts to revert because they have the ability to revert without participating in the discussion. Their goal is to keep reverting until their opposition grows tired. They could afford having cheap throwaway accounts tarnished in image or banned. They could always call upon a friend to replace them. By adding ed.ch to the blacklist, they'll realize that they must obtain consensus before being permitted to add the link to the article. ed.ch proponents are going to avoid the negotiating table as long as it's as easy as clicking the "Save page" button to add the link back in. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "it exists, so we must include it." WP:NOTLINK. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ok? The article is currently protected. I have absolutely no objection to putting any ED mirrors on the blacklist. And I have no objection to keeping the article at the status quo until one of the mirrors garners some attention from some reliable sources. My point in this whole thread is to point out that the nature of the article subject itself has no bearing on the conduct of people pushing for one site over another. Nor does a 5 year old arbcom case. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To broach a content question, how likely is it that the ED page will ever be updated with a link to a fork should that fork remain consistent (and be mentioned in some sources)? Protonk (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

doubtful We can white list a single edit if It become prominent in RS to warrant as such. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I found it likely. The media loves Internet drama; they feel that it makes them sound trendy. Unfortunately, I can't predict the future, so it's wait and see for me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• In a related question, someone ought to take "Oh Internet" to RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you please clarify? ohinternet.com isn't a reliable source. It's an user-generated wiki that's only a few month old and has less than a thousand articles. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any here trying to push ohinternet.com as a reliable source, and I don't see a point in a pre-emptive RS/N discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression by the 90 seconds I spent looking at it when the drama llama came to town, that Oh Internet had an editorial and fact checking process prior to publication of content. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • And I was wrong they just canned the severe NSFW/legal stuff rather than instituting an editorial process. Oh well, that just leaves the relatively pathetic KYM until the internet culture studies people start grinding journal articles to get positions in New Media Studies or the latest name for the discipline. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration cases are binding unless there is a subsequent case that "overthrows" it...least that is what I had always thought was policy here.--MONGO 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• But the case doesn't have any bearing on the topic of discussion!!! Protonk (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

IN other words, you don't think there is anything disruptive or problematic?--MONGO 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh. No? This is a pretty simple naming dispute. Naming and Necessity gets at the core of our problem. The article on ED semantically pointed to an object in the real world that no longer exists. Now there is a dispute over whether or not it should point to a copy of that object. Obviously we have obnoxious people trying to insert the link to the mirror or beseiging the talk page. But none of that has anything to so w/ ED in itself. So whatever fervor has been whipped up in this thread over your eponymous arbcom case or some subsection of NPA is kinda beside the point. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Linking to a mirror is the same as linking to the original website.   Will Beback  talk  02:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. My point in wikilinking naming and necessity was to hint at the reasons why site revamps are problematic for a living encyclopedia. We had a link to ED in the article but ED as it was when the article was (mostly) written no longer exists as a distinct object. Someone has forked it and put a mirror up so linking to that mirror is not the same as linking to the original because the original has changed in a fundamental way. Again, this is largely a content issue (the semantic dispute). Protonk (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So one group of morons is arguing with another...not surprising.--MONGO 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. ed.ch is founded by the ED audience, so it believes in the myth of ED, including its supposed invincibility and lack of accountability. They've restored articles deleted by DMCA and legal requests (eg. the "Madeleine McCann" article), and they have fewer qualms about including personal information. ed.ch is run by those who believe in the legend of ED – ED as the unflinching hate machine. The original ED sysops didn't believe in the myths and legends; we were more pragmatic and realistic, but the new site is run by the ideological. ed.ch is going to end up being fundamentally different from the original ED. Since ed.ch is editable, I wouldn't call it a mirror image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way, thats some bored screwed up people that participate in that mess.--MONGO 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep EB as a source and prior Wikipedia / ED conflicts out of this. If ED is changing or forked then normal content policy, including edit warring prohibitions etc, applies to the article(s) on it (or its forks). Period. If we need to warn, block, or protect, we should do so to end the edit warring. Talk pages are for talk and consensus building, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like they don't yet know which ED will be the real ED...oh the drama.--MONGO 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, .. our drama's daddy can beat up their drama's daddy any day of the week. — Ched :  ?  08:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

USER at IP 90.220.41.77

This IP seems to exist solely to make sabotages to a couple of fictional article by adding his own fanfic. Mathewignash (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement analysis again [Moved from WP:FTN]

COI linkspammer Fugitivehunter (talk · contribs) making some rather sweeping POV changes there, including a legal claim in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

UH I am posting to Ani since its including legal threats The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone should inform him that Revocation of our licensing is not permitted, which it looks like he may be doing by placing that Trademark sign on the article. If he persists, then block for WP:NLT, as continued attempts to revoke licensing is an implicit challenge to our content licenses, which is in effect a legal threat. –MuZemike 01:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I don't see any legal threats, I do see he's put a "Trademark" symbol next to "System Analysis", the gentleman's website says the same (I didn't check it for reliability), but that's about it. NO legal threats, no revolking our license, nor is there any prohibition against using the trademark symbol. Just my .02 KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 11:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking meltdown from 38.103.95.130

As you can see, this anon editor is a chronic overlinker who has been asked repeatedly to stop. Since his edits aren't vandalism per se, it seemed more appropriate to bring it up here than at ARV. I get the impression he doesn't even know his talk page exists so I'm a little at a loss as to how to encourage his enthusiasm into more productive edits. Millahnna (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'll check back in a few hours and again a day from now. If he starts back up again I'll block the IP. Looking at the contribution history it has been mostly this sort of thing for a few months. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• The MO is similar to a known vandal, comparing it to the log of reports about The Verizon vandal. It's a different network, so it may not be the same person. However, if his edits are going to be disruptive on the whole, then he warrants a block to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of Raintheone towards the G.I. Joe WikiProject articles

Per discussion below, this AN/I has been withdrawn and taken to WP:RfC/U instead. Just waiting for 24 hours of inactivity to pass for the bot to auto-archive this thread. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The purpose of this Incident notice, is to report the disruptive behaviours of Raintheone vis-à-vis articles falling under the purview of the G.I. Joe WikiProject. At some point Raintheone became the WikiProject's self-appointed content supervisor, and his actions have quickly escalated from simply providing comments on the WikiProject and various article talk pages, to an active campaign of harassment including an Article for Deletion nomination (result: keep) on one of the most notable characters in the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero franchise, and culminating in a Good article reassessment on one of our two GA-rated articles. I don't know what the source is of his enmity, and although I must assume that he was acting in good faith at the outset, it has become readily apparent that he's moved well beyond that. I also won't be addressing the specific points of the content dispute, as that has been discussed at length elsewhere, but will instead focus solely on Raintheone's conduct in this matter. I'm hoping that by bringing this to AN/I (as was suggested by an admin in the course of discussing the GAR) that we can resolve this situation and be allowed to edit the articles to the standard they deserve, rather than having to expend time and effort on administrative matters.

AfD and Merge requests

AFAIK, the earliest appearance of Raintheone in the "G.I. Joe space" was 24 February 2011. On that date in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters/Archive 1#Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe Concern thread, he posted "can anyone do a mass AFD on the non notable characters" and displayed an utter lack of courtesy by doing so with actually discussing it with the G.I. Joe editors first. Although it is not strictly required, the AfD guideline does recommend the notification of supporting WikiProjects and substantial contributors. This is a pattern he repeated with the Zartan AFD, and again with the G.I. Joe: A Real American hero (Marvel Comics) GAR, where both went up without any notification to interested parties.

At one point, Raintheone made a post [26] where he suggested that "I think it may be best if you merge many character articles into a list of characters because they are not properley [sic] sourced. Some are fine, most are not. You also need to assess them on your own WP quality sclae [sic] and WP Fictional Character's". I would note that since then:

1. over a period of about a week in mid-late March, one of our editors did in fact perform a quality assessment on every article in the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero space, and
2. a significant amount of merging of the G.I. Joe articles has in fact occurred, as can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and here [27]. And while his attention may initially have been focused on the character articles it has since drifted onto the non-character articles (which in no way impacts the Fictional Characters WikiProject).

Lack of Manpower

Despite the fact that the G.I. Joe WikiProject has at most three active editors - including myself (who only became a regular/active Wikipedia editor since early March 2011, having posted perhaps 3-dozen edits maximum in the preceding two years) and another editor Cerebellum (who has been inactive for almost a month now, due to RL commitments) - we've still managed to accomplish much in a very short time frame (less than a month), including the aforementioned merges (kudos to Fortdj33) as well as our recent work to continue improving the article G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) in the hopes of nominating it to FAC at some point. This despite that fact that we all have other interests and commitments both within Wikipedia, and of course in RL. Given our manpower shortages, especially when compared to the overall size of the WikiProject (at one point well in excess of 300 articles, now a somewhat more manageable 238 articles, as of 19 April 2011, and still shrinking), I would have expected some consideration, but Raintheone appears to be working to some internal deadline that he's failed to inform the rest of us about:

1. Here [28], right off the bat his first statement is "So the merging has halted" (which I must emphasize, occurred shortly after the start of Cerebellum's inactivity, and my own increasing involvement in several other non-G.I. Joe articles) indicating on Raintheone's part, impatience with the WikiProject, despite our trying to explain to him on several occasions that claims of WP:NOEFFORT aren't particularly helpful, and the fact that in Wikipedia, there is no deadline.
2. and in the AfD discussion [29] where he states that "At least something good came of this and it has had a little work done top it and some sources added", a further indicator that he was simply gaming the system in order to make us work faster (i.e. force us to work to his own timeline).

Claims of trying to help

Raintheone has also repeatedly claimed that he wants to help us out by finding better (i.e. more reliable sources) but other than a few half-hearted attempts, his default action has been to delete (for example [30]) when it became too difficult for him to actually find a better source rather than taking a less extreme action such as:

1. redoubling efforts to help find an alternate source to back up the claim, or
2. to delete the reference, but keep the claim, and let the claim be challenged independently, perhaps add a {{citation needed}} tag instead

In fact, despite claiming to be searching for better sources, he later admitted that "anyway I always said you could find info on the net for the "pre net era" but I didn't look really" [emphasis added] ([31] near the bottom). When I challenged him on the fact that he hasn’t been helping us to find better sources, he came up with stuff like this: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], and [37]. And while I'll readily admit it may be useful somewhere in the universe of G.I. Joe articles (probably in one of the backbone pieces such as G.I. Joe), it's less useful in the context of the content dispute over the G.I. Joe character articles, and absolutely useless in supporting the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) article.

GAR

On the subject of the current GAR, I would note that the guidelines themselves state that "requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment". The article in question was only passed into GA on 2 March 2011, and yet Raintheone feels that it has already drifted sufficiently in barely a month for GAR to be required. While I can see the value of a GAR when an article has been worked on by many editors over a protracted period, and with many random/unrelated edits, in this case of this article the vast majority (probably > 95%) of edits in the past month have been by Fortdj33 and myself, and with the concerted purpose of bringing the article to a standard that can withstand FAC nomination at some point hopefully not too far into the future (so in other words: hardly a series of random edits). And while I agree that the article isn't currently ready for FAC, it's unreasonable to put the article through GAR when it's still being worked on.

Furthermore, the article recently underwent a thorough peer review at the end of March, so a significant amount of additional editing has been done over the past few weeks to address the deficiencies raised. It's interesting to note that Raintheone here [38] accused me of “You have just had a peer review and not started working on it, rather contesting the content to be okay. I just see complaining about the guidelines and no real indication of willingness to change” when in fact Fortdj33 and I have been working diligently to address those very points, and an examination of the article’s talk page and edit history would bear that out.

Additionally, we lost a week of GAR working time waiting for Raintheone to properly enumerate the deficiencies he has found in the article. Although the GAR was posted on April 11, it was not until April 19 that Raintheone finally responded to my request for a specific detailing of all deficiencies which in his opinion needed to be addressed. On April 12, I posted the following:

"Per the GA Reassessment instructions, you are required to "leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page." As such, the burden of proof is yours. The rationale given at the top of this page is nothing more than a generalization of what you perceive the problems to be, and is lacking in specific details and the comparison to GA criteria as specified. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)"

To which he responded:

"That is individual reassessment not community. Rain the 1 BAM 02:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)"

And to which I replied:

"Community assessment: "If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises." Have you done actually done that individual reassessment, and if so, where is it? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)"

Raintheone finally responded to my request this morning, and although I’ve been working throughout the day to address his review points, he has since added additional points to the list. I ask you: when will this end, as it seems that nothing can ever be done to his satisfaction? He's currently hiding behind the fact that it's a community reassessment to avoid taking responsibility over the final outcome of the GAR, but I contend that since he's the instigator, that he's responsible for it proceeding in an equitable manner, and should set a reasonable benchmark for the GAR to be closed.

Conclusion

The irony has not been lost on me, that if not for having to deal with Raintheone’s constant harassment of the G.I. Joe articles and its WikiProject editors, considerably more work - including researching more and better sources - could have been accomplished during this time. In conclusion, I think that he needs to remember that the editors are volunteers who freely give of their time and energy, and not some other editor’s slaves, and we'd appreciate some Administrator support in warning him off so that we can actually get to the work of improving the articles, rather than having to deal with matters like AfDs and GARs.

Thanks for your time. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, what do you want administrators to do here?

Hmmm? --Jayron32 04:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, get him to back off the WikiProject in general, and the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) article in particular. Granted that he has a valid point over the reliability of some of the sources we've utilised, but that doesn't excuse the constant harassment we've suffered for the past month-and-a-half. I'd much rather be editing and improving article content, than be wasting my time fighting off AfDs and GARs. Since my goal is to get the latter article to FAC at some point, I'm sure that if the sources cited are inadequate (both qualitatively and quantitatively) the FAC reviewers will stop the nomination cold anyways. (P.S. I wasn't 100% sure if this was the right forum to post this to, but it was suggested by one of your fellow administrators). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How do we get him to "back off"? Have you attempted any of the steps listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Have you brought in outside editors to analyze the situation via a request for a third opinion or a request for comment? Have you attempted any mediation, such as WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM? Admins can do three things, and three things only: We can protect articles, we can delete articles, and we can block users. We don't, however, hold any special "super editor" powers that make our opinions or decisions regarding user behavior or article content any more weighty than that of everyone else at Wikipedia. So, I state it again, what do you want us to do about this? I'm not sure there's anything blockable that's been done yet, and there's nothing that needs deleting or protecting. --Jayron32 04:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Per one of your admin colleagues, "Jake: if you have a problem with Rain's behaviour, take it to WP:RFC/U or WP:AN/I. - Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)". So that's what I'm doing. RFC/U didn't seem quite right in my opinion, as there has already been more than enough back-and-forth for many weeks now on the user and article talk pages. Also, this is a problem over user conduct, rather than over the content dispute (for which, I agree that Dispute Resolution would be more appropriate), which we are actually making some headway on. Rather than an outright edit block on him, aren't Admins also empowered to prohibit editors from editing specific articles? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, such bans require a community discussion or ArbCom ruling. See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban. Admins do not have the unilateral power to enact a ban solely because someone asks for it. You are free to propose a specific ban, and ask the community at large (i.e. non admins too!) to discuss it, but admins have no special power in creating such bans out of thin air. Admins may enforce previously established bans which are being violated by users, but unless and until we have something to enforce, there is still nothing for admins to do here. --Jayron32 05:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't his use of AfD and GAR as a blunt force instrument enough to warrant at least a temporary block? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U would make more sense to me. After all, the format you've used here is basically how you would present evidence at RfC/U. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, very well. I'll need some time to reformat the submission, as the RfC/U template seems to be quite structured. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:71.174.128.244 at Causes of autism

71.174.128.244 (talk · contribs) is edit warring in the article and completely disrupting the talk page. He or she wants to add a point regarding one researcher in one vaccine/autism study who is being sought for fraud. Whether that negates the study or not, it leaves numerous others which have thoroughly debunked any link between vaccines, its ingredients, or anything about them with autism. Whether the non-notable researcher should be added to the article may be discussed, but edit warring and using the talk page as a forum is getting out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The article states that there is absolutely no link between autism and mercury in vaccines. Government employed experts in the Poling Vaccine Court case found a link, A study by Horning M.; Chian D,; Lipkin WI. referenced at the NIH here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15184908 references a link. A recent study by a researcher in Brazil also shows a link

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-verifies-mercury-in-flu-shots-is-toxic-118432874.html

The newest study about Thimerosal, from the University of Brazil, warns that while vaccines are essential to the well-being of children around the world, the use of Thimerosal should be reconsidered. The author, Dr. José Dórea, reviews the published science which demonstrates that infant exposure to the amount of Thimerosal in vaccines is toxic to human brain cells.

and this all started when I attempted to post a link showing that the author of a major autism mercury paper showing no mercury autism link, has been charged with fraud in connection with that research paper. This paper is one of the most referenced works on the subject.

Considering what I found in just a few hours of looking, the article is plainly in error. It is my opinion that someone is trying to control the content of the article to remove any references to the autism-mercury link. That person or persons may be employed by a vaccine company. If so it will not be the first time "content control" has been practiced on wikipedia, nor will it be the last.

As an example of the extent to which some authors are going to delete valid material I have had one of my additions deleted with the excuse being that material I copied verbatum ( a paragraphs worth) from a news article (to avoid objections of bias) were deleted as a "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION". That is plainly a bogus objection. Copyright laws not not bar the use of excerpts.

My objections to this kind of conduct on the talk page were deleted by the authors in an attempt to hide their less then exemplary conduct.71.174.128.244 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN, WP:COATRACK, WP:MEDRS, as well as WP:SOAPBOX. Your editing so far fails all of those. NW (Talk) 13:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a sourcing problem, WP:UNDUE covers the problems of giving too much weight to certain sources above others. To the editor, have in mind the following scale, approximately from best to worse: meta reviews > reviews in notable journals > position statements of very notable associations > news pieces in major scientific magazines > reviews in minor journals > individual studies in notable journals > individual studies in minor journals. News articles from mainstream newspapers are somewhere there, very near the bottom of the scale, they can be bumped up if the author is considered reliable.

The "no link to vaccines" position have some very notable reviews and statements behind it, so it needs to be given a lot of weight in the articles. Trying to upset this balance with individual studies will simply get you blocked for ignoring WP:UNDUE. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I see two problems at that talk page, The IP is unaware of a number of important policies, most importantly, WP:SYN and WP:MEDRS, and has now been explicitly pointed to them by NW here, and myself there. Time magazine, prnewswire.com, and gordonresearch.com are not appropriate sources for medical claims in Wikipedia. Once the IP is familiar with those guidelines, they'll know what kind of content is appropriate to bring to Wikipedia medical articles.

Another problem is rudeness to the IP. I won't list instances. But could those responsible please try to be more patient. Unless I'm missing some earlier interaction not on the current page, on the face of it this is a new editor with a fairly commonly-held view, who's come here to correct an article in good faith. Politely explaining or explicitly pointing to WP:BRD, and WP:MEDRS/WP:SYNTH from the start may have saved a lot of angst and time all round. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviving a discussion about a disruptive editor(s)

Users and dates active:

• 173.8.57.46 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) 8 September 2010 13:29 until present, with gaps
• 98.82.234.45 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) 21 March 23:42 until 17 April 18:26
• 98.82.167.40 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) 6 March 20:08 until 21 March 14:05

There may be more IP's that need to be collected here; I'm going to ask another two editors.

This is a followup to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Unsourced Content Added by Anon, which was archived without final decision. To recap, this user or users is/are adding significant amounts of dubious, unsourced information to TV station articles. The vast majority of these involve changing information about the station slogans. A large portion of those are to add "localized versions of national slogans". See, for example, this diff.

Another subset of these edits is to change decades from the correct (per WP:MOS) version without an apostraphe (e.g. 1960s) to a version with an apostraphe (e.g., 1960's), as in this diff.

The first two IP addresses have been told on their talk page about the importance of verification, and 173... has been told that the "apostrope-ing" is against MOS. User(s) have never once responded to any communication.

These stations are all over the US, so this person is definitely not adding based on their own personal knowledge. My guess is that the person decided that since some stations used localized versions of a national slogan, then, automatically, all of them did, and thus is trying to systematically correct all of the entries.

Note that this editor, especially 173... is often making up to 20 edits a day on these subjects (and no other). Some of the edits may be legitimate. Given their breadth and the lack of communication, I am no longer able to assume good faith. I tried an AIV report this morning, but it was (properly, I think) declined, since this isn't obviously vandalism. I would ask that an admin block these three accounts for now, and then myself and other editors who are monitoring these pages will watch for any other IPs with similar editing patterns, possibly requesting a rangeblock at a later date if necessary. AGF is fine, but we have to have collaboration, which, of course, requires communication, or it's impossible to figure out the authenticity of these sweeping changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my tone, but I just looked over the previous AN/I discussion and I'm having a difficult time buying into why, minimally, this isn't simply being treated as a straight forward case of disruptive editing, I'm speaking specifically about [39] and [40]. What's the present count all-told in terms of the number of editors who have tried to even get this editor(s) to simply respond and failed in the attempt? Approaching a half dozen? Even leaving aside for a moment whether or not this is a sock in action; isn't it reasonable to expect that if an editor decides to continue to add material to the encyclopedia; whether it's referenced or not, and a half dozen other editors are asking for ANY form of discussion and being totally ignored that we need to do something to get that editors attention? Maybe they do have reliable source for all of this material; maybe they don't. One thing for sure; we'll have a difficult time making a determination about anything if they simply ignore other editors completely and carry on like the rest of us don't exist. Also; I'm not buying the argument implied in the AN/I that somehow we should abandon policy, guidelines and consensus for a particular type of article, just because a lot of articles in that particular class are full of crap. Lots of the edits that this editor is making are unreferenced statistical changes; since when have we abandoned the principle that those kind of potentially insidious alterations can be passed over in the hope that 'one day' maybe one of us will come across a reliable source to support them? In my opinion that's just lazy dereliction, and if that's the kind of attitude we continue to hold when it comes to 'certain types' of article subjects, we get the crappy encyclopedia we deserve. I say, if six editors want a discussion about sourcing with a single other editor and that editor ignores all attempts at communication and continues to add unreferenced material for months on end; it's time to put a 'halting mechanism' in place. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

swearing, disruptive edits

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

check his contributions where this user Orangemarlin he swears for no reason, and does disruptive biased edits, just a small list of examples:

"22:00, 19 April 2011 (diff | hist) Martha Beck ‎ (→Leaving the Saints: Fixed citations. Please review the quality of WP:RS and citations here. Don't fuck them up.)" 22:30, 19 April 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Homosexuality ‎ (→Comment left at GA2 nomination, closed months ago: I'm glad we keep this crap out of the article.) 18:28, 19 April 2011 (diff | hist) Orthopathy ‎ (→See also: Orthomolecular medicine is a higher level of bullshit than Orthopathy. Prove that they're related.) much more swearing, bias and abuse to be found his edits!! he gets no warnings whatsoever?

He is also abusing the Periannan Senapathy article:

These are some of his edits on the senapathy article, check history of the article:

"Failed reliable source. Nevertheless his denialist opinion is disgusting" - The reliable source was not "failed", and here the user Orangemarlin is saying senapathys theory is disgusting. - This is clear bias.

"Fixed citation. Got nauseous looking up this crap book" - Here again he deleted a reference then he calims he got "naseous" by reading senapathys book which he calls "crap". 86.10.119.131 (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the orange warning when you edited this page? Yoenit (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Swearing is not a blockable offense. He's not swearing at someone, so it's not a personal attack. And his opinion on the sources is not blockable either. Just because you disagree with him, it does not follow that he deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He has recieved no warnings at all. Secondly he has been swearing at people. Also he has been lieing about what edits he has been making, for example on the Senapathy article, there was a source which was a 1995 newspaper article which was called "Dissin Darwin a lone biologists challenges darwins theory" but OrnageMarlin just deleted it and makes no reference to that in his edits, he has this agenda. Hes a fundamentalist, not neutral i dont think he should be editing scientists who have different positions on origins, also on the senapathy talk page and related his comments are extreme and just mocking and laughing at senapathy. See his contributions. This is unaceptable behaviour, now let's say it was the other way round and a user headed over to an evolutionist scientist's article and deleted stuff just becuase he opposes it and in the edit section swears and calls authors book crap, he would be banned or blocked wouldn't he? It's all one way on here. Please keep wikipedia neutral 86.10.119.131 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP, along with the editor "Rahulr7" who re-appeared after a 4 1/2 year absence in order to initiate the article, seem to be the primary author or authors, so it looks like he/they are getting a tad defensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An admin needs to look at this issue, also please look at the Senapathy article. His edits are not neutral as mentioned, he is calling senapathys books crap, attacking senapathy, deleting and lieing about edits, removing sources, just becuase he doesn't like senapathys theories. This is bias and against wikipedia policy. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you the editor Rahulr? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nothing to do with Rahulr. He appears to be living in India. He created the article. I did a bit of work on it, but then i noticed two other users deleting material on the page, one of them orangemarlin abusing the page and deleting the material and sources apparenetly becuase he finds senapathys book "crap" and his theory is "disgusting". Not neutral editing, the user is a fundimentalist who swears alot and deletes material which disagree with his own opinion. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing really to add, except the article is poorly written and filled with unsourced claims. Like "other scientists" agree or support, when I can't find a single one that does. I'm guessing the IP has COI with this nutjob Senapathy who's reputation is not even notable enough to be quoted by anyone but creationists. I still can't find a high profile evolutionary biologist (think Dawkins, Myers, anyone) who even mentions him. Again, google hits on the Senapathy just brings back creationist blogs and websites. Furthermore, my comments are colorful when I'm passionate about something. I try not to attack editors, even ones that are highly annoying. Just how many times do I write "reply" before I decide a bit of humor and "colorful language" makes it a bit more fun. Oh, one more thing anonymous IP. I don't have to be "neutral", I just have to either find sources, dispute sources, or bring sources to the article. I did not write "Senapathy is a nutjob" in the article, because that violates all kinds of things. But in the talkspace, he's not only a nutjob, but I think he's demented. He's so non-notable (unnotable is not a work, so what is it? But I digress) that we're wasting bandwidth discussing him. One last thing anonymous IP.....call me a liar again, and my civility, such as it is, will go flying out the fucking window. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

During the past few weeks I have been trying to improve articles like Battle of Burki and Lahore Front related to Lahore Front of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 to at least B class with the available reliable sources. Lately an editor User:M.A.R 1993 who has a history of tendentious editing and refusal to get the point shows up every 2-3 days and makes changes into sourced data while sometimes removing references and/or adds unsourced data asking me to add more sources. Instead of working towards improving the article and adding sources himself he wants all sources that are present on the article should be removed and his unsourced data should be placed. There has already been a Citation overkill in infobox trying to convince him by providing sources but he still continues to revert sourced data specially in result section of infobox. I am at loss of ideas of how to convince him while he continues to harass me stating "INTELLECTUAL KILLING" and reverting addition of sources. The only two sources he has provided on talkpage do not even mention the battle. All of this exactly fits the description in WP:DDE and and so I have approached here as suggestes on WP:DDE.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Weird ip activity

Special:Contributions/81.164.209.246

This ip is going around removing and placing sockpuppet notices on various pages. Looks extremely odd. Please check it out. Ocaasi ^c 12:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to post here on the same point. The IP 81.164.209.246 looks to be either the banned user Editor XXV (talk · contribs) or is pretending to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All three of us came to this page at the same time with the same question. I was wondering which drawer he fit in. He is currently edit warring with several users over the use of sockpuppet templates on other editors. Anyone with a checkuser bit care to take care of this? --Jayron32 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It passes the duck test. I'd rather not say anything more specific than that. Once it gets blocked, its work can be repaired. (P.S. I am not a checkuser. I'm going strictly by behavior.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this to, he keeps removing tags from Copyedeye, i notified NuclearWarfare who originally tagged the sock--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for disruptive editing. I don't see any connections to previously blocked accounts (yet), but if there is more activity, please let me know and I'll investigate. My spidey-sense says the IP is a proxy, but I can't confirm it. TNXMan 12:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. The higher-ups seem to think we should be more welcoming to our newest users. : / Ocaasi ^c 12:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Someone should post a "welcome wagon" banner just ahead of the block notification. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We should be more welcoming, agreed. But when an editor's first edits (on this IP, granted) are removing a sock tag from a user's page, and when they have such intimate knowledge of the editor in question as to say categorically that they aren't a sock (quack), then they're clearly not a new user. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, would it be considered disruptive to post a legitimate but implictly sarcastic "welcome" template on their talk page? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly? I've seen lots of IPs who get not a "Welcome please register" message but a "So what's your username" message. As for the sarcasm - it's always really, really helpful, as we know. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can be helpful, as it can sometimes aid in exposing the truth of a situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the ip is correct that Copyedeye is not blocked. They were unblocked back in 2010, so whether or not they are a sock they are not an indefinitely blocked sock. Syrthiss (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

However, NW had tagged him as a "suspected" sock of the banned user Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs). Why he was unblocked but the tag remained, is up to NW and Bwilkins to explain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why he was unblocked to begin with; Alison labeled him a highly likely sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 13:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note with the unblocking admin, User talk:Bwilkins, asking for his opinion on this situation. --Jayron32 14:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it appears I unblocked him. As can be seen from their talkpage, I had extensive interactions over a few unblock requests, and I think I even had their talkpage on my watchlist for a brief period of time. I believe that the unblock was based on WP:ROPE, at least as far as I can remember. I cannot speak to any possible relationship between the IP and this userid. If they have reached the end of their rope, feel free to tie the noose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears he's trying to tell us that Mantanmoreland and Editor XXV are the same guy. That could be true or it could be a red herring. Socks, either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor Bakhshi82 changing and removing editors' comments, and making threats

This user continues to change and remove editors' comments, especially mine, at Talk:Titanic (1997 film), as seen in this link, where I reverted him. His reasoning for continuing to do so is also in that link. I feel that his reasoning is unsound, as this is not some serious case of a personal attack. It is me stating my suspicion that he edited the article as an IP against consensus, and that he did it again once he could no longer edit the article an as IP (once it was semi-locked). He has been repeatedly reverted on this -- changing and removing my statements -- and yet continues to do so. He has also made WP:THREATS against me, as seen here. Administrative action is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)