Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Are you in the right place?			Using this page
Permanent deletion of sensitive personal information → requests for oversight. Please DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone. Vandalism or spamming → administrator intervention against vandalism. Impolite or uncivil communications → wikiquette assistance. Page protection → requests for page protection. Edit warring → the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Long time edit warring/abuse → long-term abuse. Suspected sockpuppetry → sockpuppet investigations. Improper usernames → usernames for administrator attention. Administrative backlogs → please add {{adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page. Cut and paste moves/history merge → the cut and paste move repair holding pen. Review of a deletion or undeletion of a page → deletion review. Assistance in resolving disputes → dispute resolution. Issues not requiring administrative tools (content concerns, naming conventions...) → the Village Pump or Editor assistance requests. Evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) If you are blocked → place the code: {{unblock|Your reason for unblock}} – on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click "E-mail this user"). Issues regarding Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia → Meta-Wiki.			This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest. Please start new threads under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title: ==Informative title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so. If no comments have been made within 48 hours, your post and any responses will be automatically archived. Please sign all contributions, using four tilde characters "~~~~". If discussion is already ongoing elsewhere or if there is a more natural location for a discussion, please continue the discussion there, and put a short note with a link to the relevant location on this page. If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, please place your comments on this page and they will be addressed.
What these pages are not
These pages are not the place to raise content disputes or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration. If you are here to report a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility or personal attacks, go to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page and note that messages which egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.
Centralized discussion An RfC on the Arbitration Committee and how to deal with good-editing sockpuppets. RfC on the conflict of interest guideline, as requested by the Arbitration Committee. RfC on adding a more prominent link to Special:MyContributions for IP editors RfC about allowing watchlisting of user contributions Binding community discussion on the Abortion article titles, as requested by the Arbitration Committee. RfC on the proposed cessation of selective delete (other than history merge fixes) and resulting changes to deletion policies, including the removal of a Revision Deletion criterion.			Requests for Comment on User Conduct Candidate pages Certified pages WP:Requests for comment/TBrandley - concerns about WP:DISRUPT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE General
See also
Requests for Arbitration enforcement Blocking policy Block user		List of blocked IP addresses and usernames Block log List of protected pages		Protection log Subpages of this page

Click here to start a new discussion thread

---

Noticeboard archives

Requests for closure

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on Concerns about quality section & Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on inclusion/exclusion of court cases involving counterfeits

Two ongoing disputes. The first was a formally listed RfC that finished a little while back. The second wasn't formally list. Any help closing them would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

{{notdone}} One, I can not find, the other I don't follow and seems to me like basic policies, and US Law already cover this, but i'd prefer someone with more insight, but not involvement into what's going on here look into the latter one that I can see. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Something odd happened in the archiving of the first one - probably my fault. I've fixed it, and if there's a chance to formally close it one way or the other it would be much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Of note, I think the discussions should be closed together, so i'm going to leave this one. Sorry, -- DQ (t) (e) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No hassles. That makes a lot of sense. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on Concerns about quality section --Salix (talk): 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Improving PORNBIO

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Improving PORNBIO was initiated on 26 December 2011 and was listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Would an admin assess whether there is consensus on what to improve in WP:PORNBIO? If there is no consensus on what to improve, would an admin initiate an RfC about deprecating or maintaining the guideline per the consensus in the previous discussion?

The previous closer at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2011#Pornographic actors/actresses who started this discussion wrote: "A suggested outcome for this discussion is that a reasonable amount of time is allowed for people to improve the guideline, and after that a new RfC may be opened specially with the focus of 'deprecating or maintaining' it." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pakistan#Request for comment

Debate about contentious label... the debate seems to have died out after heavy opposition. Kindly close this as it is wasting time for further improvement for FAC. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Editors are still commenting on this RFC, far too early to close it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There are only six editors opposing... the discussion has died down. There's clearly no chance of this getting a consensus. The closer can decide that. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Discussion for how to label these types of images

Could someone please close this discussion? I think the consensus is fairly straightforward that files should be tagged as Template:PD-US (this is a neutral third-party, non-administrator observation). Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012)

For a while, there has a been a movement to rename and move several Republic of China and Taiwan related articles. On 17 Feburary 2012, the RM in the section title was posted and has since gained attention by many people, including some from the Chinese Wikipedia. Many users at the talk page have sorted out who is for or against the move and who is a puppet or SPA, and now there has been a general agreement that just as the move in August 2011 (People's Republic of China to China) was, this one should also be dealt with by some (perferably three) uninvolved administrators to decide what the consensus is and close the move based on such. Thank you. JPECH95 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Two users with same user picture

Recent activity

Why did it look like it was uploaded to commons today? [1] ? Nobody Ent 23:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I figured the answer was that the image had been uploaded and deleted, only for someone else to upload another one under the same name, but the logs don't show any evidence that there's ever been another image (either at en:wp or at Commons) named Saroj.jpg. Saroj1.rout exists, but his only edits are to his sandbox so far. Nyttend backup (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like uploaded the photo on commons Nobody Ent 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't explain why the users linked a nonexistent file. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The filename is fairly generic. It's easily possible both users planned to upload the file or just didn't understand how files work. If you've been around enough, you've probably seen people try to use files on their computers and stuff like that. In this specific case, one of them originally used example.jpg [2] and this was in article space before being moved to their user page [3]. BTW I said 'both' users. If you look at the info, I'm not sure either user is the same person (and possibly neither are the same person as the file uploader). While they have similar names, and come from the same Indian state, it sounds like they come from different places in the state. Nil Einne (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Actually it seems clear from the user talk page at least one of them did upload an image under that name in 2006 but it was deleted. Checking the en deletion log or page logs confirms this [4] [5]. I guess this was somehow missed by Nyttend, perhaps they checked out the wrong thing or there was a bug.

From this, it seems what happened is User:Sarozkumar uploaded a file allegedly of themselves in 2006 and used it in their user page but it was deleted due to copyright concerns. They never bothered to remove the link to the image from their user page. User:Sarojkumarsahoo in 2008 created a page in article space where they linked to the image, the page was moved to their user page but the image was apparently never uploaded so was always a red link. Later just recently, User:Saroj1.rout uploaded a file with that name to commons. Whether this person is the same as either of the previous 2 users is unknown but because both user pages were linking to that file, it appeared on their user pages leading to the confusion over the identities. To avoid this confusion and given the lack of editing for a long time, I've removed the links to the images on their user pages. The current picture could easily not be of either user & if it's deleted, so to the next time.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking of facts to make a subject look bad

Do we have an essay for the following event? A user comes to an article. The user dislikes the subject, often because it jives with his/her political or religious beliefs. So the user will find events of undue weight which make the subject look bad. Example:

• (From a pro-Star Wars POV pusher, adding the following to an article)====Fight with fans==== On August 3, 2004, Patrick Stewart was seen fighting with fans and yelling obscenities at them. (Further discussion about the event in an ostensibly neutral fashion, but the real point of the text is to show the reader an event that makes him look like a scumbag).<ref>(include blog post as reference where the blog thinks this is a huge scandal)</ref> (Please note, this is of course a fictional event; Mr. Stewart never did such a thing on such a date)

I see this kind of thing happen all the time, and I don't see any essay for it, even though it kind of sucks. The closest I can find is WP:CHERRY, which doesn't quite fit, and WP:UNDUE, which I don't think quite fits either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:I just don't like it? GiantSnowman 17:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No; that's about deletion discussions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed this in performer articles too; it seems some editors, after seeing a lacklustre show, will see the need to report on that bad show. Usually they can find a blog post to back up their unsatisfactory experience. Sometimes WP serves as a release valve for angry people. The Interior (Talk) 17:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, 'I don't like it' is about deletion discussions; 'I just don't like it' covers article content (among other stuff) GiantSnowman 17:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cherry and Undue seem to cover it, unless you're looking for an essay describing the motives behind why the user wants to make the edits? Or using bad sources to justify the material? --Onorem♠Dil 17:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:CHERRY refers to a coatrack, so it's only when the user wants to talk about another subject entirely. In this case, the user isn't trying to change the subject, rather to criticize the current subject. As for WP:UNDUE, yes this falls under its umbrella, but undue weight can be a reference to any undue weight whatsoever, whereas I'm referring only to the type of undue weight that is given when a person wants to make the subject look bad and cherry picks subjects that accomplish this purpose. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I still think it works for conveying the idea about what's wrong with that type of edit. WP:CHERRY may be located on the page about coatracks, but its argument clearly stands by itself too. (Anyway...back on topic. I don't know about a separate fact picking essay myself, but I'll look around a bit) --Onorem♠Dil 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I no longer pay much attention to policy pages, but WP:UNDUE ought to be the correct diagnosis. Looie496 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the part of WP:UNDUE beginning with the benchmark: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."? Cherry-picking is disproportionate coverage. DMacks (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

facepalm... --MuZemike 01:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a good essay is the one I wrote. Not sure. Try reading Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat#Levitation.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to pile on, WP:UNDUE is probably the most relevant policy in this situation, though several others are also relevant (most obviously, WP:BLP and WP:RS). From my experience though, this is a difficult issue to deal with - I'm aware of several editors who cherry pick facts they like from academic sources to write articles which push their views while ignoring other parts of the source which contradict this viewpoint and/or deliberately reference only a narrow range of sources when developing articles on controversial topics in which there are competing views. This is obviously highly dishonest editing, but there's no clear-cut policy which can be pointed to. 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Nick-D (talk)

I disagree. This policy seems to be pretty much covering it Giving "equal validity".--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK and WP:TE. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You have hit upon an important hole in Wikipedia policies. The one that should take care of the (wp:undue of wp:npov) is (other than its vague goal statement) is toothless here because it's nuts and bolts calls for going by prevalence in sources, which is, from a practical standpoint, unusable. If the material is truly about the individual, that still might be of some help. If it is not and put in for effect (i.e. his uncle is a child molester) then you hit the bigger hole because it should be excludable based on lacking direct relevance, but wp:npov is missing the important metric of relevance. North8000 (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like an interesting hole in the policies. I've posted in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Relevance to see if the degree of relevance is covered by other policies and if not, maybe it should be. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:POVPUSH, maybe? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That givers the general goals and givs people an idea of venues to pursue it further, but doesn't really have any specifics that can be invoked to affect the situation. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request from Checker Fred

We received an unblock request on the unblock mailinglist from Checker Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I'm putting the mailconversation (with Checker Fred's approval) here for evaluation. The only change is some formatting for easier reading:

I created an account named Checker Fred but got blocked after being called a sock puppet on Wikipedia. So after I was blocked I just left the site, I did not know what I did wrong to get blocked and was following the rules and everything. So I mainly went to tv.com and the iCarly wiki to do my editing. So when this iCarly issue came up I created another account Named Oolith and it got blocked under the same sock. The user did not explain anything to me and just blocked my account. I did request an ip over ride because I do edit from shared ip address like shools and work, but I never created the Simulation12. My edits under Checker Fred are very good and helpfull to the site and I don't see why I was blocked. I have made good edits while I was there, I was able to help inprove pages and other issues no the site. I would like to try and work thigs out with MuZemike and beable to edit on Wikipedia. I would love to have a second chance and show you that I can edit in a resonable mannor. (Checker Fred)

Hi Checker Fred,

When I read your unblock request, I read the following:

• You have an account named Checker Fred which was blocked as a sockpuppet of Simulation12 on june 30th
• You have a second account named Oolith from which you requested an IP block exempt
• You are not the same person as Simulation12

Some questions remain open:

• Have you ever created any other accounts?
• What is your relation to Simulation12?
• Have you ever edited anonymously since the account Checker Fred was blocked? (Me)

I have not created any more accounts other then Checker Fred and Oolith on Wikipedia. At the time I created Oolith, I forgot that I created Checker Fred on Wikipedia because I was haven't been on the site in awhile. I have no relation to Simulation12. On January 28, I open a case on Simulation12 because while I was editing I found a user named Simulation22 and another User named The Cool Kat2 so I reported it as a sock of Simulation12, I have herd of this user while looking at The Cool Kat Archivies and found that about Simulation12. as The Cool Kat2 that account just looked a bit odd to me, so I just went ahead and reoprted that one as well. So after I found out I reported I started using Wikipedia on December 29, 2009 to edit pages from my favorite television shows and help out on the site. After I left there, I have not anonymously used the site. I was mainly on tv.com ruffmanfan88 and Ruffman882 (first account can not log in anymore,) and the iCarly wiki under Checker Fred. that I just started using more often on the iCarly wiki. Since the iCarly issue came up again, I wanted to give my input to Wikipedia as well, since it was mainly started there. So I ended up creating Oolith. I would love to have a second chance and show you that I can edit in a reasonable manor and work this problem out.. Please ask any other questions if you have any. (Checker Fred)

Checker Fred was blocked as a sockpuppet of Simulation12, though there was no technical evidence (came out as unrelated on checkuser), on behavioural evidence. I find the assertion that Checker Fred has absolutely no relation to Simulation12 hard to swallow, from the support vote on the non-transcluded RfA of Simulation12, though it is possible.

I would also like to point out that this case is from 2010, and that there has been no further disruption from simulation12 since that year. That solidly puts us in standard offer territory in either case. Heavy iCarly interest does give me some competence fears, but nothing insurmountable. I suggest that unblocking, with a clear instruction on what is, and what isn't accepted, is a good idea. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I will note the following users are Confirmed as each other:

• Oolith (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• Billey bob (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• The Master of disguises (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• CookieGrabber (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• 1mikie19 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• Bessie Yeh (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))

Checker Fred/Simulation12 has been actively engaging in an off-wiki harassment campaign against myself and several other users. User:The Master of disguises was a sleeper sock that was recently used to engage in email harassment; I won't copypaste any emails, but he stated that he has dozens of other sleepers that he will use to continue said harassment until he is unblocked. These socks have been, for the past year or so, been sending harassing emails to myself and others (one of them even posed as his mother).

Some unfounded sock allegations have been made on my talk page on Commons here (as well as via an en.wiki unblock request on an IP here), none of which are true after checking. I feel this is due to failure to WP:OWN the iCarly (season 4) article (amongst all the other articles, including Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman, Simulation12's main target), as evidenced here.

Given the recent harassment, I feel that WP:OFFER has not been met in any way, shape, or form, and that any considerations of unban or unblock of any users here are ill-advised. --MuZemike 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, for some reason I missed those on the SPI. Oolith is Checker Fred by own admission. Could you point to where Oolith is Confirmed? I can't quickly find it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose CheckerFred is Sim12, that much is obvious to anyone familiar with chasing his endless army of socks. Fred knows perfectly well why he is blocked, because he is one of the 90 socks created by Sim12. OFFER does not apply to a user who creates 90 sockpuppets and won't admit to it, even now. OFFER does not apply to a user who tried to become an admin with a sockpuppet. And it certainly shouldn't apply to a user who created socks and then reported them as socks of another user they didn't like. We don't need these silly games here, and the disruption did not end when CheckerFred was blocked. Ninety chances is more than enough and we shouldn't let this phony "I don't know what I did wrong" act fool us just because some time has passed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The requirements of WP:OFFER have not been fulfilled. If anything Simulation 12 should be community banned. Nevermind, seems he already is banned. Night Ranger (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I received the following email:

I have never created any of those accounts. I have only created Checker Fred and Oolith. I have never sent emails to MuZemike, I only sent emails to some of the users here Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes#Sixth_season all of it, and Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes#Request_for_Comment_-_Splitting_seasons to give my imput on the issue, Since my school ip was blocked. When I did edit as Checker Fred, I did edit from shared ip address. I was however able to talk with Jabrona on tv.com and the iCarly wiki about this issue on Wikipedia. While talking to Jabrona I did explain to him some of the rules for the site and we have to go by what the site says. He still argured with me as what he is still doing to the other users on this issue. So I did wanted to get involved and try to help and solve this issue. Since it has been going on for years now. I only own and operated Checker Fred on Wikipedia and the iCalry wiki. I have not been to any other sites of related projects. I have no relation to Simulation12 and never created that account or any other acounts on Wikipedia besides Oolith and Checker Fred. I know creating User:Oolith was wrong, and fully promise to never engage in sockpuppetry again and to abide by wikipedia's guidelines. Before I sent this unblock request, I did ask another user on the icarly wiki to send MuZemike a message, whitch he did, but MuZemike never did send me a email, so I could explain what happened. I saw that MuZemike did reblock Checker Fred for what ever reason and I decided to talk to him. I know that Wikipedia is not a playground and needs to be respected in a reasonable mannor. I will be glad to answer any other questions you have or any other issues that may come up.

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking all over the place, but nowhere I can find that checkuser confirmed either Checker Fred or Oolith as a sockpuppet of simulation12. Now I can imagine that we prefer not to unblock because we do believe him to be a sockpuppet, or, seeing the scale of problems simulation12 has shown, we prefer just not to take the chance, but I'm still unsure if there is a checkuser confirmed as implied by the checkuser confirmed post by MuZeMike. Had I known of checkuser evidence, I wouldn't have brought it here , but simply referred to WP:BASC, who, when I mailed of the unblock request, suggested this AN thread. I did miss the trail to Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman, in which the history shows ongoing disruption by simulation socks, and took the last addition on the SPI for simulation12 as the last disruption. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As is noted several times in the SPI archives, sim12 is known to use a wide variety of IPs, so Cu is of limited use in this case. The behavioral evidence is sufficient to tie CheckerFred with Sim12, including the fact that he created six new accounts when it became clear he was about to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed unban/unblock of User:TrEeMaNsHoE

• TrEeMaNsHoE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TrEeMaNsHoE
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TrEeMaNsHoE
• Ban proposal: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Ban of User:TrEeMaNsHoE?

I received this email yesterday from banned user User:TrEeMaNsHoE (copied below with permission from TrEeMaNsHoE):

Dear User: MuZemike,

I am User: TrEeMaNsHoE. I was emailing you to request that my indefinate block be uplifted. I was blocked in November 2009 for participating in sockpuppetry. At the time, I did not know it was wrong, however was having trouble expressing myself and my talkpage was thus revoked. I continued to open new accounts, because I thought that if I was using one it would be okay. Now, I know that what I had been doing was wrong, and fully promise to never engage in sockpuppetry again and to abide by wikipedia's guidelines. In September 2011, I was told that if I refrained from socking for six months, my unblocking would be re-reviewed. If unblocked, I promise to use this and only this account, and look forward to editing and learning new things from the wikipedia experience. Thank you for your time,

User: TrEeMaNsHoE

Currently, he hasn't been causing any additional abuse that has led to his ban for at least over a year. I prefer not to unblock without community discussion since the ban back in 2009 was established by community consensus. I will jump out and say that I support an unban and unblock. Thoughts? --MuZemike 23:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Conflicted Because I am generally a big believer in second chances, but this user already had theirs and spit in the faces of those (including me) who gave it to them. See the page history of User talk:PlannerPenBackpack. I extended WP:OFFER to this user, to give them a chance to prove they could reform, and they made it less than a week before being caught socking again. Just going away doesn't prove they can be a productive member of the community here, although I'll grant it's a start. I'm just not sure we can trust this user after so many lies in the past. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cautious Support per MuZemike. I can understand Beeblebrox's concerns, however it's been more than 2 years since the "OFFER", and it seems that this user has not misbehaved in quite some time. Those who know me realize that I am much more for bringing people in to the project, than I am for pushing them out. I'll also add that a couple years can bring a world of difference to a person's outlook on things - especially in cases of younger folks. People do change, and I think we should give them a chance to. If they misbehave again - the block button isn't all that far away. — Ched :  ?  02:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support as long as he has to stick to the TrEeMaNsHoE account and with the understanding that any further socking will result in immediate siteban reinstatement. Night Ranger (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@Ched, yes, the OFFER incident was two years ago. In the intervening time Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TrEeMaNsHoE/Archive filled up with fifteen more reports, almost all of which uncovered multiple socks, the most recent bout being in September. I could see how it may be seen to be implied in my remarks that this is a stale issue, but really I just mentioned it as an example of the outright dishonesty this user has exhibited again and again. If we are even going to consider this it should be with not only a "sudden death" restriction on operating multiple accounts for any reason, but also a full topic ban from the areas where this user caused problems to begin with. That would be any article related to Ciara, construed as broadly as possible, and if I recall correctly, any edit to sales figures by any recording artist. Possible additional restrictions would be a requirement to provide a reliable source with any and all substantive edits regardless of subject and a requirement that they have a mentor with whom they will consult before making any edit more substantial than a typo correction. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point Beebs - I changed to "cautious" and put their talk on my watchlist in case they do succeed in returning. I looked through edit history, block log, contibs etc. I think they may want to contribute, and got rebellious when things didn't go their way. In the end, it's been about 6 months since that IP socking (class A network, so I'm guessing just rebooted the router, or power outage to get that other IP). If they stick to article space, contribute constructively - personally I'm willing to give them a chance - but I'm only one voice here, and you do have a good point - so I certainly understand your hesitation on this one. — Ched :  ?  04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• oppose unblock, too many socks. support uplifting the block. Block you're doing a fantastic job, keep it up!--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cautious Support - Per MuZemike and Ched with a understanding of Beeblebrox's concerns. (Also have talk page on watchlist) Mlpearc (powwow) 05:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support MuZemike's proposed unblock, with preemptive support for a reblock if TrEeMaNsHoE abuses or misuses the second chance we're giving him. 28bytes (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting three admins to close long RfC

This is a second request from four days ago. The RfC on Genesis creation narrative has now run its full 7 days, and we haven't received any new arguments for a while. The subject has been heavily contested in the past, so I agree with others who have called for a 3 admin close. If any impartial admin who hasn't taken part has the time, it would be appreciated. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the RM as no consensus, and it's already taken up further on the talk page. Two other admins are invited to participate, but I really don't see the call for three unless someone is trying to win- in which case, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Keegan (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not about winning. It's about establishing that this issue has been reviewed impartially by the community, not just one admin. This issue has come up again and again over the years... it's probably the single most discussed issue on the talk page, and it's an issue that editors on the page feel very strongly about, and which causes a good deal of drama. Having multiple admins review the discussion will calm some of that drama. I'd ask that we wait to close the discussion until other admins are given an opportunity to comment. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Jess, and my words were not aimed at anyone in particular. Here on Wikipedia it is very difficult to get 2/3 people to agree on anything. This is why it's about the threashhold for promotion on anything here. RfA, FAC, DYK, etc., cannot meet the standard. It should be noted that I did not close a request for comment, but a requested move, which is a different creature. Keegan (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You better stop posting comments Keegan, the PoV warriors are twisting anything you say to prove an abusive close... --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You might wish to get your facts straight; a 3 admin close was asked for BEFORE the closure. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the 3-admin close bit, i'm commenting on the bunch of users jumping on Keegan and accusing him of treating the debate as a vote or popularity content, despite him/her/it providing full rationale with the close of why it was no consensus. WP:AGF? --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Ten minutes ago you were referring to "Typical scumbag wikipedians". Also, considering the scale of the RfC it would be better for the admin summed up (in the text) the various arguments and then arrived at a conclusion of the state of concensus. Instead of merely stating that "There are strong arguments from both sides, but there is no common agreement or acquiescence.". He also needs to clarify why "Neither argument successfully generates an encyclopedic name for the article." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant about 2/3 agreeing since it's not a vote, surely? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you've already performed the close it seems unlikely that another admin is going to step in and overrule your decision. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reposted from the talk page: With how contentious this issue is it should have been a three admin close. I requested as such at WP:AN though I did so prematurely and so that thread is now archived. Consensus is not supposed to be a tally of the votes but rather a consideration of the strength of the arguments in respect to how well they represent policy and, though I am obviously biased in the issue, I believe that a cursory reading of the !votes show a distinct lack of policy based argument on the side of opposition. I ask that you revert your close and that a three admin panel decide the issue. If that happens and there is still no consensus for a move I believe I can speak for those in support of the move that we will drop the issue, but if the fate of this page is to be decided by a single admin then I'm sorry but I don't think that that can happen. Furthermore, if there is no consensus for a move, then according to the policy WP:CCC this page must be moved to the title used by the first editor after the article was no longer a stub as the title here has been unstable and disputed for a very long time. Lastly, whether editors here think that "myth" or "narrative" is more encyclopedic seems irrelevant in the face of all the sources that non-contentiously use "creation myth" as the designated terminology. To let editor opinion sway the issue is an egregious violation of the very essence of NPOV. N^oformation ^Talk 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One other point: you expressed an opinion on the talk page regarding a title and though it was neither narrative nor myth it's a gray area as to whether or not you're WP:INVOLVED at this point. I realize you were not involved previously, but the fact that you entered the discussion makes the situation murky. N^oformation ^Talk 10:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear, Keegan is not "involved": "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Nobody Ent 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good close. Nobody Ent 12:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I second Ent. WP:AGF - as has been touted by the "move" side consistently in this case - is thrown out of the window when its implications are bad for the WP:BATTLEGROUND? Further comment: bad form. Trying to claim the (completely uninvolved) admin is now involved based on some technicality of where he typed a few words (to try to lessen the acrimonious nature of the entire proceeding by giving a WP:THIRDOPINION after the close strikes me as most egregious WP:WIKILAWYERING. Also, WP:NOTLAW. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Noone is doing anything other than assuming good faith. An individual can in good faith make a mistake, we are only human. It does not mean we ignore the issues. I suggest you read this section of AGF: Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively, because just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut. I do not see the relevance of your link to battleground. It seems noformation is pointing out that the admin choose to involve himself in the discussion of the naming after performing the close. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My citation of battleground has less to do with this specific admin, but to the warzone he got dragged in to when closing a request for move (not RfC) that already has plenty of entrenched warriors on both sides: I believe it is relevant, because it appears that mentality has carried over in to - nay, caused - this entire section. I don't think it's in bad faith - I think that Genesis creation narrative has been a battleground of POV-warriors for so long (years, reading the archives) it's now a razed warzone, everyone is shellshocked, and it's subconscious. (Hyperbole, of course, but I believe I've described my point.) When people start making socks (TCH & Zenkai) to prove their points, I think a battleground mentality has prevailed. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 01:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with John that Keegan was not involved at the time of the close. However, AGF is not in question here. I don't think anyone doubts that Keegan did his best to close the discussion properly and serve the best interests of the encyclopedia. Editors are claiming that, despite his best intentions, he made a mistake. I also don't see any battleground behavior, just users who feel that policy was not followed. I'd urge you to read over those pages again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're afraid you have to agree with me - chuckles </sarcasm>. Thank you for explaining the AGF issue, as I suppose, to me (who has not been involved in dispute resolution before) a debate over correct application of policy and assuming bad faith looked similar (at least on the talk page about the close). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 01:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't mean anything by that; it's just an expression ;)   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since both you and Jess don't think that Keegan was involved I will defer to consensus and drop that matter. You are correct that that page is like a warzone, and closing that RM without a full rational and explanation of how each side applied to policy did not help. N^oformation ^Talk 01:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not speak to whether I think it was a "good close" in terms of the decision reached, but I do not think it was helpful to close the discussion unilaterally when 3 admins had been agreed upon. The goal of the RM was to come to a community decision and put the drama surrounding this discussion to rest. This close has had the opposite effect, stirring up additional controversy on its own. As such I don't believe it was a "good close" regardless of the decision. It's unlikely a second admin will take part now that Keegan has acted, which is why I asked him to revert his close and abide by the requested closure process. It seems he isn't willing to do that, which means this issue won't be settled, and the whole RM discussion was a waste.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You've provided a diff to a request for a 3 admin close but not evidence such agreement ever existed.Nobody Ent 16:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The 3 admin request was initially proposed in the RM discussion and supported by a few editors. No one opposed the idea. It was then requested at AN twice. For an admin to bypass that and unilaterally close the discussion, it would appear, he is doing so in opposition to the wishes of the community, which would seem unhelpful in trying to manage a contentious multi-year long dispute.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." You requested here, on a wider scale, but did not get consensus for 3 admin close. Nobody Ent 18:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. What community consensus are you referring to? Firm rules weren't established before the RM that 3 admins would be needed for a close, sure, but we're not a bureaucracy; every editor who commented on the issue before the close, both here and on the talk page, supported 3 admins. No one, anywhere, opposed it. It was not an unreasonable request, given the heated nature of the lengthy dispute, and ignoring it has only flared up tempers and caused the discussion to be further polarized. I don't think that's helpful to the encyclopedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That we would go for a 3 admin close was explicited stated as a seperate comment within the RfC discussion, 2 agreed (me and Dominus Vobisdu [6]) and noone objected, that was about 5 days ago. [7] IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning given for the close directly contradicts a Wikipedia policy that was thoroughly discussed in the RM. That their reasoning runs counter to Wikipedia policy is concerning in and of itself, and the comment that gives the impression that the RM was closed by a vote, not a consensus, adds to this concern. It is deeply concerning that the closing admin stated that "2/3 people to agree on anything" is "the threashhold for promotion on anything here." That the comment was made at all in regards to the closing of the RM is troubling, because the number of editors that comment should not play any factor in how a closing admin judges any consensus. Given that this faulty close is based on a reasoning that is clearly and specifically mentioned in a core Wikipedia policy (WP:RNPOV), this suggests that the closing admin was not able to properly assess the weight of the arguments presented, assuming that they did not close the RM based on a magic "2/3" number as they suggest.

I would recommend that the closing admin reverse his decision, and leave the RM to someone that is able to properly determine consensus based on Wikipedia policy, preferably the 3 admin close that was suggested. Even if the comment left by the closing admin was a mistake, that they understand the policy, the appearance of a lack of understanding that they presented irreparably destroys any appearance of credibility that the closing admin would have otherwise had. (The admin stated "it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth" however the comment is contradicted by a core Wikipedia policy, WP:RNPOV: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources" which specifically mentions mythology as an example.) If the admin is unwilling to do this, then I suggest that this close by this admin be overturned, as the close itself was based on a reasoning that specifically runs counter Wikipedia policy. If this does not happen, the only result will be yet another RM that repeats the same information yet again, as this is a demonstrably faulty close, and the closing admin has provided reason to believe that the discussion was not properly assessed, and that weight of the arguments given was assessed without regard to Wikipedia policy. If the closing admin did properly close the discussion by determining consensus, then a 3 admin close will come to the same conclusion, with the added benefit of a confidence in the closing decision. - SudoGhost 17:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering that admin actions are as subject to community review as anything else and he's had multiple people ask that he reverse his close, one reason being that he didn't actually explain the closure, he should defer to this request and let this be handled by someone who understands the intricate policy issues involved. Admins should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and considering that he engaged in the conversation by offering an alternative solution before he closed, coupled with the comment regarding a 2/3rds majority, and then the lack of explanation, he should reverse and let this be done properly. If it's not done properly then this debate is just going to continue to wits end, so for the sake of the project please drop the ego and let someone more familiar with this side of WP deal with this. It's not a big deal, we're not on a WP:DEADLINE, and it's better that this be thoroughly vetted before being put to rest. Please allow a three admin panel to discuss and close this.

@Nobody ent: Whether his involvement is minor is subject to opinion but the fact is that before he closed the RM he became at least somewhat involved by offering an opinion on the matter, so he wasn't only acting as an admin at that point. N^oformation ^Talk 00:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Keegan appears to be treating this as a vote Diff: [8] The supporters feel that the move falls well within our policy on keeping a neutral point of view relating to religion; indeed the word mythology is mentioned there. However, a vast number of the opposition feel that this application of RNPOV is incorrect and doesn't skirt being inflammatory..

He appears to treat concensus as exactly a weighing up of numbers of votes: 'I'm not allowed to look at the discussion and say "Yep, they're right, that's what RNPOV says so that's what goes" because it the opinions of others in the discussion, not my own, that matter.. If he doesn't try to make objective judgements about the quality of arguments then all we are left with is a vote. This seems completely contrary to WP:CONCENSUS. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here to post essentially the same thing as IRWolfie. I don't think Keegan realizes that he pretty much just admitted that he treated this issue as a vote but he did. He might not have simply done a tally of the votes to make a decision but he made it clear that he considered arguments that were totally out of line with policy in order to make his decision and thus this became a popularity contest. Admins are supposed to enforce policy as written and not make decisions based upon what convinces them personally. So what if Keegan or any other single admin is convinced of a given proposition? Admins aren't asked to close because their opinion on the policy/subject matter is important, admins are supposed to be neutral parties that determine whether arguments are in line with policy or not, and then to enforce the policy that has been determined by community consensus. Keegan didn't do that here, he overstepped his bounds as an admin by using his position to make a close that contradicted not just a number of minor policies but a core pillar. N^oformation ^Talk 00:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Twisting words to fit a point. I can respect that.

My point was the shared opinion that RNPOV does not have to apply to the naming of this article, and suggestions that academically this is not settled as a myth by definition. Policies like this naming convention are not hard, fast rules that must be obeyed on every single article and, conveniently, they fit your opinion. Users in the discussion disagree with your application of policy on this page, and they have the right to battle you and not have a policy shoved down their thoat. It's not numbers at all. It's accepting that people disagree with you and have relevant context to disagree. If you read the discussion, you'll find that several users raised other policy points and reference to whether the term myth is common place among academics. I notice that most of these points were not argued with in the discussion. There was no consensus. If the three of you would like to continue on about the close feel free to do so, but I suggest a break from the conversation might be helpful. Consensus is broadly founded on respecting others' opinions before setting on argument, and I'm finding little of that good faith here. Keegan (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It was argued that academically this term is used non-contentiously by an absolute majority of the source and it was pointed out that those who refuse to use the term tend to come from an apologetic Christian POV. Most of those arguments didn't even start coming in until the issue was posted to WP:CHRISTIANITY. This again demonstrates that you don't understand this issue well enough to close the RM. Do you know this subject? Have you read the sources? I'll say it again: the independent sources refer to Genesis as a creation myth non-contentiously. It appears that the only academic environment in which is contentious to call a story about a talking snake a creation myth is Wikipedia because at a university it would not be a problematic statement. If you followed the arguments as well as you claimed you would have noticed that there was capitulation on the opposing side that creation myth was the correct academic term but that we shouldn't use it anyway. Right now we are not following independent academic sources, we are following Christian apologetic sources. N^oformation ^Talk 01:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is not numbers at all. then why do you refer to However, a vast number of the opposition .... This gives the very strong impression that the number of people swayed you. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• This precedent effectively means that the word "myth" can now no longer be used in Wikipedia (since assumedly all other religions will now also oppose to have their stories labeled with this word (and actually for the sake of NPOV they shouldn't be called myth if Christianity's myths aren't called that)) with no regard to the number of scholarly sources that use the word. Religious fanaticism won the day, and we moved one step closer to conservapedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nah. It would be sanctimonious of me. Edit as you please. Keegan (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I think that reads as sarcastic but it was humor. Admins should read discussions for closure, deletion debates, deletion requests, etc., case by case. It's the reason things like WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST are there. This isn't a precedent for future closings. Things here have gotten melodramatic in that regard. Keegan (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we might do well to spend as much effort on the content of an article as we have spent on its title, let alone on a meta-discussion about the way of deciding on a title. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Precedent is a legal term and not applicable to dispute resolution process. Keegan's evaluation of consensus is not binding on other admins evaluating consensus in other instances. Nobody Ent 02:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know precedent is also not binding in the legal system, but it stands to reason that both people who will close RfC's and people who would start them would take into consideration previous outcomes of comparable high profile cases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Binding? No. Is it possible that this decision will embolden other admins to eschew policy for editor opinion? Certainly. If he can get away with doing it then other admins can too. N^oformation ^Talk 02:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Precedent" is an English word, not simply used in the legal system: think of "an unprecedented event." In the US legal system, a precedent may not be, strictly speaking, "binding", but a judge who constantly ignored precedent wouldn't last long on the bench. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It also seems very odd that the admin refuses to give a full rationale: [9]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Especially when the closing admin made references to a discussion that did not take place in the RM ("but it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth, which is what the discussion pointed out.") and is contradicted by WP:NPOV. To my knowledge, no one other than the closing admin made a comment in the RM that neither narrative or myth should not be used, the discussion was rather which should be used. The closing admin was the only one to made these statements, and then closed it based on this statement. The closing admin made references to a discussion that did not occur, and stated that "to get 2/3 people to agree on anything is...about the threashhold for promotion on anything here." This was a discussion, not a popularity contest, and the admin's comments show a lack of understanding on this point. That the closing admin refuses to clarify this or discuss it further reinforces the fact that this admin should not have closed this RM. If an admin is going to close an RM, they should at least summarize the views expressed at least half-way correctly, make half an effort to provide a clarification when requested (especially in an RM as long as this one), and avoid giving any appearance of a "popularity contest" close. If those three things had occurred, I would have no issue here. The closing admin, however, failed to do these very simple things. - SudoGhost 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ban Aawjgnekr?

All right. I am posting here per an IP's suggestion over at ANI, since the ANI reporting attempt failed. Aawjgnekr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been causing serious disruption to the project and after his indefinite block in 2010 as a vandalism-only account, he has created 47 sock puppets to date. He continually uses these to constantly harass other users and makes contradictory edits to our policies and guidelines and the violations of harrassment and personal attacks are a disgrace. Not to mention that he has participated in a campaign to create hoax and attack articles, as well as mis-nominating articles for speedy deletion. The user's ongoing abuse will no longer be tolerated any further, and therefore I propose a full site ban on Aawjgnekr. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aawjgnekr. Of course I would consider them de facto banned already, might as well formalize it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Might as well.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please create talk page

Please create Talk:Lost Nigger Gold Mine with {{WikiProject Mining}} and {{WikiProject Texas}}. Article should be classified and sorted, but page creation is disabled for anyone but admins. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Done (but not without a shiver at the title....) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• You and I both. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Call for wider review of SPI case -help needed

Hello everyone. I would like to call your attention to this SPI case. Amalthea (and myself, to a much lesser extent) have uncovered a large group of accounts that seem to be connected. To sum up: There are two or more people in the same range making the same kind of edits, thousands of edits spread over those accounts, meticulously using one IP per account and switching/faking UAs, IPs from a hosting provider - this takes effort and money. Would any legit user, whose only intention is to improve Wikipedia, do that? There have been over 10,000 edits made by this group of accounts, but I'm at a loss to explain any of the whys, whats, or wherefores. As Amalthea says in the case, AGF breaks down when confronted with an operation on this scale. Since the results were posted, all of the accounts have gone silent. There would seem to be a couple of options here: Organize a review of all contributions (in a WP:CCI-style kind of way) or if the situation is deemed innocent, close it with no action. Other options and discussion would be welcome. TNXMan 14:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I read something about an anonymous (group) attempt to infiltrate/control the project. Not through vandalism but through creating a large number of good hand accounts all under their control. Youreallycan 15:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just find unbiased authors to write and edit and protect the NXIVM complex of articles they will do no harm. Chrisrus (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless they have a decent explanation - I would block them all for sockpuppetry and be done with it. Youreallycan 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • A block by itself does not solve anything, they stopped editing. Are you saying that the edits made by them do not need to be checked? Amalthea 15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I checked a few of the accounts and didn't find anything to revert - more appeared to me to be the creation of multiple good hand accounts. Youreallycan 16:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that "the NXIVM complex of articles" was really a target of any non-neutral editing. I'm not convinced of anything here. Amalthea 15:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe that's because of the late date at which you got involved. Please check those users I listed for you earlier, U21980 and so on. You kind of came in in the middle of something that had been going on for some time. Look into it and you will see it clearly: this is NXIVM at work. The rest is red herring to throw you off the scent, mix a metaphor. For each username, I can find for you which edits were NXIVM-related. Chrisrus (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Then please do so, that would be very helpful. Thus far I can only speculate on motive, which makes attempting to clean this up (and even deciding whether it needs clean-up) very difficult. Amalthea 16:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Did this group always register names or did they ever edit using IP addresses? I find it very odd that there are no IP addresses in these lists. Points to a very organized group - very worrying and I don't buy the "paranoid" explanation. --HighKing (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any anonymous editing (not saying it didn't happen, just that I don't know of any). They're using a hosting company's range to edit, so the IP info is limited. TNXMan 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Only very little anon editing on the range. Amalthea 15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

they should all be blocked a constructive user wouldn't waste time or money. I appreciate it does not stop the wider problem as they have ceased editing but doing nothing as said at spi shouldn't be an option. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not to state the obvious but this is quite serious. I'd be inclined to a) block the range of the hosting company for 3 months and all the accounts indefinitely (a litte over reaction now is IMO preferable to inaction) - if there are any actual legitimate accounts they can/will appeal; b) put the NXIVM topic under probation (and maybe even protection for a week) and instigate the CCI style investigation--Cailil ^talk 20:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki solicitation of vandalism

BBC presenter Jim Hawkins (radio presenter), who objects to Wikipedia having an article about him, is again calling for his Twitter followers to vandalise Wikipedia: http://twitter.com/jimallthetime/status/176677178199650304 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Unfortunately he's just advocating general disruption without specifying a target. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that it might be worthwhile for the WMF to get in touch with his employers (BBC Radio Shropshire), to point out that having their presenters advocating vandalism isn't exactly good for their image. I think the BBC tends to take a dim view of such things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• In my view, it is actually Pigsonthewing who is being disruptive. He has an apparent fixation, ongoing since 2009, with including Jim Hawkins' birthdate-with the only source being Twitter- against thnobjections of the subject (involving OTRS complaints)[10] and against the consensus on BLPN [11] and on the talkpage of the article. Every year Pigsonthewing, trawls Hawkins's Twitter account for more evidence of birthday congratulations and tries to include the date201020112012 He has been repeatedly told by other editors and administrators to drop it.[12][13] [14][15]

BLP policy is clear: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Hawkins has complained repeatedly - and while his calls for vandalism are foolish and he has not been particularly helpful in other ways - his reaction is pretty understandable at this point. Pigsonthewing needs to stop poking of the article subject, and I can pretty much guarantee so will the calls for vandalism will stop too. --Slp1 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

the subjects behaviour is not understandable to call for users to vandalise Wikipedia from an enployee of the BBC is totally wrong and the WMF should bring this up. . He is clearly notable. In regards to his age if that's his own twitter page then it clearly is his birthday however we do need better sources to allow inclusion. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, no, sourcing isn't the issue here at all. The subject himself has requested via OTRS that his date of birth be omitted form the article. That's the final arbiter of the matter, even if you go find a dozen iron-clad reliable sources that list his birth date. Apart from that, is there anything currently in the article that the subject objects to? Tarc (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Er no, the subject of a Wikipedia article does not have the final decision on what does and does not go into an article. The subject of an article can make the request; and that request should be taken into consideration. How notable is the person? Is the person a public figure or a lone individual who stumbled into notability? How relevant is the age? Does the person try to keep his/her age secret elsewhere? How relevant is keeping the age secret (some poeple have a professional reason to appear older/younger than they really are.) The request can then be considered, but it is not the final arbiter. (Lesser known individuals who are not public figures are more likely to be have such requests honored than major public figures.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Just reviewed the BLP policy, and birthday is one thing that can be requested removed regardless of notability.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering why people think this is about the birthdate. The birthdate has not been in the article since April 2010. GB fan 19:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Hawkins made the following comment on the talkpage just today "You are a sad, sad man, Mabbett. Do you really have nothing better to do than worry about my birthday?"[16]. AndyMabbettPigsonthewing then deleted it, as a personal attack.[17]--Slp1 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Without a specified target for the vandalism, there is nothing we can do about this except maybe urge more people to huggle or otherwise RCP. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

im very tempted as a member of the public who pays my bbc licence to wright to the NBC asking if the think his behaviour is appropriate to someone of his level of standing at the BBC. I doubt they will. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That twitter post is hardly a call for an army of destructive trolls, the BBC will probably ignore such a report. The guy dislikes having a wiukipedia Bio - he thinks its rubbish - he's a local radio host - low notability - get rid of it, give the guy a break, delete it. Hes a radio host in the afternoon on such a station - yes, everyone that needs to know that already knows it. The loss to the educational mission of the project through the deletiuon of this bio would be zero. Youreallycan 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's already survived AFD twice. I certainly wouldn't give the argument to "give him a break" any weight whatsoever. Others have commented, and I tend to agree, that this appears to be more about the fact that this is a heavily trafficked website and he is not allowed to control the entry on himself. No resource with any integrity lets article subjects write their own entries, and I'm sure there are many criminals and other folks who would rather not have an entry, we can't let them dictate such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This would appear to be a serious breach but I don't know how to proceed

Er, while clicking on the list of Category:People_educated_at_Haberdashers'_Aske's_Boys'_School I noticed that there was a userpage in the list,
User:Prosperoscell
how odd thought I? Click, click, a few checks, this appears to seriously contravene the WP:UP guidelines (even if the person is unaware of what they have done) per:

• "and encyclopedia articles should never link to any userspace pages."
• "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles,"

The article itself, sorry the userspace page, appears to violate wp:spip and so on, wasn't really sure where to go with this, help desk seems a bit weak as this seems to be OTT, couldn't decide if there was a CSD category to nominate it in, some Admin advice and action, please? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's userpage promotion, quite a common problem. Secretlondon (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a serious problem, just a misunderstanding. We have categories for Wikipedians to use eg Category:Wikipedians by alma mater - I doubt it's obvious that this is a category intended for notable persons with articles. Just explain to him. Maybe he would like to create a userbox Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United_Kingdom to credit his old school.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is common to see user pages in encyclopedia categories. I just edit them to comment out the categories. I mark as a minor edit and an edit comment like Don't include user pages in encyclopedic categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As Mike Featherstone already has an article (written by others), I've suggested he move content into that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

From the comments in the page someone is writing the text on his behalf which doesn't feel appropriate - clear COI. Secretlondon (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also here.User:Souvikmukherjee99 The existing article might have partially been copy-pasted from here.[18] A copy-vio? Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the rapid reactions, I'll let you get on with it then ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Back again, did you take a look at Souvikmukherjee99 (talk · contribs) contributions? This is quite wierd as now the information appears once in mainspace and twice in userspace and the aforementioned user has only edited his userpage and the Featherstone article, okay not exactly the same article repeated three times, but the link to the Theory, Culture & Society journal appears three times, which happens to be a journal of which Mr Featherstone/Prosperocell is the editor-in-chief. The said article which is lacking in refs and (oh my brain boggles, too tired to check) perhaps notability. I will sleep on this and see what the outcome is on the morrow. Night. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Gmbfj, User:Plusspacere, involved in edit war, probably sockpuppets

Here is the picture that the user removed on false accusation that it is "vandalism" - it shows the US ambassador meeting with Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek and Communist leader Mao Zedong in 1945 during World War II. Chiang Kai-shek (first row, second from left side), Mao Zedong (first row, third from left), United States ambassador Patrick J. Hurley (first row, first on left).

User:Gmbfj and User:Plusspacere I believe are sockpuppet accounts of one user who is involved in an edit war at Allies of World War II. I added material that demonstrates that China during the war was divided between the Nationalist Government of the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-Shek, and Communist-controlled areas of China under Mao Zedong, the Chinese Communist Party rejected the legitimacy of Chiang's Nationalist Party-led Republic of China. I even provided an image of the United States ambassador meeting with both Chiang and Mao, that I will show you here. I also added the flag used by the Communists in their controlled regions of China. User:Gmbfj removed the edits I made, including the image on the false accusation that what I added was "vandalism" and removed the picture containing both Chiang and Mao leaving a picture with only Chiang in it.[19]. I said that the edit was not vandalism and posted material in the talk page to address the concerns, then a few days later another user, User:Plusspacere, removed exactly the same material, saying "Restoring vandalism" - I assume the user meant "removing vandalism" - as can be viewed here: [20]. The two users removed exactly the same material, restored exactly the same material, and used exactly the same false claim that what I added was "vandalism", when really it appears that the user has a POV in favour of representing only Chiang Kai-shek and not Mao Zedong. The evidence above indicates abuse of multiple accounts through sockpuppetry.

What I added was not vandalism as accused by the user, and secondly the user is abusing user accounts through edit warring through sockpuppet accounts. I would like an investigation by administrators into abuse of multiple accounts through sockpuppetry involving the accounts of User:Gmbfj and User:Plusspacere and taking action to stop the edit-warring. Since this appears to be a case of abuse of multiple accounts combined with edit-warring, I suggest a topic ban on the article Allies of World War II for User:Gmbfj and User:Plusspacere.--R-41 (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)