Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#Category:Television episodes by director, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age

For files, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21#File:Thomas Hines.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21#File:Basil W Duke 2.JPG?

For categories, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#Category:Television episodes by director and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike Selinker (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age. The other deletion discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. The other deletion discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Three-week backlog at WP:MFD

There is a three-week backlog at WP:MFD. Would a few admins help clear it? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. The backlog has not been cleared. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. The backlog has not been cleared. Cunard (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Systematic Removal of Links to One Site

• wisegeek.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is it OK for a Wikipedia editor to systematically remove hundreds of links to a particular website? For example, this appears to be a working list.

If you look at the history of the hundreds of links that are in the process of being removed, you can see that they were given neutrally by completely unrelated Wikipedia editors over many years.

The site in question has been discussed three times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and each time the community decided that there was not a reliability issue with the website. Furthermore, it should be noted that the site does not appear on the spam blacklist.

Disclosure: I have a relationship with the site that the Wikipedia editor is removing links to and so I want to make it clear that I have not made any edits, nor am I proposing to make any edits to the associated Wikipedia articles. I am not posting in the capacity of a Wikipedia editor, I am merely bringing this matter to the community's attention so the community can decide if this behavior is appropriate.

(I'm new here, so if there's a more appropriate place to raise this question, please let me know and I'll repost there.)Vrsti (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The website may be borderline reliable, but there's no requirement to link to it.   Will Beback  talk  07:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I do see a problem, as User:The Anome appears to be systematically removing these links. If he replaces them with better sources I have no problem with it, but something like [1] or [2] is not improving the encyclopedia. Is there some discussion where consensus was reached that this is not a reliable source, which could overrule those wp:RSN links given by Vrsti? Yoenit (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How can 300-plus neutral Wikipedia editors over many years be so wrong and one editor over the course of a few days be so right?Vrsti (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Have you asked The Anome why he is systematically removing links to your site? MER-C 07:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Requesting advice from a neutral body seemed like a more appropriate approach. This didn't seem like a purely editorial issue because it doesn't pertain to a Wikipedia article or even to a handful of related Wikipedia articles. This seems to be more of a unilateral meta-decision that impacts hundreds of Wikipedia pages and the work of hundreds of different Wikipedia editors.Vrsti (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified Anome of this discussion, also I tried to find a conversation which started this mass deletion but it seems to have been unilateral from the very start. Buttercrumbs (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that RSN decisions have been such that wisegeek IS a reliable source and Anome is removing them on the edit summary basis that it is not a reliable source just concludes with the fact that he is wrong. If he is wrong, then his changes should be reverted. If he wants to remove wisegeek as being considered a reliable source, then he needs to form a consensus that states this and not unilaterally make such decisions on his own that are at odds with numerous past consensuses. It's as simple as that. Silverseren^C 08:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The RSN discussions seem to say that it's a barely reliable tertiary source. Every addition that I've looked (only a few) has been made by an IP editor. In the past we've had problems with websites that pay their authors per view, which gives those authors strong incentives to add links to Wikipedia. It looks like Wisegeek authors are paid a small flat fee. Does anyone know for sure?   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisegeek is not one of the sites that you are describing. This site does not pay authors per pageview. It does not give any (let alone "strong") incentives to get links from Wikipedia (or any other source). It's an independent entity with a single editorial/administrative team that maintains strict oversight and control.Vrsti (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Freelance Writing Jobs!

We pay writers per article. Current rates range from $10 to $14 depending on the article topic. Writers know exactly how much they will receive for writing an article before locking it.

Apply Now!

— [3]

• Yes, a flat fee per article. MER-C 08:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like link/cite spam to me. There are over 500 of those links right now (not all in mainspace). I'd suggest bringing to WT:WPSPAM. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on what? Looking at the two examples I linked one was added by a good faith IP, while the second was added by an SPA account who was trying to promote another site. Yoenit (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia community researched when and how the citations were added, and contacted the editors who added them, you will discover that none of them are associated with Wisegeek in any way. Additionally, the hundreds of citations to Wisegeek are indicative of the size of Wisegeek's library. According to the homepage, there are currently over 135,000 articles. Many large and reputable websites have orders of magnitude more attributions from Wikipedia.Vrsti (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of who is adding the links, the site appears to be content-spam (easy to create content used to sell ads). As such, removing links to the site seems like a good idea. --Conti|✉ 08:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone has no interest in the promotion of a site in which they have an interest then I would expect them to have no interest in whether the links are removed or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that is ridiculous. I care if references are removed from the article for no good reason and I never even heard of the site until I read this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a logical statement. Since you do not have an interest in the site you are not within scope of the statement. Vrsti has a declared interest in the site and has raised the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been clear about any COIs from the very beginning. I am presenting this to the community to make a decision about the unilateral removal of attributions to a particular site. The issue is an issue regardless of any COIs from the person who raised it.Vrsti (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the removals linked above by Yoenit seem reasonable (though the edit summary is weak). Wisegeek appears to be a bog-standard content farm; using such sites as references is, in general, problematic. They have minimal editorial oversight on the material, and accuracy rests almost always with the anonymous content writer. They never cite sources. As an example, it was being used to support the statement The best quality flamenco shoes are made in Spain; is that an objective statement? Who said it, or who has judged it? (are we really planning to say "According to Wisegeek", and if so what makes them a reliable judge of where the best quality shoes come from). This example highlights the specific problem with sites like Wisegeek. On the other hand more care is needed in removing the links, with proper rationale for each one. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Each and every article on the site is reviewed by a dedicated editor. Articles are subsequently revised, often, many times over. Readers report errors and suggestions and the content improves with time, just like Wikipedia articles, except all changes go through a dedicated team of editors. Vrsti (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase here: What interest do you have in having that site linked to all over Wikipedia? --Conti|✉ 09:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

{{ec}Meh, it looks a little better than most. And as a tertiary source might be useful in some cases; but the lack of depth and failure to cite sources (as a tertiary source) makes it highly problematic. In my experience even the best of such sites has only the lightest of (proper) editorial control, much of which is focused on the writing rather than catching inaccurate materiak. In addition, these sites tend to present opinion (or at least, what WP would treat as opinion) in their own voice (as in my example above). We can find much better sources, for certain. In the meantime, any of the cites that are supporting dubious or problematic material should be considered carefully (as my example above). --Errant ^(chat!) 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about the links per se. Citations allow readers to click through for more information but they also are intended to provide attribution for the source documents that were used in researching the Wikipedia article. In other words, this is about giving credit where it is due. I am sure that most Wikipedians work tirelessly for the greater good, but they still appreciate the recognition for their contributions. I think there would be an outcry (rightfully so), if usernames were entirely removed from Wikipedia, and everything was replaced with "anon." When an article on our site was used as an original source for the Wikipedia article, and this was given attribution by the original author and it remained for years only to be removed (in hundreds of instances) by a single editor - that is disconcerting - and I thought the community should be made aware of it.Vrsti (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not really sure of the point you're making here. WiseGeek is a summary source; ideally we would be using whatever secondary sources their writers use, because that is much much better and easier to verify. There is another issue as well, quite often these sites use Wikipedia as a source. Without proper source citation (as is essential for any good tertiary source) we have no idea if this is the case, so it risks material becoming circular. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the community is aware of it now (and don't get me wrong, bringing this to the community's attention isn't the point I'm criticizing here). But both per WP:RS and WP:EL, the site should rarely (or probably never) be used here on Wikipedia. And it should most definitely never, ever be the sole basis for an article on Wikipedia. --Conti|✉ 09:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How is removing a source, but leaving the problematic statement in the article an improvement? I see you have now removed the entire statement from Flamenco shoes and if User:TheAnome had done this directly I would not have used it as an example. Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. There are two issues here. On one hand the use of this source should be reviewed. On the other hand any removal should be done properly & not unilaterally with a bad edit summary. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know this discussion is going on. I note that original poster says they have a relationship with the site itself; I applaud them for their honesty. I'd also note that I'm not the only person removing Wisegeek links from articles.

There is no right for a site to be linked to from Wikipedia. Wisegeek is several rungs up from things like eHow, but certainly appears to me to be a content farm, if that term means an ad-stuffing pay-to-write site (see, for example, http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-dogs-eat-grass.htm for a typical page layout[1]), and a great many of the links are either tacked-on to articles, or have common formatting suggests that many of them may have been added by a relatively small pool of contributors; some of them apparently at article creation time.

Where a Wisegeek article is the sole reference for an article, I suggest that a better cite should be sought. -- The Anome (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

[1] Fascinating. If you visit that page directly, after first clearing all cookies (as I just did to double-check the link), you get a spartan page devoid of advertising, which would appear to make my claim nonsense. View it through the path that I arrived at it by, and you get a page with an entirely different layout, stuffed with vast numbers of AdSense ads. -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As a gesture to the Wikipedia project, Wisegeek displays a different template for any user that has wikipedia as a referrer and has done so for the last several years. If you click on the link that The_Anome posted above (or any link to Wisegeek from wikipedia), you will not see any advertisements. Regarding your claim that wisegeek incentivized contributors to plant links, please read my post above at 08:54, 18 April 2011Vrsti (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha. That's certainly the most positive spin that could be put on that behavior. May I ask what your connection with the site is? -- The Anome (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisegeek operates differently than Wikipedia. Advertising revenue, as opposed to donations, is used to run the site. Regarding my affiliation with the site: I have worked with the site for several years though I don't represent it in an official capacity -- but I don't think that is relevant here. The issue I initially raised and wanted to focus on is whether the systematic deletion of links to a single site that were organically added by a host of people over a number of years is in the best interest of Wikipedia. Based on the comments above, several other commenters in this discussion have agreed -- please focus on the ideas raised instead of calling my affiliation into question. I'm not interested in editing content or making changes (precisely because I don't want any COI to enter the mix). I wanted to raise the issue of systematic deletions for the community to address. According to some of the supporting comments above, it doesn't seem like it was an unreasonable issue to raise. About not raising this issue directly with the remover, I have addressed this in an earlier post.Vrsti (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't WP:RS/N (where this probably belongs), but I really don't see how this website could possibly qualify as a RS, so removing links to it seems perfectly reasonable. I note that the COI account Vrsti (talk · contribs) was created yesterday and their only contributions have been to complain about the removal of these links without first bothering to raise it with the editor in question, so I think that this was a bad faith report. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting to consider the thought processes that drove the creation of that account. Special:Contributions/Vrsti makes interesting reading, following on from that chain of thought. It's also very interesting that the SPA in question knows so much about the history of discussions of Wisegeek on Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

About the recent creation of my Wikipedia account -- I am a frequent and longtime reader and supporter of Wikipedia, but I have never made any edits. I created this account precisely to raise this issue. The thought process of the account creation went something like this: Hundreds of Wikipedia editors cited our content over the years, and now all of a sudden, someone is undoing all of those editorial decisions. I think that the Wikipedia community might like to be notified about this.Vrsti (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. Has anyone looked at the site without the Wikipedia referral (delete your cookies and do a google search for them)? There's literally more ads than content to be found. In this case I'd strongly suggest blacklisting the site entirely. --Conti|✉ 11:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Since when are COI editors and SPA accounts completely forbidden from raising concerns? The OP has done nothing but request wider review of this matter with civil and argumented posts. Is this considered a "Bad faith nomation" nowadays? Yoenit (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. There's nothing wrong with bringing this to our attention. --Conti|✉ 11:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll chime in here to agree as well. There is nothing at all wrong with Vrsti's raising the issue here, particularly since he/she was careful to disclose the COI at the outset. LadyofShalott 13:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. This just smacks of shooting the messenger. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Now discussion seems to have died down a bit I would propose the following:

• An RFC is opened to determine the reliability and desirability of wisegeek as an external link or reference.
• User:The Anome and any other users involved in systematically removing wisegeek links promise to stop doing so until consensus has been established that this is desired.
• If no such consensus is found all instances where the link was systematically removed should be evaluated and the link reinserted if this improves the article.

Does this sound reasonable? Yoenit (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think such a formal resolution is needed. Just take it to RS/N to check. I've gone back over a big portion of the links removed so far and almost in their entirety they should not be re-added. Anyone want to open an RS/N thread (my view is that it is not likely needed because it is clearly not a very reliable source). Even if RS/N decides it is unreliable, The Anome a) needs to use better individual rationales in their removals b) also remove problematic text associated with the source (because otherwise it begins to defeat the object) and c) make sure they are checking each carefully and not removing indiscriminately (there may be a small number of cases where this is a useful link) or at least replacing it with a better source. Removing links like this is a slog :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's embarrassing to me to find out that there are so many links to a site whose pages are so full of ads. That in enough should be enought to blacklist it. WP:ELNO seems to rule it out as an external link entirely. I agree with Conti, there's more advertising than content on the pages I looked at. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto; I've just done a dip-sample of five random pages and each one has more advertising than content (and some are laughably bad). Agree that in no way can this be considered a reliable source for anything other than articles about itself, and concur that this should be added to the blacklist. – iridescent 16:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The amount of advertising shouldn't be an issue: otherwise, we'd end up dropping links to practically all news media websites. But having looked at a few of the links on The Anome's list, it is clear that the vast majority don't add value in any way I can see -- for example, why should List of oldest CEOs need a link to [4]? However, there are at least a few which might benefit from the link to Wisegeek -- for example Monte Cristo sandwich to [5] -- but I believe those cases are best handled on a case-by-case basis with discussions on the related talk pages. Maybe The Anome should have announced he felt these links weren't helpful & that he would be removing them -- but that's an issue of Wikiquette, at most. And where would one make this statement? -- llywrch (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The amount of advertising certainly becomes an issue when there's more of it than actual content. --Conti|✉ 17:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. On that "Monte Cristo sandwich" one you link to, for instance, I count 13 adverts in the body text. Legitimate media outlets may carry advertising, but they don't intersperse lines of advertising with lines of text to make it appear that the advert is an integral part of the article, nor do they carry more advertising than actual content. Even MyWikiBiz—the gold standard of user-generated wiki-based puffery—carefully separates the adverts from the body text and makes it clear which parts are promotional and which are intended to be neutral. – iridescent 17:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't see any ads as I use Firefox, but when I used IE the website looks quite different. I agree that the website should not be used as a link in the EL section due to the mass ads, and that it can not be used to back up any controversial statements, but there are still some cases where it is an alright source such as at Testamentary trust. If better sources are found to back up text, they can replace the wisegeeks ones, but until then, it would hurt wikipedia to remove them. Buttercrumbs (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A suggested way forward

Thanks for this. I think that -- except for the special versions specially served up from links within Wikipedia -- these links are clearly covered by WP:ELNO, point 5. Given their extreme ad content in their "real" non-Wikipedia-tailored versions, I can't really see how these links ended up being injected into articles in the first place, given that presumably editors first encountered these articles in their not-linked-from Wikipedia versions. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of the SEO stuff here, with this odd combination of made-for-wikipedia and made-for-adsense content but something about these links to morphing-content pages definitely feels not right to me, over and above the usual WP:RS issues.

Given that these removals seem to be supported by existing policy, I propose that I continue to do these removals, subject to community review in the normal way, with the following changes:

1. when I remove a Wisegeek cite, I will also remove the statement it cites, if clearly identifiable, unless that is supported by another cite
2. I will provide a more informative edit summary: I propose "link to wisegeek.com removed: please see WP:ELNO, point 5"

It's just possible that in some cases, these links might be merited, but I have yet to find a case that justified linking to such a heavily ad-dense page that could not in principle be supplied from another source. In this case, these links will remain in the article history, and my edits, like any others, can be reverted -- nothing of value will be lost.

Is this generally acceptable to those here, and can you suggest any improvements I should make to this? -- The Anome (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. --Conti|✉ 19:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is good to see the discussion around this issue. Regarding "linking to such a heavily ad-dense page," I would like to remind you about a comment made earlier: for years, Wisegeek has supressed all ads for visitors who have Wikipedia as a referrer. In other words, users click on citations on Wikipedia will not see any ads on the site.Vrsti (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's nice, but ultimately irrelevant. The site is a content farm, and we generally don't like to them or use them as sources. --Conti|✉ 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Err you realise that in saying "It's just possible that in some cases, these links might be merited, but I have yet to find a case that justified linking to such a heavily ad-dense page that could not in principle be supplied from another source." you are admitting that some of your edits are bad for wikipedia (blanking of valid content)? The suggestion that same material could be "in principle be supplied from another source" is only relivant if you are going out and tracking down such souces and adding those.©Geni 06:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any negative comments in the last hour, other than the not-unexpected comment from the original SPA above, I'll now continue with the link removals, on the terms proposed above. Please let me know via a message on my talk page if you want me to stop again, and I'll do so before going back here to review this. -- The Anome (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What? Did you read any of the above conversation? and what the hell is this about - "In this case, these links will remain in the article history, and my edits, like any others, can be reverted -- nothing of value will be lost." That is not a valid excuse for making bad edits unless you are a complete noob. Do not remove the source when it is being used to source non controversial text unless you also replace it with a superior source. Buttercrumbs (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to be a considered a "noob", whatever that is. You certainly know a lot about how Wikipedia works after just 19 edits over 9 days. Can you tell me how User:Vrsti, a SPA created in a very similar timescale, and you got chatting about this in the first place? I find this edit particularly interesting: you seem awfully familiar with previous discussions of Wisegeek on Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no relationship with Buttercrumbs whatsoever. I am not familiar with the functioning of Wikipedia and posted in a few places to find out the appropriate place to post what seems to be a legitmate issue. (I think the debate that has occurred in this discussion is indicative of the issue's legitimacy.) As you can see, Buttercrumbs along with other Wikipedians replied to my initial post(s) in other places on Wikipedia. I must say that the repeated interrogation and implications that I am acting in bad faith is a testament to the shady characters that you all must run into here - not your fault of course but I would have hoped that raising issues in the community's interest would be welcomed (as some have expressed). I would urge you to avoid the temptation to speculate about hidden motivations and ulterior motives - I can assure you there aren't any on my part. I have to admit, that this hasn't been a very welcoming experince for this particular noobie - I came here trying to present what I viewed to be a potentially important issue and mostly I have been bitten.Vrsti (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your edits here were in good faith and meant well, and I was impressed by your being up-front about your affiliations with the site. As you say, it is sometimes difficult to assume good faith; we all try, but it can be difficult, given the circumstances. Please continue editing here! -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

However, it's a very good reason to make good edits, and removing citations to unreliable sources is a very good kind of edit. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the dedication and veracity of the Wikipedia community and the effort that you have placed into this issue. I am not sure if any of this will be helpful, but the site's founder (who I work for) has recently posted on some significant changes to the site that are currently underway.Vrsti (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the implication that there is an attempt here to create a false consensus through the use of sock- or meatpuppetry (either coordinated or accidental), and suggest that the actual consensus of actual Wikipedia community members is that these links should be removed. I support the removal of these links and urge that their deletion continue.

If Wisegeek changes their website in an significant way, this subject can be reopened in the future, but there's no reason to change our actions now on the basis of what they may or may not do in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh this just keeps getting better and better. First we have bad faith nominations, now we have sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry trying to establish "false consensus". I assume the new editors are supposed sockpuppets, but who is their master and how are they establishing false consensus? The only false consensus I see is some editors pushing a total ban of the site in this discussion. If somebody wants to start a proper discussion at one of the noticeboards or an RFC I would support restricting its use, but I refuse to be part of this lynch mob. Yoenit (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect whatever the community decides on this issue, but these accusations against me have no merit. I have no relationship whatsoever with anyone who posted in this thread. I have never posted on Wikipedia ever before with this or any other username. I do not have any associates that are addressing this issue under any other Wikipedia usernames. Quite frankly, I do not know a single editor that has anything to do with this at all. I have worn my COIs on my sleeve from the outset. I honestly wanted to raise a philosophical issue. There must be a way to determine whether these accusations are true, and if not, I urge people not to make such serious false accusations without more than a cynical hunch. Since I don't know about the intricacies of Wikipedia as you all seem to, one could argue that collusion is more likely plausable among long term contributors; since I have no proof of that, I have refrained from making any such claims.Vrsti (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry for not being more releaving, if you had read my talk page you would have seen me say that this account was for an experiment to see how new editors are treated, which I found to be very poor - editors talking to me in code, getting templated, messages left on others talk pages being deleted without response. Then I saw Vrsti's problem from a talk page and commented unknowningly logged into this good-intentioned second account, but I didn't switch back to my real account in fear of getting that account in trouble...still I stick with what I said above, while many links should be removed, some are not fine and the website should not be de facto blacklisted. And you can block this account, I'm done with it now, Buttercrumbs (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you were truly interested in how new editors are treated, you wouldn't be here at all. Truly new editors generally don't find their way to the noticeboards for weeks or months -- some never do at all. In fact, a new editor showing up here almost immediately is generally a good sign that something is going on -- so I stand by my analysis. The deletions should continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a long response to this, but lost it due to an edit conflict. Instead I will just show you this link and leave it at that. Yoenit (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you just go back a page in your broswer you get back what you meant to add and can copy and paste it to add it when you have an edit conflict, and if there is a indenting or chronologic problem you should add {{ec}} to make other aware of what happened. More friendly advice from me, just like the diff you posted above, . Buttercrumbs (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we stop making various accusations and get back to the issue at hand. Fact is that this site is a content farm that - if not visited from Wikipedia - has more ads than content. It pays its authors to create the content which gets them the page views which in turn brings in the money, so they have a very, very clear interest to be linked from highly visible sites like Wikipedia (even if they don't show any ads for Wikipedians). Regardless of good/bad faith, sockpuppetry and various other accusations, I don't see at all why we should ever use this site, and I have not yet seen any arguments from those supporting the site trying to convince me of the opposite. --Conti|✉ 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, no one is paid or incentivized in any way to bring visitors to the site. Writers are paid up front for their work. Wisegeek is not a website based on revenue-sharing whatsoever.Vrsti (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and the only reason I mentioned the other is because I believe people (aggressive commercial websites, sockpuppeteers, vandals, etc.), sometimes see our policy of WP:AGF as equivalent to being naive or weak, and thus easy prey for them, but AGF doesn't prevent us from being clear and frank when the evidence is staring at us in the face. We assume good faith to begin with, but only until the facts allow us to drop our initial assumption and act on the basis of the underlying reality that the facts reveal. 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I also support the removal of these links. Anome should continue with the policy consistent removal of unreliable and unsuitable links. There is no policy based reason for these links to be present or for Anome to stop. People are free to advocate the use of unsuitable sources that very obviously do not meet the requirements of WP:RS or WP:EL and question their removal at any noticeboard or article talk page they like for any reason they like but the work to build an encyclopedia based on the policies and guidelines of the project should just carry on. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not argue for using the site, just using caution in its removal. It seems User:The Anome is now at least removing the sourced information along with the link, so that is an improvement. His editsummary is still weak though, as wp:ELNO 5 does not apply to references. Yoenit (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Conti's suggestion above. This isn't a RS and there's no reason to include references or links to it. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We should have handled this better

We really should have handled this better, IMO.

@Vrsti, thank you for bringing this to our attention and thank you for disclosing your possible conflict of interest. Typically, it is best to speak directly with the user in question and then go to the community if things don't work out. Because you have recently registered, people may think you are a single purpose account and I'm sorry about that. It's more a case of once bitten twice shy and nothing against you. Unfortunately, this will probably mean that links to wisegeek will be removed from Wikipedia.

@The Anome, you have been a great Wikipedian, and excellent admin and an awesome bot programmer. I have a lot of respect for you and agree that the wisegeek links should probably be removed —but— from the discussion here, we should probably get community input before doing so. Would you please mind pausing while we get more input?

@everybody else, I would like to move this discussion to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wisegeek as a reliable source. Everybody is encouraged to speak about the issue there. The more input the better. If everybody agrees, would somebody mind closing this discussion? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 08:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I will certainly wait for community input, and I'll follow the discussion at WP:RS/N and wait for a consensus to form. Best regards, -- The Anome (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tangential point

Sources is actually a vague term. Vristi raised the good point of acknowledgement above. So while the validity of some Wisegeek articles to support certain claims might be in question, there is also the issue of acknowledgement. Marginal or non-RS can be used as sources to write an article, provided the material can also be sourced to an RS. We do this with direct copies of CC-by-SA or PD material such as Citizendium, Planet Math, Eastons, etc... Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Multidimensional family therapy

Multidimensional family therapy got split off from Cannabis dependence, CorenBot is listing it as a copyright violation from another website. The copyvio tag is being removed. Any ideas? Corvus cornix_talk 05:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If the text at Multidimensional family therapy is seen as a copyright violation then the original text at Cannabis dependence should have been so tagged already. It was not and so I conclude that it is not my problem. It is not my task to verify every bit of text on WP that I come across. -- Hpvpp (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Not my problem" - pretty selfish attitude, there, Hpvpp. You are responsible for every edit you make, and if it turns out that you moved copyvio text from one article to another, while you may not be culpable for the origination of the copyright violation, it's certainly your moral obligation to help clean up the mess you helped to make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the article as a clear copyright violation (from scholarly publications from 2003, so not an error based on a wiki-mirror or some such). I'll try to check the other articles this text is included in. And I totally agree with the comments by Beyond My Ken. Fram (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the text (as well as the text in a few other paragraphs in Cannabis dependence) came from [6] (checked through Google Scholar, clear copyvio). User:Arcadian seems to have split it from yet another article[7], where it was first introduced by User:Bessmorris in March 2010. Fram (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Smoking cessation (cannabis), created by Bessmorris, appears to be a straight lift from this scholarly paper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bessmorris hasn't edited in almost a year, but I've nevertheless notified them that their editing is being discussed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So we can best check the articles Cannabis in Australia, Legality of cannabis, Effects of cannabis, Cannabis (drug), Long-term effects of cannabis, Smoking cessation (cannabis) and Cannabis dependence for any further or remaining copyright violations as well... Fram (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I very much disagree with your actions and I have raised a complaint at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Multidimensional_family_therapy. -- Hpvpp (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right to say it's "not your problem" in one sense. You did nothing procedurally wrong by creating the article. However removing the copyvio tag is procedurally wrong, it obstructs those who have made copyvios their problem. Moreover it contributes knowingly to perpetuating a copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

I agree. Creating the article is one thing, but removing the copyvio tag is wrong as that should be left to those who work on copyvio issues. The complaint is also based on a lack of understanding (or disagreement) of our policy on copyvio and is going to fail if it isn't withdrawn earlier. Hpvpp, please don't do this again. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't - I resigned [8]. -- Hpvpp (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban: Jacurek

Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruption and sanctions involving nationalist edit-warring and sockpuppeting related to Eastern European conflicts. He's racked up eight long-term blocks, totalling more than 14 months of block time in the course of a three-year editing career. He was additionally topic-banned for 6 months in the WP:EEML case, placed on a no-interactions ban with another user for several months last year through a WP:DIGWUREN enforcement measure, and most recently got another Arbitration-enforcement topic ban this March, this time an indefinite one. He was now again caught ban-evading through an IP (24.85.232.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) to continue the same nationally-driven revert wars; see current Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek. The socking was met with another one-month block by User:Sandstein.

I propose it's time for a full, indefinite community ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note that to these and the recently admitted socks add this and related socks, probably, a CU will reveal even more. Support ban per my comments on the recent SPI. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, support unblocking. I am not surprised that Future Perfect is trying to get Jacurek banned. A year ago he blocked him for three months for... a single personal attack. I'd really suggest to FP, again, that he should take a break from monitoring Jacurek's activities, as his judgment here seems to be clouded. That said, Jacurek has a history of socking, but his explanation about a cousin should be considered per AGF. I find it plausible then if one was to explain some wiki battleground to a family member, that member may take disruptive actions. At that point I support blocks on the IP, but I see no reason for any block of Jacurek at this point, unless his recent IP underlying Jacurek identity matches the IPs (which checkuser so far as NOT confirmed) or Jacurek himself breaks the topic ban (which has not occurred). Also, I find it surprising that Jacurek was blocked for what somebody else (his cousin) did. Are we in the business of family's group punishment? What I see here is a user admiting in good faith that IPs sharing the same city (but nothing closer, as far as I read the SPI) might have been incidentally influenced by him in real life. Such admission should be commended, not punished. Unless checkuser can show that it was Jacurek himself who did those edits (in which case some sanctions would be justified), what we should be discussing is not a community ban, but why Sandstein was trigger happy and instituted family group punishment instead :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, he says it's his cousin! We must immediately unblock on the basis of Jacureks enormous credibility and flawless track record!--Atlan (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• For a similar situation awhile back see [9] and [10]. In that case also a family member made similar edits to another Wikipedia user. After it was explained, the brother was told not to do stuff like that or register a separate account and the matter was left at that. It was the right decision there and this case is similar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The only similarity is that they both claim a family member did it. Herkusmonte did not have a prior history of abusive sock puppetry.--Atlan (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support the one month block, previous history of socking, feeble explanation. The user appears to be on a one step out of line and an indefinite site ban will follow. It would appear that as he is indefinitely topic banned on east European issues that he will stop editing here anyways...so there is a lengthy history of arbitration sanctions and previous sockpuppetry, I support an indefinite community ban.Off2riorob (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If the indef topic ban is effectively the same as an indef ban, then I see no reason to issue another fiat. If on the other hand, said user might want to edit a Pokemon article I see no benefit to stopping them. Hence oppose based on Rob's arguments. Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC).
    
    • Ha, a rare "greater good" argument here. My hat is off to you, sir. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Repeated socking is unacceptable, and combined with POV pushing it's highly disruptive.   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban. This looks like a fine example of Wikipedia:My little brother did it. Very unfortunate that Jacurek's cousin shows exactly the same interests as Jacurek, and came to en.wikipedia and acted similarly. The last thing we need is more nationalist strife... bobrayner (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only on the basis of opposing draconian punishments in general, but do to the clear personal conflicts involved which included somewhat poor accusations on SPI. If and only if a CU is done, and results in problems, then and only then should a block be done on that basis. This is a poor place to insist on a ban on what any editor thinks a CU will show. Collect (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but what do you expect a CU could show that we don't already know? Jacurek already admitted it was his IP, otherwise there would have been no reason to come up with the little-brother-did-it story. The only thing a CU might yet be useful for is detection of any more sleeper socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Per comment above "probably, a CU will reveal even more" and comments on the SPI pages similar thereto. I now have over two decades of experience in dealing with disruptive "multiple persona" users. In my experience, the "permanent ban" system is one of the least effective systems yet devised. Collect (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • No, he did not admit it was his IP. He admitted the IP, which so far we have proven only shares only the same city, is his cousin. If he didn't admit it, it is likely that the entire CU would've been closed as inconclusive/no action in the first place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban Eight long-term blocks after a history of edit-warring and socking is already sufficient reason to get him out of here for good. Agree with Bobrayner's stand on mybrotherdidit. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Long history of blocks for disruption, including abusive sockpuppets and violating sanctions. A net negative to Wikipedia. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the real reason why Burpelson AFB is voting to ban somebody (indef!) is because I had the nerve to question his/her premature templating of Jacurek [11]. So he's voting to ban one person, because another person disagreed with them and you know, that puts him/her in a real foul mood. Ok. That is NOT the stupidest, most petty, and pathetic reason for voting to indefinitely block somebody on Wikipedia, but it sure is up there. What's next? "My teacher gave me a D, so I'm going to vote to block you"? Seriously folks, what kind of community is this?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can show me some convincing diffs, I believe you attribute this line of reasoning to Burpelson based on absolutely nothing but your own imagination.--Atlan (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm.... he pretty much says it right there on his talk page. "You made me mad so I'm going to go vote to ban this person" or, if you want the exact quote: "But since you're assuming I'm an "enemy" right off the bat I'll be sure to go and support the community ban." - right, because whatever *I* am assuming (nm that he's wrong) really determines of whether *someone else* should be indef banned or not. If you're not convinced by his own words, welp, there ain't much I can do to convince you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Welp"?? Anyway, I read that as a cynical response to your badgering on his talk page. I don't see how that invalidates his vote here but I get your point.--Atlan (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

My !vote is based on objective reasoning as anyone can see. Volunteer Marek is just playing politics, not to mention grossly violating WP:AGF. Perhaps even trying to disrupt this discussion by deliberately provoking me and then using his hounding me on my talk page and my response as a red herring. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"But since you're assuming I'm an "enemy" right off the bat I'll be sure to go and support the community ban." - that's not "objective reasoning" that sounds more like being vindictive. I'm not deliberately provoking you, playing politics or violating AGF. I am criticizing your actions - and since you're so eager to template other with nasty notices, and willing to vote based with a, in Atlan's words, "cynical response", you should be able to take some criticism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Public humiliation via templates is a regular procedure, and happens often, but not always, mostly depending on whether an admin who cares about that punishment sees a case it should be implemented. As such, VM, I think there is nothing bad faithed about Burpelson's using the template in the first place, and your comment on his talk page was a bit too aggressive. At the same time, his reply there is rather more bad faithed/PA/sarcastic, and so are his insinuations here. VM quoting him/her here didn't help, even if I can see why he would like to draw attention to this unusual voting rationale. I'd have expected an admin to be able to keep their tempers better. I'd suggest both of you reconsider your attitude, and refactor (remove) most of your comments here and there, and then shake hands. It's always a shame when two editors in good standing flame one another over a silly reason. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Regarding FP playing the EEML card, I would remind FP that in my case my "conviction" and year-long (!) ban was for circumstantial evidence that I responded to canvassing (when I had categorically NOT READ the emails in question) and that a personal comment acknowledging many editors watch the same article was taken as bad faith canvassing on my part. Invoking EEML here confirms this just another witch hunt by someone with a long history of self-involvement carrying a personal grudge against the editor in question, and editors I have never seen before jumping in with opinions to perma-ban who have no base of experience with the editor in question. I can't respect a request like this when it comes from someone who is not objective in this matter. I suggest FP recuse themselves from Eastern European topics as they appear to be carrying a club just waiting to whack someone. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Peters, on Wikipedia nobody cares if a past sanction was right or wrong. If it has been given, it is all that matters. Just like nobody cared or cares that FP has blocked Jacurek for 3 months for a single personal attack that if brought to AN(I) on a normal user would be inactionable or at best, result in a warning. If you make an admin dislike you, and you have no friends in position in power, you are just staring at a longer or shorter path to an indef... Not too mention it is difficult to prove somebody is biased against another, and even if you do, if all you show is that a respected admin in good standing (and even I do respect FP, and think that outside Jacurek his judgement is usually pretty sound) may have a bias against a controversial editor with a number of bans and restrictions, do you really think most people will care to make a fuss? For most people here, it is "good riddance", and Jacurek's block log is hardly earning him friends or AGF here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, there is a pattern of automatically assuming bad faith on the part of any editor that can be labeled by anyone as being "nationalist" while there is clemency for those who attack "nationalist" editors, c.f., change by one POV-pushing user to "AntiNationalist" username deemed not offensive, and another editor being granted the opportunity to return to WP after deliberately posting information off-Wiki to intentionally harm one of their editorial opposition @ EEML. This is the grossest of double standards, that is, "nationalist" = pariah, whereas anyone in editorial opposition, even the grossest POV-pusher, is granted a free pass. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Question Is there a reason this wasn't brought as a request to amend the relevant arbitration case(s)? It seems much of this is under ArbCom's umbrella. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Um, for instance, because ArbCom doesn't normally do indefinite bans? T. Canens (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Given that ArbCom have almost five times as many indefinite site bans in force at the moment than they have of fixed duration site bans, that's a bit strange. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • How many of those came from the past year? T. Canens (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Currently in force after being imposed by AC: 7 indef site bans and 4 definite duration site bans from 2010. An additional 3 definite duration site bans were imposed this year. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Yeah, but Asgardian got an indef after they tried repeatedly to evade the original one-year ban. 3 others are like pedophilia-related bans, which is rather a special case since those are directly handled by arbcom. Not as sure about Misty Willows but the first block summary was oversighted, so I assume that there's some serious issues not suitable for public discussion as well. So in "normal" cases there's only like two that went directly to indef (A Nobody and Alastair Haines). T. Canens (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, if we do enact such an indef site ban for this "normal" case (despite your suggestion that AC only uses such a measure for serious/special cases), and then the user makes assurances to BASC, I'm not sure this is a good use of time when it could have been handled by AC in the first place (see also what I said to Fut Perf below). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) The sanctions from the EEML case have officially run out. DIGWUREN provides for a discretionary-sanctions rule but has no provisions for full indef bans. I don't see why this couldn't be handled by the community first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, there has been a high rate of amendments to that case which have relaxed restrictions yet I'm not sure that a great number of requests have been made to reimpose a restriction or to impose a more restrictive restriction. I would think parts of this particular topic area have created a great deal of controversy within the Community, and seeing ArbCom have "continued jurisdiction" (much of the alleged problems stem from topic areas which are essentially under an ArbCom sanction regime and an user previously sanctioned by ArbCom), it may have been good to seek their opinion (on what, if anything, they are willing to do about the matter). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Because AE doesn't do community bans, and AE regular (Sanstein) already issued a month-block, which seems to a user with a grudge against Jacurek not enough? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The request to amend an arbitration case cannot be done via AE or through any AE action; it would require ArbCom to directly intervene if a concern - be it about the user, the sanction, or the admin enacting a sanction - was reasonable. They usually do so via motion. That said, I haven't yet looked into this enough yet to have an opinion on whether the block was reasonable/justified and whether a site ban is called for. These are just procedural questions (and are not intended as support/oppose for the approach(es) taken in this matter). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Question: please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I understand, all the SPI evidence so far (CU request is outstanding) is that IP sharing similar editing pattern has been traced to the same city. Before CU commented on whether they were or weren't Jacurek's own IP, Jacurek declared that the IP is likely his cousin, for whom he apologized and promised to make him stop. Shouldn't we wait to see if CU declares that the IP shares IP with Jacurek or not? Because if the IPs don't match, this will give a strong support to the "it was my cousin" argument. Now, if the IPs do match, it is indeed his word only that we have to weight. But wouldn't it make more sense to withhold judgment till we know if we are dealing just with his word, or his word and supporting evidence, before discussing sanctions in the first place? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Because if the IPs don't match, this will give a strong support to the "it was my cousin" argument. Or that s/he was at an internet cafe down the street, or even at his/her cousin's house.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

AGF? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If one was willing one could also believe that the editor's cousin was editing from the editor's own home, if, for instance a CU result came out conclusive. In other words the CU wont prove or disprove who was behind the keyboard. Should the community assume good faith at this point? That's the question I guess, and with this track record I find that unlikely. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are aware of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry, where it states "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.""? It also specifically comments upon the recruitment of family members in the nutshell. Having your cousin edit from just up the road places the primary editor in the same category as a sockpuppet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, provided we can prove that Jacurek asked the cousin to do so, instead of the cousin acting on his own. Can you point me to that proof? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, its already more than enough for me, as has been pointed out at the SPI, even if they are two users they can be considered as one. There is nothing to support Jackerak for here and no reason to do it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to; read what it says above, "...or several users with similar editing habits..." - meat/sockpuppetry is defined by a similarity of location and editing history. Nothing in that comment about the need to prove recruitment. The page I linked to says recruiting should not happen, but not that it is necessary to evidence that it happened - because, as you have made clear, it is impossible to prove either way - for the determination to be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not Dianetics. Otherwise, Wikipedia will have run itself into the ground by now. –MuZemike 01:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's more fun to get a mob together and run buck wild.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose until the accused has a chance to defend himself, be it after the current block expires or on his user talk page now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A mob is not needed, whatsoever happens, Jacurak is topic banned from his only interest indefinitely, he is blocked for a month, he himself has accepted the connection between him and the ip edits - "it was my family member I told him not to" whatever its of no value now, Jacurak himself said he is finished with wikipedia anyways, all of this is a side really a bit of a side show. There is nothing the user has to do here anymore. The most minor of violations will get him a indefinite community ban so all this is really defending the indefensible. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, which is actually why I neither supported nor opposed. Just expressing my annoyance at some people's actions. Sometimes these discussions, as pointless as they are, do have the silver lining of serving as a kind of a reflection pool on the "community" and its members.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I have a bad habit of arguing the innocent until proven guilty on Wikipedia, even through it is not, in fact, anywhere in our policies :> But the day people will stop standing up for the "little man", this project will be no longer worth contributing to. Bottom line is that if Jacurek is to be sanctioned we should be able to point to a clear and indisputable proof of guilt, instead of stretching existing policies and piling on his problematic history. In such social settings, policies and rules first used to get rid of "problematic" elements very quickly became abused by everyone for their own ends, as the habit of bending and stretching the rules becomes a justification for whomever is in power (which, on Wiki, may well be the righteous "mob" mind). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Let's see. The IP is, by Jacurek's own admission, linked to them. It engaged in the exact same type of edits that Jacurek was topic banned for. Jacurek says it's his cousin. Now, I suppose it is possible that Jacurek's cousin, on their own initiative, came to Wikipedia on Jacurek's IP and decided to have some fun redoing Jacurek's edits, just like it is possible that I'm Barack Obama editing Wikipedia for fun. But the far more likely explanation here is that Jacurek has something to do with it. As our sockpuppetry policy makes clear, "closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives". WP:ARBSCI#Multiple editors with a single voice similarly explains that "it is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity....[E]ditors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits [may] be treated as a single editor."

  All the above is just a long-winded way of saying that Sandstein's block is sound. I voice no opinion (yet) on the question whether a community ban is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Jacurek has taken up a lot of time of other editors, which is detrimental to improving articles. He has received sufficient warnings and temporary sanctions that it is unlikely he will ever work cooperatively with other editors. Also, if he does not obey the procedural rules, he is unlikely to follow core policies of neutrality, etc. when writing articles. TFD (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose permaban. Not because I buy into the cousin explanation, nor for the pragmatic reason that such bans are easily and frequently evaded; but because I think they ought to be used only in cases of clearly racist comments, obscene language directed at users, privacy violations (like contacting a content opponent's employer), or repeating violations of BLP or copyvio after notification. Retain the current block and the indefinite EE topic ban, but let him talk on his page, maybe he'll find a (non-Eastern European) mentor. Novickas (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not necessarily opposed to a site ban, but neither am I convinced that it is really necessary. The current indefinite EE topic ban seems to amount to pretty much the same thing with this editor, and any continued ban evasion will probably result in an indefinite block pretty soon.  Sandstein  20:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Fetchcomms. Either wait until the block expires or discuss this on his/her talk page. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am troubled by the fact the Fut.Perf seems to consistently come down against Polish editors in Lithuanian/Polish content disputes, when it is ubundantly clear that it takes two sides to cause a dispute, (for example, see this). Ill considered community bans will not solve the problem. --Martin (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  Framing content issues - and responses to problematic editing - in terms of "sides" is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Jacurek's record

• 29 August 2007 — Jacurek (talk · contribs) account created [12]
• 30/31 August 2007 — blocked 24h for 3RR [13]
• 15 March to 3 July 2008 — socking as 154.20.146.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [14]
• 24 April to 26 April 2008 — blocked 48h for EW [15]
• 26 April to July 2008 — blocked 3 months for "Disruptive SPA coming in from open proxies and multiple IPs, per CheckUser. Editwarring. Blocked previously without effect."
• 27 April 2008 — Cvc42 (talk · contribs) sockpuppet account created [16]
• 26 May to September 2008 — blocked 4 months for block evasion with Cvc42 [17]
• 13 June 2008 — Ambor (talk · contribs) sockpuppet account created [18]
• 3 July to 6 July 2008 — socking as 70.79.12.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [19]
• 11 July 2008 — socking as 154.20.89.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [20]
• 8 July to 12 July 2008 — Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacurek
  • Ambor account and IPs blocked;
  • 10 July to November 2008 — Jacurek blocked 4 months for socking [21]
• 7 June 2009 — rollback removal and notice of editing restrictions [22]
• 2 July 2009 — notice of editing restrictions after AE case [23]
• 18 September 2009 — Jacurek identified as member of the "EEML" group, arbcom case opened
• 27 September 2009 — EW warning [24]
• 11 October 2009 — agreed to 1RR [25]
• 24 October to 31 October 2009 — 1 week article ban after 1RR breach [26]
• 24 October to 29 October 2009 — AE case, result: moot, already blocked
• 29 October to November 2009 — blocked 1 month for disruptive battleground behaviour and harassment [27], placed on 1RR for another 6 months (December 2009 to May 2010) [28]
• 4 November 2009 — unblock request declined [29]
• 7 November 2009 — block shortened to 2 weeks [30]
• 15 November 2009 to January 2010 — blocked 2 months for "WP:POINT at a BLP, various other forms of recent disruption" [31]
• 22 December 2009 — EEML arbitration case closed:
  • findings
  • 6 months topic ban (December 2009 to May 2010)
• 25 December 2009 — Mamalala (talk · contribs) sockpuppet account created [32]
• 28 December to 31 December 2009 — socking as 99.64.215.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [33]
• 13 March to June 2010 — blocked 3 months for topic ban evasion and incivility [34]
• 2 May to 7 May 2010 — SPI: Mamalala blocked, no consequences for still blocked Jacurek account
• 25 September to 1 December 2010 — interaction ban following AE case [35]
• 17 March 2011 — indef Eastern Europe topic ban after AE case [36]
• 9 April to 16 April 2011 — socking as 24.114.238.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [37]
• 10 April to 17 April 2011 — socking as 24.85.232.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [38]
• 14 April 2011 — socking as 173.180.189.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [39]
• 18/19 April 2011 — SPI, IPs blocked, Jacurek account blocked 1 month [40]

Note: This list is incomplete. I have limited the list to what is recorded on Jacurek's talk, at SPI, at AE and in his block log, but I may have missed some issues even in that sample. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If I tot that up correctly, in the four years the editor has been here he has been blocked for roughly a year, for several different violations spread over that time, and it seems unlikely he will change. Why does Wikipedia need him? Why him in particular? What unique insights or skills does he possess, that hundreds of unproblematic editors do not? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This would be more informative if the list wasn't padded with unproven allegations (like Mamalala or the recent's IPs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not one "unproven allegation" in that list, all SPIs linked.Skäpperöd (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mamalala account is in fact an "unproven allegation", among a few others, I believe. Whatever Jacurek's transgression in this case, your single minded obsession with getting Polish editors banned, and your willingness to stretch the truth for that purpose is, frankly, embarrassing to watch (nm, that it is also several other things).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

PA noted, I give you time to redact.

Regarding Mamalala: The checkuser patrolling the respective SPI, User:MuZemike, closed the case with the comment "however, CU still declined per clear behavioral evidence, not necessary" ([41], emphasis added). So much for "unproven allegation" and all that. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that people take nationalist positions so quickly. Obviously a debate around Jacurek is going to cause some polarisation; but the polarisation is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If this "single minded obsession with getting Polish editors banned" is real rather than merely a spectacularly negative way of defending an ally, then it is a very serious problem in its own right, and I would welcome some evidence of it - in a new thread, not a thread about jacurek. bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not defending Jacurek. In fact, I'm the one who pointed out the problematic behavior by the IP to Sandstein, which led to the block. As for Skapperod - if you've edited in this area you know what I'm talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you reported[42] the (Jacurek-)IP and another account, which had reverted the (Jacurek-)IP (which in turn had continued the edit war that got both Jacurek and you in trouble at AE [43]); and your report came only half an hour after said account had reverted the IP on two articles and asked for semi-pp [44], which had promptly been granted [45] [46], meaning that at the time of your report, Jacurek's IP sock had already lost the ability to further revert on these two articles and would successively have lost that ability on the other articles in question, too, if this strategy had been followed through. Thus, your report was directed primarily against the account that reverted Jacurek's IP, and in any case can not be employed as an argument here for you "not defending Jacurek" as you claim. Nevertheless, reporting the IP was the right thing to do. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh jeez, I saw two users continuing an edit war that has been going on for months and reported both of them. I didn't check any requests for protection, or "strategize" as to whether the IP would "have lost that ability" (and here you somehow manage to insinuate that I somehow knew this IP was related to Jacurek - which is of course complete bullshit) or any of that kind of nonsense. As I said, the only silver lining of these kinds of discussions is that they tend to reflect on some of the users who participate in them. Your statement is a pretty good reflection of your mentality, not mine.

And oh yeah, regarding the "edit war" that supposedly got me "in trouble at AE", since you follow these developments with such attention to detail, I'm sure you know damn well that the "trouble at AE" ended up with me NOT being in any trouble. This is the typical "stretching of the truth" and slander-by-insinuation that you routinely engage in that I was referring to above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here; this is the war room! bobrayner (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's pretty funny. I'm gonna go and work on closing the "DYK Gap" right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Masudi

Al-Masudi (born c. 896, died September 956), wrote a history book named The Meadows of Gold. In his book, he talks about the events from centuries before he was born until his own time. My question: Is The Meadows of Gold considered a primary source for the events that took place before Al-Masudi's birth?Kazemita1 (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think the Reliable Sources Noticeboard might be a better place to raise this as I'm not clear if the book features et stories told to him in childhood, or if he is a history professor, or what. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. He is definitely not a history professor, since there were no universities at his time. He is, though, a famous historian whose book is cited by many authors. Nevertheless, I will post it in reliable source noticeboard.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Masoudi is certainly an excellent source, one of the canonical ones for the period. However, it needs to be kept in mind that he represent the view of things as seen in his place and time, with the expected knowledge limits of his place and time. Fortunately, he has been well studied, so his strengths and limits are known--see our very good article on him. With respect to facts he's reliable--within his knowledge. But I would not assume any ancient or medieval historian had access to the full range of present knowledge. More generally, I consider no historian unbiased, and all conclusions about causes, results, rights, justifications, virtues, and motivations should be taken as well-informed expert opinion only, to be checked against other historians, & always ascribed to the individual, rather than assumed to be common knowledge that a single source will justify. (and as Elen says, such questions are more usefully asked at WP:RSN, the Reliable sources noticeboard.) DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Backlog of several dozen items at AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. Just letting you know. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh hey, duplicate notice - We've got several old AFDs still open, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination) in its 11th day. The full list is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

BAG nomination

I'm required by BAG policy to notify this noticeboard of my nomination for BAG member. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

uswer page in wrong place Krishnendu Singha, please delete--Musamies (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

HELLO!!!

Can somebody end the merge discussion at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis? What do I have to do to get someone's attention on this? B-Machine (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The "clarified proposal" discussion is only open since 5 April (it would normally be 30 days, unless there's a clear outcome before that), and is finely balanced. No rush here. Rd232 ^talk 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Move request open for over a month

Here is a move request that has been open for over a month. If an uninvolved admin would like to help out by closing it that would be fantastic. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is not the only request that is open. There is a long list from March 10. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes the backlog was mentioned at the talk page where this request is active, but the suggestion was made to put a neutrally worded request here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Can some people please add this page to their watchlist?

Passover Seder has been having some problems with vandalism. Since it's actually Passover, many of the editors who would normally respond to such edits are off-wiki for the holy days. Could a few others please put this article on their watchlist for the next few days? Thanks! Risker (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been semiprotected now, that may have taken care of the problem. Hut 8.5 09:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated Arbitration policy (final draft)

The final draft of a proposed update to the existing Arbitration policy is available. It has received extensive community review already but all editors are cordially invited to review the final draft and comment. The draft is here.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hide revisions

Hi. I would like my edits to be hidden from the history of this page. Thank you. 108.6.214.253 (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? I see no reason to remove them from the history. TNXMan 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Transwiki request

Can somebody please transwiki File talk:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg so that it is on Commons along with the file which is already there? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 14:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel request

These two bits of edit summary vandalism are breaking my browser's rendering of the page history due to their length and lack of spaces. Can the edit summaries be RevDel'ed under RD criterion 3? If they were just "poop" or "fart" I wouldn't request this; it's the screwing up of the page rendering I'm mainly concerned about. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, much better! My browser and I thank you. 28bytes (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected images on main, as per

File:Pedro Álvares Cabral - steel engraving by American Bank Note Company.jpg File:Muura.ogg

It's getting a bit boring, reporting this. Per Commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Δ etc etc, la la.

Do we really have to upload a big old naughty image to make the point?  Chzz  ►  04:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)