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

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to archive?

Is the discussion (for now) at WP:V over with? It's hard to parse it at the moment. Alexandria (chew out) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not over... just temporarily on hold as we wait for a triumvirate of admins to officialy close the the RfC. Their determination this will determine the direction further discussions will take (for example, will we be using the current text as a base line for further discussions and edits, or will we using the proposed text as a base line?) Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent events as of 8 December

Unfortunately, of the three uninvolved admins who volunteered to close this big RfC (HJ Mitchell, Black Kite and Newyorkbrad), one is known to have been unavailable and one has not made a single edit in almost a week. That leaves only HJ Mitchell. In discussions that spread over WT:V#It doesn't take this long to determine consensus, User talk:Newyorkbrad#WP:V, User talk:Cla68#WP:V RfC, User talk:HJ Mitchell#WP:V and possibly further locations, it appears that HJ Mitchell got the impression that it is OK for him to co-opt Cla68, resulting in a committee of 4 edits with 2 actually available. Cla68 accordingly created a "deliberation page" in his user space.

In my opinion this is highly inappropriate, even though the initial reactions were agreement by two editors (Nuujinn, Blueboar) and no protest. Cla68 is not an admin (not really necessary, but his failed RfA sheds some light on whether this is the right kind of person for the job), is not completely uninvolved as he voted in an earlier RfC about the same policy sentence (again not completely necessary), and whether he is in good standing depends on whether someone under an active Arbcom sanction qualifies for that. More importantly, the ARBCC topic ban was for, among other things:

• battlefield conduct – disqualifies him from determining consensus in a way that will contribute to a peaceful and lasting resolution
• inappropriate use of sources – disqualifies him from determining consensus on the first sentence of WP:V.

In order to give the immediate negative feedback that people need if they are to learn anything from their mistakes, I nominated the "deliberation page" for deletion. See WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation page. Hans Adler 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bell Pottinger

As you may be aware, the PR firm Bell Pottinger have been caught editing articles on behalf of their clients. Following an investigation led by Jimmy Wales, and with assistance from WilliamH (talk · contribs), Keegan (talk · contribs), Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) and Panyd (talk · contribs), we have identified at least 10 accounts belonging to Bell Pottinger, only two of which are particularly active (100+ edits). At no time were any of them considered respected community members, nor did they skew any votes or gain any rights beyond autoconfirmed. Most of their edits were reverted. A report will be coming later in the week detailing things a bit better.

In the meantime, these articles were edited by Bell Pottinger accounts, and will need checking for factual accuracy and neutrality. It is not necessarily a list of clients of the company, and there may be false positives mixed in, as well as articles which have had undue negative (as opposed to positive) weight put on them - please pick something you’re knowledgeable in and give it a good scrub down. Most articles only have an errant commercial paragraph, but some will need more work. Mark the articles with  Done on this list when you’re finished.

[Note from Jimbo: As a part of this process, we should self-evaluate how we dealt with this systematic attack on our integrity. Outcomes can be classified in a few ways such as “community responded to POV pushing appropriately, ending in no overall impact” or “Bell Pottinger got away with something bad” or “Bell Pottinger successfully changed the entry, but in an innocuous way”. We should be most interested in exploring whether and when we failed, so that we can think about how to improve things. So if you work through the history of an article and mark them with {{done}}, please also add a note reporting on the outcome.]

On behalf of Jimmy, Keegan, WilliamH, Chase and Panyd, The Cavalry (Message me) 12:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this here? Seems like fact checker and editing are editor, not administrator, functions. Seems like one of those banners that appear above watchlists (e.g. like the ArbCom elections) would be more appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's headline news in two European countries, is causing a major political scandal in the UK, and involves sock/meatpuppetry from 10+ accounts. See the article in The Independent at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-founder-attacks-bell-pottinger-for-ethical-blindness-6273836.html. We need somewhere to discuss it, and this is an incident which administrators will be interested in, and which administrators can help with. I honestly think that this is the best place to have a preliminary discussion, and to get as many 'eyes on' the issue as we can. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A list of the accounts involved can be found here. WilliamH (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this an incident which editors will be interested in, and which editors can help with? As there are far more editors than administrators, getting as many eyes on implies targeting all editors (which naturally includes administrators). Gerardw (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this sort of thing could go on WP:VPM (although we do seem to use this place as a general noticeboard..) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is also the most watched noticeboard, as far as I'm aware. Regardless, it looks like several editors have found it already ;-) The Cavalry (Message me) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am confident that this is a pervasive problem because of how we traditionally (and procedurally) treat PR editors; good work all round in tracking down the accounts and articles in this case :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I daresay this will be cross-posted in several places, but bearing in mind that over 5000 accounts alone have this page on their watch list, and that this is a significant incident requiring admin intervention, this is definitely a good place to get eyes on this. And thank you. WilliamH (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with those who think this was the wrong venue. It took me the longest time to figure out the difference between AN and ANI, but I eventually realized that ANI is for Incidents that Require Immediate Admin attention. AN is more an announcements board – items there may be extremely important, but they do not necessarily require immediate action by admins. Technically we don't have the right kind of board to cover "extremely Important Announcements of interest to all editors". Absent the ideal board, AN is the best option as a high traffic notice board, but not ANI. It creates a bad precedent, for anyone thinking something is very important and it ought to get a lot of eyes on it. --SPhilbrickT 14:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was rather hoping we could focus on the issue at hand as a priority - I will look into moving this all to WP:AN instead if people prefer that venue. The key issue here is not which noticeboard this is posted on, but instead that we have a list of articles that need fixing and a rapidly evolving news story. Let's not get bogged down in Parkinson's Law of Triviality! The Cavalry (Message me) 14:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Though the investigation may lead to actions by administrators and so this noticeboard is okay, I would support closing this thread and moving the discussion to AN as a stable space to consider general impact and a consistent set of actions, across what might be a wide group of accounts, for administrators with an eye to future policy improvement. Flagging it here was a good move to quickly attract interest by experienced folks, but this is more than an incident that might be resolved in 24 hours. Fæ (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "nor did they skew any votes".. see this AfD. Gobonobo ^{T C} 15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, well spotted. Fixed now. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Only in our bureaucratic nightmares did I dream we'd be discussing whether or not this is the appropriate noticeboard for the notice and not discussing the contents of the notice. Keegan (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that an editor requested page protection and reversion deletion of User:Biggleswiki at RFPP. I am just going to refer this back to you because it's too complicated for someone to handle at RFPP without any background knowledge. Please make the appropriate judgment on page protection/oversight. Malinaccier (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created this (temporary) template which should be added to the suspected articles. The template should be deleted when things get sorted out. PaoloNapolitano 18:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, no that's not a great idea - way overkill. This is best handled on the one page - no need to slap templates about. No need to revdel or protect the user pages either. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw this on the news and immediately went to ANI to find the relevant discussion, its the obvious place for it. That being said, the accounts are blocked so is there anything left to do? Have the relevant articles been POV-checked? ThemFromSpace 18:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See status list for POV checking updates. Gerardw (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky

Boris Berezovsky (businessman) is a client of Bell Pottinger and there is an admitted COI editor on the article (User:Kolokol1) - Kolokol is the URL for International Foundation for Civil Liberties (as well as being a chemical agent used in warfare, from which the foundation obviously takes their URL - the foundation being used in "warfare" against its opponents). The foundation is run by Alex Goldfarb, a close Berezovsky associate, who came to public recognition during the Litvinenko affair when he headed the Berezovsky PR campaign. The foundation itself is funded by Berezovsky. Berezovsky is a client of BP, and Goldfarb too has used BP for PR exercises, as per this and this. A legal case in the UK recently began in which Berezovsky is suing Roman Abramovich for billions of dollars, and in the lead up to the beginning of the case, the article has seen a whitewashing of the Berezovsky biographical article by Kolokol.

• Here Kolokol1 is asked to declare whether they have a COI
• Kolokol1 refuses to respond directly to the question
• After again being asked, Kolokol1 states he has "an interest in Mr. Berezovsky being treated fairly and objectively"
• Here Kolokol1 confirms "For the record, I am associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care."
• Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)/Archive 3 and Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman) is full of instances where the editor has used cited policies and the like, which once reading this, put some things into perspective. There are many instances of Kolokol1 stating for the record that it was his intent to remove negative information from the article, regardless of what it was, using WP:BLP reasoning for doing so, regardless of the use of only highly respectable and reliable scholarly sources, yet engaged in original research and falsification of information as per this and this, and argued for this to be kept in the article.
• The editor's edits to the article have been mainly subtle changes, which when looked at individually do not raise alarm bells to those who are not well-informed on the subject. When looked at overall, the edits to the informed editor look like a PR hatchet job in the leadup to Berezovsky's lawsuit, and I made note of this on the talk page only a few days ago.
• This subject is a little unusual, in that one would need to make use of both English and Russian language sources to paint the picture that was desired, so I probably wouldn't expect BP IPs to be utilised, unless they have fluent Russian speakers on staff, but the hatchet job on the article is obvious to editors who are familiar with the subject. But obviously it is unacceptable that an admitted COI editor was given free reign by the community to perform the hatchet job on the article in the runup to the beginning of a highly public court case involving Berezovsky. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Crikey, didn't we have some indef blocks due to this topic not all that long ago? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we did. Deepdish7 (talk · contribs) was indef blocked after he expanded the article, which did have some problems but which weren't fixable, and which was reverted wholesale by Kolokol1. DD7 was eventually blocked for disruptive editing, after he kept inserting the information which was being reverted by Kolokol1, and other editors (who were obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter). It is wrong that an admitted COI editor was allowed to continue to edit the article, especially after they all but declared they were going to perform a hatchet job on it. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, Russavia takes every opportunity to dredge up his already-discussed complaints about the Berezovsky article and certain editors involved in it. I really don't see what any of this has to do with this topic (Russavia did the same tacking on to another topic at ANI recently where he happily dragged me through his imagined mud). Even assuming Berezovsky is a client of this PR firm (I don't see a source for that, but Russavia believes in the drowning-you-in-links approach that only occasionally support what he says), what does that have to do with anything? Anyway, for those masochistic enough to care, here are a couple of previous discussions at ANI about Berezovsky: [1] and [2].--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are already two sources. But here's another which clearly states:

Other entries changed by accounts associated with Bell Pottinger include those of the founder of the law firm Carter Ruck, London-based Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and at least two large financial firms.

It is a well-known fact, to any knowledgeable editor, that Berezovsky is close friends with Timothy_Bell,_Baron_Bell, and this friendship and client relationship is even mentioned and sourced in that article. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The link to the list of problem articles is in the opening of this topic. Berezovsky's article is on that list. Why did you need to single out the Berezovsky article, AND why did you need to go through the history of your complaints about the article? There's no reason for the Berezovsky article to be singled out. This entire subsection you've created has no business being here. It's just you and your pet peeve.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should create a "Promotional editing noticeboard" where concerns over users posting promotional content to several articles should be taken forward. Additionally, users who have been flagged several times for promotional editing should be reported to the noticeboard so the appropriate actions can be taken. PaoloNapolitano 20:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, another noticeboard, just what we need. Sort of a WP:COIN for multiple offenders. I hope not.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Commercial and promotional editing is a much bigger issue than plain COIs. By having a separate noticeboard we can raise awareness and much more easily get the "bad guys" out of the game. PaoloNapolitano 20:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Very decent of you not to respond in kind to my sarcasm. I'll let others with more historical knowledge decide whether your suggestion has merit.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The links provided above, like this and especially this one show the editor's connection to the subject too obviously (the editor says: "I am associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care".) Given this statement, and since Berezovsky article is known by now to have been involved in promotion by Bell Pottinger, I suppose that it requires more attention and perhaps a separate investigation. GreyHood ^Talk 20:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont' see how the two links you pick out justify a "separate investigation". First, they don't demonstrate that the editor is part of the PR firm at issue here. Second, if you have evidence he was, then it would be better to add that to the list of articles at the top of this topic with the editor's name (the list identifies editors for the Berezovsky article but not Kolokol1).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor openly declares connection to the subject and says (s)he doesn't care if it is considered COI. The subject of the article is involved in the current court proceedings with billions of dollars at stake. The article is found to be involved in promotional editing by other editors from Bell Pottinger, and the subject is a client of this firm. So, on one hand, we have evidence that commercial promotion attempts (direct violation of COI) are going on the subject of the article, and on the other hand we have an editor who declares connection to the subject, declares COI, gives hints through the username that (s)he might be connected to an organization connected to the subject. GreyHood ^Talk 21:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If that's what you think, then I would voice these concerns at Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations rather than here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What I mean there should be some consistency in treatment of COI. If we have a small 100% proven COI at one article, but do not pay attention to another huge COI in the same article, declared by the user personally, that's strange. GreyHood ^Talk 22:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But the declared COI was taken into account at the time of resolving the rather messy editing situation of the Berezovsky article, by far more neutral admins and editors than Russavia. I long ago stopped even looking at the Berezovsky article because of the level of discord associated with it, but it seems to have worked itself out. Now Russavia - and to some extent you - want to bring it up again in light of this topic. If it's related to this topic, it belongs in that list. If not, but you and Russavia believe it merits revisiting the article, then start a new topic on the article and on that issue. God help anyone who has to evaluate it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Bell Pottinger

Because the current situation may create a want on the part of Bell Pottinger to do "damage control" or hinder efforts to the group of wikipedian's investigating, I like to propose that:

1. All known IP addresses that belong to Bell Pottinger company, broadly construed, be banned from the English Wikipedia for a finite period of at least 3 months, and reviewed afterwords to see if their continued ban beyond this time frame is appropriate.

2. All editors found editing for/on behalf of Bell Pottinger for the purpose of paid editing or advocacy, be blocked for the remainder of the time frame that Bell Pottinger is banned. Phearson (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In my mind this is already done. The underlying IPs we have for Bell Pottinger and Chime Communications are blocked indef, and we're indef blocking accounts as we find them. There's nothing constructive from public relations firms editing encyclopedia articles, even if the pretext is to make things "factual" and "neutral point of view". Keegan (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing constructive from public relations firms editing encyclopedia articles, even if the pretext is to make things "factual" and "neutral point of view". - says who?  Volunteer Marek  04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, says me, for one. I'm speaking from my experience of what has happened every time we have issues with SEOs, PR firms, and paid editing: every time an instance is uncovered, credibility is eroded and man-hours are wasted reviewing what are generally POV just "harmless" editing. In the long run if people kept their financial interest away from editing Wikipedia, even perceived to be constructive, the project is better off based on our model. Remember this very important thing: they are editing because of our popularity, not because of our mission. I'd love to know how many donate. Keegan (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made that argument before, but have been challenged in that regard. Paid editing is still allowed on Wikipedia as long as it is within our rules. However in this case, you are correct. This PR firm I think needs an officially sanctioned Ban though. Phearson (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But any kind of ban should be based on documented violations of policy not "oh this might make us look bad so we're gonna engage in some dubious PR ourselves by just ban hammerin'" Volunteer Marek  04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As Keegan just said...that is already essentially in place. Swarm ^X 05:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Keegan just expressed his own opinion on the matter. S/he's of course entitled to it but the question is "what basis does this opinion have in actual policy". WHERE is this "essentially in place" (the use of the weasel word "essentially" is not really helping here). I see no diffs or evidence here. Volunteer Marek  05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is correct, I stated that this was my opinion. I'm a he, fwiw. Keegan (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. A sustained campaign of sneaky editing despite an egregious violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV is a valid reason for banning. To pile more onto that, it's also a violation of WP:SOAP — if you edit in order to make your client look good, you're definitely using Wikipedia as a means of promotion. These terms are policy: they've violated multiple major policies. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A sustained campaign of sneaky editing despite an egregious violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV - if this is true then you'll have no problem providing actual evidence and diffs of this "egregious violation". Also, from what I understand of the case, WP:SOAP is completely irrelevant here - did this account pontificate and rant and rave on talk pages somewhere? If so, where? You're just throwing irrelevant Wikipedia boogeyman code-names just to make something look "bad". Evidence please, or spare me the misguided and/or phony outrage. Volunteer Marek  05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence is in their contributions. Moreover, they're a PR firm: they have no business-related reason to edit except to make their clients look good; if you'd read what I wrote after the dash, you would have understood that. Note my adjective of "sneaky" — you won't find this in any specific contributions. You need to look at their overall contributions and their rationale for editing. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the moment - Jimmy is supposed to be giving a talk to them on how to edit Wikipedia ethically, being open about who they are. I'd hate to see his talk scuppered by a blanket ban. In addition, some of the articles actually added useful content - for example, Mbombe and Maverick (Internal Security Vehicle), which are pretty decent start-class articles that were created by Bell Pottinger. Let's not jump the gun here. The Cavalry (Message me) 06:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol. It's hard to keep up with the official policy of the Kremlin on these matters these days. What does Uncle Jimbo desire at the moment? Maybe we misread his intentions and we better back track. Seriously, we have actual policies in place, and the only question is whether or not these accounts violated actual policy. Anything else is empty posturing and fake outrage. And oh, I like how we're admitting now that there WAS in fact something constructive done by these accounts (as opposed to the previous "There's nothing constructive from public relations firms editing encyclopedia articles") - but perhaps that's just realizing up to the fact that edit-for-pay, COI-driven, company sponsored accounts are actually more competent and more respectful of Wikipedia policy - as she is written - than your average know-nothing editors, including, or especially those that spend their time populating drama boards such as this one. At the end of the day it's still the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (which includes people affiliated with some company) and us content editors usually kneel down at the altar of discuss content not editors. Why should that be thrown out the window? Show me the damage done, then we can talk. Volunteer Marek  08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, with all due respect, you can't have even looked at the evidence in the most cursory way to imply that they didn't break existing policy in very dramatic ways. The policy violations are numerous and clear. They violated WP:SOCK in multiple regards, including multiple-voting in polls. There are many instances in the record of blatantly dishonest edit summaries. There is more than enough evidence to indef ban the ip number per the proposal. At the same time, in my talk last night with Lord Bell, they appear to finally be understanding that they have behaved badly and need to make amends. Given the media scrutiny they are under, and that I am personally going to read them the riot act, there is every possibility that they will become model citizens going forward. But I'll go further: policy at Wikipedia is going to change to make it even more clear that PR firms can not behave in this way without facing the consequences.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

they appear to finally be understanding that they have behaved badly and need to make amends; as a PR friend of mine said once - "All is fair in love and war, and PR". Including doing the "right thing" every now and again. Apply doses of salt accordingly. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Regretful oppose for the reason stated by Cavalry. One of the few downsides of my lifelong atheism is that I cannot coherently wish for people to spend an eternity in hell being continuously raped, tortured and punished by Lucifer et al., which is what I would rather like dishonest PR consultants, sleazy marketing douchebags and deceptive spin merchants like Bell Pottinger to be subjected to. As Cavalry points out, let Jimbo talk to Bell Pottinger. If that doesn't go ahead, or they are not receptive to operating appropriately, then community ban the whole company. But if they are receptive to changing their ways, give them a chance. I'm sceptical: the idea of "ethical PR" makes about as much sense to me as a square circle or a functioning train system in London. But let's wait and see if Jimbo can have any effect. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson. Go ahead and wish. Gerardw (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Ah, well, I think it is not hard to understand the concept of ethical PR! Wikipedia itself has many volunteer press contacts who work to bring good work to the attention of the press and to stand ready to answer questions from the press. Other organizations, without a large and well-informed volunteer community, hire people to do that same kind of work. There's nothing inherently nefarious about it at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Jimbo raises a good point about himself, actually. His participation in the investigation has been as a volunteer, he's talked to the press as a contact about the story as a volunteer, and he'd be speaking to Bell Pottinger as a volunteer. His only vested interest, as is ours, is the best interest of use of this website. Keegan (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. De facto they are banned already, of course, in the sense that no admin would unblock an obvious Bell Pottinger account. Regardless of the general question of paid editing, competence is required for editing Wikipedia and this company has proved that they do not have it. Some form of paid editing may be acceptable, but a firm that regularly creates articles full of puffery, edits non-neutrally, creates absurd coatracks such as a section about this house in Giano's Blenheim Palace article, and occasionally even votestacks in AfDs – such a firm is clearly not a net positive for Wikipedia.
  Of course they may acquire the necessary competence at some point in the future, or they may outsource the Wikipedia aspects of their business to someone more competent. Nevertheless they should be banned indefinitely. Indefinite does not mean infinite. Once they have their shop in order and want to resume editing Wikipedia, they can contact Jimbo, the Foundation or the community directly with supporting information, and based on that the community can then lift the ban. Whether that is in their interest from a PR angle is not our problem. Hans Adler 11:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  Response to the argument that we shouldn't act because Jimbo is already in charge of the matter: I am not changing my !vote because I would prefer any hate caused among Bell Pottinger and their clients to be directed against an essentially anonymous crowd rather than targeting Jimbo. I think the community would be much more immune to any attempts at retaliation. Hans Adler 16:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:COIN states "This noticeboard may be used to... get help with proposed article changes if you are affected by a conflict of interest. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here...." Presumably Jimbo is offering the same or similar guidance according to the opposition above. It might be best to try to shunt paid editors into an established process than go directly to challenging a socking arms race. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jimbo is in discussion with them. It's senseless to ban them while this is a developing issue. WilliamH (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WilliamH. Off Wiki actions by Jimbo are in progress. We shouldn't do anything in the interim. Propose it again if you still believe it justified after Jimbo has finished dealing with it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jimbo can ban them if need be. If he doesn't see fit to do so, and instead pursues discussions with them, I don't see how a community ban would be productive in any sense whatsoever. Swarm ^X 04:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment To those opposing on the basis of "Jimbo is talking to them". We need to remember that wikipedia is (mostly) controlled by volunteers, and by consensus has the power to apply punishment and restrictions where need be and whenever. I think that the proposed ban is reasonable given that they have violated WP policy (Jimbo has also supported this statement) and have harmed our position that we provide an unbiased and free encyclopedia to the world's public. We need to send a very clear signal to this company and others like it that what they have done will not be tolerated. Might I remind everyone the actions of Scientology and what arbcom did about it? Phearson (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least for now, in order to allow this experiment in "ethical PR" to continue under Jimbo's supervision.   Will Beback  talk  08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose – Yeah, what they did was unacceptable – we know about that, they know about that, and most importantly the media knows about that. I'm more content in letting the media backlash (as well as Jimbo, who has done a good job in handling this, BTW) do its work on them in contrast to our community having to do something about it. Now, as with Scientology, if it gets worse, then I'll support a more absolute and harsh ban, but until then, it's not really necessary at this point. –MuZemike 09:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose While I support the sentiment, Bell Pottinger are not allowed to edit per WP:ROLE only individuals are allowed to edit, therefore only individuals can be banned. Anyone editing with a significant COI should consider declaring that COI - this includes employees and "friends" of Bell Pottinger working on associated articles. In some cases they should limit their edits to the talk page. But these are individual matters. We are constantly getting more or less enlightened edits from people with COI, and we deal with them on an individual basis, by and large, successfully. (Moreover we are getting better at it.) Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC).
  

Harvard/Science Po Adverts

I hesitate to bring any matter to ANI and cause "wikidrama" - but I was so bewildered by this "event" that I don't know where else to go. Put simply, I logged in and was presented with an advert for an externally influenced research project. I had no previous notification that adverts from external advertisers were now accepted on wikipedia - even for "game theory" economics tests by well meaning post-doc students. Allowing institutions such as the relevant two featured - Science Po (Publicly funded by the French Government) and Harvard University (A private university, with lots of external influences, for example, [regime] to prominently advertise and potentially influence wikpedia contributors is totally unacceptable to me. (imagine we announced a partnership with, say, the Bill Gates Foundation, to display adverts/ surveys for logged in users - this is exactly the same in my eyes.)

I don't wish to be a hassle to other contributors - but I do think our policies in these areas are very important and I strongly object to this kind of dubious advertising. I would ask that administrators or whomever has the relevant authority immediately disable these adverts unless and until there is a clear and sufficiently broad (i.e notifying all potentially affected participants!) notifications of such adverts with consensus to re-enable them. (note: I tried to include a screenshot of the advert in this post - but apparently 2000+ constructive edits is nothing compared to the risk that I might be a spammer so I could not find out how to include such a link - If you have not seen this advert feel free to contact me and I will send you a copy!) Ajbp (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See: meta:Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior ; Discussion at meta:Research talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior

Please spread the word to help quench a potential ForestFire here folks :-). Jerome is working on getting a proper link in the banner. Could folks see where else this question is popping up, and help CentralizeDiscussion at the above discussion page? Thanks! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this; it's recruitment for a legitimate scientific study, its methodology has been vetted, and we are an educational resource. I might have a question or two about the validity of a self-selecting sample in a population as lopsided as "logged in Wikipedia editors", but I'm presuming that they either wanted this particular profile in participants or that they allow for the bias this is likely to introduce.

Heck, I participated. It was a rather fun exercise (even though I kinda felt like I was "cheating" because of my familiarity with game theory).  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, these kinds of games/studies are designed so that knowledge of game theory can't help you (much - I guess it could if you're a complete dummy but then you're probably not going to be studying game theory anyway). I'll avoid linking to the relevant articles per comments below. But hey, for example, it would've been nice if they tried to get WikiProject:Economics or WikiProject:Gametheory on board with this before it just got sprung on everyone. Volunteer Marek  03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, [3] says participants shouldn't discuss what was in the research to avoid influencing others who may not yet have participated. BTW as per the above links it was discussed at AN here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study although more from the point of whether to post talk page notices. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be a very poor secret that "An experiment on decision making" refers to game theory research, really.  :-) It's the actual substantive exercises that they prefer would not be shared ahead of time. — Coren ^(talk) 02:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the fact that "giving away" that there's a game theoretic aspect to the study is not that big of a deal (hell, any study of human behavior has a game theoretic aspect to it). However, there is actually one pretty vital piece of information that's part of the study which you're not made aware of in the beginning and which you only find out after you're done (unless I missed the notification somewhere), which may potentially impact your choices and which does involve some ethical questions. I'm assuming the people who designed the study ran this by some kind of Research with Human Subjects Ethics committee externally, but... since they're recruiting on Wikipedia it seems like this should've been checked here as well, though I'm not sure with who - which does suggest that Wikipedia might not be well designed for these kinds of endeavors.

I think people are more annoyed with the fact that this came out of nowhere than anything else. Volunteer Marek  03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, I was not referring to your comment hence the indenting. (I was actually thinking of posting that before I saw your comment.) However it seems likely this thread could easily become a place where people will want to discuss the details of the study, so I hoped to head that off. Nil Einne (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That blogpost's not a binding agreement, though. The only way the researchers will learn is from their mistakes...

I don't want to sound like too much of a grump, because I'm not opposed to this in principle. But why is there no kind of FAQ? What is the purpose of the research? How is it funded? Is WMF getting paid? If not, why is it happening? --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously it's not a binding agreement but I thought people here may be interested to know and while it's actually fairly obvious, I'm sure it didn't occur to some people that they would prefer there is no discussion. I don't think the researchers don't want to learn, but they would prefer that any discussion about the actual research either be emailed to them directly or I presume wait until after it's over. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Spam is spam ... so it would seem Jimbo was just kidding when his last fundraising pitch said Wikipedia doesn't take ads. (And the researchers should have read Voluntary response bias ...) Gerardw (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The banner is spammy and should be removed ASAP. The situation is made even worse due to the close relation Jimbo has with this group. Giving them pride of place like this compromises our integrity and should not be tolerated. The fact that this was snuck in without any en.wiki consensus or discussion is shocking. ThemFromSpace 02:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, I now see that there was discussion of this on en.wiki some time ago, with a majority of the non-WMF participants opposing the idea [4]. ThemFromSpace 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair some of the nos were specifically over their idea at the time to spam talk pages Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Berkman are cool people who do cool research, and they have helped wikipedia a lot. WMF gave them the go-ahead without nicely asking us first. Whilst I do suggest some torches and pitchforks in the near future for .. certain persons... I hope that we can still figure out a way to let Berkman do their thing, and not let them be the victim here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Where to centralize discussion

Eyeballs are currently across at least 3 different locations on WP and Meta. To prevent ForestFire, we need to merge to 1 location. Please feel free to link everyone to that one location . (ANI and VP pages are ephemeral, and never the best location imao), the meta page has the advantage of being a page dedicated to this subject. If you have a better location, please supply! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Centralized discussion exists at-->> meta:Research talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The adverts are not appearing on meta. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Put the discussion here, where the actual editors are, rather than where the unaccountable bureaucrats would prefer the discussion. Though I know that's a radical suggestion.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an unaccountable bureaucrat, and a wiki is a wiki. We just need 1 location so everyone is on the same page, ;-) .But so be it, then we'll just have to keep track of everywhere <sigh>, and try to centralise discussion right here, as much as possible. A full list of locations where discussion has occurred is being maintained at meta:Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior#Discussions_about_the_banner. Please update that, at least. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on this links there looks like no substantial discussion at any of them. Did I miss something? I think the most responses were from 3 different folks. This is clearly the best place (i.e. where the actual warm bodies are). Sigh, indeed.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much true, sadly. That said, the best previous discussion was at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers_requesting_administrators.E2.80.99_advices_to_launch_a_study (this is also listed on the meta page, above) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)This is the same link as was posted by ThemFromSpace

Why was this discussion reopened? What admin action is being requested? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a request that information be provided with regard to the notice. --FormerIP (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. Btw, i see that there appears to be a "COI" in the editing of one of the people involved. Jimbo the great and his friends have been dealing with the Bell Pottinger folks with blocks for that very reason. Perhaps a similar smack down is forthcoming? (here's a link [5])Bali ultimate (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which one? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since we've agreed to centralize here, shall we close the centralization sub-heading? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason I opened this discussion was to request that an administrator blocked these adverts (they ARE adverts), which were not approved or discussed by the community. However, it seems clear now, having spoken with Kim and the Berkman representative - that admins don't have the power to do that and that the fault for this notice lies firmly with the WMF. But I invite further discussion on how we can take steps to ensure that such mistakes cannot be made in the future. Ajbp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Ummm...no. This is not the forum for centralized discussion. What admin action is being requested? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying a centralised discussion has to be held here or that the discussion needs to be centralised, but "please could admins arrange for information about the current research collaboration to be provided to editors who are interested?" does not seem to me to be an inappropriate ANI question. --FormerIP (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What's being requested? "Immediate removal of the banners." (And, of course, a chance for the peon volunteers to have their say).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I might not be the OP, but I am suggesting that there should be information about the purpose of the banners. ANI seems as good a place as any to raise that. --FormerIP (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

People are rejecting centralization it seems. Note also further discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Search_banner_Wikipedia_Research_Committee ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A note about the legitimate ad concerns expressed by some folks above

Hi all! As this thread has been started out, I wanted to jump in and, as a member of the research team running this study, make a quick statement about what we are trying to achieve here. This study seeks to understand the dynamics of interactions and behavior in online social spaces. We already started a conversation here back in March 2010 about how we should invite Wikipedians to participate in this research project (see here). We had a readily implementable plan to advertize this study to Wikipedians at that time (i.e. posting individual invitations to user talk pages), but the community was quite unhappy with this. Using a CentralNotice banner was suggested as a convenient alternative instead. So after our research procedures and methods went through a thorough review by the Wikimedia Research Committee, our research team at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and Sciences Po worked on implementing that contact solution in coordination with WMF (throughout this collaboration, we actually worked together to enhance the banner features available to the community by developing a code that allows to display CentralNotice banners only to a small subset of users depending on flexible user metrics, so that we could help reduce the general banner overload for this study and in the future). The reason why the banner features our logos in not that the Berkman Center or Sciences Po wanted to advertize themselves (those are not for profit research institutions). Our first banner proposals did not feature our logos. But we simply figured out that people would like to know who is running this study right from the start in a noticeable way, so that they don't have wrong expectations or misunderstanding about who is actually running this project, especially as the banner redirects users to a third party website. I am truly sorry that this gets interpreted as an ad by some, but we were acting in good faith here...

BTY, the study is doing great so far, and I'd like to thank all community members for this! Please consider participating in you haven't done so yet and get an opportunity to see the banner. I very much look forward to discussing our results directly with the community on all relevant fora, including next Wikimania, as soon as it's over. I have high hope that we'll advance the "big picture" together! :) On a side note, please consider that you can reach us directly at: berkman_harvard@sciences-po.fr. We very much look forward to receiving your comments and answering to any questions you may have indeed! Thank you! SalimJah (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to note here the need for your project to provide better disclosure in general, and particularly with respect to information that is being collected about Wikipedia users, even those who click on the banner but don't participate. The simple act of clicking on the banner gives both one's Wikipedia identity and one's IP address to a non-Wikimedia web site, because of the hidden form field submission (to the best of my technical knowledge). Such information has always been 'delicate' on Wikipedia itself, and someone from Wiki____ should have seen that this technical approach is problematic, not to mention reminiscent of spammy web site tactics. I'm surprised that that in itself isn't getting folks upset. I defer to real web developers, but this comes across as a rather technically dishonest way to establish a relationship between a Wikipedia user and your project. (I participated in the survey and have no prejudice.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#A quick note on privacy --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Problem

It's pretty obvious that the reason a lot of people have a problem with this banner is because it sort of popped up unexpected. It LOOKS like an advertisement, and this is particularly obnoxious coming right on the heels of a fund raising drive which used "Wikipedia has no advertisements" as part of its pitch. So... ok, if we're gonna have "non-commercial" advertisements popping up, that's fine, I guess. But where was this discussion held? Where was this decided? On media-wiki? Which most people that actively edit en-wiki don't pay attention to? I was pretty surprised by it and I have never seen anything like it before. I ... might actually be okay with but I'm definitely not okay with it just being slapped in there without my input. And IF we're gonna have "non-commercial advertisements" popping up on readers unexpected, who decided on this particular one? There's a dozen of more worthy non-commercial ventures that would deserve Wikipedia attention then some study on how Wikipedians interact with each other. Maybe this discussion was held somewhere but most editors were not aware of it and this definitely was going 'over the communities' head'.

And I'm gonna come right out and say it - at the end of the survey you have a chance to donate your winnings to Red Cross (and also WMF, but who cares about them). Which means that if you really are the "charitable" kind of person, you should play the survey as selfishly as possible (since you don't know if the other people playing the survey are as nice as you), maximize your own personal winnings and then donate all of it (essentially, donating other people's money in the process). Honestly, I'm kind of pissed because I could've given a bit more (other people's) money to Red Cross had they told me that earlier (maybe there was some notification about it, but I can't verify anymore). Volunteer Marek  07:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If it looks like an advert, it is an advert. The banner says "Please help" under logos and by-lines for two organizations that are not Wikimedia. With this precedent there is no constraint on the partners the WMF may choose to allow free advertising for next. With prospective future partners for sponsorship of research and collaboration under discussion such as Google or telecoms companies, the question is are we happy that our users will log in and see Wikipedia carrying a large Google logo at the top of the page? Regardless of the goodwill and charitable motivation behind this banner, it shows a clear lack of judgement for how to implement the principle that Wikimedia projects will always stay free of advertising. I discussed this banner last night on IRC with RCOM and DEV representatives who pointed me to the WMF, who have pointed me back to RCOM; I do not appreciate being given an unsubtle run-around when my complaint was as simple as requesting that an apparent advert is removed from Wikipedia due to the potential for negative long term press impact it may have. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, someone just added the logos because they thought people might like to know who's running the experiment. AFAIK, the logos are pretty much optional, and can be removed without issue. The request is to participate in the experiment, not to promote PO or Harvard->Berkman. Would this cover most of your concerns? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was explained above by SalimJah that the original banners didn't even have logos but they were added because it was felt people would want to know who is running the survey. This is the same thought I had very early on when I first saw the banners. And the truth is they're right. Whatever mistakes were made here, I think it's clear if there were no logos etc, people would be complaining that they thought it was the WMF itself or they thought it was fake (actually there still were) or simply that they weren't sure who to make a fuss about without clicking on the link, etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually guessing the media isn't going to really care. The truth is what happens to logged in users isn't going to be a big concern to them unless there is an uprising over it with a lot of people threatining to leave and it's a slow news day (which with the EU crisis and the Virginia Tech shooting it isn't). Also there's some criteria to when the banner shows. I don't know what, the discussions haven't specified just said there is but while the banner appeared for me, someone I know with an account but only 3 edits didn't get it. This isn't surprising since otherwise some joker is going to try and sign up 1000s of acounts just to participate multiple times. (I believe it's also random.) In other words, those users (although I often use the word interchangably this time I mean as opposed to editors) who signed up for an account just for preferences or for the very occasional edit probably aren't going to see it either. I.E. Even less reason for the media to care. This doesn't mean it's okay, that's moot to my point. I'm simply saying that this isn't really something that's likely to have a 'negative long term press impact' Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There only needs to be one example of what looks like an advert for this to be thrown up by the press every time Jimbo says that we will never carry advertising. Arguments such as it is only displayed to logged in editors or that we only do this for sponsors of research will look like thin justification. With regard to Kim's point, yes if the banner was replaced by a standard text only central notice, it would look a lot less like a blatant advert. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the press are much more likely to throw up the yearly donation banners which IMO in some ways are more clearly adverts (not that I care) and appear to a much wider range of people and for much longer. However I stick with my view that the truth is the press doesn't really care. Most of those mocking wikipedia for their adverts saying they will never have adverts are from random blogs and the like not because it's hard for them to make the argument the donation banners which say we don't have adverts are adverts but because it's not really a big deal to them. In fact whatever the flaws in the donations campaigns, I think it's obvious they get a lot more of marketing attention behind them like working out how to run an effective campaign and which banners work and which don't, in other words stuff which most people would associate with an advertisement. For this banner, it seems clear that it's hard far less thought and research behind it then the donation banners ever do. (And speaking of third parties, remember how the donation banners mentioned matching donors in 2008 or whenever it was?) Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yuck
Advertisement :(
So, it took us 11 years; but we do accept them in the end.

Anthere (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, someone just added the logos because they thought people might like to know who's running the experiment. AFAIK, the logos are pretty much optional, and can be removed without issue. The request is to participate in the experiment, not to promote PO or Harvard->Berkman. Would this cover most of your concerns? - No, it doesn't even begin to address them. In fact, it does nothing but try and derail the conversations into irrelevant tangents. Who really cares where the logo came from? Who gives a fuck if they're optional or can be removed - so can pop-ups on my browser, should we have some of those? And the claim is that this is just "participating in an experiment" but NOT promoting "PO or Harvard->Berkman" is specious. How about if, oh, I dunno, Procter-Gamble slapped up a banner which requested our readers to "participate in an experiment" but did NOT promote their product? Bottom line is, I've been hearing about how "Wikipedia doesn't have advertisements" for the past six years I've been here. Hell, I saw it again just a few days ago in the statements made in the recent contributions drive (the one with the pretty faces in similar kinds of banners). But now, all of sudden, here we are with a blatant freakin' advertisement up top.

Now, this might be a "good kind" of advertisement, this might be a "scholarly study", it might not have had some logo that no one cares about in it originally or whatever, but ... here we are with a blatant freakin' advertisement. Everything else - about how "it's complimentary to our educational mission" or how "it's fun if you know some game theory (?)" - is just some really lame ass excuses.

This totally got sneaked into the encyclopedia. I don't remember seeing ANY major discussion about this. Is somebody going broke and in desperate need of money or something? Actually, I'm one of those people that would NOT have much of a problem with advertisements on Wikipedia, but the way this is being done is just a major insult to the average editor who has contributed throughout all these years believing in the "no advertisements" (again, repeated with a straight face as recently as last week) mantra. Volunteer Marek  11:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this wasn't intended as an advert in the first place. I'm going to Assume Good faith here. The research committee were the folks who put up the banner, I guess they saw it as one of those internal notice banners wikiprojects sometimes use - apparently wrongly. There was a fair-sized discussion earlier this year (though could have been better). This discussion ran/is currently running in multiple locations, because the CentralizeDiscussion notices were removed. Please refer to the other locations for more information about current and previous discussions on this matter. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Kim, I put it to you that there was no clear community consensus to allow advert style logos in central notices for institutions favoured by RCOM or any other non-WMF group. The responsibility for any challenge to Wikimedia website content that appears to breach our values with regard to never carrying adverts for other organizations remains with the WMF. Pointing to other groups, forums or diffuse inconclusive prior discussions about other topics does not help resolve the issue raised here. Unless the WMF firmly supports carrying these logos on its websites in an advert style banner, then the WMF should in turn follow the principle of assuming good faith and remove this apparent advert whilst it is being actively challenged here and not replace it until a credible consensus is achieved. --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is roughly what I told them yesterday. In the mean time, I'm kind of hoping that modifying the banner (or some other measure) would prove acceptable, of course. In general, I'd rather not have Berkman and Science PO become collateral damage between us and the WMF --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess they saw it as one of those internal notice banners wikiprojects sometimes use - huh? Can you point me to where some WikiProject has ever been given the opportunity to throw this kind Wikipedia-wide banner at the readers? If so, there's a couple of Wikiprojects I'm involved in that would love this kind of exposure. How do we sign up? Honestly, what are you talking about?

And I keep hearing about this supposed "fair-sized" discussion. If it was that fair-sized, why is this such a surprise? It's pretty obvious that the decision did not involve the broader community (some folks might have patted each other on the back somewhere but that's not what we're talking about here). Volunteer Marek  11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much literally what I told the relevant rcom folks yesterday.

In the mean time, if we just yank the banner, Berkman and Science PO (Good People) end up as collateral damage from yet another WMF/Community SNAFU.

They're really nice and committed to helping us. When I talked with them, they tell me they have put something like 18 months of work into just getting ready. It really sucks that someone dropped the ball.

If we can't find a middle of the road in the next 24 hours or so, well, so be it and that's that then. But could we try to find a temporary solution, so that the innocent bystanders don't get squashed? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you consider the much larger number of innocent bystanders represented by everyone with an account on Wikipedia who logs in anywhere on the planet whilst this banner advert is still present. You have to admit that is quite a valuable piece of internet real estate for a banner advert that we are giving away for free and that the WMF chooses to have no authority over. The issue here should not be how nice Berkman or SciencePo are, but whether we have a common understanding of our shared values and are prepared to stick to them. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you would prefer if this valuable piece of real estate was sold for its real value to someone willing to pay big bucks? I really don't understand the hysteria here. It's like saying "Oh no, they changed the voting age from 21 to 18! Next it will be mandatory voting from birth!" I suppose the real genesis of this controversy is the state of relationship between the WMF and various project communities. Some folks just can't tolerate the WMF making any decisions with a project impact, no matter how those decisions might be objectively evaluated. This clash with "authority" can be seen by the number of objections framed as "but they didn't ask me first!" Nathan ^T 14:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because someone acts like they have some sort of authority, doesn't necessarily mean they actually have any. Geeze. Oldest trick in the book. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've remarked before, and even bearing in mind comments below which suggest there is a problem with the banner appearing more often then it should, it seems clear that not everyone logged in with an account it getting the banner as I know from personal interaction. BTW I should clarify that the person who wasn't getting the banner was trying before it was disabled. In fact I logged in to my account with their computer and still got the banner myself. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree the logo issue is a non issue. It's clear some people do consider the logo makes it worse and possibly even for some it would be acceptable without the logo. This doesn't mean the logo issue is the only issue, simply that it is one issue worth discussion for some. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just posting here to add another point of view; I was not upset about the banner and see no problem with it. It may well be the case that many editors, like me, were not upset and are not looking for a forum to express their views, and so are not posting here. I think it's possible that a smaller percentage of editors dislike this banner than might be guessed from the views expressed here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the first time someone has wanted to run a "poll" on Wikipedia as academic research. This comes under the heading of "School and University Projects", so WP:SUP applies. The project should be listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects, and it isn't. As for the substance of the matter, the people who want to advertise on Wikipedia write We already started a conversation here back in March 2010 about how we should invite Wikipedians to participate in this research project (see here). We had a readily implementable plan to advertize this study to Wikipedians at that time (i.e. posting individual invitations to user talk pages), but the community was quite unhappy with this. Using a CentralNotice banner was suggested as a convenient alternative instead. The problem is that they seem to have assumed that they had the right to use Wikipedia to "invite Wikipedians to participate in this research project" i.e. advertise on Wikipedia. I'd suggest a block on their account for advertising. --John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disable?

Ok; so rather than this turn into a lengthy debate here we need to know if admin action is required. It is (as I pointed out on the VP(t) thread) within our technical ability to disable display of the banner via CSS. If the community consensus is to disable the banner pending further discussion then any admin can do so. Either way this is probably better discussed at another venue (and definitely should be). So, smei-formal !vote. Should we temporarily disable the banner pending discussion. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I may have been too slow (I hid the banner for myself earlier) :P According to the logs ([[6]]) Beria has turned it off in the last few minutes. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support the banner being staying switched off. ErrantX, I don't think I understand your prologue; if the consensus here is clear, then this is a consensus. You seem to be pre-empting any !vote as meaningless by saying we ought to have another discussion in some other place, which rather defeats your proposition to disable this banner. Could you clarify the intention? --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, well, I figure any lengthy discussion over whether to allow banners such as this, and whether we need to implement controls to require discussion with the community over banners is not best done here on AN/I. The only extant thing we would need an admin for is whether to turn this banner off now, or have a lengthy discussion first... All of which has been pre-empted anyway :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The issue here is really about transparency, which removing the banner doesn't fix. If the result is to compromise or karate-chop the research then that would be extremely unfair on the researchers, who have acted in good faith. --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The cat is out of the bag now, disabling the banner is potentially hurting the study and disallowing users who are interested from joining the study at all. What we do need ASAP is a watchlist notification linking to a FAQ about the study, even better if this is also directly linked from the banner itself. Many users are (not suprisingly) distrustful of the banner that suddenly popped up. Anger over this mess, although understandable, should not be a reason to disrupt the study itself. Yoenit (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Beria Lima BOLDly switched the banner off on meta. Brion has said that the banner should have been very infrequent, but seems to have gone to 100%.

You know my first thought when I saw it? That it was malware. That my browser had been hijacked. Unlikely as that is browsing in Linux. My second thought was that it was being inserted by rogue JavaScript on the site. - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Same here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Requests to disable Banners can be handled by any Meta admin. I made this page for any future requests, Meta:Meta:Central_notice_requests please feel free to add a link to the consensus page here once the voting ends here. As David already informed, Brion and Beria disabled the banners for now. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has no legitimacy

Why is this discussion still going on? No admin action has been requested, and admins have no special authority to make a decision over the banners. The above !vote has absolutely no legitimacy. Community discussions need to do be decided by the whole community in a community forum (such as the Village Pump), not by admins (which are only a tiny fraction of the whole community) on an admin board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

At some point ... I don't know when ... that consensus seems to have changed. Until yesterday, I (non-admin) saw no good reason to have ANI watchlisted. However, as indicated by the "Bell Pottinger" discussion above -- and the fact the Kim Bruning considered this a valid place to discuss this advertisement (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study) it appears ANI has morphed into admin intervention + community bulletin board. The description at the top of the paged has been changed accordingly: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." Gerardw (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not consider this to be a good place to discuss this matter.[7] [8]. Others disagreed [9]. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Village Pump; you mean... a much less watched forum than this one (by a significant margin)? I suggest that if you want to solicit wide and immediate community input on an issue (in this case one requiring an admin) this is the place :) (it was only meant to establish a quick consensus of immediate admin action before doing as you suggest; punting this to a wider community discussion.. so keep your blooming hair on :)) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just posted notices to other strategic locations pointing editors to the common discussion. I hope you do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying there - it doesn't parse :) I do plan to open a discussion over this wider issue, but not today. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to say that to reach a broad audience, we should just post notices to other strategic locations pointing editors to the common discussion. I hope you punt this to a wider community discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean like this? [10] [11] :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As promised, I have opened an RFC discussion in project space to help us resolve some of the issues related to this. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Central_Notices. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

PROD changes?

I just saw a new article, Runtry and put a prod saying "Does not meet notability requirements, see WP:FIRST".

I used twinkle, but it's added a message saying If you don't want the article deleted:

• edit the page
• remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
• save the page

[[12]]

What's going on here? Is it really best to advise people writing things like this to remove PRODs just because they think it notable?  Chzz  ►  02:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ehh, Chzz, that's how PROD's work. They are uncontested deletions. If someone removes it, that means it's contested...--v/r - TP 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really an ANI issue but I'll give my opinion about this. IMV, PROD is best for articles that nobody gives a rat's ass about. (but "nobody cares" should never be the sole reason for deletion) Therefore, anything recently created or with recent major edit activity should be sent to AFD from jumpstreet. If one does use PROD for an active article then they shouldn't feel put out when it turns out that somebody does "give a rat's ass" and removes removes the PROD tag. Also, any article suspected to be a hoax should probably also go to AFD first to make it immune from recreations and REFUND requests. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This isn't an issue for ANI in any way shape or form. Edit the corresponding template if you disagree with its current version. {{sofixit}} applies. --slakr^\ talk / 02:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That said, it looks like it's been transcluded in an extremely sneaky way via {{Proposed deletion notify-rand}} that made it difficult to track down: it either uses {{Proposed_deletion_notify-rand/default}} or {{Proposed deletion notify-rand/new}} based on the time of day. --slakr^\ talk / 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Normally" a PROD notification says e.g. "The article <X> has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: <eg>;

This event does not seem notable; I can't find any information at all in google news, the only things I can find (via Google) are non-reliable sources and promotion from the companies involved. While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on <linked> the article's talk page.

Apparently, some recent amendment changes PROD to apparently mean something quite different. That's what I am asking about.  Chzz  ►  02:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Did the WMF discuss this anywhere before implementing it? I looked around at a few of the relevant talk pages and couldn't see anything ... Jenks24 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why they would be exempt from our recommendation to be bold. Of course, nothing is stopping other editors from reverting the WMF (as far as I know)...but I don't see why you'd want to. All the new template does is explain in more detail how Prod works. As TParis said, editors have always been able to remove prods for any reason or no reason at all, even if they haven't fixed the problem--by definition, Prod is supposed to be for completely uncontroversial deletions. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so, if not exempt from BOLD, it's not exempt from BRD, yes? [13]  Chzz  ►  05:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

WMF is running a series of tests to try to measure if various templates improve editor experience and retention. See generally Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Testing and Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Testing/Twinkle for planned Twinkle tests. This is not intended to be a permanent change; it's only a test.--Kubigula (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes was just a short test, too. I'm sorry, I'm sceptical now. I've not seen any proposal for any of this testing on our lovely wiki.  Chzz  ►  05:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I felt a bit put out too the first time I found myself leaving a different than expected message via Huggle. However, I was ultimately intrigued and saw the value in what they are trying to do. They typically make an effort to publicize and solicit comments on the proposed tests, though it still often ends up being a surprise to those who use the templates. I can't speak to the specifics of where this particular test may have been discussed.--Kubigula (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing experiment in using alternative templates for Huggle. Huggle has warned users when they first boot it up for a while now, and there was the option to opt-out on an individual level. In general, the Huggle warning experiments seem a good thing, but it would be nice for the community to have better feedback options. I am not wild about the fact that the new shared IP block templates for Huggle seem to have removed any mention of the word "block" so as to avoid offending people by actually telling them that they have been blocked. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who changed the shared IP block templates, but it wasn't us :) All of our tests, past, present, and future, are documented at WP:UWTEST, so you can always check there if you suddenly see a change to a template.

As for feedback, we're happy to get it and want more of it! We practically followed the Twinkle people around like lost puppies until they would talk to us. Speaking from experience, most of the tool, bot, and vandalfighting folks don't seem to care too much about the content of these warnings and are perfectly okay with us testing whatever we want. But some folks care very, very deeply whenever anybody with a WMF sig makes any kind of change to anything. While I understand the concern, I can't see any practical solution to it except a whole lot more AGF on all sides. Oh, and I suppose we could run a CentralNotice banner and send out mass emails every time we're thinking about doing a test... I'm sure everyone would love that :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As a quick note for clarity, WP:PROD has not changed in the least. The policy has been explicit since (literally!) day one that any user, regardless of involvement, may legitimately object to a proposed deletion by removing the tag. The phrasing on the tag has been changed to make this clearer and more explicit on how this is done, but the talk of "some recent amendment ... means something quite different" isn't really accurate. Shimgray | talk | 13:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It does seem as though the instructions were just made more clear. Not sure about the process used to make that change, but the change seems reasonable. Chzz, what do you feel has changed policy-wise? Hobit (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I have reverted user:Slakr's change to Template:Proposed deletion notify-rand/new, which I felt was unreasonable and not in line with the policy. I have also reworded the bolded part to "If you think this article should not be deleted", rather than "If you don't want the article deleted". Yoenit (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hey guys, the PROD redirect was changed to a randomized A/B test as part of the testing taskforce of WikiProject user warnings, not as an attempt to just be bold in a sneaky way. It was done with prior notification on the Twinkle talk pages and with the direct consent of AzaToth (the main developer). We changed the redirect because it was the most low impact way of starting the test, as it meant we didn't have to muck with the script directly and update its GitHub repo. Thankfully you reverted the template randomizer on the 30 day mark after the start of the test, :) so it actually coincided perfectly with the testing schedule and nothing else needs to be done at this point other than analyze the results. As for documentation... every one of the tests put up by any project member is documented extensively on the taskforce pages, we've been covered in the Signpost previously, and we provide anyone who signs up a talk page newsletter too. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the amended template [14] compared to the previous one [15] is, that the old one makes it quite clear that "You may prevent the proposed deletion [...] but please explain why [...] Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised" (my bold). Ie, it explains the concerns, and suggests that the user try to address them. The new template reads like a simple instruction on how to stop it being deleted without considering the reasons.

I'm sure the amended template would encourage more people to remove it - but is that a good thing? If an article has been PRODded for a good reason, then simply removing it without addressing the concern is likely to either a) leave an unacceptable article on Wikipedia, or b) create additional work through a deletion discussion - as it has done in the specific case I mentioned. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runtry - where seven other editors have now spent time evaluating something that has no realistic chance of being 'acceptable'.

I'm totally in favour of the PROD concept, that anyone can remove it without a reason; however, indicating that there is no need to bother about the reasons is inappropriate.

It will probably make for "good statistics", but I do not consider it beneficial; also, I feel that this trial should have been discussed more broadly than one rather obscure talk page - which only two users even responded to.  Chzz  ►  02:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, the PROD policy says: "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion}} tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required to... Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page."

That's why the next line of the template after the steps is, "It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page." If you disagree then try to get the proposed deletion policy changed and we'll rewrite any template to comply. In any case, it was just a 30 day test, and it's done. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

New editor repeatedly adding uncited material, no edit summaries, no talkpage

A new editor Sallesyd (talk · contribs) is adding uncited material into the Moundville Archaeological Site, even after repeated talkpage messages to add citations with the material and removing blocks of cited material. I have left numerous messages, but no edit summaries or talkpage communication, the user many not know what the orange banner at the top of their screen is. Can I get some help with this? I've reverted them several times, after a couple of day interval asking for cites. Am approaching 3RR with them and would really like to step back and let someone else help, maybe they could get through? Heiro 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Notified them of this discussion, but don't know if it will do any good :-( Heiro 03:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be a little more aggresive in your warnings, including using templates for adding unsourced material, and templates for blanking sections of the article. I would escalate the warnings until the editor stops or you can go to WP:AIV. On a single purpose account with such a history, AIV may be more receptive to imposing a block, essentially using a very broad definition of vandalism. I would also address the issues on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For vandalism I do, maybe too aggressively at times, but I have the feeling the editor might actually be trying to add valid information. I don't want to scare them off needlessly, just get them to use talkpages, edit summaries and citations. I'm afraid I may have to go to the 3RRboard as they are now at 4RR and still no talk pages, etc. Heiro 03:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We are trying to use talkpages and our response continues to get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallesyd (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has deleted any talkpage posts. And who is "WE"? Heiro 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. My team members and I (we are a group of students in a class) are attempting to change the article Moundville for our Archaeology class at our university. We did not know the orange banner was for us, sorry, we are new to this. Also, the information that you deleted from Moundville Archaeological Site was information gathered by our other team members, though unfortunately we could not get the in-text references entered when we did the post. Sorry for the inconvenience. Also, the numbers in brackets were references our team members put in, it is not directly copied from another site, so no it does not violate the copyright, we did not know the exact code for entering those. Also, please understand we are trying to IMPROVE this article, we are not VANDALIZING it. If you could please refrain from deleting our material for the next few hours, we will finish our project and have all references in. The problem is that you delete our material too fast to allow us to enter the references. Our project will be finished tonight, we are not trying to cause any conflicts. Sorry for problems. Thank you User:Sallesyd —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Ok, first. See the bluelinks in my posts on your talk about WP:WOA and WP:SUP? GO DO IT NOW or have your professor do it as soon as they can. We have procedures for this. You must follow them. Second, see the bluelinks in the last sentence of my first post on your talkpage? Follow them and you can learn how to do the citations. Do this before attempting to edit again, or it will be removed again. Also, one account per person, that is a very strict rule here. These are all important. Do this correctly, follow our policies or you risk having this acct blocked from editing here. OK? Sorry if this is coming off strongly, regards. Heiro 03:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Heiro, I'm not even the person you're directing your comments to, and that comes off not as "strongly" but as "aggressive, mean, and threatening"--especially the all caps COMMAND in the second sentence. Yes, role accounts aren't allowed, but most people don't know that, so let's try to encourage them to do things the right way rather than ordering them about. Mind you, I agree that the information should be removed until it's verified, but now that we've got a conversation started, let's see if we can find a way to get the info into the article, properly cited, and possibly even get some people interested in editing Wikipedia in the long term. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a more detailed message on the Sallesyd's talk page and created a sandbox to work in. I'll add the article to my watchlist as well. Unless someone else thinks there's still administrative work needed here, this thread can probably be marked as resolved. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, real life came up for a few hours. Also, sorry for the aggressive tone toward them, but it took 6 talkpage messages and finally opening this thread to get the first response from them, I was starting to get a little frustrated. And, I suspect that this group is related to the State College, PA area(geolocation from multiple IPs), which for the last year have used multiple IPs and several named accounts to edit roughly 15 or so Native American historical subjects, never with citations, sometimes actually copyvio copy and paste ins, and almost never edit summaries. Its the same editing style and this is one of the articles that has been hit before, but I can not say for sure that this is the same group. I've left numerous messages at the IPs and named accounts talkpages asking for citations, leaving blue policy links and links to WP:WOA and WP:SUP, I was doing it so much I made a short message on my user page that I could just grab and paste in whenever they popped up again. If this is from the same school, then this is the first real conversation I've managed to get out of them in the last year. I don't want to drive them away, we could use the help at these articles, that is why I brought this issue here in the first place instead of AIV as suggested by another user above or the 3RR board. My very first message to them 2 days ago included links to 2 pages about citations and how to add them here along with a welcome template with other links. Sorry again, will try to be a little more inviting and less aggressive in the future. Heiro 06:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• My team members and I (we are a group of students in a class) are attempting to change the article Moundville for our Archaeology class at our university. We did not know the orange banner was for us,
  - The user(s) need to be made quite clear that editing as a group on one account is strictly disallowed, and they should all sign up fo individual accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian appears to disagree. Regardless, Qwyrxian seems to have the issue under control, and, for my part, I apologize if I "incited" Hieronymous to more aggressive action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be a little more clear: I agree that 6 people cannot user one account per WP:Role accounts. I, disagree, however, with Heiro's claim that 6 people on 6 different accounts can't simultaneously work together on one article as part of a school project or even just independently. Ambassadors, for example, used to have (may still have, I stopped my association with the program recently) an "editing Friday" where as many people as possible were encouraged to tackle the same article. As long as the 6 editors don't attempt to use coordination to disrupt normal editing (i.e., to try to go to 18RR), it's fine to work on the same article. Heiro, I also want to say that I understand your frustration, as I've also dealt with both official and unofficial school projects, and when they don't interact in any way, it's very easy to feel like you're up against a brick wall. If this particular group becomes a problem again, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to followup. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said that 6 people couldn't edit the same article, but that each of them needed their own account or "one account per person". If my wording implied otherwise I apologize for the misconception, it is not what I meant. As for the school project from PA I mentioned above, if they pop up again, you're the first person I'll ask for help from, lol. Thanks, Heiro 06:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Email abuse from Mailiantor address

I have twice previously reported abusive emails (apparently from Jarlaxle Artemis) sent to me via Wikipedia email, from accounts registered using Mailinator address. I have today received several dozen more such messages. All were sent from the same Mailinator address used by previously blocked users. How is it possible for a serial vandal to continue registering accounts and to send email from an address already known to be used for such abuse and threats? RolandR (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My memory of the previous discussions is there is currently no way to block domains from being used for the email function. Considering the very large number of alternative mailnator domains and the fact the's no published list I wonder whether approaching Mailinator about it may be a better bet. Since they don't actually send emails, they don't really have an address to contact them about abuse but it seems they do have scripts to try and stop abuse. And [16] says that if people ask nicely and there is a good reason for it they may stop accepting emails for the site. Perhaps if someone here were to ask nicely they may do that for us. Since we don't require emails to sign up I think it's questionable why people would need to use mailinator. And while we could implement methods to reduce abuse like captchas, it would take resources that may be better put to other users. Something along those lines may be enough to convince them to block people getting wikipedia stuff. Of course this won't help with the large number of other stuff disposabile no signup email address services but I guess it's a start Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which are the accounts? Sending an e-mail from one's Wikipedia account is a logged action, viewable by us CheckUsers (the contents and recepient is not). Even if the account edited and was created out of the scope of CU retrieval, it could still help in forming, for example, a range block. WilliamH (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rianhoxie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vlyvtrmln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RolandR (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Both unsurprisingly confirmed, along with several other accounts. The IP was blocked a couple of days ago. The accounts in question were created as sleepers a while ago to avoid CheckUser detection. Sorry I can't suggest anything better, but the only option at the moment (if only applicable to you), would be to disable e-mail on your account. WilliamH (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have already disablred email because of abusive messages (including death threats) from this vandal. So we have a situation where one determined bully can successfully disrupt the running of Wikipedia, preventing numerous legitimate editors from fully accessing the features of the project. This is not good enough, and I do not get the impression that this problem is being addressed is taken seriousl. If Wikipedia cannot prevent a racist thug from misusing the email facility to abuse editors, then it would be better to disable the option entirely for all editors, rather than oblige those of us who face this to cut ourselves off. RolandR (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your impression is mislaid - it is taken seriously, it's being discussed in the appropriate places, and I would be surprised if a technical solution won't be established. WilliamH (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that assurance, but can you say where discussion is occurring?. I strongly agree with RolandR's point: it is unacceptable that MediaWiki has no ability to stop an idiot from abusing editors in such an obvious manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean, all I can say is that "anybody can edit" is a double-edged sword – letting good faith people to edit implies letting people to abuse it at the same time. I doubt the WMF will allow that to happen anytime soon, I'm afraid. I don't personally see how anything can be done about it. –MuZemike 08:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but resources will never be used for issues like this unless the community demands action. How many emails can an abusive new user send? There should be an edit filter system based on things like account age and edit count, whereby an established editor can email anything, a moderately new user is subject to some filtering, and a new user is subject to strong filtering and rate limiting. I understand that blacklisting mail systems is a never-ending game, but allowing mailinator accounts is obviously stupid (any reply to such an email is posted to a public website). Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But then, you start shuttering out newcomers, which the WMF will not allow on their money or watch; they shot down the proposal for only (auto)confirmed users to create new articles for a reason – that is the direction in which they are going. –MuZemike 09:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus...except when WMF doesn't want it to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just received a further 70 such abusive messages from Esechicano12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That makes 150 so far this month, and nearly 600 in the past six months. I can't believe that there is no way to prevent this abuse, and I am angry that the only solution offered is that I disable my own email, thus preventing legitimate editors from contacting me. It's all very well to worry about not alienating new users; but what about alienating well-established editors?

It seems to me this isn't really the same thing though. The email function isn't needed for creating articles. For those who do need to contact relevant places, email addresses are published so there's no real need to use the email function. Perhaps most importantly this isn't just about problems in our content creation but about editorss suffering unacceptable harrassment and abuse. It seems to me it's something the WMF should consider worth spending time on unless they want to alienate editors. I haven't received any of these emails but if the WMF really considers this something not worth worrying about this sends a message to me they don't care about editors. I presume WilliamH has an idea of what they're talking about so I'm guessing this isn't the case. The Captcha idea would hopefully at least make it more difficult for mass emails like the 70 at once. Or rate-limiting new users (even if the WMF really considered new users need to have access to the email function, I can't see why they need to be able to send 70 in I presume a day or 2).

Also I wonder whether the IPs involved are open proxies or belong to ISPs? Oviously for privacy reasons the details can't be revealed, but what I'm thinking is while I suspect the WMF probably doesn't consider it worth the time of checkusers to attempt to pursue normal abusers with their ISPs (WP:Abuse response shows that often doesn't work) it seems to me if the problem can't be resolved technically they should seriously consider contacting ISPs in cases like this if there's a chance that may work (i.e. it's not open proxies). ISPs are also much more likely to be cooperative when it's persistent harassment and abuse of individuals rather then simple but persistent vandalism. (The privacy policy seems to allow this.) ~

Nil Einne (talk)

Rangeblock for Russian Copyright Violaing IP addresses

Resolved

 – Disruptive editor indeffed. No rangeblocks are accomplishable. Applying WP:RBI to any future submissions the user.

Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See Also

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Rangeblocks Requested,Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#IP hopper at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard, WP:OTRS Noticeboard#Beatles1.ru,Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive1#Permission to use materials of the website: sexology1.narod.ru

Once again we're back here after a Collection of BEELINE-BROADBAND/CORBINA TELECOM IP addresses attempt to donate copyrighted content they don't have the rights to. I have attempted multiple times to explain to this user the rules we MUST follow for content that is suspected of being copyright infringement. Now that the OTRS noticeboard was semi-protected, the IP addresses are attempting to convince me on my talk page that they have the rights and are in the process of registering the US copyright. Based on the fact that in previous attempts we've treated the IP editors who are pushing this content with gentle hands and they have not gotten the point I feel that it's time the gloves came off. I'd like to notify the IP editor, however they have yet to confirm what username they're going to register under, so I will drop the notification on my talk page as a response to the IP editor. Hasteur (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Editor has elected to regiser as Ivan Lopakin. I've droped the ANI notice on their talk page. Might some writers in russian try engaging in the user's assumed language to explain the problems? Hasteur (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that will be of any merit. I've lost count how many times it's been explained to him that what he intends to do is impossible for legal reasons. A range block is impossible in terms of the ranges he uses and the MediaWiki software's limitations, but it doesn't matter because there's an edit filter in place (for Beatles songs). Effectively, his modus operandi is staking claims for other people's intellectual property in such a way that cannot be reconciled with U.S. law, where WMF servers are located. Personally, I think it's a troll. He didn't have any luck with the songs, so now he's moving on to something else. WilliamH (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They're using four or five different sets of IPs. I tried grouping them together into ranges, but even then they're too big to block. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 16:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I explained all on your talk page. I am not one of bad users, which use the range of the CORBINA. People can be good or bad. As known. Mistake, the words of last editor. Troll and 7000 of souls. It was joke may be. Thanks ! Ivan Lopakin (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

In other words then, a tedious waste of precious volunteer time. Blocked. WilliamH (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Should this account be added to the SPI for this? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Occidental Petroleum article and talk page

Hi, I’ve been working on some revisions to the Occidental Petroleum article with other editors as I have a COI, which I disclosed on my account page and on that article’s talk page, but have run into some problems with another editor that has repeatedly undone several of my and other editors’ revisions without displaying a willingness to engage in constructive discussion or reach consensus. Despite attempts to work out some compromised material on the talk page, this problem persists. This user has also deleted comments from the talk page that he appears to disagree with (see series of revisions on December 9th) and rearranged other talk page posts so that some are now out of order.

In the interest of keeping the discussion civil, I have not engaged directly in conversation with this editor, but have reached out to other members of the community. I have notified this user of this post and am hoping I can get some help to constructively resolve this issue.

Thanks for your time. CBuiltother (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I was also involved in this as I was asked for my opinion. I will refrain from blocking or warning Cowboy128 as I have edited the article. However I do feel we have reached the point where either a last warning or a block is probably required. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE are the main policies being flouted repeatedly here. --John (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

He's a clear single-purpose account, in my opinion, whose purpose is to denounce Mr. Irani both in his article and in the article on the company of which he was the CEO. He's inserted his screed into the 'history' section and had it reverted many times, most recently by me, but he put it back, and now the article's fully protected with the undue-weight section on Irani intact. To my eye it's pretty bad; opinions may differ. Antandrus (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Cowboy128 has a total of 75 edits (first edit in July 2011). Only two articles have been edited: Occidental Petroleum and Ray R. Irani. Cowboy128's most recent edit (diff) was immediately prior to the article being fully protected due to the edit war. The edit (currently in the article) includes classic soapboxing such as "Irani and Occidental President, Stephen Chazen, ordered a reduction in company expenditures that resulted in hundreds of company job terminations, the majority of whom were veteran employees, in 2007-2008, at the height of the recession, even as Irani collected a massive $460 million dollar total compensation package for 2006 and the company enjoyed record profits.". In general (not commenting on this issue), I am convinced that society needs to deal with various company executives—however, Wikipedia is not the place to do that! I don't see a clear WP:BLP violation but surely an uninvolved admin can recognize inappropriate soapboxing and revert the last edit (I'm too lazy to look at the moment, but there are exceptions to WP:WRONGVERSION). Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat

I've just received this apparent legal threat, but I'm not sure the proper procedure when it comes from an IP - I blocked 48 hours, but it's a mobile IP so it will be dynamic, and I'd be happy for anyone to change my block as appropriate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: This was the edit I reverted that triggered it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We should at least point them to the WMF, or point the WMF to them. We don't want to follow WP:DOLT to the letter. causa sui (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also dug a little deeper. One of the units listed there appears to be an element of vandalism, especially based on some of the prior edits. I've got a feeling that the inclusion of that item is what got the IP riled up. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Claims to be representing the DOD/Federal government, yet refers to a link to a state government entity conducting the alleged "investigation". And says, "Information submitted on this page was applyed on false pretense." Aren't basic grammar and spelling skills required of state and/or government employees? Doc talk 19:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind that the mentioned agency was from one state, while the WHOIS for the IP indicated that he's in another. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is all this stuff clearly in the citation? I'm searching line by line and some of it is there, while some of it isn't. We may have an over-reliance on a single source plus post-hoc vandalism that got through because nobody bothered to check it out. I'm getting the impression that this is a WP:DOLT story from start to finish. causa sui (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note sure what WMF contact details are appropriate - would be grateful if someone could give them to him if you know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  When in doubt you can send people to OTRS and the emails will get to the right people. causa sui (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Just as a note looking at this, my hunch is this isn't legit. Of course, I could be wrong, I was once! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Resolved

 – OTRS contacted, temporary block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A legal threat has been made on page Duncan Lunan by user:DALunan who appears to have a conflict of interest and wishes his page taken down see [17]. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor has been notified. MarnetteD | Talk 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

... and with a concern about WP:DOLT, I've only temporarily blocked him, and am trying to engage in discussion on their talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

... and I have now contacted OTRS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note that DLunan (talk · contribs) is likely the same editor as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Gave them both {{Uw-ublock-famous}} notices. Bwilkins, not sure what OTRS needs besides contact with the editor, but if you would like me to track down the ticket, let me know. -- DQ (t) (e) 04:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• See also: Duncan Lunan (talk · contribs) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Should that one be uw-famous'd too? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• It looks as if Mr. Lunan has been participating in editing the page for years. With this edit a few days ago, he announced his intention to WP:OWN the page. It looks as if when that didn't work out, he started blanking it and posting his dissatisfaction with it in the text of the article. I haven't looked closely enough yet to see if his objection to the content has any merit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rude etiquette, name calling, and swearing

User Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently entered into the discussion pages in Evolution as fact and theory. This user is swearing, accusing other editors of being "creationists" POV pushers, and being disruptive instead of contributing to the discussion. Several of the editors, including myself, have been working in the evolution pages and contributing without incident. I posted a kind letter to the user and it was deleted with the following comment: "Etiquette in Evolution as fact and theory: Stay the fuck off my page." see here: [18]. This is the kind of behaviour that has also been exhibited in the discussion pages: "See WP:FUCK. So I can use whatever fucking language I want to fucking use at any fucking point in fucking time." and "Why the creationist POV-pushing here?" - while no user is pushing any such view. Some editors have made genuine contributions that can be backed up with WP:V and have made legitimate posts. However, OrangeMarlin is resorting to other kinds of attacks: "Creationists POV pushing attempt to use the English language to conflate real science with their false "beliefs". Period. And Clavicle...spare me your personal attacks. I have NEVER fucking accused you of being a Creationist or a POV pusher. However, your and Thompsma changes may unintentionally assist the creationist POV.". The reality is that Thompsma and I have made lots of contributions to other science articles. This user has come in as a bully and is using foul language instead of contributing in good faith. I've asked the user to cooperate and to get along, but this is not working. Hoping to find someone's assistance. Thank you. I will now notify the user that this is being discussed here.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The user has been notified, but deleted the notification from their talk page here [19]. Stating: "(→Administrator's notice: Like I've ever fucking cared about AN/I's)"Claviclehorn (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am involved. I can understand that the bad words are upsetting, and they should not be used. However, this report is premature and misguided. First, things like this should be discussed at WP:WQA—there is no incident which requires admin intervention yet. Second, if there were some actual engagement with the comments at Talk:Evolution as fact and theory there would be less need for loaded language. While some are offended by the bad language, others (myself at least) are offended by the pointless discussion. Primer for anyone interested: the article concerns scientific responses to the creationist dismissal of evolution: it's only a theory. A large amount of discussion has arisen around a poorly defined proposal to remove one of the standard arguments (i.e. gravity is only a theory). Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm an editor who believes such language in inappropriate in a professional environment, even if - and perhaps particularly if - it's virtual. However, the editor has a long history of using the word fuck, admitting he is cranky, and I think enjoying the hell out of himself for being blunt.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The foul mouth is not needed and just plain ignorant and rude. Oh well. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Claviclehorn has only made substantial contributions to Evolution and Evolution as fact and theory.

Thompsma has edited a wide range of articles on biology, but since July 2011 the majority of his edits are related to Evolution and Evolution as fact and theory.

Orangemarlin is.... a bit forceful when it comes to defending the represention of science from the mainstream point of view. He should learn to tone down his language.

This is probably related to a disputed merge. Uninvolved commenters are needed at Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Shouldn.27t_be_merged_with_.27evolution.27.

Someone familiar with the topic area should look at Talk:Evolution and Talk:Evolution as fact and theory and discern if there is creationist POV-pushing going on or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am an editor and involved. I am finding the posts by OrangeMarlin disruptive, rude, and inappropriate. The proposal to change gravity is only a theory is not poorly defined, it has been written with extensive citations by myself. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and can be reserved for the talk pages. OrangeMarlin is being disruptive to that discussion and accusing others of being creationist POV pushers when this is far from the truth. Editors, such as myself, are working in earnest and trying to make an honest attempt to raise a legitimate point. I have made many contributions to the article, including a significant amount of work on the lead - and the body of the article. Things were going well, until OrangeMarlin jumped in. I am flexible with other editors and generally get along. I would prefer to get along with this user, but I think OrangeMarlin is not willing to move in this direction and has instead resorted to being foul mouthed and wasting the time of editors who would like to discuss the actual topic.Thompsma (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good thing I'm not evolved enough to be familiar with the topic area. I don't suppose WP:INVOLVED and WP:EVOLVED mean the same thing, do they?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read (quickly) the discussion at Evolution as fact and theory, and, frankly, I find OM's comments to be productive. His language could be toned down, but he makes valid constructive points. Even if I didn't think that, I agree with Johnuniq - there's no basis for administrative action - this topic should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not exactly a fan of Orangemarlin and have gone on record saying very bad things about him. But here I am absolutely shocked to see him arguing reasonably and constructively against what does appear to be creationist POV pushing. Not calmly, but he is calmer than I would be in that discussion. Hans Adler 01:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and maybe someone can tell Georgewilliamherbert to stay the fuck off that page, in words that he understands? His trademark method of escalating disputes by painting everything as a pure matter of superficial civility is the last thing that is needed there right now. Hans Adler 01:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence there, Hans, but I did not paint anything as a superficial civility issue. My point was - and was apparently taken by the participants there - that grossly UNcivil discussions on actual content or behavioral issues degenerate and don't solve the underlying problem, in addition to being unpleasant to be around. Nowhere did I dispute that there was an underlying legitimate set of issues to have a serious talk about, and hopefully all involved there are on track to do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am new to that article's discussion. While OrangeMarlin does use language I wouldn't use myself (well, not here, anyway), I can understand his frustration. Thompsma, while claiming to not support the creationist view in any way at all, wants to remove one of the of the most effective retorts to those ignorant creationists who say "...but evolution is only a theory". He presented what he claimed was an alternative proposal, but which was really a bunch of unclear reasons why he thought change was needed, then got cross with me when I kept asking exactly what his proposal was. I really don't think he had one. He just didn't like that section of the article. Maybe what Thompsma is doing is done in good faith, but his efforts are not very helpful, and seem to largely comprise "I and my nice friends have been quietly playing here for a long time. Don't bring strong thoughts into our lives." He cannot express his position very well, which may be just a lack of skill, or he could be hiding something about his true motivations. But all very frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A glance at Talk:Evolution_as_fact_and_theory shows "discussion" that would try the patience of a saint. And Orangemarlin is no saint (he likely would protest against accusations that he is one). The article needs input from a wider audience to offset the not necessarily helpful approach of certain individuals now participating there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not in any way forwarded a creationist POV. I am a scientist and I have contributed greatly to that article. Let's make that clear. "Thompsma, while claiming to not support the creationist view in any way at all, wants to remove one of the of the most effective retorts to those ignorant creationists who say "...but evolution is only a theory" - this is also false. I have suggested integrating the material and getting rid of the section heading. I've suggested an alternative - a section on belief that more broadly covers other literature. This is the problem. OM has created a distraction and others are misinterpreting the text I post. For a creationist I have made quite a few significant contributions to the main evolution article. I've also wrote a significant portion of the evolution as fact and theory article. For someone who hasn't helped, if we were to remove the work I contributed - the article would not be very far along. People must be free to make honest contributions without being accused as a means to bully or obstruct legitimate contributions.Thompsma (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall make my point even more strongly. The gravity comparison is THE most effective retort to those ignorant creationists who say "...but evolution is only a theory". It should not be buried in the article without its own section heading. You may well be a scientist, but you haven't made your reasons clear. THAT'S the real problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I’m uninvolved here, but I’ve been aware for a little while of OrangeMarlin having a persistent problem with incivility across a broad range of articles, and I think it’s overdue for administrators to take a closer look at his behavior in general. Here are four recent diffs of some of his incivility outside of this topic area:

• [20] “Jclemens is full of shit”, subsequently changed to “Jclemens has something up his ass”.

• [21] “Jclemens is absolute douche. […] Probably a little pussy that would hide in his mommy's basement. Wouldn't have the balls to talk to me like a man. GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU TINY LITTLE MAN JCLEMENS.”

• [22] “So, Jclemens, the pathetic little pussy who probably thinks being a janitor is a step up in life, gets to cast lies against me and get away with it? Then I can't even tell him he's a fucking asshole?”

• [23] This one’s too long to quote, but it’s directed at both me and Jclemens, and has the phrase “Go fuck yourself” four times in one paragraph.

Jclemens is a member of ArbCom, and OrangeMarlin’s grudge against him appears to be because Jclemens suggested that OrangeMarlin be sanctioned for incivility during the abortion arbitration case. The proposal didn’t pass because OM was unable to participate in the case due to illness, but it probably would have passed if not for that.

I’m kind of amazed that OM has been able to get away with this sort of thing for as long as he has. I’ve seen editors get indef-blocked for less than this, and that was when comments like these were being directed at an ordinary editor, not a member of ArbCom. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In that very unique context, Orangemarlin's language was perfectly defensible. In OM's situation I would have preferred stronger words to describe the behaviour of Captain Occam and Jclemens, such as "grandmother-selling pea gamecock" for the latter. The two of you should just be happy that OM prefers the more generic, more common and less stinging scatological and sexual insults, and leave it at that before we get an ANI thread on this precise incident, examining all participants in it. Hans Adler 10:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you’re thinking of posting such a thread yourself and you think it should be separate from this one, I think you should go ahead. I consider OrangeMarlin to be something of a test case. If you’ve been following the ArbCom election this month, you’ll be aware that one of the questions is about the concept of vested contributors. “The vested contributor is someone who believes they are entitled to a degree of indulgence or bending of the rules because of the duration and extent of their past contributions. In some cases, this view may be shared by other community members.” OrangeMarlin is one of the most obvious examples of this I’ve seen, and the question is whether the WP:CIVIL will ultimately prove unenforceable in his case because of the number of other community members who think he’s entitled to ignore this policy. Since this is apparently an issue that ArbCom is particularly paying attention to now, I expect that how the community handles WP:CIVIL in OrangeMarlin’s case will influence ArbCom’s future decisions in this area. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin is also a test case for whether we really want to treat superficial incivility as worse than much more efficient polite bullying, Arbcom cangaroo courts, practical demonstrations that one doesn't give a shit for other editors' continued physical existence, and IDHT crusades. Hans Adler 11:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that not everybody reading this will be familiar with the background. I am not claiming that Arbcom is typically a cangaroo court, but years ago there was a spectacularly bad case of arbitrator misbehaviour, and recently we had a pretty bad one. Both directed at Orangemarlin, who I am not a friend of. Hans Adler 21:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, now it's marlin fishing season. Anyone following the situation knows there was a particularly good reason for Orangemarlin's outburst, and since everyone's aim should be to improve the encyclopedia, there would be no benefit from discussing that background. Please wait for another outburst and start a new section at a suitable noticeboard if warranted. It's a little unusual because Orangemarlin has definitely breached CIVIL, but would someone familiar with recent activity please close this section as unproductive. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got enough experience with AN/I to know that what you're expecting here goes against how this noticeboard is normally used. If admin intervenation is warranted based on OM's incivility, then whatever action is taken will be based all of the recent history involving this user; not just what was mentioned in the original post. Therefore, there's absolutely no reason why these issues can't all be discussed in the same thread. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There's often more than one side to these issues. OM was provoked. OM (over)reacted. But does the provoker not deserve censure? HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how any of what Jclemens did can be considered provocation. Jclemens suggested that OM be sanctioned for his incivility in abortion-related discussions, particularly this comment and this one. And he also expressed the opinion that these personal attacks were indefensible enough that whether or not he could participate in the case shouldn’t affect ArbCom’s response. For an arbitrator to suggest sanctions for an involved party in a case is a standard part of what happens during arbitration. If we consider that “provocation” now, how many other times would we have to overlook editors bashing the arbitrators who suggested that they be sanctioned? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not speaking about provocation in the alleged priors now being dredged up. I detest that aspect of these "enquiries". Someone reports someone for a recent sin, and others jump on the bandwagon and complain about earlier sins, with declarations of "I don't like him either!. It becomes a personal_attack_fest. Anyway, my comment about provocation referred to the incident(s) discussed at the start of this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has interacted with OrangeMarlin, Thompsma, and Claviclehorn, I just want to say that all three editors are without exception, diligent and earnest in their attempts in wanting to improve and protect the integrity of Wikipedia science articles. That said, the assertion that there is "Creationist POV pushing" is baseless and a red herring. The issue was mainly about reorganization. The current rift between Thompsma/Claviclehorn on one end and OrangeMarlin on the other, results from the lack of familiarity by the former of the latter's use of very colorful language, which I admit, can be a little unnerving to those who are not use to it. danielkueh (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the problem also stems from the inability of those seeking change (Thompsma and Claviclehorn) to present a clear, rational, coherent case. I'm not saying one doesn't exist. Like OM, I haven't seen it yet. And it's not a matter of reading the case and disagreeing with it. It's a matter of reading the "case" and saying "What?" It was not well presented. I'd offer to help but, as I said, I don't understand it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per Johnuniq above: I guess I'm too involved to do any threadclosing, unfortunately, and too disgusted by Captain Occam's unsavoury vendetta against OM. If recent history is indeed relevant, everybody should get a load of this whole thread, where they can take stock of the discreditable roles played by Captain Occam and JClemens. Note input from other arbitrators, and complete lack of support on the committee for JClemens proposals in the matter. Bishonen | talk 05:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

When you refer to my "vendetta against OM", are you implying that you think I'd been involved in an earlier dispute with him? I haven't, and I challenge you to find anywhere that I have. I had literally no history with him before Jclemens asked me to help identify the editors who had been most uncivil on the abortion talk page, and OrangeMarlin stood out as the worst of the bunch. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't implying that. It would be quite a trick to "dispute" with somebody off having major surgery. I challenge you to stop compulsively replying to everything on this thread. Please just give people a chance to read the thread I linked to and make up their own minds about your role on it. The questions you've been asking on JClemens's talkpage are relevant to the "vendetta" issue, too. Bishonen | talk 05:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

I would like to clarify one point: I did not intend my words above to express any opinion about the merits of the Orangemarlin vs. Jclemens issue: I'm not endorsing the incivility—just letting anyone interested know that there were some very unusual circumstances behind the comments, and there is no point rehashing that matter. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to call attention to the ongoing problems with User:DMSBel on OM's talk page. For those unfamiliar, DMSBel was one of the editors sanctioned in the recent Abortion case. It is clear that DMSBel has not withdrawn from the WP:BATTLE but has merely shifted[24] the[25] fight[26] to another front. (I haven't checked meticulously, but he may be at 3RR on OM's talk page.) I am increasingly of the opinion that a vacation from Wikipedia would do DMSBel considerable benefit, and that an admin should step in to help bring this about. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I need a vacation? Perhaps I do. Who can take the kind of antics that go on around OM and is bunch of admirers for long period without a break. I'll be the one to decide though when I have had enough thanks, thanks for your consideration. So cut the bull about me needing a vacation, only I know when I need that. Also you talk about me in a thread about another editor and don't even have the decency to notify me, even though it says to do this in a way that you could hardly miss. Try turning the thread round if you like, but let me know if you want to make a pretence of being civil, so I can answer. Were you trying to get me banned without me even knowing it was under discussion? A Fait Accompli? To bad I spotted it then. If OM or anyone else has a problem, let them talk to me on my talk page, and not make snide comments with their friends behind my back. Manly? Not in the least.DMSBel (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq - my track record speaks for itself. I have been a civil editor in here since 2008. I have contributed tirelessly to articles on science. Ecology in particular is one article where I have labored and wrote most of it from top to bottom - a subject with close relations to evolution. The point is that I have contributed tonnes of material in science articles, including the main evolution article. I recently made some major contributions to Evolution as fact and theory - rewrote the lead and made significant contributions to the body of the text and was given praise for this work. Suddenly, somehow, Claviclehorn and I make some suggestions that OM doesn't like and we are being bashed for creationist POV pushing!! It is absurd. The proposal may not have been worded at its best at the onset, but the proposal is taking form as others are discussing it with the genuine intent to understand and help. Other editors, not just Claviclehorn and I have also felt that a change in the gravity section would improve the article. Certainly the points we raise did not merit the response by OM. My issue with OM is the foul language, threats, and accusations that are used to discredit editors that are working diligently to improve the article. It is harassment. I can ignore the fowl language, but the juvenile comments and threats to delete whatever I put because I'm being called a creationist POV pusher is too much. My history of contributions in here, as Danielkueh has noted, have been positive. There is nothing untoward going on here with the changes I want to make to the article - my goal is to improve on the topic, because I am interested in evolution and I have published peer-reviewed papers on the topic of evolution. I'm not making a plea to my credentials, the point is that this has turned into a witch hunt by OM for anyone who changes the article in a way that looks suspcious. The accusations of creationist POV pushing is false and offensive. I have no personal vendetta and would like to get along. However, I agree with Claviclehorn that the posts by OM are problematic and disruptive.Thompsma (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What you're missing is that Orangemarlin is an intelligent person and it would only take a couple of comments that engage the issues raised on the talk page to avoid the whole mess. Yes, your qualifications and work are excellent, but you have a pompous and verbose style that make it hard for someone dropping in to the page to work out where you are coming from. Sorry for the plain talk, but sometimes less is more. One thing that many evolution editors will not be aware of is that there is a continual back-and-forth about civility on the wikidrama boards. I strongly support WP:CIVIL, but dealing with bad language is easy—a far bigger danger to Wikipedia are the WP:CPUSH users who drive good editors crazy with dumb persistence (that's not relevant to the issue at hand—I'm just trying to explain why the plainly uncivil language is not exciting a lot of attention here: it's because experienced editors know that issues are often more complex than counting rude words). Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it’s important to keep in mind that incivility and POV-pushing are mostly separate issues, and the presence of one doesn’t excuse the other. Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and editors are required to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA regardless of whether there’s POV-pushing going on or not. As Panyd has mentioned in her Arbitration Candidacy, incivility also has at least as much potential to drive away new contributors as POV-pushing does.

If there’s both incivility and POV-pushing going on, ideally this thread ought to address both issues. That’s what the outcome will most likely be if this dispute ends up in arbitration, and ending up in arbitration seems to be a fairly common eventual outcome for disputes like these. But it would save everyone a lot of trouble if the community could resolve this without needing ArbCom’s help. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"I think it’s important to keep in mind that incivility and POV-pushing are mostly separate issues" This may be true in general, but it certainly isn't true in many particular situations. The classic case is civil POV pushing, where disruptive civility is often used as a fulcrum to frustrate reasonable editors. When faced with civil POV-pushers, some users tend to become angry as a result of the seemingly never-ending problems these articles cause, become uncivil (quoted from WP:CPUSH). That you've continued your crusade against incivility after being sanctioned for your own civil POV pushing only illustrates just how problematic this broad issue has become. aprock (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered both OrangeMarlin and Thompsma in my edits to Wikipedia. Both are diligent and energetic editors. I knew Thompsma was not a creationist POV pusher immediately but his failure to use quotes around one of OM's comments to indicate he was quoting OM set off OM's signature temper. OM has violated WP:CIVIL but I believe his real violation was in WP:FAITH but that is understandable given the subject. There are non-stop incursions by creationists to undermine the evolution and periphery articles. In my dealings with Thompsma he was a verbose debater but I have come to accept that from professors and adjust to it. OM was out of line in this debate by going straight to suggestion of nuclear options with his 'revert button'. Thompsma needed to just rewrite the section and put it up for all to review instead of spending 1000's of words just talking about a potential change. Alatari (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm staying out of it. HOWEVER, Captain Occam is a lying, petulant, hostile, immature, sociopathic little fucktard who should be kicked in his fucking balls, but because he lacks any honor or backbone, I doubt we could actually find those balls. That little fucking punk had temerity and fucking hate-filled vileness to actually accuse me of playing a game with my health with Arbcom. Captain Occam is probably one of the biggest cowards on the internet. And I won't even include the other coward, DMSbel, whose modus operandii is, without any courage whatsoever, show up on my talk page, and put out some passive aggressive commentary that indicates his borderline personality defects. The fact that he has been topic banned around these parts shows his worth to the project. Captain Occam and DMSbel can blow each for all I care. They are just little fucktards without any courage. They are very capable of whining like the punk-ass babies that they are. There Hans Adler....I tried to keep away from the scatological commentary. If this gets me blocked for telling the truth about the two most vile individuals around here...then so be it. Just know it will be a punitive block and will have NO effect whatsoever. But it's clear that some admins just love punitive blocks.

Since this has gotten off topic. GWH bitched at everyone and it's quieted down. The creationists have shut up. I'm good with that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Racconish and ConcernedVancouverite persist in quoting from non-existent sources and undo corrections

Dear Administration,

Editors Racconish and ConcernedVancouverite persist in quoting from non-existent sources and repeatedly undo corrections to the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman

I have been accused of sockpuppetry and COI. Both of these allegations are unfair and incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Davina_Reichman&diff=465042298&oldid=464947464

Please see: non existent sources removed and translation corrected

The article "Have your iPad in hand? Now you need a little black iDress". Vancouver Sun: p. C.3. June 1, 2010. ISSN 08321299. Proquest 2049290071” does not exist.

Nicolas A. Palmer, senior editor of The Vancouver Sun, confirmed that the article was factually incorrect and was deleted. The indexing of the article "Have your iPad in hand? Now you need a little black iDress". Vancouver Sun: p. C.3. June 1, 2010. ISSN 08321299. Proquest 2049290071” been deleted from the databases of ProQuest, OCLC and WorldCat and no longer exists.

The following article from Cambio has been mistranslated: "Vestirse con iPad también se puso de moda" (in Spanish). Revista Cambio. June 8, 2010. Gale A237227979. "Davina Reichman, gerente de la empresa [...] El director creativo de la empresa es Luke Staley, especialista en hacer prendas elegantes, sencillas y clásicas para la mujer y Davina Reichman, quien desarrollo el concepto."

The Spanish translation of

“Davina Reichman, gerente de la empresa [...] El director creativo de la empresa es Luke Staley, especialista en hacer prendas elegantes, sencillas y clásicas para la mujer y Davina Reichman, quien desarrollo el concepto.”

into English is

'Davina Reichman, managing director of the company [...] The creative director of the company is Luke Staley, specialist in making clothing elegant, simple and classical for women and Davina Reichman, who developed the concept."

The relative pronoun "quien" is the singular form of plural form “quienes".

Cambio does not state “they developed the concept”. Cambio states “Davina Reichman, quien desarrollo el concepto.” – translation “Davina Reichman, who developed the concept”.

“Page, Emma (November 4, 2010). "Classic but quirky designs".Mosman Daily: p. 56. Retrieved November 4, 2011.” is an irrelevant source as it does not mention iClothing.

Thank you for your assistance in this regard.

Yours sincerely, OliviaBlond (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC) OliviaBlond

Firstly, you have to notify those 2 editors of this topic. Secondly, your userpage reads "My name is Olivia. I am Davina's concerned friend. My bête noire is when people dispute and disrupt notable articles.", added by you [27]. That contradicts "I have been accused of ... COI. ... incorrect." Domenico.y, who is a friend to Davina (there are photos on Flickr) confirmed you as Davina.R flatmate [28]. Simply put, why are you wasting AN/I time, Davina was blocked for COI. You should be too for acting on her behalf as "concerned friend". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree (except that she did notify the two editors, although she messed up the template). I stopped looking at the Reichman article a long time ago - so much ado about so little.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be three rather entangled topics here. (1) There is a general dispute about sources on Davina Reichman and in particular a dispute as to whether a particular newspaper story can be cited or whether the newspaper in question has retracted it. This has split over from Talk:Davina Reichman to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman (2nd nomination). Several editors have displayed behaviour which is far from optimal. (2) There is a discussion as to whether users such as Davina.R (talk · contribs), OliviaBlond (talk · contribs) and Domenico.y (talk · contribs) are sock- or meat-puppets and should be treated as such. This is being conducted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davina.R where OliviaBlond has rather unwisely chosen to respond by restarting the sourcing dispute. (3) There are concerns that the editors mentioned in (2) have a conflict of interest. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Only 2 and 3 matter here. The account is clearly an SPA, the COI is obvious. Sock or meat, either way, I have seen socks far less involved with the subject than this blocked. We know that OliviaBlond is a flatmate. But we do not know the full-extent of the COI – do mere flatmates find sources and know the intimate details of their landlord's career? How do we know that this OliviaB. is not an employee, perhaps even PR, to Davina R. We know she cannot be trusted to tell the truth, having worked in a 3-way effort, herself, Davina R. and Domenico.y, a personal friend to Davina, to disrupt the development of 3 articles, as well as voting in AfDs. I have not been involved in contributing towards the articles due to lack of interest in fashion stuff, I simply performed an RFF on one of the original drafts and advised Domenico.y to account for notability and avoid promo material [[29]] long before Racconish and ConcernedVancouverite got involved. Domenico just didn't "get" what was wrong with many of his sources, lied about his long-term past and present association with Davina.R, and once his COI was identified suddenly Davina.R was here making things difficult and mouthing off at editors who don't consider her notable, took it very personally, hence her block, followed shortly thereafter by this OliviaBlond who engaged with the articles, editors and AfDs to make development difficult. If 3 inexperienced editors, all directly related to the subject, and shouting "Keep" or "Davina and her products are notable" is within Wiki policy and not disruptive, followed by reporting editors who have curbed their COI and halted any agenda, then I hate to see what is. Because there is a known COI, and because of the knowledge being used somewhat more that "a concerned friend" might know without being prompted or commercial interest, there is no reason to indulge in this report further. Olivia Blond should be blocked. If Domenico.y starts becoming disruptive, again, he too should be blocked. Problem solved. I see no similar COI where the 2 being complained about matters, the complaint aims to be retaliative, imo. Though there may be some concerns over the material and sources they are using, that can be sorted out amongst editors once the contending COI accounts are removed. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - OliviaBlond's comments seem quite correct. A couple of articles stated that the subject was a partner, this was disputed by the subject and the subject appears to have had the article taken down. Some wiki editors have got overly involved against the subject and are insistent on continuing to repeat what seems to be a bit of false reporting. Youreallycan (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My Son Marshall, My Son Eminem problem

Because I reverted another editor three times previously, User:Eeekster re-added content that I removed which is content that I added myself and tagged me for 3RR. I explained that tagged information will make it so that the article will not be applicable for DYK. SL93 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because it's a 3RR violation. Eeekster (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really violate 3RR. It started with me removing an editor's tags on content that I added. Then I decided to remove the content because of the tags and because I wanted it on DYK. SL93 (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I count six reversions you (SL93) made in the space of less than an hour.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The last three were so that the article would be eligible for the main page. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And so? Is that one of the exemptions to WP:3RR? I'm surprised you came here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For featured articles, it is allowed. For DYK, it should be the same. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The exemption I assume you are referring to states: "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page" (emphasis added). The article isn't anywhere on the main page, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It was removed by another editor. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And DYK articles cannot be approved with tags for the main page. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, you're saying it was on the main page at the time you reverted? And then it was removed? I forget how to look at the history of the main page, but the edit summary history of the article doesn't read that way. And even if you are correct, you are supposed to make it clear in the edit summary that you are claiming the exemption, and you didn't mention the DYK thing until I think the 5th reversion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that. DYKs go through a nomination process. Articles cannot pass that process with any article issues. SL93 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So the exemption doesn't apply - it's not intended for what you would like to happen, it's intended for something already on the main page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So basically you following that rule like the Bible is stopping me from helping build a quality article. Why are you against the removal besides pointing to that rule? SL93 (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:IAR please. SL93 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that if I violated 3RR, as you clearly did here, I wouldn't have the nerve to come complaining to WP:ANI. I realize that despite being touted as a bright-line rule, admins sometimes give editors leeway on violations in extraordinary circumstances. However, I must say that wanting an article to be a DYK on the main page isn't what I would consider an extraordinary circumstance. Perhaps others here are more sympathetic to your position than I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's improving Wikipedia so it is a WP:IAR situation. It isn't just about DYK, it is about improving the article and improving Wikipedia a little bit as a result. SL93 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a reason to break WP:3RR. You should just drop the stick, admit fault, and everyone can move on. See my comment below. It's no longer an issue.--v/r - TP 03:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I did a ton of googling on this and this is what I came up with and what I did. I couldn't find any other source for Mrs. Nelson suing anyone to correct any information. I think the source we have isn't a reliable source. Two lawsuits I could find involving the book were 1) From 1999 well before the book was written to address the song My Mom, and 2) Mrs. Nelson was sued in 2009 from someone else who claimed he helped her write the book. Neither of them involved correcting information in the book which seemed odd to begin with because she wrote it. So I reverted SL93's removal of the sentence and then I reverted myself with my rationale. That should solve the warring. If my rationale is flawed, someone uninvolved can feel free to revert me and make a more informed decision.--v/r - TP 02:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to repeat your searching efforts, but I agree that the source used for the assertion is unreliable. Also, the assertion itself was weird - she sued whom? to correct what? Makes little sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please answer this. After reading WP:IAR, do you really think there was no good reason to violate the 3RR rule? SL93 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, I think you were out of bounds. And, as I just said on my Talk page, I've gotta get off Wikipedia and eat something. So, knock yourself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And you still haven't put forth how it doesn't go by IAR, which is a policy, and just pointed to WP:3RR. SL93 (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Because WP:IAR says any action "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". An unstable article, due to edit warring, is not improving Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 03:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There wouldn't have been an edit war if editors did not revert my removal of content that did not improve Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Improving Wikipedia is ambiguous. Both sides in an edit war feel they are improving Wikipedia. Thus, WP:IAR would apply to both sides. Essentially, if WP:IAR applied to WP:3RR, then it would defeat the entire purpose of WP:3RR. Both sides honestly feel they are the ones improving Wikipedia. That's why we have WP:3RR and why WP:IAR doesn't apply.--v/r - TP 03:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the purpose of 3RR to stop an article from appearing on DYK? It will be eligible with a couple hundred more characters. SL93 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, why don't you just continue with your interpretation of WP:3RR and WP:IAR, and we'll just recap this conversation when you've been indef blocked for edit warring. Do you think that will improve the DYK process? You're lucky you didn't get blocked this time. Your really failing to get the point. You are so focused on your point of view, you've refused to look at this from the perspective of Wikipedia. You've made an article unstable by edit warring. Edit warring happens because edits feel they are improving the article by reverting to their version. That's what an edit war is. WP:IAR would completely circumvent WP:3RR everytime if it could be used as a excuse or exemption. There would be no such thing as WP:3RR. You have 5 days to solve the tag issues on the article. That is no reason to edit war. Even if you had one day, the rule on tags at DYK exists for a reason. You can't simply remove the tags and send it to DYK without fixing the problem. If you can't get that, then you have serious competence issues. Drop the stick and don't use IAR for 3RR again.--v/r - TP 03:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The tag issues can't be solved which is a problem. SL93 (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called a talk page?--v/r - TP 03:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried that with Eekster. It didn't work so I brought it here. SL93 (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You call it incompetence while I call it removing something that cannot be fixed as you showed also later on. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:3RR can not be violated to get an article on the main page. End of line. This doesn't seem to have been a BLP issue or a reversion of vandalism either. So please drop the stick and start listening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you warred with User:WWGB over tags, then you removed it and warred with User_talk:Eeekster whose comment you was "You violated 3RR". Instead of admitted your mistake and pointing out that you intended to remove the contentious material and address WWGB's concern that "uninformative, no. important to the book's history, yes." Your comments to Eeekster appeared as if you WP:OWN then content even though it was released at the time of submission. Eeekstar was also at fault, they should've just reported the warring instead of continuing it, but that doesn't excuse your own behavior. That's why I undid your revert, and then reverted myself with rationale that addressed the issues brought up by the other two users.--v/r - TP 04:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I was stupid, but pointing to essays doesn't make you less rude by saying that I am incompetent. I have thousands of contributions here, I help save articles from deletion, and I improve articles but you call me incompetent. Really? And what exactly is Wikipedia's view with thousands of editors and readers?SL93 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well if you had gotten the point when I was nicer than I wouldn't have had to be mean to get through that thick skull of yours. But now that it's resolved, here, have a cookie.--v/r - TP 04:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

TParis has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

• Ignoring the very denigrating cookie above, tell me if i've got this right. What happened is that tags were added to a sentence in an article. These tags would have invalidated the article for DYK. The source for the sentence, however, did not have the specific information that the tags wanted. After a few reversions back and forth, the article creator decided that, since it was impossible to get the proper sourcing to fulfill the desires of the tag adder, the article creator removed the sentence entirely, since it wasn't really necessary to the article. Then, another editor came in and reverted that removal of the sentence, adding it back in tags and all, essentially creating an impossible situation where there was no way for it to be fit for DYK. Is that correct? And then the article creator is taken to task for 3RR over this? WP:IAR definitely applies in this scenario and Eeekster's actions were horrible here. Silverseren^C 11:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that SL93 was warring prior to Eeekster's involvement and refused to acknowledge what warring was. However, I did say "Eeekstar was also at fault, they should've just reported the warring instead of continuing it..." Eeekster and WWGB apparently felt that the sentence improved the article but felt a citation was needed. SL93 didn't address their rationale in his reverts. However, I'll be sure to point the next edit war that quotes WP:IAR to you since you feel it justified.--v/r - TP 16:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that WP:3RR has built-in safeguards (the exemptions) to enable users to avoid a violation. Those safeguards go toward protecting the encyclopedia (as opposed to the vague language of "improving" in WP:IAR). As I understand it, WP:AIR is rarely accepted as a justification of a policy violation except in extreme circumstances. Not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not involved, but I think everyone is being a little harsh on SL93. This is NOT about whether you can violate 3RR for a DYK. During SL93's brief edit war with WWGB, WWGB suggested removing the sentence, or, barring that, tagging it. SL93 at first disagreed with both of these proposals and reverted multiple times (violating 3RR). However, SL93 then conceded the war by agreeing the sentence should be removed. This should have ended the edit war, but Eeekster (who had not previously edited the article) then reverted to the version w/ sentence & tags. Eeekster is of course welcome to disagree with the consensus established by SL93 and WWGB, but it doesn't look (to me) like that's what happened here. Instead, it looks like Eeekster misinterpreted the edit history, and thought SL93 was continuing the edit war, rather than ending it. Eeekster continued to state that SL93 was violating 3RR, without apparently noticing that SL93 was now agreeing with a version suggested by WWGB, and a version which WWGB was not contesting. That's my reading of the edit history and comments on Eeekster's talk page, anyway. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're right, I missed these two edits by SL93. It still doesn't absolve SL93 of the earlier warring. It does, however, lend more weight to this ANI notification that Eeekster caused more problems than good.--v/r - TP 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• In my view, SL93 is partially "absolved" by self-reverting and conceding the edit war. Eeekster should probably be cautioned to take more care in looking at the edit history before reverting apparent 3RR violations, but it was a complicated case and SL93 did not explain it very well on Eeekster's talk page. At any rate, everyone seems to be happy with the current version (thanks to TParis stepping in), so this is mostly resolved. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• As one of SL93's harshest critics, I don't object that much to what he did on the article page. I note, too, that he was never reported to WP:AN3. My principal problem was his conduct here during which he stubbornly clung to the notion that he can break the rules based on WP:IAR just because he wants to nominate an article for DYK. In any event, I still hate to see someone pommeled, so I suppose a partial "absolution" will make him feel a bit better about the whole thing, which is fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_2#Tally_of_actual_votes_at_Afd

I'm really concerned at the pillorying of the closing admin for supposedly having closed the AfD prematurely (a.k.a after 12 days, when the closing instructions say to close it after 7.) It's getting rather really nasty, and really needs some calming intervention. 86.** IP (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait what? How is closing after 12 days consider "premature" when the instructions say 7?--v/r - TP 03:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is bizarre. The argument seems to be that an AfD should be kept open until there is a consensus. This would (a) mean that any 'no consensus' closures were invalid, and (b) that the admin would have to assess the AfD first, and then decide whether to close it. Not only is it not the way it is done (regardless of arguments over the wording of policy - though I think current practice is in accord with this), but it would make a nonsense of the whole procedure to have repeated assessments of 'consensus', by (presumably) multiple admins, with the first to call 'consensus' making the decision. Bonkers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

: Ai yi yi - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Talk:Muhammad by User:FormerIP

WP:TPO states, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

Original edit: [30]

Diffs of edits by User:FormerIP:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]

Similar, earlier today: [34]

Could someone persuade FormerIP to take a little break from that talk page? The discussions are quite difficult enough without these pranks. Cheers, --JN466 03:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, twaddle. FormerIP is taking a jab at you and Ludwigs2 for making needlessly pointy assertions with images...Ludwigs especially with his insertion of File:Male Model John Quinlan In Calvin Klein.jpg here. This is hardly something to come to AN/I about, esp as you made no attempt to raise the issue with him beforehand. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just not helpful, Tarc. I might agree with you that Ludwigs2's image insertion wasn't helpful either, given that it probably wasn't intended to be a serious suggestion for inclusion in the article. But a number of editors on that talk page have enough difficulty already to discuss matters coolly and soberly. To have editors falsify each others' posts on top of that is unlikely to help matters. I twice restored what I had actually written – which is relevant information for other editors, as we're now considering adding such images – and each time he vandalised the post again. It's still vandalised now. A takeaway menu? I don't think I am required to assume good faith of an editor after clear evidence to the contrary.

Not falsifying each others' talk page posts is a bright line, as far as I am concerned, and he crossed it, three times in about an hour. If he's run out of arguments, or can't discuss civilly, then he should take a break, rather than resorting to talk page vandalism. Cheers, --JN466 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The best plan might perhaps be for the image talk page to be put under "article probation" under the surveillance of an uninvolved administrator. There is too much disruption from multiple users that is outside the usual norms of wikipedia. That stifles, drowns out or prevents any useful discussion from regular editors. Mathsci (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the pictures are spammy. But I'll leave them as they are now. --FormerIP (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Kryptos

Having trouble with a WP:SPA editor, Beckonamist (talk · contribs), who is being disruptive at the Kryptos article, edit-warring to insert poorly sourced information, and is issuing personal attacks in both edit summaries[35] and at the talkpage.[36][37] I'd deal with it myself, but am involved with editing the article (and am the target of the attacks), so could use an uninvolved admin's assistance, thanks. --Elonka 04:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll let a more experienced admin handle this, but this user doesn't seem to be someone we really need to keep around. Maybe a 72 hour block would get through to him, but it's not too promising. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring and WP:AGF violations. If this user shows a sign that they intend to behave in a more collaborative manner, any admin may unblock early. Of course, my block is open to review by anyone, so let me know if this is a bad block. --Jayron32 15:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like a reasonable course of action. I will let you know if there are any further problems. --Elonka 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about CSD interpretation

Hi. I recently declined two CSDs (1, 2) of a renamed user's old user and talk pages on the grounds that (a) UT pages aren't speedied and (b) redirects aren't speedied if the mover is different to the main contributor (going on i, ii). I advised the user to take it to MFD, but they have undone (1, 2) my CSD-template removals. I suppose an alternative interpretation of this is that Admins can't speedy UT pages but Crats can (although I take it to mean that no-one can speedy them, but Crats can delete them after MFD or private consultation). Who is right? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Those rules you linked to seem pretty clear: you are right. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On a very basic level, users should not restore declined speedy deletion requests. That's WP:FORUMSHOPping and is a Bad Thing™. If a speedy request is declined, a user should use the appropriate XFD for a discussion. It doesn't matter if the user disagrees with the admins decision, the decision is made, and the user needs to seek input from the community to proceed with the deletion. --Jayron32 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Poorly thought out reversion

Reverting posts like this [[38]] with a snarky edit summary i.e. "witty edit summary here" doesn't help Wikipedia and is not supported by out WP:TPG policy. Yes the all caps is rude shouting and the point misguided. None the less, we are all supposed to be civil, and just dumping the post is rude. Ignore it (that was my plan), rebut it, hat it if you must. Every editor, newbie, veteran, admin, bureaucrat, puppet, blocked banned, POV should be treated with respect, if for no other reason than to increase the next respect level on Wikipedia. Not to say editors shouldn't be blocked -- they should just be blocked respectfully. If the poster is a sock puppet --> WP:SPIGerardw (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't address the edit summaries, but I do support removal of the post. It was nothing more than a sour-grapes rant against a user without providing any relevant details of an actionable incident or situation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Knee jerk to remove it without meaningful edit summary then to "instruct" that they be contacted first before reinstating it. More unnecessary drama. Leaky Caldron 15:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 I think you chose the wrong word above. I think you meant to write the word "Well" when you wrote "poorly". The snarky edit summary may have been snarky, but the removal of that post was well justified. It isn't going anywhere, it's just some user with an axe to grind. There was no point in leaving the attack against a user to stand. --Jayron32 15:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to assume I choose the wrong word. If an editor supported the removal, adding a section saying "Well thought out reversion" would only have attracted to it. Past evidence indicates the is long standing precedent of leaving derogatory comments about editors intact, so it's unclear what criteria are used to justify removal. Gerardw (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

See wikt:facetious for more details. Sigh. --Jayron32 15:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Deliberately inappropriate humour." Got it. Do you see that as consistent with Wikpedia's WP:CIVILITY pillar? Gerardw (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get legalistic about a bit of sarcasm. Something that makes wikipedia worth contributing to is the human element of the community. This is was just a joke, let's leave it. Also, WP:TPG is a guideline, not a policy. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiple violations by multiple IP addresses

• 99.88.121.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 134.186.130.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 153.48.52.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jediknight95758 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

134.186.130.250 is currently temporarily blocked.

153.48.52.241 was previously blocked for the same reason.

Asking for a prompt permanent block on all.

These are probably sockpuppets, suspected of Jediknight95758:

1. They edit the same articles with the same edits,
2. they delete article talk page comments (often for each other),
3. they are warned about the same problems,
4. they delete their user talk warnings in the same manner (sometimes for each other),
5. and in this case have posted defamatory statements (about me).

They appear to be hosted in Sacramento, California, or through the nearby Teale Data Center. They appear to have common elements with other California Department of Corrections shared IP addresses.

Most recent warnings

• 99.88.121.104 Talk page vandalism level 3
• 134.186.130.250 currently blocked for spam
• 153.48.52.241 suspected sockpuppet (same as above two)

Deleting warnings

• 2011-09-23T23:12:31‎ 134.186.130.250 (←Replaced content with '== 2011 September ==')
• 2011-09-24T09:42:11‎ 99.88.121.104 (←Replaced content with '== 2011 September ==')
• 2011-09-25T00:59:20‎ 99.88.121.104
• 2011-09-26T13:29:31‎ 99.88.121.104
• 2011-09-30T01:04:10‎ 134.186.130.250 deleted warning on 153.48.52.241
• 2011-09-30T01:09:38‎ 134.186.130.250

See other deleted warnings restored by me here:

• (Undid multiple revisions by 153.48.52.241 (talk), restore deleted warnings)

Defamatory statements

• 2011-09-24T09:58:15‎ 99.88.121.104
• 2011-09-30T23:09:40‎ 134.186.130.250

All notified.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring by MarshallBagramyan and Vacio

Resolved: Moving to appropriate forum m.o.p 19:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor by the name MarshallBagramyan has engaged in edit war in his last edits ([39], [40], [41]) While the source insists that event has happened before the Askeran clashes (it is quite possible that this was main reason behind those clashes), the user apparently wants to erase this fact from articles without even discussing it. I would like to to negotiate with him before reporting this, but he has made other disruptive edits in articles Yerevan and Kars, and during discussions about his edits, he has shown very little interest to get a consensus. In one particular case, in the article Kars, he repeatedly inserted only Armenian spelling to the city and his main reason was that there was some "consensus" in talk page (which is very controversial statement). Instead of letting other editors to put their versions and assuming good faith, he made Wikipedia a battleground with his one-sided edits ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], the list is too long, it goes back to several years, but I showed edits only for this year). For your attention, user MarshallBagramyan has been repeatedly topic banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan articles (his blocking list can be seen in WP:ARBAA2) It is fair to note that, MarshallBagramyan has never engaged in any edit warring and disruptive edits outside of Azerbaijan-Armenia and Turkey topics, but when we come to these topics he unfortunately exhibits bad behavior for the Wikipedia.

For the User:Vacio case, I noticed this warning in his talk page. But during the last days, he clearly violated terms displayed in this warning. Particularly, in his last edits, he engaged in edit warring and deleted well-sourced material from articles ([52], [53], [54], [55], [56]) Unfortunately, before doing these reverts, he has made no discussion talk pages of relevant articles. I am afraid if someone restores previous forms, he again will not demonstrate any interest to the discussion and will make reverts again. --Verman1 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems like retaliation for my original report against Verman1 a few days ago. I am not going to waste my time defending myself against these trumped-up allegations and administrators and neutral observers are more than welcome to study the comments made by other editors regarding Verman1's troubling editing behavior in my initial complaint. I have tried to engage all users to use the talk page and articulate their viewpoints numerous times, all to no avail. And yet I am being reported for playing by the rules? lol --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm marking this section as resolved and moving it to our edit warring noticeboard, which is where it should go in the first place. An administrator will attend to the case there. m.o.p 19:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment for admins. As Verman1 mentions, I have been but under AA2 editing restrictions in 2009. But so far I kept to these restrictions, in particular to the 1 revert/week rule. An exception is the article Amaras monastery, where two IP's were deleting information without any motivs.
Comment for Verman1. Verman, you never tried to enter into discussion with me on those articles, did you? So please mind WP:AGF and don't accuse me for not willing to discuss things. Also can you explain why you were moving information about an Armenian church ([57][58]) with the argument that the sources were Armenian thus not neutral, but meanwhile using an Azerbaijani source about an Azerbaijani mosque in an other article? One more thing I want to now, is why you move de-facto information from Armenian monastery articles? As you have seen, I never tried to move de-jure information, so I don't think it is very fair from you to accuse me of edit-warring. --vacio 19:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Alien vs. Predator edit war

At Alien vs. Predator (film) an editor simply refuses to stop edit warring. It came to hwhere i had to revert him as vandalism, to which he reverted stating "if my opinion is worth vandalism to you, yours is less then that to me!". The edit history is here, it's escalated and he won't abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:59 10 December 2011 (UTC)