Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567

Semiprotect gold please!

Resolved

This thread was moved to Requests for page protection --Cybercobra (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Done--owner wikipedia (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

But not by the editor above, see the thread higher up about this editor. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Over-zealous NPPer

It seems we may have an over-zealous NPPer. Fngosa (talk · contribs) is tagging a lot of articles with prod and speedy notices, a fair proportion of which either don't qualify as speedies or were tagged within seconds of the creation of articles which had {{under construction}} notices or added comments to the same effect from the article creators. When questioned about some of these taggings, (s)he has not exactly become uncivil, but has certainly used a tone which seems less than friendly - though this may be because of the vagaries of written English (I suspect that Fngosa may not use standard UK or US English. This doesn't really fit as a civility issue or as a deletion review issue, but I think some attention needs to be drawn to it since this is causing some issues with people who are writing genuine stubs. Any suggestions? Grutness...wha? 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• PS - the following diffs may prove informative: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I reviewed his work, and he has an alarmingly high false-tagging rate. The two biggest problems are 1) He seems to have invented his own speedy deletion criteria, and is not following accepted practices in tagging articles, and most importantly b) his refusal to discuss his tagging in a civil manner. He seems to have invented some convoluted "if you have a problem, you must respond in this manner" system, and refuses to acknowledge people who wish to discuss his taggings, unless the "file an official complaint" using his weird format. This certainly has got to stop. I would counsel him to stop tagging any speedy deletions unless he can improve his understanding of the speedy deletion criteria AND unless he is willing to make a clear account of his actions for anyone that raises reasonable questions, neither of which he seems to be doing right now. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • P.S. Since the OP did not notify him of this thread, I did so. In the future, please notify people when they are being discussed at ANI. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Oops -apologies. I thought I'd done so. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I concur with Jayron32's conclusions, the question I have is what we do about it? Is a short tap with the cluestick to "abusive"? Perhaps if the block notice also contained a link to WP:Consensus? Unless the editor decides to conform to WP practice and policy it might be argued that they are disruptive, regardless of the good faith intentions.

        I am shortly to bed, otherwise I would perform a block - but I think the sanctioning admin needs to be avialable to unblock as soon as meaningful communications are established. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

        • I think that "overzealous" may be too kind. The editor, when cautioned about erring says "Hi mate, some articles are given wrong speed deletion tags for convenient. It is not a big deal, at the end of the day, what ever tag i give it, it will still be deleted." added emphasis mine- Sinneed 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC) - emphasis - Sinneed 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wield thy trusty admin swords, O wiki-knights of the round-and-round-we-go table. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocking may be premature at this minute. He's been notified of this thread, and several editors commenting here have recommended that he stop speedy tagging. Until he starts up again, we should not block him. If he DOES start up again, with the same problems, then a block may be forthcoming. Lets give him a chance to read and respond to this thread. --Jayron32 01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think that "This article is too abstract to be an encyclopedic article" at Talk:Plumber's Mait is particularly bizarre. I've left some Clue of the subtle variety. But this might prove to be too subtle. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Just chiming in to say that I find communicating with him very frustrating. His misuse of {{db-g6}} is particularly problematic. And of course, when I pointed this out to him, all he does is pointing me to his weird convoluted process. He seems to think that he's got some sort of authority as a NPPer, which certainly isn't true. I'll also add in this diff. What kind of competent NPPer would tag that as a G11? And when I pointed it out to him, his response: [6]. I was thinking about filing an AN/I report myself. Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Checking for the possibility of speedy deletion exists to be pointed to. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• A fair percentage of Fngosa's edits and vandal warnings are also problematic. He's acting as a self-proclaimed caped crusader, but is far too zealous and doesn't take constructive criticism well. A lot of the speedies are added less than 60 seconds after page creation or recent change. This will give WP a bad name.

  An IP editor added "in a time loop" after the word "stuck" in an article about a film. This was reverted by Fngosa as vandalism. A quick and simple google on the film title + "time loop" showed that the IP editor was right and this was done in good faith. See diff.

  And this which I think was done in good faith was reverted as vandalism and the editor received an immediate blatant vandalism warning. Many of his warning templates have unprofessional and idiosyncratic comments added to them. He needs to play by WP policy and guidelines, not by his own strange system which seems designed to provide a rationale for his own strange way of working.

  In addition, see Talk archive where Fngosa quickly manually shifts problematic comments and warnings.

  Fngosa also needs to check the effect of his edits after he's made them, for example adding a category without noticing that the number of brackets or braces are mismatched, or that the thing is redlinked, or an inappropriate category, or that a note on the category page says don't add directly to this category. On the Plumber's Mait talk page, he says that the title is also wrong and that the article needs moving, but a quick click on the external link shows that the spelling is actually right. In other words, he needs to do some research when making edits, tagging and reverting.

  Lastly, Fngosa says on his pages and in a userbox that he's been editing on WP since 2006. The edit counter here says 30 Aug 2008 as 'Fngosa'. He has sometimes edited as Freshymail, though not since a botched name change.

  Esowteric+Talk 08:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • End of Esowteric's comment, to avoid further confusion over who said what.
• I do (well, did) a lot of Special:Newpages work. Would it be useful if I "mentored" Fngosa, assuming he agrees to it? Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are willing to do that, great, another problem is that the instructions on his userpage for anyone who wants to talk to him about his adding CSD tags are incoherent and will actively confuse any new editors who want to talk to him. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Righto, I'll head off and give him an offer. Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Over-zealous NPPer - response

response This is too much to defend myself. only negative points have been raised except one or two. It will be unwise to defend myself against these negative views, that will be a book. at the same time, i do not want to fight any of you guys, i love you all. we have a common goal, to defend and protect knowledge. You have all done very good work, even highlighting some weakness in my contribution to wiki is a good job. You all deserve to be congratulated. here is a solution, i am deciding, let me know if you agree.

• I will cease to list any page for speed deletion for a period of 14 days
• I will not spend so much time on Wikipedia for some time (will be doing some research work some where)
• I will edit my user page to remove any offending material or you do it for me.
• I will continue to defend and protect knowledge at a lesser level
• I will not answer to any criticism, but will appreciate any good advise in good faith.

Thank you guys' 13:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ironholds has made you a generous offer that will allow you to gain experience under expert tutelage. What will you learn from 14 days' abstinence? Just a thought. Good luck! Esowteric+Talk 13:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I decline his offer. that's kind of him. any other alternative solution. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Ironholds Esowteric's comment left me concerned, so I digged a bit deeper - here he readded a prod after an IP removed it; this is a ridiculous prod reason; this revert of "vandalism" that (!) added a reference. I'm not sure we can trust him with rollback, at the very least. Tim Song (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please, review the reason which was given. there was room for an admin to remove the AFD or another editor, apart from IPs deemed to be used for vandalism. remember, Wikipedia is not a marketing website. Wikipedia articles normally come up first on google search. It will be wrong to direct a knowledge searcher to the website offering the software for sale. I am yet to believe that the article in question was self published. I shall not make this a big deal, I am not here to discuss an individual article. feel free to discuss it on my talk page. thank you for your comments though. they are helpful. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• (outside editor) If Ironholds is happy to, he should follow all of his contributions and help him out and revert him whether he likes it or not. The alternative outcome is fngosa will continue bad and questionable edits without learning much and end up being blocked, which nobody wants.--Otterathome (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This sounds ok, but it should be some one else, not Ironholds. 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am offline now, till 11pm. please put down solution/advice below ONLY. Thank you Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• How will 14 days not adding tags help? You'll be back in 14 days with exactly the same problems. It's a perfectly acceptable response if coupled with a) reading the WP:PROD and WP:CSD pages, so as to know what is appropriate and what is not and b) trying not to make the same mistakes in future. Otherwise it's pointless. Ironholds (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. And given his apparent inability to distinguish between what is vandalism and what is not, I find his access to Huggle unsettling. Tim Song (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me from Fngosa's comments that he doesn't understand or doesn't want to accept that what he's doing is wrong. Fngosa, you should follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and not just what you think is right, and especially not when several others have warned you that what you're doing is wrong. Anyway, let me make the situation clear for you. Your best option is to get the assistance of an experienced editor to help you along like Ironholds suggested. When that "mentor" is satisfied with your experience and knowledge, you can continue on your own. Just staying away from CSD tagging for 14 days and returning with the same kind of editing is not an option. Otherwise you can learn the guidelines yourself and follow them. However, your edits will have to be monitored for some time (it'll be pretty much the same as the first method I mentioned, except without a formal mentor assisting you) and if you are still doing it wrong they will have to be reverted whether you like it or not, as Otterathome said. If you make the same errors then, or you simply continue to edit this way, you're likely to have some sort of editing restriction imposed on you. You can follow either method, or if you have an alternative we'd be glad to hear it. May I also ask why you are refusing Ironhold's offer? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't ve to answer each and every question. 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't, no, but if you couple a failure to edit appropriately with a refusal to properly discuss your work or change your behaviour, then some form of topic ban or a full block is likely to follow. Editors are accountable to the community for their actions, and while one does not have to answer unreasonable questions, being asked to explain why you've inappropriately tagged dozens of pages, refused all requests to cease and desist and refised all offers of assistance is anything but an unreasonable question. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Ironholds, stop bullying others. Freshymail (talk- The knowledge defender 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds is doing the opposite of bullying.- Sinneed 00:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Possibly of interest as part of the discussion. 2nd account.

• freshymail (talk · contribs · logs)
• fngosa (talk · contribs · logs)- Sinneed 01:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A small issue, since he has not attempted to conceal these two accounts as being different. Running multiple accounts with full disclosure is usually kosher. --Jayron32 01:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fngosa/Freshymail, now you're being deliberately unhelpful. Learning the policies and guidelines and following them is not optional, it's a must. As I said before, "going your way" will not be accepted. If you are unwilling to learn and keep continuing like this, you will get some sort of editing restriction imposed on you, possibly even a block. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Advocacy: Fngosa, I can see that you are feeling daunted by this process and I can understand that. Do you feel upto representing and defending yourself here, or are you in need of an advocate, counsellor or other representative to share your thoughts with and to assist you in avoiding sanctions and obtaining a happy outcome? Is there such a thing in Wikipedia? If not, please disregard this comment. With good wishes to you, Esowteric+Talk 08:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for using two accounts to comment on this thread. I intend to make Fresmail my main account. On the issue of receiving help from another editor, I will choose some one to show me bits at a time of my choice. I am still learning. As such, I am prone to error. some idiot pointed out that my use of huggle is unsettling! That is rubbish. It is pure attack on an individual which should not be happening on wikipedia. I don't use huggle for vandalism. show me one please! This is a community for every one to use in harmony. I just happen to have different charges to user:Grutness who started this silly thing. He pointed out some wrongs in my edits at my talk page, i responded positively. I can't understand why he brought up this issue here! This issue can well be resolved by Grutness fully participation. May i ask him to leave a message on my talk page and take it from there. If any one is unhappy with any of my edits, i challenge you to challenge me on my talk page. I am sorry, this seem to be becoming a general discussion with poor little solution or advise put down. I can not continue answering each and every question here. please, challenge me on my talk page. Thank you. User_talk:fngosa, 09:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fngosa, with respect this sort of response is what they term in England "a bit of an own goal": it will hinder rather than help your prospects. It is not up to you to set the agenda or dictate terms here. With regard to challenging you on your talk page, see Talk archive which contains several examples of that process and goes some way to explaining why the serious (not silly) issue has been raised here. Esowteric+Talk 09:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law: no lawyers allowed. Fgnosa simply seems to think that they get to set the rules, and only abide by them in certain cases. He was offered a high-quality mentor to help him through Wikipedia's policies. He (unbelievably) declined, saying he's follow his rules and all would be ok. If he's unwilling to accept a mentor, and is going to continue to push his own rule set and fails to recognize the disruption they cause, then there is only going to be one possible outcome ... 08:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer following my own rules on CSD. I am simply helping out with few articles i feel need a bit of editing. You should also recognize that i am contributing a lot on wikipedia, It is completely voluntary, and i am happy to do so. Should i completely stop patrolling new pages? let me know? I will still list attack pages for speed deletion. 09:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked we were all volunteers. I think that you should a) learn Wikipedia's policies correctly b) proper;y edit a few thousand more articles, and then return to any form of NPP'ing - you will have a better idea of what is or what is not appropriate. Oh, and a mentor will go a long way right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you my friend. 09:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that BWilkins is suggesting exactly the sort of thing I proposed in terms of having a mentor. I'm still willing to mentor you, and have experience in (not to toot my own horn) most areas of WP in some shape or form. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

oh goosh! this is getting to my nerve now!. so, you Ironholds mentor me. promise that you wont be a bully, you know, I protect and defend women and children, so, any bullying of whatsoever wont be in my interest. thank you. 10:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

...okay. I wasn't intending to bully users. That's considered a "blockable offence", not a "mentorship" :P. Ironholds (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know that forcing some one to accept something they ve refused is wrong? 10:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This need reining-in asap, imo. Esowteric+Talk 10:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to do anything, and Ironholds or anyone else has not bullied you. Since you have agreed to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines, I think we can end this here. You can always ask an experienced editor when in doubt (and I strongly recommend you do this) or ask at the help desk. Once again, keep in mind that you cannot continue in the manner you have been doing so far. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no "forcing" here. There is a hobson's choice, but one of your own making. You have a choice between following our rules and leaving. If you honestly don't want any kind of mentorship and think you can go this alone, fine, tell me, but if you end up at AN/I again because of errors similar to those you've promised not to repeat then people are unlikely to be sympathetic now you've refused assistance. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Said idiot believes that people who cannot tell what is vandalism and what is not should not have access to tools that allows them to revert edits at a high speed, for reverting a good edit as vandalism is one of the easiest ways to drive away a potential editor. Tim Song (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst noting and respecting admin's proposition to close this issue, if you feel strongly about rollback and the setting up of Huggle yesterday, then here is the link to the granting.Esowteric+Talk 14:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I only responded because of his comment; we shall see if he can tell what is vandalism properly. Tim Song (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What does he mean that he already had rollback because of his time on wikipedia?Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Fngosa means that as he has been using Wikipedia since 2006 that this entitles him to rollback, hence his application for rollback was a mere formality :) Esowteric+Talk 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback has nothing to do with this issue. I assume that this case is now closed. I ve noted down all positive criticisms and will consider them all in my contribution. thank you. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The case has been was incorrectly marked resolved and I was really hoping that the advice offered had been thoroughly digested. And yet almost immediately ...

Flowers in space: Incorrect CSD A2 replaced by another editor with correct template for "needs translation" (and subsequently tagged as A7 by two further editors): deleted diff, User talk page notices.

Ascending power numbers: Article incorrectly added directly to category ("Quick-adding category Mathematics articles by quality (using HotCat)") diff Esowteric+Talk 11:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the closure, as it was done by the person against whom this ANI was opened. This person really doesn't get Wikipedia at all, and needs a mentor whether they think they do or not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

you re stalking me! 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talk • contribs)

No, you're not being stalked. This is a public page, and anyone can see who made the edits by clicking on the History tab at the top of the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Many apologies, I'm the one to blame for the links to your edits, Fngosa, not BWilkins. It wasn't one of my better ideas. I think the best thing I can do is for me to put down my "dustpan and brush", walk away from this issue and leave you to it. My apologies again, Esowteric+Talk 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of barnstars / possible sockpuppetry

 blocked by Sarek of Vulcan for socking and generally being a nuisance --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The user Shivlingam seems to have awarded himself every possible barnstar; even on created for Jimbo himself. Is there something that should be done about this, or can anyone award themselves any barnstar as and when they wish? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The rollbacker Redtigerxyz tried to remove them but Shivlingam just reinstated them. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So what? It looks silly and is obviously disingenuous -- so, let's let this editor make it clear to the community that this is his/her standard for behavior. We'll know this editor has matured more toward the community's standards when he/she removes them him/herself. --EEMIV (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnsars are serious business after all. Really, what should've drawn more attention is this. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, then there's the fact that he signs posts as "owner wikipedia" (e.g. at Wikipedia:Help desk#date format) and creates subpages like User:Shivlingam/owner WIKIPEDIA. I think someone's got a crush. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not an administrative issue. Suggested solution: add trout and cluebat to the user's awards. Durova³²⁰ 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What he did with the barnstars was copying the code from User:Jimbo Wales/Barnstars (including the comments at the top of the page) to his own talk page. See also this response to ukexpat's attempt to get him to stop posting unhelpful comments to the Help Desk. All in all does not look like somebody who is here to write encyclopedic articles, but so far his behaviour is more nonsensical than actually disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them. If the user wants to award themself barnstars, they can go nuts, but they should not copy others' barnstars - they are signed and would misrepresent the positions of the users who granted them. –xeno^talk 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Durova³²⁰ 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I also agree with Bonadea that this user might not be here for the right reasons. –xeno^talk 20:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If problems worsen that can be dealt with. A lot of people make a few missteps at the beginning. When those aren't too serious they get a few chances. Durova³²⁰ 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hate to have a bloodhound-like nose for ducks and socks, but something isn't right when the user's first edit consists of adding a {{who}} tag. However, I've seen this before, so it is possible that I may be overlooking this, but the other edits just cannot be ignored. MuZemike 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Also welcomed him/herself.[7] Has been editing Saffron terror.[8][9][10][11] On 20 June 2009 Nishkid64 semiprotected that article with the summary "editing by banned users".[12] Shortly before that, an IP who edited the page was tagged as a possible Hkelkar sock.[13][14] Would someone who knows the background on that situation please weigh in? I'm unfamiliar with Hkelkar and can't really assess whether this is a lead or a red herring. Eyebrow-raising, though. Durova³²⁰ 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• LOL. Not Hkelkar, not with those comments about Modi. Quite the opposite, it would appear. But still hilarious. Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. Durova³²⁰ 03:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Hilarious YES disruptive NO .I added those barnstars as they are available under GFDL I can use them and any signature which I like WP:GFDLLemme live in peace .BTW why are users stalking and reverting my edits (Properly referenced) on Saffron terror PEACE OUT --owner wikipedia (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Clue-bat anyone? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

SP OMG .Is that a threat ?--owner wikipedia (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

At it again [15]. And the "owner wikipedia" thing is going to confuse the newbies, especially if the editor participates on the HelpDesk. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the signature is problematic. –xeno^talk 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's GFDL complaint I can use those barnstars on my page You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form. See the Terms of Use for details.--owner wikipedia (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable - "Do not misrepresent other people", in particular, awarding yourself the barnstars those people had awarded to someone else. –xeno^talk 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not edit wp if you do not want your edits to be edited or copied mercilessly --I do not own [[WP]] (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the barnstar mess again, as it is still just another broken cut n paste job of jimbo's user page, with the "thanks for running the wiki!"-ish platitudes and all still intact. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar is nothing more than an illustrated "thank you". How is it possible to "abuse" something that's essentially a decoration? Does anyone ever get elected admin based on how many barnstars they have plastered on their user page? Not bloody likely. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is rather unfair to create the appearance that those named, specific other users awarded User:Shivlingam those barnstars. If they were plain barnstars copied from templates, no big deal, but s/he's also copy-pasted the signatures and comments of the people who originally awarded them to Jimbo. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gonzonoir. And, judging from their edits, User:Shivlingam is not a new user. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstars are trivial, sockpuppetry is serious. Hence I have altered the header. If this were just about copying someone else's barnstars, though, I wonder what specific rule were being violated? Plagiarism, perhaps? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The barnstars are an attempt to mislead other editors, as is the sig used by Shivlingham. Both the "owner wikipedia" and the "I do not own WP" used here only serve to make it harder to track an editor's contributions.

Wikipedia relies on collaboration, and this sort of game-playing impedes collaboration, so I suggest just blocking Shivlingham until zie gains enough clue to stop playing disruptive games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bugs I agree that they are trivial, and if this person wanted to go to WP:BARN and award himself every single one, I'd fully support that. But copying and pasting the un-transcluded text from User:Jimbo Wales/Barnstars crosses the line, IMO.

BTW, who is this user a sock of? Can we see some links and sockpuppet templates added to the account? Tarc (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gere and the gerbil

Resolved

 – User indef'd for now. Let him vent but leave him alone until he's done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Immediate attention is required to this. WebHamster created this page, since consensus is blocking him from adding this bullshit to the Richard Gere article. This is a blatant WP:BLP issue. I nom'ed for CSD, but don't know how that'll turn out. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You really shouldn't call edits bullshit. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, these edits pretty much are bullshit. Nothing bad about the person making them, but the edits themselves are utter WP:BLP-violating shit. --Jayron32 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. Gentlemen, this is a public noticeboard. There are children and ladies here. Would you please mind your motherfucking language? Durova³²⁰ 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. That's classic. I'm gonna go kegel now. Law _{type! snype?} 21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Only allowable if you upload educational video. ;) Durova³²⁰ 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a little edit reversal going on now at the Richard Gere article here WebHamster has inserted a link to the gerbil page 4 times now and Crotchety Old Man is removing . Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've speedied it. It's a BLP nightmare and WebHamster is skating around consensus on the Gere article by creating this one, and adding the link to the hoax page. Law _{type! snype?} 20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And under which CSD category did you speedy it? This should be taken to AfD at least. Oh and how about taking COM to task both for not informing me of the CSD request or the not notifying me of this discussion. --WebHamster 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)--WebHamster 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Under CSD category WP:IAR. This is a clear BLP-violation, and should not remain at Wikipedia under any length of time at all. I endorse Law's deletion of the article. --Jayron32 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How was it a clear BLP issue? It wasn't promulgating the rumour, it was explaining and debunking it. It was adequately referenced and totally neutral. --WebHamster 20:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

G10 ... G3 ... take your pick. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BLP, and especially WP:COATRACK, as well as Loaded question and Association fallacy. Even the idea that refuting the rumor is a BLP violation here. "I am here to state that John Doe has never beaten his wife." Use of a denial is not an acceptable means of of sneaking a BLP-violation of this nature into Wikipedia. This is a clear WP:COATRACK issue. Creating an article denying the truth of a rumor is just a backdoor method of getting the rumor exposure at Wikipedia. Somethings are not appropriate to discuss, even if only to deny them, because the mere act of denying gives them too much coverage in itself. --Jayron32 21:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left WebHamster a note informing him of this discussion and a 3RR note regarding the edits at Richard Gere. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Law _{type! snype?} 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have also left Crotchety Old Man a 3RR note regarding his reversals on Richard Gere. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth protecting Richard Gere and the gerbil or would it just lead to Richard Gere and the Gerbil?- Sinneed 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

...it would then lead to "Richard Gere and the gerbil named "Bob" (I would assume that a hamster might know the name of a specific gerbil) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not forgetting The Gerbil and Richard Gere, and countless other permutations. This one can be resolved by dealing with the source of this stuff, but not by trying to swat each fly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to protect it because I'm going to assume that WH will not recreate it. And yes, Jayron was correct. CSD IAR. Law _{type! snype?} 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ECx3) I already salted those two, but you're right, we could play whack-a-hamster all day. In any event, we don't need articles for these two, but revert me if I erred. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Way to go mate. I knew AGF was total bollocks. --WebHamster 21:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a shield for obviously asinine editing behavior. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Such a long word for someone who obviously doesn't understand its meaning. --WebHamster 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree, WebHamster. But if one person thinks an idea is a good one, someone else will too. I know I intended no assumption of bad faith.- Sinneed 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time we've seen childish, ridiculous behavior from WebHamster, right? Anyone got ideas on how to apply some clue? Friday (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Backdoor"?? "Asinine"?? Come on, have we not given enough publicity to the supposed location of said gerbil named "Bob"?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's a rumor that OTRS has already received a complaint from "Bob" that we're violating WP:BLH (biographies of living hamsters). Bob has a family and a reputation, after all. Durova³²⁰ 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added WebHamster to the Twinkle blacklist. This is not vandalism. I'm also thinking that some sort of community restriction may be necessary.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how such a thing would be worded, other than something vague like "Don't act like a 12-year-old." Would a simple block for edit warring (repeat as needed) be simpler? Friday (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked multiple times already, and just said on his talk page that he ain't changing anytime soon. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No editing anything remotely related to a living person?I don't know, the only evidence I have of misbehavior is what I see in front of me, and I can't see me supporting or executing a block based just on a limited bit of childishness. --Tznkai (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Switching back to serious mode. I've defended WebHamster before, but his posts to this thread don't look good. AGF is not a license to fork a BLP violation against consensus, misuse Twinkle, and brush off community concerns. No matter how many jokes are within easy reach, there are basically two rational solutions: either WebHamster accepts the Clue being offered by multiple people and promises not to walk this path again, or else a longer block than previous is appropriate--in the hope that will curb the behavior where persuasion hasn't. This time it isn't an R-rated photo on your userpage, dude. It's about a real human being and a very nasty rumor. Not the place to go when you already have a track record of problems with walking the line of appropriate conduct. Durova³²⁰ 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it more than satisfies WP:DE at this point. Railing against the man keeping him down and being "blunt" are poor excuses for repeated BLP violations. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Aaaaaaaaaaaand WebHamster told me to "go fuck yourself" after I reverted his attack on Tznkai and warned him for it. → ROUX ₪ 23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Aw diddums. --WebHamster 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster needs a time out. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Its worth noting that undoing without comments is reserved for vandalism only as well. I do however, try to avoid blocking people for attacking me, so I will ask another admin to take care of it. I think we are well beyond short blocks, for the record.--Tznkai (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A habitrail.

• Wow. I was already thinking it was going to be necessary to post to the etiquette noticeboard about WebHamster's conduct at the talk page, but I see WebHamster has created this article against obvious consensus, and has contributed further insults and general incivility on this thread. There's no need to tolerate his behaviour. Final warning then a long block if he still can't stay civil? p.s. I don't want to breach WP:OUTING, but how do we know WebHamster isn't really a self-publicising WebGerbil? Fences&Windows 00:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for an uninvolved admin: Per this comment, would an uninvolved admin please review the expired and closed RfC (Note my comment at the end relative to the housekeeping archiving of the RfC) on Talk:Richard Gere#Gerbil, initiated here on April 4, 2009, and determine consensus to help simplify the ongoing discussion. Specifically, is the gerbil urban legend as attached to Gere a BLP violation? Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded to this request here Fritzpoll (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked I have about 0 tolerance for editors that respond to criticism that way. My action is, as always, open for review. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who deleted the article and admonished for such, would you reconsider the block? Full disclosure here is that I don't adhere to NPA nor CIV blocks. That's not an excuse - but just who I act as an admin. I would cordially ask you to unlblock at consider the backlash was one that was highly charged and emotional. I do not make excuses for the behaviour, as I would as you to unblock and discuss because as I said, CIV and NPA mean naught to me, and I think that WH was just lashing out. I'd honestly like to see a block for a vio of a policy to which I adhere. Law _{type! snype?} 09:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Individual cases are generally poor times to make arguments over larger policy concerns, nevermind what common law may have taught you.--Tznkai (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm generally not supportive of "civility" or "NPA" blocks unless there is ample evidence that the person under discussion just isn't "getting the point". In some cases though, someone seems to be getting in their spidey costume in order to flaunt the fact that they don't have to behave like they would in a face to face community. In that case I don't think we need to wait for WH to grow tired of telling all and sundry to fuck off before we step in. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support block. Disruption takes up people's time when they could be doing something more useful - the Hamster has been stirring this pot for long enough. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as well. Yes, we know Law does not like NPA and civility blocks, which is what turned the ChildofMidnight affair such a fiasco. I do not believe that admins should get to pick and choose what rules to enforce and what to let slide though, and Webhamster was clearly in to "no personal attack" territory. Don't really buy the "blowing off steam" excuse when the source of all this was a ridiculous WP:BLP transgression of an article. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

When you have a consensus that for BLP reasons that 'this should not happen' and the response is to simply create another article to mention it on, that's reason enough for a block on preventative grounds until we can get an assurance that such behaviour will not be repeated. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support the block also. Long history of incivility. The childish antics yesterday were a bit too much. Obvious this user has no interest in improving their behavior. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think WebHamster will be back [16], perhaps as a different web rodent.--Tznkai (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Cameron Scott. Risqué humor has its place and WebHamster can be one of the site's more colorful individuals. Although it can be harmless to poke fun at the rich and powerful in private, doing likewise in article space is not harmless--it goes to the top of search rankings and that compels us to set boundaries. This is not prudery or The Man oppressing anybody; it's common sense (with the law casting a shadow). WebHamster rebuffed ample feedback before, during, and afterward in such a definitive way that a preventive block is necessary until he recognizes those boundaries and agrees to abide by them. Durova³²⁰ 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we all know how well my comment about Octomom worked out during my RfA :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good block, obviously. We put up with this sort of disruption far too often.  Sandstein  15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. Good block. The disruption and inappropriate behavior had gone on long enough. Cirt (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is disheartening when established contributors are not taking the time to remove the personal attack from a comment, but instead, reverting the entire comment and explicitly identifying the whole edit as vandalism (example - the first sentence should have definitely been left alone). Following this by using obvious template warnings on established contributors [17] will then, depending on the user, practically guarantee that the matter will become worse - a one sentence reminder may have made a difference. In such circumstances, the result here is hardly surprising, and resolution becomes more unlikely than it would have been. However, despite what the blocking rationale seemed to focus on, there are good grounds for a block for more broad reasons that would call on a restriction of some sort (particularly as BLP and the mainspace are involved) - it is purely in light of this that I do not object to the block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If new contributors can be templated as though by some nameless faceless bureaucracy, I hardly see why 'established' editors should not be. If anything, DTTR should be DTTN. Sometimes 'established' editors need reminding that they--this includes you, me, everyone all the way to Jimbo--are fungible and replaceable. And that behaviour not tolerated in a new contributor will not--must not--be tolerated in an 'established' one. → ROUX ₪ 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Not to mention, WebHamster gave me a kiddie template on my talk page during our revert war on the Richard Gere page. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Sorry, some of us don't care to pick the Polo mints out of the CowpatElen of the Roads (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh my bad - I guess we should issue template warnings in order to make a point (despite the greater likelihood that there will be a more favourable response to other forms) right? We intervene (whether it's here, or by warning) to escalate disputes and controversy (rather than to move it towards a favourable outcome or to dissolve it), right? Evading a concern over wholesale reverting and removing others comments is totally cool, right? IAR when it's a cowpat, huh? Two thumbs up to both of you, Roux and Elen; who needs fundamentals nowadays anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support the block. This sort of frivolity with BLP issues can have serious consequences, and WebHamster has been around long enough to understand why enforcement is needed. Instead of backing off and discussing it, his response was to recreate and engage in incivility, and that's why a block is needed -- because there's every likelihood of a repeat, and of further unnecessary drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Would those of you blanking his user page and sanitizing his user talk page header please stop? It looks like gloating, or caged-animal poking, and is distinctly unhelpful if there is any hope of de-escalating things. He's blocked. Leave him be for a bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indef blocked [18]. Consensus does not exist to support an unblock. I added the {{blocked user}} template [19]. This was reverted by DuncanHill (talk · contribs), with edit summary: Blocked, not banned, so no need for the unseemly gloating. It should be noted that the template added was {{blocked user}} (which reads: This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.), and not {{banned user}}. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to point out the painfully obvious but anyone this cavalier with their account should be expected to sock pretty darn soon. Not to cast aspersions but forewarned is fore armed. Padillah (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)^{It's been pointed out, rightly so, that, despite appearances, this has no real evidence to support it. As such I retract and apologize, I think I have sock on the brain from some other conflict and it leaked over here. Padillah (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)}

For God's sake, put the fucking stick down and walk away! --Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you need some tea or a cookie? I made one observation in a thread that was recent and you're swearing at me, WTF? Padillah (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You can stick your tea and cookies where the sun don't shine. Your evident enjoyment of the misfortunes of another editor disgusts me. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You two can both cool it.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Request unblock. I very much agree with Law's position. An indefinite block for a bit of swearing is ridiculous. WH probably deserved a block for 3RR, and probably so did others, but this just looks like laziness to me. Not made any more attractive by the evident dancing on the grave that we've seen since. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Those supporting the block, above, mentioned other problem issues as well. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite, and I think a block was probably inevitable, but not just of this user and not an indefinite block. Indefinite blocks are really only a means to humiliate by forcing an apology, which I very much doubt will be forthcoming in this case, so it's effectively a ban. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Screw apologies, I'm more interested in behavior change. If that comes, it comes, if it doesn't, it doesn't. This isn't, or at least shouldn't be about civility or personal attacks, its about behavior that is clearly counterproductive. WebHamster has not shown behavior that gives anyone the impression he's recognizing any of his errors (Edit warring, misusing vandalism templates, highly questionable article writing, and generally responding to criticism with abuse), which means they are likely to be repeated. Malleus is entirely correct however, that the grave dancing that is going on is unseemly. So, if you don't have anything useful to say, don't say it.

WebHamster can request his unblock the normal way, and if he can't muster the wherewithal to convince a single administrator he needs to be unblocked, that is not a problem that can be corrected here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Calling all admins/vandal fighters who are fans of Weezer

There are multiple vandals doing damage to numerous articles related to this band. I've knocked out most of the more obvious stuff and protected the main Weezer article. If there's anyone out there who actually has some knowledge related to this band, all of their articles could probably use a good once-over to insure there's not more of it hanging around. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A list of particular articles would be helpful. Even those of us who are indifferent to Weezer aren't fans of vandals. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you say The Vandals?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rbj should receive a pardon

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

---

Wrong venue. This is an ArbCom ban. Appeals would go to ArbCom. Durova³²⁰ 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Rbj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rbj is serving a life sentence in Wiki prison. He was always a valuable contributor to physics articles. It were some disputes on other pages that escalated a lot that caused problems for him. More than two years have passed, these disputes are no longer relevant and I'm sure he has cooled down a long time ago. Count Iblis (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Has he asked for an unblock?

On a side note, I'm not sure why this was added to CAT:TEMP and then deleted... There's a lengthy talk page history that should persist. –xeno^talk 20:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, he was community banned at least partially for anti-Semitic slurs on other editors. I really don't care how good he was at physics, we don't need bigots with anti-Semitic attacks here at all. Finally, there is a strong possibility he's been ban-evading editing under IPs. Back in 3 with links. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Banned user? where it seems he's been editing, although he was community banned and ArbCom declined his appeal. I've not received an email that he plans to mend his ways or is sorry for the hurt and disruption from before. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• This thread from AN archive 89 is informative, for those not familiar with this editor. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive89#Rbj_blocked It references an earlier discussion, I'm afraid. He was a real problem while he was here, as evidenced by his 20 blocks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a Wiki-head of state to issue a Wiki-pardon to declare a person not guilty of a wiki-crime, no matter what a wiki-jury or wiki-judge had to say. There is no wiki-prosecutor to fire, no wiki-police who abused their authority. If Rbj wants to be unblocked, or his ban appealed he can request it like everyone else. Unless of course, Count Iblis knows something we don't.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you could put on a black robe and a wig and we could pretend. :-D KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Rbj has been active on physicsforums for quite some time see here. Physicsforums as a very strict rules against personal attacks, so I think he qualifies for parole because of good behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BASC is thattaway. Alternatively, he can post an unblock request on his page, and someone, say you, can bring it to wider community review here. Please ask him not to use the word pardon if possible.--Tznkai (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Has he been editing as an IP or sockpseudonym recently? Can we see a contribution history to examine? I'd be generally opposed to seeing Arbcom imposed restrictions removed by anyone but Arbcom. It is really hard to get productive but abusive editors restrained through Wikipedia dispute resolution. It is even hard to get Arbcom restrictions enforced when you can't find an active administrator who gives a care to look at the issue. I don't know what this users history is, but where is the mea culpa and the outlined plan for self-discipline so the project doesn't have to deal with their previous disruption again? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, he's edited with two IPs evading his ban, but more to the point, he hasn't asked to be unblocked since his last appeal was declined by ArbCom. That's the first step. Not some third party asking for a "pardon". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I need one of them sanity checks

Resolved

 – Speedied by KillerChihuahua ^Khukri 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I speedied Josh_lumb as an article about a non-notable person, then changed it to vandalism, seeing as it it included the regular vandal repertoire. Now the creator is contesting the speedy, claiming that the subject donated a kidney and saved their life. This is inconsistent with the original version of the article, and violates WP:COI anyway. Can someone who has time take care of this? A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And doesn't make the individual any more WP:Notable, unless it made the front page somewhere --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd combination of memorial and vandalism. Probably a kid thinking he's funny, but maybe not. Drop a message on his talk page and figure out which is which, then the page can be deleted.--Tznkai (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kidneys (or rather, selling them off to pay the mortgage) are all over the UK news today. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Nicole401 continued copyright violations

• Nicole401 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has continued to ignore the copyright warnings on her talk page from day one, and after a final warning, uploaded Image:Angelina-jolie-tatoo-.JPG the next day. I think the only way to get her to take these warnings seriously is a block. And also suggest a review of her past contributions for any violations gone unnoticed.--Otterathome (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Her response was to blank her talk page except for the welcome note. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Basssaa

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by NW.  Sandstein  20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This account has been created for the purpose of vandalising articles. I recommend that it is closed. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. Next time, consider reporting vandals at the dedicated board, WP:AIV.  Sandstein  20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pattern of disruption, again, by Off2riorob

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has yet again engaged in edit-warring [20], [21], [22].

Off2riorob has been blocked seven times for disruptive editing, made promises to stop, and was warned recently that he would face an extended block if he edit-warred after violating this promise. Admin Chillum (talk · contribs) has commented that action is appropriate here, but stated he is currently taking a break from his tools.

---

Prior disruption and blocks

See prior ANI threads detailing disruption by Off2riorob and blocks:

• 14 March 2009 - blocked 24 hours for disruption of a WP:GA article.
• 16 April 2009 - blocked 72 hours for disruption at same WP:GA article - Off2riorob was then given a good faith reduction of that block to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive [23].
• 25 April 2009 - Blocked 72 hours, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 29 April 2009 - Blocked one week, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 19 July 2009 - Blocked 2 weeks, disruption at Tony Blair.
• 21 August 2009 - Blocked 3 weeks, block log edit summary by admin Chillum: edit warring yet again

Comments by admin Chillum

• 25 August 2009 - Entry in his block log by admin Chillum (talk · contribs): "User gave word not to edit war in the future, reducing block", which was citing this comment by Off2riorob: [24].

• 22 September 2009 - Comment by admin Chillum: I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked.

• 29 September 2009 - When I brought Off2riorob's recent disruption to Chillum's attention, Chillum responded: It looks like edit warring to me. If I was not taking a break from my admin tools currently then I would likely hold Rio to his prior promise. . Perhaps another admin will feel the same way I do, but my buttons are currently not being used.

---

I have contributed content work in the past to articles that Off2riorob has disrupted, and so I would appreciate another uninvolved administrator taking a look here. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I went there in response to this request for people to take care here and I ripped a fair bit of what I thought was excessive material out and after that I have only two reverts, which in my opinion don't even reflect a fight never mind a war. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are my comments to the editor who was adding the material, I was attempting to get him to the talkpage but it didn't work so after two reverts I left his edits in. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look here on my User_talk:Off2riorob you will see his replies to me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My clearly displayed block list should not be an excuse to drag me at the tiniest opportunity to ANI in an attempt to get me blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there's this as well. ninety:one 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No action, again just like this report, if you look at it from an uninvolved neutral point of view there has been no infringment of any policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I reduced this users prior edit warring block based on his word that he would not edit war in the future. As far as I am concerned this promise has been broken at least once. While this is a case of edit warring, I am not sure if it is actionable when looked at in isolation. As to what happens when looked at in the context of previous actions, well I will leave that to another to decide. I find the belief that the recent reverting was "no infringment(sic) of any policy" to be an indication of a lack of belief the he is indeed edit warring. Chillum 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

These two reverts and standing back is nowhere near a war, it is not even a fight. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are three reverts. Any edit that undoes the edit of another editor is a revert. Your refusal to accept that this is indeed edit warring may be why you keep edit warring, you may just not think it is edit warring. It is clear we disagree so how about we both sit back and let other admins give their opinion? Chillum 23:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have the choice between a lengthy block, an indefinite block, and a 1RR per page per day revert parole. Personally I know which I'd prefer if I was the user concerned. Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If those are my options I would choose a 1rr parole, with a not too extensive period of time, perhaps a month, to allow me to get used to the single revert, and to carry it along after of my own free will. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A month is a little short, typically I find 6 weeks works better for an initial revert parole. Moreschi (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So what about agreeing on five weeks? Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. It's a deal, then. Unless anyone else has anything extra to add. Note that we will look dimly on simply slow revert-warring at the rate of 1 revert per day, which will simply force us to extend the sanction to 1RR per week (which is what most of my balkan friends at WP:ARBMAC get, or the armenians/azeris at WP:ARBAA2). Moreschi (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I am a little sad after going there in good faith from the BLP noticeboard, but I have been treated fairly so I will go to sleep in the knowledge that at least I am not in a worse situation. Tomorrow I will come and ask you for the exact condition so I do not infringe. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (second nomination)

The nominator of this discussion turned out to be the sock puppet of a banned user. Might be worth closing early since the whole debate is somewhat "tainted" anyway. Guest9999 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Commented.[25] Durova³²⁰ 23:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Innit

Resolved

 – Redirected to Wiktionary.  Sandstein  06:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just deleted Innit which has been deleted more than once. Also indef blocked the vandal who created it this time. Question is, should the page be salted, or redirected to Ali G, Innit and fully protected? Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh. But I'd just protect it. According to a brief Google and Wikipedia search, the Ali G tape is not the only thing called "innit".  Sandstein  21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Salted, innit? Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Protected soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry at [26]] would seem an obvious solution. Exxolon (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm a new admin, if that's a better solution I'll not stand in the way of it. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd happily do it myself but the page is currently protected. Any admin want to do this? Exxolon (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

trying to start a page called SJSM

moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Im trying to start a page called SJSM and have it redirected to the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_James_School_of_Medicine

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medschoolresearch (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

user jaimeizquierdo

Resolved

 – User blocked as a spam-only account.

moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to redirect my page to my website www.jaimeizquierdo.com. Is this possible? I am not familiar with Wikipedia editing. Please help. I tried doing it and it gave me a negative notice and option to write here with my request. Can you help? You can write to me at jaimeizquierdo@yahoo.com if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimeizquierdo (talk • contribs) 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not possible to redirect to an external site. You may add a link, but not a redirect. Horologium (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User page in which it points out that you can post a link to your home page, provided the nature and content of your home page is allowable within wikipedia guidelines. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaime Izquierdo, Artist, PAFA'85

moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(Spam content has been redacted but is available in history. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Assuming the above is your proposed user page, a lot of it looks like self-promotion, and would probably not be allowed. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to welcome back Sinebot! Manning (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaime has also been reported to WP:AIV, but there seems to be some reluctance to block. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about Iwillremembermypassthistime

I have real concerns about the actions of Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Over the past 12 hours this user has made 100+ edits, nearly all with no edit summary to a variety of geographic articles. I have reverted the changes to {{Infobox England region}} and all the articles which previously linked to it as they broke the template and all the articles. The nature of the changes were drastic - completely replacing the template with another unsuitable one - and were not discussed. This pattern of undiscussed changes means I think someone with more expertise than me should go look at the user's other changes to see if any intervention is needed. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The username kind of gives away that they've been here before....VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

also created and edits userpage User:AS1S1SA1AA which is constantly edited by IP User:93.45.54.25 Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you consider asking him/her about these edits? Or informing them of this thread? I see no discussion anywhere that let's them know there are concerns. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user concerned. - Bilby (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I confirm that I'm AS1S1SA1AA (my previous account) and 93.45.ecc. That said, while it's true that I did some pretty drastic changes to a number of templates, in almost every case the new layout was an obvious improvement over the previous one (Infobox England region probably being the exception, but at a glance I didn't notice anything wrong with the nine articles where it was transcluded) so I didn't think anyone would have contested these changes. Should I be the cause of further concern, I would rather receive a message in my talk page *before* there's any need for a ANI notice. I apoligise to Bob if I caused any trouble.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

He/she (as the IP) had said that they forgot the password to the AS1Sblahblah account, so I assume this is their new account...with a name to remind them to not lose the password. ;) As for the edits to the userpage, it looked like they were working on a template to use in mainspace articles, but didn't want to break the article. Syrthiss (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Who told the user he/she could institute {{Infobox Settlement}} as the default infobox for all political division (districts, peripheries, etc.)? _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind him. He's just angry with me for trespassing into "his" WikiProject.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, your failure to discuss your changes is amazing. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm answering that on your talk page.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's called taking it to the article or template talk pages. Not mine. Because prior to my objection you left no comment or explanation on anyone of you template/article edits about you mass deletion and change campaign. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks like the beginning of WP:BRD, being bold. Syrthiss (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

Resolved

Please check the history, because there's one new editor masquerading as a bot SoxBot XlV (talk · contribs) who keeps removing the report filed against him/her. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarakadon

Resolved

 – User blocked for 1 week by Decltype (talk · contribs)

. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This user has been making inappropriate pages and has been warned, but refuses to stop creating inappropriate pages. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a while but WP:AIV really does work faster. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

When it's not backlogged that is, as above :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Linas again

See previous ANI thread. Linas (talk · contribs) has decided to return from his block and is right where he left off: personal attack edit summary, choosing "to rain insults" on people, a frivolous ArbCom filing.... oh, and whatever attack will result from me informing him of this thread. Anyone uninvolved please do the needful. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 03:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, with Linas' foul mouth, he should be banned permanently. 71.131.7.238 (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The above IP looks to be another in the recent harassment sock farm, except he didn't bother registering this time. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec'd) I'd like to attempt to get at least a civil discourse going here. Blocking isn't going to solve anything.

P.S. 7.238, are you an uninvolved user? Or just someone who logged out? Just wondering. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved user who became interested in this when I restored [27] Aboutmovies' correction to Trace monoid [28]. 71.131.7.238 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Civil discourse". Well, where do you start, with a user who thinks it's perfectly OK to throw the F-word at everyone? Never mind that he threw down the gauntlet by calling his antagonist an "idiot". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: You talk to them civilly and hope they return the favour. There's no need to face force with force. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I seriously think the guy is off his meds or something. He's been on here 4 years and (apparently) all of a sudden this string of vile invectives over a seemingly very minor incident? Something's not right. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the IP's "restoration" of the edit that started it all, that even Aboutmovies agrees was a mistake, seems like a bizarre way to start one's career on Wikipedia. I'd be curious to hear the IP's rationale for restoring what is clearly an (done in good faith by AM but) incorrect edit. Katr67 (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on that IP. His approach is all too familiar. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear god in heaven above...you don't mean...*sigh* Katr67 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I am blocking Linas for a week for continued personal attacks (those cited by Wknight94 and the reaction to the ANI notification, ""go jump off a cliff", as also reflecting opinion in the previous ANI thread. Civil discourse, as suggested by Master of Puppets, does not seem to be on his agenda today. If there is reasonable reason to believe that the IP above is a registered editor, blocking it should also be considered; whoever has disputes with Linas should please discuss them while logged in.  Sandstein  05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really, really not sure I would have blocked. He hasn't even responded. Remember that blocks are preventative, not a method of punishment. We're all civilized adults; putting people in the corner chair is far behind us. I would have at least liked to have some discussion.

That being said, I don't intend to overturn or anything. I just don't think this is a fair case. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(Fixing a wrong diff in my above comment.) Such blocks are preventative in that they aim to prevent continued personal attacks. I have no problem with any admin unblocking the instant Linas promises to discuss his disagreements civilly.  Sandstein  05:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Wknight's edit at the beginning of this header; 3 out of those 4 diffs were all on Linas' user talk. Unless you blocked him with talk page-editing disabled (which I hope you didn't), we've prevented nothing, provided that he wasn't about to mysteriously go to Main Page talk and start swearing at everything that moves. In my eyes, the block's done nothing worthwhile. It's nothing personal, and I mean no offense; I just don't see the logic.

I'd like to take you up on that, though. If there's any discussion that bears fruit, I'll unblock immediately. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of cases of someone having had a really amazingly bad day and having had a snappy behavior change on Wikipedia as a result of it. We're human - it happens. That said, this was properly preventive given the circumstances. If he agrees to stop / gets over it then unblock sounds fine with everyone involved however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not known for supporting civility blocks, but this one seems solid. This is not a once-in-a-while-drops-a-cuss-word being met in a whack-a-mole manner: this was someone consistently making attacks like "fuck you" at other editors (and then accusing them of escalating the situation, I mean, WTH?) and calling another editor a vandal without good cause. It's the fact that he was doing it consistently (and not in a once-a-week type way; in a most-posts-addressing-others type way, and over the course of a few weeks, so it wasn't just getting mad for a few hours) that really helps to justify the block, at least in my mind. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe my memory is faulty... but wasn't his unban contriversial (sp)? --Rockstone (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Unban? Are you in the wrong section? Anyway, put me on the record as supporting an indefinite block which is to be lifted when - and only when - Linas agrees to stop the general hostility. If he'd like his original issue - Aboutmovies (talk · contribs), etc. - re-examined, he can request that here or wherever. But to proudly "rain insults" is unacceptable. Now and indefinitely. Wknight94 ^talk 14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

KamenRiderDouble

Because I've yet to figure out how to use WP:SPI properly:

KamenRiderDouble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of the abandoned account Batrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the blocked spammer accounts Japanhero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Japanherobatrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The addition of the external link to a *japanhero.webs.com website clinched it, as the Japanhero and Japanherobatrus accounts added links to the "Japanhero" website before I had blocked them in March [29] [30] (a person with the user name "Batrus" runs Japanhero). I'm requesting that this be nipped in the bud before it continues.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, obvious sock. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"For the good of Germany"

A new user keeps blanking several sections of GSG 9 "for the good of Germany". this is their justification, and their promise that they will continue. So far I've given them two vandalism warnings and an explanation that if the government of Germany is concerned, they can take it up with officials of Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that diff look like a legal threat to anyone? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope; this is certainly not ANI worthy. After a final warning, take it to AIV. Tan | 39 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fairy Snuff (always did think that was a funny name for a fairy) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a drug fairies used? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That could explain a good many things. FAIRY SNUFF:UR DOIN IT RONG! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A user who is being disruptive and vows to continue I think gets to skip the queue. We have evidence of disruption and the promise of more.--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User is also apparently interested in gay tourism in Tel Aviv and calling slaughtered Rwandans monkeys, as well as claiming to be part of the German special forces.--Tznkai (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall not an asset to the project then? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I would be curious what would happen if someone asked him a question in German. I am currently not blocking the account out of a totally selfish interest in avoiding an e-mail on the policy implications of discussing the organizational make up of a German special forces unit, but I suppose I will do it later if no one else will.--Tznkai (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, so why are we sitting around humming and hawing over it? The guy is obviously here to disrupt, and has promised more...--Crossmr (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted his last run (at 3:09) and gave him a fourth level warning. If he does it again, feel free to block him. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And now I'm going to be reported to the head of Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to go with super clueless newbie.--Tznkai (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're all wimps! I'll go and block him then. (PS - Fairy snuff is an illegal underground movie involving the torture and murder of mystical woodland beings.) Manning (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It really reminds me of Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters, know what I mean? --John (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, Pink Fairies. Great with morning coffee. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh thanks Manning, now I'm going to have nightmares involving dusted fairies. You couldn't leave it at drug use, no you had to make it worse. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What? You've never heard the Tom Smith song, "Smash the Frickin' Fairies!"? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean this one? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

He now says on his Talk page that he is German, but doesn't speak German. WP:DFTT? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

58.174.227.190

58.174.227.190 (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing, including personal insults to article subjects and Wikipedians. An edit that got my particular attention was this, suggesting a business be fire bombed. While I think it likely that this is just some bozo who thinks they're being funny, as it might be read as an insightment to violence I gave them a significantly longer 2nd block than I would have otherwise. Infrogmation (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work. When the vandalism is so persistent, shorter blocks just mean more work for admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That user was not warned sufficiently please review your decision --I do not own [[WP]] (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruption. The IP received a level 4 warning before the block. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

and if you look at User_talk:58.174.227.190, you'll see a string of earlier warnings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The ip should have received 4 warnings before being blocked (That's why they have a 4 level system) The IP's last edit was at 10:43 29 September 2009 while he was given a level 4 at 11:34, 29 September 2009 ,The IP was subsquently blocked while the user was offline --I do not own [[WP]] (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, admins are free to use their judgement and block if they feel necessary as they have the trust of the community. No editor is guaranteed 4 warnings before a block. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To shivlingam - it is very odd for someone so newly registered to find their way to ANI and start quoting policy shortcomings to admins. Is this perhaps an alternate account for you? The last time I saw this kind of behavior was User:PinkgirlXX (where XX was a variety of numbers). Syrthiss (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Shivlingam

I just blocked Shivlingam (talk · contribs) for all of the disruptive editing over the past few days, and made it indef for the obvious socking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. All users have the prerogative to skip warning levels depending on the severity and repetitiveness of the vandalism. Well, it's not like the now-indefinitely-blocked user would have listened anyways. MuZemike 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if a Checkuser has any free time here, it would be great to see who is behind this disguise. MuZemike 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed Shivlingam (talk · contribs) = Notedgrant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Notedgrant? Fascinating. → ROUX ₪ 01:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Little brother maybe... –xeno^talk 18:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Durova³²⁰ 19:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy's inappropriate use of Twinkle

Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Inappropriate use of Twinkle. These edits are in no particular order, but are generally descending into the past:

• Reverting an edit as vandalism despite the fact that it isn't vandalism and is in fact per guidelines.
• CSD'ing a page for 'page-move vandalism' despite the fact that the pages were moved per our WP:MOS guidelines.
• Again reverting to a version not supported by infobox-person guidelines. I should also note that Radiopathy has effectively been using twinkle to edit war on this article with Koavf (talk · contribs).
• reverting improvements to an article
• ditto
• Edit warring to preferred version of article
• More edit warring on same article
• Incorrectly calling others' edits vandalism when the edits are changing it to Radio's unpreferred version.
• Requesting speedy deletion after previously blanking a solid redirect.
• re-nominating the same page for speedy deletion after it had previously been declined(note that he does this several times).
• Edit warring on a different article
• calling good-faith edits vandalism
• again wrongly reverting edits as vandalism
• Reverting the removal of warnings from an editor's user talk page after that editor previously removed said warnings. This is totally inappropriate.
• Removing a valid comment on an article talk page.
• More removing of valid comments.

I don't believe this user should have twinkle, as they continue to misuse it as they have done above. I believe they should be placed on the twinkle blacklist. As of typing this, I have notified the user of this discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at those edits, I agree that Radiopathy should be on the Twinkle blacklist. rspεεr (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy is Twinkle blacklisted based on a preliminary survey of the above, which concern me greatly. This is not a final conclusion - further discussion and consensus here may guide another admin to a different conclusion, and I'll accept any admin's review and actions... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing with Twinkle since August of 2009, and have only been told once by anybody (an admin) that my use of the term "vandalism" was inappropriate. All of my edits have been in good faith; if anyone has an issue, they need to come to my talk page and tell me - in a civil manner. Twinkle isn't the issue here. Radiopathy •talk• 16:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think there is no problem with your edits above, you are clearly mistaken.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 16:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And where you say:"and have only been told once" is a lie. I've told you several times, as have others, that labeling good faith edits as vandalism is not allowed, as seen here, here, here, here, here, by admin Gwen Gale, and here, yet again by Gwen Gale. In short, you've been warned many times over your tenure here, so that excuse above isn't good enough.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another admin telling Radiopathy that good faith edits are not vandalism (diff) - although not on his talk page. --JD554 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left Radiopathy a final warning - Reviewing both deeper in his edits and his edits since this report was started here indicates that he's being disruptive and assuming bad faith about other editors. I have strongly urged him to restrict himself to editing in article space for the time being, and not making abuse reports. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of admin powers by User:Hoary

Resolved

 – No abuse of admin powers occurred. Clear-cut case of meatpuppetry by anonymous users; Hoary's actions were appropriate. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This admin is inserting the names in Welsh into the articles of English towns, on the English wikipedia, despite consensus being reached against doing so. See discussions at Talk:Hereford#Request for Consensus: Welsh Name (copied from Shrewsbury but same debate) and more recently Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#Welsh names on English Locations where it has been decided not to do so, yet Hoary seems intent on going against consensus then locking the articles so it cannot be removed. 86.128.32.170 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoary has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to provide some diffs and log links to back up your claims? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to wikify the links but here are the article histories:

• Leominster
• Farndon, Cheshire
• Ross-on-Wye
• Kilpeck
• Whitchurch, Herefordshire
• Welsh Bicknor
• Oswestry

86.128.32.170 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This is only about English towns which are very close to Wales. There does appear to be a different consensus as to them (see User_talk:217.39.132.9 for strong hints of that). There has been heavy IP edit warring, IP socking and PAs over this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP claims consensus, but with 5 different people reverting him/her on Ross-on-Wye (as an example), it's questionable what consensus actually exists. Since the IP has been blocked a few times and comes back with a different IP address each time, I think that is where the disruption lies. Page protection is the only way forward in this case and Hoary did the appropriate thing. Jeni ^(talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, whilst the original IP who started this has been blocked several times (User_talk:217.39.132.9), he has always come back on the same IP. This means that the other IPs cannot be the same person as it is obvious he has a permanent IP address. 86.128.32.170 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And again, as I've already said if the majority of people agree, that is consensus. The fact that random users are reverting edits from anonymous IPs that are only removing something counts for nothing, as they are assuming it is vandalism. There are only to users consisting doing this, Hoary and his friend Gwen Gale. 86.128.32.170 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Infact, taking Welsh Bicknor as another example, 8 different people have reverted the removal of the Welsh, to me, that strongly suggests where the consensus lies. Jeni ^(talk) 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I just checked out some of these articles. It does look a bit sketchy to protect an article that one has been editing. It should be noted, however, that the articles should have been protected by SOMEBODY, since there has been clear edit warring. Still, I am not sure that there is a consensus one way or the other about whether or not the Welsh names are appropriate or not, so I don't know that the OP can claim consensus to not include them in all cases. Still, it would have been better here if Hoary himself had not protected, since it appears he was involved. But the end result is definately needed. There was a lot of back-and-forth editing in a short time, and there were a large number of editors reverting on both sides. Protection is the best way to deal with it. A small issue, and all I can see to do is to remind Hoary to use WP:RFPP or WP:AN to ask another admin to do protections for cases where he is involved. --Jayron32 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The the page protections were needed, the only real issue is a procedural one with an involved editor making the protections himself instead of getting an uninvolved admin involved. The end result, in this case, would be the same. But still one that Hoary should be more careful about in the future. At worst, this calls for a light trouting, but that's the most it requires. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See this bit of wording by an IP. Given all the sameness of the edits, those IPs are likely no more than one person, at the very most two. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Then request a checkuser if you're so sure. 86.128.32.170 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser could provide no additional information as to whether or not these two IPs were run by the same person. Publicly availible WHOIS information is all that is needed, and even then there is no assurance that having unrelated IPs means this isn't the same person. One person can use computers at home, at work, at the library, at an internet cafe, from a wifi hotspot, etc. etc. etc. behavioral evidence is quite enough to prove a connection. --Jayron32 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A checkuser isn't needed here since the IPs aren't disguised by usernames. This appears to be a clear case of meatpuppetry given that all of the IP addresses that I've seen and checked geolocate to approximately the same location (London, England), are all ISP-owned dynamic broadband addresses, and all appear to have little or no edits outside of this particular edit war and topic of discussion. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair that doesn't prove much. I myself live in Wales but my IP shows up as London because BT route all UK traffic through there, and obviously the only people interested in this topic are going to be people who live in the UK. 86.128.32.170 (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that the geolocation doesn't prove much, no, but as it stands, the variety of IPs revert warring does constitute meatpuppetry, whether they are the same person or not. This is because all of their short edit histories show that they are only engaged in edit-warring over this. Please see WP:MEAT for more information. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Welsh names should NOT appear on English towns and cities in a way that could be seen as showing it as the native language. Whilst i have no objections to the origin of the name being mentioned in the article text, it should not be in the infobox or the lead sentence of the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This thread is about Hoary's use of the admin tools in this situation, not about achieving consensus for one way or the other. Please take that discussion to the appropriate article or project talk pages. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made my views on this matter known there too BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now the IP points to this claim for a consensus. He might have saved time and effort if he'd done so earlier.

The consensus, if or so far as it was a consensus, does not seem to be mentioned on the talk pages of many of the articles, which are: Farndon, Cheshire, Kilpeck, Leominster, Oswestry, Ross-on-Wye, Welsh Bicknor, Whitchurch, Herefordshire, and perhaps one or two others that I sleepily fail to notice right now (past my bedtime). Indeed, there are discussions at Talk:Kilpeck and elsewhere that point toward an opposite conclusion. If there's a consensus (among people willing to discuss rationally) that the names should be removed, then remove them. If anyone equipped with an administering mole wrench cares to unprotect the articles, do so. If you want to unblock some IPs, go ahead. G'night! -- Hoary (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm going to agree with Hoary's call on this one. All of the page histories presented above by 86.128.32.170 seem to show a variety of registered users in good standing continually reverting an attempted edit war by anonymous meatpuppets. Additionally, I could not find an indication that consensus is that these names should not be included at this time, since most of the folks that disagree are, again, anonymous meatpuppets. Article protection seems appropriate in this situation until either the edit warring dies down or consensus changes. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

it would be useful if both sides joined in the most recent debate on this matter on the England wikiproject. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but debates should be given time. In the meantime, to prevent edit warring, page protection was a viable course of action to allow the debate to determine consensus appropriately. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone else would like to check them out, here is a list of anonymous IP editors that have recently edit warred over this subject (and this subject alone) that I've compiled by looking at the page histories above:

• 78.33.93.185 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 81.142.88.133 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 86.128.32.170 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 86.128.189.47 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 86.153.79.13 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 86.162.105.1 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 92.9.73.203 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 92.10.110.147 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 92.12.121.237 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 92.14.197.200 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 92.14.254.212 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 217.39.132.9 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

This is what I based my call of clear-cut meatpuppetry on. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ioeth here. I don't see an abuse of admin tools, I see an admin attempting to prevent disruption, which outlined above, was fairly broad in scope.--Hu12 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD closures by MBest-son (talk · contribs)

Can someone take a quick look at recent non-admin AFD closures by this user:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madloku Ganapathi: which was early and arguably wrong.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2009 attacks on Indians in Australia

Before someone points out "DRV is that way" :-), I should add that I am not as concerned about these individual decisions, but rather the fact that the user is relatively new (in terms of edits) and has uncharacteristically started closing AFDs after not having edited for over 3 months. Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Checked the AfDs. These NACs should be summarily reverted without DRV. Tim Song (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And it's not just three months - it's 15 months. Interesting...... Tim Song (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Duh, you're right! Weird. Anyway, the AFD closures have been undone by the user himself and JulianColton respectively. Note sure if anything else can or should be done at the moment. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted AfD that was requested by Abecedare. Not sure if I can help in any other way. I will leave it for closing admin, should he wish to delete or redirect Madloku article. The second one is the clear case so non-admin closure seems approporiate, if not please let me know. (User) Mb (Talk) 19:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closures are inappropriate for delete results. It's just a matter of accountability: you don't have the tools to technically delete the article, and if DRV comes up or something, it would be both your close and the decision of the admin who deleted it at issue. There have to be some limits or else the tools lose their meaning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

92.24.73.110

This anonymous user first edited Wikipedia just five days ago; unfortunately, almost all of his edits have been reverted as vandalism, or because unsourced. Other than his failure to answer any of my messages and his persistent refusal to provide proper references when editing high-visibility articles ([31][32]), his anti-Greek POV led him to replace the economic stats of Italy with the more favourable Greek ones, and viceversa, and to introduce unsubstantiated, mildly disparaging assertions on the current state of Athens ([33][34]) and Greece in general ([35], at times even falsifying figures ([36]) and twisting the meaning of sentences [37]). My attempt to explain him some of the basic rules of Wikipedia fell, apparently, on deaf ears.--93.45.80.109 (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment- 93.45.80.109 also appears to be 93.45.133.59, just to clear up any possible confusion about edits. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's right.--93.45.80.109 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to see done? We rarely block IPs for more than a few days, because such addresses can be shared.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

I am truly worried that the above category has become a BLP nightmare. Several of the individuals in this category are rarely known for their stance on homosexuality, or have homosexuality as one component of many issues that they support/oppose. Mainly, I'm worried that the inclusion of any individual with anything other than the most blatantly anti-gay remarks is both non-neutral and a violation. Perhaps something like Category:Anti-homosexuality activists is more apt, though that would only cover probably half the subjects.

I am, of course, neither supporting nor not-supporting the above; but this is a very uncool category as is. I bring this up here, because I know I'll probably just be reverted and yelled at if I remove the categories by hand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Category talk:Homophobia, it hasn't been to a CFD in a few years. You might want to consider that avenue. I agree that things like this are a bad idea. Maybe a focus on just removing the biographies for now and then a further filtering discussion at the cat talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's really slippery BLP territory. It's like having something like "Category:Bigotry" or "Category:Left wing pinko commie". Now, if someone has actively opposed minority rights, there could be a far less in-your-face POV-pushing term. The suggestion for "Category:Anti-homosexuality activists" is closer to the mark, but that's still slippery, because it assumes that anyone who opposes gay marriage, for example, is "anti-homosexuality", which is a matter of opinion. Negative categories like this are risky unless the subject is specifically and verifiably on record as literally being anti-this-or-that. For example, it would be safe to call George Wallace a segregationist. It would be POV-pushing to call him a racist, unless you can find his own words someplace stating something about white supremacy. (Which would be much easier to do for someone like George Lincoln Rockwell, for example.) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A shorter way of saying it, as the OP hints at, is that such a category is a quick and easy way to create an "enemies list". That's not what wikipedia's purpose is. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm against biographical articles being added to such categories; a recent incident of an editor trying to add Category:Racism to Spike Lee comes to mind. Perhaps the inclusions criteria ought to be discussed at Category talk:Homophobia, and at CfD if no agreement is forthcoming? It could be useful to post notifications of the discussion to the LGBT and Discrimination wikiprojects.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We would definitely need specific and clear criteria for such a category. Evil saltine (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• AGGGHHHH .... Sko ... what did you do to your sig? ... change the text to black. ;) — Ched :  ?  03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Many similar categories don't include individuals accused of the trait, though they may include people who have written about it significantly. I suggest that the criteria be set to exclude those accused of homophobia, though that discussion should occur either on that category's talk page or CFD, not here.   Will Beback  talk  08:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I'd rather have a subcategory, something like Homophobia scholars. Scholars who study the subject are appropriate to include. Random individuals people call homophobes aren't the way to go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've long complained about the same issue on Category:Antisemitism (which has the same shabby disclaimer on the top). I agree with Skomorokh; categories like this shouldn't have biographies included. An article can discuss nuances like whether someone was accused of homophobia/antisemitism/racism, which sources say this, what the subject's response was, etc. A category cannot. And I don't think a disclaimer at the top of the category page (not visible from the article itself) is sufficient to meet WP:V and (in the cases of living people) WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest not using that category in articles about individuals. We have few individuals in Category:Gay, the main exception being Judy Garland as gay icon, and that's questionable. --John Nagle (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've personally gone through the cat and removed a few questionable individuals - hope that helps a bit. I do appreciate that I'm hardly the most popular man in town at the mo, but I do try and help where I can. Ironholds (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on the category talk page

In light of the above discussion, I've made a proposal as to the scope of this category on the talk page. Interested parties, please see Category_talk:Homophobia#Propose_the_exclusion_of_biographical_articles_from_this_category. Thanks,  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Lceliku

Lceliku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -M.Nelson (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lceliku seems to be a POV-pusher. What he did in all of his edits up to now (he is a new user) is to add pro-Albanian unsourced staff in specific articles related to Greece and Albania. He even copied the article Souliotes and pasted it creating a new article under the title Albanian Souliotes, only to add the word Albanian in the title of the article. - Sthenel (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

article needs attention

Resolved

Could someone take a look at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center with attention to the list of salaries, and do whatever you think is needed. I would fix it myself, but I work there, and don't want to appear WP:COIish. Thanks. - cohesion 01:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maratha

Pduk (talk · contribs) is way past 3 reverts against multiple editors, with each revert including name-calling ("stupid is again abusing marathas", "you are uncultural uncivilised stupid ").[38] Also needs a lesson in clue about Wikipedia. Priyanath ^talk 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The user is on a 48 hour block for "pov pushing, 3RR violation, personal attacks by ethnically aligned SPA"; blocked by User:YellowMonkey. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked, thanks. Priyanath ^talk 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor??

This section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009 to free up space on this page. MuZemike (the following timestamp was delayed several days to maintain visibility on this page) MuZemike 02:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Notpietru

Block log now includes a notice of the prior history. We're done here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

{{unresolved|I'm unarchiving this because it wasn't given proper attention, and should be dealt with.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)}}

• Pietru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Notpietru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Could some independent admin please look at the recent trolling behavior of User:Notpietru? He's been making not unreasonable edits to Maltese (dog) but his commentary is obviously designed to provoke others. See [39] (Mljet / Malta theory of origin is the center of the dispute), [40], [41], [42], [43]. Much of this is directed at Imbris, who has barely even edited the article recently, though he has been provoked into complaining. I tried to warn him about this confrontational approach; see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#User:Pietru / User:Notpietru and Maltese (dog), in which I requested independent input before but received none. Mangojuice^talk 05:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this still going on? This is hardly new behavior. He started a new account, but he has a block history under his old account, pretty much for this exact sort of behavior. He has serious WP:OWN issues it seems, which have led to edit warring over numerous Malta-related articles for some time... --Jayron32 05:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

His old account was blocked for one month on August 8th, his new account(the one above) was registered on August 15th, meaning it was used for block evasion, and therefore abusive sockpuppetry. It should therefore be blocked indef.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Read april as august. Ya.. oops. Either way, he should still be blocked for disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

As the unresolved template states, this wasn't completely discussed, so I unarchived it so it could be discussed properly, and something can be done about the user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered a Sockpuppet Investigation? Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on it, as they're obviously using unconfirmed socks to separate their edit history, or, as more people know it, WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting... User:Pietru is redirected to User:Notpietru. Mjroots (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Which of course means he's not trying to hide anything, which of course means he's not using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny or for any reason which is listed as a bad use of socks under WP:SOCK. Of course, that does NOT mean his behavior is not blockable, it just means that he's not socking against policy. --Jayron32 05:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong there. The redirect was added by another user, not notpietru. Check the history for proof.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, the user did confirm to be the other account. Oh well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone have an issue if I just gave a one-second block mentioning the prior block log? He doesn't deserve to be blocked but he shouldn't get a clean block log just by changing names (and I think in fact, his edits should be transferred). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it probably doesn't matter, but I'm okay with that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So...is this where you yentas apologise to me, I forgive you, and somebody does something constructive around here for a change? Stranger things have happened. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not apologizing to you. You've done the exact same type of edits that have gotten you blocked in the past.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgive you anyway. Such is charity! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... that "yentas" is a bit un-called for. No matter how obscure of a slur you pick for a personal attack, it's still a personal attack, and still shows disregard for the mechanics of the community.... I hope using obscure slurs doesn't make you feel somehow urbane and sophisticated; objectively superior to those who you address it to. Pompous would be more appropriate.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Obscure"? "Slur"?? And seeing as how the term originated in ghettos amongst a suppressed minority, I don't see how it fits as sophisticated or pompous. If you've never encountered the term before, you might benefit from a little more reading/life experience. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet tags

I return to editing today to find three(!) sockpuppet tags on my talk page, all stating I may be a sock of Eyrian (talk · contribs). Two of the three are the only edits by the accusers, 195.65.106.20 (talk · contribs) and 86.169.169.178 (talk · contribs). Of course they are wrong, but I'm reluctant to just delete them because of the appearance of trying to hide something. Is there a process for refuting and removing them? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer this on the IP's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This could be a sockpuppet of User:Eyrian. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in knowing what you base that on. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The same editing patterns, Eyrian's IP socking, articles in common owing to what's very likely more than happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh heavens, I've missed Eyrian. Especially at the textile arts project. Seriously, if you are Eyrian please email. It's been two years; a lot of water under the bridge. We all make mistakes. Let's move forward. Considering the history, you'd have no better advocate for a legitimate return. Sincerely, Durova³²⁰ 19:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not. I've edited under the accounts CovenantD and Pairadox, but never even heard of Eyrian until today. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Then no further comment; I really don't know. Wishing Eyrian would come back though. Durova³²⁰ 20:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested in getting this cleared up. I have never been banned. Gwen, you mentioned IP socking by Eyrain - do the IP addresses resolve to same geographic location as mine? That might be one way to refute this. BTW, I tend to do my editing from the [44] page, so what I encounter is totally random or determined by other editors based on your perspective. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see a geographic matchup in Houston Texas, USA. I think you're Eyrian. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem then - take a look at this, this, this and this. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Two of those are Houston. Sockies sometimes know how to find proxies too (or maybe you've taken trips elsewhere now and then). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Houston is the 4th largest city in the United States. Is there anything about the actual editing behavior that makes you think the users are related? --Smashville^talk 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles in common, big, fast, long editing spurts, so unlikely this happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

None of those are Houston. They all show BayArea or, more specifically, Mountain View CA. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wanton soup?

You're posting like a wanton sock, too. Do what y'all like, I've said what I have to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If he is a malicious sock, he has managed to be in two places at the same time: [45] [46]. --Smashville^talk 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say he's malicious, I said he was wanton. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're above comment doesn't address Smashville's point. I don't think there's a connection between Eryrian and 98.248. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 22:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Eryian? Is that you? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The hell? No, I am not Eryian! I've been here since April, and I've got a mentor and users who'll back me up on this! You're accusing me of socking just for commenting and disagreeing with you? That strikes me as paranoid in a worrying manner. I dropped in because I occasionally check out ANI to comment on things. I'd never heard of Eryian till this thread. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

<-- outdent ->After looking at the last 1500 edits by Eryian, I see only two or three articles that overlap. And I resent the implication that I'm a dumpling. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? It appears you share several common proteins with dumplings. You are required to present evidence that you are not edible. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A wonton is not a dumpling! The humble wonton skin may look exotic but it's also the most versatile pasta you can invite into your kitchen. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going by the lede of wonton. Are you saying that WP is wrong? <gasp> 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was relying on google! Also , see also Ravioli is an internal link on the wonton page, anyhow, I am sure it was not an insult, and this is not the place for chit chat. It can be upsetting being accused of socking but it is a part of life here, I suggest all moving on for now. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. On the other hand, I don't want to leave an accusation open-ended. I'd be more comfortable withdrawing from this discussion if Gwen responded, hopefully with an apology and a recall of her accusation. But I suspect from her absence of recent edits that she's gone to bed. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 23:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So far she's been wrong about the location and articles in common. Nor has she responded to Smashville. Of course, she may be one of those editors who can't seem to admit they're wrong and that's why we haven't heard back. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's why we haven't heard back. Judging by her contribs, she seems to stop editing every day at 22:30 UTC, and resume at around 07:00 UTC. I assume that's nighttime in her time zone. (This constitutes Wikistalking, doesn't it? Oops.) A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 01:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wontons, raviolis, tortellonis, they're all dumplings. Taken altogether, all I've seen here are helpful, often cheerful edits. IP, you might think about getting an account, but you don't need to. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee code of conduct

Proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee code of conduct. Input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits of User:Fifelfoo

I would like to request some assistance at article Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The problem is with User:Fifelfoo. Please check older edits and reverts with other editors at this article.

Today he removed referenced content from the article per "it is a primary source" (The 1956 Revolution: a history in documents" written by Csaba Békés, Malcolm Byrne, János Rainer published in 2002 page ref.: 198). After this I added another reference (the official webpage of "THE INSTITUTE FOR THE HISTORY OF THE 1956 HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION" which is sponsored by the Hungarian government and written by scholars. However User:Fifelfoo removed it as non-RS, although that article has 203 references. After this, I reverted it and I added another reference written by Ferenc Glatz, historian, member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, but User:Fifelfoo removed the references with the comment: "If the Institute was so proud of the content, they would have published it on paper. Cite the paper". With his last edit he taged the references... After I warned him for vandalism, reference removal he called me a vandal...

I checked his userpage ("He researches labour history and socialist history"), talkpage (articles you might like to edit "Structural Marxism") and his contributions (like "Mass killings under Communist regimes") so I think we have a WP:COI, POV and WP:OR here.--B@xter⁹ 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for the removal of the Glatz source edit, it happened accidentally when trying to correct an edit where you added the IRH source and Glatz source at the same time. The IRH source is unacceptable due to SELF and being a non-academic publication of an academic institute (non academic publication modes is where academics put their more curious theories, and scholarship which cannot be known to meet the standards of their scholarly obligations due to lack of peer or scholarly press review). While the IRH is a scholarly institute, it isn't a scholarly press. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the content dispute and the dispute over what constitutes verifiable references/citations, these two editors — Baxter9 and Fifelfoo — are engaged in an edit war. I was going to place {{3RR}} warnings — a number that they have both exceeded — on their talk pages, but since it has escalated to ANI, I was not sure if that would still be appropriate. Further, the editor who filed the ANI complaint did not place a notice on the other editor’s talk page, so I have taken the liberty of doing so. Finally, while reviewing the edit war between these two editors, I noticed the edits of a third, brand new editor — Tyrker — who has edited only on this article. I reverted one of his edits as it deleted material accompanied by a verifiable reference/citation, a deletion done without an explanation. —  SpikeToronto  18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is Fifelfoo correct that only documents that have been published in physical (i.e., paper) form may be cited on Wikipedia, notwithstanding that copies may be available on the Internet? In other words, is Fifelfoo correct that any source published solely on the Internet, regardless of how reputable the academic institution that web-published it may be, cannot be cited? What then of such notable sources as The New England Journal of Medicine, or The New York Times, that sometimes have internet-only articles/essays/editorials? As I understand it, Fifelfoo, in his edit summaries, is saying that an Internet source can only be cited if it is merely reprinting a paper-based publication. By that logic, The Huffington Post could never be cited, nor any of the myriad websites maintained by politicians and pundits. I believe that this issue lies at the crux of this dispute and the answer to this question is vital to the nature of sources cited throughout Wikipedia given that Internet-only sources are found throughout its millions of articles. —  SpikeToronto  18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is patently not true. reliable sources may be print-only, web-only, or print-reproduced-on-web. There are lots of sources on the web that are unreliable, but not because they are on the web. Are you sure that is what Fifelfoo is claiming? Could you include a diff that shows where he claims that only sources that appeared first in print can be counted as reliable? Without an actual diff, it is hard to understand if your characterization of his arguements are accurate. IF he is making that arguement, he is wrong. However, I don't know that he is actually making that arguement unless I can see the diffs myself. --Jayron32 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, he actually says it twice both times, in edit summaries. If you bring up the history of the page you can see the two comments - the diffs are already cited above. He also has some other strange views - you can't cite old documents "The following source is unacceptable (non-RS) due to age:" you can't cite textbooks "Requires verification that its not a textbook / textbook publisher:" and you can't cite anything that Fifelfoo thinks wasn't written by the right kind of historian "The following sources are unacceptable (non-RS) as they are not the work of historians, and thus produce the SYNTHESIS problem:" Oh, and you can't use any primary sources. (all of these are in his long section about FA on the talkpage, which he seems to have posted more or less all in one lump, sorry) Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT I think that it is a great shame that one of the few featured articles on Wikipedia is currently bogged down in an edit war. A quick resolution of the core issue between these two editors — what constitutes verifiable references/citations — can bring this to an end. —  SpikeToronto  18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that this is an editor with a unique perspective of what constitutes verifiable references/citations and that he may begin to undo articles throughout Wikipeida based on that unique perspective if he is not made more familiar with Wikipedia’s position in this regard. The probability of this is all the greater given his position statements made both in his edit summaries and on his user page, as Elen of the Roads correctly pointed out. —  SpikeToronto  20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to the third editor in the mix, would it be appropriate to use CheckUser to determine if s/he is a sock puppet of one of the two editors engaged in the edit war? —  SpikeToronto  20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I made 2 reverts, not more which is not 3RR. One of the reverts is a "revert of vandalism" (reference removal) which per wikipedia 3RR rule doesnt count, so actually I made 1 revert. (my first edit, added 1 reference, my second etit, 1th revert, added another reference, not a revert, my second revert, no more)

"A quick resolution of the core issue between these two editors — what constitutes verifiable references/citations — can bring this to an end" No, it wont. Because actually I am not involved in this and I am not interested in this topic. But other editors are. As the member of wikiproject Hungary I was informed about this, and I only stoped at the article to check things. Because every Hungarian knows that Corvin-köz was a major battleground, It was easy to find a reliable source. So I checked my books, and I added 1 reliable reference which was removed. Thats all. But the point is what Elen of the Roads said above: Fifelfoo rules this article and removes what he doesnt like. As I mentioned above, his first move was, to challange the new reference...--B@xter⁹ 20:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Baxter, I want to make sure this is clear, you are saying that in addition to the issue which Elen of the Roads and I have raised regarding Fifelfoo’s interpretation of WP:RS, there is a WP:OWN issue vis-à-vis this editor? —  SpikeToronto  20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time when I "met" Fifelfoo, so I dont know his edit pattern, but it is clear to me, that this "style" of editing (this source is not good bla..bla..bal..that source is not -RS..bla...bla..bla..) embarrass and frightens away users who want to make constructive edits. This is some sort of ownership. (from OWN: "If you find that the editor continues to be hostile...or wages revert wars...A common response by a primary editor confronted with ownership behavior is to threaten to leave the project..." I am sure, that primary editors will leave this article if this continues... Just check this revision history and comments...)--B@xter⁹ 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

+:Furthermore, I find it interesting that -it seems to be- that this user knows everything about wiki rules, including "how to cite your sources" and he also gives advices, but when it is about the victims of the revolution, he quickly forgets about this and he removes the content instead of using {{cn}} although this event has its own article on the Hungarian wikipedia.--B@xter⁹ 21:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly appreciate it if you didn't grossly mischaracterise my edits. Citation needed is not an appropriate on a Feature Article, think about why. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So now you’re adding point of view to the allegations? Thus, the issues are: WP:RS, WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV. I have to be honest, while all of these are important, because the editor in question’s position regarding verifiable references/citations is so unique, I think that the WP:RS dimension of this ANI is the single most important issue for the Administrators to resolve. It goes to the very heart of the Wikipedia project! —  SpikeToronto  22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe SpikeToronto is a neutral editor acting in good faith here. Managing to mischaracterise RS so rapidly in relation to a feature article, and "helpfully" summarising my position for me. Could you not put words into my mouth, thanks.

The Institute of Revolutionary History is a credible academic institute in Hungary. The Other user is attempting to cite a chronology from their website. Academic units draw a rather sharp distinction between academic publications, and non academic publications. Similarly, Historians do not publish in a chronology mode. IRH publishes, regularly. Additionally, as the document is in Hungarian, verification options go to machine translation because it isn't the product of a scholarly peer reviewed text. FA criteria involve a higher sourcing demand than start articles. Part of this demand is that the best kind of RS be used. Interestingly the best kind of RS are available, and the other editor made use of an acceptable text: one published by the Hungarian academy in a scholarly publishing mode.

Additionally, I do not appreciate the allegations of editing in bad faith because of my article interest. I suggest people look at my edit history.

The article is currently in Feature Article review because of major sourcing issues (it is constructed out of a primary source, and does not follow the standard scholarly discourse, instead being a SYN of various primary sources).

I find it a shame that a feature article on a non-Anglo/Western European history topic, which has been extensively written about in the scholarly press, is cited out of spurious ephemera and primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Ownership, I found a Featured Article with some very very disturbing sourcing, which fails to cite the major scholarly works, and is overly reliant on a UN report that drew from about 110 refugee respondents. So I laid out the problem on the talk page, and requested an article review. Yes, that's ownership, to establish the encyclopedic debate to move forward on a topic.

Regarding the perverse suggestions of bias / involvement because of my decisions to edit certain articles, I suggest people look at my editorial involvement at Mass killings under Communist regimes which has turned the article around through a slow consensus building process. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do believe this is all to do with it being a featured article, and Fifelfoo's view of what is and isn't acceptable on a featured article - which is kind of barse ackwards to my way of thinking. Fifelfoo says above that the use of citation required templating is not appropriate on a Featured article, use of machine translation not appropriate, primary sources not appropriate, wrong kind of historian not appropriate etc etc. Wrong way round surely. Find an article that has perfect sourcing, grammar, layout or whatever is required to meet the FA criteria, and put an FA sticker on it. Not, put the sticker on it whatever state it is in, and then start chopping out stuff that doesn't meet your singular view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I have never laid eyes on the article in question before today, and never edited it before today, I believe that Fifelfoo will not be able to make out his claim of bias on my part. Where I do have bias is in adhering to WP’s guidelines regarding verifiable references/citations. Perhaps the reason Fifelfoo singled me out for an accusation is because of my zealous request here for Administrator involvement to clarify this issue. Fifelfoo’s interpretation of verifiable references/citations is truly unique. I fear its taking hold of WP. Should the prevalence of this unique view grow, I fear the undoing of articles, especially those with Feature Article status. When can we expect an issue that goes to the heart of each and every article on Wikipedia to have some Administrator involvement and be resolved? —  SpikeToronto  00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Elen. The Article is currently a FA. What would you have us do when non-FA content is inserted into an FA? The article is at FAR, because I am deeply concerned that its sourcing quality and coverage do not meet current FA standards.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that Elen of the Roads’s first comment (way) above was inserted between what was a contiguous posting of mine. Thus, my COMMENT (way) above was meant to be immediately following my QUESTION (way) above. The COMMENT was not added after Elen of the Roads’s first comment; it preceded it. (See this edit.) —  SpikeToronto  00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. First post was responding to Jayron, not to anything SpikeToronto said. The timestamps should show the sequence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement of Fact

Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is currently a feature article. Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is under Wikipedia:Featured_article_review here Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956. Featured article review is an improvement process. I nominated Hungarian Revolution of 1956 for feature article review as a result of significant sourcing problems, which I raised on Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and at the Featured Article Review. User:Baxter9 and User:Fifelfoo disagree about some of the contents of Hungarian Revolution of 1956

This are the facts as I see them. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My statement of the case

As a current featured article, new material added should meet the Feature Article criteria for sourcing, including the highest form of reliability, verifiability, and avoid being Primary or Tertiary sources. User:Baxter9 is expanding Hungarian Revolution of 1956 in useful ways, but many of Baxter9's edits have been inadequately sourced. In my opinion a primary source like Békés and others The 1956 Revolution: a history in documents (2002) [indicated above by Baxter9], is unacceptable. Creating an article from Primary sources is SYN/OR. Doing this to a featured article is immediately removable. Regarding the Corvin Alley fighters, Baxter9 has been attempting to use a webpage from the IRH. The IRH as an academic institute has the capacity to publish scholarly sources in a scholarly manner. By citing an IRH article not published in a scholarly manner, and one (which to my pitiful Hungarian) is a chronology of events, rather than narrative history (the standard Academic form of history), it is not RS. I removed this source and the uncited sentence. Baxter9 then provided a superior citation (in addition to the poor citation), one produced by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, but unfortunately failed to provide a full academic citation (using the template is not the issue). Baxter9's citation was not verifiable as it did not allow other Wikipedians to find the material Baxter9 was citing: "Ferenc Glatz, MTA; Kornélia Burucs, Zsuzsa Frisnyák, Éva Kovács, János Pótó. A magyarok krónikája. [where]: Magyar Könyvklub. p. 690. ISBN 9632270703." is still not a verifiable citation, but its sufficient to indicate that the material is sourced. A citation requires attribution to the specific Author involved, I doubt that a work of this length with 5 personal authors and an institutional author is a single monograph: its a work with chapters individually authored and an editor. The provided citation doesn't indicate the English language title translation (a common courtesy). A machine translation "The Chronicle of the Hungarians" (In English Chronicle has poor connotations in disciplinary history, I suspect the machine translator is poor in this regard) indicates that this isn't a specialist work as a whole on 1956: a non-optimum citation. Provide the chapter, for instance out of 700+ pages, its likely that 690 is the Hungarian nation around 1956... its likely the actual chapter is a 56 chapter. [This is exactly why I get tetchy about low quality sources: it breaks VERIFIABILITY].Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In relation to Baxter9's content. Claiming Corvin alley is the most esteemed group of fighters was a long bow to draw (Csepel and the Hungarian student/youth militia which briefly retook Parliament square are clear counter examples). Claiming it was the strongest fortified position is much less contentious, though I still want to see a correct full citation for the work cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV. I demand Featured Article grade RS. This means the best kind of RS available. This, as an academic topic, does have the best kind of RS available: RS from the academic community produced in the peer review and scholarly publisher mode. We don't need to settle for anything less, and producing a history not from the RS secondary sources is SYN. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding OWN. My editorial involvement has been to revert Baxter9's uncited, or unacceptably cited contributions; and, when Baxter9 presented cited and RS cited contributions, to not revert. I am currently waiting on a large scale review, and have not edited the article substantively while I'm awaiting that Review process to conclude. I do not believe this is OWN: I like Baxter9's content additions. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV in relation to my editorial outlook and article involvement. This is a disgusting assertion about my editing and I would like any people who made it to retract it. I encourage people to peruse my editorial history in this matter Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Internet sources. The issue isn't the modality (trees versus bits), as much as, IRH does not publish in the scholarly mode online, and is not a scholarly publishing house in itself. Citing JSTOR is fine. Citing a SELF published website, where an academic institute is not publishing in its academic mode, isn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, & I know it's a side issue, citing JSTOR is not fine. You cite the journal in which the work was actually published, and then add the convenience link to JSTOR where you read it & where people with access to it can read it also. Essentially everything in JSTOR was first in print, and has print as the version of record. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I was gesturing at the difference between Scholarly Publication, and mere utterances of a scholarly research unit. A better example would be that insta-peer review archive that physicists / mathematicians have established as an example of an online-only scholarly peer reviewed non-traditional mode. That's a scholarly publication. Fred's Maths Blog on Department of Foo at University of Bar isn't scholarly publication, even though Fred could well be a scholar, and his blog could be wonderfully scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fifelfoo! This is what I wanted. I misread you as saying that something published only on the Internet, and never in paper form, was unacceptable. This was a problem for me because, in my world, there are some medical publications that, while peer-reviewed, only publish certain material online. Plus, some of the data presentations (e.g., charts, graphs, etc.) are, in essence, presentations of primary material as they are mere statements of clinical results without analysis, the analysis being in the text. Thus, I (mis)took your position to be that in a wikiarticle of, for instance, a medical nature, a wikieditor would not be able to present the chart — because it is primary data — nor could s/he present the analysis of the data since it was never published in hardcopy form, notwithstanding its having been peer reviewed prior to its online publication. Thank you for straightening this out for me! —  SpikeToronto  04:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad we reached the same page about trees/bytes versus scholarly/non-scholarly modes of publishing. PRIMARY materials are no good for verification and they are unreliable sources. PRIMARY materials are good for illustration, and for humanising, or explaining reliable sources. Lets imagine three scenarios: Sue conducts research "On the horrible disease of Wikipedia editing" published in the peer reviewed scholarly journal with a high citation count (we're talking medical science here) "Journal of Encyclopedia related Medicine". Sue's journal article includes a chart, "Data on Wikipedia editing diseases". If you cite Sue's chart, you're reusing PRIMARY materials. If you cite Sue's findings that's great. If you cite Sue's findings, and illustrate them with the chart, that's great and better reading. Primary materials should not be cited for Verification purposes. Articles should not be written out of primary sources. Articles should be written out of secondary sources. Where Primary sources are appropriate they should be used to illustrate: much like graphics and photos illustrate but do not convey the basis of an article (generally, there's always an exception). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My statements in relation to SpikeToronto's involvement here

I perceive, very strongly SpikeTomato'sSpikeToronto's [no offence intended, the colour red must have triggered it 04:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)] question above to be a mischaracterisation of the issue, which he presented before I had an opportunity to respond. That's within acceptable behaviour, but a bit uncivil. More worrying is the fact that people expect low quality RS to be acceptable on Featured Articles. History as a discipline does not esteem textbooks, works published 60+ years ago (generally, some specific examples) due to disciplinary change. History as a discursive discipline constantly improves its analysis, and old works are like old science: built on poor premises and poor evidence when compared to that available today. This, "Baxter, I want to make sure this is clear, you are saying that in addition to the issue..." "So now you're adding point of view to the allegations..." is whipping up a dispute, rather than working towards consensus. I don't believe I can discuss this in good faith with you, as you've displayed an interest in extending the dispute rather than working towards consensus. (I still believe I can work with Baxter9 and Elen of the Roads regarding this; we may disagree but I feel confident in their attitude towards this incident being one of consensus building. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I am not interested in the article on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, per se. I truly hope it maintains its Featured Article status and that you and the other editors achieve consensus. My primary interest in this ANI is your interpretation — as stated in your edit summaries, on your user page, and here in your postings to this thread — regarding what sources are and are not acceptable. It appears to be a restatement, a rewriting, of the Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and customs regarding reliable sources. Thus, in addition to wanting the article to maintain its FA status and for a consensus amongst it editors to be achieved, I await a position from the Administrators on the verifiable references/citations issue since it has ramifications far beyond the article in question. If your interpretation of the reliable sources rules/guidelines is correct — and it may very well be — then it will have a dramatic impact on those of us who do recent changes patrol. That is why I think it is one of the most important matters raised at ANI recently. And, you should want this assessment from the Administrators too, Fifelfoo, since it will provide an extremely useful clarification vis-à-vis reliable sources with which we can all ensure compliance throughout Wikipedia. —  SpikeToronto  04:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the administrator's job to judge verifiability, reliability, or citations: they are, like so much else, a content dispute. See WP:RSN for sourcing disputes. For Primary sources, see WP:RS#Overview "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." For my general frustration with people using primary and tertiary sources to write articles, using edited collections of primary sources, using unacceptable material claimed as scholarship, failing to reference the major works of a field, and picking the eyes out of unscholarly utterances indexed by google scholar, books or search; and for the poor quality of articles resulting, see the frustrations arising in this dispute (though the other editor is not an example of the problem, as he is expanding a section of the article that has been omitted as the article was written synthetically from primaries). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Source quality requirements in Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria's 1c), which does not require a particularly hard headed conclusion to draw that for an academic topic "high-quality reliable sources" are works produced by academics in the mode of academic publication. This is a higher hurdle than non Featured articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where you get this from - being a featured article does *not* prevent the addition of non-academic references, *any* reliable source may be added. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

<quote> Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1)(c) well-researched: ...Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources</quote> I suppose you can add any old reliable source if you like. But claims can't be supported by any old reliable source, they can be supported only by a "high quality" reliable source. What do you think high quality reliable sources mean in relation to articles in academic disciplines? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You see, this is back to the barse ackward thing. The standard is that articles which ARE GOOD ENOUGH to be featured articles WILL contain high quality sources - not that ONCE an article is FA, other sources MAY NO LONGER be used. I think it would be helpful to clear up whether the consensus is that Fifelfoo is right in seeking to remove all content and sources which do not meet his criteria for scholarly sources (which does not I think make it into the requirement for FA, or constitute the only requirement for RS, although it is mentioned there). I see no reason to exclude for example university level teaching materials, which Fifelfoo specifically objects to, reliable news sources such as the BBC (which ditto), or well substantiated primary sources where they are not being used in a way which violates SYNTHESIS (ditto with a vengeance).Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"well substantiated primary sources where they are not being used in a way which violates SYNTHESIS" are not used to substantiate claims, see RS. University level teaching material in discourse based fields, ie, US style synthetic textbooks, are either source books which contain the occasional scholarly essay, the essay is generally citeable through its original scholarly publication, or primary which cannot substantiate claims per RS. The BBC is not a historian, and can't generate an acceptable high quality RS narrative because its not a historian. What do you call a feature article that is allowed to no longer meet featured article criteria? I think your attitude is ass backwards, using second rate narratives synthesised out of first year texts, primaries, and newspaper articles is a great way to produce original research which bears no relationship to the scholarly discourses that mark out the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This view would appear to prevent us ever having a featured article on (say) The Boston Redsox, JRR Tolkien or the Titanic, because I'm not aware of there being that many peer reviewed academic sources on any of these three topics (Shippey for Tolkien I suppose). I think you are taking WP:RS to an extreme where it was never intended to go. I appreciate this may not be the forum to discuss this, but would like to see further discussion on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My claim is strictly in relation to areas covered by Academic disciplines where the coverage is sufficiently dense. Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Zinc Marginalism are all adequately covered by a dense academic literature. In fact, the articles are the academic literature, there are no discourses worth making encyclopedia articles about on these topics outside of the academic discourse. Boston Redsox may be an example of a work who's coverage will be mostly popular. The Simpsons probably was worth covering from non-academic RS, but is probably going to shift in the next five to ten years to be best covered by academic sources. But say, Australian Cricket should have its core historical narrative formed out of academic sports history (which does exist of it), prior to going to books produced by ex-Cricketers. Some areas which may not have source density amongst academics might be fringe Marxist topics, such as Left Communism, or other similar "edges". But even then, there are a couple of good works on Left Communism from academia which can form the core structure, before retreating to second tier RSes for secondary claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem with this discussion as being polluted by Fifelfoos own interpretation of guidelines and text and these interpretations could be misrepresented as actual guidelines or practice to follow. For example take this sentence, which does not require a particularly hard headed conclusion to draw that for an academic topic "high-quality reliable sources" are works produced by academics in the mode of academic publication.. First off there is no such conclusion. Second the distinction between academic topics and what, "normal topics(?)" is entirely invented by Fifelfoo as far as the Farc is concerned. The featured article criteria knows no such categorization and mentions no widely different standards according to category. It would be absurd to have different standards of FA on different articles. At one point we should accept that Wikipedia went in one direction and Citizendum and other projects went another direction. Hobartimus (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate you retracting your characterisation of my interpretation and as pollutive and the negative implications regarding my character. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you're claiming I'm polluting this discussion because I am making an ambit claim in a free-rolling discussion where other editors have specifically asked me to advance an interesting view? Anyway, to address your substantive issues: If any topic can be sourced at the highest quality level, it should be sourced there first. Article composition should be dictated by the highest quality sources. Perhaps you're not familiar with the effect of OR in the humanities where people pick the eyes out of google scholar, finding unevidenced throw away lines in unrelated journals whose articles are published non-peer reviewed by non-specialists. Quite often these "reliable sources" are not only included (as they should be, if they form something more than a FRINGE in terms of density of writing, rather than critical opinion), but quite often they dominate articles where the body of scholarship suggests other conclusions entirely. Sourcing of topics should be dictated by the description of the topic in the highest quality sources, with secondary quality sources supplementing, but not driving the narrative of the article. Why does Feature Article Criteria draw a distinction between high-quality sources and other reliable sources? The article which started this debate, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, is currently under Featured Article Review. It has a deep over reliance on a UN report published in 1956, instead of relying on the large volume of scholarly accounts. Writing a historical narrative out of documents from the time is the production of a secondary source. Wikipedia is thankfully not a tertiary source written by erudite scholars on academically driven topics, but we can do better than being a secondary source written out of primaries. As I've been repeatedly saying, the poor quality of sourcing on Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and the fact that the most prolific English Language author in the field Bill Lomax is missing, has a deep impact on line-by-line verifiability, article focus, construction, and weight. This is because there are reliable sources, and "high quality" reliable sources, a specification listed in the Featured Article criteria, but left up to individual editors to implement. The standard for high quality in the disciplinary practice of history, and in most academic fields is relatively clear and transparent. Much as an article should not be written out of primary sources, and then be salted with google search eye-picked secondaries, articles which have a scholarly literature and debate should not be written out of poor, short, unreviewed popular works, and then salted with google scholar eye-picked high quality reliable sources. The reason this should not be the practice, is that lower quality reliable sources misweight, fail to engage in quality work, misquote, misemphasise, overstate, understate, and often provide an article framework that bears no relationship to the broader literature. The should indicates I'm stating an ambition, not a policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Similar problem

I've never run into Baxter before, and only recently run into Fifelfoo at the renamed Communist genocide page. Fidelfoo has a tremendous problem with tendentious editing, trying to dominate the article by coming up with frivolous citation and RS rules.

I've found myself in an embarrassing situation there - he's been reverting my footnote formating - and in frustration I've reverted his footnote formatting reversions twice. We also have differences on substantive matters where there were also reversions. In short, I estimate he has 6 reversions in 16 hours just on Communist genocide, and I've had 4 reversions in the same period. This is obviously a problem for both of us. All this while this ANI is going on. It's pretty obvious that Fidelfoo needs to do a bit of self-evaluation. Smallbones (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You might have a typo there, the third letter in my username is an f (though an amusing typo!)

I have a problem with people added "sources" so poor, or so poorly cited, that they are unverifiable. Verifiability is the quality of the citation provided.

Smallbones is editing outside of a hard won consensus at Communist Genocide, and not engaging in any of the attempts to improve their contributions (tagging and in article commentary, reference to talk page and built consensus). For the consensus: Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#A summary of the consensus editorial direction, and warning about content lying outside of that consensus. For Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Early theories para attempts to discuss before reverting (before even thinking of reverting content under the consensus. For Smallbones problematic edit Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Dewey, Koestler, Conquest. Smallbone's edit is the first paragraph in the (only) section of a heatedly contested article that directly discusses the article topic. Repeated AfDs and reviews have called for the article to address its topic out of a discourse in scholarly literature. Smallbones has been asked repeatedly to substantiate that the sources they use are academic, involved in the scholarly debate of, specifically: general, universal, or cross-cultural causes for mass killings in multiple communist states. Sadly, they've not expanded or contextualised their edit to do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Smallbones' characterisation of the "troubles" he has encountered with sourcing on Mass killings under Communist regimes, and concur with Fifelfoo's. I do think Fifelfoo is quite strict with sourcing, but that may not be a bad thing, and has little to do with the mass killings page, where dodgy sourcing and POV has been a real problem.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My questions and remarks

After quick reading the comments my questions and remarks are:

1) Is it true that if I use the "most commonly used form" of {{cn}} instead of full than my work is "inadequately sourced", "so poorly cited, that they are unverifiable" "I have a problem with people added "sources" so poor, or so poorly cited, that they are unverifiable" "but unfortunately failed to provide a full academic citation" or it downgrades the reference ("Your reference wasn't quality.") "incorrect citation, makes reference non RS" so it can be removed? "Incorrect" citation really makes a reference non-RS? Where can I find this rule? At WP:RS?

2) "hasn't gone through an academic press"? A reliable source MUST BE from academic press or academic?

3)If a book has a chronology section, or written in this style (note, that my reference is NOT a chronology) for example (from a reliable sorce's chronology list "Albert Einstein was born and died (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) Means I can not use this book as a reliable source or reference because the information is from a chronology secttion or the book was written in that style? Where can I find this rule?

4) If the source is reliable written by scholars,"but they aren't a scholarly publishing house" it is unacceptable and it can be removed?

5)"Baxter9's citation was not verifiable as it did not allow other Wikipedians to find the material Baxter9 was citing: "Ferenc Glatz, MTA; Kornélia Burucs, Zsuzsa Frisnyák, Éva Kovács, János Pótó. A magyarok krónikája. [where]: Magyar Könyvklub. p. 690. ISBN 9632270703." is still not a verifiable citation" It is the mots commonly used form of {{cn}}. If I use this, than my source becomes non verifiable? Where can I find this rule? At WP:RS or at Template:Cite book?

6)"The provided citation...isn't a specialist work as a whole on 1956" This source is peer reviewed, written by historians (like Ferenc Glatz, Hungarian Academy of Sciences). So my source is non reliable? I cant use it? Where can I find this rule? At WP:RS?

7)From Wikipedia:Featured article criteria "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations...1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes () or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)" Again: 1. and 2.

8)"primary source like Békés and others The 1956 Revolution: a history in documents (2002) [indicated above by Baxter9], is unacceptable". Why is this a primary source and unacceptable? It was wrote in 2002 and the fact that it uses documents doesnt mean that it doesnt "may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" and researches made in the XXI century. It should be re-added. Actually it is a secondary source. From WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source" "* Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, (in this case contemporary documents) often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5] Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source."

9) "if not being TERTIARY which is again inappropriate for an encyclopedia" From WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."

10) "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

11)"You see, this is back to the barse ackward thing. The standard is that articles which ARE GOOD ENOUGH to be featured articles WILL contain high quality sources - not that ONCE an article is FA, other sources MAY NO LONGER be used. I think it would be helpful to clear up whether the consensus is that Fifelfoo is right in seeking to remove all content and sources which do not meet his criteria for scholarly sources (which does not I think make it into the requirement for FA, or constitute the only requirement for RS, although it is mentioned there). I see no reason to exclude for example university level teaching materials, which Fifelfoo specifically objects to, reliable news sources such as the BBC (which ditto), or well substantiated primary sources where they are not being used in a way which violates SYNTHESIS (ditto with a vengeance)" Totally agree.

12) "I see the problem with this discussion as being polluted by Fifelfoos own interpretation of guidelines and text and these interpretations could be misrepresented as actual guidelines or practice to follow. For example take this sentence, which does not require a particularly hard headed conclusion to draw that for an academic topic "high-quality reliable sources" are works produced by academics in the mode of academic publication.. First off there is no such conclusion. Second the distinction between academic topics and what, "normal topics(?)" is entirely invented by Fifelfoo as far as the Farc is concerned. The featured article criteria knows no such categorization and mentions no widely different standards according to category. It would be absurd to have different standards of FA on different articles. At one point we should accept that Wikipedia went in one direction and Citizendum and other projects went another direction." Totally agree.

13) COI: It looks like I am not the only one here.

14) Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1)(c) well-researched: ...Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources</quote> "I suppose you can add any old reliable source if you like...But claims can't be supported by any old reliable source" "being a featured article does *not* prevent the addition of non-academic references, *any* reliable source may be added." So what kind of sources can be used at featured articles? Is "But claims can't be supported by any old reliable source" correct?

The same source problems at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive2

• Decline concern at the slab quotes (if it makes me feel TL;DR, and is more than a screen length, its a concern). Paraphrase in prose while cutting length, only use the most pertinent and telling sections of the letters as quotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

References are in unacceptable format; locations are missing for almost all works. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete might be a more accurate word. Locns added. –Moondyne 05:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With a history article, an incomplete reference is an unacceptable reference. Its somewhat like noting the margin of error, statistical correlation, or other basic academic structure of disciplinary acceptability. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement in the FA criteria for locations to be listed for references. While it's always nice to have locations, it is not a requirement for FA. Opposing an article solely for that lack is unactionable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you link and quote that? Location is an essential element of source verification, particularly where publishing houses publish UK and US editions in the same year under the same house, which may have different paginations, and demanded by most style guides in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Given that this is a Sports History / Social History FAC, and the standards of history are highly demanding as regards quality citations, including location. Location is also remarkably easy to fix, easier than fixing missing or incorrect alts. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that neither WP:V nor WP:CITE make any requirement that any citation system is required. Note at the top of WP:CITE, that the example given is lacking a location. You'll also note that the FA criteria don't prescribe any particular citation style, so editors are free to chose a style they are comfortable with, as long as its consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

or here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1 "incorrect citation, makes reference non RS, makes reference unverifiable. As a Tertiary source articles must be named and signed by an author, "Tucker, Spencer E.; Roberts, Priscilla Mary; Greene, et. al., Jack (2005). World War II: A Student Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1851098577. OCLC 57311334." // ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), p. 995 ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), p. 613 ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), pp. 846–847. If this Encyclopedia isn't a scholarly encyclopedia, I hope they've cited their secondary sources so you can locate them." or here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/George F. Kennan/archive1 "Sourcing question Is this "Gaddis, John Lewis (1990), Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United States: An Interpretive History (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw Hill, ISBN 0075572583." a text book? Its heavily relied upon and has a title and publisher that make me suspect it is. Amazon and Google Books provide no help. Amazon's citation service reduces my confidence further. This is a question going to over reliance, source quality, and the potential of finding a "better" source. It shouldn't roll the article back. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that textbooks are of a lower caste? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! "--B@xter⁹ 03:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Baxter9. You'll want to fix the quote of YellowMonkey, as it appears as though he's signing something here, when you're quoting him from off page.

1) Verifiability. Failure to provide full citation information means the claim cannot be verified: Author, Title, Title of work contained in, Editor of work contained in, Edition, Series, Number, Issue, Location, Publisher, Year, Pages of the work, Page cited in the work. This is not an exhaustive list, but you need to fully explain Authorial identity (many of your additions have conflated editors with authors, the authors of chapters with the author of a book), Title, Containing text and its provenance, Utterance details (Location, Publisher, Year), pages of the work referenced within the larger work, pages specifically connected to cite.

2) Reliability is a sliding scale. FAs have a concept of "High quality" reliable sources. From WP:RS you can see that the list of items are organised from most to least reliable. The most reliable sources are academically published. When claiming that a source makes a statement in relation to an academic discipline, there is an expectation that academically published sources will take priority. When a source is an utterance of a group of Academics, the question is: why did they utter in a non-academic manner.

3) Chronologies are incredibly problematic works, compiled generally by non-specialists, when they are compiled they omit large features of the causal demands of the discipline of history and substitute linear progress. Making a claim about a death date from a chronology is a reasonable use. Making a claim about a complex situation, such as the defence of Budapest 4-10 November from a chronology is not sustainable. Chronologies do not have the causal, purposive and interpretive argumentation to back them up.

4) Yes. Scholars have more than enough opportunity to publish in scholarly presses. Scholars emitting utterances claiming to be academic not in the scholarly publishing mode are instantly suspect, and should be engaged in close detail. When they're online, in Hungarian, no translation is provided, and IRH has a vast opportunity to put out books, it becomes immediately suspicious that they are publishing in a non-scholarly mode because the work does not meet the standards of scholarly publication. (Evaluating such a suspicion requires, guess what, full citations, and access to the material in a language other editors can read.)

5) The Hungarian Chronicle as you cited it: lacks a year, lacks a location. Originally you claimed a corporate author and five coauthors. For a 700ish page book. Do you know how suspicious this is? I have searched the web for a TOC listing, but there isn't one available. I strongly suspect this is an edited collection, with Glatz as the lead editor, and the other editors editing chapters. Your citation should then be [Chapter author], "Chapter title" [translation of chapter title into english] in A magyarok krónikája [The Hungarian Chronicle], (Place: Magyar Könyvlkub, year): [chapter-pages]; [cited pages from chapter]. You can use a different citation style but that content is required for verification. Some editors omit place. Omitting the other elements would make your citation Unverifiable.

6) You should be citing IRH's "Hungary 1956" or, IRH's "Defence of the Corvin Alley" or, a work specific to Hungary 1956. The Hungarian Chronicle is a survey history, a history of the entire nation. Its lack of specialisation makes it a less desirable source (even though it is still "high-quality"). Using the best possible source is the best possible response. In the discipline of history that means a work as specifically focused on the Article Topic as possible, or on a subsection, for instance, the November 4-10 defence of Budapest. I admit that I had become snippy when I accidentally reverted the Academy of Sciences' Hungarian Chronicle. I am again sorry for that, and the removal of the Hungarian Chronicle in that edit was accidental, I was intending to remove either the Békés source or the IRH website.

7) "High quality". What does High quality mean in a history article? Does it mean websites not published external to an institute in a non-academic publishing mode? Does it mean inadequately cited chapters in a national survey history? Does it mean randomly quoting a source book?

8) Békés. Its a primary source because the title is "a history in documents" and you didn't specify you were quoting an introduction or a contained scholarly essay. Documentary source books are compilations of primary sources. If you had bothered to list a chapter title, and were citing an essay rather than a primary source, then you wouldn't have been reverted. This is why full citations, not using some template, but actually including the required information to locate and verify the actual quoted section of a source is essential. A primary source contained in a sourcebook is still a primary source. A primary source contained inside a scholarly monograph as a slab quote, appendix, picture plate, or reading is a primary source. Primary sources cannot substantiate claims. In the discipline of history, asserting a fact about past occurances is a claim requiring verification. Primary sources in history are useful to colour and to illustrate, like the use of photographs, maps, and multimedia content.

9) Read Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History which very clearly discusses what kind of tertiary sources are appropriate: signed encyclopedia articles by academic specialists. Its kind of like eating "named meat".

10) Yes, exactly, this is why I reverted your citation of Békés.

11-12) No comment required.

13) Wikipedia is not HUAC. For the COI information, please see Talk:Libertarianism, where an editor who is upset that scholarly peer reviewed reliable sources disagree with her personal vision of an article made suggestions I have encouraged her to retract.

14) Exactly. WP:FAC changes the rules of the game. For Start-A class either project or general requirements, which demand reliable sources, rule. Of course, I would argue that high-quality sources should be used, and that articles should be built out of the debate in mainstream scholarly sources (ie: the best secondary sources). At Feature Article status the rules change. Suddenly claims cannot be substantiated by reliable sources (read the FAC at 1c, its rather clear). Only "high-quality" reliable sources can substantiate claims. In a field with a wide ranging academic secondary literature, which is on an academic subject, the meaning of "high-quality" is clear: scholarly output published in the scholarly mode.

14) kind of bleeds on into other issues. But note how I'm criticising "A Student Encyclopedia", ie a tertiary according to WP:RS/examples; and how I'm questioning the Kennan text book (further replies at Kennan's reviews may be illustrative, Kennan, due to its full citation is more clearly only questionable rather than being obviously anything.

thanks for your points Baxter9. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Remark

I’ve known Fifelfoo’s edits for 4 years. Despite his offbeat politics and sometimes bawdy style, I still respect his being open to discussion, and approachable with logical argument. Constructive editors with a unique perspective give a robust dialectic and a stronger encyclopedia. However, Fifelfoo’s recent exponentially increased activity [47] and seeming disregard for convention and procedure strike me as disruptive and very much out of character. I wonder if this is the same person.

Specifically, Fifelfoo is knowingly [48] (“The should indicates I'm stating an ambition, not a policy” - last line) applying a unique, personal set of sourcing criteria, (incl. interpretation of WP:RS), to existing articles. It does us no good to evaluate the (de)merits of those personal criteria ad infinitum on this page, because in the end, these are Fifelfoo’s criteria, not Wikipedia’s.

Instead, Fifelfoo is well advised firstly to advocate the merits of his personal interpretations and criteria at WP:RS before applying them to Wikipedia articles.István (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the exponential increase in editing activity is troubling, as is his new personal policy on Reliable Sources. This ANI section isn't needed anymore. If there is a question on the real WP:RS, it can be taken to WP:RSN. If there is a problem with multiple reversions, he's been warned here (twice) and on his user page, so it can be taken directly to WP:ANEW. Smallbones (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to think on this. Thanks Istvan.

But extensively reading policy before beginning the editing indicated, is that RS is so vague as to lack any meaning for a specific topic area: to ideosyncratically characterise the point there is effectively no RS policy outside of "Publication date: fine". RSN is a non-policy generating space. The RS/ subpage for applying RS is pretty poor. Any attempt to bring articles to the FAC, which now requests "high quality" RS (an undefined term) falls back on personal interpretation. And I tend to back away from 3RR edit warring, though I can see how my engagement can be seen to fall under Edit warring. sigh. I really didn't want to clarify and develop policy. It looks like I'll have to.

More importantly, Ill take on board Istvan's comments about my behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

After extensive digging through the RS sub page essay on history, the guidelines were created in 2006, and have been unrevised since then (despite the page starting with a request for revision). The History wikiproject points clearly at: Wikipedia:MILMOS#SOURCES for its sourcing criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

MFD process check

moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently closed and deleted this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nalxhal. Seems SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) has twice reverted[49][50] in order to re-open the listing sputing something about " is not due to the bad deletion, but due to the bad close"[51]. I origionaly used the AFD closing template, but changed it to the MFD as I don't do alot of these. Someone want to review this, attempting to "Undelete" through brute force removal of the "archive " template seems a little odd.--Hu12 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who voted for deletion, I may be biased, but I endorse both the deletion and the close. SmokeyJoe has tried to use an ArbCom ruling as basis for his opposition, while ignoring the most salient point of the statement: ""This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria."" → ROUX ₪ 01:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Whenever anybody refers to speedy deletion as "out of process" you know they're wikilawyering: speedy deletion has no process outside the head of the deleting admin. Either the article should have been deleted or it should not. If there is a dispute about it, it can be taken up at deletion review. And May Jimbo Have Mercy On Its Revisions. --TS 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to get so used to reciting the rules that a user can momentarily forget their purpose, and attempt to enforce them for no other reason than to enforce them. It looks to me that Naxhal probably isn't here to build an encyclopedia, so I endorse the deletion, which had no chance of ending in keep, regardless. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion. In my view, a bad close is a DRV issue. That's exactly the type of thing DRV is meant for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ricky. There is some subtlety here, I can see that some see process wonkery or wikilawering, but I don’t believe I’m alone in believing that WP:CSD, especially in its first paragraph, is deliberately restrictive. When admins unilaterally expand generously on CSD, especially while citing “SPEEDY DELETION”, the community looses control. I see this MfD as a thin end of the wedge case, and do not seek to undelete. To go to DRV over the process of a deletion, where undeletion is not sought, would be pointless, as it has been agreed there before that DRV is not there for mere protests. I don’t think that this is quite important enough for DRV, and was content to discuss on the MfD talk page. I note that I have annoyed Roux in consistently arguing in direct opposition to his opinions in some MfDs over the last week or so, and concede some point to what he says above, but no, this was not a good IAR deletion, there was no reason to let the MfD run its course, and if it was an IAR deletion, the close should reflect that fact. I am sure that there is not consensus that old userpages may be speedily deleted for being old userpages. Ideally, Hu12 will modify the close to remove the false implied citation of one of the CSD criteria. I’ve registered my objection, and am prepared to leave it here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for the deletion were clearly spelled out in the close. IAR was implied. There was no chance that page wasn't going to be deleted. Hu12 acted well within his remit. What exactly is the problem here? You're upset that a stupid inappropriate waste of userspace was deleted without you having the chance to rabbit on again with your bizarre postmodern interpretations of motivations for writing such pages, and even more bizarre suggestions that things unacceptable for userspace be userfied to your userspace instead? You seem to be solidly anti-deletion-of-anything, maybe that's the problem. Yes, CSD is deliberately restrictive. And the ArbCom decision that you quoted said, I'll remind you: "This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria." Hu12 used IAR to improve the encyclopedia, and is well supported by the very evidence you used to try and hang him. I'm not really sure what you're complaining about here, but take off the Spiderman costume already. Useless pages will be deleted, there's not a lot you can do about it, get over it. → ROUX ₪ 12:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I am most disappointed in the comment immediately above. It doesn't seem to be constructive and verges on a personal attack in places. You're clearly annoyed at the moment, but please think twice before pressing the "save page" button. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Martin as to Roux's comment. I also agree with SmokeyJoe that WP:NOT is not a speedy criteria and has been misused more often than I can remember. However, as a going forward matter, the only suggestion would be to tell Hu12 that CSD criteria for user pages is very limited and this isn't appropriate. If it's being argued as a speedy close of the discussion per WP:SNOW, that looks inappropriate as well (two editors does not make a SNOW). To invoke WP:IAR over deletion discussion is very concerning (anyone remember an admin arguing IAR allowed him to delete articles unilaterally for whatever reason he wanted?). Why invoke IAR over something that within a few days was going to be deleted anyways? It was a single userspace, let it sit there at AFD. There's been plenty of userpages that look similar we've kept around. As a policy matter, this deserved the full seven days of discussion, regardless of the fact that the results clearly would have been the same, but as a practical matter, I hope everyone could just agree to drop it and move on. Nobody has come out smelling like a rose in my view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems the confusion here is because I closed the MFD "report" as a "speedy", When the actual deletion was not rationaled with CSD criteria. Should have just marked the "report" as "deleted.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at the 3RR noticeboard

Nine open reports at WP:AN3 - admin assistance welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nine reports remaining ... - 2/0 (cont.) 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:23prootie and Issue regarding Tagalog language/Disruptive editing

I want to report this matter, because it boils up my blood, but I do not want to involved into any edit warring.

User:23prootie insists on adding Baybayin scripts on the article, but that script is no longer in use. He showed me an article, like, the Kazakh language that uses Arabic on its infobox. I told him that Kazakh naturally uses Arabic in writing, but Tagalog no longer uses Baybayin.

The conflict is that he adds translation of the phrase wikang Tagalog in Baybayin, which signifies that that is the ancient spelling of Tagalog itself. It is okay, but Baybayin is no longer in use. Plus, we are not certain if ancient Tagalog calls their language wikang Tagalog as what modern Tagalogs do.

I told him that the infobox suggests the native name of the language, but not the way it was written in a script that is no longer in use.

FYI User:23prootie has been a consistent edit warrior and reported many times at at ANI. See here.

What can I/we do about this? Thanks a lot.--JL 09 _^q?c 07:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User also moved Commonwealth of the Philippines to Philippine Commonwealth without consensus.--JL 09 _^q?c 11:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RE to 23prootie's move: He/she moved the Commonwealth article for the fourth time today without dealing with a page-move consensus (i.e., he/she decided the move for himself/herself when he/she found a source in the NY Times showing Philippine Commonwealth instead of the name Commonwealth of the Philippines). The conventional long name is the real name of the former government, but the Philippine.. one is used only for shortening in writing. 23prootie warned twice regarding this move (and I will attempt for the 4th time, with level 4 user warning). I don't know if he/she will ignore it then continue for disruption.--JL 09 _^q?c 12:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a serious issue, I think the nominator mis-understands policies such as WP:OWN and WP:Good Faith.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 12:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps reverting multiple times or moving page more than four times without consensus makes it a real issue. User has been blocked many times but return, possibly, to previous behaviours why he/she was blocked.--JL 09 _^q?c 12:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my part in escalating the move/revert war, anad I will not revert User:23prootie' s move any longer. I thought that once I asked the user to discuss the moves first, and await an consensus to move the page, that the user would wait, but they have refused to stop. JL has also agreed to stop reverting. If this "is not a serious issue", as 23p claims, then why do they keep insisting on reverting against a consensus? I think it is obvious this user does not intend to abide by any consensus that disagrees with their position. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree on stopping the revert war if you agree on not removing my reliable sources and agree on not flooding my talk page with warnings. Gosh!--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm interpreting this that user will still insist to go on warring, even if other editors will remove/add edits that is beyond the taste of the concerned user, if I am not mistaken.--JL 09 _^q?c 13:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Block needed: compromised/shared account

• Red Thunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have control of this account. Based on userpages, there's no way they were originally the same person. In addition, he claims to be using the Red Thunder account as a bot. I have had no headway trying to explain to him how Wikipedia works and what it's for. Perhaps someone with greater patience can try. → ROUX ₪ 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you did better research than you did with this one. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Thunder has no edits since March. You would need a steward to run a checkuser on other projects where he may be active. Thatcher 02:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but User:Guitarherochristopher claims he has access to the account and is (will be?) using it as a bot. This is a problem on two fronts. → ROUX ₪ 04:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Until Red Thunder has current edits, there are no local checkuser findings. Since Red Thunder is a unified global account, a steward can get his IPs from another project and either look to see if there is evidence of compromise, or save them for when Red Thunder starts editing again. It may in fact just be trolling by GHC. Thatcher 07:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect it is just trolling. In other news, if you attempt to roll back edits which leave no net change on the page content, a message pops up as if the rollback was successful, but nothing actually happens. huh. I would leave a note on GHC's talk page asking about this but it would appear that such a measure would be an exercise in futility. Protonk (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The user has confirmed here that he has access to the account; I am waiting for proof. → ROUX ₪ 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• It occurs to me that GHC may also be User:Coldplay Expert. Crafty (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll bite. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guitarherochristopher filed. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not guitarherochristopher, I can assure you of that fact. (Or vice versa)--Coldplay Expert 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think his dad wants a word with you. :) [52] Crafty (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How odd. This is the second father with an autistic son misusing Wikipedia I've seen. Hm. In any case, could an admin please contact the father and explain the problems? It will be more effective coming from someone who can say (in some sense) that they can speak for Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Y'know Roux, I don't think it's GHC dad. Admittedly I was wrong about the sockpuppet thing, but I think I'm on stronger ground with this assertion. ;) Crafty (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
      • That would be the case with the other one I'm thinking about as well. In that case, it would seem (based on stuff found elsewhere online; this guy is somewhat notorious) that it's an older man with some weird obsessions. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Weird obsessions you say? You don't have his number by any chance? :) Crafty (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I know several of the usernames he tends to use. This case is weirdly similar, but in totally different subject areas. Odd. → ROUX ₪ 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher claims to be in 8th grade, let's consider his age when dealing with him. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been. Multiple people have attempted to engage him to no avail. And I find it... difficult to believe the comment is actually from the putative father; I just received one in my inbox (funny how he says he can't use Wikipedia but finds Special:Emailuser no problem) that... well let's just say there's no way it was written by an adult. → ROUX ₪ 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you all belive me now when I tell you that I am not associated with him?--Coldplay Expert 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate problem

Guitarherochristopher keeps putting nonfree images on his userpage and elsewhere in his userspace. He's been warned about this at least twice--once by me, once on Sept 12. The cluelessness is becoming aggressive at this point. I don't have the patience to keep trying to educate here. Can someone else please jump in? → ROUX ₪ 03:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Guitarherochristopher

This is a message which may explain User:Guitarherochristopher's behaviour on Wikipedia, and follows on from his alleged sockpuppetry. I was looking at Coldplay Expert's talk page and I found this written there. I'm not sure if this has been noted already or if this page is the right place to report it, but if the message is true it may explain his disruptive editing behaviour on Wikipedia. - Nimbusania talk 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

His conduct with others isn't all that good. major concern is him talking about his 13 year son on this, which does not add up to truth. Also, Others complain of him of failing to distinguish a user page and talk page on User_talk:Roux#Question:. I hope he can offer some insight why he is conducting himself in this way. He may listen to some advise as he did when he was warned of vandalism to the article Coldplay on User_talk:Guitarherochristopher#The Vandalism Is All Yellow. He later made some meaningful contribution to the article as you can see on [Article differences between revisions)]. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 10:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I say we just outright ban him and get rid of this headache. What are the chances that Guitarherochristopher is autistic? Probably slim to none. What are the chances that his father really discovered who his best friend on Wikipedia is and posted a message on his talk page explaining his son is autistic? Is it really even reasonable that someone who is autistic would be engaging in editing on Wikipedia? This is all just too bizarre. Seems like Guitarherochristopher is just playing some stupid game and trying to fool people. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of people on the Autism spectrum would be highly capable of editing Wikipedia, so I'd rein that comment back if I wuz u. Which does of course not guarantee either that he is 13 or that his father wrote the other comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have Autism, and I can safely say that I can work out this site. 'Autism' in general is a bit of a broad and varied topic anyway. — neuro^(talk) 18:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not his "Best friend on Wikipedia" despite what he has said in the past. I am glad that you all have now realized that I am not a Sock but I still what to tell you that I do not support any actions by him. In fact I was fooled by his fake note. I will support any decision that you guys have. I hope that you all belive me on this matter.--Coldplay Expert 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As irritating as some are finding the situation, I still think there is some hope that this user can become constructive, he just needs some guidance. I'm happy to mentor/adopt Chris, at least until he is on the right track. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you should try to adopt him, he has made some good edits in the past, he just needs guidence.--Coldplay Expert 22:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes this could work, as he has made some constructive edits in the past, particularly on articles about subjects he appears to be passionate about (Coldplay-related etc). - Nimbusania talk 22:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh one quick question Nimbusania, why were you looking at my talk page?--Coldplay Expert 01:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He (or any other editor) can look at your talk page anytime they'd like. When an editor has some questionable edits, it's fairly common to look at their other edits to see if there's a pattern. Dayewalker (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not mad at him/her at all. I thought that s/he was goint to tell me something and got caught uo in the note that GHC's father sent me. So I thought that by asking that question s/he might remember. I dont have any problem with anyone looking at anything of mine like my talk page.--Coldplay Expert 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Patterns of sneaky vandalism

I've been noting a trend lately at newpages: A brand new account, or a long-dormant one, will create a new article that is either about some non-notable friend of theirs or something else not notable. When the article is tagged for speedy, they log out and remove the speedy with an IP. They do the same thing with PRODs, which then forces the article to go to AFD. On a related note, a long-dormant account created the following [53] an apparently normal redirect. Then an IP (probably the same person) came along after the page had theoretically been patrolled and changed it to vandalism [54]. I've been seeing this trend and I think it's an attempt to get garbage past newpage patrollers, spam filters, abuse filters, etc. Not sure what we can do about it but thought people ought to be aware of it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Newpage patrollers perhaps should watch pages they prod or list for speedy (I do, at least). If not, if you have a pattern, I would venture we could warn (and then block) both characters for gaming the system. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion that is deleted by IPs should be restored in my opinion. IPs really can't be trusted. --Rockstone (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

IPs can't be trusted? Nice assume bad faith there. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tags that are removed by *anybody* should be replaced. Being an IP is nothing to do with it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What I mean by "IPs can't be trusted" is that IPs can't be trusted to remove Speedy Deletion Tags. Users with Usernames however, should have the right to delete the speedy Deletion tags if they intend to fix the problem, but only if they are not the original Author. (Not that I'm I'm saying this should be policy!) --Rockstone (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't policy, and you're not saying that it should be policy, so why are you saying it at all? If you don't mind me asking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, lets not turn this into an opinion thread. Neither of your suggestions, Elen or Rockstone, match current policy. If you think policy should be changed, then this is not the correct venue. — neuro^(talk) 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Falafel

Resolved

 – Content issue, no admin action required.  Sandstein  09:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Would like to request a neutral admin review the addition of a photo of sliced falafel that has been added to the falafel article. There is currently a discussion regarding it at Talk:Falafel#Images --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not selected on their strengths in falafel imagery judgment; what you have there is a disagreement over content that should be settled by dispute resolution if you can't come to an agreement on the talkpage. Alternatively, editors who do know a thing or two about content issues might be found at these noticeboards. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:3O is also a good place to get the opinion of others.  Sandstein  09:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I find myself suddenly hungry for ground chickpeas (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A literal "food fight" on wikipedia. I find myself hungry for an Angusburger. I'm not sure what that is, but I'm guessing it's a Scottish/German dish. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And here I am, just a few blocks from this[55] joint. I think my lunch problem is solved. PhGustaf (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Now, I may have to walk to the only spot in town that does a fit hummus. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Irvine22 a disruptive editor?

There has been a long-standing issue with Irvine22, primarily on the PIRA page, but also on others. Irvine22 has been confirmed as a puppetmaster for the purposes of block evasion, refused to acknowledge or apologize for the incident, and then began to implement a series of disruptive, POV edits without discussing the matter on the talk page. His edits have been almost universally reverted, and yet he continues to make them, after being told many times by many editors as well as one admin to raise issues on the talk page first. He shows no sign of ceasing this behaviour, nor will he acknowledge, much less address, any criticism of it. The page's resident admin, User:Rd232, suggested that I raise the matter on the ANI page if it continued, so that is what I am doing now.

Following is a small sampling of Irvine22's more recent edits. Note that I have only selected edits for which there was no consensus, that were later reverted. These also all occurred after his block and subsequent sockpuppetry. They also occurred after he was repeatedly told not to edit the article without first seeking consensus, or at the very least providing an adequate source.

The edits:

[56] This edit was reverted, and a new section started on the talk page. Instead of trying to reach a consensus, he restored the edit with the explanation "per discussion". It was not.

[57]

[58] This POV edit was reverted. Irvine22 restored it. It was reverted again. So he restored it again. It was reverted again and he was told to bring the matter up on the talk page. So he restored it again. And again. And again. Actually a quick glance at the page's history will show you the behaviour he regularly partakes in. I really wish I could link to more, but I simply don't have the time. Rest assured, there are dozens.

Talk page disruption begins here

Irvine22 has also been dismissive of advice and instructions to change his editing habits, as can be seen here, and especially on the PIRA talk page, beginning here.

Note Irvine22's polite yet dismissive tone throughout all of this. He is almost pathologically incapable of acknowledging any wrongdoing on his part, or criticism of his actions. I am not sure if this is a deliberate attempt to game, or the result of some actual personality disorder for which he cannot be fully faulted.

I haven't the time to go digging through his edit history. I really wish I did. I will, however, link to this page on the PIRA talk page and invite further comments from the editors there.

Thank you for your time.

P.S. I apologize if this request is not in the correct category. It crosses several, and I didn't want to pigeonhole it as a 3rr issue, as the problem extends far beyond simple edit warring.

Throwaway85 (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85 is a sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasticated (talk • contribs)

No, although you are not the first to make such an accusation. See my talk page and the Domer48 sock investigation for more detail. Otherwise, back to the issue at hand. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The evidence of Throwaway85 being a sockpuppet is in his/her edit history. It's not difficult enough to find, although he/she has covered his/her tracks better than most sockpuppets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasticated (talk • contribs)

This thread is not about Throwaway85. If you have evidence, WP:SPI is that way. Rd232 ^talk 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway beat me to it making a similar report. This is by its nature a problematic page and is covered by the Arbcom ruling on The Troubles (the fact that a newly created editor immediately arrived to make the above unsigned accusation is pretty typical) Irvine has been very careful to avoid a technical violation of 3RR, but in practice has been constantly edit warring without discussing matters on the talk page. Each edit is different, but each follows a similar set of themes. I was planning to take to arbitration enforcement later today if the behaviour continued, but as its has been raised here would just add my support to the request for someone (ideally with knowledge of the multiple edit wars and related issues around the Troubles) to take a look at this. --Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately in starting this thread, Throwaway85 was unaware that just before it I temporarily blocked (48 hours for edit warring) and temporarily topic banned Irvine22 [59]. I'd suggest that in the interests of minimising drama we close this thread and see how things go with the ban; otherwise, Irvine22 should presumably be unblocked so he can participate here. Rd232 ^talk 09:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

has Inving22 ever been blocked? if this is his first time, i suggest, he should be given an opportunity to answer questions raised, and give us an insight to why he is disruptive in his conduct with others. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 09:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Easy to check - prior block with extension for block evasion with a sock here--Snowded ^TALK 10:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks, i see, he deserved another block. I will follow him up to have a word with him, and see how best he can contribute to Wikipedia with minimum disruption to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by fngosa (talk • contribs)

Okay, thanks Rd232. I'm more than happy to wait and see what the results of this latest block will be. I will, however, save my original post somewhere, as it took forever to write and something tells me I'll need it again. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User insistently performing date linking

Okay, we have a static IP user, 203.97.255.42 (talk · contribs), who insists on continually linking all the dates the come across and enter into articles. Now this user performs good edits, mainly to railway related articles, but their date linking is becoming a little disruptive. Their talk page is full of pleas not to link dates, links to the MOS, and warnings for disruptive editing over this point. However the user refuses to reply to any communications, and takes no notice of the discussions. I myself have furnished the user with two minor blocks for disruptive editing over this point to try and draw them to the discussion page and save people the tedious work of delinking their dates, but it isn't working. Other than this point they are a good and useful editor, and I'm loathe to do any more blocking on the account as a result over one persistent point. Any ideas? Canterbury Tail talk 11:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User had been blocked before, another block is inevitable. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 13:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't linking/delinking still prohibited by arb sanctions? –xeno^talk 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• See the policy: Wikipedia:Linking#Specific_cases. As I recall, the arbcom outcome only sanctioned individual editors from linking/delinking. However, if the IP doesn't stop soon I wouldn't see any other way but a block. I've left a last warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, mass de-linking is prohibited, but it says nothing about mass linking. –xeno^talk 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that's because the policy already says dates shouldn't be linked in sweeping batches, but there was a delinking/linking war, which they felt a need to stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy? Or MOS preference? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My botch, guideline (I'd forgotten). I'll fix the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple IP user

Resolved

 – One Article semi-protected, rangeblock set

Sock IP's are doing the same thing all over again mainly in the following articles.

• List_of_ancient_cities_in_Illyria,
• Dimale
• User or Users repeats changes does not even quote the title of a ref correctly ,the title is
• Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization

and he just puts the title of the chapter as he does not want under any circumstances to write the above title.Removes all or most refs especially those he doenst like,interprets them in his own way,removes map,leaves them epigrammaticaly and rewrites the article(Dimale).Uses these Ip's and a few more.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.4.77
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.59.4
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.27.214
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.49.216
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.61.56
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.27.214
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.59.4
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.4.77
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.60.49
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.28.91
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.33.38
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.1.78
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.73.219.34

Megistias (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected both articles for a month. Black Kite 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked 87.202.0.0/18 for 1 week for continued disruption (as well as harassment of editors). MuZemike 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I was about to do that myself, so I've unprotected Dimale so that the good-faith editor can continue to edit. Black Kite 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong???.

3 days ago. User:Raeky marked 5 of my photos as Possibly unfree File. This user is saying that they all have fake Metadata. this example is a photo of myself. I removed it from the list of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 27. The user marked File:Photo of Lil Rob.jpg & File:MS-13 Tattoo.jpg & File:Photo of Downtown Los Angeles, California.jpg and File:Photo of Proper Dos group.jpg for deletion. I don’t know what to do about this. Can you help me out. I think this user don’t like me.

User:Raeky has a history of abusing templates and more. If I think of something else. I will add it here. --Zink Dawg -- 02:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Zink Dawg; it looks like the misunderstanding stems from the fact that different versions of these images can be found online, in some cases as published media, so it seems strange that they would be tagged as "new" and released into the public domain. Perhaps it might help if you could tell us a little more about the sources of the images. Did you take them yourself, and if not, how did you come to be the copyright holder? Thanks,  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I took the photos myself. I am the copyright holder.--Zink Dawg -- 02:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There are identical photos on other websites with 2007 copyright dates.

You need to explain how this could happen. Our presumption, when we find older versions of exactly the same image, and multiple problems with the same user, is that someone is gaming our system trying to violate other websites' and photographers copyrights on images. You are currently at the point we normally block indefinitely until a suitable explanation is supplied, and/or you apologize and admit to the full extent of your copyright violations and help us clean them up.

If you'd like to think it over tonight and come clean tomorrow morning, that's fine, but please be aware that you are likely to get blocked really soon thereafter if you have not provided sufficient explanation.

If you intend to keep asserting your innocence, please first review the images that were found by Raeky and explain to us how this could possibly be a simple coincidence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that his other image uploads are suspect as well... I get the impression from his user page that he lives in Southern California... I don't think they get icicles there. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tineye dosn't turn up anything for the new ice images, but yes it is something to consider given this user's history. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete all of my images. I don’t want anymore problems from users. I will never upload a another image. --Zink Dawg -- 06:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please talk to him, telling him that he's always welcome to make useful contributions that don't deal with images or copyvios? Let's not see him leave like this. MuZemike 08:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you think that i should stay on Wikipedia???--Zink Dawg -- 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely your call. If you do stay I suggest you put a little thought into the fact that WP is a community and there are bound to be conflicts. Padillah (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting sucks!

• Just stick around! There's always other stuff to do which you can find productive. I was almost compelled to leave the project not too long ago. Just shift your focus a little, try something a little different; you might actually find something out there in which you will like and like doing. You seem to do have done some vandalism-hunting. You can keep going with that, and there are some good tools out there that can help you out with that. There are over 3,000,000 articles on the English Wikipedia, and there is always some huge backlog that needs some attention. There are probably more stubs out there than you can imagine that need attention. There's always going to be some conflict going on. You made a mistake you may not have been aware of. Don't worry about it - we all do. Padillah is right that Wikipedia is a community, but that community is almost entirely made up of humans (the other small percentage being bots, but that's something different), and humans make mistakes, especially when starting out something new. So I stay stick around and see what you want to do. MuZemike 18:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will stay on Wikipedia. Can someone restore my user page now. Thanks..--Zink Dawg -- 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

98.163.228.37

Resolved

98.163.228.37 (talk · contribs) Hate speech and suggested violence. [60]. I thought this was extreeme enough to block immediately. Infrogmation (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Block looks fine to me. –xeno^talk 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you blocked is fine, but is a 6 month duration a good idea for what appears to me to be a dynamic IP address with no previous edits? Perhaps I didn't read the WHOIS properly, but it's worthwhile for a more technically competent person than me looking to see if it's dynamic or shared or whatever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't look to see it was 6 months. Agreed that a week would probably be better, without prejudice to re-apply. –xeno^talk 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses: "Long-term blocks should never be used for isolated incidents". Even a week might border on excessive, assuming you never want this person to edit again. 31 hours? I'll reset it to 72 hours as a compromise. If they come back on the same IP and spout the same stuff it can be extended. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the shortening. This editor has probably already reset their connection and onto a new IP anyway. –xeno^talk 15:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Enigma^msg 17:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Would endorse shortening of length. — neuro^(talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted the block length and watchlisted the pages. Endorse the lack of warning, by the way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Pd1 uob, 116.71.145.227 and User:123kasi adding same copyvio in new articles

The same copyrighted material has been added in newly created articles repeatedly (all G12 speedily deleted). The copyvio is a half-page segment of this book [[61]]. It has been added at least in Kasi Tribe, Kansi (now cleaned up), Kasi or Kassi, Kasi Killa Quetta‎, Kasi Pashtun (now tagged), Kasi (tribe), Kasi Quetta, Kasi by Arif Kasi (previously deleted), and several talk pages; some having been deleted more than once (not to mention the author removal of deletion tags once or twice, as well as other articles that I am not aware of). The material always includes the same name and email in a "feedback" section, suggesting they are all the same user. User:Pd1 uob has been repeatedly warned but now the same material has been added by the IP and a new user account (possibly by other IPs too in the past, including 116.71.148.198). Therefore, trying again to explain to him not to create new separate articles and copyvio etc (as I wrote to User Talk:Pd1 uob) seems useless. As this is a huge waste of time (each time an admin has to check the copyvio), I ask here for some kind of help/intervention or at least notifying to prevent more waste of time (hoping to have done that in the correct forum). If not for the copyvio, I would have given up already... Cheers Antipastor (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The repeated insert of a copyvio would have been enough for at least a one-month block, but with the sock involved, it's indef. I was about to block 123kasi as well, but Rhaworth beat me to it. I'm also gonna request an SPI investigation to smoke out any more socks, given the long-term disruption. Blueboy96 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IP edit warring on Satoshi Yamamoto and Hidenori Kusaka

I've already filled out a RFPP request, but this is going to need more immediate attention. A dynamic IP has been edit warring with multiple editors on the article Satoshi Yamamoto and Hidenori Kusaka. The IP has been including an unreliable source in the form of an open edited "wiki" of an anime news website and over the notability and sourcing tags. In order to avoid the letter of the 3RR rule, the editor changes their IP every so often. And is now removing other editor's comments at WT:MANGA.[[62]] —Farix (t | c) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed my own edits on WT:MANGA, which is allowed. --75.60.13.107 (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You clearly removed TheFarix's comment and replaced it with "Why do you hate Pokemon?" --Smashville^talk 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's looking like this is the same editor who previously been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and vandalism on Pokemon articles. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathemagician57721) —Farix (t | c) 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur that this is clearly Mathemagician. I hope the 12-hour block placed on the IP is sufficient, however. MuZemike 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it has almost no affect. He's already back on his next IP, 75.33.218.16 (talk · contribs). That's at least the third one today. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the IP has been blocked, but his talk page could use protection equal to the same length as he has been spamming it with personal attacks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page editing revoked by User:Beeblebrox. MuZemike 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reece

Resolved

Reece Van breda has been tagged for speedy deletion for almost a day. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

best selling albums worldwide

Resolved

hi,i do not have semi-protection edit ability about three days ago user "SIMONE JACKSON" editted out Michael Jackson BAD album (30 million ) from the "best selling albums worldwide" ,i wonder if someone with edit ability could look into it. thank you for your time.-oz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.119.164 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and they were correct to do so, as it was sourced only to a blog. (For anyone else looking at this, the article is List of best-selling albums worldwide, ther may be a reliable source available, but I'm going to sleep now). Black Kite 00:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan101 and User:Meursault2004

Resolved

 – Please AGF re Meursault, who will, of course, not listen to this kid again.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Using his User:Ice Age lover account, our infamous sock User:Bambifan101 has again managed to persuade an administrator on another language Wiki, this time User:Meursault2004 a sysop of three Wikipedia's including the Javanese one, to make edits on his behalf. The articles hit were Teletubbies, The Fox and the Hound and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.[63][64] Meursault2004] and the same editor on the Indonisian Wiki (while also possibly trying to recruit another)[65]. However, as Meursault2004 appears to be well aware that Bambifan101 is a permanently blocked user (Bambifan helpfully pointed him to his long term abuse page), is there any administrative action needed regarding Meursault2004? He made the edits have the vandal told him why he was blocked and did his usual bragging about his history here (and which socks have been mistagged as him and so forth), so these edits appear to have been done with the full knowledge that he would be aiding a banned user get around his ban. From their discussions, Robin Hood (1973 film) is the next he plans to do. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Block the meatpuppet indefinitely - in fact, I'll do it myself. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am a sysop on three projects and as such I listen to every user even the so-called banned ones. Before doing the edits for this Ice Age lover of course I did some research and I was convinced that his edits seem good to me. I always assume good faith. I invite you to do the same for me Jéské Couriano. Please dont call me meatpuppet'. I have been on Wikipedia since 2003. Meursault2004 (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There are limits to AGF, and when he himself pointed you to his long term abuse report, which also notes his tricking one of the Russian admins into editing for him (who ended up being blocked indefinately here), that should have been all the warning you needed. He TOLD you he was blocked, he told you why, but you edited for him anyway. You did, in fact, meat puppet and act for a banned editor in violation of that ban. As such, you should be blocked here. You are claiming you were just AGFing, but the conversation clearly shows you did know exactly why he couldn't edit, so helped him anyway. Why? I also see after your being warned, you still edited for him, even if you did self-revert later[66] again, why? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You cite policy but you omit the important clause "unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." ... Don't do that. Don't speak in blanket terms unless you're sure that clause doesn't apply. And don't be so hasty to call for blocks... you've been the victim of hasty calls for blocks yourself IIRC. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the block was lifted, but I can't find any statement by Meursault2004 that recognizes that what he did was wrong. Can someone point me at one?—Kww(talk) 13:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"have independent reasons for making them" would indicate that the editor was active on the article or topic, he wasn't. "able to confirm that the changes are verifiable" - the wholesale ones on the Fox and the Hound clearly were not. These edits do not fall within the clause. The conversations on the other wikis clearly show the edits were done word for word at Bambifan101's request, and for no other reason and without evaluating any of them or doing them on an independent level. And it is not a "hasty" call for a block. I AGFed until I saw the conversations where it became Meursault2004 was not just another of Bambifan101's unwitting victims, but willing and willfully edited for a blocked sockpuppet without any regard for the validity of the requested edits, without paying any attention to the LTA and its notes there, nor to the talk page history. Sorry, but I expect a sysop to stop and go "hmm, why would a banned editor be banned? why does he want me to redo these edits?" and at the least investigate and discuss with someone here if he isn't familiar with the issue rather than just doing it and calling it AGFing.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As I told you some things seem correct. And I did the research myself. For exemple that bay thing in Teletubbies, the correct name is indeed Jessica Smith. So from the statements and actions you made, I assume that it is not allowed to listen to a banned user even if he is right? Is that what you are saying? Furthermore what is a meat puppet? According to the Wikipedia entry "a meat puppet is a new user invited to an internet discussion solely to influence it, similar to a sock puppet". This is very offensive. As a matter of fact I have been here a long time longer than you are or Jéské Couriano, so I am not new. Yes Collectionan your contributions on English Wikipedia are far greater than mine and I respect you for that. I understand that you are emotionally involved in this matter. But please don't call me names and judge any contribution I made on its own merrit. And do not threaten with block and let's sort thing out. Meursault2004 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You got the essence there: it is not allowed to listen to a banned user even if he is right, even though it is actually it is not allowed to edit for a banned user even if he is right. A meat puppet is someone that edits on behalf of another. If you did any research on your own, though, it's hard to call it "meat puppeting", because the phrase implies that you simply do what the other account tells you to do without applying judgment. Doesn't make editing on behalf of a banned user any more acceptable, though.—Kww(talk) 13:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Mellow, everyone. I just noticed this; not sure just what's happened, but guess what? Everyone here is reasonably familiar to me and you're all serious people. Please just talk this through, ok? Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If the edit is good, the edit is good. Where is the bad edit? Where is the incident?

If Meursault2004 can work with this banned user, a long term problem may be resolved in the process. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the edits were good. He basically did a massive copy/paste of Bambifan101's edits over the existing articles. No, he can't work with this banned user, he has been banned for a reason and blocked nearly 300 times for a reason. His edits are not "good" 99.9% of the time and there is no value in his .1% occasional good contributions. The sock in question is already being banned by the Global stewards now, just like all the rest of his new socks are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jéské : You'd block a 'crat from another wikipedia over this? Seriously? Meursault2004 is standing behind the edits. Judge the edits. If they're good there is no issue here. If they're not good, deal with that in good faith. A ban of Meursault2004 is completely uncalled for and is, frankly, an appalling suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

His being a 'crat is not a get out of jail free card. Meursault2004 knew exactly what he was doing, and was even helpfully pointed to the LTA on Bambifan101 BY Bambifan101 (which includes notes about the last admin who did the same thing). Meursault2004 chose to disregard that and perform the exact edits Bambifan101 requested, down to the letter, anyway. The edits were not good and do not show that Meursault2004 used any personal judgement of their value or validity. He just did them. They were not HIS edits, they were 100% Bambifan101's done by proxy. That is a blockable offense per policy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got to disagree with Lar, here: until Meursault2004 acknowledges that what he did was wrong, I think a block is quite justified, regardless of his status on other projects. His behaviour shows a complete lack of judgment. Proxy editing for a banned user is certainly a blockable offense.—Kww(talk) 13:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is not a blockable offense. I take input from wherever I can get it. If a banned editor contacts me about something and the edit is important enough to make, I will make it. Judge me by the edit, not the source of the information. Edits directly by a banned editor don't stand, we revert them on sight. UNLESS someone is willing to stand behind them. I see no need for Meursault2004 to acknowledge any wrong doing. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Meursault2004 is not unwilling to discuss. Why would he be blocked?

I want a diff, with an explanation of why the content in the diff is wrong.

If the reason why the diff is erroneous is explained, I am sure that Meursault2004 will apologise.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He has been unwilling to make the very simple statement that he will not proxy for banned editors. The massive edit he made was essentially a minor cleanup of Bambifan101's previous version. He knowingly proxied for a banned editor, and has not agreed to never to so again, nor even acknowledged that his behaviour is unacceptable. I don't see why blocking him pending such an acknowledgement and agreement is even controversial.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) On Teletubbies, he first removed half the article[67] (explained as a technical issue which is highly likely), other than that, he added some questionable sources[68] (one a propoganda/seriously non-NPOV site). Not so bad, as a whole, but not great either. The big one, though, is The Fox and the Hound where restored Bambifan101's vandalized version[69] with a gut of inappropriate content, including OR, bloated plot, random made up reception, inappropriate character section, fact tagging and VC tagging valid content, removing legitimately sourced content, and restoring bad prose in the production section over better written and sourced content. In short, undoing months of clean up by legitimate editors to restore a hideous version of the article with even more bad content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks John for the support. For Kww. That is not true. I read all the edits and it all seem fine to me. I haven't noticed any vandalism in it. It was not a complete lack of judgment but common sense and AGF. But if it is not allowed to listen to a banned user even if he is right, even though it is actually it is not allowed to edit for a banned user even if he is right then I'll have to respect it. That is if it is indeed the official policy of English Wikipedia. I regret this whole things have happened. Meursault2004 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not official policy. You would be advised not to make wholesale edits that are word for word what you were asked to add, but there is nothing wrong with getting input from someone else and evaluating it and deciding what makes sense to do. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Editing on behalf of banned users is most certainly policy. He did not take "input", he restored the preferred version of a banned editor. That's not taking input, it is proxy editing. It is a blockable offense. Are we going to allow this new strategy of Bambifan101's to succeed? Searching for admins and crats from other Wikipedias and persuading them to edit by proxy, believing that the status of the person he recruits will allow his edits to persist? I'm not asking for some lifetime ban, I'm asking for Meursault2004 to concisely state that he understands that he violated the policy against proxy editing and that he will not do so again.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's policy when taken as a whole. You can't quote from it piecemeal. You have to include the exception. Now, what's being said is that a wholesale edit was reintroduced without any analysis of whether it was a good edit. That's not really a good idea and I suspect Meursault2004 knows that now. Asking him to reiterate that understanding... that he has to actually think about, research, perhaps paraphrase, not introduce material that had been edit warred over, etc. in short be a reasonable content contributor in that area... that's reasonable. Calling for a ban isn't. What you're asking M to do is reasonable. You're just not citing the whole policy. Maybe that's a nit but I don't think so, I think it moves us from rigid to reasonable. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read it, then the vandalism would have been obvious. If you had read the LTA he himself pointed you to, it also would have been obvious. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My friends, if this isn't proof positive that someone in charge of this site needs to act and act immediately in sending a formal complaint to this little freak's IP, I don't know what is. It is high time that this ends immediately on a TOS violation. This is at least the second time of which I'm aware that Bambifan has gone to other projects to recruit unsuspecting users into doing his dirty work. The mess this unsupervised and undisciplined brat leaves on these projects is almost unmeasurable in terms of wasted volunteer time. Let's end this now by drop-kicking this idiot off of these projects once and for all. He runs roughshod at Simple English and if he speaks some of the other languages of the wikis he screws with, I'm MascotGuy. I'd just as soon see a Grawp meatpuppet elevated to administrator than to see just one more keystroke on The Fox and the Hound from this yo-yo. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, while you're at it, how about doing the same for Jarlaxle? Same situation, except Bambifan's recruiting from within. I predict that people would rather burn than take action to avoid the fire lit under their tuckus. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He does not run roughshod at Simple. Just because some of his good edits were left doesn't mean we let him do whatever he wants. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if not roughshod, then certainly with impunity. I pointed out at Simple that no edit of his should be allowed to stand. If a good edit of his stands, what's to stop him from continuing? Not that blocking him and protecting his targets have done any good up until now, but the less encouragement, the better. I actually tried to reason with him at Simple and friends, this kid's nutty as a fruitcake. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike here where there are very large numbers of editors, simple needs what good edits it can get. So as long as its a good edit most editors there see no reason to be petty and delete the edit. After all he is going to come back whether we delete the edit or not. In fact I would guess he is more likely to come back if you delete the edit because you are doing what he wants you to do....give him attention. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that User:Meursault2004 should be blocked immediately, but the proxying should stop. Period. We are at the point now where in order to tease out disruptive edits we have to follow Bambifan's global accounts in order to check for conversations where he induces sysops on other projects to disrupt ours. That's a huge amount of wasted resources. If the proxying doesn't stop then yes, we can and should block User:Meursault2004 to prevent disruption to this project. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, IF he inserts stuff wholesale going forward with no research/thought/analysis/etc of his own. But standing behind edits isn't itself open and shut bannable. It's just not. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus here, Lar, seems to be that proxying for a banned user is bannable, and that has generally been the impression I got from the Ockham scandal. I initially did block him indefinitely from this thread, but after I saw some diplomacy taking place, I decided to give the benefit of the doubt and unblock him so that he can defend himself. Privilege isn't a get-out-of-jail free card, Lar, and anyone keeping track of bans against admins knows that or should know that by now. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" in some AN/I thread is whoever turns up. It can't override policy which is what we do. It turns out that these edits are crap, and Bambi played this guy. He needs to say "Nope, not going to get fooled again, not going to just redo edits again" and we all need to move on, because standing behind edits isn't itself open and shut bannable. I do it myself from time to time, after care, investigation, and forethought. Those of you with your big swinging... banhammers... need to calm down. No wonder a good portion of the rest of the wikipedia user base thinks en:wp is a wasteland of drama-mongering and kneejerk reactions. If M makes the undertaking outlined, he should be unblocked and remain unblocked. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that if statement. We are close to the shoals of "policy for the sake of policy" but BF101 is capital B Banned for subtle vandalism, harassment and sockpuppeting. Once that happens our only response to attempts to circumvent this ban should be RBI. The answer to questions from him about inserting edits on wikipedia should almost always be "I won't do that, but if you can edit productively on another project and avoid socking for X months, you can request to be unbanned on en.wp". If the answer is "sure, I'll look at your edits and insert them into the page if they are kosher" then we circumvent one of the purposes of the ban. We want BF101 to grow bored with wikipedia and go away. That may take years. It may never happen. But it is guaranteed not to happen if we get into a debate about it each time he attempts to find a proxy. Let's also not forget that his ban is for exceedingly subtle vandalism. Subtle enough that I can't tell good edits from bad unless I have seen the movie before (which is approaching P=0 as I grow older). subtle enough that a proxy couldn't be expected to tell 100% of the time, especially if that proxy was picked as a mark. I also don't really agree with your end-state analysis of this. In my mind, the edits aren't all that important, the disruption is. If BF101's proxy makes some edits which marginally improve our coverage of some new Disney film, who cares? The larger result is that we have dashed months of sock hunting, rangeblocking, emails to bell south, etc. for some spelling changes to 1-2 articles. The same comparison pops up in other, more malicious areas. We have proxies for banned editors at Cold fusion, which we refuse to identify and block on the grounds that the proxy claims to be acting semi-autonomously. The immediate impact might be a marginal improvement in those articles but the larger result is that the banned editor now has a freely available conduit directly to the content area that got them banned in the first place. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The next proxy absolutely should be banned. There's simply no excuse for someone to take up this idiot's mantle especially since he has no qualms about explaining who he is. I have to respectfully disagree with Dj regarding his antics at Simple. Either he's banned or he isn't, good or bad. It's true he's craving attention, but he's like the elephant in the living room adage. Ignoring him doesn't change the fact he's here. If Simple lacks editors, I will not only cheerfully turn my attention to Simple (which I've been meaning to do anyway), but I will personally replace any of his good edits with my own. Lose a Bambifan, gain yours truly on a more regular basis and I daresay other good editors from over here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you replace his edits with yours, after care and forethought, you're standing behind them. Nothing at all wrong with that. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Again? As I was (I believe) the person who blocked the previous xwikipedia admin who was fooled into proxying for Bambifan101 I suggest that the response for any admin (interesting that Bambifan101 cultivates admins as opposed to "ordinary" non-enWP editors to do his dirty work, as this bloated section testifies there is a reluctance to sanction flag enabled editors against non admins) is to block them indefinitely without prejudice to an unblock once they agree not to proxy for a banned en-WP individual. I would strongly urge people not to agree that these unwitting proxies edits should be judged on the content alone, because that way resolves to Bambifan101 recruiting ever more admins and such to continue to make disruptive edits. Create a block template for such instances, such as "You have been recruited by a known banned sockpuppet and meatpuppet operator to continue by proxy their campaign to disruput Wikipedia. You are blocked indefinitely unless you confirm you will not edit on the behest of this editor." It may seem a little harsh, but unless the community is prepared to put up with Bambifan101 resorting to this tactic with increasing frequency it may be the only way to stop it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree entirely with Lar and John Vandenberg. Why not simply have a rule that no one should ever make mistakes, and if they do, they will be blocked? Meursault understands he was played, is older and wiser and more people are aware of this tactic. Nothing else need be done in this case, and policy should not be stretched beyond what it actually says and intends. Durova's suggestion below has possibilities of averting future problems.John Z (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with your assessment that "more people are aware of this tactic" on the basis that it isn't *people* we should be informing, but *wikis*. Bambifan is recruiting specifically from smaller wikis and specifically users with privilege. The more wikis that know their admins are at risk and to tell them to block anyone purporting to be Bambifan on sight, the better. I think he's almost at the point of a Jarlaxle-style WMF-wide ban here. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 08:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please resolve policy issues at policy talk

WMF has plenty of small projects. Along with them are 'small project editors' who gain ops (sysop, 'cratship, et. al.) but lack firsthand experience in the nuances of entrenched politics that popluate this site. We're the 800 pound gorilla; we can't complain when a chimp slips on our own banana peel.

This thread is a prime example of why it's a good idea to declare the intention to proxy openly in a public place before actually proxying. So when a manipulator tries to talk someone with a reputation into risking that hard-earned reputation over nonsense, the community gets a minimal-drama opportunity to head off the problem before real damage gets done. Rather than a logjam afterward like this thread.

My proposal for advance disclosure re: proxies has been stated at banning policy talk. If you think it makes sense, help write it into policy. Durova³²⁰ 21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean WT:Banning policy... if not please correct. If you did, I'm not sure which section you mean. Perhaps you could clarify? ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, there. Durova³²⁰ 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just reviewed that page again. The discussion over alternate wordings seems to have stalled out several weeks ago. Just pointing folks there may not be sufficient, someone maybe needs to actually get it restarted with a new section heading, summarizing what has went before, and which wordings got some support, and try to get a new consensus. There are some extreme views on both sides that appear to hamper finding consensus for a reasonable middle (which would be a statement of what we actually do). ++Lar: t/c 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Stalwart111

Resolved

 – over-rotation Toddst1 (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Stalwart111 (talk · contribs) — I'm actually unsure of this user. (S)he is new as of 09/28, yet has made many rapid-fire changes to minor articles in the past few days, some of which are questionable and seem to be stuffing content into articles where they may or may not belong. The user is adding edit summaries (albeit truncated) to his/her edits, but (s)he is using very advanced markup for a new user and, as I said, is making a large number edits (at times on the order of every few minutes). They don't seem to be deliberately in error, but I'm just not sure this user is actually helping improve the articles which (s)he is editing and may actually be detracting from them (as with this edit). Perhaps an admin should star a dialog with this user to see what's up? DKqwerty (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If I posted this in the wrong place, please direct me to the correct noticeboard. Thanks.

Hi DKqwerty... I'm new but I'm not 'new'. I moved location IRL and have a static IP now. The login is new but I have been making contributions for a while. When I have time I hit the [special:random|Random article] link and see if there is anything I can fix. The changes are random because the article choice is random - just doing my bit to slowly clean up the general wiki-sphere. Feel free to comment on my changes in any relevant discussion page; am only trying to help out. Hope this clears a few things up. Cheers. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good deal. Sorry for the misunderstanding. DKqwerty (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC) </thread>

Amberwhite/Jonaslover78: BLP violations at Drake Bell

Resolved

 – blocked after discussion with KWW Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit intertwined for AIV, so here we are again. Jonaslover78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been committing BLP violations at Drake Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) all night, inserting unsourced statements about a girlfriend named Amber White. After I put a level 3 warning on Jonaslover78's talk page, Amberwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an account and repeated the offending edit. So, I put a level 4 warning on Amberwhite's talk page. Her response was to repeat the BLP violation on her user page. Looks like time for blocks to both accounts and for the user page to be deleted.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User has been notified on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I also reverted this edit as a BLP violation. Very strange edit, since Ais523 has made no edits in three weeks.—Kww(talk) 04:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits and User:Mooretwin

Resolved

 – I'm calling this one. No admin action forthcoming, situation too unclear. --Tznkai (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No baiting, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interesting precedent for those reported here - cause as much confusion as possible by posting about tangential issues and trying to sling mud at the complainant. Then there will be no admin action forthcoming due to the confusion caused. Mooretwin (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Mooretwin on User:Vintagekits

I have now become sufficiently irritated by User:Vintagekits' attacks on me and harassment of my editing to post a notice here. Here are a list of personal attacks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It now appears that the sole purpose of his presence on Wikipedia is to follow my edits and revert them. It seems clear to me that he uses my "user contributions" page for this purpose. On 10th August, for example, he turned up on obscure Northern Ireland football club pages in which he had never previously shown interest - purely to revert, e.g. Tandragee Rovers.

On 23rd September, he logged into Wikipedia and all he did was revert edits that I had made: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

He then left a message on my talk page, which I removed, only for him to revert. Mooretwin (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

With no knowledge of the rights and wrongs of this particular dispute, I can certainly confirm from experience that Vintagekits does have a regular and longstanding interest in the history of Irish football. – iridescent 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me as though Mooretwin refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question over why he is using a blogspot blog as a source in multiple articles, in the case of Eric Treverrow it is the only source in the article. The edit to Tandragee Rovers is perfectly correct too, as when Mick Hoy was playing that flag was not used. Mooretwin is more than aware that "Northern Irish" can be a contentious term when applied to people and is best avoided, yet for some reason he keeps using it even applying it to living people. O Fenian (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those opinions addresses the complaint. Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Claims of stalking have not substance at all, in addition to Vin having a longstanding interest in the history of Irish football they have also had a longstanding interest in the history. Posting on a editors user page as opposed to their talk page is wrong. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Asking you a legitimate question about your policy violations, or fixing your use of contentious terms or flags in inappropriate contexts is not harassment. Adding his question back may not have been unacceptable, but that was only brought about by your refusal to answer the question it seems. O Fenian (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Vintagekits has long been considered one of "those" users - he does some excellent content work, but somehow can't quite grasp the idea that one should comment on the content, not the editor. His block log says it all; he makes personal attacks and comments, refuses to discuss them and then comes back for more. The version of WP:WQA found here is another example of his behaviour, and he's had multiple ANI threads before. Short of a block I really don't know what we're meant to do with him; he does excellent sports-related work, but does so with a potty mouth. Topic bans only work if the problem is with the editors attitude towards a certain area, and this is just a problem with his attitude. This is a prime example - while his actions were correct, his personal comments while making them (and elsewhere) were not. Ironholds (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

His actions weren't correct, unless one thinks that edit-warring is correct. His reverts on various club pages (Tandragee Rovers being only one example) were on the basis of an erroneous claim of precedent, subsequently debunked here. In any case, the complaint is less about the correctness of any individual reverts, but the fact that the user is clearly using WP merely to pursue me and to make personal attacks. Mooretwin (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin often tendentiously edits, and often goes against consensus, as he does on the GAA article. Tfz 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That block list is as long as my arm. And his editing is a violation of the spirit of User:Vintagekits/terms, if not the terms. I highly suggest opening arbitration on this user, and the blocks never seem to stick, or be effective. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no "spirit" of the block; it was designed to keep him away from baronetcy/history articles after a series of disputes on the subjects, because he's a productive editor in other areas. His actions here do not at all violate the topic ban.

The notion of Mooretwin reporting another editor for "harassment of my editing" is, frankly, difficult to take seriously. This is not the forum for POINTY irony. A goodly proportion of the blocks were by warring Admins so should play no part in assessing the merits (none) of the current complaint. Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quite frankly a long block is all I can see happening at the moment. He's been gradually excluded from topics where he works because of his attitude and incivility at those topics, and this has done nothing to stop him - he's just been rude elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• From a review of the diff's supplied by Mooretwin I can see two instances of violation of WP:CIVIL - well, 3 actually but 1 & 2 are the same! - which I will speak to VK about. However, I see much amiss regarding the body of Mooretwin's complaint. VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles. I also find Mooretwin is being something more than tendatious when altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland". If VK is perhaps teetering on the limits of his conditions, it is because he is being poked with sharpened sticks. I seriously suggest that Mooretwin look at his own approach to matters before re-engaging with editors in this very sensitive area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, thats not entirely accurate. Vk is no longer "active" in either Ireland related editing or sport subjects. He has expressed his intention to no longer edit articles, but to continue to contribute to discussions. This he has more or less adhered to this with the exception of reverting the edits of Mooretwin and one or two other editors, mainly on the issues of Irish/British nationality, every couple of days. There does come a point when this type of single purpose editing - essentially low-grade revert warring targeted on a few individuals - becomes an issue.

The only reason Vk was allowed back from his numerous indefinite blocks was because of his reputation as an excellent content contributer, which was seen by some as sufficiently valuable to counter the persistent incivility, abuse, personal attacks, threats, sockpuppeteering, and edit warring. If that content contribution is no longer occurring, and all we are left with is the personal attacks, confrontational attitude and edit warring, how exactly is this helping the project? Now I'm not advocating action in this instance and I don't condone the actions of Mooretwin on the Northern Irish issue either, but I also think its time we stopped using Vk's supposed excellent content contributions as continued justification for his poor behavior. Vk needs to be made aware that if all he intends to do is pop up once to twice a week to revert a few of his enemies contributions and then make a few personal attacks, then we have no need for him. Rockpocket 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not good to revert an editor's deletion of your post on their userpage. Having one's postings deleted in that fashion is 'regrettably' common (trust me, I know). GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to how thick skinned we expect people to be around here. Unfortunately that totally depends on which editor is slinging the insults. I agree with Rockpocket, but VK will come back to full-time editing eventually. Some of us just can't keep away, despite our best intentions. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 00:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support long or indefinite block. The incidents submitted are not very problematic individually, but as part of a pattern of conduct, they are. We are much too tolerant, in general, of editors who are (as the block log shows) incapable of observing basic rules of civil interaction. The disruption they cause generally outweighs the contributions they make.  Sandstein  05:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin is causing disruption over many articles, and must be tackled. This[70] is the genre of tendentious editing he is involved in. He must be called to order. Tfz 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU says there is much amiss regarding the body of my complaint, because "VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles". He misses the point. VK has not shown any interest ever during my time on WIkipedia in editing articles relating to Irish League (i.e. Northern Ireland) or amateur/intermediate-level football in Northern Ireland. He had never posted on those sites and the only way he turned up on those sites was through following my edits. Also, it is a misrepresentation to say that I have been "altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland"". It is the other way round - VK has been altering these to change them from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland", presumably for some kind of political reason, based on the odd claim - supported by a small number of like-minded political editors - that "Northern Irish" is somehow "POV". The essence of this complaint is that the apparently sole purpose of VK's editing now is to pursue me and revert my edits. Mooretwin (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stu, it all totally depends on who is slinging the insults. Rock has a high tolerance when it come to certain editors, but since he has stalked and hassled Vin enough to be told to leave him alone, pushing GD's comment out of the way to address LessHeard’s points an example of their want to counter a constructive comment. Sandstein, you ability to act as an impartial Admin is already being questioned, and your contribution hear is possibly one of the reasons why. While admitting that the incidents hear and not very problematic, they try to suggest that as a patter of conduct they are a problem. That again depends like Stu has said on who the editor is? For example, here is a pattern and compared to Vin’s not very problematic posts a very clear pattern, but its ignored. Or the whole heap of accusations being made in the course of this discussion with multiple abuses of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and being spread across a number of pages [71] [72] [73]. Now neither Sandstein or Rock have mentioned Mooretwins pattern of behaviour at all, which again bears out Stu’s comments, and until such time as they do, ANI is simply a tool to further personal axes or as a form of harassment. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood what I meant Domer, and I'm certain that I have no idea what you are talking about. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. I have no clue what Domer is claiming Sandstein I have done (Until we mention Mooretwin's behaviour - which I did - "ANI is simply a tool to further personal axes" WTF?); if you would like to me address your concerns, then you will need to clarify what you mean. Rockpocket 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Until the close of the Eastern European Mailing List Arbcom case, any comment supporting Sandstein's views must be viewed with suspicion and discounted. Sandstein has been asked (and seems to be refusing) to lay down his tools pending the outcome of that case. I think this especially necessary when Sandstein takes it upon himself to comment on editors who have been involved in controversial political matters, as has Vintagekits. Sandstein's presence is at present guaranteed to exacerbate and confuse issues. Giano (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Vintagekits has no relation to Eastern Europe. His initial political interests (now protected by a topic ban) were on Ireland. Unless you're suggesting Sandstein is involved in a Secret British Mailing List as well this is completely irrelevant. Regardless, Sandstein is expressing his opinion as an editor, not as an admin. He'd be out of place to institute the block now he's "voted" anyway. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There are certain similarities between the Rusavia's persecution by a politicaly operated mailing list and Vintagekit's persecution by a similar group of now banned users and socks, in both cases Admins have been fooled and tricked and Arbcom cases abused. My point is that it is concerning that Sandstein, with his history, is dropping by and advocating long blocks on subjects and editors of whom he presumably knows nothing. One wonders why? Giano (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence, here or elsewhere, of a "similiar group of now banned users" persecuting Vintagekits. If you have evidence of this, feel free to drop it in at any time. Sandstein may well be familiar with vintagekits - he's at ANI so often that one doesn't need to work in the same content area to see his "work". Ironholds (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you so ignorant of VK's history - or are you trying (badly) to be amusing? You "have seen no evidence" - are you newly arrived of just trolling for trouble? Giano (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Vintagekits around here before in relation to the baronetcy thing, but I'm not aware of any cabal-esque action taken by other users to smear him. It's neither total ignorance, humour or trolling, simply a lack of (oh the irony) encyclopaedic knowledge. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Will VK still be aloud to work on the Boxing articles? I hope he'll be. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, this discussion pretty much sums up why I dont really edit here anymore. Mooretwin is possibly the most disruptive editor on wikipedia at the moment and consistantly ignores concensus and refuses to answer simply question with regards his interpretation to policy. Yet he comes he to bitch and provide a completely one side view of whats going on - totally slanted and without any balance at all but he still gets unquestioned support from the individuals that have pretty much driven me off here. Sandstein calls for an indefinate block - God you are laughable - please explain to me why I deserve an indefinate block (this should be good!) have you even looked at the links that Mooretwin has provided which he says breach NPA? Here are a few examples 1. correctly challenging calling someone "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland" - is that a personal attack on Mooretwin? No! It's removing a POV and potentially BLP comment and replacing it with something that is neutral and factually accurate. 2. [74] telling him he was canvassing - which he does often and gets away with it despite multiple warnings - thats a personal attack? Saying he is editing in a POV and disruptive manner which was confirmed by admins - thats a personal attack? Asking him why he is using a blog as the only source for multiple articles! is that a personal attack?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds what do you mean by Sandstein has "voted" anyway? With baseless accusations like this tread, no wonder some editors are here so often. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Domer: His "support long/indefinite block" comment is similar to the sort of thing used in block/ban discussions here. Giano was implying that he shouldn't be taken into account because of his actions with the tools elsewhere, I was pointing out that he wasn't offering to use the tools here, he was simply "voting" (which would prevent him from "tooling up" altogether. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Though it goes against the spirit of Collaboration, perhaps an agreement between VK & MT can be reached. Howabout each editor not showing up at an article where the other is at? Also neither editor post at the other's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh - no! I was forced away from the Baronet articles to appease Kittybrewster and the issue I was there for still hasnt been sorted. Mooretwin is busy pushing his POV on wikipedia there doesnt seem to be anyone keeping an eye on him. I've done nothing wrong - just because the usual suspects - Rockpocket, Sandstein and Ironholds turn up to back up Mooretwins moronic rantings here doesnt mean that what he says are correct - because it isnt - thankfully others here have been quick to point that out. Mooretwin's objective is to try and some sort of topic ban or such other tools put in place so that he can carry on pushing his POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured it would serve both of you best, if you both avoided each other. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Vintagekits' topic ban as listed at /terms has been superseded by another topic ban, and the Arbitration Committee confirmed that ban by motion /terms is historical and should probably be deleted. It is in any case, not topical.--Tznkai (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• This is a user who is on the cusp between problem and "vested". Laughably, here Vintagekits asks how it is possible to sort out an issue if an editor deletes a comment, when inded s/he reverted my attempt to sort out an issue. Not an impressive stance. This resulted in a block (one that was supported by many other I might add). My patience has already been exhausted but I feel the community may wish to give this editor "another chance". Regretably, I think that this is consensus and that this thread probably is not going to go any furher. Arbitration is, I feel, likely to be unproductive. Bluntly - give Vintagekits enought rope. We don't do vested conributors around here. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Coming at this with no previous interest in football or Vintagekits (but of both British and Irish background, so familiar with the issue), can I just point out that Mooretwin is either POV pushing or (unlikely, but en-Wikipedia is occasionally edited by folks from such as the Far East who occasionally make such faux pas) ignorant of the issue. "Northern Irish" is not a nationality - one group of occupants of the six counties views themselves as Irish, the other group as British. Neither would use the term to describe themselves, and reversion by somebody is inevitable. Mooretwins protestations that the reversion is by Vintagekits is therefore without merit, and should be at the minimum (if Mooretwin xyrself is not to warrant examination) be disregarded. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Excuse my frankness, but that is complete nonsense based on entirely fallacious and simplistic reasoning. It does not follow that because someone views him or herself as British or Irish that he or she therefore does not view him or herself as Northern Irish. There is no evidence to support such a fallacy. It is, ironically, a POV.
• Vintagekits succeeded in getting a category (or categories) changed from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland", but with the express outcome that no precedent had been set. I created some stubs and wrote them in the "house style" which refers to "Northern Irish" (or "English" or "Scottish", etc.) footballers.
• In any case, this all misses the point. It doesn't matter what particular edits Vintagekits is reverting: the complaint is that, in addition to the personal attacks and incivility, his sole purpose on WP now appears to be to follow me around in order to revert me. He has turned up out of the blue at various articles on which he has never edited, solely to revert me. He has logged on to Wikipedia, checked out my contributions, reverted my edits, and then logged off.
• Ironically, in attempting to defend himself, Vintagekits has continued to attack me on this page, calling me a "POV pusher", (ironically) saying I am "possibly the most disruptive editor on Wikipedia" and referring to "moronic rantings". I am not pushing any POV: on the contrary, I wish to remove POV from Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support long or indefinite block per Sandstein. --John (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here[75] is Mooretwin using the system for more of his disruption. He's perfectly entitled to do that, I know, but it's edit after edit after edit. Someone has to watch his tendentious editing. Tfz 14:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment appears to have no relevance to this section, which is about Vintagekits. This is the third intervention that TfZ has made here, each time to attack me, with odd examples of edits that he doesn't like, and at no time to comment on the subject of the incident. Mooretwin (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it reflects on your motive to rid opposition from other editors. I attacked your continuous disruptive editing, and not you. You claim that you are removing pov, but in my experience that is the worst form of editing that can happen here at Wikipedia. You basically remove edits you wp:idontlikeit, and there is much that can come under that heading for almost all editors, but they don't do that. You are already making tendentious edits[76] to Ireland related articles when the linking is still being discussed at IRCOLL. Tfz 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please restrict comments here to the topic. Your accusations are not appropriate here. Mooretwin (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The comments are appropriate here. This discussion should be closed and you should be told that your use of Northern Irish, or a loyalist flag to represent NI must be discouraged. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffs please for that last? --John (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read the discussion you would notice they have already been provided. You did read the discussion before commenting didn't you? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In the absense of any diffs to back up Domer's accusation, we should warn Mooretwin, block Vintagekits indef, and get on with improving the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Warn me for what?? Mooretwin (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen reason to indeff vintagekits yet either. This thread seems pretty incomprehensible as it is.--Tznkai (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tznkai time to close this spiraling mess. BigDunc 08:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So you reckon that if you have enough like-minded mates to turn an incident into a "spiralling mess", you can get away with personal attacks and stalking. I see. I suggest instead that admins deal with the complaint itself and not be distracted by off-topic personal comments. Mooretwin (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Close this off now, as per BigDunc and the other editors. Agree broadly with LessHeard's insight. Tfz 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears John did not read the discussion, and still they want Vin blocked! Close this down its going no were fast. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the term "Northern Irish" is a BLP violation or POV or extremely sensitive? Briefly and with a couple of wiki references, if possible? this and this by VK appear to be disruption, but I am willing to listen to an explanation of why it might in fact be sensitive before making final judgement. I believe the term is in use in the United States in common parlance, even among Irish immigrants to the US, but perhaps it is legitimately sensitive elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Because its a politically loaded term and can indicate sectarnian/religous/plitical/ethnic allegency.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, what term isn't politically loaded in NI VK? So yes some people find the term offensive. You would have to ask them why. It doesn't stop 29% of people in NI describing themselves as such. That's 4% more than describe themselves as Irish, and even 25% of Catholics identify as Northern Irish. The term is currently avoided on Wikipedia as it is not a nationality. It is however a valid denonym and identity. But if it is not a nationality, then neither is English, Scottish or Welsh - just British. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so less than a third of people from Northern Ireland would describe themselves as "Northern Irish" - I dont think you would get the same response for "Scottish" or "Welsh" - do you think less than a third of people in the US describe themselves as "American" or those in the "Republic of Ireland" as "Irish". It is potentially BLP and should be avoided as a label that is slapped on people "from Northern Ireland". Mooretwin knows this and has done for over a year (at least) but still attempts to try and sneak it into articles.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And even less people describe themselves as Irish. So following your logic describing people from NI as Irish is also potentially BLP. Yet many articles do so, simply because the subject is Irish. Yet you're not bothered about these BLP concerns? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is potentially BLP to simply describe someone from NI as Irish - and British for that matter. Best practice is that it should be sourced.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how the two links you have provided could ever be construed as disruptive. If you knew anything at all you would know that it was removing a POV label and replacing it with a neutral description.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Describing people from NI as Irish is also potentially BLP in the absence of sources which support this. Again, this is not the forum for content discussions, and should be closed. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought that edits like the two GWH highlighted are disruptive too. Coming from an editor who is supposed to be editing under a restriction, with a block log as long as my arm and proud of it ("28 and counting!", he boasts on his user page), these seem like grounds for a block. Vintagekits has led a charmed life here because his supporters traditionally have cried out against supposed British bias, and pointed to his (supposedly) stellar article writing skills (I don't see it myself, but there you go). Now that Vk has "retired", which in his case seems to mean retired from any constructive work and devoted himself purely to disruption, per Rockpocket I see no reason to continue to allow him to edit here. I support an indefinite block. --John (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You make me laugh! Please explain how replacing a POV label with a neutral, factually article description could be construed as disruptive? You've been hankering after an indefinate block on me for years and not got one - is this because I mocked you after your faux retirement?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "POV label". There's no evidence to support these claims by a small group of editors campaigning, for whatever reason, to revert all mentions of "Northern Irish". Vintagekits succeeded in getting a couple of categories renamed, but only with the express statement that no precedent had been set in doing so. Regardless, he took it upon himself to follow me around and revert on any articles which used the term. Mooretwin (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin is being deliberately dishonest there. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 10#Category:Northern Irish association football clubs shows him replying to a post by Vintagekits with this link in it, which states that "Northern Irish is . . . politically loaded in Northern Ireland". Mooretwin's insistence on using it in favour of more neutral phrasing such as "from Northern Ireland" shows how tendentious his editing is. O Fenian (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The view of one obscure author in a footnote in a single book, who displays his own ignorance about citizenship in the same footnote, isn't very convincing evidence. Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though, for digging out confirmation that there is "no precedent viz the wholesale elimination of the term as part of category names. That decision was specific to the area of people-by-nationality and there appears to be little consensus to extend it", and "This rename ... does not mean that if (sic) you can't use the term "Northern Irish".. Mooretwin (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, thank you for pulling out that source proving that it is politically loaded! I think that proves my stance.

Mooretwin, would you agree that the term "Northern Irish" can be viewed as offensive by some people in Northern Ireland?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Some recent edits (28th September) by VK, in pursuit of his campaign (note these do not relate to "BLP"): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Mooretwin (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and I and others will continue to make them because they are correct NPOV edits. Now do you want to answer the question posed above or are you just going to ignore the substantive issue like you have in the discussion below.
• Lets put the cards on the table and stop of this politiking and effing about.
• A. Would you agree that the term "Northern Irish" can be viewed as offensive by some people in Northern Ireland?
• B. What are you trying to achieve by using the term "Northern Irish" - i.e. what does it mean.
• C. Why are you using a blog as the only source to create articles?

I dont think I can make this muddied issue more simple than the above - now are you prepared to give some straight answers and sort this issue out or is just a campaign to create more of your drama?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Without wanting to cause even more drama here, I think that once you strip away all the shouting, you are left with the following objective truths:

1. ArbCom has held "Decorum" as a guiding principle in dozens of cases, including where User:Vintagekits is named as a party. They have held that a record of good contributions is not a shield to hide behind to excuse bad behaviour, and that Wikipedia expects both good contributions and good behaviour.
2. Vintagekits has been a solid contributor. They have also shown very poor behaviour, and demonstrated an inability to remain civil during a dispute.
3. Blocking aims to prevent disruption and damage, rather than to punish poor behaviour, but it is expected that if someone is causing disruption and/or damage, that they will not repeat their poor behaviour, hence poor behaviour is a fator, and lengths may escalate as appropriate.
4. Vintagekits' behaviour has not substantially improved (as evidenced from the ever-growing block log). They wear their block log as a badge of honour.

In summary, we have a limb with an infected wound, and the infection is not responding to the usual treatments. The only recourse is amputation. It seems reasonable that no action the community takes is going to change Vintagekits' behaviour, the only things we're left with are a topic ban, which would effectively exclude them from making any useful contributions in article space (and just risks moving the problem), or an indefinite block. Note that I'm not taking sides here - User:Mooretwin is another matter. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits "demonstrated an inability to remain civil during a dispute" - have you read this discussion? Despite a number of attempts to bait me I havent risen to it. Kind of proves you wrong doesnt it! Thanks for your "well thought out" addition to this discussion though eh!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits on User:Mooretwin

• Mooretwin (talk · contribs)

Recently this user has been creating a number of articles with the sole source being a blog which does not satisfy WP:RS. For example see, Clancy McDermott, Eric Treverrow, George Dunlop (footballer) and Sammy Hughes (footballer).

I attempted to raise the issue on his talk page but my comment was deleted without reply. When I restored the comment it was then removed by another editor who outlined that I should not restore comments on another editors talkpage if they have deleted them. So I have come here to get an admin to step in and sort it out.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you take it to Articles for Deletion? Don't see what this has got to do with ANI. Mooretwin (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that your response to why you are using a blog as the only source to create an article? It is precisely that kind of answer what I am here and why you cause so much trouble.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

VK - even assuming you are entirely accurate in assessing the RS issue here, this would be a routine page deletion discussion. Unless you are asserting he's inserting intentionally false material (creating hoax articles), creation of poorly sourced articles is not an admin noticeboard issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe its part of a multi fronted campaign of general low level distruption. I am not calling into question the notability of the individuals to which the articles relate I am highlighting Mooretwins use of blogs to build articles and his refusal to discuss to issue or even answer simple polite questions as to why he is using it.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

VK is assuming nothing, he is entirely accurate in assessing the RS issue here. Mooretwin is inserting intentionally and knowingly, contentious information, be it on flags or the term Northern Irish. I agree that this is not an admin noticeboard issue and should be closed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The usage of 'Northern Irish' should be discouraged, as it's a very sensative term. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Any chance Mooretwin could comment on why he is using a blog as the only source for articles or is it just drama he crave??? I thought this place was for sortin shit out!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Still waiting for a response to this (from either an admin or Mooretwin) - which is really the only issue here with any substance to it. It seems people (John and Sandstein in particular) would prefer to focus on the non existent personal attacks that Mooretwin has dreamt up. Typical wikipedia eh!Vintagekits (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Still nowt!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion can roughly be summed up as: this entire thread is a confusing mess and is going no where, in any direction.--Tznkai (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this site as a WP:RS (something Vintagekits has raised above), I personally view this site as reliable. Just because it is a blog does not mean it isn't reliable - WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", and contributors to the NIFG blog include respected and established football contibutors such as George Glass, who is a senior researcher over at IFFHS, another respected online footballing source. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Were any of the contributions outlined above submitted by George Glass? Can you tell me who submitted the details to the site for each of the articles outlined above?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Alas, none of the blogs on the four players you highlighted have named authors, so no. But that doesn't prevent it from being a reliable source. Sources such as the BBC rarely publishes authors names, and yet that is still higlly reliable! GiantSnowman 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye, thats because its a recognised source with a editorial code and policy and not a blog that anyone could add to. It's like saying some recognised experts contribute to wikipedia so all contribution to wikipedia consitute a reliable source!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You know full well that contributing to a blog is NOT the same as editing Wikipedia! GiantSnowman 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is very little difference - except if you are talkin shite on wikipedia someone will correct it - whereas on a blog it aint.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, if there's no difference - go to that blog then, or any blog for that matter, and try and edit it. What's that, you can't simply edit any old blog? So there is a difference! GiantSnowman 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point VK is making is that there is no fact-checking going on.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point - it is a blog so only invited people can contribute to it, right? And as I have said, established and trustworthy researchers contribute, right? So that implies that there IS fact-checking going on - the administrators of the blog aren't gonna have George Glass contributing one minute, and Joe Bloggs the next! GiantSnowman 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, it means you think there's fact-checking going on. There is no evidence that there is, there is no disclaimer verifying if they are experts or not.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no way you can verify if the people that wrote the blog are experts or not, therefore, you cannot assume there is fact checking going on. For all you know, it could be a single person making up a hoax. There is no possible way to verify anything. Therefore, per our various policy on such matter, it cannot be used. Wikipedia operates on verifiability, and if we can't verify this information, it can't be used, period.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still see it as reliable, and so we'll have to agree to disagree! For what it's worth, whenever I use the NIFG blog as a source, it is always with another source as well for extra-verifiablity. I'll try and find some more sources for the 5 players you have sent to AfD to show notability. Regards, GiantSnowman 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how it is reliable then.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you not read my earlier posts that established & respected editors contribute to it?!? GiantSnowman 21:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You claim one guy (who I've never heard of) is a recognised author - I doubt that that conveys WP:V to the whole blog.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read your posts, but I don't see where on this site it is asserted that anyone that is established or respected contributes to it. All I see is authorless posts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This blog contains research by George Glass - the same George Glass who is a contributor to the respected and reliable IFFHS. GiantSnowman 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should go start a blog and reference George Class, then use all my own information. After all, anyone can cite something to someone, but there still remains no proof it was his information, or is there?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm getting bored of this now. The reliability of this blog doesn't matter for the five players you have AfDed - as I said earlier to try and put an end to this conversation, we'll have to agree to disagree - because I have shown notability in other ways, using other sources! GiantSnowman 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about notability or other sources, we're talking about your apparent idea that this blog is reliable, except that you have no proof that it is. The fact of the matter is you have no ground to stand on, you can't back up your opinion. You're not agreeing to disagree, you're refusing to admit that you're wrong. As I said before, I could create a blog and say that it contains information from 'so and so', but there is no proof that it does in fact contain information from that person, so, again: prove the blog reliable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that in my experience, information from the NIFG about other players matches information in other, established printed sources. And as I have shown on these five players' articles, info on NIFG matches info on other sources. Fact. Now drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. GiantSnowman 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you can't admit that the source is unreliable, despite the heavy evidence to the contrary.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reindent, getting ridiculous now! How does me saying "NIFG says X, and RS also says X, therefore NIFG is a RS" show that it is an unreliable source?!?!? Surely the opposite has just occured. I'd like to suggest that you can't admit that the source IS reliable! GiantSnowman 22:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. Like I said earlier, one can say that information is gathered from X, but without any proof to back it up, it doesn't count. In order for this blog to be used in the way you suggest, it would have to include a link to the NIFG article which states what the blog reports. Simply saying Information has been obtained from X isn't good enough.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me. I'm not talking about the article with contributions from Glass, I'm on about other articles on that blog. They have the same information as other reliable sources, ergo it is reliable! GiantSnowman 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the hard-to-miss notice at the top of this page, is there any administrator assistance required here? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Please take a look for possible ownership issues

Could someone please take a look at Smiley face murders and it's talkpage for possible WP:OWNership issues. Several editors have tried for months to make some sort of edit to improve the article but have been shouted down repeatedly. The most recent talkpage contributions are really glaring with potential ownership issues making statements like "you won't be able to edit the article until you actually work something out with others" while being the only contributing editor resisting a change. They have impugned living people by casting aspersions on their motivations with no proof whatsoever and no indication that the impugned were even involved with editing the article. They have refused compromise after compromise all the while suggesting we were repeating ourselves over and over again. They have tried to push back and accuse me of Ownership as well but I simply want any edit to be made that contributes to the article, I've offered compromises that didn't include the "subject of objection" only to have the argument move to suggesting that the Larry King show was not a reliable source (again, despite any actual proof of this). Could someone please provide some enforceable direction on this article, one way or the other? Thank you. Padillah (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I wouldn't call the Larry King show a reliable source myself, except in a primary sense (Joe Blow appeared on the Larry King show and said "Foo" - in which case I'd want to be able to reference a transcript or video clip). Just a small point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact that is exactly the manner in which it was presented. Transcript citation and all. Padillah (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I take it back. It's a perfectly reasonable source. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether a source is reasonable or not does not in itself mean that including it passes other concerns... and the ones here are WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Even if you let a infotainment talk show slide and call it reliable, it in no way means that we should include anything anyone says on it if it means that the end result is giving more weight to the fringe/extreme minority view on a topic. This is an attempt to use a Wikipedia article to not just describe a theory and give the experts views on it, but to go through and dig up every minor person who supported it in an attempt to fill the article with these individuals and slant readers' perceptions. Whether the editors in question know they are doing that or are just to stubborn to realize it is another question, but some of the comments on the talk page show that editors want to ignore WP:NPOV entirely. They argue that, hey, if Gallileo was right even though the people at the time didn't think so (a bad argument to start with), we should therefore go ahead and present the minority side as a major side just in case they were right. On top of that, this particular article has been hit by people promoting their own personal websites witht heir own fringe theories and have used sockpuppets. It's a hot bed a raving woowoo lunacy, which is why following NPOV to the letter is so important. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Errr....it's a fringe theory, and the article is about the fringe theory. The article needs to explain the fringe theory, even if it also states that the regular policedudes all think its a crap theory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, and nobody says anything different. The theory is already explained in the article. What the supporters of the theory want to do is add a list of largely insignificant people who support it (not expanding the info about who doesn't support it and why) and outright make claims that certain pieces of so-called evidence support the theory to try to make it sound like it isn't fringe and thus skew the readers' perceptions of the topic. That's a clear WP:UNDUEWEIGHT violation. DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the problem editor here appears to be DreamGuy. Seeing as he's there on the talk page lecturing BWilkins on his failure to understand policy (which must be a bit like lecturing the Pope on the workings of the Holy See), I'm not sure this requires action by the admins. If the rest of you have agreed, make the changes. Consensus doesn't mean everyone has to agree. (This comment posted by Elen about an hour ago Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Oh, for crying out loud... No, to clarify, a number of of editors have agreed that the changes cannot be made because they violate our rules on WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. But the people who want to push the POV simply ignore those editors and just start up new sections on the talk page pretending that earlier discussions never happened and then, when I am the only person who bothers to respond (the others thinking it shouldn't be necessary to repeat themselves), these guys try to act as if it's only a single editor opposing the idea. That's so misleading as to almost have to be intentionally deceptive, and you seem to have fallen for it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that he has made it abundantly clear that any change he does not agree with will be reverted as violating WP:UNDUE. We have made the change... we have made the compromise change... He reverts them no questions asked. We have posted possible changes on the talkpage and had no input from him for a day, then we put the change in the article and he reverts it within hours. I suppose the three of us could gang up on him and get him blocked for 3RR but that's not nice, so I brought it here. Padillah (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, you have made it clear that you are going to ignore all the editors who disagree with you and very deceptively pretend it's only one person. All this despite there having been a number of editors who disagreed with you and have explained why Wikipedia's policies don't support what you insist has to be done. You have never tried for any compromise other than saying you are compromise and suggesting as a compromise the very thing you wanted to do from the beginning. Frankly, your actions here suggest that you are intentionally trying to mislead admins about what's been going on in order to try to get one to take action against me based upon your false claims. This kind of behavior is an extremely disruptive attempt to game the system, and it seems to me it should be a blockable offense if you are caught doing it again. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not, you are making clear that you are going to ignore the majority of editors that don't agree with you. Why do you get to ignore me, AngryApathy, Cla86, Simonm223, and Bwilkins but insist I'm being unreasonable when I disagree with you, Richard, 2/0, and Croatalus? You disagreeing with 5 people is more stable than my disagreeing with 4? Why? As for misleading anyone I'm not the one that pointed anyone out. I mentioned the page and suggested that someone was displaying ownership problems. Somehow they thought of you all by themselves. I have led no one so by extension have misled no one. Padillah (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not established by merely getting one more person to vote for something than oppose something, and especially not when at least one of your supporters is someone you personally asked to come support you and who has expressed no knowledge about the topic or the policies in question. Controversial changes require a clear consensus, and you don't have that, not by a long shot.

And when you post something I said and say that that person has ownership problems, it's a bit cheeky to then try to claim I must really have ownership problems if another editor was able to identify me. You quite dramatically misrepresented my actions and my stated desires (as explained more below), so have clearly misled people. This is disruptive. DreamGuy (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First off I don't even understand your first sentence. I never said it was ownership because someone else identified you. I said I never led anyone to any forgone conclusions. The fact that people can identify you, all by themselves, as the "editor with ownership issues" should speak volumes. The fact is, you have left me and several others with the impression that you will revert anything we add to the article. That's not a misrepresentation, that is how I feel. Padillah (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that certain editors have learned that when they have a POV they want advanced but can't get consensus to support them that they can just run off to ANI and present an extremely misleading summary of events to try to deceive people and then a handful of people chime in based solely upon this misleading information.

I should also note that the editor in question never notified me of this ANI thread and posted it here under a nondescriptive section title and so was able to come here and give his extremely misleading claims unopposed until someone else alerted me to it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The only POV that the article needs to better represent the theory or simply be deleted as too fringe. Just because two cops have a theory doesn't mean we need a WP article about it. Notability aside, mentioning it at all is UNDUE weight if there are only two adherents. Padillah (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, am I singling you out specifically or am I being nondescriptive? I can't do both. You say I'm posting here singling you out but then claim I am being sneaky and nondescriptive. Could it be that I am being non-descriptive in an effort not to single you out? Besides, not only did I post a notice to this on the talkpage so did BasketofPuppies so there was notification. What claims have I made? You insist I have made misleading claims, what are they specifically? What did I claim and how is it misleading? Padillah (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole edit was extremely misleading. I did not say I'd revert anything I disagreed with and calim it was undue weight, I said I'd revert any controversial change made without concensus and the one in question you were trying to make was a violation of UNDUE. And so forht and so on. Your whole strategy there was to try to paint a deceptive view of my edits and to pretend that I was the only one who opposed your changes, and so forth. It's nice to see you finally admit above that a whole group of editors disagreed with you. DreamGuy (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, then it's a good thing I didn't assert you said that. Don't you even read your own diffs? It says you've "...made it abundantly clear..." you can do that by... for example... arguing for two months without once answering a request for some sort of compromise situation or even recognizing the other sides argument... for example. I never held no one disagreed with me, if you look I have enumerated (along with AngryApathy) several times the number of people that agree and disgree with each side. You seem to keep missing that the results have been in favor of inclusion, by one. Not a huge consensus, but there it is. Padillah (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There are serious ownership issues in the article. DreamGuy has excluded sources, such as an Associate Professor in a relevant field, presented on CNN, as "undue weight" in supporting a kooky fringe theory. In any other article, that would have been accepted as a reliable source. An article about a fringe theory should not exclude all otherwise-reliable sources which support the theory. Edison (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand that undue weight is different from reliable sources? Even if this one is deemed reliable somehow it doesn't change the fact that going through and only adding info about the believers of the fringe theory distorts the perception readers have of the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there something in particular that an RFC (subject or user) or any of the other dispute resolutions methods won't be effective for? As of right now, I see people wanting admins to come in and hash out a content dispute here, which isn't going to happen. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I tried very hard to make sure the phrasing above was regarding the OWNership issues one editor has taken with the article and not make this about a cry for help "overpowering" some viewpoint. I never meant to have anyone come and help or weigh in on the content of the article. I was trying to bring what I perceived to be ownership problems with a specific editor to the attention of an admin. I'm sorry if I misrepresented myself. Padillah (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to chime in, dispute resolution is mentioned in WP:OWN as the solution to such content disputes. In fact, dispute resolution should pretty much always be the path taken to solve content disputes if involved parties can't come to an agreement themselves. It's not something that is generally actionable by an administrator, unless other editing behaviors accompany it (such as WP:3RR). I suggest closing this thread and taking the advice in the ownership policy. Not to be a dick but in general it's best to read and try to understand a policy before using it to justify your actions. I assume you just missed the parts about the policy that discuss how to resolve the issue. -- Atama頭 19:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links and the reminder. Since there were more than one editor I didn't think "3O" qualified. I had posed an RfC but the editor was maintaining the results favored their side (when it was pretty much a tie either way). And since the editor themselves had tried to attract attention on the Fringe notice board, I wasn't sure what steps were left. I must admit, I've never found the dispute resolution very straight forward. There are suggestions of places to go but no real description of how to escalate. Padillah (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not straight-forward unfortunately. I don't know that it really can be because each situation is different so you can't have a set of numbered instructions. Basically, I think of dispute resolution as the "road to arbitration". Arbitration is complicated and slow and ponderous and a last resort but sometimes it's the only thing that works. My advice is, look over WP:DR and try everything there that is applicable, and try to make a good faith effort at it. In other words, with each step you should genuinely try to resolve the issue, don't do it just to get it out of the way and say you tried. Usually it's best to start from the top-down, with editor assistance/3O if it's only you and one other editor in the dispute, asking at a particular Wikiproject next (if one applies), go to a noticeboard (again if one applies), then RFC. Try informal or formal mediation next, but that will only work if everyone agrees to it. If none of that works then your last resort is arbitration, but hopefully somewhere along the way the problem has resolved itself somehow (either someone gave up or was convinced they were wrong, or one of the previous attempts at a compromise worked). All of this is slow but except for a few cases (like bad info at a BLP) there's no "hurry" to "fix" an article so it shouldn't matter. In any case, my personal suggestion to you is to see if any other kind of dispute resolution hasn't been tried yet (like mediation) and try that, and failing that you should go to arbitration. -- Atama頭 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now, I'm all for editing articles in which we find a personal interest, but the user Padillah has shown a contemptuous attitude towards editors with whom he disagrees with. In the rare circumstance when others have pressed the issue, he gets very aggressive and keeps up the contemptuous attitude and snarky comments. I think any reasonable editor can conclude that the user's interest is more towards serving a particular point of view than it is in improving Wikipedia within our accepted policies, guidelines, and norms. Richard (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To a degree I have to agree with you. When someone invites me to an article to defend their point of view and then gets upset and snarky when I express the ability to think on my own, I get a bit contemptuous. When someone comes to my talk page to elicit my help and then accuses me of shopping when I do the same I get a bit snarky. When another editor accuses me of ownership as a way to throw attention of himself and his ownership issues, I get a bit personal. And when I spend two months trying to get a simple sentence added to an article and get nothing in response but misrepresentations and repetitions of WP:UNDUE, WP:UNDUE, I feel it's time to get a aggressive and take some steps. Any aspersions to what my point of view might be should be easily backed up with diffs, right? I can provide several diffs explaining and expounding my point of view, can you find the ones that are contrary to improving Wikipedia? Padillah (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is getting ridiculous. The article is about a fringe theory. It lists the guys that came up with the theory. It then lists 4 groups who disagree. The addition is of a second respected professional who believes the theory. Call me crazy, but in typical voting, you nominate ... and then you need a seconder. WP:FRINGE keeps getting thrown around - if the article was called "The theories of how these guys died", then the smiley face theory would be possibly fringe...but it's about the specific fringe theory. It deserves/requires at least one additional proponent, and the way it has been added certainly does not give it any undue weight. Note: I don't give a crap about the article, merely seeing policy used correctly. It pisses me off when someone reverts a very nice NPOV version without reading it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of road names

User:BrownHairedGirl

I wish to complain about BHG in relation to edit warring on Irish roads articles. The N3 road article was originally set up in October 2004 and over the years numerous links to it were created from a host of articles. It was moved much later to N3 road (Ireland) without any consultation or discussion with the editors on the article or anyone else. I proposed to move the article back to it's original location and said so on BHGs page; least she have any objections. She immediately dabbed dozens of links to N3 road to N3 road (Ireland); before any discussion even started. There were links that had remained unchanged for many years. This was a blatant, aggressive, provocative, non-collaborationist and disruptive course of action. I restored the original links, making explicitly clear that they should not be changed until the naming issue was resolved. At this stage User:Dpmuk, another admin tag-reverted the links to the dabbed version. As both are Admins I cannot tackle such blatant edit warring myself; so I wish to raise the issue here. I would also point out (while 100% familiar with WP:OWN) that I created most of the linked articles; many of the road articles and BHG's input has been restricted in the main to mass bot-type impositions of her own preferences (and to help build up a massive edit-count). Dpmuk is an editor on British roads (I think ) but has never been involved to any significant extent on Irish roads articles.

At the very least I feel these editors should be total to restore all recently dabbed links until the naming issue is resolved; and they should be warned not to use any Admin powers or tools on roads related articles until all the naming issues they have been edit warring on are resolved. Sarah777 (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are complaining that User:BrownHairedGirl has been correctly disambiguating links from N3 road to N3 road (Ireland)? Jeni ^(talk) 14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Read what said and don't be disingenuous please: I am complaining of blatant, aggressive, provocative, non-collaborationist and disruptive editing by an Admin and edit warring by two Admins. Sarah777 (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I restored the original links, making explicitly clear that they should not be changed until - no, doesn't work like that. You don't get to declare a given version fixed until you're happy William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It works whatever the British majority say it will work. In the case of BHG she made the moves of very long-established links in the face of an ongoing discussion and despite my having asked her not to. Funny I recall you telling folk they were blocked for something "after I warned them". Of course, I know, different rules apply. Sarah777 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They can be as long established as they like, but if they are pointing to the wrong place, they need fixing. Jeni ^(talk) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see - so that would be the same as when User:Sarah777, who hadn't been involvedin any editing on British motorways, moved M1 motorway to M1 motorway (Great Britain) - twice - [77] [78] without any consultation or discussion with editors on the article, and without fixing any of the hundreds of incoming links to the article? If you want a "blatant, aggressive, provocative, non-collaborationist and disruptive course of action" I 'd suggest that's a far better example. And ironically, I even agree with Sarah on the N3 issue. Black Kite 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology Kite; I was following what appeared to be accepted as "best practice". Sarah777 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you informed the subject of this discussion? Syrthiss (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The history of the N3 road (Ireland) is that it was moved for disambiguation purposes from N3 road to N3 road (Ireland) in July 2008, and remained stable at that location until Sarah began a series of page moves in September, all of which were promptly reverted. Today she announced her intention to move it again, so I opened a requested move discussion to seek consensus. My disambiguation of incoming links does not prejudice the outcome of that discussion, because if the road is moved to the primary topic, a redirect will ensure that all the incoming links still work; it also assists the discussion, because the large number of undisambiguated links meant that whatlinkshere massively under-erestimated the number of internal links to the article, which is sometimes a factor in move discussions. However, failure to redirect leaves incoming links pointing to a disambiguation page.

I have explained the situation at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#N3.2C_google_it and at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Arbcom_please, where an uninvolved editor has described my editing as disrupting a user's attempt to make a point by building an encyclopedia.

I am puzzled that Sarah has opened this complaint by denouncing a page move which was uncontested for 14 months as having been done "without any consultation or discussion", when she has been busy moving lots of roads and did even participate in a centralised discussion I opened on one of her previous move sessions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

the convention so far has been for Irish N-roads to be located at "Nx road (Ireland)", where x is the road number. No, the convention for five years until someone moved then all without consultation was Nx road. When I tried to apply this imposition to the M1 (UK) I realised that in fact, it wasn't a convention. Sarah777 (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't informed and the fact that my user name is quoted incorrectly would obviously make it hard for anyone else to do so. I'd also like to point out that I am not an admin and have never made myself out to be one. I'd also like to point out that I'm not particularly active on any roads article (although I may have occasionally edited UK road articles in the past) and came accross this mess while looking at requested moves as I informed Sarah777 on her talk page. I'm happy for anyone to look at what I've done as, with one excpetion, I feel I have acted reasonably and within policy. The one exception is N3 road where I admit I may have been in error due to me misreading the edit logs. I missed the fact that the Irish road was at this page until moved on the 20th September. As such I should probably have treated the subsquently redirect to point at this page as a revert and discussed the issue rather than reverting back to point to N3 (as a disambiguation page). In both this and my subsquent revert I thought (incorrectly) that I was restoring the page to it's 'stable' state and so in keeping with normal wikipedia practice. It was only later that I realised my oversight and I can only apologise for this. Dpmuk (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dpmuk, you were right first time, and in your latest comment you seem to have missed the move on Sept 18th. Here's the move history:

• October 2004 - article created
• July 2008: article moved to N3 road (Ireland)
• 18 Sept 2009 - article moved to N3 road by Sarah777
• 20 Sept 2009 - article moved to N3 road (Ireland) by Nono64
• 26 September - article moved to N3 national road by Sarah777
• 26 September - article moved to to N3 road (Ireland) by BrownHairedGirl

So far as I can see, the stable location of the page is that which existed for the 14 months up to 18 Sept 2009, when Sarah began her series of contested moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Grr, I hate working my way round move logs and the like. In that case it looks like I somehow managed to do the correct thing despite completely misreading the situation! As an aside does anyone know how to suggest that the move log reports pages both moved from and to a title as opposed to the current situation where it only reports pages moved from a title? Dpmuk (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

BHG VS Sarah?? i thought you two were on the same side! lol. I would just like to say no motorway articles should be moved without RM, to prevent edit warring. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been paying attention, BW. :)

Like any two editors, we agree on some things and disagree on others; see for example the discussion on the M50 motorway, where I disagreed with Sarah777. I prioritise disambiguation except in cases of a clear primary topic (i.e. one significantly more important than all other topics with the same name), but like the British editors such as Jeni, Sarah777 wants articles from her country to be at the primary topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an unfair representation of "what I want". What I want is that the same policy, whether 100% dab or "primacy" be applied to all countries. Please stop implying contradiction when the reality is more complicated - but extremely consistent and non-nationalist. Sarah777 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh i see, i tuned out of the motorway articles in the past couple of days, it just seems to be going on and on and on. I disagree with all those positions myself. The page hits are good enough to show primary topic for me and when its pretty close i support disam. As someone that gets accused of British POV pushing by some id just like to point out i supported an Ireland motorway as the primary topic despite there being a British motorway! BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Madison and Fifth Avenues buses. I hail from Manhattan where I use the M1 bus to get around town sometime. I would love nothing better than to bring peace between the English and the Irish, both heavy users of M1 bus in New York City. I'm amazed that such an apparently uncontroversial topic can cause this disruption. It would be good, I think, if the editing slows down a bit. My experience, at WP, with which BHG is quite familiar, has made me think that pages where edit wars have occurred, could use a special WP Flag advising editors to slow down. Furthermore, it would be extremely useful if an effort was made to narrow down the issues, and come to an agreement as to what exact Content issues are in dispute. At the moment, I'm inspired to come and help out here only because I'm extremely familiar with the work of one Administrator. I'm also extremely curious as to the relation of one's functions as an Administrator, and those of a Content editor. But looking at this page at a glance, it is not possible to figure out what the exact issues in dispute are. But I'm willing to listen and learn, and help resolve the conflict - if I'm welcome, of course. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's quite simple really. Is the N3 road in Ireland/Eire/the Irish Republic (whatever the reader wishes to call the country) the only N3 road in the world? If yes, then the article should be at N3 road. If there are othere N3 roads elswhere (e.g. France), then N3 road should be a disambig page, and the article disambiguated by country (N3 road, Foostate), N3 road, Fooland) etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Mjroots, that's pretty much how I have been arguing for things to be done, and by remaining neutral between countries that approach also addresses any systemic bias issue. Unfortunately the vagueness of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has led to some editors engaging in a sterile and pointless my-road-is-more-important-than-yours exercise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'd support dabbing in all cases of duplicate road names. But that has been voted down by the community in relation to UK roads. Where primacy is the default position. So the same rule must apply to roads in all other countries. It isn't sustainable or acceptable to have a separate rule for the UK. BHG would like to impose dabbing on UK roads, but can't, due to the numerical strength of British nationalist editors. So her solution is to impose it on Iriah roads regardless; ironically with the support of many of those same British nationalist editors. The mass dabbing of links was reverted by me and re-imposed by a British roads editor who were never before seen near an Irish roads article. Jeni springs to mind. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, AFAICS the Irish roads were dabbed over a year ago, without controversy, so those are the stable versions. You know how things work in that situation: if a move is contested, we go to an RM discussion. Your moves have been contested, so we have an RM.

I quite agree that we have a problem with British nationalist editors using their numerical strength to oppose dabbing of British roads. This causes problems for readers, and for editors trying to maintain the internal links which those readers use.

But I can see no gain for readers in insisting that the problem on British roads be replicated elsewhere. Two wrongs don't make a right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the idea we must have a dab for every single article on a road or motorway just because more than one exists. If there is a primary topic which people are clearly looking for which can be judged by several methods including looking at page hits each of the articles get then that belongs at the prime spot. Only if its NOT clear then there should be a dab. That is how its been handled at M1, M2, M3 and M4 and many want M50 and M18 handled. There will be very strong oppostion to this idea. One only needs to look at the number of opposes over at M1 motorway for the Requested move of that page. This idea that it must be a dab by default is a non starter. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BritishW; you prove my point. The fact that you choose to ignore is that you and numerous other British rush to defend the primacy of British roads. All the M50 case proved was that there are more British nationalists than WP:NPOV supporting editors. We knew that already. Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly related

Could a completely uninvolved and neutral admin please consider closing the move discussions at Talk:M3 motorway#Requested move and Talk:M4 motorway#Requested move as appropriate, they have been ongoing for over a week now, and now going round in circles with accusations of bad faith flying around! Talk:M18 motorway#Requested move has also been going for a week, and pretty much in the same situation! Jeni ^(talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, those RMs should be closed however i dont want it to spread to the next motorway article as happened after M1 and M2 were dealt with. The recent spike in activity around these motorway positions is so very strange, whilst ofcourse it could be totally unrelated i still think it rather odd this is occuring so soon after the Ireland article naming vote closed. AS i have said before i was expecting some fall out / punishment for the outcome of the vote there, i confess i didnt imagine it would take us to the motorway articles though. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that those discussions should be closed, and by a completely uninvolved and neutral admin.

May I suggest that it would be much the best if the admin concerned were neither Irish nor British, and preferably someone who is not from an English-speaking country? (Probably not so any of them around, but it'd still be helpful if possible). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldnt be by a British or Irish admin, however this problem with people from English speaking countries is totally unacceptable. This is the English speaking Wikipedia, What is considered primary in the English speaking world may be different to what is considered primary in different languages.. but there are different language wikipedias for those people anyway. The majority of readers and editors here are likely to be from English speaking nations. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys/girls! Lets not let the content dispute spill out here. I'm sure whoever chooses to close it will consider themselves to be in a perfectly acceptable position to do so and will fully justify their actions. Jeni ^(talk) 16:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I cant stand the attacks on the English speaking nations when people moan about them dominating the English language wikipedia, what on earth do people expect. Such "problems" if it can even be described as a problem considering this English language wikipedia is meant to cater for the English speaking world is likely to be repeated on all other wikipedias with their respective languages. If there was just ONE wikipedia (Something i would quite like), in the true universal language of English then i would accept that things wouldnt be the way they are today on here, but its not. This is the ENglish language wikipedia for the English speaking world. If that means an American article is given prime spot over something in Asia that most English speaking people have never heard of i see no problem at all with that. Infact if we had to go through a huge list of different articles because when ever you enter a term it takes you to a dab page, im sure some people would get fed up with using wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh :(

BW, my suggestion is not an attack on anyone, let alone English-speaking nations (I'm a citizen of one of them and live in another). It's a suggestion that life will be easier for everyone if the closing admin is someone who cannot be accused of cultural bias in favour of either side. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to get some perspective and civility on these issues, could I second the proposal above to require an RM procedure before moving any article about any road in Great Britain, Ireland or Northern Ireland. I think this should also apply to disambiguation pages listing roads in any of these places too. For fairness it should apply to everybody, not just people who have been involved with any of the recent discussions or moves. The should be 2 exceptions to this:

1. Anybody could revert obvious vandalism (with this explicitly not applying to titles that are plausible (e.g. Moving M25 motorway to M25 motorway (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, although unlikely to get consensus is plausible; moving it to M25 motorway ate my hamster is not plausible).
2. Any uninvolved (in the whole dispute, not just a single page) administrator could, at their discretion, revert page moves made without going through RM.

I stress I'd like this to apply to everyone, including me, as an attempt to avoid any more controversial moves. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn! Just as I was ready to move it to M25 motorway ate my hamster. Wonder how many hits it would get. Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's true though, it did eat my hamster, maybe I'll find it when I go to London tomorrow! Jeni ^(talk) 16:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1,000,000% support - It is the best way to go in this situation. I'd also support handing out short sharp blocks for users that knowingly violate this. Jeni ^(talk) 16:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, reluctantly. Avoiding move wars is a great idea, but what we have seen lately is that any attempt to move articles on British roads produces a paranoid reaction, with British editors piling in to try to find reasons to maintain "their" road as a primary topic, with UK geography project being used as a noticeboard. Given the numerical strength of British editors, this tends to create a high vote for maintaining UK roads at pole position, and it's noteable that some editors have been partisan and inconsistent in how they assess each renaming proposal. So Thryduulf's well-intentioned proposal has the effect of locking in the status quo, even if that's not the intention -- because as we have seen already, any move of a British road will be pounced on by some editors, and advertiaing every move with an RM merely invites a controversy which might not otherwise apply.
  Rather than yet another threat of blocks, a better approach would be to put a moratorium on such moves pending an RFC on the application of "primary topic" to roads. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • So let me get this straight, you believe it is perfectly OK to make controversial moves with no consensus? Jeni ^(talk) 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Not at all! I firmly that believe that consensus is the way to go. However, the problem here is that the consensus decision-making process doesn't work when editors start !voting on partisan national lines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

IF M2 had not been moved then you may have a case, but its clear some British editors who supporter M1 remaining in the same place backed that move. It must be handled on a case by case basis and i think it should be done along the lines M1/M2 were dealt with. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have explained elsewhere that I do not vote on national grounds, I vote based on the evidence available for each topic. If I see a road that isn't a primary topic but should be based on the evidence, then I will support that being moved to the primary topic, just as I will oppose such a move if the evidence shows a different road is the primary topic or there is no primary topic. I will do this regardless of which country the road is in, including Ireland. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I start to wonder if the actual solution to all these problems is to ban anyone who identifies as Irish or British from editing any article that concerns Britain or Ireland. Rather sad to see that we can't even behave like rational human beings when dealing with articles on sodding roads. Must everything be a battleground? Plenty of good content editors have been damaged by these spats, can't we all just learn from their example and pretend that geography articles are about geography and not a chance to replay out a centuries long conflict in proxy? Wiki won't solve the Northern Ireland issue. Someone should add 'Jimmy Carter' to the Wikipedia Is Not article. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Those sanctioned by Arbcom for pushing ANTI British POV should probably avoid such topics yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There has to be some kind of naming policy (and what should be the primary article, if any) hammered out for these road articles. As there appears to be discussions spread over several articles I think it might be a good idea to create a specific discussion page for this with a neutral Admin to oversee the debates. Any obvious bias should be ignored or even deleted, which would also include PRO British POV. Jack forbes (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope if you are going to make comments like that you'll include pro Irish POV, which we have seen far too much of recently. Jeni ^(talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was making my point in answer to BWs comment above. There should be no pro or anti anything on wikipedia, that doesn't mean there isn't. Jack forbes (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a lot of fighting going on about highway naming conventions. I'd like to point everyone's attention to WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC, when events very very similar to this happened in the United States. Basically, the Arbitration Committee got involved and it got pretty nasty. I encourage everyone to get this resolved in good faith in a peaceable way before this goes to Arbitration. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think this is going to be a long term dispute between the two groups, we have far more interesting conflicts going on over different articles. The problem will be reduced once the current RMs are sorted and if people dont just move articles themselves without consensus, it shouldnt need to go all the way to arbcom to deal with this. Besides some of the editors involved in this matter have been involved in another matter that went to arbcom. If there was one thing all sides could agree on, it was arbcoms failure to resolve our problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Support I support User:Jack forbes's constructive recommendation just made above. I'm neutral on all Anglo-Celtic distinctions. I'd like to know why we do not have more specific guideline on roads at Wikipedia. I noticed a reference to primary topic just made. Apparently, that's not enough. So let's open a page to create a WP policy specifically designed to address such issues on our English language encyclopedia. To do that aren't nationalistic issues obviously going to become moot? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:Thryduulf made reference to "primary topic." But maybe there's a way to make this distinction more objective when it comes to Roads named identically, but in different countries. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• I also strongly recommend to Flag such disputed articles with the Flag: {{controversial}} at the top of the pages Talk page (which I've just done).
• And here's what the DAB page for N3 road has:

    ==Roads==
    *N3 road (Ireland), a National Primary Route
    *N3 road (Belgium), one of the national roads in Belgium
    *N3 road (Senegal), one of the national roads in Senegal
    *N3 road (South Africa), a road connecting Johannesburg to Durban
    *N3, European large goods vehicles above 12 tonnes
    *N3, IATA code for the Russian airline Omskavia

• So the conflict ought to be with South Africans - but it isn't, right? So we should have a rule based on these kinds of conditions (defined for us by the DAB page. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• PS: I also noticed no one bothered to put a reference to the DAB page in question. That indicates to me that there's no real controversy with the "N3 road" in any other country besides Ireland. Nevertheless, a clear WP policy does not exist to assist us in making a ruled decision! --Ludvikus (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the N3 road, the proposed move is that the Irish road should be the primary topic. However as of the last time I looked, everybody who had expressed an opinion thought that neither the Irish nor South African roads were the primary topic. The proposer of the move is Irish. Last I looked opinions and other contributions had come from Irish, British and American editors. I am not aware that any South Africans have commented. The other controversial topics that I have been involved in are all cases where British, Irish and other motorways share the same number, with both one or more Irish editors accusing other editors of having a pro-British and/or anti-Irish POV and one or more British editors accusing other editors of having a pro-Irish and/or anti-British POV. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 and Irish national primary roads

I am seeking move protection of a series of articles on National primary roads in Ireland. I am making the request here because WP:RFPP's format seems ill-suited to a group request such as this. Here's why I am seeking this:

Sarah777 (talk · contribs) posted to my talk page this morning stating her intention to move N11 road (Ireland) to N11 road unless she receives a "valid objection". See User talk:BrownHairedGirl#N11_road.2C_clear_primary_location and the procedural move request which I opened at Talk:N11 road (Ireland)#Requested_move).

This follows a similar approach to moving N3 road (Ireland) (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#N3.2C_google_it), which is now being discussed at Talk:N3 road (Ireland)#Requested_move), and a series of other disputes about the naming of British and Irish roads and motorways.

I have requested move-protection for N11 road (Ireland) (see request here), so that rather than a further move-war occurring, a discussion can take place to seek consensus on whether or not to move. (Just be be open about my own position, I have yet to see any such moves of Irish N-roads that I can support, and I prefer disambiguation in all cases I have examined so far).

It appears from Sarah's recent comments that she would like to move all Irish National primary roads to the primary topic (i.e. removing the "(Ireland)" disambiguator). That may be appropriate in some cases, but given the recent controversies in these areas (see e.g. #BrownHairedGirl above) it seems to me to best that any such moves are preceded either by a requested move discussion for each move or a centralised discussion on the issue. (However, Sarah did not respond to a centralised discussion which I opened on a previous set of moves which she began for these roads, and which I notified her about).

Rather than risking further escalation of this controversy, which could lead to threatened or actual blocks of individuals, may I suggest that all the Irish national primary roads should be move protected? This would ensure that no moves took place without consensus being formed in a requested move discussion.

The articles concerned are: M1 motorway (Republic of Ireland), N2 road (Ireland), N4 road (Ireland), N5 road (Ireland), N6 road (Ireland), M6 motorway (Ireland), N7 road (Ireland), M7 motorway (Ireland), N8 road (Ireland), M8 motorway (Ireland), N9 road (Ireland), M9 motorway (Ireland), N10 road (Ireland), N11 road (Ireland), N12 road (Ireland), N13 road (Ireland), N14 road (Ireland), N15 road (Ireland), N16 road (Ireland), N17 road (Ireland), N18 road (Ireland), M18 motorway (Ireland), N19 road (Ireland), N20 road (Ireland), N21 road (Ireland), N22 road (Ireland), N23 road (Ireland), N24 road (Ireland), N25 road (Ireland), N26 road (Ireland), N27 road (Ireland), N28 road (Ireland), N29 road (Ireland), N30 road (Ireland), N31 road (Ireland), N32 road (Ireland), N33 road (Ireland), M50 motorway (Ireland).

Sorry if I should have taken this to WP:RFPP, but as above I was concerned that it would overload that page to make a group request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sarah777 notified here about this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pages are only very rarely protected against a single editor. It is usually preferable to deal with the single editor directly. DrKiernan (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to support all the major players in this dispute submitting to a ban on moving motorway / road pages without the RM process. That should include the two admins who have been involved extensively. That would take away the need for page protection BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bans tend to lead to blocks, which in this area only inflames tensions.

Simply disabling the switch is a way of achieving the same thing, but with much less drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am currently drafting an RfC/U on this user about this subject which I tend to sumbit shortly. I know that announcing this in this way isn't normal but I'm doing so in an attempt to avoid overlap or anyone else starting an RfC/U at the same time. I will try to finish my draft as quickly as possible so the situation can be normalised. Dpmuk (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC/U started: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 2. Dpmuk (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As per my statement there, and our discussion on my talk page, I think that this RFC/U was well-intentioned but unhelpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! I have not ever said anywhere that all Irish N-roads should be primary. I really wish people would stop claiming that I did. What I said is:

• (1) My first preference (as per BHG so far as I can see) is that all roads of the letter/number type be dabbed where there are multiple versions.
• (2) This preference was rejected on a number of British roads articles and the community supported the identification of primary cases which would be the default; such as the British M1 motorway.
• (3) I then sought to apply this policy to Irish roads which I believe are primary (Examples; M50 motorway, N11 road). Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Point 1 is your opinion alone, and the wider community has the right to reject it if it's not more widely held (though strictly speaking, we don't vote, even though it looks like it). Point 2 demonstrates that there is a result you do not like. Point 3 therefore reads like you are proposing the moves to illustrate your disagreement with point 2 under the false assumptions that (1) Wikipedia must apply the rules consistently, and (2) that your assessment is unquestionably correct. POINT is in this case not only obvious, but textbook. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with University of Pittsburgh article

Today, I removed File:PittPanthers.png from the infobox of University of Pittsburgh [79], citing WP:MOSLOGO and the use of iconizaton of trademark logos (last paragraph of that guideline). An hour later, I was reverted by User:Crazypaco, who claimed the wordmark was commonly used to represent the university. I reverted him [80] indicating I would leave more on his talk page, which I did. But, before I could even complete my comments on his talk page, he reverted me again [81].

Repeating in part what I said on his talk page, the athletic department's wordmark is but one of many wordmarks in use by the university in question (examples: [82][83][84][85]). It isn't used on the university main page (http://www.pitt.edu/) to represent themselves. It is used on their athletics department page (http://www.pittsburghpanthers.com/). Should we include every wordmark the university uses in the infobox just to make sure nobody is confused about what page they landed on?

Some assistance, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion relates to a number of other image-related issues that crop up from time to time. In every context, there always appears to be confusion about the underlying wikipedia standards relating to image policy -- particularly the difference between copyright and trademark restrictions. To that end, I thought it best to create a little primer on the issue, If this is old hat for some of the editors reading this, my apologies.

This specific debate focuses on the interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO, the last section of which reads:

"Use of company logos, sports team crests and other copyright protected or trademarked images in articles can usually only be done on a "fair use" basis (generally as an illustration of the primary subject - eg the IBM logo on the IBM article). Use of such images as icons is nearly always prohibited (see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Logos)."

Although this part of the WP:MOS talks about both copyrighted and trademarked logos, the underlying rationale refers to "fair use" as the basis for using images. Implicitly this means that WP:MOSLOGO is really talking about copyrighted images, because fair use is a copyright concept rather than a trademark concept. Generally speaking, copyright protection is pretty broad, and it prohibits sale, use, manipulation, or even copying of someone else's work (hence the name). One of the narrow exceptions of use is "fair use" – which, in an oversimplified nutshell, allows the use of copyrights in order to identify the subject matter for purposes of public comment.

For purposes of wikipedia policy (which can be, and usually is, more stringent than what U.S. law allows), one of the rules is that a copyrighted image can be used on a wikipedia page to identify its subject matter, but it can only be used on "article namespace" pages (i.e., the regular articles on wikipedia, not the behind-the-scenes type pages such as userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like). See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy, Rule #9 (which you will often see referred to as "NFCC #9" for "Non-Free Content Criterion #9).

These rules about copyrights/fair use either may or may not apply to any particular logo you see on wikipedia. Most logos are copyrights. Some are not. Most logos are trademarks, but a few are not. In many cases they will be both. But in a fair amount of cases, a logo is considered a trademark without also being a copyright. This is most often the case for simple logos that only contain letters or simple geometric shapes. The rationale here is that such simple logos do not meet the threshold of originality required under U.S. copyright law. Simple letter/color/font combinations do not qualify for copyright status -- this includes "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. Likewise, the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim." See the U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03. So basically, mere letter or word elements, even if they look fancy, are not copyrights; basically, a logo has to have a "pictorial" element within it to qualify for copyright protection.

These types of simple logos are considered "public domain," meaning that anyone can use it – although the way that people can use a public domain logo may still be restricted by trademark law. Most basically, if a logo is used to identify a business/organization/product, then you are not allowed to use that logo to identify or refer to another business/organization/product. In general, this is not much of an issue on wikipedia. The the Coca-Cola logo (the quintessential example of a trademarked but not copyrighted logo) is used on the Coca-Cola page, but not the Pepsi Cola page – so no trademark problems result.

For wikipedia purposes, a "public domain" image does not need a Non-free content rationale in order to be used. Among other things, this means that public-domain images can be used in non-article namespace pages – userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like.

Identifying what is a copyright, trademark, or both has some cues to it. If you see an image bearing the notation ® or ™, that means that someone (but you don't know who) claims that this is a trademark (® means 'registered trademark," which many people often confuse as a copyright claim). If you see an image with the notation ©, then that means that someone (again, you don't know who) is claiming this as a copyright. These claims may or not be correct, and people need to use their own judgment. If you see an image without such a notation, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

On wikipedia, every image, including logos, that you see will have been uploaded to a specific page that describes the picture. These should (but not always do) contain particular "tags" that describe whether the image is a (fair-use) copyright, is a (public-domain) trademark, or has some other rationale for its use on wikipedia. A copyright image should have a tag attached to it.

The code you would insert on the image page to insert this tag is:

{{Non-free logo}}

An example of such an image page would be the Apple Computer logo. Image pages with the {{Non-free logo}} tag should also contain some additional (often lengthy) explanations known as a "non-free media use rationale" that justify their use on wikipedia – this information is required because of Non-free content criterion #10.

Similarly, a trademark image should contain the following tag:

This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark.
These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos.

code: {{Trademark}}

And a trademark image that is simple enough that it does not qualify for copyright protection should be tagged:

code: {{PD-textlogo}}

Examples of image pages with these kinds of tags include: the IBM logo image page. Normally the {{Trademark}} and the {{PD-textlogo}} tags are placed together. Also, under normal circumstances, a {{PD-textlogo}} image would not contain any "non-free media use rationale," because as a public-domain image, this explanation is unnecessary for use on wikipedia.

However, just because an image page is tagged as {{Non-free logo}}, {{PD-textlogo}}, or anything else, does not mean that this is determinitive. Like everything else on wikipedia, such tags are subject to editing by any editor with an opinion – right or wrong. Often the tags are changed by editors subsequent to their uploading because of a difference of opinion. But in theory, a qualified {{PD-textlogo}} image should be usable freely usable on wikipedia in any context. Images that are tagged as {{PD-textlogo}} which have also been moved to the Wikimedia Commons have an additional sanction as public-domain ("free") images (although again, this is not determinitive).

For purposes of this discussion, I would venture my opinion that the Pitt logo easily qualifies as a {{PD-textlogo}} image, no matter how it's been tagged. I therefore see no relevant restrictions on its use. BillTunell (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed it again, but since it quite clearly fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 you don't even need admin assistance here, because removing non-free images that fail that policy falls clearly under the exceptions to 3RR. If the editor wants to keep re-instating it, that's xes call, but I'll leave a note anyway to hopefully prevent him getting blocked. Black Kite 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• The wordmark is not currently marked as non-free. User:BQZip01 decided it was free under pd-textlogo back in January of this year. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Got confused between the two. I've removed File:UofPittsburgh Logo.svg as spurious to the main non-free logo. BQZip is probably correct that the one you removed is copyright-free, but you're still right about MOSLOGO. Black Kite 18:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As noted in our discussion, I agree with the interpretation that File:UofPittsburgh Logo.svg is spurious and its removal justified, in contrast to Hammersoft's removal of the block Pitt and script Cal logos from their respective article infoboxes for reasons outlined below. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Hammersoft comments regarding discussion of edits and reversions:

I also left the reasoning for my reversion of Hammersoft's edit on his/her talk page, which I believe was logical. That discussion has now been blanked (I assume because he/she is just being tidy): see the original conversation here. I will repost my reasoning below for consideration. Obviously, I think this is a dispute between competing opinions of WP:MOSLOGO, and in my opinion begs the question of the utility of identifying marks in the infoboxes. I believe this also impacts many other articles, including Hammersofts' removal of the script Cal logo from University of California at Berkley. Certainly I want to avoid further any edit warring, and welcome a consensus for the fair use rationale for such popular/athletic logo inclusion that populate university article infoboxes.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Hammersoft's suggestion that the use of these logos would lead to an uncontrolled proliferation of other marks or is inappropriate for the university article:

No, not every logo or wordmark should be used, but in the case of the Cal "script" logo and Pitt "block" logo, they are perhaps the most popularly recognized logos of both institutions. Both of these marks are widely used in popular culture and third party publications to identify those institutions, and in the case of Pitt, it is used by the university itself in non-athletic contexts (see this photo depicting its use on university campus shuttles and busses). It's absence from the front page of the university's website is not evidence against such use, nor is it reasoning for not including it for the quick identification of the institution by a general public. Further, such "athletic" or popular logos do not typically represent only one part of the university, but the university community as a whole, as opposed to the examples provided for particular colleges or departments which represent only individual components within particular universities.

To concentrate for the moment only on the issue of athletic logo inclusion, regardless of their use in other university contexts, in university article infoboxes, one could easily argue that athletic marks for the majority of universities in the United States are probably the most the most recognizable logos of any particular institution because athletic programs are typically a school's most visible public face. Michigan State University's block S would be another example, or University of Miami's "U", and these are much more immediately recognizable than the respective official seals of either university. Therefore, it could be argued that their omission would be detrimental to the understanding, if not at least the association and identification, of those institutions. And in the particular case of Pitt and Cal, their wordmarks depict commonly used alternative names for those institutions, further enhancing the value of their inclusion in those infoboxes. If the purpose of the infobox logos is for the identification of the institution that is the topic of the article, then it is a disservice to not include them. CrazyPaco (talk)

Furthermore, the use of popular or alternative university logos for athletic programs and teams should not disqualify their utility for identification of the institution in an institution's infobox. Nor does the use of these logos in the infoboxes of the articles of individual athletic teams disqualify their use in the university infobox, especially since such articles are considered to independently and individually meet the criteria of WP:notability (e.g. University of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Panthers football are self-sufficient articles not relying on the other's existence, or, the Pitt football article is not a sub-article of the University of Pittsburgh).

• In Reply to Black Kite in regards to the block "PITT" and script "Cal" logos use as a violation of Wikipedia:NFCC #3a and #8

I think the interpretation of Wikipedia:NFCC #3a and #8 as justification for their removal is flawed for the following reasons.

"3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."

The block Pitt logo and script Cal logo clearly contain different images than the seals or other formal logos of the universities they represent. They are both popularly used identifying marks of those universities and both are word marks of widely used alternate names for both universities not otherwise contained in other logos: "Pitt" and "Cal". Therefore the other logos in the infoboxes for those articles do not "convey equivalent significant information."

"8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

As both marks are widely used in popular culture and third party publications to identify those institutions, one could argue that they are the marks most identified with their respective institutions. Therefore, it could be argued that their omission would be detrimental to the understanding, if not at least the association and identification, of those institutions. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there is no policy violation of Wikipedia:Edit warring or WP:TRR in the reversion of Hammersoft's edits. I further should note, that Hammersoft made no attempt at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution prior to posting this issue on this Administrator's noticeboard, and refused my offer to bring it up for discussion at WP:UNI or other relevant projects (see here). My reversal of his edits was due to what I perceived as poor interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO for reasons outlined above. Since Hammersoft has engaged in removing images from university articles, for which hundreds of examples of similar use have long existed, some in FA designated articles, it can be reasonably assumed he was acting arbitrarily without seeking consensus for his interpretation. While his patrolling of WP:NFCC is beyond admirable, I believe in this case he has applied his individual interpretation of fair-use policy prematurely. I know there are contrasting philosophies of WP:Silence and WP:OTHERCRAP here, but this is a case, due to the large number of affected articles and possibllity for non-uniform editing across the topic of universities, I believe discussion should have proceeded WP:Bold. In fact, his unwillingness to proceed with established WP:DISPUTE resolution methods, instead directly posting it as an incident on the noticeboard, is disturbing, especially in light of the fact there was by no definition any wikipedia policy violation which is easily determined by an examination of edit histories. In any case, it is under discussion now, which his good. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Crazypaco, I've refactored your comments. You were shredding other people's comments while responding to them. Respond after their comments please. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for the fix. I will further correct my shredding. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Responding to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument that this usage has existed in featured articles, so it's ok: I found four other university articles that were promoted without this usage. Duke, Georgetown, Texas A&M and Michigan. See the problem with thinking that because something passed as FA with a certain format it is supposedly automatically an endorsement that the style used is the proper style? Don't use articles as models of what is and what is not acceptable. Use our manual of style. That's what it is there for. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, my argument for the inclusion of these sorts of logos has nothing to do with WP:OTHERCRAP. Rather, I mean to cite WP:Silence as why the imposing of an individual's interpretation of WP:MOS onto hundreds of existing articles prior to reasonable discussion is not the way I would have proceeded. I believe a discussion about the utility of these logo's inclusions, why such a utility may have caused them to be placed in the infoboxes in the first place, is useful, and now, thankfully, this is what is being done here. I'm sure such reasoning would have been gleaned from initiating a discussion at WP:UNI prior to widespread removal, and likewise the case stated for their removal could have been pressed. Regardless, in my interpretation of policy, I feel that inclusion of the logos, and thus the reversions of you edits, were completely in line with the WP:MOS. In regards to the particular institutions you just mentioned, you'll notice that both Texas A&M and Michigan include a non-free "athletic" mark as part of their logo in their infoboxes, indicative of the fact that universities do indeed use athletic logos to represent the university as a whole. From personal experience, I can tell you that this is especially the case for Texas A&M. Duke and Georgetown have mascot logos, but do not really have athletic logos that include a wordmark that significantly differs from those that are already displayed in their infoboxes. Are you familiar with academia and college athletics regarding logo use? CrazyPaco (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• The gross exaggeration of my actions does not help your argument Crazypaco. You claim I've done this to hundreds of articles. That's blatantly false. At last count, I'd done this less than 20 times. This is because the vast majority of university articles don't do it the way you want the University of Pittsburgh article to do it. Some may, but it's a subset, and not the dominant style. As to proceeding ahead without seeking some consensus; consensus already existed. The last paragraph of WP:MOSLOGO is pretty clear on this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant to claim that your actions affect 100s of articles (edit: although rereading my previous edit I can see why that it would be misinterpreted as you already having editing them, and apologies if this was the case), and your interpretation of this policy certainly does affect 100s of articles, whether or not you have gotten to them to edit the logos out yet. All you have to do is leaf through the articles from BCS conference universities to see that. This discussion is for the clarification of policy of whether it is appropriate to include such logos in the infobox for identification purposes. Consensus clearly does not exist on your interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO and Fair use, based on the fact that 1) my interpretation differs, 2) WP:Silence on dozens if not hundreds of articles for a significant length of time, and 3) the inclusion of the logo field in the College Infobox template. You can't just keep citing WP:MOSLOGO claiming it prevents use of these logos in the infobox for these identification purposes because I don't see anywhere where that is the case.You other argument seems to be that you are trying to claim that these logos aren't used to represent a university as a whole in that they are instead just used to represent athletic teams. Well which teams then? One of them or just the entirety of them as a whole? That is like assuming that universities don't send their mascots to represent themselves in non-athletic events, which is absolutely untrue. In fact, many universities, like UMiami, use both their "U" and their Ibis logo in many academic contexts. In the actual real world, many of these logos are used to represent the entire university as well as athletic teams, and I have to assume that you are therefore just unfamiliar with the culture of the institutions and their logo usage which could reflect a lack of expert knowledge. Anyway, to avoid getting into a circular argument that no one wants to read, I'll try to refrain from posting further, so that, hopefully, others will give their opinions on this matter. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• My actions don't affect 100s of articles, and couldn't. We're talking about a small minority of articles that are in violation of the WP:MOSLOGO guideline. It isn't my interpretation. This guideline is very clear. If you want to continue to make this claim that I'm making a unilateral decision that I'm right and you're wrong, we can just as well reverse it. That turns it into a nice little sandbox war, don't you think? "He hit me first!" "Did not!" "Did to!" Enough with the accusations of unilateral interpretations please, thank you. As to your claims that WP:SILENCE supports you; rubbish. I can just as well claim it supports me. Afterall, far more articles do not have the logos than do. And yes, I'm completely unfamiliar with college sports and don't have a fucking clue when it comes to understanding what a sports logo is. I am, after all, a certified idiot. My userpage even says so! It must be true! I sure as hell would never be mistaken for an expert on anything. Hell, I can barely tie my shoes without a manual and the use of toilet paper is beyond my comprehension. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are nearing issues with WP:CIVIL. I offered, and still do so, to take this through the appropriate methodologies of WP:DISPUTE. You refused, and instead brought it immediately to the administrator's noticeboard. I'm still seeking to gather opinion at WP:UNI, because that is the appropriate place to do so, not on the administrators noticeboard. I am also happy to have request for comments placed or have it discussed on any other appropriate talk page. I will abide by any decision reached at WP:UNI or elsewhere, and welcome any result so that the guidelines for Template:Infobox university are clear and standardized. Until then I see no consensus for your interpretation. Sorry if you are offended by my disagreement with you, but running to the administrators noticeboard when someone reverses your edit on a disagreement is not how Wikipedia works. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you had better back off on accusations of me violating WP:CIVIL and focus on the debate at hand, rather than accusing me of making unilateral decisions, being unfamiliar with college sports, and lacking in expert knowledge. If you want to look at WP:CIVIL concerns, look in the mirror. I don't appreciate your accusations against me. I said NOTHING about you. My insults were directed specifically at myself. No, I didn't refuse to handle this in a manner in compliance with WP:DISPUTE. I refused to handle it in the manner you wanted me to. What I did in posting here was entirely appropriate. You were editing in violation of a style guideline here, edit warring to enforce it, and acting faster than I could discuss things with you. That's why I gave up and brought it here, where an administrator could handle the issue. A guideline isn't in dispute because you disagree with it. If you think the guideline should be changed, then start an RfC yourself to have it changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You are the one using profanity. There was no violation of wikipedia editing policy which is evident by the [edit history]. You did refuse to WP:DISPUTE as seen here. The only thing that was violated was your sense of the WP:MOSLOGO policy, which does not prevent the use of logos as is under discussion here, and the inappropriate posting to the administrators' noticeboard. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Profanity directed at myself. WP:DISPUTE isn't a step by step procedure wherein every step must be followed. There are multiple avenues for dispute resolution. You're upset because I chose one of the paths available to me there, rather than choose your path. And yet again you talk about me having a unilateral understanding of WP:MOSLOGO. I've already refuted this, and in fact the only other editor contributing to this discussion happens to agree with me. Not so unilateral now, is it? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the other editor's statements were first about the wrong logo, and although he agrees with you, he also backed off his comments that it isn't arguable. He also seems to disagree with your policy, as do other editors, that these logos have no place in the body of the article covering athletics. This is a different dispute, however, and one where you inaccurately use Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 point 5 as your justification, even admitting that "sort of" addresses it. As I said, your crusade to enforce WP:NFCC is admirable, but your interpretations of how policy "sort of" can be used to clear out images suggests copyright paranoia, an unwillingness to determine the individual appropriateness of logos, or the potential for alternative and multiple uses of the logos in question, e.g. beyond the athletic teams. Along those lines, please quote me the fair-use or logo policy where multiple, and completely different, current-use logos can not be used to help identify the topic of an article in an infobox. This is already standard practice in the infoboxes in question as seen by the designation of multiple image fields. It does not violate WP:MOSLOGO, WP:FUG or WP:LOGO. You are seem to hang your justification on making big assumptions that their use is restricted to sub-entities within the universities (e.g. athletic teams). I am not going to change you opinion on this, I realize that, nor will you change mine. Others will have to weigh in. I will be happy to abide by any result of the discussions, and either way, as I have stated, I look forward to uniform implementation of policy and style. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• And now you accuse me of copyright paranoia. Sorry, too much now. WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW. When you can figure out how to talk with people without casting aspersions on them or evaluating them personally in the process, then we can talk. Until then, I have no interest in discussing this with you further. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Improper deletion of User pages

Resolved

 – The talk pages are not deleted, and user pages were deleted per a legitimate U1 request. –xeno^talk 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread about a specific issue has been moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why have User:Law and User:The undertow's User and Talk pages been deleted while there is continuing discussion not only about them, but about other people and their involvement with them? This looks like an attempt at coverup and a whitewash, until these matters are settled. NOTE: I have not commented, nor been involved, in these issues with this account, nor with my normal logged-in account. Some people probably won't believe that, but you'll just have to assume good faith on that matter. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there IS a coverup or whitewash, just that this has the appearance of such. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The user talk pages are not deleted presently. User pages can be deleted at their owners' request. –xeno^talk 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: User talk:Law and User:Law have been redirected to User talk:The undertow, and the latter blanked. User:The undertow was deleted at user request in May 2009. Rd232 ^talk 09:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Law's history is still visible. [86] The more curious thing is why his puppetmaster, The undertow, is still being allowed to edit. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As is User_talk:The undertow. There is no action required here.

As for your curiosity, see above at #Community ban discussion regarding The undertow –xeno^talk 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation request

Resolved

 – SPI filed successfully

The instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations are confusing when it comes to requesting an investigation of a new sock on a closed case.

Based on editing patterns and the prior closed case, I strongly believe User:GarnetAndBlack and User:129.252.69.40 are sockpuppets of User:ViperNerd. The IPs are from the same pool, and the editing patterns are similar. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd/Archive.

Your assistance, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am now being harassed by this IP, including his forcibly pushing content [87] onto my talk page after I removed it [88]. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on either the sockpuppet accusation or the content dispute, but I have warned the IP to tone it down. I suggest you do the same. This, for example, is only ever going to inflame a situation; it will never calm things down.  Frank  |  talk  15:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was not in anyway uncivil to this person. I simply refused to discuss the issue with him because he became uncivil, and I told him that. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Its registered to University of South Carolina; Computer Services Division --Hu12 (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not surprised at that. It was blocked before as an IP in use by ViperNerd. I think GarnetAndBlack is also ViperNerd, but I don't know how to file a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations when there's already a closed investigation. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Go to the WP:SPI page, and fill in the box called "Start an SPI case WITH a CheckUser request". In the box, you should enter "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd". Then hit the submit button and try to follow the instructions. The system is smart enough to know this sockmaster was reported before, and it will do the right thing. Once you get your report started, a helpful clerk will eventually appear (within a couple of days) to advise you on any mistakes you might have made. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

On cases where a CU has been requested, a clerk will look it over generally within hours, not days. For the non-CU cases (where resolution requires an administrator, and a double check isn't needed ahead of a checkuser) it sometimes is a little longer, but still not usually days before anyone at least looks at it. Nathan ^T 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Community ban discussion regarding The undertow

This morning, arbitrator Risker (talk · contribs) posted a motion stating that:

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools.[89] At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee ban.

This might have been triggered in some way by my arbitration request against Law, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight, which remains technically open. Risker has indefinitely blocked Law, and the Committee is now set to pass a motion that would restrict The undertow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that one account.

I propose that the community complement that restriction with a community ban of The undertow (under any account) for an egregious violation of community trust (editing with a sockpuppet in evasion of a ban, violating WP:BAN, and using a sockpuppet to gain adminship, violating WP:SOCK). At the same time, we should review WP:Requests for adminship/Law for lessons learned.  Sandstein  07:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument for banning is underdetermined by the facts (at least those presented here). Sure, the guy was deceptive, abused the community trust and as an administrator conducted themselves in a questionable manner. That's a good reason to subject him to a lot of scrutiny in the future, and to think long and hard about trusting him with positions of responsibility, but his contributions to the project have been overwhelmingly positive and in good faith.

Banning is a drastic and extraordinary measure, and should be reserved for those who are both unambiguously disruptive and who have shown that they are irreformable. Has he acted intentionally to harm the encyclopaedia or its authors? Has he shown a lack of understanding of the problems others have raised with his behaviour, or a dogmatic refusal to reform? Does it appear extremely unlikely that he will be a productive contributor in the near future?

Far from it, from what I have seen. Subject the undertow to regular checkusers and forbid him access to advanced permissions, if needs be, but banning would seem a complete overreaction.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Could someone please post a link to The undertow's original ban and explain how that ban would be violated by creating a new sock account, gaining adminship for it, and/or wheel warring to undermine enforcement of the Obama arbcom ruling? Wikidemon (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So far I've found this (only admins can see this deleted edit). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Back a bit further (again, only admins can see this), Undertow seems to have been blocked (not banned) for disruption after a discussion on the arbcom mailing list, then came back a few months later as Law, without disclosing the Undertow account at the RfA or anywhere else. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying slightly: The undertow was blocked for 9 months on 16 July 2008. [90] Law was created on 4 September 2008. [91] Rd232 ^talk 08:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I see that was June, not July. Note that The Undertow had been de-sysoped the month before that block. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• No other comment but to point here, here, here, and here. Vassyana (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sheesh, the fact that an Arbcom-banned user can come back during his sanctions, regain the tools, and continue using them controversially just makes a complete joke of the system. He's obviously treating this whole thing as a game. Therefore, support ban. Spellcast (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Egregious abuse of trust and most recently, tools. Support userban for whatever length of time has community support. Should be at least 6 months. R. Baley (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On 16 March of this year The undertow's block automatically lifted and two days later he made this "first" edit, only 20 minutes after having made this string of edits as Law. However, after that he made fewer than 20 edits as The undertow and stopped altogether within 3 weeks. I guess one should wonder if he banked any other accounts, sleeper or otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I trust that a checkuser has been run on the Law account to see whether any other accounts are associated with it?  Sandstein  12:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• support a community ban. Clearly doesn't respect the community.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* An unfortunate turn of events. I have added a related question to all current RFA candidates, and will attempt to continue to do so for future candidates. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The reasons behind the initial nine-month block/ban of User:The undertow were not publicly disclosed at the time of the block and involve private information provided to the Arbitration Committee as it was constituted at the time of the block. The circumstances that led to that block were no longer operative at the time the User:Law account was created; I will not venture to guess how the Arbitration Committee at that time would have responded to a request to lift the block. The information that has led to this motion came to the Arbitration Committee's attention yesterday following an off-wiki dispute between User:Law and other editors and is unrelated to any other on-wiki issues including current requests for arbitration and arbitration cases. I hope this clarifies some of the issues being raised here. Risker (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• It seems clear to me that there were other administrators who were aware of his return as Law, and who should have disclosed this information a long time ago to ArbCom and the community. I think its disappointing, to say the least, that The undertow's deception drew in others who also held the trust of the community. Nathan ^T 12:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there proof for that?  Sandstein  12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Jennavecia and perhaps MZMcBride. Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a typically ludicrous situation. The fact that Law was able to regain the tools just goes to show that he should never have been banned in the first place, because he was committed to improving the project. Needless to say, I oppose banning the Law account; if the account was doing good work, it should be permitted to continue doing good work. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. Everyking (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Block, Desysopping, but I also think a community ban is premature. Is there any indication that an appeal of the 9 month block would have been successful? A 9 month block is unusual in itself; they're usually 6 or 12. Adminship was not requested while under community sanction (Block expired 16 March, adminship looks like late April). Ignoring the fact that he would not have been granted adminship so soon, what would the reaction be if he started off with Law after the arbcom block expired? I'm concerned that we're reaching for the banhammer too quickly. I'm also concerned that editors who may have suspected (or even been aware of) the connection will be sanctioned, and I don't think that's proper, either. We should limit the ZOMG DRAMA here, if possible. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban at this time. The full facts of the matter are not known. It is unwise to take action without knowing the facts. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, please. There are dozens and dozens of editors who want to walk away from this project but can't. People retire all the time and come back days—sometimes hours&mdsh;later. Yet people honestly think that when an editor gets banned, they just walk away? As difficult as it is to leave when you want to, you think it's easy to walk away when you don't but you're told to? Ponder it for a moment. That's ridiculous. If a study was conducted, I'd be willing to wager quite a bit that the vast majority of banned editors are among us. Hell, the sheer number of admins that are former users of undisclosed accounts is crazy. Whether or not they're previously banned users, RVTs, socks, whatever is unclear, but you can tell my their early contribs that they weren't just joining the party.

  He came back as Law because he couldn't stay away. This is nothing if not commonplace. Many banned editors come back as abusive socks. The Kohser, for example. He was unbanned after what, a couple dozen abusive socks? Different circumstances, of course, but the_undertow started over. He created a new account, he avoided his old pages, wrote new articles, took them to DYK, made new friends, learned new areas, got adminship and, despite what Sandstein thinks (as if he has room to talk after blocking someone for a month for making a grammatical change in an article that violated an ArbCom sanction by a stretch, then fast-tracking it to RFAR, completely blowing off AN/I (he didn't trust you then, but he trusts you now, community?)), Law was a good admin. For pretty much any admin to say otherwise based on a couple "questionable" action makes them a hypocrite, because we've all made actions that others questioned.

  This is a website. People seem to forget that. Preventative, not punitive. From what are you protecting the project? Banned editors make appeals to be unbanned all the time. The ones that are allowed back are so on faith. On a promise that they'll be good. That they've reformed and can be a good editor again. Here you have proof. He's been editing for over a year and while his contributions are not perfect (name me one editor's whose are), he has thousands of edits that improved the project.

  The point of temp banning editors is to reform them. That goal was clearly accomplished. It just happened in less time that the arbitrary number ArbCom threw down. And as for others knowing, anyone that would put this website before a friendship is a rat. That's just silly. Lara 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Loyalty to friends is good, but that does not include helping them violate trusts. If your friend is doing something wrong, you don't turn them in. You tell them to do the right thing, and don't help them do the wrong thing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Wrong thing? What's right and wrong is subjective. Let's be sure we're using the correct terms here. He was breaking a rule on a website. Be clear. Doing wrong things, for me, is a moral matter. This website is wrong on a lot of levels. Him evading a ban because he wanted to improve this project is not, in any way as I understand the word, wrong. Lara 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, per Jennavecia and Everyking. I might have even participated in the original ban discussion (can't remember) but he's clearly shown himself to be a dedicated editor (and admin) once again. Any kind of block is a) Punitive and b) Ludicrous. He will keep coming back, despite banning him. I wrote an analogy somewhere on banned users editing recently. There are some kinds of editors who should not be allowed to edit, period. Law/Undertow is not that kind of editor. He had a few disputes, he upset some influencial people. His was a political ban. There is no proof whatsoever that allowing him to continue as an admin is a) Damaging or b) Against community wishes. The community voted him in. The fact they did proves the ban was political, because as soon as the person behind the account is discovered, the user (who was well-respected in the community) suddenly becomes an unperson, deleted from our community, for the crime of wanting to edit and help out. My analogy was like this: banned users are usually banned for good reasons. They are, essentially, criminals of the wiki-world. They are barred from editing here, as far as possible. But it's like this. Suppose you got home one day, and having left the house in a mess that morning, you're confused to discover the whole place is now spick and span. You check round, and find nothing missing. There is, however, a note, which informs you that if you want your house cleaned again, to ring a particular number. You're pleasantly surprised, that someone is coming in to clean your house, but on the other hand, you're a little irritated they have broken the law by trespassing/breaking and entering your property. Now if this person was a Wikipedian, they would immediately call the police, give them the number, and have them arrested. What they technically did was wrong; they went on to property they should not have done. However, they did many good things while they were there. Does the Wikipedian then return everything to its prior state, out of spite? Often, they do. Even if it was worse. Law/Undertow is like that. He was technically not allowed here, but he has done so much good it's making his "illegal" return look irrelevant. We should be welcoming him back, since he has not caused any problems, not shunning him away again, simply because he broke a petty Wikipedia politics law. Majorly talk 13:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, but that has to be one of the worst analogies I can imagine. I come home, find that someone has broken into my house and mysteriously gone through my things and cleaned everything, and I'm supposed to be just a little irritated that they broke the law? :) I suspect it would be an awful lot stronger than that, and yes, I would ring the police. - Bilby (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's trying to illustrate how you can break a "law" and be doing a good thing at the same time. Like somebody escaping from prison and starting a new life. It's ludicrous to ban a productive editor. Majorly talk 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - I believe the desysop is appropriate. However, I do not believe a ban is. The undertow has attacked me quite a lot (and sometimes viciously) over the past year. He is not my friend, nor wants to be, nor ever could be considered such. I find him unpleasant. However, I do not believe his original ban or this ban would be appropriate (Long block? fine. Ban? no.). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Hold This broke less than 10 hours ago. Its a dramahappy situation with a lot of editors being (predictably and understandably) emotional.--Tznkai (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose ban - Do you really want to ban a productive editor? It is clear that if given the chance this editor will contribute productively to the project. A ban, to me, would seem nothing more than needless politics and bureaucracy. — neuro^(talk) 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think it is likely that a ban will implemented at this point, but just in case, I oppose a ban for the reasons outlined by Neurolysis. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban (for what it's worth at this point), but consider some short to medium-term community-imposed editing restrictions having to do with participation in Wikipedia politics, with an opportunity for a fresh start at the appropriate time. Not sure how that works, but an editor who was socking as recently as a few days ago is obviously not reformed. Nevertheless, based on the claims made by others the editor is mostly productive, contributes extensively in article space, is well liked by many, and likes Wikipedia a lot. I'm not condoning socking or anything else - note my harsh words elsewhere for some parts of this. But this is not the kind of person who ought to be chased away if we can help it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia

• Jennavecia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Jennavecia strongly supported Law's RFA. [92][93][94][95][96] How does it look when an administrator knowingly supports a deception like that? Not very good at all. It's one thing to stand aside and do nothing, but quite something else to actively assist block evasion and sock puppetry. I think Jennavecia has some explaining to do. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's as may be, but I see 100 other editors who supported as well. Should we question them? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They did not publicly state that they knew who Law was. I would assume good faith of the others; they were deceived. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You know full well I suspect that Casliber knows them too, as do others. I don't see this developing into anything other than a mess. DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cas apparently did not notice the RFA, but I agree this would be a mess. I do hate these goddamn open secrets though. Cool Hand Luke 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What leads you to believe Casliber knew that Law was the_undertow? Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that. Who are the others who knew? What is your evidence that they knew? At this point I'm looking for an explanation of something that looks bad. Did Law get permission from ArbCom to start a new account during The undertow's block? Did Law get permission to run an RFA without disclosing the prior circumstances. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Redacted. Happy to redact further if I am requested to. [97][98][99] DrKiernan (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to come off as snarky as I did... But my main worry is that this mess started with a request to learn what we could from Law's RFA, and now feels very much like "What did they know and when did they know it?" Even if some admins knew (and I did not, owing to my extended wikibreak), there are sometimes plausible reasons for a new, undisclosed account. Some editors may have known and AGF'ed that it was proper, or reasonably so. Some may have AGF'ed that arbcom had given it their blessing, even if nonpublicly to avoid OUTing the new identity. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be, that's why I asked for explanations rather than heads on pikes. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He's my best friend. Big deal. I trust him. That's why I supported him. I don't care if he broke a rule on a website. He wanted to get into new areas, I knew his intentions were good (which is more than I can say for most of the RFAs I vote in, where I assume the intentions for people I don't know are good), so I supported him. I'll always have his back no matter what, because we're friends regardless of what's going on with Wikipedia. I would never put a website before a friendship. And I would never not get his back because I'm an admin. If you don't trust me with my tools, recall me, but I won't be admonished for supporting my best friend. Lara 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Loyalty to friends is good, but that does not include helping them violate trusts. If your friend is doing something wrong, you don't turn them in. You tell them to do the right thing, or help them to do the right thing, and especially don't help them do the wrong thing. I'm not sure anybody is going to do anything to you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you lied, and he lied, and so did the other administrators who were aware of his background but kept it a secret. If he'd returned openly, as he should have, maybe he would have regained adminship on his own merits without having to hide his past? Should we accept that administrators can lie to us about whatever they choose, so long as they can argue afterwards that it was for the good of the encyclopedia? Nathan ^T 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't lie. I don't by that "if you know and don't tell you're a liar." No. When I was asked by ArbCom if I knew, I told them I did. Lara 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand how friendship can sway things, as it should, but I see deep, root worries about trust here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to single out one person here because they have been honest. Who knew what, and when, why they didn't inform the committee, or stop the Law RfA, or advise against the Law resysop - I think there is merit to these questions, in order to learn how to avoid this in the future. However that would require a full RFAR case or an RFC, and I suspect that the answers would probably be quite divisive. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If they were honest, they'd have revealed highly relevant information at the RFA, or recused themselves from participating if they felt friendship came first. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Going down a "what do you know and when did you know it?" route here is only going to lead to bad blood and loads of eDrama. Seriously, just let this side-tangent to the affair drop. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Screaming "McCarthyism" isn't exactly a recipe for reducing drama. Shall I scream "coverup" and "double standards"? Then where will we be? No, let's discuss this rationally. McCarthy was a scum, and I do not appreciate you comparing me to him at all. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you're lighting the torches and calling for a witch hunt, i.e. "I think Jennavecia has some explaining to do.", don't be surprised if you get called out on it. What were you hoping to accomplish here? Some kind of "aiding and abetting" wiki-trial? Please. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? That's a bit dramatic, eh? If someone has been behaving unethically, pointing this out is hardly a "witch hunt". Friday (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• When you are a sysop, site standards come before personal relationships. Being a sysop is a position of trust. If personal relationship is going to influence you, then you must recuse yourself from the matter, or disclose the relationship so that others can view your opinion in a proper light. Do you agree, Jennavecia? I'm not interested in punishing you, only in making clear how things should operate. Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is rare that I agree with Jehochman. However, in this case I do. Note that while there are situations where asking people when they knew something can be inappropriate, that doesn't mean asking such is inherently bad. Given Jenna's comments and her history with the Undertow, I have a lot of trouble believing that she did not know that Law was Undertow when she so strongly supported his RfA. Some explanation from her is definitely in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have me on /ignore on WP? I didn't know that was possible. >_> Lara 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman stirs drama. This is what he does. I don't understand why anyone would ask him not to. That said, J, your logic is flawed. Putting my friendship first by recusing in his RFA? That makes no sense. You take Wikipedia way to seriously. There are bigger issues (like the BLP plague) than a banned editor coming back to help the project so much so that people are now "shocked" to find out. You're drama-mongering and politicking. I'm unmoved. So conduct your study, but don't anticipate my participation. It's a website. Lara 14:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You knowingly aided a sock puppet account to gain adminship. That was a clear breach of trust on your part. All you need to do is indicate that you understand and won't make the same mistake again. If you can't do that, I think you should not be a sysop. Don't try to evade responsibility for your actions by making personal attacks against me. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Law isn't a sockpuppet. And please tell me what damage to the encyclopedia this has caused. Thanks! Majorly talk 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

An alternate account used to evade a block is definitively a sock puppet. There is such a thing as reputation, Wikipedia's reputation. There is morale. Users get blocked for sock puppetry and block evasion all the time. Here we have an account that was allowed to flout the rules because he was friends with administrators. Doesn't that strike you as unfair, and bad for Wikipedia's reputation? Don't you see how that damages our ability to recruit and retain volunteers? Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I submit that there is no comment here, no action that could be taken with regard to Law/Undertow, no ruling from the arbcom, that could benefit Wikipedia's reputation. However well-intentioned, however reasonable this thread started, it is now Drama, and when has Drama ever helped our reputation? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Nepotism is bad. We need to show that we don't allow it. I am hoping to demonstrate that users in positions of trust, especially admins who aspire to gain Oversight access,[100] are not allowed to help their "best friend" flout the rules. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's as may be. In this particular case, Arbcom didn't even block The_undertow for the violation, they just blocked Law (Law having requested desysoping on 20 September). Any sanction against Jennavecia or others would A) not be preventative, and B) be harsher than the sanction against The_undertow. So I guess my question becomes, on point, what administrative remedy would you like to see in this specific instance? The next question would be if there is consensus for such a remedy; I suspect that there is not. The broader issues of nepotism and Wikipedia's Reputation can be left for another discussion, as Tznkai notes. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The community may well ban The undertow, and Arbcom may well take away sysop privileges for those most responsible for promoting his sockpuppet's adminship. I found this response[101] by Lara to my legitimate question about Law, which turns out to be more well-founded than I realize, to be less than forthcoming. Even before I knew she was defending her "best friend" I thought her attitude was unduly bite-y and undignified for an administrator dealing with an honest question on a meta-page. Now that I know she was playing favorites, I'm not very happy. The world is full of circumstances large and small where we are required to put duty before friendship, from the workplace to things as simple as not lying on government forms. Wikipedia too is a place where we are supposted to treat everyone fairly and not lie in our use of tools and policies. Perhas Lara is simply not well versed here and can learn. But a deliberately defiant attitude that she would deceive us and break policy to promote sock administrators (and who knows what else) if they are her friends is inconsistent with being trusted as an admin. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reputation

This deserves it's own heading. Wikipedia's reputation. You're saying that this situation reflects on Wikipedia's reputation? YGBSM. I could write 15 paragraphs about why Wikipedia's reputation is a joke. This situation and those like it aren't to be attributed. People like you, who stir up drama at every given opportunity, Jehochman, is what gives Wikipedia bad reputation. If Wikipedia was mellow and people cared more about the content than the politics and drama, things would be better. You perpetuate the poor reputation. To project it any other way is laughable. Lara 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What does YGBSM mean? Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"You've gotta be shitting me". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Nepotism is the problem. Read my comment above. Users consistently complain about favoritism. If you have powerful friends, you can do whatever you like here, while others get sanctioned for minor infractions. Nepotism is a real problem that contributes to loss of volunteers. We need to address it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you propose we do that? Anything you propose will drive somebody from the project, one way or another.UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

e/c:I agree with the general notion that what happens behind the curtain does not negatively effect Wikipedia's reputation, which includes pretty much all of our little fights on adminship and so called drama stirring. That said, personal attacks are not helpful and they should stop.--Tznkai (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Inernally, it hurts the faith that insiders have in the institution. Every organization, fraternity, project, whatever, has problems. What hurts the reputation is not dealing with the problems to the extent that something very bad happens that catches the public's imagination. Fake Wikipedia admins have become nationwide news before. This won't get to that level unless one of these people turns out to be a well known or scandalous individual promoting his or her own interests, or something like that. In any event, fixing a problem is a lot better for an organization's reputation than letting it linger for fear of bad PR. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman

Jehochman's comments are completely ridiculous.

Nepotism isn't a problem on this project. Nepotism is why I'm unemployed. The problem on the project is long-time established users who are known best for the drama they stir up needlessly. The problem on the project is that there is no adequate enforcement of behavioral issues. Incivility is met with blocks for personal attacks. Personal attacks are ignored when made my vested users. "Personal attack!" is cried when someone is offended. Old Guard editors and admins can do absolutely anything they want most of the time. POV problems are rampant. The BLP problem is only getting worse. There are a lot of problems on this project. Nepotism isn't one of them. In-fighting is one of them.

And to say that Law was able to do this because I knew. That's stupid. I didn't get Law adminship. I didn't protect him against the big bad wolves. I knew and I supported him in various things, like his RFA, because I know and trust him. Law worked on articles. I'm almost exclusively working on BLPs and the related pages. If you don't trust me, J, then recall me. My procedure is really simple. I'll waive the week of discussion on my talk and let it stand with this thread. Once this thread is archived, if you're not pleased with the level of drama, just dive right into that page. Lara 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the substantive problem is a much more serious issue than those who complain about it. This is a significant, real problem that has lead to the apparent resignation of one Arbcom member, and a different socking incident lead to the recent resignation of another. This issue troubles a lot of people who are not normally troubled, not only Jehochman, who seems like the proverbial stuck clock that's right twice a day. Someone who complains that everything on Wikipedia is a travesty is occasionally right when describing things that really are travesties. Meanwhile, I think Lara's vehement protests, defense of Law / The undertow, and attacks on those who disagree, all undermine her authority as an administrator. It might be wise to stand for a new RfA, but I would suggest waiting for the various discussions to die down to see if we can have a community consensus on just how seriously we will take the problem of people knowingly facilitating socking. Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to double vote?

Accuser convinced that there was no attempt to double vote. Cool Hand Luke 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On February 8, The undertow requested unblock so that he could vote in the OS/CU elections (on his deleted talk page). On February 7, Law had already voted for several candidates. Cool Hand Luke 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC) There was no double voting, and if we are to assume without evidence that the editor would act in such an abusive manner, then why bother having this discussion to begin with?  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Because he tried to vote. He was either trying to double vote or trying to use two accounts in the voting to avoid connecting votes to Law. Neither is a good thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Did Law vote for every candidate? Lara 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I checked. No. He didn't. Law had different friends and acquaintances than the_undertow. Voting for different candidates in the same election with different accounts isn't double voting. An intention to do so clearly isn't either. Lara 14:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Undertow withdrew his request for unblock on 13 February, and does not appear to have voted at all as Undertow. As far as the OS/CU elections, there does not appear to have been a violation. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I dislike the deception in asking for an unblock when the user had been editing for several months, but I found The undertow's explaination credible. He's given me permission to post it, and I reproduce it below: "The implication that I wanted to double vote makes no sense. I wanted to show support for some as the_undertow. If you notice, I never voted twice in anything, never used the accounts on the same project and never used them to somehow promote an agenda. It's not like I'm completely lacking in ethics. Notice how I used undertow to vote in certain RfA's and Law in others during the same week? I never double-voted -- just ask Risker. -Chip" I've omitted an unrelated statement which does not seem to be factual. It's true that he never double voted. He's not the most honest character, but I don't think he was trying to double vote. Cool Hand Luke 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for following that up, CHL. Let's lay this accusation to rest, shall we.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check please

This is getting ugly, and the questioning of each other's ethics really is not going to end well. It would appear that the original block was expired. Applying for tools may have been unethical, but was not illegal. We all have our own reasons for supporting or opposing RfA's ... perhaps someone thought a block was originally inappropriate, who knows the internal thoughts. Let's go back to the WP:AGF concept, and believe that all of us believe we're doing what's best at the time. We've possibly been all found to be asses, but RFA is a community decision nonetheless. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I voted for Law without knowing who he was, and I am pleased to have done so. I'm not pleased the community decision has now been reversed because certain people don't like the fact they voted for an evil banned person. It's all political, and no actual consideration to the encyclopedia has been made. Majorly talk 14:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ban him. Clearly the guy is here on a mission to create drama. Frankly, we can do without this. Plus, not mentioning your previous history of instability, blocks, legal threats and demoppings at ones RFA is very, very poor form: that is a breach of trust. Goodbye! Moreschi (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Law (talk · contribs) has 3,300 edits to the article space, which is nearly 50% of his total contribution history. He has additionally started 17 new articles. A breach of trust it may be, but it's unfair to say this user is solely on "a mission to create drama". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Haha. Law is the one creating drama? XD Oh, god. Please. He's not even participating here in order to minimize drama. If not for Sandstein posting, there wouldn't be drama. If not for Jehochman politicking, there would be less drama. You certainly stir up your share of drama too, honey. Lara 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban Actually, after seeing this[102], I would suggest giving User:Law the bum's rush. To have an admin openly declare that there are certain policies that they don't follow and will not enforce is, IMO, a greater offense to the community than slinking back in with multiple accounts. How did it happen that someone with a stated unwillingness to perform the administrator's job was granted the status of administrator? The only reason we have admins is to enforce policy, using tools with which us lowly editors can't be trusted. L0b0t (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Opting not to participate, butting out if you will, based upon one of the wisest postings I've seen in quite a spell. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh come off it. I don't enforce WP:BLOCK, would you like me banned too? Even if one accepts that an unwillingness to enforce particular policies is grounds to refuse someone administrator access, that is an entirely different matter from concluding that that person should be prohibited from ever contributing to the encyclopaedia in any capacity ever again. Refer to the subsection title.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Tacky A tacky abuse of trust. I don't know about a ban but I am sure going to oppose any future RfA. Even without this recent exposure of his abuse of trust I would not support this person as an admin due to his tendency to ignore policy and use the tools based on personal opinion. I have no problem with him editing articles if he sticks to only the one account and follows our other rules. Chillum 14:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• A couple thoughts. Wikipedia was founded on the idea of anonymity. The majority of "accounts" here hide their real life identities, and edit for the improvement of the project. Some folks even adopt certain personalities with their online accounts. My question is this: Does "Account:X" edit to improve the project? Personally, if an account is doing good things here - I really don't care what size, shape, or gender is behind the edits. Sometimes what people know and what they think they know can be two entirely different things. If we're all going to start pointing fingers, accusing people of bad motives, and start-up some USENET shit-storm - to be perfectly blunt - it is a path to the dark side, and will not lead to anything good. Real people are being hurt everyday here because of BLP violations. Articles exist out there without references. Simply stated, there are better things to do folks than engage in this type of "gotcha" game. — Ched :  ?  14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (Disclaimer: I'm friends with the editor.) I agree, Ched. As Law, he was a good admin and good editor. Right now, he is a net positive to the project, and I do not think he should be banned. However, having to go through a future RfA seems reasonable and like the best option. hmwith☮ 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Addendum: I don't object to him sticking with The_undertow as a username, however, as ArbCom decided. hmwith☮ 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• WP:STICK? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• A banned user socked to gain admin tools. Some admins knew about this and kept shtum. Others complain when the situation is exposed. Why is anyone surprised? This is normal behaviour for the admin community. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no community ban

Multiple administrators have objected to a community ban, myself included. There is not going to be one unless new facts come out and a new discussion starts. There is no need to pile on unless people have some sort of new perspective to add to the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd suggest archiving this entire discussion and let the dust settle. If the_undertow/Law requests an unblock then a new and calm discussion should take place. –xeno^talk 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo xeno's comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He's not blocked. Lara 14:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom voted 9-0 to limit User:The_undertow to 1 account, specifically The_undertow (talk · contribs). User:Law was blocked indef as a result, but Undertow has not been blocked or otherwise sanctioned. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops - stricken. Anyhow, my motion to close still stands. Tensions are running high and I don't think much productivity is to be had here, at least not today. –xeno^talk 14:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why they say ANI sweeps stuff under the rug when the higher-ups get caught with their fingers in the cookie-jar. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple. Because WP:RFC is thataway. "All the world's a stage", but in spite of the rumors this is a serious administrative board and not a free ranging venue for drama. Durova³²⁰ 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone would like to take part in an UNOFFICIAL discussion on alternate accounts/sockpuppets, etcetera, I've set up a discussion at User:SirFozzie/Alternate. Discussion on the issue as a whole is welcome, (I'm not interested in calling for bans on specific users, just discussion of where the project can go from here) SirFozzie (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it will be more useful to clarify and strengthen policy rather than to focus an RFC on an individual. Jehochman ^Talk 12:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Situation

As I understand it, the situation is currently:

• Law is the undertow, currently previously under a several month ban, who evaded ban, made a sock, became admin as sock, and now the Law account is de-sysopped and banned. the undertow account has had no action taken against it.
• Lara aka Jennavecia knew at the time of Law's Rfa that he was the undertow. When concern was expressed at the breach of trust implied in knowingly abetting the undertow in evading ArbCom sanctions, she responded "he's my best friend, get over it",[103] as well as "I'll always have his back no matter what"[104] and accused at least one of those voicing concerns of "causing drama".
• Lara further compared her transgressions with other, non related issues, stating or implying her actions were not important in the larger picture.
• Various people voiced opinions on tangential issues; was Law a good admin, etc.
• GlassCobra, who nominated Law,[105] has also admitted he knew and abetted Law/the undertow in evading ArbCom sanctions[106]

that's the situation as I see it currently. I am still mulling over (and finding and reading) details. I do not believe I have missed anything core to this issue. If I have, I will add it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The undertow ban has expired. –xeno^talk 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I will correct this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my understanding as well. Lara's behavior has been quite unreasonable, and damaging to the project. Will people ever get it through their heads that all this making of "friends" and "enemies" is seriously harmful to Wikipedia? Don't we have real life for that sort of thing? Friday (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not put it in those terms. In a collegial environment, we will all inevitably end up working with editors on similar topics, and we will also inevitably have some disagreements. It is how those are dealt with that determines whether we make "friends" or "enemies". WP:AGF and WP:CIV seem to me to underpin those interactions, regardless of the personal aspects. I have worked with some editors on some articles, and disagreed on other articles; hopefully, we have ended up with some mutual respect, not least for being able to civilly argue our points, and there is no residual rancour. As to the point at hand, I retain respect for both User:the_undertow and User:Jennavecia, because I am fully familiar with the volume and quality of work they have put in here. In general terms, we seem to have inconsistent attitudes to editors who (a) provide excellent content whilst at the same time (b) flouting the rules and norms, and that concerns me. Rodhullandemu 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• One argument that has been raised is that the people knowing "didn't do any harm" by not informing people, and that Law's contributions after returning have been entirely proper and have not contained any eyebrow-raising. Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight counters this completely - the undertow was, a friend from the tone I've heard, slightly biased towards COM, and if this knowledge had been available to the community as a whole than Law's unblock of CoM would have been treated substantially differently. The argument that withholding the information did no harm is thus moot - it allowed a biased admin to unblock someone, something entirely improper. People crying that Law's actions have been those of a saint may want to look up that thread and revise their worldview somewhat. Ironholds (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly this kind of stuff makes me not want to contribute to Wikipedia anymore. What's the point when everything is controlled behind the scenes by people like Lara and her friends who are above the rules? This is the first time since I started contributing to the encyclopedia that I've felt that this might be a bad place. :( -- Atama頭 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your disillusion, Atama; I've experienced it many times myself. (It's similar to discovering that the minister of your church has embezzled a pile of money; how do you keep up your faith after that?) The important things to remember is (1) the core of Wikipedia is an ideal, not personal relationships; & (2) those kinds of wikifriendships end up being destructive not only for other people -- but also for their members. -- llywrch (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• • It's hard to keep up with all the Drahmaz, but I am just noticing this comment now. If Undertow and I had any interactions please provide diffs. I don't recall any, but I haven't looked into it so I suppose it's possible. As the username seems entirely new to me these past few days I would be very surprised if there is any connection at all. Given that, I suggest you step up with some evidence or refactor your statement and apologize. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• The best I've been able to tell - the undertow was an account that was banned before you (or I) started editing at WP - June of 08 if I'm reading my history correctly. Apparently all the details of the ban aren't going to be found in history we can research, as I believe that some of the decision making process was made either off-wiki or through other channels (email maybe?). I'm not sure of the details, but as best as I've been able to ascertain, there were some sensitive issues surrounding it all. Somewhere along the line - the undertow was unbaned and unblocked - but chose to edit under the "Law" moniker instead. I'm not sure of the time and date stamps on everything - but apparently he did edit as "the undertow" AFTER he had been editing as "Law" - hence, it is considered "socking". WP:SOCK would be the page to read on why this isn't allowed. My understanding is that communication between you (CoM) on both your talk page, and the talk page of "Law", indicates that you were "friends" - so .. when he undid a month block you received for this edit, he was acting even though he was involved. Note that ArbCom consensus has determined that ACORN is related to Obama (even though they are never mentioned in his article), so you effectively violated your editing sanctions. This means that he (Law) overturned a proper block because he was your friend. - at least that's the way I understand things at this point in time. Hope that helps. — Ched :  ?  14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanstein's block wasn't proper in any way shape or form, and it was appropriate that it was undone. The type of abusive and disruptive behavior engaged in by Sandstein is what chases away many good content contributors and is exactly what makes Wikipedia such a frustrating effort. I haven't seen any evidence of Law doing anything wrong. He's being punished for letting people know about his history. Only in an Orwellian Wikiworld, would truth telling be so punished. People start new accounts to turn over a new leaf all the time. There was no abusive socking, POV pushing or cabalism.

It's time to deal with the admin abuse, cabalism and POV pushing. Sandstein is a perfect example. He and I have a quite a history of dispute, just as he had with Giano before blocking that editor in another massive disruption. He's made numerous mistatements and hasnt' backed off any of them. And he's continued to go after those he disagrees with, just like all the others trying to exploit the circumstances settle scores. It's disgusting and inappropriate. He should probably be desysoped, but there's no good system for doing so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing that kinda torpedoes your point though is that the Arbcom members that commented on the proposed case affirmed that the original block was a good one (though not the length), and that Law/undertow's unblock was bad. Why do you keep playing the victim card when such a stance has been near-universally rejected? Tarc (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Now at Arbcom - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Move warring at Latvian hockey player article

Something12356789101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring over the location of the Sandis Ozoliņš (moving it to Sandis Ozolinsh) article since he registered in July. In total, he's moved the page four times in less than 3 months, moving it 3 times in September alone. The user also apparently had issues with the article White people in his early editing career. Opinions?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In my somewhat unexperienced (and certainly non-sysop) opinion, this could have been dealt with simply by warning the user with {{Uw-move1}} to {{Uw-move4}}, and once it passed {{Uw-move4}} (last warning), taking it to WP:AIV (or perhaps here) and having an admin deal a block as promised. As the user had not been warned about the moves until now, perhaps the message you delivered [107] will convince him/her to stop without any more attention. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the player uses the spelling Sandis Ozolinsh in official NHL documents and that spelling predominates the English sources. 28,400 at Google for "Sandis Ozolinsh" and 8640 at Google for Sandis Ozoliņš. In Latvian Wikipedia, they may use a different spelling. But at English Wikipedia, we generally use the English spelling. I have never once seen an English language newspaper, sportscast, or the back of his Jersey use any spelling but Sandis Ozolinsh. --Jayron32 02:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There are 94,100 ghits for "Sandis Ozolins", which covers anything that uses the Latvian diacritics. I am sure that we have redirects for a reason. "Ozolinsh" is merely used in the NHL, and is not his legal name. This as far as I know trumps the English name of a person. I'm not aware of the hockey WikiProject's standards (it has been a while since I was involved with article names for hockey players).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Its still not worth edit warring about in either direction. --Jayron32 03:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Little is. But what fun would this encyclopedia be otherwise? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I get 78000 off that same search and if I go to another page and back to the first page it now reports only 29,600. None of the other results seem to jump around like that. It should be noted that the second search that got 8640, didn't use "". Using those it only gives 720 results. Both of those searches go on for hundreds of results. The other search which is giving results all over the place actually peters out around 400. Its very unlikely that an english user is going to be searching for him using latvian diacritics. we should be using the name that would mostly likely be entered by an english speakinig user browsing the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. We don't use surname first for Hungarians, why should we use Latvian diacrtics for a hockey player whose name, for most English speakers, would not use them? I thought this was the English language Wikipedia, not the Latvian language Wikipedia. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Another installment of the Great Serbian Haček War (or the Legendary Icelandic Thorn Saga, or the Infamous ßerlin Streetnames ßattle). Guys, this has been debated a million times; there is no consensus on the general principle here, and very likely never will be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, we're talking about this player. I find his english name to be both more common and more likely to be searched for by someone reading the english encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have redirects from those variants to the article? If yes, then what does it matter what the name of the article is? (We could move the article to Latvian hockey player with the misspelled name, as long as the redirects point to it it'd work just as well.) (And a PS to FP: where is this city "Sserlin", the one you spelled with the esset?) -- llywrch (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Wrightman690 and Eighty Four, Pennsylvania

I'm not positive another admin needs to be involved here, but I'm gonna run this up the flagpole anyway. Wrightman has edited almost solely at the page for Eighty Four. He started off with simple vandalism about 18 months ago, and then moved on to adding unreferenced material in the form of theories about the odd name of the town. The result is an ultra-slow motion edit war spanning the last year in which these unsourced theories were repeatedly added and removed, sometimes by me, sometimes by others. Eventually, Wrightman began a thread on my talk page about this. I advised him to review the policies on original research and reliable sources. He replied that there was a blog somewhere and that he was going to get a pettition going to force Wikipedia to include the theories and ban me from editing the Eighty Four page. I replied that a blog is not a source and I dismissed his threat as laughable, and this was his reply: [108]. The tone of that remark is sufficiently ugly that I thought maybe it was time for some fresh eyes to look at this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(I've notified them of this thread, but they seem to only drop by sporadically, it could be a week or more before there is any reply) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if part of the problem is that Wrightman's edits are based on local oral history, which means it could be difficult for him to find a reliable source for otherwise uncontroversial materials. (I'm not defending him here, just explaining what he may be thinking in order to better handle this matter. I would assume that there is a historical society in Pennsylvania would could help with providing verifiable sources for his additions, if they reflect a real oral tradition.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I probably should have done a little more in that department myself, but in the last day another user has come along and managed to source one of the other claims. My point in bringing this here though was less about the issue of sourcing and more about the threatening nature of his recent posts on my talk page. I don't think a petition quite rises to the level of a "legal threat" but it is worrisome nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"prolific" young editor?

This thread about a specific issue has been moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Noticing Gritterwolf's large, MoS error-laden entry to The Haunted World of El Superbeasto that This editor made, I see an eager history with uncountable grammar, formatting, spelling, ect...errors but good faith edits. I think it may be a younger editor and I think someone here can approach it better than me. Please. Mjpresson (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if he/she is a young editor; we have hundreds of those. As always, if you see issues with someone's additions, click "edit" and fix 'em! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even look at the issue in question? I'm not stupid, I brought it here for a reason. If I was able to do this I obviously would "fix'em". It involves a number of very large reverts vs a hundred manual edits. Really. Please. Is this the answer I'm going to get? Mjpresson (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't seem like administrative action is needed here. If necessary, leave the editor a note asking them to mind their grammar and/or to slow down a bit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Mjpresson is asking if someone with more experience with diplomacy could talk to the person. While not an administrative action, I see no need to send him off. Chillum 23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's just it. I'm not lazy, just inexperienced with removing very large contributions by what seems a very young and eager contributor whose edits have caused some articles to go south and I'm unsure of the approach to take. If someone actually read the contribution I mentioned, what would you do, remove his entire contribution or fix about 30 errors in the contribution manually? oh well. Mjpresson (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've beta'd young fanfic authors - I'll have a word --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hounding IP editor

Resolved

This thread about a specific issue has been moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Problem_with_IP_editor_repeatedly_hounding_me_for_months - The IP editor is still trying to hound TheFarix Special:Contributions/206.170.111.187 - I warned him to be civil. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of this and another non-related harassment by a different IP editor that's turning ugly, I'm open to a 2 month semi-protection of both my talk and user pages. —Farix (t | c) 01:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This IP has also started posting harassing messages on my talk page. The IP appears static and needs to be blocked. The last block was mid-September and disruption resumed when the block expired. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It would appear the person has also edited as 206.170.104.25 (talk · contribs). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP was blocked and the above requested user pages semi protected. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit War at Jon & Kate Plus 8

I would not have normally brought this here so soon, however, the user has been here before for similar reasons and this has escalated extremely quickly from a simple edit to correct the issues to warring in the span of about half an hour. The user is not assuming good faith in the least about my edits to Jon & Kate Plus 8. The user has reverted my edits three times, all with bad faith edit summaries: vandalism, wishful thinking, vandalism, removing cited information (yes, I should have caught that the user squeaked in another paragraph after reverting me), misuse of twinkle (I never roll back an editor's edits if I am iffy on it, but instead revert to a previous version to avoid misusing Twinkle, edit for clarification: this particular rollback was after I had been slapped with a 3RR and accused of vandalism twice; at that point I felt the rollback was justified as the user kept inserting violations w/o discussion.).

In the meantime, Chuthya slapped me with a 3RR warning after my second revert as I was trying to explain on their talk page why I was changing their edits (violations of WP:MOSTV and WP:OR). Even after suggesting we discuss the issue instead of fighting, the user then left this message on their talk. At this point, I feel like the user is hounding me. I feel very uncomfortable at this point and will be distancing myself from the article, despite knowing there are still several violations as I feel the user has decided to full-scale revert any and all of my edits without consideration or discussion. Thanks for any help or advise. Thank you. --13² 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

From an initial review, it's clearly a 2-sided edit war, but it doesn't appear that thirteen squared (talk · contribs) has been either vandalizing or misusing twinkle. I think this belongs on WP:AN3.Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) :A note to uninvolved admins that this is a full out edit war between the two editors. The filing editor has reverted Chutya three times today on the article in question ([109], [110], [111]), one of those reverts being completed with the use of Twinkle along with an edit summary accusing Chutya of vandalism. They are both equally guilty and have both left bogus vandalism/3RR warnings on each other's talk pages ([112], [113]) while engaged in this edit war. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Big Bird. However, thirteen squared (talk · contribs) has rollback rights. I'm always concerned when I see a rollbacker in an edit war (for any reason) and am usually inclined to remove the privilege. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it clear that none of my warnings...any of them...came until after I was slapped with a 3RR and accused of vandalism multiple times. I felt, and still feel, that Chuthya was purposely trying to escalate the situation, but I do realize that I should have kept my cool. This is why I have not reverted since then (despite lingering issues) and came here instead. Also, I never used rollback once during the entire ordeal (I rarely do for anything other than outright vandalism), only Twinkle. --13² 13:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I don't think either editor was vandalizing so those warnings are bogus. However the 3RR warnings are applicable as this was a classic edit war about a content dispute. Yes, I noticed you didn't roll back, but when you have the rollback privilege, the standard gets set a bit higher, just as admins are held to much higher standards. Rollbackers who edit war generally lose the priv. I'm not going to push the point and I haven't removed the priv. Toddst1 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just don't edit war, so the claim kind of threw me for a loop. I've been here for over two years and I am rarely involved in even little skirmishes, let alone stuff like this. I try to just stay out of it (and I should have distanced myself sooner in this case). I use Twinkle a bit, but the only times I ever even use Rollback is outright vandalism. I apologize if this disagreement is giving cause for concern. --13² 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly hope cool headed admins will share my view that this does not require administrator intervention, I feel compelled to respond to Thirteen squared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s allegations.

• The user is not assuming good faith WP:AGF is a guideline, but when you see blind reverts after edits are made to up date an article with BLP concerns, it strains an editor's ability to assume that those are good faith reverts.
• The user has reverted my edits three times WP:3RR is overlooked when reverts are made to an article with BLP concerns. My edits to the article to bring the article up to date and remove outdated an inacurate information. User:Thirteen_squared's reverts are to an inacurate and damaging version of an article with BLP concerns.
• At this point, I feel like the user is hounding me. I hope that uninvolved admins will see through this as escalating the issue to make a point. I gave the user a WP:3RR warning after two blind reverts to an article with BLP concerns. This is hardly following the user and nowhere comes close to the guidline listed at WP:HOUND. But what would you make of three reverts within a half hour, two templated warnings on my talk page, and an escalation to WP:ANI?
• If you take a look at the history of Jon & Kate Plus 8 you will see numerous occastions of User:Thirteen_squared reverting edits to this article using Twinkle. I'm not saying that all of the reverts were inappropriate, but allegations by this user accusing another of owning this article are specious.

Furthermore, I've changed the title of this section to focus on the issue, not editors. I hope an uninvolved admin will look into this user's actions, especially their use of Twinkle and rollback concerning an article with BLP concerns. Perhaps an admonishment is all that would be necessary regarding the use of rollback and Twinkle. . Chuthya (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your points:

1. I was not blind reverting. You violated WP:MOSTV by making all verbs related to the show in past tense and adding OR with the implications that the show has been canceled, when it hasn't. I explained exactly why I reverted the very first time in the edit summary: "the show will never go to "was", it will always be "is"; production has been halted, not cancelled, to say it is over is OR; show name and source still valid until told [otherwise]". That is not blind reverting or not assuming good faith. You, on the other hand, immediately reverted that and outright accused me of vandalism.
2. This was not a BLP concern. This is a concern about the style of the article and whether the information about production is accurate. Saying it is a BLP concern is bogus.
3. Neither revert was a blind revert and I stated why I reverted, quite clearly, in both edit summaries. Your reversion of me, without any attempt at discussion, not acknowledging anything I said in the edit summary, and accusing me of vandalism, and slapping me with a 3RR for bogus reasons is hounding: "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."
4. When you continually revert good faith edits using bad faith edit summaries and refusing to discuss before making accusations and slapping me with a warning does make me think you feel you own the page. I stand by my statement regarding that.

I am one of the editors of the page that is extremely harsh about BLP violations (which can be seen on the talk page and its archives) so the fact that I'm being called out on trying to fix style and inaccurate statements about production with the bogus claim that it is a BLP violation is laughable. Also, I only use the "rollback" feature of Twinkle for vandalism; all other Twinkle edits simply revert to a previous version, as it is far quicker than manually doing so. --13² 14:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, you two need to talk to each other. The way to resolve this is not by reverting each other, leaving templated warnings and then coming here to complain. You both need to civilly discuss this on the article's talk page and your respective user talk pages and come to a consensus which is something that neither of you attempted whole-heartedly. I suggest that you cease further discussing the issue at this board and go to the article's talk page. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I did offer to discuss the issue (granted, it was doubled with a warning, which I shouldn't have done). I also mentioned my reasons for concern on the article's talk page. Chuthya has yet to respond at all to any specific points I've raised on either page. --13² 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected the page. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Which...isn't really necessary at this point. I stopped reverting long ago (my first revert was the spark that started all of this) and the user in question has finally come to my talk page in a civil manner. --13² 22:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1421: The Year China Discovered the World‎

Can an administrator look at this article please. I tagged it for neutrality issues, noted why on the talk page (per guidelines), and there is now an RfC on the issue. Two other editors, who have clearly indicated that they agree with the criticism against the book, have removed the tags repeatedly, continuing to false claim that the tags have not been explained and are invalid. If I restore, I would violate 3RR, so I will not do so, however considering the BLP issues as the author is alive and being attacked in this article, and the ongoing discussion and RfC, I would like to ask an outside administrative view of the tagging. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to the RFC? Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Link: [114] Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unusual edit, appears to be attorney communications and personal info

Resolved

 – Revision deleted by an oversighter. MuZemike 19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit I'm not quite sure what to make of. It appears to have attorney communications and personal info in it, including a list of emails. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Iwillremembermypassthistime

User:Iwillremembermypassthistime shows behaviour of owning the Template:Infobox Peri GR, a template which exists for 3,5 years without any problem. Suddenly, he started edit wars in a series of articles (see [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]), where he continually replaced the above template with the Template:Infobox Settlement. Now he has started another edit war in the template itself (see [128]) insisting on wrapping or substituting it with the Template:Infobox Settlement for no obvious reason, since there are a lot of templates for other countries' subvision as well (see Category:Europe country subdivision infobox templates). This is the second time that I post a note about this user, the first was ignored by all the administrators. - Sthenel (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning on the user's talk page that reverting without discussion is unacceptable and may lead to a block.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yvon Lambert Gallery

Resolved

 – deleted as G12 of www.luxuryculture.com/city-guide/paris

My spider sense is tingling with the above article and the accounts who created it. I suspect a strong COI and possibly even G11 candidate, but I can't justify it. Could I have a second opinion? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Three newly created accounts all editing only this article....hmmm, I suspect escapees from Jake the Peg's smalls drawer --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:CobraBot

Resolved

 – No administrator action is required here, so please direct further comments to the VPP thread to keep everything in one place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: please try to keep discussion about whether this task is appropriate or not in one place - the VPP thread. Let's keep this area for discussing whether a block is appropriate or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This bot has been adding inappropriate links to Template:Infobox book in articles about books, specifically adding OCLC links to articles that already have ISBNs. These links are redundant, as the OCLC links to Worldcat, which is already one of the options given by the ISBN link via book sources, which gives the reader a choice of where to locate a book. The documentation for Template:Infobox book says "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN", whereas this bot is specifically designed to add an OCLC when there is an ISBN. The approval process for this bot didn't have any discussion about whether it conforms to policy and guidelines. For a full discussion please refer to yesterday's conversation between User:Gavin.collins and the bot operator here (which the bot operator deleted without the issue being resolved) and the further conversation between the bot operator and myself today. User:CobraBot has refused to stop the bot's operations on the basis of these requests, so I would request that the bot be blocked pending a proper discussion of whether its actions are desirable, as did not take place before it was approved. I'm not sure about where this further discussion should take place, as the bot approval pages seem to have very low traffic, so would like some advice from readers of this page as to where this should happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I this this is a serious issue because of the huge scale of the linkspamming. I have raised this issue both with Cybercobra and I am disappointed that he has not responded to my concerns. I have also raised this issue at Village Pump, as I am doubtful about the benefit (if any) from using Worldcat as a cataloguing tool. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness: my most recent response to Gavin. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also note that as of slightly before the start of this thread the bot was stopped for unrelated reasons. Upon notification of this thread, the bot was marked inactive (see [129], [130]) --Cybercobra (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Cybercobra commented that the bot was being suspended "pending an WP:ANI thread"[131]. If that was changed to "pending a much wider consensus that this is an appropriate task for a bot than the one person who approved it" I would be willing to close the discussion here, because it would not need administrator action such as blocking. I think that there's a much wider issue at stake here about the fact that one editor can put up a bot for approval, and it can get passed by one other editor because it works, without any consideration as to whether there is any consensus about whether the bot's actions are acceptable. At least if we are going to allow that to happen we should have an understanding that a bot operator should suspend a bot, pending discussion, in response to a good faith request by an established editor. WP:BRD is a well-known adage, but, when a bot is doing lots of bold edits it's impossible for a human to maintain the same pace to revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Bot Owners Noticeboard which is usually monitored by a large constuim of bot owners as well as members of the Bot Approval Group might be a better starting location for this discussion since the bot would of had to been of approved for this task before it was ran. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to repeat more widely something I already mentioned to Phil, the Bot Policy suggests Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval as a possible venue for discussion regarding the bot task. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think BAG can be of help, because I don't think WP:BAG operate provide any form of governance over bot activities; there is an oversight issue that now needs to be resolved here, as the bot's behaviour is controlled by an individual editor, Cybercobra. He may have obtained clearance to create all these direct links to to Worldcat from BAG, but it appears that the issue of linkspamming was not either not considered or understood by BAG in this case. Cyberbot may have created hundreds of links in good faith, but the current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation to use a specific external source to expand an article are inappropriate. There is no hard rule on when this crosses over from being a legitimate attempt to improve the article into being internal spam, but I think the mistake lies in linking directly to the Woldcat site, even if it is well intentioned.
I propose that not only should linking to the Worldcat website cease, but that it should also be rolled back by removing all of the links that have been created to date. I am not saying that the Worldcat number should not be used or added to articles (if that is of any benefit?); rather I am proposing that the hundreds of direct links to their site be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'll quote a relevant earlier comment I made: Alternative ways of "fixing" the problem {of supposed/possible linkspam} would be to: (a) disable the OCLC field {of the book infobox} from generating a link [possibly with an exception if no ISBN is provided] (b) disable the OCLC field from displaying at all if an ISBN is provided [thus making it silent metadata].

WRT the |oclc= parameter, I think any consensus on the proper usage of it is/was either nonexistent or quite poorly documented to say the least when I filed the BRFA. Therein (that is, on the proper usage of said parameter) is certainly a policy discussion worth having. As is the issue of if / under what circumstances the infobox should hyperlink the oclc parameter. And such discussions would certainly have bearing on the bot itself as its current task consists of interacting with instances of the infobox, and specifically said parameter thereof.

Therefore, may I put forth a proposal to end the wikidrama:

1. Whereas, Cybercobra shall request the BAG withdraw/revoke authorization for CobraBot's current bot task.
2. Whereas, all 3 parties shall jointly start and foster a general (by which it is meant, involving more than just the 3 parties) discussion or pair/series of related discussions on the topics of:
   1. guidelines regarding when the oclc parameter should or should not be filled in
   2. whether or under what circumstances the book infobox should cause the oclc parameter to generate a hyperlink.
3. Whereas, the details of where to hold and advertise said discussions shall be worked out betwixt the 3 parties in an amicable and not unnecessarily delayed discussion, on a different forum than this (ANI), to be held immediately following the entrance into force of this gentlemen's agreement.
4. Whereas, to avoid any further disputes, said discussions (excepting the one in #3) shall be not be closed by any of the 3 parties themselves.
5. Whereas, any similar (here meaning that its direct or indirect result is to add external links) future bot task undertaken by Cybercobra and CobraBot shall require a fresh BRFA, of which the other 2 parties shall be specifically notified, and any such task shall comply with the consensus(es) reached at the discussion(s) outlined in the following clauses, and no BFRA shall be filed for such a task until said discussions have concluded.
6. Whereas CobraBot's contribs are left intact, under the logic that modifying the book infobox template itself through said discussion(s) is a much easier, less labor and server-intensive way to centrally de-link OCLC#s if such is decided;
7. Whereas, this ANI thread is deemed closed and the 3 parties go back to productive editing, modulo participation in aforementioned discussion(s).

This proposal is merely a draft and is negotiable. Feedback/questions/reactions? I can elucidate the technological bits of point #6 in particular if there are any concerns. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And what about my proposal? It seems to me the only way to get rid of the linkspam you have created. No one asked you to create linkspam in the first place, so if seems to by you who should be responsible for making amends. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cybercobra bot does not add links to the WorldCat site. It simply populates |oclc= in the {{Infobox Book}}. Any linking is performed automatically by {{Infobox Book}}. Therefore, all links could be removed simply by changing {{Infobox Book}}. Also, the appropriate place for any complaints about the links is on the Template's Talk page. That is also the appropriate place for a discussion on how and when the |oclc= parameter should be used. HairyWombat (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, it is not the template's fault, nor the bot's fault that all of these links have been created. Cybercobra gas created these links and is responsible - the buck stops with him. If one or more of his proposals can achieve what I have requested, then all well and good. But if they can't, then my proposal still stands. In either case, we still need Cybercobra to effect a remedy. As editors, we are responible for own actions, and blaming other editors templates does not absolve us from this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

HairyWombat completely encapsulated my position and what I've been saying all along; your complaint is more overarching that just the bot; this is plainly obvious looking at your proposal, which has much farther implications than just CobraBot: "I propose that [...] linking to the Worldcat website cease [and that such linking] should also be rolled back by removing all of the links that have been created to date" (emphasis mine). Your complaint is that the infobox even has an OCLC# field in the first place and/or that it hyperlinks that field; logically, one would reason that you would still have complained somewhere regardless of how the fields came to be populated. Well, I'm not Czar of infobox book and I was not the one who way-back-when added that field to the template in the first place, nor was I the one who changed the infobox to generate hyperlinks when the OCLC field is populated. It's just that my bot, in good faith, with BRFA-approval, mass-adding data to the infoboxes, brought the fact that the infobox has and links the OCLC parameter to your attention. Your concerns about the infobox are valid ones, but not directly relevant to the bot, whose "linkspam", can, as HairyWombat explained, be entirely and centrally undone with just one edit to the infobox. Or if the field is not removed, but instead new guidance about its use is added, my bot would be obligated to comply with said guidance. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I really don't see the issue here. The bot is adding valid information to the infoboxes. Nothing wrong there. The issue seems to be with the infobox itself, and as has been noted multiple times, every single external link is eliminated via a single edit to the template. This is a simple content dispute, and should be discussed at the talk page for the template, or at the current village pump discussion. If consensus is to remove the OCLC field, then remove it, problem solved. Resolute 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I hear the argument about the infobox, but this is not relevant to discussion here - I am soley interested in the problem of linkspam created by Cybercobra. An analogy to this situation would be Flyposting, whereby the flyposter uses existing billboards as a platform unauthorised advertising posters. This is not dispute about the billboard per se (in this case the info template), as there is probably nothing wrong with it. The issue under discussion is whether or not the links created by his bot constitute linkspam (Cybercobra is silent on this issue), and whether or not any should be responsible for cleaning it up. You know my view on this, so what say you, Cybercobra: are the links to Worldcat linkspam or not? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with the template, as it is perfectly valid to have an OCLC link when there is no ISBN available. My problem is with this bot adding an OCLC when there is an ISBN, which is redundant - the ISBN link already allows the reader to choose to go to its Worldcat entry as well as to many other sites, so there is no need to add an extra link to Worldcat. Just because a parameter exists in a template and is valid in some cases it doesn't mean that it is valid in all cases, and this bot adds it in precisely those cases where it is invalid. The documentation for {{Infobox book}} says "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to ThaddeusB, I disagree that no administrator action is required to stop linkspam in this case. I think it is your & Cyberbobra's duty to bring a halt to linkspam as soon as it has been brought to your attention, and I feel in this instance you have fallen short of your responsibility to do so. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any support for a block, which is the only admin action even remotely in play. You strongly disagree with the use of the parameter, which is fine. However, the correct action is to either get consensus to change the way the parameter works, or to get consensus that a bot shouldn't add the parameter. Those are both editorial decisions, not administrator ones, and the discussion about the issue is already taking place elsewhere. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert in template coding, but you could probably, very easily I imagine, set a parameter that hides the OCLC field if the ISBN parameter is used. This is hardly linkspam, no matter how many times you attempt to pass it off as such. Resolute 17:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not resolved. This bot's edits are subverting the WP:BRD processes, by making bold edits that no human editor can be expected to keep up with and revert. The bot has continued to do this despite this assurance, and despite no consensus having been reached about whether it is appropriate to have two separate links to Worldcat in articles about books. Also, as the originator of this thread, I reiterate that my problem (as opposed to is Gavin Collins's, who does not speak for me) is not with the existence of the OCLC parameter in {{infobox book}}, or the fact that it creates a link to Worldcat, which is perfectly valid when there is no ISBN, but with the addition by this bot of a redundant link to Worldcat when the ISBN link already links to Worldcat. The bot owner has refused to stop its operation pending consensus on this issue so the account needs to be blocked until consensus is reached. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The ANI issue (or rather lack there of) IS resolved as there is no administrator action necessary. Are you seriously suggesting that an admin block the bot? (Edit: I see now the answer to this is yes) If not, then it is far more productive to have the discussion in only one place (and from what I see on VPP there isn't even any consensus it is a bad idea, not alone consensus to "stop it now"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did stop operation...Until 2 different admins here saw no problem and one closed the thread. As has been said, the edits can be "reverted" by humans by modifying the infobox in a relatively simple way; The infobox's guidance on the use of the OCLC parameter could also be changed. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In what relatively simple way? I have no knowledge of template syntax, and do not wish to remove the capability to include an OCLC link where no ISBN link is present. There's nothing at all simple about what I would have to do to revert these edits, but it would be extremely simple for User:Cybercobra (by stopping the bot) or an administrator (by blocking the bot account) to prevent any more of these edits from happening until a consensus is reached. An administrator deciding to close this thread doesn't mean that there is consensus that your bot should continue to add redundant links, and the fact that you have started doing so again means that you need to be blocked, as you are clearly incapable of seeing that there is no consensus in favour of these edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely why the discussion should be only in one place... As I already stated on the VPP thread, the functionality of the template can easily be changed if there is consensus for that. I even volunteered to do it myself.

Again, the bot is doing nothing wrong based on current policy and was approved to do exactly what it is doing. There is nothing blockable here, and crossing out "resolved" won't change that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not familiar with the fancier bits of template syntax, but something roughly like {{#if | {{isbn}} | {{oclc}} | [http://worldcat.org/oclc/{{oclc}} {{oclc}}]}}. Speaking as a programmer, someone familiar with templates could bang a simple version of it out in 3 minutes; 7 minutes to handle the corner cases (e.g. "N/A" or "None" or "No" as the ISBN). And again, the bot adds data, not links directly, and I hardly think adding data is controversial. I'm telling you guys, it would be much more fruitful and productive to start a discussion about changing the infobox book template, either on its talk or at the Pump. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyberbot may be working with the template, but by adding an OCLC number, it is sill creating links to the Worldcat site which is linkspam, pure and simple, because a link has been created which "explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article". First things first: Acknowledge we have a linkspam problem, and stop the bot in the first instance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, please stop characterizing this as linkspam. The bot, as has been explained you to many times, is not adding links, just data. The template takes that data and makes links -- therefore, the template's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss whether it should be linking the OCLC number. Not here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I characterise the link to Worldcat as linkspam, as it meets the defintion precisely - no one has said why it is not so. I also understand the distinction you are trying to make between the configuration of the template and adding of data, but the result is still linkspam. If I load bullets into a gun and pull the trigger, should I be blaimless for death or injury on account of the fact that I did not manufacture the gun, or configure it to fire the bullets? Sure, the template plays a part, but in this instance it is Cybercobra that is the prime mover. The bot has to stop until the admins clean up the template (as it is write-protected). If the template can't be reconfigured, then Cyberbots edits need to be rolled back. In the extremely unlikely event that Cybercobra is unwilling to comply, then a block needs to be effected. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how an OCLC page, which contains little more than basic bibliographic data, some external links to find the book at a library or buy it, and some transcluded user-submitted reviews, could reasonably be used to expand an article in any nontrivial way; the links generated by the infobox are not "source solicitations" as defined in WP:LINKSPAM. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"If the template can't be reconfigured" -- You haven't made any good-faith attempt whatsoever to even try and ask an admin to reconfigure it! You have not made a single posting to the template's talkpage. Why you think mass-reverting 11K edits (which added data of debateable but non-zero value) would be easier than 1 template edit is completely beyond me. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, one more call for Cybercobra or the bot to be blocked for linkspam when they're doing no such thing, and you'll be the one blocked for disruption. Got it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he is, abeit with good intensions, but if he was doing so deliberately then it would be a different case. If a direct weblink to a book cataloguing service is not a form of "source solicitation", then I don't know what is. If linkspam is not a problem for you, then all well and good. But when it gets up to 3 or 4 links to different cataloguing services for every article about a book being added by bots, you will see the light. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Except we're not near that point yet and no one is suggesting anything like that be done. From reading the VPP thread, the closest thing was a stale discussion on the template talk about adding an LCCN field to the infobox. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for continuing attacks on other editors for distinguishing between adding links and filling in template parameters. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors are responsible for the results of their edits, whether they enter the text directly or do it via templates. How is it a blockable offence to point out that fact? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, would it be appropriate to close this thread with {{discussion top}} and its sibling, and a pointer to the Pump thread? I've understood the (not illegitimate) concerns raised since the start of the dispute, listed (repeatedly) several ways the aggrieved users could properly (not to mention more efficiently and with less drama) deal with this (e.g. BRFA appeal, editing the infobox template or its usage instructions) and put forth a quite reasonable good-faith proposal for compromise (see somewhere way above). Not to mention 3 different admins finding no ANI-relevant aspect to the dispute. This is quite tiresome and edging towards harassment. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All I have asked for since starting this thread was that the bot should stop running until a consensus has been reached as to whether it is appropriate to automatically add an OCLC link to an article about a book where there is already an ISBN, and nobody has yet shown where such a consensus has been reached, meaning that the bot is running in violation of bot policy, which says "in order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... performs only tasks for which there is consensus". Is it too much to ask that admins should respond to issues raised here by implementing policy rather than by blocking users who raise legitimate concerns? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(No opinion regarding the blocking of Gavin) My bot went thru BRFA, so it's presumed to have sufficient consensus. You are of course free to appeal the BRFA though, as I explained in my previous conversations with you (that link again is Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval; or Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard is another option listed by the bot policy page). But the point is, such decisions/processes are within the domain/scope of the BAG, not the admins (as far as I know). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Now he's trying to divert attention from himself by claiming I blocked him for commenting on my admin review. Lovely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Cybercobra, I think the review of Cyberbot by WP:BAG must have been cursory, but in anycase, I think the concerns raised by Bridger and myself must surely have alerted you to the fact that there are potential problems. As a matter of courtesy, I would have thought it sensible to stop Cyberbot. In a way, I can understand why would not want to stop Cyberbot (loss of face, perhaps), but I think bot owners have a duty of care to respond quickly, and to put personal views aside (at least temporarily). I think if you had resonded to Bridger in the first place (or even myself even earlier) then there would have been no need for this tread at all. Cyberbot is not a big machine that can't be turned off; we really need time to work through these issues, rather than ignoring our requests to stop and address our concerns. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing new for Gavin.collins. Back in July, he called for the ban of another bot user. [132]

Cubelurker [133], Tanthalas39 [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140], Conti [141], Pedro [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147], Syrthis [148] , Jennvecia [149] [150] [151] [152], Black Kite [153], Pointillist [154], Dr Blofeld [155] [156] [157], Floquenbeam [158], Calliopejen1 [159], Skinny87 [160] all disagreed with Gavin.

Faced with 12 people disagreeing him, 6 of them admins, and no one agreeing with him, Gavin refused to even consider the possibility he might be wrong in any way. [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172]

Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)