Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:David r from meth productions

As I understand it, this semi-regular user has been involved in adding negative information to articles about journalists involved in spats with Johann Hari (that they were alcoholics and anti-Semites and so on) and in fluffing the article of Hari and some of his friends. The account was at one time found to be using an IP at the The Independent, Mr. Hari's paper. It was claimed that the account was a Hari acquaintance at The Independent. Hari was suspended for 2 months today because of concerns about all this and because of accusations of plagiarism (which The Indy appears to take slightly more seriously -- slightly -- than Wikipedia). There was a discussion of this at the COI noticeboard that petered out inconclusively [1]. I propose at minimum a topic ban from all journalism and political articles, broadly construed, but really an indef block for this kind of behavior is the right course of action. Guardian article on the suspension [2]. Influential Brit blogger on the allegations related to Wikipedia [3]. The Spectator's Nick Cohen (one of Hari's "opponents") on all this [4]. He hasn't edited lately, but his pattern has been long pauses and bursts of activity all along.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You want to do a pre-emptive topic ban or block? This is nonsense. As you say, "He hasn't edited lately". From WP:BLOCK:

Blocks should not be used ... where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

The same goes for any other sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding right? He's been vandalizing BLPs inserting unsourced claims that his real world antagonists are anti-Semites and so on and puffing up his own work, and there's no sanction necessary? That would strike me as preventative of further abuse. How is any of this "preemptive?" It appears this account has been quietly editing with an agenda to defame other people for years here (years in which 2-3 months pauses in editing have been quite common). This should be left open for further discussion. The account has done harm and caused real world distress (if the comments of the targets are accepted at face value) and "nothing to see here, move along" as the first response to my post strikes me as both irresponsible and callous.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been significant recent press coverage alleging that this editor has committed BLP violations of a serious nature, in connection with articles involving rivals. I have not investigated these allegations in any detail, at least not yet, and Toddst1 is quite right that David r has not edited in awhile, but I do not think we can afford to be so instantly dismissive of the concern that has been raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The COI thread seems to have been edited by an IP address from the same ISP used by David R (though it's a big range); this IP address seemed to argue that any talk of sanctions against David R should be put on ice. Other IPs from the same telco seem to have been active, at times, on the same cluster of UK journalist articles. For instance, consider [5] [6] [7] - I expect there are more like that. So, if there's an investigation, it should not be limited to the activities of the David R account alone. bobrayner (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I respect Toddst1, but have removed the resolved tag for now - this is a fairly high-profile issue and I think it's worth waiting at least a few hours for input from others (not many people in the UK are awake right now), whether it's about external coverage, or activity by other accounts/IPs, or indeed something about David r himself.

Also, since that account has been intermittently active, in the same areas, for several years (and IP addresses before the account started) I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the problem has gone away just because that account hasn't edited recently. Sooner or later, the same person can be expected to return to similar articles, with or without this particular account. bobrayner (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This person should be community-banned, if for no other reason than that the lack of such a formal signal of disapproval by the community would bring the project into disrepute. Also because of the possibility that he might try to come back. Banning him now is preventative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This user has been violating BLP in a slow, but persistent manner for over two years now. I've blocked the account indefinitely. Courcelles 06:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call; I've been digging into this editors contributions and there are multiple issues (mostly now all resolved) relating to serious libel on BLP articles. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree also, good call. But I would also like to second the call above for a full community ban. This is the kind of thing that puts the whole project in disrepute. There are no valid excuses for their behavior. And as bobrayner noted above, gaps in their editing are part of their pattern and sooner or later, the same person can be expected to return to similar articles, with or without this particular account. A community ban would allow the immediately blocking of any new accounts and immediate reversion of any edits. This would be a preventative measure to protect the project. Heiro 19:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

Additional concerns about other accounts & IPs have been raised here and here. A couple of people above have already suggested that a community ban would be appropriate. So: I propose that the person behind the User:David r from meth productions account is community-banned due to concerns about long-term BLP problems, apparent socking, and/or pov-pushing.

• Support as proposer. bobrayner (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support clearly a longstanding problem with COI and BLP violations, possibly abusive sockpuppetry. No evidence this editor has any intention of contributing productively and has damaged the project. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I'd prefer if the editor was around to speak for himself, but I think the editor's actions already speak for themselves. This person has caused more damage to Wikipedia than the most annoying vandals and sockmasters I've dealt with, even bringing Wikipedia into disrepute in the media through his actions. -- Atama頭 16:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose all Draconian solutions - I strongly suspect that the user is a tad unlikely to draw attention to himself in the future by making improper edits, for sure. The horse went out of the barn, and locking the door is a teeny beit futile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Brings the project into disrepute and has been editing abusively for years, apparently. Night Ranger (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - For reasons already given: up with this sort of thing we should not put. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - there's not much worse than BLP libel, and this has been going on for far too long. --NellieBly (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - as noted above. Heiro 01:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose If his harmful edits only involve any article that has something to do with Johann Hari wouldn't a topic ban be more appropriate?KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Support His sockpuppetry and lack of helpfulness make's it seem worthy that he is banned.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. With the hope that people will remain vigilant re suspicious IP and possible sock edits to articles this guy has targeted in the past. We simply can't tolerate this kind of behavior.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor could be topic banned, but community ban is way too strong for him.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ^{(Non-administrator comment)}
• Support The user has grossly abused Wikipedia to make direct attacks on living people with whom he had personal or professional differences. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated. He has not made significant contributions to other topics so a topic ban is not the appropriate remedy.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The edits made by this user are have serious issues with policies, especially with those on WP:BLP and WP:COI. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support It is the only appropriate response to this level of disruption, and the the period it was conducted over. Courcelles 03:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support siteban. Long-term BLP violations and sockpuppetry are simply unacceptable. -cc 09:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Here is another vicious attack by this editor, which hasn't been mentioned here, against Cristina Odone, a former superior at The New Statesman: I fell out with Johann Hari – then 'David Rose' started tampering viciously with my Wikipedia entry. At this point it's obvious that we (Wikipedia) are being used, and would be enabling him by allowing him to edit here again. First Light (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The evidence is overwhelming. We have absolutely no use for such an editor. --JaGa^talk 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We've been running for three days, consensus seems pretty clearly in favor of a full siteban. Can an admin please close the discussion, add the necessary userpage tags and list at the banned users list? Night Ranger (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Topic Ban Proposal

Proposal withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Instead of an outright ban since it appears that he is only making harmful edits that either involve journalism or biographies. I'm instead proposing that he is topic banned from all articles covered under WikiProject Journalism, and articles cover under WikiProject Biography Support as the proposer.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Proposal Withdrawn Ok, if he hasn't made any edits that is actually useful, than there's no point in keeping him around.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Support as more measured and rational. Collect (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Support, but for a limited time, like 1 year, to get better. Also, good to prevent possible switch to any biography. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 21:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Support If the editor promises never again to use socks. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Support. A full-scale ban from the site feels excessive, and it's entirely likely this editor's contributions may be valued elsewhere. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Struck this out, as I'm moving towards a full ban given the gross BLP violations and sockpuppetry. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Sockpuppetry and gross BLP violations warrant more than a topic ban. Night Ranger (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Long-term use of Wikipedia to attack and libel people warrant much more. First Light (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Has never shown the ability to edit in any other manner than a destructive one. Insufficient remedy. Courcelles 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Too soft. --JaGatalk 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingston University and WP:COI SPA

Can an administrator please have a look into Lorifredrics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and her WP:COI pushing of a case at the university WP:BLP issues may also apply. Mtking (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The user, Mtking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have an excessively extreme reaction to any noteworthy and well-referenced edits to this article. The matter is being dealt with via the article's Talk page, and should be resolved without further ado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs)

No, I don't think you should given your conection to the subject (see here) you should be the one adding anthing to the article, you appear to be using WP as some form of mouth piece. Mtking (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as we're discussing Lorifredrics' edits, would you care to explain this one [8], a seemingly unfounded claim which could be taken as a threat of off-wiki harassment? Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see why I should have to be subjected to personal attacks like this from this user: [9] Rangoon11 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Daywalker, so you saw this edit too. There is now evidence that has been gathered -- by whom? (Glenn Mulcaire?) -- of payments made to you -- in fat envelopes, or to one of my numerous Liechtenstein bank accounts? -- for your Wikipedia editing services. This evidence will shortly be released in a public forum. (News of the Screws? Weekly World News?) I found it mysterious and exciting, and curiously reminiscent of those messages I get from people with access to large Nigerian funds who require my expertise (and a small up-front administration fee). -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Er... behavioral problems of Lorifredrics aside, doesn't linking that news article present some WP:OUTING issues unless Lori posted it themselves somewhere else that I am missing? I'm not too familiar with that policy, but it seems like it would.. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at it further, I guess that posting the link isn't an outing since she is posting under a real name (I had misread a section of the policy earlier.) Kevin (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Having followed the situation of Lori Fredric's husband (Howard) at Kingston University over several years now (via regular reading of the Times Higher Education Supplement), I would suggest that Lori Fredrics is really not the right person to be editing about Kingston. She is not here to edit in the normal mode, she is here with an agenda; her grievances (on behalf of her husband) strike me as quite legitimate, by the way, but it still constitutes bringing an external dispute to Wikipedia. There would be no problem in her participating on the talk page -- but I would strongly suggest that she be given explicit instructions not to edit the article (with specified consequences if she doesn't adhere to this). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I would suggest further that the same stricture be applied to Peter Scott (educationalist). Lori and Howard Fredrics quite clearly loathe Scott and have been waging a bitter campaign against him for years. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that should be the case (see below) Mtking (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Her User Page

I did ask Lorifredrics to make a deceleration of her intrest on her userpage, she has done that here however I think she has gone beyond a simple deceleration and is using it to advance her course, futher advice from an administrator would be helpful here. Mtking (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You're apparently trying to use my full disclosure of the context of my associations with Kingston University and Howard Fredrics to attack me, when such disclosures are not supposed to be used for such purposes, according to WP:COI policies. Such disclosures are supposed to be used to establish good faith and should be treated as such. There is a clear disclaimer on my userpage regarding the purpose of this disclosure. Moreover, the disclosure is well referenced and therefore well-supported.--Lorifredrics (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am saying I think you are going beyond a simple deceleration and using it as a soapbox. Mtking (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways -- a full declaration of interest and a page that avoids providing a context.--Lorifredrics (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)A full measure of good faith is appropriate for disclosures, but it's certainly not a blank check. It would obviously be inappropriate for someone to disclose bias on an article's subject by saying something along the lines of "I have a conflict here because I know that X is a murderer." I'm not saying your page is so egregious, but it seems borderline at best. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 06:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've simply reported relevant facts on actual events that are well documented through press and government generated reports. Nothing less/nothing more and no intent at making this a soapbox. I've not even mentioned names of individuals found to have committed proven wrongdoing, as determined in government investigations. And I've only referred to the most salient of facts needed to minimally understand the gist of the context.--Lorifredrics (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree as to your characterization of your page as minimal. There's no reason at all to go into attributing blame or wrong acts to disclose that you have a conflict of interest, as shown in the example that the conflict of interest page links to. You could simply state that you and your husband are connected to Kingston University and controversial events that took place there. That is all I would need to know to understand and look out for your conflict of interest. It is not a place to trash the subject of your conflict. See my statement below as to why the "factual" nature of the information is irrelevant. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 08:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd strongly suggest someone adding {{NOINDEX}} to the user page since it is essentially publishing content which by consensus has been removed from actual articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to every single page on Wikipedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added {{NOINDEX}} -- but perhaps it should be taken further, with deletion at least of the problem bits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth asking the BLP Noticeboard for an opinion, once the page/topic ban proposals are resolved here (one way or another). Otherwise, it ends up as noticeboard overkill. A look at the assertions made by Lorifredrics about Peter Scott on Talk:Peter Scott (educationalist) might also be a good idea. Her latest edit provided a link to a copy of what appears to be a police memo about the case marked at the top "Data Protection Act - Dispose of as confidential waste" (hosted on her husband's web site). I'm not too sure whether that's appropriate even for an article's talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, Voceditenore. The DPA reference is in relation to the subject of the memo, my husband Howard Fredrics, who as the subject, is entitled to release the material for public use, as he did. The heading of the memo is in relation to the Police being required to dispose of the material in accordance with the Act. You're just trying to stir up needless trouble.--Lorifredrics (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your husband's name does not appear anywhere on the document, only the names of what I assume to be the police investigating the case, and I'm still not sure that it is appropriate to link to it on the talk page of the article. Likewise the assertions you make about the article's subject in that post. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That has got to be one of the single most moronic comments I've seen on Wikipedia. Where do you think he got the document? Obviously from his solicitors, Christian Khan, whose name is at the top (Fax header). Do you actually believe that this is NOT what the police said about my husband's website/case -- no evidence of harassment? Come on. Talk about petty and an obviously malicious comment. Why don't you find someone else to bully on here?Lorifredrics (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Page and Topic Ban

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

There is an unambiguous consensus in favour of the proposed ban. Apart from the opposition from the user who is the subject of the proposed ban, only one objection has been raised, which is a purely procedural objection on the grounds that the reasons for the ban have not been listed in the proposal, as opposed to elsewhere in this section. However, there is no consensus for the view that that invalidates the proposal, and the rest of the discussion gives a clear consensus in favour of the ban. User:Lorifredrics is banned indefinitely from editing Kingston University and Peter Scott (educationalist) (Talk pages exempt) and from any page, on any matter relating to Howard Fredric's grievances with Kingston University broadly construed (again Talk page exempt). At present I am leaving the rest of this section open, as other issues apart from the topic ban may still be under discussion, but if discussion does not progress the whole section should probably be closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

That User:Lorifredrics is page banned from editing both Kingston University and Peter Scott (educationalist) (Talk pages exempt) and from any page, on any matter relating to Howard Fredric's grievances with Kingston University broadly construed (again Talk page exempt).

• Support as proposer. Mtking (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Oppose" as subject of proposed ban. Clearly this ban is being proposed in response to a full disclosure made in good faith in relation to alleged COI . I have not made further edits on these pages since being asked to take such matters to a Talk page prior to editing. A ban is clearly excessive. --Lorifredrics (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this proposal was made a full 2h 50m before you made your full disclosure. You have also made a number of edits after being asked to take the discussion to the talk page such as this and this, a ban is clearly NOT excessive. Mtking (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Clear conflict of interest, as she's admitted and does not automatically mean a ban. But it seems necessary given concerning behavior. Her only Virtually all of her contributions have been on these topics and she has reverted 4 separate users on these pages, including one where the summary said: "Have taken to talk page, but am leaving article posting due to immediate importance and relatively non-controversial nature of edits." Assuming as much good faith as I can, labeling the addition of material supporting your husband as being of "immediate importance," for me, leaves little room for doubt that you had something other than improving the article in mind when you made the change. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 06:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Her only contributions have been on these topics." -- that is simply false. Please see:Belt (Music) and Trio for Violin, Horn and Piano (Ligeti) as ex's of other topics. Immediate importance referred to the timely relevance of the recent (July 7, 2011) Parliamentary Speech. The nature of the most recent edits were purely factual (e.g. changing 'acquitted' to 'no case to answer,' an important UK legal distinction) and non-analytical in nature (hence non-controversial), relying solely on accounts of events described in reliable sources.--Lorifredrics (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I've corrected my statement. I'm sorry, but I just cannot understand what you mean by immediate importance referring to a recent action. The recent nature of information hardly makes it more important. All information on Wikipedia should be factual, that does not make it non-controversial. Whether or not it is appropriate and neutral to include on a page is a matter of discretion on which consensus must be reached. But my major concern is that you were reverting other editors. Editing articles where you have a conflict is discouraged, but reverting other editors in an area where you have an interest is never appropriate except in the case of vandalism, which was not the case for any of your revisions. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy makes the point clear: "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit." ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 08:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support unless the editor voluntarily pledges to restrict herself to proposing and discussing edits on the talk pages for these topics. Three relatively minor edits to other articles are irrelevant, and one of them was really most inappropriate in terms of her edit summary. The edit-warring, coatracking, and attacks on at least two other editors [10], [11], who have opposed her crusade on behalf of her husband are very disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that the user's "attack" on me (if that's what it was) didn't disrupt my activities in the slightest. Indeed, it had considerable amusement value. However, it did waste some of John's time and quite a lot of Mtking's, and this I regret. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, in itself the declaration of a CoI is good. And yes, some people who have conflicts of interest can improve articles. This person's list of contributions provides no such assurance. She'll still be able to suggest edits, and the suggestions can be considered on their merits. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Unfortunate Support Making a COI statement is great, but it is not a blank cheque to make wholesale changes/deletions contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and that clearly hold WP:POV. I laud the addition that talkpage additions/suggestions can be made so that someone on the inside can continue to provide valid input. The other benefit is that the editor has other interests on Wikipedia, where they can use a lot of their energies there in order to better our knowledge of the subjects. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The COI statement is more of a political campaign. A real COI statement would be "I used to work here and my husband was involved in a controversy". A period of only being able to use the talk page would be beneficial on both articles. The COI report on another editor, without any evidence at all was the clincher for me --Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support and propose that the ban be extended to the article talk pages too. As can be seen below, Lorifredrics has continued to use the other Wikipedia pages to make unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of an editor. Frankly, given the obvious COI, and her unwillingness to use pages for the intended purpose, I can see no reason to let her make any further comments. Regardless of what happened concerning Kingston University, the abuse of Wikipedia facilities to engage in soapboxing has to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- even with this ANI discussion on-going, LoriFredrics continues to engage in repeated reverts to push her preferred version. Enough already... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - What finally pushed me over to support the topic ban was the violation of 3RR at Peter Scott (educationalist) in the midst of this discussion. -- Atama頭 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, this way her voice can be heard on the talk pages without the need to block for COI edits. Dayewalker (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Access to the talk pages is enough for this editor. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the several conclusive argument already raised, adding text (diff) suggesting that the "rightful registrant" of a domain based on the name "Sir Peter Scott" was the editor's husband (see here) exhibits a COI that cannot reasonably be handled by other editors. I further propose that all links to the website be removed from Wikipedia (see here, namely editor's user page)—such promotional activity is way outside Wikipedia's role. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. C'mon, after me, let's all have a pile on and to hell with natural justice! Any page/topic ban proposal should say why. This proposal demands Lorifredrics be banned from editing Kingston University and Peter Scott pages -- but doesn't give reasons. Related comments elsewhere on this page are not an inherent component of this proposal, so as evidence has not been presented in this proposal it must fail. Moriori (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is very clear why it has been proposed in the main part of this section. Mtking ^(edits) 09:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have given my opinion here in this section which you titled Page and Topic Ban. I have not edited the Kingston University and WP:COI SPA or Her user page or Misuse of the COI noticeboard by User:Lorifredrics sections. In this Page and Topic Ban section there is no evidence given to support your proposal. Any proposal anywhere in Wikipedia should be able to stand by itself. Still, if you think that's fair, pile on. My 2c. Moriori (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a sub-section of the main "Kingston University and WP:COI SPA", so I think you are splitting hairs on this. Mtking ^(edits) 10:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You personally, who have been in conflict with this editor, have proposed that this editor be page/topic banned. Your proposal does not contain a skerrick of reason why. And you think I am splitting hairs. Heaven help Wikipedia. !

If nothing else, a summary will help the closing administrator (something has to be logged at WP:RESTRICT if the ban is confirmed) and anyone else who is giving an opinion here. Mtking, you created the proposal so it would be best if you did so. -- Atama頭 16:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support because Lorifredrics appears to have a serious conflict of interest. She is continuing a feud with the sometime employers of her husband and herself on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support This should be good to resolve this, ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))
• Oppose indefinite ban, support topic probation. I agree we should force the problematic user to use the discussion pages and learn about policy, yes, but I disagree about the remedy. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Closing? Lack of evidence under this specific sub-heading notwithstanding, this should be closed one way or the other. Do we need to request that somewhere? I assumed an admin would just come across this and do it, but that doesn't seem to be happening. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Misuse of the COI noticeboard by User:Lorifredrics

As can be seen, Lorifredrics has continued to make unsubstantiated attacks on Rangoon11's integrity here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rangoon11. Can I ask an admin to close the COI/N section, redact the allegations, and extend the ban on Lorifredrics to any discussion of other users supposed COI not explicitly backed up by diffs which clearly demonstrate such? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur, I just came to make the same suggestion --Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree -- Diffs are not the only way to provide evidence of WP:COI. I believe I have provided enough to justify concern, whether or not others may or may not agree with that concern. Clearly some have, as evidenced in my list of external links and other sources of evidence provided in the COI report.(e.g. her edits in the [redacted] article.Lorifredrics (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lori, did Rangoon11 reveal her personal identity on Wikipedia, or declare herself to be the author of that material? If not, that is WP:OUTING and is instantly blockable. I've redacted it for now, the way the ANI board is I felt I should do it right away before I had to revdel 50 edits. -- Atama頭 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, now I see what you linked to, it's a mirror of Wikipedia. You should have just linked to Talk:Linklaters#Offices_Section. I don't see why you feel the need to link to a mirror, not Wikipedia itself. Anyway, never mind about the outing, sorry.

No problem. Sorry for using a mirror, but that's what came up in my initial google search on the matter. Most certainly, no outing was intended.Lorifredrics (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, for Andy, I'm watching the COIN discussion and if it gets out of hand I can close it, but I don't see any reason to at the moment. -- Atama頭 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say that the above section is merely a topic ban ... Lori seems to be itching for something more permanent/widespread (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Particularly as she is continuing to edit the Peter Scott page... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true. She said she won't edit the page any longer, then edited it later in the day. I don't think a voluntary withdrawal can be trusted, and a topic ban would be necessary if the community does not want her to edit those pages further. -- Atama頭 19:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit was quite minor and was put before other editors on Talk page, but they did not address the merits of the proposed edits, so sensing no controversy, therefore, I enacted these edits, which were mere factual corrections/additions of references.--Lorifredrics (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And it should be noted that one of the 'references' is to what looks like a copyright violation: an image of an article in the local paper, hosted on the contentious 'www.sirpeterscott.com' website. I will of course remove this link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lori, you put your proposal on the article talk page, waited 4 minutes, then decided that since nobody had objected yet that it would be okay to add the info. That's not acting in good faith to seek consensus for an edit. Again, you're hurting your credibility here by claiming one thing and doing another, again and again. You also can't say that a ban is unnecessary because you haven't edited either article since concerns were raised, and then proceed to edit (and revert people when they object to the edit). I haven't weighed in on whether to support the proposed topic ban, but you're convincing me that I should. -- Atama頭 20:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Atama, that is not quite correct. This proposed edit was initially put forth for discussion at 23:53 on July 14. No one bothered to address the elements that I ultimately and more recently enacted/reverted to. --Lorifredrics (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lori, I have really been trying to assume good faith, but you seem to think we are incapable of actually checking on the things you tell us. To say "they did not address the merits of the proposed edits, so sensing no controversy" is, at the least, misleading, and closer to an outright lie. Three separate editors explicitly disagreed with your proposed edit, and then you did it anyways. You cannot propose a paragraph of text, have it objected to on the whole, and then claim specific parts were non-controversial. To the extent your later comment specifically addressed this issue, you put it there and then waited a little over 2 hours, after other editors had made clear they disagreed with what you wanted to do. As I stated above, quoting from the conflict of interest policy, any objector makes it controversial. But I don't need to quote policy. There is no way you could have reasonable believed this was not controversial. You were also reverting another editor, which is problematic for the same reason I stated above. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mahewa, specific objections to aspects of the paragraph were made. Individual components not objected to were then reverted to by me, since no one had objected to those elements of the paragraph and no one seemed willing to address the substance of the proposed edits, which clearly seem entirely non-controversial. I challenge you to find any controversy in simply including a factual difference -- the issue of 'no case to answer' vs 'acquittal' and the addition of a published reference to fully clarify it. We're really splitting hairs here, and I am beginning to feel that this sort of nitpicky and punitive approach is far disproportionate to issues at hand, and that it borders on editorial harassment. Please try to get a grip on the bigger picture here. If someone has a problem with the CONTENT of my edit, please let me know.--Lorifredrics (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit consisted of 3 things: a link to the WIPO document, a link to a copyright violating article on a page made for the purpose of attacking the person you have a disagreement with, and a change which made the article a little more specific, but wasn't really needed (the page was just as correct as it was, when a judge says there is no case to answer, he directs acquittal of the defendant). In terms of the second part, yes, I have a problem with the content of your edit. While the first and third may seem benign, if you had any desire to act as though you take the concerns on this page seriously at all, you could have just suggested them on the talk page and hoped another editor would agree. There is no reason the edits needed to be made, especially after you said you would no longer edit the page. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

She has also breached WP:3RR while going about it, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lorifredrics reported by Mtking (talk) (Result: ) for dif's. Mtking (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Her apparent response to this is to threaten to report a user who has no more than 2 separate reverts in a 24-hour period. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 01:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that if a user has 2 reverts in a 24 hr period, it is reasonable to warn them to avoid a 3rd revert in that time period. If I am mistaken about that practice, I apologize.

--Lorifredrics (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not mistaken Lori. It's reasonable to warn an editor about edit-warring after 2 reverts. An edit war isn't defined by making more than 3 reverts on an article. And your message was a threat to report if more reverts occurred. I don't think there was anything wrong with the note you left. -- Atama頭 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is substantially less reasonable, unreasonable, I dare say, when those two reversions were of your 3rd and 4th reversions in a 24-hour period on an article you have a conflict of interest in, have agreed to stop editing, and have been undone by two other editors. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 04:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I still wouldn't say it's unreasonable, but the warning is fairly toothless if nothing else. -- Atama頭 16:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) Just as an FYI, Lori has agreed to drop the COI allegations against Rangoon11 at WP:COIN and I've closed the discussion there. -- Atama頭 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The charge is that Lorifredrics has continued to make unsubstantiated attacks on Rangoon11's integrity here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rangoon11 and that this is misuse of the COI noticeboard. I'd say instead that she questioned Rangoon11's integrity there. As part of the questioning, she insinuated that Rangoon11 was being paid. That was neither pleasant nor justified, but I don't see that it's necessarily an attack. Also, there's a non-trivial attempt to provide reasons for the questioning. The reasoning didn't convince people, and it doesn't convince me; some of her follow-up comments seem timewasting -- but this does not all add up to "misuse of the COI noticeboard". Let's not indulge in pile-on. ¶ What is a bit alarming is her comment near the end that The issue of paid editing is one that is near and dear to my heart, and I shall continue to remain vigilant in my questioning of those who appear to be paid editors who don't openly acknowledge as much. She doesn't promise to present more convincing evidence for any future claim, and (simply because they're already bored by the thread?) nobody demands that she does so. While her COI-related utterances can be amusing, they have so far been a waste of other editors' time; if she continues to make feebly-backed allegations then she should be blocked as disruptive. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Further allegations lacking sufficient evidence, especially against the same person as before, can be considered as personal attacks. I tried to make that clear to Lori. I closed the discussion there because she agreed to no longer push the issue at this time, and discussing Lori's COI at the noticeboard would be useless because it's already being discussed here, and she isn't denying it. -- Atama頭 00:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all that you did and say. And I also agree that this was a poor use of the COI board. I disagree with AndyTheGrump, not you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, my vigilance means that. But that doesn't mean that I intend to make unsubstantiated allegations. As before, I raised genuine and legitimate questions for other editors to comment on, and did not make allegations, even though some may have chosen to interpret them as such. I will be sure to come armed with strong evidence of the sort suggested by Atama when I make actual allegations, you can rest assured. I happen to believe it is perfectly reasonable to ask any questions that come up when one's alarm bells are triggered, whether or not other editors bells are triggered by said warning signs.--Lorifredrics (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Lorifredrics has once again chosen here [12] to make unsubstantiated allegations of "editing harassment/bullying by some editors". Isn't it high time we told her to take a hike? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No. She prefaces her (rather mild) allegations with "may", "appears", etc. This doesn't mean that I agree with them or even that they're reasonable. I might tell her to put a sock in it. But for us, plural, to tell her to take a hike? No. Topic-ban her from articles (not talk pages), treat her like an adult, argue back where necessary, and be patient. (And yes of course, patience should have its limits. When it breaks, try enforcing a 31-hour vacation.) Who knows, she may even turn into a constructive editor on voice technique, etc. ¶ Or are we so very sensitive to unwarranted allegations? Me, in my time I've been accused of all sorts of things, including serious neurological damage. I shrug or laugh it off. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary here in that even though my patience is running low here, I think that we should give the page/topic ban a chance (maybe with a short trip to the cooler), I would like to think it would have the effect of stopping any article disruption and bring her to the discussion table. That said I fully understand AndyTheGrump's feelings.Mtking (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify. While I can understand why Lorifredrics is keen to expose what she see as an injustice (and very possibly others too - it is less than clear that justice has been done), she seems to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is an appropriate forum to seek a platform for the issues raised. When others have pointed out that this isn't what Wikipedia is for, she has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks - all phrased in such a way that a cursory inspection may give the impression that she is merely asking whether her suspicions might be true. This sort of weasel-wording might (just) stand up in a court of law, but Wikipedia requires (or at least asks for) a higher standard: WP:AGF. To expect other editors to contribute meaningfully in an environment where any dissent it taken as evidence for maybe being a paid agent of (...fill in the blanks...) isn't conducive to cooperative discourse. While Lorifredrics continues to see Wikipedia as a platform to continue her battle against Kingston University, Sir Peter Scott etc, etc, she is likely to run into conflict with Wikipedia policy and standards. On this basis, I suggest that there is actually little to 'discuss', and to continue a dialogue with her might give the false impression that she can 'win' her arguments here. At best (from her perspective) she might get Wikipedia articles to reflect her point of view, but this will achieve nothing much for her cause, and even less for our reputation (such as it is). I honestly think that if she is intent on pursuing the issue, she would be better off doing it elsewhere - and so will we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User changing athletes' heights without sourcing

124.182.10.125 (talk · contribs) is going around changing the heights of a large number of athletes without any sources for the changes. I asked them once to please stop without providing a source for the change, but they continue. The rest of their edits do seem reasonable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Problem is always (often) that unverified information is changed without verification or explanation. Still, possession is 9/10 of the law. I reverted one or two of their edits and left a templated warning, which may, possibly, make more of an impression. I don't think there's much we can do right now--while that "changing height" thing pops up in Recent changes, I don't think there's a consensus that such unverified changes constitute vandalism, for instance, or even disruption. I'd love to hear what the various sports project editors have to say. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree regarding the blocking. Making repeated unsourced changes to personal statistics (DOB, height etc) in BLPs after the relevant policies have been clearly pointed out to an editor is disruptive and blockable if it continues. If the changes are unsourced, challenged, and continue without discussion or explanation, they are disruptive. That being said, the IP has not edited in hours. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of athletes, where a ton of articles lack appropriate, complete, or reliable sourcing, it's hard to argue that a BLP violation occurs if the previous information was just as unverified as the new information. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The majority of athlete articles include at least a link to the player's online profile which can (and should) be checked to confirm whether the editor's changes are valid. I would never block an account for making stat changes in sports articles without checking to see if the changes matched the official profile (and usually a quick Google check is sufficient when the article lacks a source). In the situation I mentioned above (unsourced, repeated, and contested stat changes with zero communication after multiple requests) then a block for disruption would be appropriate. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it's not a BLP violation to change information without a source that didn't have a source in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right. It would be like one person vandalizing an article by saying "Jenny is a slut", then someone else comes along and changes it to say "Jenny is a whore". Both editors are equally culpable, and if for some reason the first edit slips under the radar and isn't removed, that doesn't give a license for the second one. I'll concede that changing unsourced info isn't quite as troubling as introducing unsourced info from scratch, but I think it's dangerous to completely give people a pass on it. This is especially true when an editor is doing this in a widespread fashion, to numerous BLPs, and continuing after being asked to stop. -- Atama頭 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Atama. This sort of thing goes on all over the place. I'm coming round to the view that if anyone materially alters any existing information in an article, they must have got the new information from *somewhere*, and at this stage in Wikipedia's life there's no reason not to politely ask them what their source is. Anyone contributing in good faith would be only too happy to respond, so if there's no response in a reasonable time then undoing the edit is the logical step to take - with warnings etc. to follow if necessary. —SMALLJIM  21:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I always revert, automatically and instantly, when an IP changes a number without using an edit summary. Other types of changes I examine, but those changes I simply revert. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• In cases like this, it's usually best to notify the Subtle Vandalism Taskforce so that we can keep an eye on the user and do checks on whether their edits are correct. It's why the taskforce was created in the first place, to deal with changes of height info, game stats, dates, and the like. Silverseren^C 03:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• One main problem with this is that athlete heights can be different in different sources. Let me give an example: Steven Stamkos. One source (which appears to be 2006-07) lists him as 5'11". Another lists him as 6'1" (two others, including the Sting profile for him from when he was in the OHL, match this). Yet another - this time a video, probably from around NHL draft time - lists him as 6'. The weight also varies between the sources (though again the three from the second case match the weight exactly). Since some sites will not update their information about a player who may have left their league, outdated information is out there. Maybe it's the correct info; a quick search of "PLAYER NAME player profile" turns up multiple results (depending on the player name) and they can be checked for when they were updated, and so on. For instance, the most updated information on Stamkos: 6'1", 196 lbs. What's in the article? 188 lbs. and unsourced. CycloneGU (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Now they're changing the heights of actors. I've issued a blp4 warning. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

When someone changes a height, a date or other random statistic in an article, which has been stable for a while, it is appropriate to revert and ask the editor to provide a source, even if the information was previously unsourced. "The new number might be correct" is not a valid reason to allow an unsourced and uncommented change to stand. It is too often subtle vandalism, and is far more damaging to the project than blatant vandalism. If the someone is unhappy that some number is unsourced, he can tag it as needing a reference. Edison (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I recently reverted this edit which, aside from replacing sourced information with unsourced, seemed suspicious in light of the above. It's beginning to look like a Colbertesque wikiality-modification trolling campaign. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, that edit was before the final warning. The IP has yet to edit since the warning. Based on editing pattern, he'll be back in about four or five hours from now. CycloneGU (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding actor/musician's vital statistics, over that of athletes - most athletes do not have publicity agencies, whose role is to impress people without too much regard to fidelity to the truth. Unless an athlete was notably competing while a teenager height should be consistent throughout their career - weight however may not. We go for the best reliable source in every case, but where actors especially and musicians are concerned reliable does not mean accurate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since that final warning on 124.182.10.125 (talk · contribs), 120.145.17.135 (talk · contribs) has started doing the same thing. Also on Telstra, but a different IP range - is it likely to be the same person? If so, I'll block it because it looks like purposeful avoidance.  —SMALLJIM  10:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• There was someone doing exactly the same thing some time ago - just randomly changing people's heights (but by small amounts so they were plausible) - and they ended up blocked. Can't remember who it was though - ring any bells for anyone? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  And I have a feeling it was someone from the same part of the world as these two IPs. They're on the same ISP, same part of the same country, making the same type of changes - that's close enough, so I've blocked them both -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well done. It's an important issue that we should have a consensus on, I think. Anyone disagree that this is the right thing to do? And what about reverting the changes they made?  —SMALLJIM  10:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  If it's useful, here's one IP's list. CycloneGU (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'll take that as a subtle hint :) But I didn't mean "who's going to revert them?" - I meant "do we think it's worth the trouble of reverting them, since the existing figures were unverified too". Sorry if that wasn't clear.  —SMALLJIM  15:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  Nope, no hints. I thought you were considering reverting, so was providing a list of the pages. =) Thank you however for the clarification. CycloneGU (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A user is posting spam in talk pages of others, possibly a malware link!

Resolved

 – NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the user User talk:Ahmad4d is posting messages to random users asking them to translate an "article" to some language. The link he posts is obviously not a wikipedia page, nor does it have anything to do with any sister projects. Please review this immediately! Sentient Planet (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of any malware at the link. What he's doing is spammy and perhaps not appropriate, but it looks like he might genuinely be wanting people to help him with translations - there's already English and Arabic at the site -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I know we should assume good faith, but he (or it? possibly a bot?) acted very suspiciously. Sentient Planet (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked indefinitely. He's trying to get people to do translations for his website as B!sZ says. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the block at first, but now I think that Ironholds made the right decision. We don't want people to come to Wikipedia and randomly solicit them for off-wiki assistance (and it would have to be done off-wiki to avoid copyvios). Whatever the intention, this is spam. -- Atama頭 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki (email) legal threat

I have received an off-wiki legal threat in an email from a user; the threat is against a third user whom xe is having a dispute. The relevant quote is, "What I can assure you is this, I have made copies of the screens and ongoing acts by <username redacted> will simply be sent to my attorney. I personally have better things to do with my life than to be cyber attacked and threaten with arbitrary and capricious standards." I am unclear how I can proceed; the LT should result in an immediate block, but I'm not sure that I can send/post the e-mail per privacy issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

When I think about it more, I guess that technically WP:NLT doesn't apply, since the user didn't actually attempt to "chill" discussions, since it was made strictly off-wiki, unless the user also sent the same email to the third user as they sent to me. Still, this does seem like a problem that should be dealt with. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be actionable, as threatening you with a lawsuit anywhere still chills discussion. (Why'd you want to discuss it if you might be sued?) However, if I were the blocking admin, I'd probably ask for some proof in private of the email in question, to prevent a block solely on word-of-mouth.

This is all just me speculating, of course. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I'm not the one being threatened with a lawsuit, it's a third editor. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if I'm next on the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's off-wiki I'm not sure what you expect an admin to do about it. Admins have no jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

NLT states: "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing". The legal threats in question need not be on Wikipedia itself, so long as the dispute is related to Wikipedia. We've blocked for off-wiki activities plenty of times, in particular harrassment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, would you like to fwd the email on to me. As thumperward says, it is probably something we would block for. I do not think there is a privacy issue here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a bit of an over-reaction, and I'd like to make sure it doesn't jump up and bite us. "I'm going to contact my attorney" sounds like bluster, but I don't view it as a legal threat. "I'm going to sue" does qualify, but that isn't what was said. Access to legal counsel is an important right; suggesting that someone can be blocked simply for contacting an attorney might be construed as an unreasonable threat by us. I don't have a problem with the notion that we block is someone actually takes a legal threat, the theory being that the legal remedies should be pursued but not on wiki, however, I think we should take at face value that a statement about contacting an attorney is an attempt to determine if there is a need to pursue a legal course, not the start of a legal course. I really think it is bluster, and I'll bet that any decent attorney will respond that the editor has nothing actionable, but absent an actual intent to start legal proceed sings, I'd prefer not to inadvertently provide fuel to a fire by blocking for merely indicating an intention to talk to an attorney.

I'll go further. An indication that someone plans to talk to an attorney should receive a response like "Please do, they are likely to let you know that this isn't a legal matter. In the case that they do tell you there is an actionable claim, and you choose to pursue it, then it must be done off-wiki. Let us know if you plan to pursue a legal action, in which case you will be blocked per policy so that the resolution can continue off-wiki."--SPhilbrickT 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't immediately explain the consequences of what would happen if such a pursuit is made (otherwise he'll obviously say he's not pursuing anything and could be hiding behind the truth). I'd indicate that if it is stated that he is pursuing legal matters. Also, regarding the jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia comment: it IS within Wikipedia. It was done using Wikipedia e-mail functions sent to an e-mail address of a registered user on Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Everyone has the right to consult a lawyer if they believe they have the need to, but no one has the right to tell others they are doing so, and continue to edit here, since the only possible purpose in doing so is to attempt to gain some sort of advantage over another editor, typically in some kind of dispute. We just don't allow it, it's a fairly bright-line offense. Talk to a lawyer if one must, but don't broadcast the fact on-wiki (or thru-wiki), because a block will be forthcoming (or should be). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I second this interpretation. A block for violating WP:NLT is in order, along with a well-worded explanation by an uninvolved editor (I'd do it myself but I do not have access to the email in question; feel free to forward it to me if you'd like me to take care of it.) -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Their response to the block appears to be a legal threat against the blocking admin. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Have we ever determined who the user was? I don't see it here. CycloneGU (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Found it. So now it's documented here. CycloneGU (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Beyond my Ken I am not yet convinced. You called it a bright-line offense, so I reread WP:NLT and I don't see the clear wording. The policy says if one makes a legal threat, one will be blocked. That policy doesn't define "legal threat" but it does link to Legal threat. At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, that's a link to an unreliable source. Seriously, I don't think we should have a rule with the status of policy that doesn't define the most critical term on its own page, and instead, refers to a page anyone can edit. But let's skip that for now. The definition is: A legal threat is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party. Saying that information will "simply be sent to my attorney" is not a bright line violation of that sentence. In fact, I don't think it is a violation, but at best it is gray. The article does go on to say that "will refer the matter to legal counsel." constitutes a legal threat, but:

1. It is not perfectly clear that this statement meets the definition
2. It can be argued that "refer to legal counsel" is clear shorthand for "I'm going to sue" but asserting one will send information to an attorney isn't quite the same.

After seeing the "will refer the matter to legal counsel." I concede the issue is grayer than I originally thought, but I had read WP:NLT several times and not seen it (because it isn't there.) As a community, we might decide that telling someone you've talked to an attorney is a legal threat, but if we do, we should clearly spell it out. It isn't obvious, and it is most definitely not a bright line violation.--SPhilbrickT 00:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A legal threat is an attempt to intimidate. If the OP is feeling intimidated, then it qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, that is not an acceptable rule. Some people get the vapors if you use a strong word. One cannot have a policy that allows blocks to be given solely on the feelings of the recipient of a message. We need rules that impartial editors could enforce based upon observable evidence.--SPhilbrickT 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• His intent was obvious. Even without saying "I'm going to take legal action", the implication was very clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Even if he didn't intend to make a legal threat, even if he thought he was only venting, saying anything that resembles "I am talking to my lawyers" is an implicit legal threat, de facto. I see no other way to interpret it. Sphilbrick's interpretation is untenable, as it provides unwarranted wiggle-room and defangs the policy entirely. Anyone who did not intend to make a legal threat can simply retract their words, and their block (in the vast majority of cases) is lifted. Given that, a bright line is entirely justified to protect the community from cohersion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Support blocking. It is a thinly-veiled legal threat, plain and simple, meant to chill editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeated removal of tags

We have a user here, Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs), who has taken the liberty of quoting 9th and 10th century primary works and presenting his own WP:OR as undisputed facts in articles on early Islam (around 80 articles under Category:Battles of Muhammad). While the OR tag could be used, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Hadith also suggests using the Template:hadith authenticity tag on such articles:

"Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith – if they don't, then consider adding Template:Hadith authenticity."

which I did and explained in the edit summary and this article's talk page. Misconceptions2 responded by removing the tag twice (here and here) without any sort of agreement, claiming that it's not a WP policy and claimed that those primary sources have not been verified. We actually do have many works on verifying the works he cited, but consider what he's saying: that because we don't have any verification of those events , then let's just assume they did occur and present them as facts, because, they were never verified !

Given his history of getting blocked for edit-warring, systematic bias and misrepresentation of sources in Islamic articles which got him banned multiple times (one of which was indefinite) and given my recent experience with him (here and here where he repeatedly removed POV and OR tags I added (here, here, here)), I urge the admins to do more than just saying "sort it on the talk page". I've been creating talk pages and raising my concerns there, but Misconceptions2 doesn't seem to respect that.

Note: those primary works narrate events that allegedly occured at the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his companions; each single event is reported with its chain of narration (the men who transmitted the reports) which is later used by hadith scholars to assess the reliability of the report (authentic, sound, fabricated or weak). In summary, Misconceptions2's edits are problematic not only because of the clearly WP:OR issues, but also in the way he attributes those events to the medieval writers as if they approved of everything they had written down. It is known that medieval Muslim scholars included the list of narrators when reporting an event so the reader can later check it's assessment (using the principles of hadith studies).

Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - Misconceptions2 has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and socking - not for any of the reasons given by Al-Andalusi, which are essentially a content dispute relating to the use of particular sources. Nobody is going to block an editor because they have differing views on the use of Islamic scriptures. Also, Misconceptions2 has a point - if there is a question about the authenticity of a source, just tagging the article is pretty useless. Address the issue in the article through secondary sources that discuss it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring because of a dispute over the handling of sources, which is very similar to the case I'm experiencing. I will comply with what you've suggested, and add to the talk page a secondary source discussing the assessment of the reports, after which I see no reason to have the tag removed from the article until the issue is addressed. For now, I have added the OR tag to the article. Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather unhelpful complaint which does not require admin intervention. The two editors just need to learn how to talk to each other without winding each other up. Al-A attempting to win the debate by bringing up past block logs is not really acting in good faith. The "Template:Hadith authenticity" issue isn't presented honestly either: as Al-A quotes, the page says (my bold) "consider adding Template:Hadith authenticity". Al-A didn't do this - he simply tagged a large number of pages, which were linked only by M2 having created them (I think). See Template_talk:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad#Hadith_reliability - Al-A has been asked several times exactly why he thinks all these articles should have been tagged, and doesn't provide any satisfactory reply William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But I do agree that the articles grouped around Template:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad aren't really satisfactory William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the reasons have not convinced you, but you cannot claim that I haven't provided any explanation for adding the tag (which I did Template talk:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad#Hadith reliability and Talk:Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)#Hadiths assessment). So I find your accusation of "dishonesty" to be disturbing and wrong. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't claim you hadn't provided *any* explanation. I said Al-A has been asked several times exactly why he thinks all these articles should have been tagged, and doesn't provide any satisfactory reply. Which remains true: you tagged a large number of articles, and still haven't provided a *satisfactory* answer as to *why*. At one point this issue was so urgent that you reverted the tags back in after they were removed, but now the tags are out and you haven't even tried to explain why you want them in, article by article. Which is why I say you're not presenting the issue *honestly*: you're giving a very partisan account of the dispute William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you claim that my reasoning was not satisfactory and was rejected when you haven't even made a single contribution on the talk page of the disputed article to which I recently I added the tag (see this revision of the talk page on July 15, a day before I raised the issue to the incidents board. William replies on the incidents board a day after the fact, and claims that my introduction of the tag to the mentioned article hasn't addressed any his questions or concerns, when he didn't even take part of the discussion. Please note that despite the multiple times this board's report has linked to the disputed article and its associated talk page, William only came to know of what we is being discussed...just today. This was his first and only contribution to the talk page section on the hadith tag.

So maybe William needs to explain his inaccurate account of the article's dispute which has misled others, instead of falsley (and hypocritically) accusing others of not being honest. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You mass-tagged a pile of articles: 20? 30? I lost count. The primary discussion was at Template_talk:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad#Hadith_reliability - splitting the discussion onto multiple article pages would have been unreasonable. But as to Talk:Expedition_of_Ghalib_ibn_Abdullah_al-Laithi_(Al-Kadid): your explanation there isn't satisfactory either. I've left questions for you that you still haven't answered. It would be better if you could try and sort these issues out on the article talk page rather than coming here William M. Connolley (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You left the "questions" on the talk page 2 days after this incident report, and 2 days after you wrote here claiming that your questions haven't been answered. In other words, you misled the admins. We're still looking an explanation for the dishonest account. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Al-A, if you can find a reliable source discussing the authenticity of a specific quote. then add it. i dont mind giving some information about the authenticity of the quotes in the articles. Whenever i can do that, i will. I have done that for the Expedition of Usama bin Zayd article. But i can not do that all the time, as it is hard to find reliable sources discussing the authenticity of non famous quotes. there are just to many quotes of muhammad from various books out there, and not all are notable, such that people have discussed its authenticity. Usually if its from a book which has a reputation of being authentic e.g Sahih Bukhari then the quote is considered authentic. Sunni's consider Sahih Bukhari authentic but shia's dont (because its a sunni book). Whats the point of mentioning something like "Sunni's consider quotes from Sahih Bukhari authentic, shia's dont, Christians are neutral"?. It should be mentioned in the Sahih Bukhari article itself, not the article which quotes from it.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Lost users Rlevse, BarkingMoon

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

Nothing for an admin (or anyone else) to do at this point. 28bytes (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Unfamiliar with Admin things, I don't know if this is the right place to post a late comment to the archived so-called investigation. Wikipedia lost a promising contributor over this, BarkingMoon. What I read hardly deserves the name investigation. I remember Wikipedia losing another valuable contributor, Rlevse. Both have in common that they went out of their way to support my work. The dialogue with both was completely different, though. You can investigate my talk, if you like. But even if the mind behind the two was the same, I wouldn't see a problem. - Back to content. I wish I could notify the subjects of this. I miss them, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You can perhaps e-mail BarkingMoon, that is still there. Reading what happened on his page, however, makes me sick that we are badgering a great contributor over something that he says he has no involvement with. Was an SPI really that necessary? CycloneGU (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! "Makes me sick" is well said. No, I can not e-mail BarkingMoon, but keep the talk updated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your kind thoughts and deeds Gerda, but I don't think there's really anything that can be done here. I suspect that neither editor has any desire to return to such a hostile environment at this time. We have a few folks that delight in keeping the elite "status quo", and spend time bullying folks off "their" pedia. Sad as that is, I just don't have an answer to it. I suppose we just work on the things we enjoy, and try to ignore what can't be changed, and try to change the things we can. You are of course always welcome to ping me if you need a hand with something (although your knowledge of classical music is far above mine.) .. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Trust me...if anyone ever tries that with me, they will see (or rather, feel) my Wikifist down their Wikithroats. I do not take such treatment lightly. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It just shows the state of the community. Things are becoming less about actually working on an encyclopedia and more about getting one up on other users. It's also easy to treat other people like **** when you're doing it over the internet. The users who were involved in that SPI should be ashamed of themselves. Silverseren^C 23:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Rlevse is welcome to return under his own name by undoing his "RTV" departure. But WP:RTV is not an appropriate prelude to restarting under a new name, WP:CLEANSTART. Due to some issues that needn't be discussed here, it would not be appropriate for Rlevse to return to editing under "clean start" without disclosing his prior account. When BarkingMoon departed it had not been definitely determined that he was Rlevse, but considerable evidence pointed to that connection. I think this thread is likely to just stir up issues that are better left undisturbed.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The bureaucracy this project has placed on contributing to a user-generated content site is amazing. Juliancolton (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep! Writing articles would be so much easier it if it weren't for NPOV, V, NOR, and all those other pesky rules. ;)   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining verifiability to avoid real-life harm and the dissemination of misinformation is hardly comparable to "a user can come back under THISALLCAPSANCRONYM but absolutely not THISONE". Not a knock at you, just something I've been wanting to say. Juliancolton (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll add a +1 to JC's comments. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree w/Beback's initial comment in this string. We have better things to waste time on than this.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What admin assistance is being requested here? If none, this thread should be closed. Night Ranger (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rlevse is welcome to return under his own name by undoing his "RTV" departure. But WP:RTV is not an appropriate prelude to restarting under a new name, WP:CLEANSTART. Thanks for clarifying what your rules are. Later all. — Ched :  ?  14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the policies, get them changed or leave. Don't abuse your position of trust by abusing others who actually think that policies should be followed. You demean yourself and all admins when you do. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case, if Rlevse wants to come back, then he would have to address the multiple instances of plagiarism he has engaged in, which was what pretty much started all this in the first place. –MuZemike 17:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This thread should be closed. Unless the user who started this thread has been given an indication by one or both of the subjects that they would like to return and were looking for views about under what circumstances it would be acceptable (in which case, MuZemike has already pointed to one of the main things which need to be addressed), we're wasting our time on a hypothetical that is unlikely to become a real situation for a long time (if ever). And if the preliminary comments are anything to go by, it'll just lead to more unnecessary and unjustified tension. Someone close it already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Giornorosso redux - more of the same and then some

• Giornorosso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous discussion threads:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive679#Requesting_block_for_editor_making_overtly_racist_edits
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Overtly_racist_edits_redux
3. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giornorosso/Archive
4. User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_32#User:Giornorosso_IP_still_not_blocked.3F
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive685#Question_regarding_overtly_racist_editor_and_recidivist_sockpuppeteer
6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive155#85.162.27.170_reported_by_Severino_.28Result:_Rangeblocked_1_week.29
7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive702#User:Thonos.27s_offensive_userbox

I am still puzzling over why the IP of a user indef blocked for pushing a racist POV was left unblocked even after being checkusered as part of a sockpuppetry investigation, but User:Tiptoety, the checkuser, seems to be on an extended break. The IP was blocked for a week only after my direct request to Tiptoety and then subsequently blocked again for 3 months following a second sockuppetry investigation. That block has now expired and it is evident by the recent contributions that the same user is still in control of the IP.

The IP asked admin User:Thryduulf to edit a semi-protected article on their behalf. That request was done without question. Without meaning to suggest any wrongdoing on Thryduulf's behalf, I find it surprising that an IP with a block log such as this can so easily get someone to proxy for them. Note that User:Thonos, who is identified as a Giornorosso sockpuppet, participated in a talkpage discussion] related to that exact edit, as did an IP (User:196.216.56.18) who shares Giornorosso's obession with rape statistics.

Would someone mind giving User:90.177.208.162 a long block? I would suggest that a checkuser look for new accounts created from this IP. Thanks. Incidentally, User:Dezidor (who was briefly blocked as a sockpuppet for making identical edits to Giornorosso) is quite evidently pushing a similar viewpoint, albeit with slightly more subtlety. This edit is particularly telling (note the misleading edit summary as well). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This untrue accusation again? I really hope that this was close when blocking admin apologized me for his incorrect block. You are not true, again, when you claim that we have similar viewpoint. I am NOT Gaddafi supporter [13]. No way. I am not also support of anti-Gaddafi forces but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I also do not agree with some another edits that Giornorosso made, often only a provocative without serious content. On the other hand I strongly disagreed that he was blocked by Jpgordon without previous shorter block after one year of editing at English Wikipedia. It was unfair political decision. I also pointed that he made series of uncontroversial and useful edits at Czech Wikipedia from which I know his name. In his legitimate content disputes he was sometimes right (and there was no reason to delete his edits) and sometimes wrong. --Dezidor (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that you are a sockpuppet of Giornorosso. You are really a footnote to this, but I think the links offered in this discussion of your addition of "white nationalists" to Wikiproject Conservatism will show your POV adequately. If not, your contribution history speaks for itself, should anyone care to take a look. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the edit I made, I read the request and agreed with the user that the statement that very strongly implied that all child pornography is a record of child abuse was not appropriate for the lead of the article, so I made the edit. I explained fully on the talk page why [14]. I did not look at who the user was, the request was clearly focused on improving the encyclopaedia article and based on the talk page did not appear to be controversial. I don't recall having interaction with the user before, so I saw no need to investigate further. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

“beating people over the head”

Resolved

 – No admin action needed, trouts should be sufficient. If not, WQA. 28bytes (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Four days ago User:TenPoundHammer nominated the article lump sum for deletion.

Fair enough. But when a good faith contributor suggested the article could be improved, their response was mocking and counterproductive, they wrote: “Improve with what? Hope the Article Fairy sprinkles her pixie dust on it and turns it into an FA overnight? Get a grip on reality.”

After four days they did withdraw the nomination. But, in doing so, they congratulated themselves, writing: ...once again I have to beat people over the head to get an article fixed.

I don`t think any of us should feel they should start by “beating people over the head”. I don`t think this merits self-congratulation. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like an appropriate topic for the Administrators Noticeboard, since there is apparently nothing here that requires sysop tools to handle. Perhaps a better place for this would be WP:WQA or WP:DRN. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a clear Wikiquette issue. Use WP:WQA. I myself am familiar with TPH through multiple situations (including a twice-prodded and nominated for deletion article, which was kept); he means well but comes across gruff, demeaning, or just plain rude at times. If you submit a WQA, I'll watch it as I want to know what's behind this one. CycloneGU (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Cyclone. I actually congratulated Ten for withdrawing his nom (on his talk page), as not all editors have the ability to re-assess their nominations. But the wikiquette issue is a valid one, at the same time.

And indeed, his behavior was not the worst there -- that would be the editor who, with nearly unanimous opinion against him at the AfD, has now tag-bombed the article with three tags .... w/regard to precisely the same refs that nom and the rest of us (including Ten) found compelling! See lump sum and the related talk page discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I strike that closing comment and reclose it with a proper comment? CycloneGU (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(I've since trouted him for the negative closing comment. CycloneGU (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC))

Is it valid to close an AFD discussion solely because the nominator has changed his mind? There were valid 'delete' arguments. Shouldn't this be treated the same way as a sockpuppet-nominated AFD which has valid arguments? Personally I'm surprised that the nominator thought that the article had been "fixed". It now seems to be a DICDEF with two thoroughly random examples of use of the term. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, you're correct, it was not a valid close according to the letter of WP:NAC, since User:Hrafn and User:Cullen328 both had unwithdrawn delete !votes. But it probably would have been kept (if not snow-kept) sooner or later anyway. I'm not inclined to re-open it against the wishes of the nominator. 28bytes (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I also wasn't about to argue it. The nominator himself closed it, but his closing comment was improper, leading me to merely replace his comment. If the nominator wished to withdraw the nomination in the light of evidence the article should stay, then let him. CycloneGU (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Persistent vandal AIV won't block

Apparently AIV is in another "only block vandals doing childish graffiti" stage again.

Kalaua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Vandalism (including [15], [16], [17], [18]; and I suppose I should point out that there's plenty more than those that I don't feel like spending an hour digging through) and otherwise questionable edits. A final warning was given a week ago and the vandal stopped editing for several days. I suspect he thinks that doing so will prevent him getting blocked (and it's starting to look like that's a correct assumption). Based on the contributions I am almost certain this is a sock of known vandal and puppeteer Opc123 (talk · contribs), who had previously spent years damaging articles through numerous IPs.

This is simply a block request. It appears that over the couple months I've been less active, AIV has changed and is no longer the place to report vandalism that goes beyond just simple penis jokes. --Sable232 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you read WP:NOTVAND, and if you still think the above diffs show vandalism, explain which of the WP:VANDTYPES they fall under, because I'm not seeing vandalism in these diffs (with the possible exception of the blanking the redirect). - SudoGhost™ 00:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also notified the user for you. - SudoGhost™ 00:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As SudoGhost said, I'm not seeing a vandal here, other than the redirect blanking. Based on the editor's other, positive contributions I'm inclined to assume good faith, and you probably should too. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the user's contribs, I do not see a clear reason to block at this time. SQL^{Query me!} 01:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumably you mean "This is not simply a block request"

I declined your entry on AIV prior to deleting my, and your, comments (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=439867027&oldid=439866903). Either you're asking for a block via AIV - a block request - or you're not. It's good that you've taken it to a wider forum. I repeat that I see no vandalism in those edits; blanking the redirect could have been dealt with by asking the editor what they were doing, instead of a simple templated warning. I'd also like to see more evidence of your claimed "years of damage" from a sockpuppet who made no edits following the expiry of a 1 week block in December 2010. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only does Kalaua's edits appear to be valid, it appears that your preferred contributions per the current edit at time of writing is to include unreferenced promotional content - indeed your reversion of Kalaua's contributions appear to have been to re-include much of what might be described as "publicity bumf". Per suggestions above, not only might you take the time to learn what constitutes vandalism (hint; it is not "edits I don't like") but also what is encyclopedic and what is not. If there is an issue with a contributors edits, it appears to me that you are the editor who needs having their content reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's see... #1: Changing a valid link to point to a disambig. #2: Blanking a redirect. #3: deleting pronunciation info. #4: Removing an image and valid "see also" link.

How much evidence do I need to present? Go back to some of this user's earliest edits, removing referenced information with no rationale? Five talk page warnings from three different editors, and never a response, never an edit summary, never a change in behavior. Whether bad-faith or incompetence, it's disruptive nonetheless.

LHvU, the primary reason for my revert in the diff you linked was the changing of revenue from "11 billion" to "9,994 billion", the unexplained removal of content (content which to me does not appear to be any less includable than the preceding sentence which remained, there's a case to be made for removing the whole section) was secondary. At any rate, that particular revert was of a different user (I think). --Sable232 (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, you may want to read WP:NOTVAND. #1 is not vandalism. #2 is possibly vandalism. #3 is not vandalism. #4 is not vandalism. Have you tried discussing the edits with the user? - SudoGhost™ 05:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this went completely ignored tells me this user isn't interested in discussion. He could not possibly be unaware that his editing was disruptive but made no effort to explain his actions or change his behavior.

However, if the sneaky vandalism that I've spent a lot of my time trying to keep at bay is no longer frowned upon and the offending users free to disrupt (sorry if my use of "vandalism" as a synonym for "disruption" is offensive, it's never been a problem in the past) as they please, just say so and I'll gladly give up my rollback ability and clear out most of my watchlist. --Sable232 (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, why do good editors like you shoot themselves in the foot with such dramatic comments like this? If you're looking to block someone for a couple of extremely minor transgressions - ones that would be better dealt with by working with the editor, then you really take the cake: you're more hardnosed than any admin out there, and we get accused of being pretty heavy-handed with blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, should I open an SPI to demonstrate that this user's disruption goes beyond minor transgressions? I can't assume good faith on the part of someone who refuses to acknowledge issues with his edits, refuses to explain them, and creates a new account when too much heat comes down on the previous one.

I don't like getting people blocked. But I feel it's preferable to an endless string of reverts on unexplained disruptive edits from a user who refuses to respond. --Sable232 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't open anything. What you should do is accept that your own personal, singular interpretation of these events is unique to you and you alone, and that others do not agree with you. You have gotten the opinions of several people (to which you can add mine) that this situation does not represent vandalism, and does not show a blockable offense by the other person. Your best plan for the future is to do nothing at all, and forget this ever happened. Please read WP:DEADHORSE and come back if you find the text there confusing. --Jayron32 19:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Forget this ever happened?" What, have I stumbled upon some vast conspiracy that I'm in danger of breaking wide open?

This is downright insulting, that established editors will get chewed out and accused of acting in bad faith solely to keep from offending someone on the slim chance they're not being intentionally disruptive. I have never, ever, received this kind of treatment in the past as a result of simply making a routine AIV report.

Well, you win. I'm done trying to fight vandalism here. I don't know what changed in the past few months, but it sure wasn't for the better. --Sable232 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The user's edits do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for what is considered vandalism. That is why the user is not being blocked. If the responses came off as insulting, I assure you that was not the intention. This, however, was not constructive. I'm not sure what was trying to be accomplished there, but I think it may be best if you take a break for a day or two to cool down a bit, and then discuss with the user any issues you may have with any further editing by the user, opposed to templates that may not accurately describe any concerns. - SudoGhost™ 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rambling editor User:&Delta

Has WP:COMPETENCE issues, in any field. I won't say anything more because it will probably be a civility violation. Check his contributions if his user page is not convincing enough. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User notified.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• His contributions list is at Special:Contributions/&Delta. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is competence issues - has anyone ever given him a Welcome message with links to understand what and how to edit Wikipedia? Does he have a clue what belongs and what doesn't? Has anyone really tried to help? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• He has been editing for several years and has been on the receiving end of 3 AfDs. His only interest in WP is promoting his ideas and correcting other editors who in his opinion lack the expertise that he believes he has (I think that this diff sums it up well). He has often been advised about how we do things here but I can't see that he's ever addressed the issues directly. "Rambling" is indeed the correct term and "disruptive" might not be too wide of the mark either. andy (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm seeing discussion added to article [19], addition sourced only to a blog entry he wrote himself (and signed in an article) [20] (though I don't think it should have been reverted as "vandalism"), apparent opposition to reliable sources policy [21], pushing personal ideas [22] [23] (and many more), creation of articles that have been deleted as OR, SYNTH, etc, inc Micheal space, Quantum realism. All that, together with a look at his Talk page, suggests to me someone who doesn't have much clue what Wikipedia is for and isn't listening to people explaining it to him - and who has been trying to use it for several years to push his own rambling ideas on all sorts of topics. And he's clearly not the multidisciplinary expert he thinks he is. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Having looked at the Quantum Realism article (now deleted) and the interactions with other users, I would agree with B!sZ. There doesn't seem to be any prospect of a change. Mathsci (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

multiple (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) What administrator intervention is required here? What outcome is being sought? "You have been blocked for having unorthodox views and a somewhat difficult to understand prose style". That would apply to a lot of editors. And as for "disruptive" - 11 or so edits in the whole of 2011. Vandals and POV pushers can do 11 edits in a minute. I see only unnecessary WP:DRAMA here. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally in cases like this, topic bans can be imposed. That was the case for example with User:Terra Novus, who created similarly problematic articles. Mathsci (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there some journal started where people could publish new ideas for consideration? Perhaps he could be directed there.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's not about just "having unorthodox views", it's about using Wikipedia to push them - and the latest deleted article was just this month (and for non-admins who can't see it, it was rambling, unsourced, and blatantly OR). This editor is clearly not listening, even after several years - there may not be many edits in 2011 (20 including deleted ones), but they accounted for a lot of words and took up a fair bit of other people's time at AfD. And yes, topic bans can be imposed on editors who won't stop pushing their own personal theories - so perhaps something like a topic ban on theoretical physics? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This editor appears to have a fundamental, all be it benign, misunderstanding of Wikipedia's nature and purpose. The rambling is not so much the point as the belief that one of wiki's functions should be to host his ideas. I see nothing wrong in seeking admin intervention here. It is problematical that after all this time and all the friendly advice he has recieved he still edits like this and this, putting his OR into articles, signed by himself and referenced to his own blogs. Subject to anything he has to say here, either a topic ban on theoretical physics, or at least a ban on creating or editing theoretical physics articles would be in order.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

.. i beg to differ .. i DO know the purpose of Wikipedia .. as i understand the purpose of ANY encyclopedia.. but since you have already dismissed me as 'fringe'/'crackpot' and will delete any contributions i may have to offer,.. what's the point in contributing - even if they're valid? (when they'll be auto-deleted) it's very easy in our so-called 'modern society' to label and dismiss when we feel threatened.. as i've argued before, Wikipedia is a kind of 'front man' for convention (among many things) all these personal attacks against me and 'my ideas' (not really my ideas - they've been around a long time) could be seen as simply convention's inability to allow competing perspectives - today, science is VERY intolerant.. for several reasons.. one is funding: science will not get funded if they're seen as incompetent (just as Wikipedia will not get funded without being perceived as fulfilling a needed function) another is prestige which is tied to the former .. if scientists are seen as incompetent (they cannot provide evidence for Higgs - as an example), prestige is lost, funding is lost,.. it becomes a desperate spiral.. so these things are core to 'the politics of science' but largely unnoticed/unrecognized in 'circles of modern life' (except by those who don't get funding or conventional support) in regards to interactions with me 'and my ideas', Wikipedia has been a: label machine (label me and dismiss me),.. a very condescending and explicitly NON-respectful tone/attitude.. this is not objectivity (and so is not really part of science) but more the 'politics of science'.. and so, in regards to me and 'my ideas', Wikipedia is merely 'front man' for convention who wants: funding, prestige,.. ad nauseum am i surprised? no.. but i am a little disappointed in Wikipedia editors who cannot be a 'little bit' more objective, respectful, and open-minded .. i won't argue again why i think articles like these should 'stay up'.. i think everyone here understands my position on the purposes of encyclopedias.. if this above seems 'rambling' (another label editors seem to prefer to 'throw on me'), i believe that's just more of the same.. a kind of meaningless label/dismiss people do when they feel threatened/insecure.. if i get banned from posting anything on Wikipedia, i won't 'feel bad' .. again, just a little disappointed in Wikipedia and its editors who seem to prefer not to participate in science (or progress in science) .. this likely will be my last post .. ban at your convenience, sam micheal&Delta (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone here calling you 'fringe' or 'crackpot', and that's not what this report is about. And no, if you think an encyclopedia is for pushing progress in science, you are simply wrong - that is what scientific journals and other media that publish primary research are for. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and only includes material that is covered in some depth by reliable secondary sources, sufficient to demonstrate notability. It does not publish novel ideas, ideas sourced only to personal blogs, or material which is not supported by multiple reliable sources. If you want an outlet for furthering scientific progress or promoting your own ideas, you really will have to look elsewhere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to link to Wikipedia:No original research - please do try to gain an understanding of that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ, do we really have to keep putting up with this shit? This guy is a giant time-suck who's never made a constructive edit and is obviously never going to because he doesn't have the brains to figure out how. If he were really a scientist doing cutting-edge work in advanced theoretical physics, he'd know how to take that work to a legitimate goddamn scientific journal and get it published. He'd never waste his time trying to push it on Wikipedia. He'd also know how to compose a simple declarative English sentence with a capital letter at the beginning and a period at the end. Believe it or not, scientists have college degrees and do that all the time. How long are we going to let ourselves be jerked around by this loon.? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • What he said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I take that as support for the suggested topic ban?Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Swearing and insulting language, beyond comprehension

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

Boldly closing before this gets out of hand here. If an admin. disagrees with this, reopen at discretion. CycloneGU (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Our category system: Minority tagging User:AndyTheGrump said to another editor (not me) This Changed to link by -- DQ (t) (e) 18:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC). I dont care what someone else said to cause such language and their actions are not and should not be concerned here. Andy's consistent use of disparaging remarks, rude behavior, and continued use of foul language is ALL thought should matter. Andy has been warned several times about langauage and commenting on commentators instead of the topic. And it seems to be related almost exclusively to religious/ethnic/racial category discussions. Im fed up, and I dont want to see this continue, and I have said it before, and I'll say it again- comparision to User:Noleander abound in topic and attitude. Not accusing sockpuppetry, but showing that this is a very similar case and it shouldnt have to lead to ArbCom to do a topic ban. A 24 or three day block and a stern warning that further language will result in escallating punishments should suffice one would hope. But to allow Andy to continue only allows things to get worse as he continues to see he can get away with more and more drastic insults. Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The seemingly endless discussion on BLPN has now been closed. Hopefully, editors will respect the closure. Tempers ran a bit high based on the controversial nature of the subject matter under discussion. That doesn't excuse Andy's comments, but I find myself becoming inured to his grumpiness, even when it descends to this level. Of course, the editor on the receiving end may not be as used to them as others who've seen them many times before. I seriously doubt, though, that a warning or a block will do even a smidgen of good. I'm sure he's well aware of the issues and of what he's doing. He may even relish it just a bit. Finally, he's generally very focused on the integrity of the encyclopedia and his comments, albeit acerbic, are generally very insightful. I never thought I'd defend such blatant and gratuitous incivility, but there you are.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed (re: focus and the rest). I considered blocking but have left Andy a final warning instead. I don't know if that will do any good or not--when tempers flare, warnings are soon forgotten. Hey, Andy, if you're listening, STOP, or I'm going to call you a bad word. My wife teaches our kids to say "sorry"; perhaps you should take a page out of their book. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Excessive indeed. I would have blocked if I had seen a previous warning, but he's on tight ropes it looks like. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Delta, may I ask that if I see this behavior again that I come directly to you and can expect swift and fair action? You at least seem to see the severity of this. And there have been numerous informal admonitions against him, and I thought a non-templated warning on is on his talk page right now about incivility.Camelbinky (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And while I am not aware of WHY or for WHAT I do know Andy has been blocked at least once before, though I think it may have been more than once. This should be taken into consideration.Camelbinky (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's block log is here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• A preliminary response. I suggest that those reading this look at the context, and will have nothing further to say on the subject except in response to discussions that look at the said context, rather than ones based on dubious comparisons with other editors of whom I'm not being accused of being a sockpuppet for (nice try at guilt by association Cameklbinky, but it didn't work last time, so why do you think people will fall for it here?). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Andy, I am not comparing you to anything, and I did look at the context; in fact, I read most of it, and that's time I'll never get back. While I understand your frustration (let's call it that) with the editor, you can't say "fuck off troll"; it's as simple as that. DQ, there is a previous warning, and Andy is Grumpy often enough, but they've never been blocked for NPA or incivility per se. Camelbinky, that sock suggestion is silly (let's call it that; I'm trying to be nice to everyone) and shopping for a future block is in poor taste. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment about 'comparisons with other editors' was directed at Camelbinky, not at you Drmies. I should probably have made that clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Drmies beat me to it. A quote like that is just entirely uncivil, and is plenty of context by itself. CycloneGU (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be civil. As for why it wasn't, you need to look at the context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Context never matters with incivility. You simply cant insult people like that. Period. Talk about context all you want, it never matters what anyone says to you first. You're inability to grasp that basically ensures we'll see you here again. And yes, everytime I see you say things like what you said to ANYONE for ANY reason, I will bring it here. Plain and simple.Camelbinky (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in your opinions on this matter Camelbinky. I suggest you leave this discussion to people who don't use AN/I to try to get sanctions put on people with whom they have unrelated content disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Context always matters, regardless of what you're discussing. In some cases, something that would be unacceptable elsewhere can be excused because the editors in the thread had taken a clear path of joking with each other, or something along those lines. The degree of inappropriateness of the incivility is different if the response was made to an editor who was trying in good faith to express a contrary point of view or whether the thread was already was hostile. I'm not saying this excuses it, but it does change the severity. Andy was not the only person with dirty hands in this thread. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 19:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

For context look at the comments by others there: think I'm beginning to see what all this is really about now. Back to the closet, eh?, How about discussing real ones instead Lithuanian transvestite one-legged pole vaulters, just so we can gauge exactly what categories you consider 'ridiculous, CHRIST I HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS BY WOMEN OF COLOR THAT THIS ISSUE MATTERS. You will not let these women take part in these conversations because of canvassing policies! When I told women to take part, I was told by Wikipedians that I broke the rules, so I can solely only inform my friends of the conversations going on at this point without linking. They have told me to go on, but it's become so unbearable with people like you accusing me of being racist, of being a horrible person who is only trying to advance a political agenda, even relating a point I made personally when it had nothing to do with you and assuming I'm criticizing you. I'm not making this up. I am not patronizing you, you are patronizing me, and it's honestly fucked up that certain categorizations of people like disabilities and illnesses has never been nominated even though gender categories should be ignored. That is what I find messed up. If you want to ignore one type, you have to ignore it all and stop classifying people, period. , I don't know what paradise planet you're from, sure sounds like everybody are probably clones of each other and fart rainbows there though. Can I move there?, Why thank you for breezing in your majesty and pronouncing your verdict. Your vague patronizing statements of the superiority of your judgement make it abundantly clear that we are all so misguided. Especially when you are losing nothing in the process, Or does latent bigotry prevent you from seeing that? and so on and on and on. Unless accusing folks of "latent bigotry" is now acceptable, I suggest that Andy is far from the least civil participant! Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Andy was also insulted by the other user. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that Camelbinky would bring people here when they say idiotic and offensive things like "A simple class for you would help you get an introduction to cultures, because it's clear you know nothing at all..." rather than just finding the phrase "fuck off" insulting. On the plus side, Shakesomeaction's apparent familiarity with every detail of all cultures on the planet should mitigate any potentially negative effects of a phase like "fuck off" written by a member of the minority on Wikipedia who use such words. I expect them to arrive to defend Andy any minute now. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Collect and Rob. Not that I've ever understood the daily variations of "civility enforcement", but it seems insane to single out Andy as having crossed some imaginary line when the entire tone of the discussion was so poor. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After I finally got the discussion at BLPN to close, it's now moved over here so we can rehash every back-and-forth barb. Kudos to Rob for supporting the closure at BLPN. Can you close this one, too, Rob?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record I have never had a content dispute with Andy since he and I dont edit the same articles! And I'm sick of this culture at AN/I of "bloody the witness". ArbCom threw out and squashed the very beginnings of any such "well so and so did this" crap at the Noleander case and eventually if AN/I doesnt stand up this will go the same way and good luck trying to bloody me at ArbCom because Noleander's "defence team" wasnt able to do it there back then. Some names here seem awfully familar btw, gee wonder why. You want other's to be held accountable, start a thread on each one. This one is about Andy's actions, and his alone. Which hey, let's go to Jimbo's page and ask him about swearing at editor's on the project he created. I know his position on swearing, I'd love for him to be asked for his opinion on this matter. I wont because then I'll be accused of forum shopping and canvassing (both of which Jimbo has made clear is never a charge applicable to coming to his talk page and asking for his opinion) so if someone wants to do that. But I know many of you dont care or think it is relevant what he thinks. Just throwing out that there's plenty of people who take this type of comments seriously, among which is the "first among equals".Camelbinky (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: No matter what the reason or context, if This isn't crossing the line of WP:UNCIVIL then nothing does. Dolovis (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Additional discussion

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

IP remarks - hopefully this is over now. CycloneGU (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

This thread just shows how fucked up WP:CIVIL. Things have gotten so bad that that alleged policy should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.140.185.250 (talk • contribs)

Though it didn't make it back onto the page here, a final warning was issued by another admin, and I added additional comments beyond that. Andy acknowledged that he should have handled it differently on his talk page. This was not swept under the rug. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

BULLSHIT. That's exactly what happened here. 112.140.185.249 (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I recommended to the user who created this thread that this was not an AN/I issue, and that if he wanted to pursue anything further to take it to WP:WQA as a Wikiquette issue. The fact that he didn't means that he either felt it was not worth pursuing, or the issue was resolved. I will now close this as well. CycloneGU (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Range block request

Resolved

 – IP range blocked for 2 wks. --Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• 98.85.0.22 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 98.85.11.45 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 98.85.4.137 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 98.85.6.22 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

The above IPs (these are just the ones I know about) are all part of a Bell South range. They all make similar edits to film articles, usually intentionally altering runtimes and grosses. They get blocked, but they keep coming back. The most recent block was for 11.145, imposed by Edgar181. Edgar's rationale made it clear that he understood there are multiple IPs involved. The damage these IPs do to the encyclopedia is considerable, and it would be useful to find a more efficient way of blocking them. However, I realize that a range block is a significant intrusion on any IPs in the range that might want to edit constructively. Thus, my request is a tentative one, to see if there are any options that are palatable and yet more effective than the current single blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A range block is not an unreasonable request. Anyone who wants to edit within the range can register an account and thus avoid being a part of the block. Also, I see 98.85.11.45 is currently blocked. I've looked at some diffs. as well and they are mostly vandalism. One or two might be legit., but it's so little and with all the vandalism who knows what is actually true without references. CycloneGU (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the edits are actually removing references. Pretty much all the edits coming from that range for the last month are unsourced changes or outright vandalism. I am gonna range block 98.85.0.0/20 for two weeks and we'll see if that's long enough for them to tire of the game. --Diannaa (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a place where range blocks are listed?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A list of all rangblocks can be found at Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks, which is updated once per week. This particular rangeblock can be seen here. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 94.156.40.82 at the Eye color and Blond articles

This IP continues to remove reliably sourced content from the Eye color article and replaces it with his or her own original research for reasons such as "It's impossible for Ukrainian Jews to have over 50% blue eyes when it's not that common even among native Ukrainians. Also, who is the fool who believes that 99% of Estonians have blue eyes? People, please be more critical with your sources. [24][25]. However, what the IP believes is disputed by Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen in this source. Eiberg is also cited by better sources (as in non-news sources) for other pieces in the article. And here, at the Blond article, after I'd reverted the IP because the content he or she added was unsourced, the IP restored the content, simply saying: "This information is more accurate, trust me." It's also clear that the IP is not willing to listen on this matter; before reverting me, the IP simply removed my message from his or her talk page and replaced it with the simple message "I hear you."

Considering that this user is an IP and the only way to stop him or her would be to block the IP (which usually cannot be done for a long period of time without affecting all others who may be using the IP address), I'd say these articles may need semi-protection. The Blond article gets more than enough vandalism and dubious edits as it is. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just the one guy, so page protection is not the way to go. I will take a shot at talking to them on their talk page. If the behaviour persists, please report back here or at the vandalism notice board. --Diannaa (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:JesseRafe refuses to follow WP:V

User:JesseRafe has been adding information cited to unreliable sources to the article The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons multiple times (see the history page of that article). User:Gran2 has thoroughly explained the issue to the user at User_talk:JesseRafe#The_Two_Mrs._Nahasapeemapetilons, but JesseRafe is refusing to follow the WP:V policy because he thinks it is wrong. Gran2 suggested that JesseRafe take it up on the policy talk page, but he didn't, and continued to re-add the information to the article. I think some admin intervention is required here (I'm involved so I'm taking a step back). Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, Wikipedia takes verification seriously now? It stopped willfully ignoring a massive problem because 'it gets in the way'? That's great! So then those 250,000 unsourced articles are an illusion?

If the user is being disruptive, apply a block. If not, failing to verify information puts the user in, if not a majority, a solid plurality. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuously adding information cited to unreliable sources (despite warnings) to WP:DOH's Good articles, that we have spent an enormous time writing, is disruptive. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So, the sources that are in the article now: reliable or not? If not, remove the sentence and I'll tell JesseRafe that readdition will be grounds for a block. If they are, well I think we would be done here. NW (Talk) 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources are reliable so I'll revert the edit. If you could do that I'd really appreciate it! Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the material can not be referenced or cited. It is a joke, and it is an explanation of the joke. The Simpsons is famous for its parody titles, and the average viewer might not be familiar with 1940s cinema. How can one possibly cite the "getting it" goal of a joke? I searched for the first joke I could think of that would likely have its own page, and succeeded with The Aristocrats (joke). I read all the material in the Notes and none of it explained the idea of the joke as it was explained [accurately] in the article. This is my point about references to jokes, that those who get it all get it equally in quantity and quality and those that don't don't. If someone had heard about The Aristocrats or the joke itself but did not get it and was too embarrassed to ask or something of that nature, reading the wikipedia article on it would do a job of explaining it. Even though it's unsourced, it's accurate. And if there were someone explaining it, would that make it a source -- or just that person's opinion/orginal research?

Not everything can be found in a peer-reviewed academic journal (and even then, it might not be reliable, see: The Sokal Affair), and the majority of these sources are just people's opinions. So, if some comic explains the comedy behind The Aristocrats, is it a source or is it his opinion or his original research or what? Long and the short of it, I don't think jokes can be cited to references explaining them, and the pun in the title of an episode of the Simpsons is a lot more substantial/important to the article than a random bit of unsourced Trivia which could be found on the IMDb page, but would not belong in the wikipedia article.JesseRafe (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As per Sven Manguard, I am clearly not being disruptive. I am adding more information. A simple, single sentence. I am not undoing anyone's work. I am improving the article with good-faith efforts, and providing people with more information than they might otherwise have access to, or know how to go about obtaining. JesseRafe (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You completely misinterpreted what I said. I said that the simple act of adding unsourced information is not something that the community terribly cares about. It's unfortunate, but true. The original complaint was boilerplate-esque, and I was telling him that boilerplate-esque WP:V complaints were in and of themselves not something particularly actionable without disruption. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that just not how Wikipedia works. No matter how accurate your information is, you must be able to back it up with a reliable source otherwise it can't be included. If you can find a reliable source that says the name of the episode is a reference to The Two Mrs. Carrolls, then you can add it. But if you continue to revert without providing a reliable source, it will lead to a block. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You are still not addressing the issue. One, I believe I wrote on Gran2's page about other random Simpsons article with unsourced statements. Why not remove all of them. Two, you have not established how I have been "disruptive" - read this again:

"Oh wait, Wikipedia takes verification seriously now? It stopped willfully ignoring a massive problem because 'it gets in the way'? That's great! So then those 250,000 unsourced articles are an illusion?

If the user is being disruptive, apply a block. If not, failing to verify information puts the user in, if not a majority, a solid plurality. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)" JesseRafe (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have explained how you have been disruptive: You have been violating Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you have no explained how I have been disruptive. You have claimed that I violated the verifiability policy, but you have no explained how this qualifies as a "disruption". I have not interfered with anybody's edits or content, therefore I have not "ruptured" or "broken apart" the article or otherwise created a "disruption" -- you are misinterpreting the gist behind what Sven Manguard suggested, and you superseded the edits that NW made as per this discussion. In fact, you are causing a disruption, but I am not name-calling. JesseRafe (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As a result of you adding the unreliable sources, you have lowered the standard of the article. If the sources were to be kept, the article would no longer meet the Good article criteria and lose its Good article status. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• This seems to be a content dispute, and not something for Administrator action.
• Perhaps the addition could be rephrased in a way that it is included but in a way that is verifiable. See, for example The_Two_Mrs._Carrolls#Cultural_references. I'll add this last comment to the article's talk page.

Cheers. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:The_Two_Mrs._Nahasapeemapetilons#Content_dispute_re_episode_title

Regarding the comment that the issue isn't being addressed: saying other articles have unsourced statements is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and not really valid to the discussion. If there are unsourced statements and you attempt to verify them, but are unable to, you can legitimately remove them. Just go ahead. And that's not a challenge; that's a WikiFact.

I was going to boldly close this, but I'll leave it in case Jesse has further questions. CycloneGU (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a content dispute on a Good Article, then the GA needs to be delisted as it now fails WP:GACR#5 as it is no longer stable and changes significantly due to a content dispute. –MuZemike 23:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

May I also ask why this was not brought up at all on Talk:The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons until after it was brought here? –MuZemike 23:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't brought up on the talk page because the discussion took place on JesseRafe's talk page. There wasn't really any point in starting a discussion at the talk page since the only people who would contribute to the discussion would be me, Gran2 and JesseRafe. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Third opinion or WP:RFC are still options to amicably resolve the issue. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The article's edit history seems to support that the article does not currently meet WP:GACR#5. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

An article isn't delisted from GA just because a user decides to ignore policy on it for a couple days. And Jesse, it really doesn't matter at all what other Simpsons articles look like. Nor does it matter that there are millions of other articles with poor sourcing. You still cannot add Wikipedia content sourced to IDMB, fan sites, and Wikipedia mirrors. Doing so is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy, not a proper content dispute. NW (Talk) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin conduct review requested

Fæ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I'm requesting a review of Fæ's recent poor conduct, and request that steps be taken to prevent more of the same or further escalation. Hopefully that means just a cautionary word from someone uninvolved; I'm not out for blood, just a less hostile editing environment. The poor behavior falls into three categories:

• constant personal attacks and comments about editors;
• disruptive editing;
• inappropriate templating and warning of editors;

Full disclosure: we're presently in a content dispute on a controversial BLP article, and the rhetoric and tempers have risen a bit on all sides, but never to this level; review of my own actions is welcome, especially with regard to Fæ's many unsubstantiated mischaracterizations of my motivations.

• Onslaught of unwarranted personal attacks and mischaracterizations:

"...you seem to be on a mission to disrupt ... You have made no positive steps ... Your polemic is tiresome ... your blanking of sourced material without clear explanation ... Your question appears so trivial ... nitpicking here to stop any progress ... look like trolling to me ... forget how to use Google? ... your opinion is starting to look rather irrelevant ... you do realize that nobody put you in charge here don't you? ... repeatedly saying the equivalent of "I don't like it" to everyone else's suggestions ... Nobody died and put you in charge ... Your problem with ownership of this article has been blatantly apparent ... after it was tampered with by Xenophrenic by being misleadingly indented ... your recent contribution to this article appears to introduce nothing but promotional bias to this article and is disruptive ... You appear to be keen to edit war ... your question appears trollish ... it is apparent that you have a problem with ownership of the article ... your continued off-putting and trivial challenges to other potential contributors ... it would help if rather than trolling other editors, you could positively propose text ... you are promoting her books by cherry picking quotations ... persistently introducing bias to Wikipedia articles or disrupting a consensus building process ... worryingly stalker-ish and rather threatening.

• Disruptive editing:

After declaring "...I'm not terribly interested in proposing new content...", and, "I have no intention of wasting my time proposing detailed alternative text for this article if it is likely to be endlessly nitpicked over", s/he threatened to correct a perceived "imbalance" in the article through massive deletions. S/he then carried out that threat, making 16 edits over a 30 minute period starting with this one, that deleted considerable content and tagged even more content with various citation-needed tags. S/he then went to related articles and stuck 'PROD' tags on them (here); requested deletion of image files from the article (here). Deleting and tagging is not a problem in itself, when justified, but most of these edits were not justified -- sources were already cited in the article; articles about best selling books don't need to be deleted, etc. Not a single addition of new content, so it all seemed to me to be more pointy than productive. When I asked for an explanation of some of the edits, I was told I wasn't getting an explanation here.

• Inappropriate templating/warning of experienced editors for:

Removing templates (here); Tampering with comments (here); Violating 3RR (here); and then when I delete the warning templates, referring to them as "possible harassment", I get yet another admonition to use a "recognized process" rather than edit summaries (here), referring me to the Help Desk(!). Looking for a bit of help to put the brakes on this mess before it becomes serious. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First, thank you for a well-formatted post with links to the issues you're concerned about. It's a refreshing change from the all-too-frequent vauge and hand-wavy complaints. (Here comes the but.) But... What admininistrative action are you looking for? If "a good talking to" is it, then this board might be a good place for it. Beyond that, it's the other dispute channels, I think. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

He is "requesting a review of Fæ's recent poor conduct, and request that steps be taken to prevent more of the same or further escalation". Sounds like a review of the administrator in question involving discussion here. But I agree that other channels could be involved for specifics. CycloneGU (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the user was notified, so I went ahead and notified Fæ of this discussion. - SudoGhost™ 03:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The user was notified with this template, but your additional notification certainly won't hurt! Thank you for the assist. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I missed it, being tagged to the end of the edit war section. - SudoGhost™ 04:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaron, I was certain the inevitable "but..." was going to be a comment about the length, as it is a bit "wall-of-text"-y. The reason I'm requesting admin action is because I've already tried resolving it myself, and any further attempts from me will likely be viewed as "harassment", "badgering" or "trolling" -- all claims recently used against me. As far as dispute resolution regarding the article, we already have an RfC active, a request at the RS-Noticeboard, and are considering mediation. The specific concern I bring here, however, is what I see as unwarranted and inappropriately hostile interaction. I'm hopeful that "a good talking to" is all that is required to have things dialed back. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making that more clear, best to set expectations early. I've looked at the talk page in question, and, yeah, Xeno's concerns about the manner in which F has handled this appear to me to be well supported. Having looked a bit more, though... it's my but again. I do not believe that F would stand the slightest chance of gaining administrator status if that page was highlighted early in an RfA. There's be a probable landslide of "civility, oppose" !votes. But once you have the bit, just acting generally douche has no sting. Unless we get community deadminning up, there's very little actionable here. Even in the "good talking to" department, as I don't see enough of a middle ground here for productive discussion to get started. Unsatisfying. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh, best to expand on that: I haven't looked at the rest of F's contributions, and I'm not suggesting anything about those edits that I haven't looked at. We all have bad days, perhaps this is F's. The above is a commentary on how RfA actually works, not how it should work. -

(nudent) Ok, I've now looked beyond that talk page and I'm mostly seeing mechanichal admin actions (not that that's a bad thing) but my cursory examination hasn't shown that this person is like this all the time. I've left a message on their talk suggesting that they reconsider the way they are approaching this. (I'm terrible at knowing how my messages are perceived, by the way, so if anyone else feels it unhelpful, blank with my permission.) I'm going to do a small amount more looking, but unless there is more to be found, it's unlikely that any further action will arise from this, with the possible exception of more eyes on the matter. *shrug* It's also worth noting that Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fæ wasn't that long ago. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, this exchange seems quite out of character. But I think this is probably as "resolved" as it's going to be, unless any thinks otherwise? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick semi

Resolved

 – Non-admin closure; article is now semi'ed so there's nothing else to do here. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We need a quick semi PP at The Talk (U.S. TV series). 4chan is suddenly riled up over something that happened a couple days ago on the show.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Put in an RFP request. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi'ed for a week. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiAlpha spam (again)

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require Captcha for Special:EmailUser

I hate to re-raise a sore point (the last discussion went a bit out of hand), but I believe there was a consensus that bots automatically sending emails to registered users when an AfD starts to inform them that the article is being perserved elsewhere (i.e. WikiAlpha) was considered spam. In that thread, the administrator's of WikiAlpha (who also have accounts on Wikipedia) assured that such a process would be stopped.

I have just started an AfD, and I was immediately sent another email WikiAlpha email - this time from Liberos (talk · contribs). Obviously block for abusing multiple accounts and being an unauthorized bot, but I am getting a fed up. In the last few weeks, I have recieved a spam email almost 50% of the time I start an AfD. I am very close to turning off the email feature if there is no other way to stop it. Singularity42 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I had sympathy for them last time but I find myself running out of it. You'd think after three account blocks for email spam and an explanation of why we don't want it here, with an assurance from them that they'd stop, would be enough. It's rapidly becoming abusive and intolerable. At this point, I'd recommend WP:RBI. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to have good faith here based on the assurance last time that the administrators there (who are users here) did not know that such a bot was sending emails. However, clearly these bots exist to promote WikiAlpha. I think an explanation is required, and I have left a notice on the user's talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure if WP:RBI can really work here. While I would love to ignore it, the only way I can is turn off my Wikipedia email permission. Singularity42 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that myself right after I posted. Perhaps WP:BI? I guess I was referring more to the spirit of the essay, in that we shouldn't be giving them any more attention than they deserve. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Can the edit filter be used to stop it, or is the use of user's email beyond it's capability? Monty₈₄₅ 03:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the account with no email access. I don't think the abusefilter can "read" emails as it would be an intrusion of privacy. --Bsadowski1 03:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI case regarding this user. Perhaps CheckUser will turn up something conclusive. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI aside (I did check and comment there, BTW), I thought IIRC that the administrators over there were not interested in stopping such process, saying that those who do not wish to receive said emails should disable their email ability, as per here. –MuZemike 03:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If that's true, that is utter crap and nonsense. Why should we be forced to disable our e-mails - thus forbidding anyone from contacting us that way - just to stop their bot from contacting us? This is a privacy issue and their bot needs to be shut down on our wiki, period. CycloneGU (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It also seems anonymous users cannot edit talk pages, and global logins here do not work over there. Also, their layout is about EXACT to ours. Isn't there a site design copyright bit there? CycloneGU (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Haven't seen the site, but if they're "rescuing" articles being devoured by the deletionists here, presumably they think they're performing a service; maybe it would be good to rethink wikipedia's approach to deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I've asked Jimmy to join this discussion if he would. I think privacy concerns and offon-wiki site promotion are issues he may want to know about. CycloneGU (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:JIMBOSAYS LiteralKa (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the "privacy" angle. Anyone anywhere with internet access can send an e-mail to a wikipedia user if the usr has e-mail enabled. The sender won't know what the e-mail address actually is unless the recipient responds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If I nominate three articles for deletion and then get two e-mails that the article should be preserved on WikiAlpha (as another user reports, basically every other AfD he nominates, this happens), then I would feel my privacy is being violated. Their saying to stop getting the messages, disable your e-mail also is not helpful. CycloneGU (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally, if not for their bot, we would not be discussing the legality of WikiAlpha and their methods of creating content, which IS a serious issue. CycloneGU (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I still don't follow. What "privacy"? Your deletion nominations are open for all the world to see, and your e-mail is enabled to all the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The user starting this thread, I think, had asked for the automated e-mails whenever an AfD is started to stop. The WikiAlpha admin's advice: turn off e-mails on your account and they will stop. We should not have to change an account setting on our wiki to accommodate their bot on our wiki. Further, the bot itself is doing promotion for a site off-wiki. Hence my statement regarding these two concerns. CycloneGU (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Any spam you get from any source is something you'll have to deal with yourself. There's no way that I know of to stop an e-mail spammer, other than setting up a "junk mail" filter to weed out these kinds of things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind when a legitimate user e-mails me; it's happened before. I'm not complaining about receiving e-mails via Wikipedia, I'm supporting the complaint about WikiAlpha's administrators not stopping their bot from using our wiki to e-mail users automatically. CycloneGU (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but where is the "privacy" issue? Isn't the issue simply "not wanting to be pestered"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Aww, for goodness' sake. Why are we "asking Jimmy" anything? He's not my Daddy. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

He's not mine, either. There is potential it's a WMF concern, however, hence why I asked him to at least look into it. CycloneGU (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

He's the visible face of wikipedia, and his opinion is important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have legal concerns, ask the actual WMF lawyer. If you have foundation-level concerns, ask the actual WMF representatives. "Jimmy's" opinion is neither terribly relevant nor in any way binding, and posts to his page do very little to further actual discussion. He doesn't own 51% of concensus, you know. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

All that was asked for was his opinion on this matter. We are not asking him to take over and singlehandedly wipe WikiAlpha off the Internet (I doubt that is even possible), we're asking for his opinion. He can also advise on other steps that might be appropriate to take, but aside from that, he does also have links to WMF that neither you nor I have. CycloneGU (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Doesn't this violate Wikipedia's attribution requirements? Looking at a few random page histories there, it seems to be a copy-paste with no attribution. Maybe I'm missing something though. - SudoGhost™ 04:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends. We would be the licensor in this situation. Do we consider failure to attribute the work to the many editors from our site to be a violation of the agreement and, thus, anything copied from here must be deleted from there at once? CycloneGU (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I've seen "SudoGhost" listed in documents that use content from Wikipedia, and list each and every editor as an author (such as this PDF), which is why I brought it up. I don't know if that PDF, for example, is just being extra thorough, or if this is how it is supposed to be attributed. - SudoGhost™ 04:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There are countless wikipedia mirror sites. Do they get to do what they do simply by saying "content was copied from wikipedia"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion regarding this exact issue a few weeks back over at WP:VPM. WikiAlpha admins were contacted and we worked something that we (as professed nonprofessionals) deemed would fit CC-BY-SA's attribution requirements. Unless they've stopped using the system set up then. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of info here and on JW's talk page that I'm pretty sure is wrong or misleading. The WMF doesn't hold the copyright to most of the material on wikipedia. The original contributors do. Contributors have agreed to licence their contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licences which means the WMF and anyone else can use their content under the terms of said licences. This doesn't mean they own the copyright, that remains with the original author.

It's generally accepted that the licences are irrevocable. This means it doesn't matter whether it's deleted or whatever, the contributor has still released it under said licences and anyone can use it under the terms of said licences. (There are sometimes concerns about how you will prove it was released under said licence but that's a somewhat diff issue.)

While contributions direct to wikipedia need to be dual licenced, we do accept third party material under the CC-BY-SA (or another compatible licence) licence only which means if wikialpha haven't checked to make sure the material is available under the GFDL only they probably want to make sure they at a minimum obey the terms of the CC-BY-SA. This requires attribution which will be to the copyright holder and licensor i.e. the contributor not wikipedia. While it's said when you post a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution, I quite doubt this would apply to deleted pages since in that case there is no way for an ordinary or random person to see who actually composed the material (i.e. who is being attributed). Notably in pages which have been split or merged, this is mentioned in the talk page with the reminder the page with the contribution history should not be deleted since it's necessary to preserve the contribution history.

BTW, although a hyperlink is listed as one of the methods of attribution which is considered sufficient, this doesn't mean it's the only method. I doubt (but IANAL) that someone who doesn't give a hyperlinks but includes a full copy of the page history and mentions wikipedia would be considered to have failed the attribution requirement. Also while it's true some mirrors violate the licence/s, they aren't always ignored and some people do target violators and attempt to convince them to obey the licence.

In any case, whatever spamming problems exist with wikialpha, and however they may have failed at first (and I do agree it was their responsibility to get it right not for us to teach them), I don't think their current practice when it comes to copyright is terrible. Okay the 'public domain' part is confusing but it does say 'The below content is licensed according to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License contrary to the public domain logo at the foot of the page' in most of the copied pages. It also includes a hyperlink to the original article ('The original article might still be accessible here') even though as I mentioned I doubt that is really necessary. More importantly, it does include the contrib history or at least a list of all the authors in the talk page, at least for most of the articles. There are some problem pages, e.g. [26] is missing contrib history, [27] is missing the licence info. and the contrib history is in a place where it probably won't be found.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)