Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:33, 24 July 2008

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Mass speedy deletion of Fellows of the Royal Society

Sean Whitton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been mass deleting articles on scientists (and then removing links to them), unfortunately I am not considered trustworthy enough to actually see what he has deleted. I do note however that they appear to be articles on Fellows of the Royal Society, and that Fellowship of the Royal Society is probably the best indicator of a British or Commonwealth scientist's notability. Please could some admins have a look and reconsider these deletions? I shall inform Sean of this thread. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently started articles for all living female Fellows of the Royal Society who did not already have pages. I believe I added about 60 new pages. Which seem to have all been deleted.Domminico (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a list of all living female fellows if this is helpful for restoration.Domminico (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that all the articles that I checked are of the form, for example, '"Patricia Clarke, FRS, is/was a distinguished British scientist", they are not establishing their notability. WP is not a directory of every Fellow of the Royal Society. --Step hen 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the FRS bit does establish notability (or at least it would if Wikipedia had any pretence to serious coverage of the sciences). DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it's true that all the articles were stubs, but they are exactly stubs that would be interesting if they were expanded. Except for Hon. Fellows (e.g. Margaret Thatcher) every FRS is a distinguished scientist who will have performed notable work. Obviously Wikipedia is not a directory for every fellow that's why the articles were stubs - my hope was that people would expand them. Domminico (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for people can be established by a notable award. From a quick review, Jean Thomas (scientist) is notable, and the stub should have been expanded rather than deleted. I've restored the page and added a BBC reference, as well as asking Sean reconsider other pages deleted. . . dave souza, talk 12:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of the Royal Society is a notable award. It's about as distinguished as you can get for a British or Commonwealth scientist bar winning a Nobel Prize/Fields medal.Domminico (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to establish notablity if a reference is given to each page, establishing award of the FRS. . . dave souza, talk 12:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, for every page I added this page establishes FRS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domminico (talk • contribs) 12:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that speedying the lot of them with no discussion was hasty. Shall we just undelete them all now? Consensus, folks? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd undelete them and add a maintenance tag, then if they've not been touched in a month review them. It's false to say that every single FRS is inherently notable - there is no such thing as inherently notable, especially when you consider our policies on WP:V and WP:RS, if there are no non-trivial documents about them then it doesn't matter what level of academic distinction they may have gained, but it's unlikely that any modern FRS will be so obscure as to lack any non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one said they were "inherently notable" they are notable _because_ they are FRS. It is this that qualifies them since they must satisfy at the very least 2 3 and 6 of guidelines to be considered for election in the first place.82.69.91.165 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Er... what? FRS's being "inherently notable" means they're notable because of being FRS's. Please see "inherent" in Wictionary. And I agree that they shouldn't have been mass deleted. Please undelete right now, then we can discuss which if any of them should be deleted. It was hasty all right. Bishonen | talk 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Being a fellow of the Royal Society does not mean there will be sources and independent analysis we can use. Notability in Wikipedia terms means that there are sufficient sources to work from. No sources, no article. Your statement makes no sense: you say they are not inherently notable, they are notable because they are FRS; that is, as I said, an assertion that an FRS is inherently notable. I dispute that. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I would concur with JzG here: I can accept that the scientists may well have been notable (I can't comment either way because I don't know much about this area), but without sources for each one of them their articles then they don't meet Wikipedia's version of notability, which is, as said, sufficient sources to write an article from. —Sean Whitton / 16:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are pretty poor articles but they make an assertion of importance (being an FRS) so should not be speedy deleted. Any which cannot meet the notability guidelines can then be deleted by AFD. Davewild (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When articles do not meet Wikipedia's standards, there are two ways of fixing them. One is to fix their deficiencies; a second is to leave them for someone else to fix. Deletion should only be used when the subject is non-notable -- not when the article is poor. And if one does not know much about an area, one is not in a good position to decide whether a subject is non-notable, so option two should be used. These articles should be undeleted so that someone who actually knows about the subjects can decide whether they are notable or not according to WP's standards. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Non-of my articles were good. They were close to as bad as it's possible for a WP article to be but nevertheless they were robust to AFD. They were stubs: all are good candidates for informative articles. I'm willing to bet no FRS will get through WP:AFD. If they come to AFD I'm quite sure they'll be improved and found robust. I disagree with Guy that FRS is not sufficient criterion for notability, read WP:Notability (academics).Domminico (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're inherently notable; they must satisfy at least one of the criteria in WP:PROF to be elected. Some will satisfy all six criteria. --Rodhull andemu 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dave here. If you start discussing notability and sources it is most likely already not a speedy candidate. Speedy deletion is reserved for articles not asserting any importance and imo being a FRS does that. Whether individual admins think they are notable or not, they all deserve in doubt a discussion and all speedies need to be undone.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that some people need to go back and read the WP:PROF guideline and the WP:N guideline a bit more carefully. Notability is about the existence of adequate sourcing, and Wikipedia not being a directory. Of anything, including FRSs. If something is encyclopaedically notable, then there will be multiple non-trivial independent sources. If there aren't, then it isn't. Falling into class X, Y or Z does not make the case even if it is a strong or even universal indicator. Sources, that's what matters. And of course for most of these there will be plenty, so no problem. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that some people need to go back and read the CSD policy. The point isn't about the notability guidelines but about the A7 criterion according to which the article has been deleted which is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. Besides, I'd proceed as you say above, i.e. undelete, tag, and review which for me just means in case of doubt send to AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite familiar with it, thanks. Foo is a member of bar is context-free and does not assert notability. Foo is a member of bar notable for frob is an assertion of notability. Now, as it happens, I would accept FRS as some kind of assertion of notability despite having read of some FRSs form the 17th and 18th century who are really quite obscure, but I can see how others might dispute that. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not these people are considered notable under our policies, the award certainly constitutes an assertion of notability, which is all an article needs to avoid being speedy deleted, as occurred here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an admin, but it seems to me there is a consensus for reinstating the articles at the very least for a few weeks with AFD tags. Can an admin do that?Domminico (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, if Domminico is the person who created those articles in the first place, it would be better for him to restore a small number of them and begin work on adding sources to them himself, before restoring all 60. Otherwise he is just dumping a big bunch of work on his fellow editors. There is no point of a mass AfD on 60 articles which are nothing more than directory entries to begin with. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored 30:

Did I miss any?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checking a few:

Anne Dell Google News archive search: 26 hits
Anne O'Garra Google News archive search: 6 hits
Athene Donald Google News archive search: 4 hits
Brigid Hogan Google News archive search: 90 hits
Brigitte Askonas Google News archive search: 1 hit
Cheryll Tickle Google News archive search: 16 hits
Daniela Rhodes Google News archive search: 1 hit
Elizabeth Warrington Google News archive search: 5 hits

Note that Google Scholar is probably a better measure; nevertheless, if Royal Society Fellowship does not make them notable you're going to find out they all became notable in the course of doing whatever they did to get selected. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These deletions should never have occurred.

It took me about a minute to do each of those searches -- isn't the deleting admin supposed to do a 30-second check of notability before deleting? I know I do. Also, I saw no notifications to Domminico, the author. That's not just a courtesy but it also gives feedback to the author, documents for non-admins that this person has a problem with article creations, and, in the event of an admin mistake, shortens the loop in fixing an erroneous deletion. Something else I do is look at the author's contribution log and talk page -- if I see several hundred good, positive edits, then I assume there's a greater chance the author is not making a mistake and I investigate more thoroughly before deleting. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that requires the deleting admin to check the notability of the article. If the article does not assert notability then it can be deleted. If the article on bread just said "Bread is a food" (assuming the admin hadn't heard of bread and there wasn't an article history to revert to) it could be deleted under A7. The criteria does not specify whether or not the article is notable, only whether it asserts its subject's notability. Thus no google search is required although in cases I'm not sure of I tend to check anyway. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An assertion of notability does not need to mean an explicit sentence of the form "Foo is notable for...": it can be a statement about foo that prima facie indicates that foo is likely to be notable. "Fellow of the Royal Society" is a very clear assertion of notability of this type. If the deleting admin is too ignorant to know the implications of being a fellow, and too lazy to find out by doing a brief search, he shouldn't be deleting these kinds of articles. "Speedy" doesn't mean that the deleting admin should take as few seconds as possible to make the decision, it merely means we're avoiding a week-long decision. And by the way, your example betrays another fundamental misunderstanding of A7 deletion: bread is not a person, organization, or web content, and is therefore ineligible. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed bread is an incorrect example, I should have chosen something like Einstein or Google. I happen to know of the Royal Society so I wouldn't have deleted them without investigating further but to call someone who doesn't know of the RS "ignorant" is a bit of a stretch; I would not expect everyone to be familiar with the various honours within academia. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria 6 says that if they have received a notable honour (Fellowship would fall under this) then they are definitely notable. Also these articles are not covered by CSD G4 so they can be freely recreated without discussion. However I stand by my point that it is not the responsibility of the admin to do a 30 second check for notability, only to check for an assertion. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just my impression that we have people just blundering about deleting things they don't fully understand these days? When I was on WP:NPW long ago I'd at least Google if I was unsure. Have we really become that lazy these days? And what happened to WP:SOFIXIT? That I learned from working the Wikification project. --Rodhull andemu 23:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chance that the Royal Society would grant fellowship to someone who was not notable in the Wikipedia sense is approximately zero. (Granted, finding multiple reliable sources on a fellow whose main activity was before the Internet might require a visit to a *gasp* research library.) Also, as mentioned above, all those articles contained a claim to notability (fellow in the Royal Society) and had at least one reliable source (the list of fellows of the Royal Society) just a few mouse clicks away. As far as I know, "kill it before it grows" is not a Wikipedia policy. So I suggest restoring all those articles, and waiting for someone to flesh them out.. Cardamon (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Cheers I'll try and do some fleshing between writing up my thesis... Domminico (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can read here, it seems there is a strong consensus to undelete all ~60 articles, tag em, and AFD them if sources can't be found after a reasonable time to verify the asserted notability. Have all 60 been undeleted Domminico? I also very much agree with Guy here, we definitely need sources, going forward for these 60, perhaps numerous others, for the articles to remain for any length of time. I'm inclined towards a mild troutslap for the deleting admin for at the very least, not attempting to talk to the article's creator (would have been very easy seeing as they were all created by the same person, not 60 separate talkpage posts). AN could've and should've been avoided. Keeper ǀ 76 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good deletions, giving people the possibility to feel good about starting an article from scratch by filling a redlink, which is more satisfying than expanding a mostly-worthless substub. Kusma (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These should not have been deleted; they didn't meet the speedy criteria, because they had an assertion of notability. A mass AfD would have been more appropriate if the articles were thought to be useless. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a good faith deletion of stub articles which lacked sources and were close to being content free, equally stubs aren't discouraged as such. Notifying the author and a mass AfD would have been better, in retrospect, but time constraints make that sort of clearing out difficult enough already. Domminico had a source asserting the notability of the list of names, and if that had been cited in each stub at the outset the stubs would have been referenced, rather than just asserting membeship of a society. From glancing at a couple of examples, that's still to be done. . . dave souza, talk 10:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I do assume good faith in this deletion. I however consider it a remarkable example of recklessness. At the very least anyone placing speedy tags should know the basic speedy deletion criteria, including that non-notable A7 means no indication of notability, not lack of references to prove notability, and that stubs are acceptable at Wikipedia. Furthermore, anyone even nominating for deletion should be aware of the applicable notability criteria, and this includes that for academics a very notable awards is sufficient evidence of notability. It is, I suppose possible, that the deletor was not aware of the meaning of FRS--but that's why we have an encyclopedia. The reason I consider this worthy of serious attention, is the actions of the admin above -- who actually removed the backlinks from the articles to Royal Society, and other notable awards. This is a clear indication that it was not just an oversight but either carelessness or lack of understanding. I am aware that he is a very experienced admin, and someone with a technical background, so i totally do not understand. Further, he choose to delete in a single motion of his own accord without anyone previously having placed a speedy tag in at least many of the cases--I have not checked all. This once more provides reason why, except for BLP and copyvio and outright vandalism, no admin should be permitted to have that power. I see two responses of his, the first to Domenico, to the effect that "I've ... speedily deleted all of your articles on scientists ... because there was no assertion as to why the scientists are sufficiently notable to warrant articles. I'm no expert in the field, but the articles really were too short to justify their notability so I decided to remove them from the encyclopedia" To delete -- let alone delete single handed, instead of just placing tags-- in an area one admits one does not understand, because the articles were "too short", and in the presence of the indications of notability provided by the backlinks, seems more than careless. It shows the failure to understand SCD A7, that there merely has to be an indication of importance, not a "sufficient" proof that the articles justify inclusion. I see his comment above that "without sources for each one of them their articles then they don't meet Wikipedia's version of notability, which is, as said, sufficient sources to write an article from" This shows the failure to understand deletion policy, that importance does not have to be proven to prevent speedy. At the very least it would seem appropriate to expect a full apology to the editor involved and a clearly stated recognition of what the speedy deletion criteria actually are. And in any case, it's time to remove the power for admins to delete single-handed except in the cases I mentioned above--it's too dangerous to the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I didn't see topic this before...deleting these articles was a bad move. Membership in the Royal Society is quite prestigious. An "elected member of the RS" is a de facto assertion of notability on par or greater than just about anything here. DGG is spot on that this is complete misuse, and misunderstanding, of WP:CSD#A7 which only requires a reasonable assertion of notability. {{stub}} tags, maintenance tags, and AfD nominations (if necessary) were the correct course of action. — Scientizzle 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost. Don't all of these meet WP:PROF #6 and therefor are notable? Why is there even a debate? Are we arguing that WP:PROF doesn't play a role here or are we arguing the membership doesn't meet number 6 or something else? It looks like an argument that WP:N trumps WP:PROF even though WP:PROF says otherwise. That seems a bit odd.... Hobit (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of hand waving here to prove that membership in the Royal Society means notability. Does membership in the comparable national sciientific society of every country prove notability, or is the UK "special?" What would be the comparable U.S society affording automatic notability with membership. How about the Romanian Academy of Science when it was headed by Elena Ceauşescu [1], wife of the dictator? Should there be some forum for deciding which scientific societies afford automatic notability for their members, beyond indignant foot stomping when some members of one are speedily deleted (should have been AFD)? How about other politicized Soviet bloc scientific honorary organizatins? How about Third World national scientific bodies? Edison (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the States, the United States National Academy of Sciences, and yes, elected members would be notable. Defunct soviet academies? Dunno - none of them have ever had the position or prestige of the Royal Society. Third World academies? Likewise. It's not a matter of the nationality of the academy, rather a matter of the academy's standing in the scientific world, and the requirements for membership. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The aforesaid Mrs. Ceauşescu was elected an honorary member of the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK) and, according to the Wikipedia article Elena Ceauşescu, "She allegedly obtained these awards with money, instead of merit." Maggie Thatcher was also elected a member of the Royal Society (not an "honorary member") as were Churchill, Disraeli, and Attlee. These politicians may be notable in that sphere, but their scientific prowess is doubtful. How many menmberships went to the merely wealthy? Are we to take these politicians and others as automatically notable scientists because they could put FRS after their names? The article on the Royal Society that before the 1820's the members were "gentlemen and amateurs." Would these have automatic notability enough for unquestioned stub Wikipedia articles? If there is any automatic presumption of being a notable scientist or mathematician due to RS membership, it would have to be restricted to very recent years. Edison (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Society of Chemistry is not the Royal Society. Were Dizzy, Churchill or Attlee ever referred to as FRS? Of course, although not notable for their scientific achievements, they were elected as a result of their highly notable endeavours in other areas - so I do think that the fact of fellowship does indicate notability. Prior to the 1820s, science was largely an activity for gentleman amateurs - one can make a good case for Tom Huxley being the first "professional scientist". DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you will find that Dizzy, Churchill, Attlee, and Thatcher were all elected as Fellows - (check on the Society's website) - Honorary Fellowship not having been invented then. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have just checked - they are all listed as "Fellows" (not honorary members) and their election is listed as being under the former Rule 12. DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Duncan. the Royal Society is among the most selective and recognizable academies, as is the US NAS. Other societes don't necessarily have the cache or international impact of these two. Those selected have gained substantial recognition within his/her respective field, therefore, in general, it is an argument of encyclopedic notability to meet WP:BIO/WP:PROF; it's certainly beyond CSD#A7 material. That said, if one of these bios is brought to AfD and there is no substantial sourced information available beyond election to the RS, I would view deletion as a potentially reasonable course of action. — Scientizzle 23:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last post, I have created an article about a random name in the U.S. NAS membership list, Albert C. Smith. It is better referenced than the mass-created stubs of RS members, such as Cheryll Tickle, but I could find no clear proof the man would really be considered "notable" under WP:PROF. Not much in Google Books [2], and no biography at NAS. Is he automatically a "distinguished botanist" as Ms. Tickle is automatically "distinguished" by virtue of the membership?Edison (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is a journal Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society specifically devoted to providing exactly the sort of sources we need for our articles, it seems unlikely that any ~~non-newly-elected~~ now-dead FRS would lack sources. (I previously wrote non-newly-elected but I see from our own article on the journal that it actually publishes obituaries.) Regarding Albert C. Smith, I see no less than five claims of notability in a three-line stub (museum director, society chair, NAS, distinguished for a research specialty, and the "standard author abbreviation" about which I've seen arguments in other AfDs that it confers automatic notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as there is for NAS. (in both cases, only for deceased members). [3] The one for A C Smith seems not available yet--but I'm going to check further. However, a list of 36 published works is available Worldcat at [4]. There may be more, as it does not include most journal articles. That's enough to indicate notability, as well as to write content about the subject field in which he did he did his research. And that's even without visiting a library. It is inconceivable that anyone would be a member of either society and not be notable. How far this extends to other academies is debatable, but w do tend to avoid national bias. (For the main Soviet academy the relevant group is the full members (academicians), not the candidate members, and I would be prepared to argue that those in the physical sciences and mathematics at least were all notable.) Further, for almost all national academies, the foreign members (however called) are even more noted than the regular members, for such an election is an exceptional honor. DGG (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the refs are for a different Albert C. Smith (maybe a son or unrelated person who got a PhD in 1951?)[5]Edison (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of quibbling about whether there may be a few exceptional non-notable FRS's is appropriate for an AfD. It is not appropriate for a speedy deletion decision. If a statement in an article probably indicates notability, but may have some exceptions (and I am not convinced that the examples above really are exceptions to FRS indicating notability, as they are all notable people anyway) then the appropriate step is to take it to an AfD, not to speedy delete it. If you're not sure about some area, don't do speedy deletions in that area. For instance, I rarely handle a7 speedy deletion requests for bands, because I'm not sure I understand the distinction between major and minor label releases; similarly, it is no shame for the deleting admin to be ignorant of the implications of an FRS, but he should have used that ignorance as a reason to let someone else handle the decisions for these articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that many who have been members of the Royal Society do not qualify as "distinguished scientists," including the politicians and the pre-1821 amateurs. Thus each article should cite references to show the person is notable as a scientist, rather than being a mirroring of the membership list. If the article creator does not have a few minutes to do a minimal search for references, such as DGG did above, he should not create the article, and an A7 speedy deletion of unreferenced articles seems appropriate. Edison (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)(in full pedant mode)[reply]

If you were really in full pedant mode, you might have noticed that A7 speedy criteria explicitly state that references are not needed, only an assertion of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, David, of course, but Edison is right to the extent that those people who write bio articles without at least giving some indication to non specialists of where the importance lies are doing a sub-optimal job. This is particularly troublesome in copying over sparse entries from biographical dictionaries. I and you and the other people here who can do it try of course to fix at least to some extent every one of them we can catch, but I'm sure many are not spotted and get deleted, which is unfortunate both with respect to the work of the contributor and the coverage of the encyclopedia. I'll do the work as much as I can, but I wish I could concentrate on other things. When I do save such an article, I try to explain to the contributor how that should do it, but there are some who have actually told me they intend to contribute the barest possible article as a placeholder and leave others to fix them. I don't think that's fair, as the original contributor is usually in a good position to add at least something. What is an related problem is those who delete articles within a few minutes of making them, when the original contributor may have written just the name and dates, and intends in the next edit to do more. This can happen in any subject, and although an intrinsically reasonable method of editing, it does make it harder to screen.

Incidentally, Edison, I am quite prepared to argue that any of the early gentlemen-amateurs were notable in their own time as scientists/physicians/naturalists/whatever, and hey are generally included in biographical directories or histories giving enough information. Historians of science have worked rather intensively with this group of people who, in the absence of a formal educational system in science, contributed to the earliest stages of its formation. And I strongly doubt that anyone gets an honorary membership who isnt highly notable in some other field, such as --even--politics. DGG (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so convinced that in the 1700s all who were elected had made any significant scientific contributions, regardless of the unavailability of a university program or degree in science. As mentioned above, some non-scientists Prime Ministers were elected in the 20th century. It seems like hand-waving to assert that they must have been notable for something. The claim was made that membership proves the member is a distinguished scientist. That is what was written in the stub bios. That non-specific inherited assumption of notability is claimed to be proof against A7, but it would not be accepted if someone merely wrote "Joe Smoe is a distinguished artist" without noting awards, exhibitions, mention in books, etc." Are there reliable independent sources to verify that all members of the Royal Society were distinguished scientists or mathematicians, as opposed to proving that a selected subset of them were? That none got in via influence like some member of a royal family or other powerful persons who did not happen to have any demonstrated scientific accomplishments? (They might be notable for being powerful, but that would not support a claim of scientific notability contra speedy deletion). The Society's history[6] says that before 1730 the membership criteria were "vague" and that even after they started written records of why someone was proposed for membership, there was a mixture of working scientists and "wealthy amateurs" whose membership was sought apparently because of the money they brought (rather than their scientific accomplishments.) A "wealthy patron" of a scientist is not necessarily a distinguished scientist, any more than a wealth patron of the arts or music is an artist or musician. I dread the inevitable assertions of automatic notability for drones who somehow gained membership in such a society.Edison (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guido den Broeder

This user was blocked a couple of weeks ago for legal threats -- importing a dispute with Oscar from the Dutch Wikipedia. As far as I am concerned, the block was correct -- people are not allowed to use the English Wikipedia to get involved in legal disputes. If they do, they leave until the block is no longer necessary.

I have, however, recently contacted Guido to see if the block is still necessary. He gives a commitment not to refer to or continue in any fashion the dispute with Oscar. I feel this makes the block no longer necessary and am happy to unblock.

Any comments?

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With such a chequered history as Guido's is there any real chance this ~~last~~ chance could be of worth? Rudget (logs) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An indefinite block for violations of WP:NLT becomes a permanent ban? There's been no suggestion that a ban is warranted for anything else. I don't see this as "last chance" but as "situation resolved". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies, I didn't mean to write last. Rudget (logs) 13:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this, just keep an eye on him/her for a bit, obviously. Tan ǀ 39 13:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he has to officially withdraw the legal threat, no? –xeno (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as long as they resolve not to make further threats or discuss... well honestly he didn't really make a clear threat here I thought. I remember reading the original story about the dutch beef coming here, I need a refresher prior to further comment. Beam 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to "genuinely and credibly withdraw" the threat. I would gather in some kind of on-wiki fashion. But I could be wrong, I'm just reading from the NLT policy. –xeno (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think than Sam Korn needs to be specific on what was said. Beam 14:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Sam Korn, I think it really needs to come on-wiki directly from the blockee. –xeno (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My position (as the blocking admin, incidentally, but I really have no personal stakes in this) is that a promise not to talk about the legal conflict any further really isn't enough. NLT means not just that we don't talk about legal conflicts, it means that we don't engage in them, while editing. Guido needs to clarify whether he in fact has initiated legal proceedings or whether he still considers doing so; if either of the two is true and he's not prepared to call it all off, he should remain blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What NLT means is that we don't try to resolve on-wiki disputes through legal means. The point is that this isn't an enwiki conflict -- it's an nlwiki conflict. We don't block for the mere presence of a legal threat to another editor. We block to ensure that the situation is resolved on-wiki. This dispute has nothing to do with enwiki provided that Guido doesn't continue the dispute here. I don't see how continuing the block has any positive effect on the English Wikipedia (in fact, I don't see how it has any positive impact for anyone). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me quote: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." This has been in WP:NLT basically from day one. Now, in principle I might agree to an unblock if Guido promises not to edit Wikipedia at all until the legal matter is resolved, but that really seems like splitting hairs. Mango juice^talk 01:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can roll jive with that reading of it. Make it happen Sam Korn, if Guido wants to that is. Beam 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He should do two things, withdraw the threat, and do so on wiki since this spilled over into en.wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse if the user does withdraw these threats. If they do, then the issue will be resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean endorse if the user does withdraw the threats...? –xeno (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixed. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Fut.Perf, I oppose this unless the legal action has actually come to a complete stop. Promising to keep this off of Wikipedia now is a little late. I remember hearing that the WMF legal people had been contacted... I'd like to hear something from them before we unblock. Mango juice^talk 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless all legal threats are fully and officially retracted. This requirement in WP:NLT is very clean, and is there for a reason. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clean, yes, but irrelevant. There appears to be no thought to question why the policy exists. This block is achieving precisely nothing and is therefore harmful. "Because policy says so" is an unsatisfactory reason to shoot oneself in the foot. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NLT oppose unblock until Guido den Broeder unequivocally and unreservedly retracts all legal threats, and confirms that no legal proceeding are currently ongoing. Sandstein 19:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse unblocking only after Guido den Broeder unequivocally and unreservedly retracts all legal threats, and confirms that no legal proceeding are currently ongoing. Think positive. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock until legal threats are retracted. I really don't want to seem like I'm sticking the knife in, but GdeB has a history of tendentious editing on chronic fatigue syndrome and related articles. He also had some problems with conflict of interest on User:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging (now userified) and another organization he is affiliated with - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Guido_den_Broeder. I'm not sure his return would benefit the encyclopedia, but he has to withdraw the legal threat at the very least. Skinwalker (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Guido

[7]

I have not made a legal threat, ever, anywhere.
WMF is not involved and will therefore not comment.
Editing history is irrelevant to WP:NLT.
WP:NLT does not say 'don't engage in legal action'. What is says is 'don't threaten to'.
Blocks must have a purpose.
Note that while en:Wikipedia has noticeboards, mediation, reviews, a functioning arbcom, access to designated agents and to an information team, etc., nl:Wikipedia has none of this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how accurate the first point is (I happen not to speak Dutch), I disagree with the fourth point, but much of the rest is valid, and the final point is, I think, irrelevant, but I don't think any of it presents a convincing reason to keep the block running. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the unblock on the basis that Guido has clearly stated that no legal action is ongoing regarding en wiki activity, and that he won't engage in any further discussion of any aspect of any external dispute. By my reading, quite a few of the 'oppose's above are actually 'supports' in this light. It is a point of debate whether or not a legal threat was ever made here on en - indeed it might actually be subjective - but the fact that Guido has clearly and firmly committed to no mention of or activity in the legal arena related to en-wiki is great news... I'd thank him for his patience, and Sam for his work in this matter.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support unblocking at this point and I basically agree with what Sam has said. The issues raised by Skinwalker probably need to go through dispute resolution but they're not a reason to keep him under a NLT block. Sarah 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido shouldn't be unblocked until he can be educated that he is quite incorrect about point #4 above. --Golbez (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you get the chance, Golbez - could you review my post from yesterday over here - it's my feeling that this is the heart of that particular misunderstanding - I agree it's worth clearing up... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, I do agree that he is wrong when he says "WP:NLT does not say 'don't engage in legal action'. What is says is 'don't threaten to'." NLT says: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." I think Guido should have another read of that and reconsider point 4. I think the policy is clear that you can take action but you can't continue to edit Wikipedia until it's resolved. Sarah 02:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock unless Guido affirms he is not pursuing legal remedies. In his statement above, he doesn't reveal whether he is still pursuing legal action. His most troublesome sentence (for me) is this one:

WP:NLT does not say 'don't engage in legal action'. What is says is 'don't threaten to'.

He is misreading the plain language of WP:NLT. (How does he want to interpret do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved)? He should not be editing Wikipedia until he affirms that he is not pursuing legal remedies against the Foundation or against *any* editors on any of the Wikipedias. User:Oscar edits on both en.wiki and nl.wiki. If Guido is planning legal action against Oscar he is planning action against an editor in good standing of the English Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the comments of the arbs, and other users, at the recently rejected arb proceedings are relevant here... it's not clear in my view that your position is current policy. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)I really think that the 'point 4' argument above may be a bit of a distraction.. however it may not be too hard to clear up....[reply]

So he doesn't understand a policy... If he isn't pursuing legal action, as he claims not to be, why should that mean he shouldn't be unblocked? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it leaves things open for him to pursue it in the future and again argue that he is not merely threatening, therefore he cannot be blocked. It's the same reason we ask people who are asking to be unblocked to say that they understand the actions under which they were blocked was wrong. --Golbez (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also, I don't think that's clear. I think Guido is being careful with his words and he means that he feels he never used a threat of legal action, but this doesn't mean that he never actually took legal action. My understanding is, he has initiated legal action. His inclusion of his mistaken point #4 backs up this interpretation. But we really shouldn't have to be arguing over interpretation -- if he has really done what's required he can easily make a completely clear, unequivocated statement to that fact, at least as a starting point. Mango juice^talk 14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just establish that he is not engaged in legal action arising from Wikipedia editing, and is not threatening to do so. No weasel words, no abstract conditionals, etc. Legal action is not compatible with one's status as a Wikipedia editor. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting talk page, especially the latest response. Oppose unblock until..see post right above mine. Garion96 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is quite clear to me: Editors engaged in, pursuing, or threatening legal action will be blocked until such actions are withdrawn or confirmed non-existent. No one is asking him to surrender any future right to pursue legal action. Oppose unblock. xeno (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having not looked at the policy in some time, my intial response would be that as long as it is not affecting editing here, I would see no problem. My mental image was that NLT existed to ensure an editting environment free from the "T" part, that is to say it was the threatening that was the problem as it created an assymetrical environment. However, the policy is pretty clear, and appears to have widespread support... although I'm not clear on if people are supporting the idea of the current policy (which I'm not) or simply saying that we should follow it as it stands (which I am). This is probably more appropiately placed first on the talk page of NLT then perhaps the V-pump. - brenneman 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that while it is not acceptable to threaten legal action on Wikipedia against fellow Wikipedia editors, it is nonetheless OK to actually pursue it, shows a clear need to continue the block. I find it hard to beleive that can have been said in good faith. DGG (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<- in the nicest possible way I think we may be suffering from some less-than-rigourous woolly thinking in places above - with conflation between discussions (and understanding) of current policy, discussions of perceived established practice, and very (very) few people actually swinging by Guido's talk page to ask the questions they feel would clear this up. In a discussion about wikipedia's problems with biographies yesterday, I mentioned that there's a troublesome tendency for folk to find the angle which closes the discussion, without demonstrating any engagement in the meat of the issue/s at hand.. and I'm afraid I sense that occurring (to a lesser degree) here. I would hope that the best thing for admin.s to do in cases like this is to ask 'is there anything I can do to try and help an editor who seems to be willing to be able to continue to contribute?' - the project loses if you don't, and some haven't. Privatemusings (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His most recent comment seems to preclude us asking him whether he is engaged in legal action, nevertheless, per your suggestion, I left a message for him. –xeno (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really fail to see any reason for Guido to remain blocked. The policy has to do with legal threats. Guido has indicated that he has not made any and no one has brought forth evidence of legal threats, therefore he should be unblocked. We cannot block someone for legal action that regards nl.wp. If he becomes a dick, we can always reblock him. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT states that it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved. This edit (on en.wiki) seems to indicate that there is an unresolved legal matter. –xeno (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikizlle948 (talk · contribs)

Wikizlle948 (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts copyrighted images uploaded under various accounts ([8] [9] [10] [11]), and has ignored multiple requests to stop, both here on English Wiki and at Commons. The user has also ignored requests to provide reliable sources with edits. --Mosmof (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No uploads here, so we can't do anything about that. Edits, while all wrong, are not blockable offenses or anything like that so I doubt there's anything we can do. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may question the adequacy of the warnings (I don't), but surely repetitively mislinking images is a blockable offense. Violation of WP:IUP is blockable, even if the offense is creating a to a legitimate image from an article that isn't permitted to have it, like including a character image to illustrate an actor's biography.
Kww (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough that it's disruptive (I need to remember that is a blockable thing), but it looks like nothing short of an indef will stop the guy. It could be done, but it still seems a bit extreme. Blocking for 24 hours to prevent more abuse for right now, but next time take it to WP:ANI, which is where things like this are supposed to go technically. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's where I thought I posted this - I got lost on the vast interwebs. Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:MagdelenaDiArco - 2

Despite being blocked, she seems to have immediately created one new account, User:Gianovito and to have started editing with permanently changing UK-based IP addresses (User:78.151.145.115, User:84.13.166.223, User:89.243.39.216 - identical to User:89.242.104.114, who was blocked earlier today), their common focus being the Maltese language talk page and, oddly, banned user User:Giovanni Giove and his various blocked sock puppets that seemed to be her obsession before she was blocked. She is mostly mocking us, as far as I can understand the meaning of her comments to talk pages, where she comments on her own sock puppetry. --Anonymous44 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per checkuser, MagdelenaDiArco (including those IPs, and User:Fone4My and his sockpuppets) is likely the return of banned user User:Iamandrewrice, and, therefore, any sockpuppets should be reverted and blocked on sight. For the record - and please take this in - Giovanni Giove does not have "various blocked sock puppets", although Magdelena et al would very much like you to think that. I can only speculate what their interest in Giove is. – Steel 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if someone would clarify the Giovanni Giove situation. There was a recent checkuser which, in spite of its name, actually implicated Generalmesse rather than Giovanni Giove. The true scoop on Giovanni Giove, a supposed edit warrior in Italian/Croatian nationalist disputes, would be helpful. Both Generalmesse and Giovanni Giove are indef blocked. There are some related SSP reports that can be found via [12]. I think the problem may be that nobody has gone around and tagged the blocked accounts that are supposed to be socks of GG. Maybe there are none? EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "true scoop" on GG is that he was a belligerent inflammatory Italian nationalist who eventually exhausted the community's patience, but despite several cases launched by well-intentioned editors, not apparently a sockpuppeteer (see last point in this post though).

Generalmesse was entirely unconnected to GG. He was running his own sock farm from somewhere in Australia. So far, there are absolutely no confirmed socks of GG, despite several false alarms since he was banned. In my view, the false alarms have all been hopelessly wide of the mark. It appears he made these remarks Special:Contributions/84.220.68.146 and then disappeared.

Until yesterday, that is, when User:Marco Pagot showed up, the subject of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (5th). Marco Pagot, in my very firm view, is GG. How it relates to the other fun and games seen yesterday and previously regarding User:MagdelenaDiArco and others I am unsure. My best guess is a bit of well co-ordinated merrymaking at our expense from a group of users that share the same strong Italian nationalistic POV, namely Andrew Rice in England, Brunodam in the US and GG in Italy. The results of the SSP and the ongoing investigation into the MagdelenaDiArco shenanigans will indeed be interesting. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, nothing to add to that. Alasdair is spot on. – Steel 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Keep an eye out please folks. This incursion of trollishness seems not to have ended just yet. Our magnificent (and, if I may say so, rather fetching in their new uniforms) firefighters seem to have the current blaze under control, but, while the main action was yesterday, we've had this flare up Special:Contributions/Tlilita very recently. Move forward onto your toes, girls and boys, pounce position, that's it, bit of "grrrrr" also helpful.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone...

please point me to the correct page to report vandalism on other language Wikipedias? (Im guessing somewhere at meta). Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the vandalism is on-going here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for this? Gary King (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Thanks a lot Gary, its been an interesting day... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian MPs

http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2008/07/exclusive-federal-mp-tutored-in-art-of.html

More or less self-explanatory, but the biggest problem is that some bio articles are being replaced with copyrighted articles from the Aussie parliament website. Just a heads-up. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largely, situation is, the Australian politics editors are handling it reasonably well, and all edits to date are we believe accounted for, but some articles may not be on our watchlists and may evade detection. If you see an editor making an edit like this or this, or making a seemingly unnecessary page protection request at RFPP, you now know the background situation as to why it may be happening. If you see anything you think we should know about, drop a note at WT:AUSPOL or WP:AWNB where most Australian editors regularly read. Orderinchaos 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to consider is that some of the edits may be valid and by valid editors. Looking through a few of the talk pages, there seems to be a couple of overzealous editors jumping all over the newbies (any of them) and given them a good nibble. This really should stop. Shot info (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on giving accountcreators override-antispoof right

There's a discussion ongoing at WT:ACC regarding giving account creators the ability to override the anti-spoof block during account creation. As far as I can see from a search of the archives, it's never been noted here, so I am leaving this notice. –xeno (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMD-2 created from content of BMD-1 without following Wikipedia:SPLIT#Procedure

Part of the content of BMD-1 article has been split off into BMD-2, but the new edit history never included a GFDL attribution notice. How to fix this? —Michael Z. 2008-07-23 16:09 z

Doesn't look like a split the way it's defined at WP:SPLIT, but the proper action would probably be a null edit with the summary "Split from BMD-1" or "Created from BMD-1". I'll go do that now. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. —Michael Z. 2008-07-23 16:54 z

"Anvil Media Inc" and its advertising tactics

Just a heads up: Anvil Media Inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a now-blocked role account of an advertising company. In their unblock request, they helpfully pointed me to this article describing how one should advertise one's company and boost site traffic, etc. by writing spam articles so that they resemble real Wikipedia articles as closely as possible. Several of their œuvres have already been speedied (not by me), and I think we should watch out for more articles of this type being posted in the next days by people following that article's advice. Sandstein 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this is already being discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Anvil Media Inc. Sandstein 22:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credible author

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus so I did the same, but another editor said to ask an administrator instead. Al-Haytham, by the clause of Richard Powers, was FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. For your information, the other editors' arguement is in respect to "UNDUE" weight or more laughable: that Richard Powers isn't credible enough to constitute a reliable source. Can you help your fellow InternetHero??InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Can you help your fellow InternetHero??[reply]

I think I've got a workable compromise on Telescope done. Try to work it out on the talk page. Any further edit waring, by you or the other parties, will result in me protecting the article and possibly blocking those involved. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at...well...everywhere

Hey y'all
Is it just me or are the backlogs right now far worse than usual? There's 151 AfDs needing closing, 34 requested moves in the backlog area, 53 Suspected Sock Puppets, including 35 from over a week ago and 4 from June, a couple dozen Templates for Deletion over a week old, and 92 possible copyright violations. Where is everybody? And more specifically, can at least the stuff from June at WP:SSP be cleaned up? I'd do it myself but, of course, I'm not so equipped...
Thanks much everyone!--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CastAStone 2 ? ;> (I'll see what I can do about dem backloggen)... –xeno (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wait for 8-12 months, I'll help with this backlog. Beam 03:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to do a few RM's each night to help out; my time has been a bit restricted. CastAStone does have a good point the backlogs which require an experienced eye have been overlooked. Old timers' need to help out, and new admins need to get their feet wet. Keegan^talk 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I performed a RM but then I realized that all the links needed to be fixed so, I had to get my bot approved for that and then...well, now it's time for bed =) I'll attack some more moves tommorow. –xeno (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bot approval for What links here fixes? Good grief :) Keegan^talk 06:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user is editing... how?

Hi, fellow admins. Can anyone explain this?

I thought that I indefinitely blocked User:As1960 here: [13]. He was then able to remove the template from his user page here: [14]. How did he do that? My intention is to block the username.

Incidentally, I believe that the blocked individual has returned as one of the editors of the article Andrew Shulman. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users can edit their own talk pages when blocked. --Golbez (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

See also WP:COIN. The long and the short of it is, Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written an article in a fringe journal, New Energy Times, openly admitting that he has been pursuing a years-long agenda to skew the article Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to be more favourable to the fringe views proomoted by that journal, [15] and especially [16]. Example:

"I'm pleased to report that the revised page, resulting from the mediation process, presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science. This is a major step forward in the recognition of the new field of condensed matter nuclear science and low-energy nuclear reaction research ... I now have a lot of respect for all paradigm-shifting scientists, like Copernicus, Galileo, Fleischmann and Pons, and the other courageous cold fusion pioneers".

Note:

Few media outlets are paying attention to the subject, and many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum though a few observers such as Ron Marshall and Pierre Carbonnelle have tried their best to participate.

Per WP:NPOV, if "few media outlets are paying attention to the subject, and many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum" then Wikipedia should be right there with them. Not working to fix that problem, as Pierre Carbonelle and Ron Marshall have tried. And try they most assuredly have.

This is a wholly inappropriate use of Wikipedia. We are not here to resurrect the reputations of pariah fields, we are here to document them. Pcarbonn and other members of this fringe group have been the major editors of that article for a very long time, and caused it to be demoted from FA status due to POV-pushing.

I have reverted, again, to the FA version. This is reasonably free of the subtle and destructive bias of this group. A friend of mine who was a grad student in one of the labs in which the original Fleischmann-Pons experiments were conducted, and who is still active in academia as a full professor in bio and electrochemistry at an English university, read through the FA version and said he considers it a fair representation of the field. I trust his judgment in a way I don't trust that of Pcarbonn.

This incident is a perfect example of a problem I have pointed out many times: those who seek to promote a fringe view are attracted to Wikipedia by its profile. It is massively more important to them to get their POV reflected on Wikipedia, tan it is to almost any Wikipedian to stop them. Long-term polite POV-pushing, driving off all those who seek to maintain neutrality, has in this case resulted in an article with which the POV-pushers are very happy, reflecting as it does their fringe view.

As I say, I reverted to the FA version which has the benefit of not having been subject to years of insidious POV-pushing. I also suggest an indefinitet topic ban for Pcarbonn. I do not recall his ever having declared his conflict of interest during the protracted mediation in which he was the main, almost sole at times, participant. He has abused the project, abused the good faith of Seicer and others, and committed a gross violation of WP:NPOV in the service of an off-wiki agenda, using Wikipedia to change reality rather than document it. Enough. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Before I consider your suggestion further, could you provide the link between the author of that piece and the account in question? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)~~ Oops, confusion - the link you provided above goes to the wrong article. The user links to the right one from his user page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that his statement "I have won the battle for cold fusion) (note where "the battle" links to" is completely inappropriate and is about the mostl explicit, if not the most severe, violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND I've ever seen. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear here, I do not care at all - not even slightly - if they are right or wrong about the field itself, the problem here is the egregious use of Wikipedia to try to shape rather than reflect public opinion. Public opinion, as reflected in journals such as Physics Today, is that cold fusion is essentially a joke, and where it is not a joke, the Pons-Fleishmann debacle is sufficiently powerful in the memory that people are very wary indeed of going anywhere near it. Again, Wikipedia is not here to fix problems in the real world, and that is what these guys have been trying to do.

More to the point, he "won" by virtue of persistence, because (as usual in such cases) it really matters to him to win, whereas most of the rest have other "battles" to fight and other articles to police. This is a perennial and growing problem. The ones with the itme, energy and determination are the ones with an agenda to promote. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where the hell are you getting this from? I read both articles he wrote, and I see no issue here. Someone believes something different from you, so you want to ban them from editing? -- Ned Scott 07:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, why are you bring up a content dispute on AN? This editor believes that they are acting in good faith, and that they are upholding NPOV and are using reliable sources. They might be right or wrong in that belief, but they haven't broken any rule or behavioral guideline. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because (if you read it) I am suggesting a sanction. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG this editor believes that X is accurate, has nothing to personally gain by X being true, but honestly believes it is backed by reliable sources. Now that son of a bitch has the balls to write about it in a journal of like-minded peers. How dare he! -- Ned Scott 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have a classic case of a single purpose account here. I can't find more than 10 edits by Pcarbonn to any article other than cold fusion, and in the most recent version, I don't see the word pseudoscience at all (last I heard about cold fusion it was in a class dedicated to the identification and investigation of pseudoscientific theories [although Category:Fringe physics is in Category:Pseudophysics which is in Category:Pseudoscience]). And Pcarbonn's writings at New Energy Times, the second of which contains the statement "I hope that the revised Wikipedia article will help put a stop to the epidemic of pathological disbelief and that it will help raise the interest of scientists so that prominent scientific journals won't be able to reject articles on the topic "because it does not interest our readers." Certainly, Pcarbonn has been involved in this revision process, which he holds his own views on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not found more than 10 edits by me to any article other than cold fusion, you have not looked. No editors have been able to find a post-2000 sources saying that cold fusion is pseudoscience, and a recent RfC on the subject concluded that cold fusion is not pseudoscience. This is a content dispute, nothing else. I have no financial interest, in one form or another, related to cold fusion. I have followed all wikipedia rules, and even have written for the enemy. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goal of "presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science" is fully supported by the most notable, reliable review of the field: the 2004 DOE panel. Anybody who wants to present cold fusion as pseudoscience has a hidden agenda (one editor presented himself as the representative of the "average scientific lab" and defended their view, at least as he saw it). The only thing is, this agenda is not supported by reliable secondary sources of the same level as the 2004 DOE (see parity of sources). All this is explained in the paper I wrote for NET, if anybody would care to read it. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is because fringe topics are not published, generally, in main stream scientific journals. This is something I also learned from the course that I took. And I went back through about 2000 of your contributions, and out of the articles, most were related to cold fusion, if not cold fusion itself. A simple Google search shows the differing ideas. A search of the last 20 years of articles in the Journal of Physics gives 24 papers (I did not read them, but they were few). And, also, you mention "the enemy." There shouldn't be talk of enemy and ally on Wikipedia unless it's an article about a war, and the RFC. I'm not saying someone's right and someone is wrong here, but a bulk of your contributions (and by bulk I mean well over 90%) are dedicated to cold fusion and related pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's nothing wrong with that.. -- Ned Scott 09:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is wrong that this article went from featured to just "good" because of its current content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was promoted in 2004 and demoted in 2006, and there were multiple issues cited at its delisting. It's unfortunate that the article lost it's FA status, but that's a content dispute. Pcarbonn doesn't have a COI here, he just believes there's some truth to cold fusion. It doesn't appear that he's ever tried to hide that fact. Suddenly Guy finds out he wrote an article about the situation and proposes that Pcarbonn be banned from the article. WTF? -- Ned Scott 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, you say "fringe topics are not published, generally, in main stream scientific journals". This statement applies to pseudoscience, not to fringe science topics. They have been several papers on cold fusion in peer-reviewed scientific journals, another proof that it is not pseudoscience. If I'm not mistaken, the google search you propose only provides self-published, unreliable sources, and certainly not at the level of reliability and notability as the 2004 DOE review.

Here is what the ArbComm unanimously said about significant alternative to scientific orthodoxies : "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." That is what I have defended, only that, and I'll continue to do it. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion appeared well and fairly documented last time I read it, probably thanks largely to Pcarbonn.[17] Now when I glance at it I see a lead with zero citations and zero footnotes.[18] Jzg has blanked the page. See blanking on the types of vandalism. Blanking pages wholesale is not the way Wikipedia works. Point out citations that you find questionable, discuss, proceed with dispute resolution if necessary. Don't come here. Don't edit war. Don't blank verifiable research including evidence from the Osaka University, Dep't of Navy, Indian gov't, DOE review, and others.

Some of the concerns raised by Ryulong are difficult to understand "Pcarbonn has been involved in this revision process, which he holds his own views on" -- we all hold our own views on subjects. The people with the strongest views are generally attracted to editing the articles. I fail to see the relevance, and I think there's a major conflation of vested interest with conflict of interest here. Also, the POV pusher thing goes both ways. All of the evidence in favor of cold fusion clearly should be documented: If you can point to specific areas where Pcarbonn has pushed highly questionable references and content, you should be addressing those on the article page, or going to dispute resolution. This sounds like a whole lotta noise and rhetoric. JzG's blanking the page should be reverted as vandalism, if he continues he should be blocked. Since this isn't the place to be discussing the article content, I propose we close this, and it can be continued on the article itself, as it should be -- although perhaps it should be continued, since there's some highly questionable behavior from JzG here.

The FA article is categorized as pseudoscience. There was recently a RfC which overwhelmingly concluded that although cold fusion is fringe science, it is not pseudoscience. So there's no consensus for these actions.

If JzG wishes to proceed with blanking the page, he should try a RfC first. A lot of people have done a lot of work on the page that existed, and most seemed to think it was pretty good. II | (t - c) 10:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it accurate to say that transitioning Wikipedia's article from describing cold fusion in terms of 'fringe pseudo-science' to a 'scientific controversy' was a laborious and sometimes heated process? If so, then I can see no 'rule violation' in saying so. Wikipedia is not SUPPOSED to be a battlefield. But, can anyone really say that Cold Fusion wasn't? In 1989 (first DOE review) it would have been perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia to describe cold fusion as fringe pseudo-science, but that became less and less true over time and by 2004 about a third of the second DOE review members were saying that they found the evidence for cold fusion convincing or compelling. In 1989 US government funding into cold fusion research was barred because the DOE thought there was nothing to it, but since 2004 it has been allowed... because the DOE now isn't sure whether there is anything to it. Kudos to Pcarbonn (and doubtless others) on successfully updating the encyclopedia to be in line with the current status of the issue. Five years from now we may be rewriting the article again to explain what was really behind the anomalies which caused researchers to think that cold fusion was happening... or the details of how cold fusion was confirmed. Surprise, NPOV isn't a static unchanging animal... and sometimes getting people to accept that things have changed IS a 'battle'. --CBD 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the policy of NPOV is a very static sexy animal. However an actual neutral point of view can change day by day (MINUTE BY MINUTE!) on specific topics. And everyone who saw the Saint stop the evil Russians knows Cold Fusion is real. Beam 11:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2008 version (with 64k of material -- JzG cut it down to a 2004 version with 24k material) doesn't even describe it as a scientific controversy per se. It's pretty neutral; the phenomenon is described more like a strange anomalous curiosity which mainstream physics mainly ignores and can't explain. It's sort of an example of incommensurability between research programmes a la Lakatos – not that "new physics" is really scientific in my mind, but as a layman I have no way of knowing. There seems to be more interest it in abroad, but since we're English, we can't really discuss that as well, only mention it. Of course where there is interest should be mentioned, as it is in the well-referenced version, which is rather careful. In some cases it language could be shifted; for example, in the criticism section on lack of reproducibility, it might be best to start with the 2004 DOE panel's claim that the effects are not replicable rather than the the researchers' claim that there is replicability "at will". Then again, considering the 2 recent positive reviews and reports in peer-reviewed journals, maybe not. What is surprising is that there are very few recent negative reviews in the article. This might be because many of the anti-fringe POV pushers prefer to blank than to do research. If JzG gave the thing a careful read and attempted some research of his own, he could fix these problems; instead he seems intent upon pushing a futile edit-war with no talk page support to make some kind of emotional point. His actions are amazingly irrational and starkly in violation of Wikipedia policies for dispute resolution; surely he realizes that 40k of content worked up over 4 years are not going to disappear on his personal whim. II | (t - c) 11:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2008 version is perfect if you are a True Believer, less so if you subscribe to the majority POV. When you say anti-fringe POV pushers, do you mean WP:NPOV-pushers like me and SA, or do you mean those who oppose Pcarbonn and the other fringe POV-pushers? I don't do WP:OR, myself, but thanks for the suggestion.Guy (Help!) 12:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBD, what the 2004 DoE review said, and what those who supported cold fusion in some respect said, was that there is some unknown effect but that without getting the basic science right it is pointless to keep repeating the same sometimes-reproducible experiments. The cold fusion mob like to interpret this as "DoE supports cold fusion research", but actually it's "DoE says go away and do the basic science". They have had 18 years to do it, and have not yet come up with a credible mechanism. The scientific community is still waiting, and the general reaction to cold fusion in the scientific community is highly sceptical, which is one reason the cold fusion mob did a Windscale and changed the name to LENR. But the problem remains: those who have the enrgy and determination, are those with a vested interest in the fringe view. That was the problem during dispute resolution, it is the problem now. The New Energy Times mob have successfully rewritten Wikipedia to reflect the world as they wish it to e, but the world is not as they wish it to be. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy has related this to a genuine problem, of persistent and polite pov pushing producing misleading articles. This version (not Guy's preferred older version) includes references which are difficult to substantiate, but appear to indicate something which is clearly fringe science. Whether it's pseudoscience is more debatable, and to that extent the older lead appears doubtful to me, but at present the lead section bends over backwards to give credibility to what seems to be a minor unexplained anomaly which is only just detectable. Its proponents still seem to be making wild claims about the potential of this unexplained process for future energy generation. The request for mediation resulted in a draft being introduced for further discussion, and evidently the recent version was considerably watered down from that draft to give more credence to "cold fusion". Not easy to overcome such persistence, unless editors show equal persistence in giving due weight to mainstream views. . . dave souza, talk 12:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. For example, the lead describes two literature searches by interested parties in minor journals, thus placing them on a par with Fleischmann and Pons' paper in Nature, one of the highest impact journals in the world, and leading to one of the largest scientific controversies of my lifetime. Sure, Pcarbonn sincerely believes that the tiny group of pro-CF researchers are onto something. Problem is, most of the mainstream not only doesn't believe this, they don't even know they exist. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved with the editing of this article. It seems to me that whether the material inserted by the POV pusher is correct (or rather, plausible) is beside the point. Rather, we have a startling admission of bad faith in editing and unclean hands. It seems to me that in the face of that, the proper steps are:

1. Revert the article to the pre-bad-faith version (the FAC version seems like a good starting point.)
2. Begin dispute resolution at whatever level is appropriate (RFC, RFArb), and optionally...
3. Discuss in this space whether a community (or topic) ban is appropriate

Dithering over the details of the edits is appropriate for a content dispute. This is not a content dispute. This is an editor who has figured out how to game our system, who has done so to great effect, and who is now encouraging others to do so. This is an extraordinary situation, and in my opinion, calls for extraordinary remedies. Nandesuka (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nandesuka. This is not about the topic being fringe science or not, this is about violations of our conflict of interest standards and about treating Wikipedia as a battleground. I could well imagine that a topic ban might be an appropriate remedy. Sandstein 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A revert to the accepted mediation version, which includes most of the content from the Featured Article, is what I suggested on Guy's talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: "accepted mediation version" here equates to Pcarbonn's preferred version, since he was responsible for about 90% of the lobbying in the mediation - I was rather busy burying my father at the time, and Pcarbonn somehow forgot to mention that he was setting out to use Wikipedia to blaze the trail in rehabilitating the reputation of this fringe field. I'm sure it just slipped his mind. You'll find if you look at that mediation that virtually everybody supporting the more sympathetic view which prevailed, is a single-purpose or agenda account, and they are the ones with all the determination because it is vitally important to them to get their way. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments should be made cold fusion talk page. This is a bad faith, biased rant by JzG, who apparently hasn't even read the article, nor paid any attention to the thorough discussions ongoing on the article. The article has been constructed collaboratively with several editors, including skeptics. ScienceApologist and several others are heavily involved there balancing things; JzG would be welcome, I'm sure. Pcarbonn has a vested interest -- this is not the same thing as a conflict of interest, which implies financial incentives. Sure, Pcarbonn has an opinion, and feels that the article on cold fusion is now balanced. That doesn't necessarily mean it is balanced, but that is something that JzG should try to fix as an editor, and should be. If one reads BATTLEGROUND, one can see that he is working directly against its principles. Battle ground says this:

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion.

Rather than attempting to go to the talk page and gather consensus, JzG suddenly reverts an article 4 years back. That's battleground behavior, pure and simple. Find problem areas, bring them up, discuss, use dispute resolution if necessary. II | (t - c) 15:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the perspective of article content, the only question that needs to be asked when someone has reverted a page to a prior version is, "Is the restored version better than the more recent version?" The act of reverting, particularly if a revert is back to a FA version, is not necessarily "battleground behavior." I haven't looked into this particular debate. Antelan 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only question is not whether one person (in this case, JzG) thinks it is better, but whether the editors think it is better. JzG went straight in and took it back to 2004, with not a word to the talk page seeing what all the actual article contributors have to say. He reverted again after an anon IP contributor to the article (who I believe is a skeptic of cold fusion) reverted him. That behavior is undeniably shocking, really, and you should really look into things before you comment. The page has seen heavy attention lately. A 2004 FA wouldn't even be a GA today, in many cases, and I think this is one of them. 24k vs. 64k; the "FA" doesn't even have footnotes or parenthetical references. JzG is not our knight of science. This is not a battleground where he fights demons of fringe. He needs to learn to play within the rules and discuss like normal editors. II | (t - c) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to 2004, FA or not, seems retarded. Since 2004 the way mainstream scientists and the US Govt (among others) look at Cold Fusion has changed. The whole idea of Cold Fusion has evolved in 4 years. To revert to 2004 instead of working together in 2008 is lazy, and imAWESOMEo irresponsible. Beam 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Actually, if anything the 'featured article' version seems markedly more friendly to a 'cold fusion is real' viewpoint than the version before the revert. In several places the version from four years ago seems to state cold fusion as an outright fact, barely pausing to note that some dispute it. Also note that I call it a 'featured article' version because it is nowhere remotely close to current FA standards... featured articles were a very different thing four years ago. --CBD 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what has happened since 2004: the American Chemical Society hosted a 2007 conference on cold fusion,[19] and plans to (or already has) published a book in 2008[20], and the American Physical Society hosted a conference. The Indian gov't announced that the science appears promising and wants to look into it, an Indian version of Nature ran an article; and a couple people at Osaka University claimed that they have working cold fusion reactor.[21]. I've never edited the article and only read it first a couple weeks ago, so there may be other things, but these are all reliably published. I'm guessing that JzG just didn't know about these things; if he did, then it seems even more ridiculous. That's why it is best to research and think before acting... II | (t - c) 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave the content issue aside for now, though I have an opinion about it. The basic issue is simple: we have an editor whose self-admitted purpose is to use Wikipedia to raise the profile and credibility of a fringe/disputed idea. That editor has used mediation as a "battle" in which he successfully wore down opposition, and has gone so far as to brag about it in a niche publication devoted to cold fusion.

This editor should not be editing Wikipedia articles on cold fusion. That this is even controversial is disheartening. We have here a very basic and well-documented abuse of Wikipedia to promote an off-wiki agenda. I am in full agreement with Sandstein: Pcarbonn should be restricted from editing cold fusion and related articles indefinitely, though at this point I would suggest allowing him to continue contributing to the talk pages. If his proposed changes actually improve the article, they will find support from others. Is there significant opposition to a topic ban from articlespace on cold fusion - based not on which version is "better" but on an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an agenda? MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that dragging an on-Wiki dispute off-Wiki is never a good idea, I think we should primarily consider PCarbonn's on-Wiki contributions to the page and behavior before we start boiling up the tar. PCarbonn has worked diligently and in good faith. I see no reason based on his record to support a topic ban. Ronnotel (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki agenda? One's agendas cannot be separated into on-wiki and off-wiki categories. You have an agenda to write good medical articles reflecting mainstream science. Pierre has an agenda to make sure that the recent scientific literature on cold fusion is presented. If you look at the purported evidence, he states he believed that his work was necessary and neutral, and that he was aided by the publishing of articles in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. No evidence has been presented that he wore down the opposition into accepting information that doesn't belong on the page. The cold fusion article right now looks fine, with plenty of strong references and a neutral tone. Some less strong references are probably in there, but they can be removed, and they constitute the minority from what I've seen. II | (t - c) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on - one of those "agendas" is in keeping with Wikipedia's goals, mission, and policies, and one isn't. The cold fusion page doesn't look fine - it was just protected due to edit-warring over a particularly iffy conclusion to the lead. If someone goes off-wiki to say, "Hey, I won the battle to use Wikipedia to raise the profile of our pet theory!" and then comes on-wiki to edit-war in furtherance of that agenda, then I don't see the point of an artificial distinction - the bottom line is amply clear. I feel strongly that either 1RR or restriction to the talk page are appropriate here. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Pierre didn't add that bit to the lead, and is fine with removing it. From what I've seen he appears to be quite cooperative. He comes with a bit of a bias, yes, but so does everyone. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for JzG, who appears less inclined towards discussion and consensus and much more inflammatory. II | (t - c) 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, because Pierre is here for the long haul to get his POV reflected in Wikipedia as part of changing the way the world views the subject, whereas I'm here to keep the project neutral and have many, many articles on my watchlist - plus I'm travelling right now (in the Swiss business lounge in Zurich airport, to be exact). Guy (Help!) 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too am not bothered by this report. Previous efforts to influence Wikipedia have resorted to sockpuppetry, concerted meat-puppet campaigns, canvassing, and the like. This effort instead used reasoned arguments in a mediation. The mediation by a good and fair editor here, resulted in some changes to the article, and they regard the changes as having the article "present[ing] the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science." This is a reasonable goal, and in keeping with Wikipedia policy. They consider the main way they did it was by adding additional references. Ditto. I wish all people with an agenda did as reasonably. (FWIW,my personal opinion is that the initial reports were in fact an example of pathological science, and that subsequent work now leaves open the possibility that something might be real. It is a somewhat more plausible sort of thing than ufos.) DGG (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm explicitly not endorsing Guy's, or anyone's, preferred version. The new one may well be better, and anyway that's not an AN/I question. I'm not even arguing with the quote snippet you've selected, about describing it as a "controversy" rather than "pathologic science" - I think that's appropriate. I'm concerned by the other quote snippets above, indicating that a group of people from this relatively small community are using Wikipedia to raise the profile of their pet idea, and that they view their participation as a "battle" to gain "recognition" for "paradigm-shifting scientists like Pons and Fleischmann." I'm not especially convinced by the argument that OTHERCOORDINATEDAGENDAPUSHINGEXISTS; sure, they're not "as bad" as some of the chronic Lyme disease groups, or the AIDS denialists, or the unaccredited-correspondence-school brigade, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue. And I don't see the problem with 1RR - if these changes have support from editors without an axe to grind, then they'll be incorporated. If it's only the cold-fusion community that want to see them incorporated, then it won't happen. That seems right to me. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mast, please, point to something Pierre has done on-wiki that deserves censure. If we handed out topic bans to every editor who brings an agenda there'd be no one left to enforce them. Ronnotel (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an oversimplification. If we topic-banned everyone who came here solely to leverage this site's visibility and promote a topic "unjustly ignored" by mainstream academia, we'd be just fine. In fact, this place might get closer to its stated goal of being a serious, respected reference work.

Again, I see the on-wiki distinction as artificial in this case. This editor has written that his participation here is driven by the desire to promote acceptance of cold fusion, and thus favorably influence journalistic and academic coverage of it. In light of that expressed agenda, his on-wiki actions, summarized in his own words as "I have won the battle for cold fusion", seem problematic. I have a really hard time seeing what we lose by 1RR here. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a really hard time seeing where 1RR is justified here. Given, for instance, that Pcarbonn reverted JzG exactly... once. It was everyone else, including a cold fusion skeptic, that was reverting JzG's 'blast from the past' restoration of the page to 2004. --CBD 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Mason

Perhaps there is a revision of this article that should be deleted, the porn actor's real name was at one point revealed and immediatelly removed (and using that name one could get google results even with details like his high school.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk) 14:35, July 24, 2008 (UTC)

Done. –xeno (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick request

Resolved

Could an administrator please delete For a New Liberty so that I can reverse the redirect? I tagged it for speedy two and a half hours ago and haven't got the time to wait around any longer. Spasibo, Skomorokh 15:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though in the future I suggest you use the first parameter of {{db-move}} to make it easier to tell what you want done. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift attention, but I'm afraid Twinkle doesn't support the parameter you suggest. Sincerely, Skomorokh 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then ::GASP:: do it without Twinkle. Beam 16:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive as always, Beamathan. Skomorokh 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Admin coaching

One of the co-coordinators of Admin Coaching has semi-retired and removed himself from the position. I've said before I feel uncomfortable being the only coordinator. Would anyone else with some experience in the field be interested in helping out? MBisanz ^talk 16:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geesh, when was the last time that page was updated? It's almost entirely false. Also, what is the specific role of the coordinator/s? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag as {{historical}} and go back to the old way of letting people find coaches themself? –xeno (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MBis... I know this probably wasn't the feedback you were looking for, but I completely agree with Xeno. The page is not just outdated but otherwise problematic. I don't think we need a new coordinator, or any coordinator, frankly. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. (and I agree with xeno too). Keeper ǀ 76 16:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just to clarify, this isn't a dig at you or BM (MB AND BM, how about that), I just don't think there's enough admins participating in ADCO for it to be a well-functioning entity at the moment (as evidenced by the large number of backlogged requests). Much like the LOCE, it's probably better not to get peoples hopes up and instead have them pound the streets looking for a coach themselves. Just mho. –xeno (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does a co-ordinater actually do? WilyD 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matches coachees and coaches. –xeno (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to further clarify my stance, it looks like most of the effort is in the encouragement of systematic editing in certain areas to increase likelihood of passing an RfA, something that the community appears to be sniffing out regardless of its being done in admin coaching or by the editor themselves. It's resulting in more candidates getting blindsided by negative results in RfAs as coaching, no matter how much people don't want to admit, can't teach maturity or other intangibles, probably the single most impotant qualities of a good admin. Bringing this back to the topic at hand, I'd be quite happy if this program fizzled out and we don't try to keep it going. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem the fact that the programme appears to be aimed at getting people to and through an RFA? The mentoring concept behind it is a good one - it's basically an extension of the adoption programme - where it takes those people who have been around long enough to master the basics of editing and contributing, so wouldn't fall under the current adoption scheme, and then takes them "behind the scenes" and shows them how to contribution not just on a content-level, but on a project-level. That's a good thing, surely - the more people participate in XfDs, and the project and community side of things the better. Maybe, then, convert it into more of an adoption scheme for not-so-newbies...? _GB^T/C 17:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm glad someone is finally paying attention to this, I got the job by default when the last coord retired from WP, in Feb 2008 me and Balloonman tried cleaning it up as best as we could, recruiting new coaches, etc. I agree we may have failed and wouldn't object to retiring the coordinator part of the wikiproject. If we do tag it as historical, we will need to update the Esperanza close, the RFA instructions, and remind people not to send NOTNOW RFA candidates to coaching. All up to you guys :) MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say you failed; a coordinator can only help as much as he has people willing to be coordinated. –xeno (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a pisser. I was hoping to get some coaching, not because of the maturity and "intangibles" (I am just immature enough to fancy myself equipped in that department ;D ) but because I am pretty sure an RfA for me would fail right now due to lack of relative lack of mainspace/article-building contribs and lack of experience with other people's RfA's and Wikiprojects. I was hoping for some pointers and coaching in how best to accumulate those types of contribs and experience, and for advice in when I had done enough of that type of work.

If the project has fallen apart, no sense in continuing it. But it's still a pisser. :( --Jaysweet (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malcolm Schosha

Resolved

– Individual has been asked by email to contact the original blocking admin

User:Malcolm Schosha/User:Kwork, who left six weeks ago through right to vanish, has emailed me asking "what would be involved in unblocking either" of those two accounts. Hence, I'm putting it up for review here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can figure out, he was Kwork (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks), but then was indef'd for disruption, and came back as Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). So I gather if he can address the reasons for his original blocking to the satisfaction of the community or the original blocking admin, he might be able to be unblocked on the Kwork account. –xeno (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who requested that? I thought he vanished... Beam 17:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual, not the account, is vanishing. There is no coming back for that individual." from Wikipedia:Right to vanish#What vanishing is not. There is no right to vanish involved here at all, and mentioning it or suggesting there is is just raising confusion. Since jpgordon imposed the original indefinite block and scarian accurately blocked the new account for being a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, discussion should be with those admins. GRBerry 18:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only brought up the RTV to give the whole context, to skirt confusion. I'll email the individual and tell him to take this up with User:jpgordon. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Wikipedia

Resolved

Hello, i need to remove protection from this article, Rodull, the admin, did so, in order to find a consensus (Take a look to the talk page) but it was not reached, also, apparently, he's afraid from puppets, i told him to protect it again later, after my edits. Regards. --Stayfi (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no consensus has been reached is a reason to leave it protected, not to unprotect it.
Requests to unprotect pages should be directed to WP:RFPP.
As for your suggestion that it should be unprotected to allow you to make an edit, and then re-protected, please see WP:WRONG. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Template:editprotect. It is not inherently bad to want to have edits made to a protected page (although you are probably right that WP:WRONG applies in this case anyway...) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking of only a few days protection so far, and I do not see a consensus developing for Stayfi's edits. If that happens, fine. I consider unprotecting at this time premature. --Rodhull andemu 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this same user has requested this same thing either here or on ANI as recently as yesterday, and evidently won't take no for an answer. I'd suggest he stop asking, it's getting disruptive. --barneca (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As per this, I am marking as resolved and warning the user about filing spurious reports. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, thanks, i'll try to post it, in the remove protection section.

Jaysweet, not all humans r the same, if u find one who understands u better, why not?

Barneca, move along, ignore me simply, regards --Stayfi (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 459: / Line 459: @@
 ::::Also, this same user has requested this same thing either here or on ANI as recently as yesterday, and evidently won't take no for an answer.  I'd suggest he stop asking, it's getting disruptive. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 19:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 :::::Indeed.  As per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=227470631 this], I am marking as resolved and warning the user about filing spurious reports. --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
+* Woo, thanks, i'll try to post it, in the remove protection section.
+: Jaysweet, not all humans r the same, if u find one who understands u better, why not?
+Barneca, move along, ignore me simply, regards --[[User:Stayfi|Stayfi]] ([[User talk:Stayfi|talk]]) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards