Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Jaguar

Live discussion moved from archive 732.

Before departing, retired User:Jaguar created many articles with malformed ledes and infoboxes, (as seen in a search for the diagnostic string "Jaguar/Sandbox/3" and this fix), presumably with a malformed script or bot. Over 100 (but under 250) exist. Those articles, and other, more recent examples without the aforesaid malformations, also include the text "(Chinese: ?)" as shown, including the question mark. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed forty, and there are 82 left to do. --Dianna (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed forty-eight, and can't find any more in mainspace. Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. I did 34 more this morning, so it looks like the problem is resolved. --Dianna (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I must apologise for my actions that I have done a couple of months ago. I'm afraid that I don't use Wikipedia anymore and I only will return for emergencies such as this one. By the way I didn't use a script or bot, I used to create articles manually. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help! Jaguar (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at many of the stubs that User:Jaguar created after this discussion, and many of the ones I looked at have multiple issues such as: reference urls's that don't point anywhere, malformed reference url's, reference url's that point to a website as oppossed to pointing to the page inside the website that talks about the subject, internal links that are wrong, reference titles that are wrong.

Also I don't know if the (Chinese: ?) thing is an issue or not, but they all have this.

In my opinion, there is no point in replacing a red link with a stub that doesn't say more than the title and contain things that are wrong. Let alone doing this 10,000 times. Azylber (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of articles where there is still a problem, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, please could get me an example so I can look at it and hopefully fix it? I've checked many of my new articles and references work just fine. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

An example? Let's go to List of township-level divisions of Heilongjiang and start from the very top: the Tongcheng Subdistrict link in Acheng District. It takes us to the page that reads, in its entirety: "Saiqi (Chinese: ?) is a township-level division situated in Ningde, Fujian, China". So is it Saiqi or Tongcheng, is it in Ningde or in Acheng (part of Harbin Prefecture), is the province Fujian or Heilongjiang? A few more items look "OK" (as in, "no useful info, but no absolutely misleading info either"), but then in the 3rd line we have Daling Township whose article has a link to the List of township-level divisions of Hainan in its "See also" section. Obviously I am not going to inspect more than a few stubs - I usually run into them when I need to do something useful - but a good round of quality control seems to be in order here, before more stubs are to be created. Again, I am not against the creation of a large number of township articles per se, but I'd like them to be generated at least at the minimal information level that one can see at zh.wiki. Over there, they had a a bot create them all, and the bot was doing it based on some kind of CSV file with quite a bit of basic information, such the correct county assignment (with the appropriate county-wide category), the list of villages within the township, geographic coordinates, and even the national identification number (zh:中华人民共和国行政区划代码 - something that each township apparently has). -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. I will do my best to address them later on in the week as I am busy for the next few days. I would like to point out that I simply start these stubs so that any user with the knowledge of that area of China can expand them and contribute to them. There has been a mass creation of red links and naturally red links cannot sit there forever, so I took up the task of making those red links blue. It's a feat that improves the encyclopedia, adding some base articles, as of all, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it. Many thanks Jaguar (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the first thing I'm going to say is: I'm going to list lots of errors here that affect thousands of articles, so I hope nobody takes this personally, ok? I'm just concerned about the quality of the encyclopedia. Please don't take this personally.

For example, look at this stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinsha_Subdistrict

Here are some of the errors present in this stub, which are also present in hundreds of other stubs Jaguar created:

• 1) URL references that are wrong. For the stub we're looking at, the URL for the reference is http://www.xzqh.org/html/gu/ which does not exist and as far as I know never existed.

This error exists in a large number of articles. Does this break the policy on creating lots of unreferenced stubs?

• 2) Internal links that are wrong. For example, in that same article, look at the link that says "township-level division". Instead of taking you to the list of township-level divisions of Guangdong province, it takes you to the list of township-level divisions of Fujian province.

This error exists in a large number of articles.

• 3) Cite titles that are wrong. For example, in that same article, the reference given (which by the way, takes you to a page that doesn't exist) also has the wrong title. It says "福建省", which means Fujian province, when it should say Guangdong province.

So again, introducing information that is wrong. This error exists in a huge number of articles, ranging from March to right now, for example this one created yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanfang_Subdistrict

• 4) The article says "(Chinese: ?)", which I don't know if it's against the policies or not, but some people have complained. In my opinion, a stub that says nothing more than the title doesn't say much. If you could at leave give us the Chinese name, you're adding something that's not on the title.

• 5) No interwiki to the Chinese wikipedia, even though the article exists in the Chinese wikipedia.

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%91%E7%A0%82%E8%A1%97%E9%81%93

• 6) He was told about some of these errors in December at WP:AN and numerous times since February on his talk page and he didn't fix them. Instead, he chose to go on to create thousands more stubs, with the same errors.

• 7) Errors like the ones pointed out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaguar#Jiangwan where he mentions a province and calls it a city, a county and calls it a district and so on. He blames these ones on errors that exist in other pages, but obviously when you create a new article you have to verify what you're writing, right?

• 8) He was asked on numerous ocasions by numerous users to slow down and check the errors in his existing stubs before creating thousands of new ones. I think it's important to listen to that advice.

I think I'm probably missing a few other errors in some batches that I haven't reviewed, but this should be enough to show what the situation is.

Whether or not creating thousands of stubs is a good idea or not has been debated many times and I don't want to enter that discussion, but I think a one line stub that contains errors is definitely a minus and not a plus, because it's misleading and also because it takes longer to fix it than to do it right at creation.

Finally, if you look at the notice at the top of Jaguar's talk page, it says that if you report these issues he will give you one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_%28gesture%29 I think this is not constructive.

Again, I hope nobody takes this personally. Azylber (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's OK don't worry! I didn't take any of that personally. Can I point out to you that there are actually fewer mistakes than you think:

• 1) These URLS are broke because the Chinese website went down at the time and that is entirely not my fault. I will find a new link and will correct them using AWB if you want.
• 2) Yes, those are plainly my mistakes that I have made when creating these articles and I knew that I have done them. I fixed a lot of links in the past when I had found out that I had made typos in User:Jaguar/Sandbox/3. A few more might exist, but not as much as you think! :)
• 3) Again, a typo. Like above I speedily corrected some of them when I found out that I had forgot to copy and paste in extra words.
• 4) That is there for a reason. The question mark is fine! If I were to look up every single one of those Chinese symbols it would take me half a century to start these articles!
• 5) I will add a interwiki soon.
• 6) That's misleading. I did fix any articles I found problems with in December, before I retired.
• 7) I just follow the lists on what I'm creating on. If there is a province, I put it in the article expecting if it is correct. I had no idea that they could be anything else like prefecture-level cities and so on!
• 8) I didn't create thousands more, I've stopped right now.
• 9) I've removed that from my talk page.

I will be busy for a few days, which means that I can't correct them just yet. I've just left school for the final time today and said my goodbyes to everyone, so I'll be busy at the moment. I can say that I feel guilty about all this. Please don't look at me like I'm selfish or not considering Wikipedia. I will do anything to put myself in ANI's good books, but I can't today. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did create a very large quantity of articles containing errors after you were told on numerous occasions. So please don't say you didn't know.

I'm glad that you have at least removed the "fuck you" gesture at the top of your talk page threatening anyone who reported these issues. Azylber (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It was intended to be a joke and not taken seriously. Please, I'm getting the impression that you're trying to get me into trouble. Jaguar (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said 3 times, this is not personal. I'm not trying to get you into trouble, I'm concerned with what you're doing, despite having been told many times by many people.Azylber (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good, perhaps we should continue at Jaguar's talk page? We can resolve this fairly easily I'm sure, there are a few more wrinkles that need smoothing out. Assistance from someone with strong Chinese reading skills might be an advantage. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

I'm not sure that continuing in his talk page is enough. Many have told him about these things for months, and what he's done is make up excuses, leave all the errors there, and create thousands more stubs with the same errors.

I think perhaps some policy could come out of all this, because all this mess will take a lot of work to fix.Azylber (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• WP:MASSCREATION? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Azylber, I am listening to all your concerns and I am taking in the comments. I am not ignoring them or making up excuses. There would be no need to go off creating new policies on stubs because there is already enough! If I'm creating stubs for a good cause and if they have at least one suitable reference, then there should be no problem. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it. Jaguar (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm more interested in fixing up issues than worrying about policy. If Jaguar is keen to do as much of that as he can (and I understand that motivation) then his talk page seems a good place to coordinate resolution. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Do you have any idea of the scale of the issues—is it as big as this, or this? I clicked on the "Jinsha Subdistrict" example above; the amount of pages Jaguar created in the following minute alone is eleven. That's a new one every 5.4 seconds. I have no idea if that was a particularly slow minute. The single reference on each is a googletranslate link. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting here a little late to the party apparently, since we have timestamps from 2011 up there... perhaps some formatting considerations (and a descriptive title) would be called for in future notices.

Anyway, I'm one of the editors that suggested jaguar slow down. He indicated on the talk page he's made over 10,000 of these stub-type pages... and the creation rate is astounding. I'm not doubting that copy-pasted into chrome and did it that way, but whether we wikilawyer over what semi-automated means or not, the Bot guidelines are very clear for large semi-automated article creations, and this is a textbook version of that. We have policies on hand. Let's please use them.

Massive stub creations in batch (and i mean massive) are not helpful, and they create way more work to our editors than they provide knowledge to our users. I don't think jaguar means ill in any of this, but it needs to be clear that there's no glory in making hundreds of pages generated out of a table.

What I would like to see is a consensus that this sort of mass creation, particularly when it's so full of errors (that thankfully people have caught... I shudder to think how many we don't catch), needs to be limited in the least, and that the BAG guidelines are followed, in Jaguar's case specifically, but also more generally. Shadowjams (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Shadowjams, I agree with everything you say, it's exactly my same opinion.

What I would like to know is who is going to fix all this mess. Thousands of articles without references (a URL that points nowhere or that points to the wrong place is not a valid reference), with internal links pointing to the division list for the wrong provinces, with cite titles that are wrong, without the interwiki link etc etc. It will take a very long time to fix all this, much longer than it took Jaguar to mass-create all these stubs. Are we going to spend the time it would take to fix all this? Is it worth it? We could simply mass-delete them. Or, we could leave them there, trashing the quality of wikipedia.

It's also worrying to think of how many we don't catch.

I also want to know what is going to be done to prevent other people doing this in the future.

Azylber (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well for systematic problems, like the ? in infoboxes, I can help Rich do those with AWB if he wants (because rich is under a bit of a restriction on that I think), but Rich has been very helpful in offering advice about fixing those. If Rich wants to contact me about some of those things I can run I'd be happy to. I have a high level of experience with regular expressions.

My bigger concern is accuracy related. I don't know anything about the subject of those articles, and I certainly can't dig deeply through those lists. But, if there's stuff that just needs a hammer to do in order to fix it, let me know on my talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in a similar situation about a year ago, though on a much smaller scale; an editor was attempting to provide similar information about localities in India (though in aggregate articles rather than individual ones), and they were similarly unsourced or undersourced. One of the ANI reports can be viewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive696#User Maheshkumaryadav creating a slew of poor articles. The end decision was to delete most of the articles he had made. The most relevant Afd is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villages in Haryana. The argument I made there, and would probably make here, is that these articles, if unsourced, are actually harmful, and not a part of the incremental step of building the encyclopedia. If we know that a reasonable number of them are wrong, and have no reason to believe that they rest are correct, then it's actually more work for an editor who wants to make these articles to edit these than it is to start from scratch. That's because first they have to look into the existing article, and get confused (wait, is this about a different village with the same name?); then they may have to backtrack to the list articles and fix those. I haven't researched the details above, but if this is a regular, wide-ranging problem, mass-deletion is actually probably a better fix than anything else, unless there is currently another editor who has an accurate almanac who is willing to commit to fixing them relatively shortly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion is not the answer. That is the most upsetting thing I've ever heard. That would mean hours of my work would be gone, all for nothing. Listen, I can fix most of those issues. Rich Farmborough is doing the right thing by making a list of solutions and I will use those solution! I would also like to point out that the whole issue everyone has made here is not as serious as you think. Everyone in this ANI discussion has just pointed out every single bad detail of my Wikipedia career, to be honest. Also, the number of Chinese townships I created is actually not 10,000. It's probably around 8,200+. 10,000 is the total number of articles I've created. And to be honest I know that it sounds a lot, but in truth it isn't. Other uses have created much more the 10,000. Say Dr. Blofeld has created 80,000!

Please don't take this discussion too far. I am going to do everything I can to fix these issues. I expect every single article to be kept as they are each notable enough for its existence - it's a Chinese town somewhere in the world! Jaguar (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Dr. Blofeld's stubs and your stubs is that yours are full of errors and therefore do more damage than good.

And let me remind you that this discussion wouldn't be taking place if you hadn't ignored the warnings that many people gave you for months on your talk page and welcomed us all with a fuck off gesture that you have removed now that this came to light.

If you're going to sit down and fix your 10,000 full of errors stubs then it's fine. Otherwise they should be mass deleted because like several people pointed out, they do more damage than good. And it doesn't matter how much work you put into it, what matters is Wikipedia. If you chose to continue working for hours making more stubs with errors after you were told many times, that is only your fault.

I think you should stop making all these excuses and start fixing. Azylber (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, someone revoke their autopatrolled rights. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) You say there's "no need to go off creating new policies on stubs because there is already enough", but it doesn't appear you've taken notice of the existing ones. You had Autopatrolled status revoked in late August for creating dozens of unreferenced stubs [1], then asked for it back 3 weeks later "I have mass created over 200 articles and each and every one of them has a suitable reference". If you've mass created 10k, that's 9,800 since last September; 90% of them on Chinese townships. You say you'd been authorised to do the mass creations, as is required, yet when asked for a link to the discussion you gave a link of you re-asking the admin for autopatrol. That isn't soliciting community input nor a proposal of any sort.

Your userpage has an ANI comment linked [2] where you say you created over 100 pages in six minutes. Faster than one every 3.6 seconds. It's directly above: "To do list: 1. Create every township in China, 2. Get to #10 on List of Wikipedians by articles created".
A current WP:BON discussion has highly experienced admins & members of the Bot Approvals Group (see WP:MEATBOT) saying even the simplest bot shouldn't exceed 1 edit every three seconds because sometimes bad edits are made and it can take some time to fix/check. And that's talking about approved bots doing a minor activity.

Problems with the substubs containing temp sandbox titles were raised in late November [3]; you continued creating en masse, the last one six days later - Hongxing Township, placing retired shortly afterwards. [4] [5] You unretired in the new year with the first edit summary "Nobody's gonna push me about", adding "I have returned - but only for a limited time. This time no crackpots at ANI [shortly after changed to nobody] are going to push me about, I'm gonna get this job done once and for all." Your very first edit outside userspace was to resume mass creating with Chengbei Subdistrict, Beijing—which still contains "ENTERHERE". Two in that same minute, fourteen in the following minute continuing that day, and the next and so on, into the several thousands.

The downplaying the issue as "not as serious as you think" (How can you know?) or pledge to do everything you "can to fix these issues" (Suddenly learn to read Chinese?) is what's troubling. Despite you saying [6] this morning "There are no more errors. That's the last of them.", the Chengbei article alone shows this is untrue. The rate at which they're made means mistakes, yet inability to understand the foreign-language source hoping on gtranslate of an Asian language seems the fundamental problem as Azylber and Vmenkov showed above. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Jaguar's autopatrolled (again). That is the bare minimum that is required here given what evidence suggests is an ongoing inability to trust that his stubs meet the bare minimum requirements for content level and correctness. That doesn't mean this should be closed quite yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Would anybody else like to point out anything bad about my Wikipedia career? How about taking this matter that didn't start off so serious much higher? I'm going to fix these myself since this situation can't get any worse. To be honest I think everyone's jealous that I can contribute to Wikipedia by expanding knowledge and not sticking around ANI all day bullying people into self pity. Jaguar (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to crucify you. You were creating hundreds of stubs that had errors. You have the view that creating hundreds of error-filled stubs and then leaving it to others to clean them up and expand them is not a problem. Consensus here disagreed with you and an admin removed your autopatrolled rights. Other editors are merely telling you to slow down and focus a bit more on quality rather than quantity. Chillllls (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That IP definitely was. I just don't like it when I try my best to solve issues but I'm being accused of "ignoring them" and "making up excuses" which is not true. I don't appreciate Azylber highlighting the words "fuck off" in bold which is trying to make it look like that I'm being uncivil, but I have never been uncivil around here. I am fixing some of the problems now. I estimate that around the 8,000 Chinese townships I created, only 30% or a little more have errors in them. Do people have the joy of running me down? Jaguar (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, people are not taking joy in "running [you] down." Think about this for a second: you estimate that 30% of 8,000 stubs have errors. Looking at it from another perspective, that's twenty-four-hundred errors that you've inserted into the encyclopedia. You're creating these stubs at roughly the same rate as a bot, and a bot with a 30% error rate would never ever be approved. You should realize that there are editors on this page who have said nothing about your civility but have a problem with your stubs. No one is calling for you to be blocked, so please stop playing the victim and fix your contribs. Chillllls (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That IP was not. Your talkpage includes comments from two users experienced in high-volume page creation, one of whom mass created the politican stubs highlighted above as AlbertHerring then four days after the bulk AfD closed renamed to Ser Amantio di Nicolao (not all he does & he's done a lot for the site), and Dr. Blofeld - who wrote he's also counseled you in email.

It pushes credibility imo, that they wouldn't be aware of the policy. It became policy not long after that incident. At worse, it can be argued the editor(s) knew or could reasonably be expected to know that you hadn't proposed it, perhaps considering policies don't have to be followed and/or it's better to ask forgiveness than permission, yet didn't bring it up to you in passive encouragement to avoid following policy. The reasons it mandates tasks must be approved are twofold: to help ensure projects that ought to go ahead go well and to ensure editors are not demoralised. You wrote above "Mass deletion is not the answer. That is the most upsetting thing I've ever heard". Had it been proposed help could've been given. Instead a result has been to make an editor, and a young editor at that, feel like crap. This is exactly why DGG said what he did in the community discussion linked from the policy. People are not taking joy in this at all. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you know so much about me!? And I guess I would have felt like more crap if the '10,000' of my articles got deleted. Jaguar (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry none of us here know anything personal about you. I was going by your upset comments above. Nobody here wants to make you feel crap, or crappier. I wrote young because you use the {{busyweekdays}} school template on your page. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, Jaguar has a "this user is a teenager" userbox. Quite frankly Jaguar, you've created an enormous workload on others now. All of your articles need to be checked for errors. Even if by yours reckoning 30% of your articles have errors, it makes no difference to the fact that someone is going to have to go through all of them to work out which ones have problems. In fact, I just sampled the last 29 stubs you edited and every single one used the same link as a reference, to the wrong page. All of them link to the Anhui province page except you created 29 stubs about township level divisions in Beijing. Honestly, I see some serious competence issues here. If you can't be bother to check your reference then you shouldn't be creating articles. I propose that Jaguar be banned from creating any more articles until they've sorted out the mess they've created. Blackmane (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since I've been mentioned: we have a great need to properly advise new editors, more carefully and consistently than we do, but even if we always did it properly, it can only work with those editors willing to listen to advice. When they do not listen to advice, the next step is enough of a warning that they realize. And then if they finally learn, mistakes at the beginning will in fact be forgiven. Creating mass articles is dangerous. It can be done right: a few very experienced and skillful and careful editors have done excellent jobs of it in both geography and biology and to a certain extent in biography also. But some pretty good editors in each of those fields have also gotten overconfident and let things go too quick to control, and have shown sometimes they did not realise all the potential problems. WP is a live & very visible database, and testing any automated process on a live database is dangerous. The way to do mass anything is to start slow and small, increase the numbers and speed gradually, test the output yourself at every stage, and pay attention to the results and the comments. And then decrease the speed if problems develop. New editors especially need to do this: the number of things that can go wrong with an article here is beyond what anyone can possibly realise at first. The difficult of fixing them, especially when there are few qualified experts except yourself because of language or subject, is very considerable. You cannot expect the people who have to do the work not to resent it. When you start again, and I suggest you wait a while before that, please go very slowly. I'd suggest 5 or 10 articles a day at most. I'be been here five years, and I never would even try to make articles any faster than 5 a day. I might write a great macro process, but i would fell obliged to check everything I did, and that cannot be done quickly. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more with what DGG has said. He and I have differed on views about notability, but I think one consistent theme is an emphasis on accuracy. The above is excellent advice. People have been talking to Jaguar about this for a while now, and I don't think he's getting the picture yet. As I said before, I don't have any belief Jaguar's acting with any mal intention, however I think there's a serious problem with some of these stub creations by their sheer volume alone. I don't have much to add I haven't already said, but I think Jaguar needs to understand that this is a serious issue. Shadowjams (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am a very young editor. I fear that if I ever revealed my real age people would be surprised at me. I can assure all of you that there are not as many errors in my articles as you might suspect; I will correct all the ones I can find soon. I too could not agree more with what DGG has said. I will of course take that advice and use it; firstly, instead of going through some of my articles and correcting them, I could rewrite them using User:Jaguar/Sandbox/3, just filling in all the appropriate details. Once I have corrected my errors and redeemed myself at ANI, I will start slowly creating the Chinese articles, doing at least 10 a day at the most. I am over halfway through creating every Chinese township in the world. I will correct them - I've got to do it since it's all my fault really.

By the way there would be no need to ban me from creating articles, I'm not exactly an evil vandal who can't be trusted. Jaguar (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not a vandal and we can all see your efforts to try to put things right. By the way Jaguar, in all the talkpage/email comments to you did Dr. Blofeld mention the mass creation policy that's been talked about? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we did not mention any mass creation policies or not that I can remember of anyway. How come you ask? Jaguar (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity. It's interesting to know more background sometimes. It would be good if Dr. Blofeld could come to this section, he might be able to help. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the creating of articles about Chinese townships, infact I started and encouraged the creation of the lists by province. I believe China geographically and in terms of population is the most sparsely covered country on the planet on wikipedia and I believe we should have articles on all of the townships in the long term. However, I too have frequently spotted errors in Jaguar's stubs and if you check his talk page history you'll see I contacted him numerous times. The concerning thing is that the ones already created were not corrected after I spotted them. Technically I really think these articles would be better started with a carefully planned bot and given a trial run to look for errors. It als would be good if they could be started with a population figure. I believe there is also a website which lists subdivisions and postcode etc. I think in the long term we'd be better off having a bot create them. The problem of course is few people are expanding them but I believe we should be covering them. But its finding the most efficient way to start them.. When I started stubs in the past I always double checked to see there were no errors and if I did spot errors I'd contact Rich or Ser Amantio to AWB correct them and sort out any mistakes. I think the most productive thing out of this would be to organize a bot to fix all errors. Some of the dead ref links with the wrong code could simply be fixed with a bot after finding what province is what, you just run a bot through the whole province fixing the ref link.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, thank you very much. You're right, it's apparent from the page history you've spoken to him more than once about errors in his stubs. One thing I wondered about, Jaguar said you hadn't talked about wp:masscreation policy. How come? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Because he's not a bot. They are generated manually. And I have no problem with mass stubbing provided they are accurate without errors and with a fact or two. but as I say in regards to Chinese townships i think a bot should be used.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an example of this. The policy's about mass page creation and the page says whether they're human‑generated manually or not is irrelevant. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well whoever amended MEATBOT is violating one of the most important principles of wikipedia, WP:AGF. "The disruption must be stopped" does not apply to every stub. It is possible to generate a lot of valuable sourced stubs manually without errors which are useful as a start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly User:Ganeshk has a process and instructions for creation using AWB if the relevant data is available in csv format, if there is a database to provide that, then it shouldn't be a problem. Most of the India village stubs created through this process are quite better than user generated stuff (primarily newbies who don't know the policies and guidelines). —SpacemanSpiff 13:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) The disruption's plain to see. The thread length and amount of editors trying to clear this up alone attest to that. As others observed it would be wikilawyering to keep to the letter but not the spirit of policies. However, in this case it is the letter. MEATBOT is policy and has been for over two years, Dr. Blofeld. Going back even earlier, principles on higher speed editing or assisted human editing have been established policy for at least four.
In any event I was asking about mass creation. Policy requires any large-scale creation task must be pre-approved and further strongly encourages (and may require) community input be solicited at WP:VP/PR. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How bad is this?

How many articles are we talking about, in total (ballpark figure)? And approximately how many of them have serious problems (like where they say they're in one province, but they're linked to from a totally different Province article)? Anyone have an estimate? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, I estimate that around the 8,200 Chinese townships I created, I say around 25% or 30% might have mistakes. It's not that bad to be honest. I could overwrite all the errors I can find. Jaguar (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I recently made 600+ beetle stub article, and every single one has MOS and Category errors. I fixed 'em all — 4 hours work. (account renamed – tomtomn00) Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 11:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good you fix up after yourself, TAP. That situation's probably a little different since they're all English-language though. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your estimated error rate makes me think we should rather delete them all and start over. Mass-creation with a more than 1% error rate just screams "nuke from orbit". Wrong info that isn't easily visible as such is worse than obvious vandalism IMHO. Also, in the substubs that do not even give the township's names in characters (making it hard to research and expand them), essentially nothing is lost by deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 12:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be counterproductive to delete them. Override them, maybe, if somebody can sort out a bot and finish off the rest.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, just imagine deleting 8,000 Chinese townships! I see no point - Like Dr. Blofeld has said, China is one of the most sparsely internet-covered nations on this planet, and having every Chinese township on Wikipedia has a huge potential of becoming a major article one day. China is the most populous nation, so it even has a bigger potential. These need to be kept. Jaguar (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The end (which is a long way off) does not justify the means (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopædia. If we can't be sure that something is accurate, it shouldn't be in article-space. I realise that rote editing and mass-creation of geographical stubs is very important to some people, but I would prioritise quality over quantity. bobrayner (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The only alternative to mass-deletion at 25% error I see is to topic-ban the creator so that they would not be able to create anything until the existing errors have been fixed.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

He's not presently creating any. Also, with the best will in the world it's still unclear if he'd be able to fix or even detect all problems due to the language barrier. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, the language barrier is not the problem (or our biggest concern anyway). The issues are the errors in the articles (simple broken links and links that take you to different places etc). And Ymblanter, please, just assuming that this is an ANI discussion concerning me doesn't mean I'm a criminal who needs to be banned! Jaguar (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not assume you are a criminal, it is just that 25% is way over the top, especially given the absolute numbers. The material is just not credible, and has to be either immediately corrected or mass-deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The only option is to correct the ones that need correcting. As of all, it's a Chinese town somewhere in the world. I have seen some of them expand since after a few days I have created them. Trouble is, China is a big place and nobody might have travelled that far. Jaguar (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a list of the 2000-3000 that need correcting or do we have to go through the 8000 to find out which ones do a disservice to our readers? And if you are going to correct this, how long is it going to take? —SpacemanSpiff 13:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Then please start correcting them, Jaguar. In your contribution in the last couple of days I do not see any edits in the article space. These are your mistakes, and this is you who is primary responsible for correcting them, not anybody else.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I will make a start correcting them tomorrow on in two days as I've got a mock exam tomorrow. I don't know how long it will take me until it's 100% clear that no more typos or errors exist but I should give it a week by myself, or longer if I get disrupted by another test. Jaguar (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

According to my calculations, 5.4 solid non-stop days of editing. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I see about 30mins before this comment you added a userbox saying [7] you're able to understand/communicate in Chinese at an advanced level—one step below near-native. I don't know why that talent'd be left out up to now while basic-ability German/French was highlighted on the userpage. Oh well it doesn't particularly matter. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bit confusing, eh? --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone is overlooking this issue too much. I am the only one here who knows what I'm talking about, since I've started these articles, I know that in reality I haven't created that many mistakes. When I did spot a mistake, I corrected the error immediately and corrected my previous articles I created. All the mistakes you see in my articles are probably the leftovers of all the mistakes I have tried to fix in the past but I missed out. I might have even overlooked how many mistakes there are, there might even be less than 25% of 8000. It shouldn't take too long to fix once I start tomorrow or in two days. Jaguar (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jaguar, I just had a look at some of your "fixes". They're nowhere near enough to be able to save the articles. You've directed the reference to the correct province page, but that's still way too lacking as a reference. It needs to direct to the actual township page. If this is all you can do, then I suggest you stop now and give it up as a lost cause. Blackmane (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A sample

Just so we're clear about what's under discussion, I looked for some examples. I pulled these five off the bottom of Jaguar's contribs list (feel free to provide other examples if these are not a representative sample)

• Xinghuaying
• Liangyuan Subdistrict
• Shuidao Township
• Beidaomen Subdistrict
• Beishudian Subdistrict

Each seems to be, well, a neat assembly of templates and links and stuff but based on a single datapoint; that some placename exists. I realise that in the past we've often turned a blind eye to the use of an unreliable listing to create masses of geographical microstubs which fall far short of the GNG, but if the entire article hinges on a single fact that "this place exists" and our only source is a Google translation of a Chinese forum... surely we have to draw a line somewhere? (Google Translate isn't working very well for me at the moment but I can't even find some of these placenames on the page supplied - are these real places?). Sadly it's not the first time I've seen an argument that it's OK to mass-produce this kind of crap because in principle somebody else might be able to fix it - which, in reality, causes maintenance headaches for everyone else further down the road. I have no ill wishes against the creator, and I hope they get past this episode and make a lot of good contributions in future, but I think these articles as they stand are a net negative for the encyclopædia - shouldn't they be deleted, or sandboxed, or incubated, or something? bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

They should all be kept, getting rid of them in any form is counter-productive, just like Dr. Blofeld has said. By the way those five examples you gave are 100% fine! Jaguar (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any {{lang-zh|?}}s' filled in, do I not? --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Dr Blofeld told you it's fine. However, other editors may take a different stance on the value of a huge pile of microstubs which appear to fall far short of the GNG. Surely, removing flawed content (some badly-sourced, some outright wrong) isn't counter-productive, it's improving the encyclopædia. Insisting that articles are 100% fine despite specific problems being pointed out is part of the problem, not part of the solution, and does not bode well for the possibility of fixes being made in article-space. If thousands of articles are left in article-space even though we can't trust their content, doesn't that undermine the encyclopædia? bobrayner (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to your statement Jaguar, they are not fine. The main problem here is that you have found a single source to reference your stubs. Normally, I wouldn't say that is a problem, but your obvious inability to read chinese means that you have no idea what to do with that source. Here's a list of what's wrong in just those ones you've sampled

1. Each of those townships is part of Kaifeng city in Henan province but his reference is labelled Fujian province (yes I can read chinese).

2. Clicking on that link takes you to the google translated main page of the source. The very least they could have done would have been to link to the city or even the province page, which given that it's been translated would have been a simple task

3. I pulled Liangyuan Subdistrict to see if I could find some info on it. I dug down into the reference page to see if I could find it. Jaguar wrote that it's in Kaifeng city and the List of township-level divisions of Henan also has it listed as part of Kaifeng. After 20min of poking around, I find that Liangyuan is part of Shangqiu, which a search in Google maps will tell you is 150km east of Kaifeng. Somewhat concerned, I had a look at the other 4 articles bobrayner linked to and those ones were at least placed in the right city. Taking this as a first order approximation, there is a possible 20% error of locating the place, with a 100% failure to properly reference the stub. Blackmane (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment I would think that goes with out saying that there are possibly 2000 stubs which aren't located properly and 10,000 or more that have to have their refs checked. Blackmane (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Past projects reliant on google translate have gone poorly. Quoting Eloquence: Engaging in large scale translation projects has its very own problems. See, for example, Sodabottle's scathing criticism of Google's translation efforts in Tamil Wikipedia. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

According to List of township-level divisions of Henan there's a Liangyuan (梁园) District in Shangqiu and a Liangyuan (梁苑) Subdistrict in Kaifeng. Google maps does know of a neighbourhood of that name in the right part of Kaifeng[8], so it could be right, though we can't be sure because unfortunately the township list is unreferenced too. Kanguole 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• As I said before, these pages should be deleted. I can also read Chinese, and the "references" given are not referencing the article. It is possible to find references on XZQH, e.g. this about Xinghuaying, but the substubs link elsewhere instead. However, before mass-importing data from a single source, we should check what kind of source this is (copyright questions aside). Start over from scratch and ask people who can read Chinese to help (e.g. at the relevant WikiProjects). —Kusma (t·c) 17:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  And certainly any mass creation done here should be interwikilinked to the Chinese Wikipedia, which seems to have at least Xinghuaying. —Kusma (t·c) 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why Jaguar repeatedly reports that he does not have the time to begin fixing the errors in the sub-stubs he created, but has the time to post multiple entries in this thread. Please, Jaguar, stop talking and start fixing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just fixed over 50 refs this morning. Will do more. Jaguar (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what you are doing is not nearly enough. If you go through the articles, you have to check them for accuracy. I just checked one of the things you "fixed", and Xingfeng appears to be to be a subdistrict (街道), not a township. I am led assume none of your articles is correct, so I guess deletion and starting from scratch is probably a faster way towards covering Chinese townships than expecting you to deliver on your promises. —Kusma (t·c) 10:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

At this rate that Jaguar is going at, it will take him around 97 days to complete these — not what I was looking for. Now, at the speed that I corrected my bad stubs: 3 days, 4 hours it would turn out as. I did 600 in 4h, Jaguar did 50 in 11h, 49m (BST UK). --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• If we can't be sure that something is accurate, it shouldn't be in article-space. We can't be sure that any of these stubs are accurate unless/until verified by a third party. So, they should not be in article-space. bobrayner (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that everyone is so keen on deleting my articles, but I have to say that I created them by using all the red links in List of township-level divisions of Henan etc. I copy and paste the header in the article as its province assuming it is correct. I would not know if it isn't correct, so it's probably the list's fault. Jaguar (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And there we are. If an unsourced wikipediapage is the source of thousands of articles, we risk to multiply our own errors. I appreciate the work done, but don't see how we can change this easily without deleting. Or is there a way to properly source(+interlang) all articles, while correcting the 500-2000 erroneous ones by bot? If the latter is possible, that seems the only non-deleting way forward to me... L.tak (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy with incubation or sandboxing as alternatives to deletion. Incubation was one of the more popular options in this case so there is some precedent, I think. bobrayner (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Over a year on every single one in the nom statement is either deleted, redirected, unsourced and/or untouched since. Similar suggestions of templating or just leaving them were made in the other two mass problem cases; both were deleted. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Three factual comments (in response to some comments above): (1) Province-wide pages such as List of township-level divisions of Fujian (and similar ones for other provinces) are actually pretty good. I don't know what the source for them was, but whenever I happen to work on a particular county, and look at that county's divisions' list in List of township-level divisions of Fujian (or another province's list), it checks out very well against high-quality printed atlases. Occasional discrepancies that I see sometimes are probably due to renamings/splits/merges that local governments carry out every now and then. (2) Most prefecture-level governments have web sites with at least a brief information page about every county, including the list of township-level units; this always can be used as a fairly reliable "official" source, if we can't find one at some kind of the national Census Bureau or some such. (3) On occasions, a unit called a "township" (乡 xiang) in one source may become a "town" (镇 zhen) in another source, or a subdistrict (街道, jiedao) in a third. This, per se, is not a reason to claim that a particular source is unreliable: it is very common for provincial authorities to convert a township to a town (as it becomes bigger and more urban in nature), or to a subdistrict (if it becomes more integrated into a city's main urban area; this is China's counterpart to the Municipal annexation in the United States, although the mechanism is quite different). -- Vmenkov (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't advocate the deletion of all these recently created township units; certainly, not those which have already been worked on by other editors since they have been created. But perhaps we can "Anglicize" and "upgrade" zh:User:Liangent-bot, which has been quite successful in creating thousands of township articles in zh.wiki, presumably based on some master CSV file. One can add to it some functionality that will look at if the township's article already exists and is completely trivial (we know what I am talking about), and if so, overwrite it with a more content-rich one. -- Vmenkov (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If that works, that would be a vastly more suitable solution. How would that work with incorrect references as is the case here? I'm probably going about this question the wrong way, but a more detailed description may prove the difference between wiping out all these articles and finding some way to salvage them somehow. Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of all these pages

Several people have suggested deletion of all these pages as the best solution to this. I don't think anyone suggests tagging them all for AfD would be really useful, so we can just as well have the discussion here and now. What do people feel about the proposed solution to delete all pages created by User:Jaguar from 26 October 2011 on? Note that this would eliminate the need to clean up e.g. the 111 articles[9] which start with the identical line "Saiqi (Chinese: ?) is a township-level division [...]", but that this doesn't mean that we shouldn't eventually have articles on some or all of these. Fram (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would support that proposal. If anybody wants to remove an article from the list which has been checked & fixed by a third party, I think that would be reasonable too. Alternatively, we could take them to a separate AfD page, like Dr Blofeld's geographic.org articles, but that would mean splitting discussion across different pages... bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• With regret (this could all have been avoided), yes it would seem deletion is necessary. It'd be on the basis of all the significant problems identified. I think a method used in such cases in the past is to use a single example and refer to the rest. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oh no you don't! You're not deleting my hours of hard work! I won't let you! Jaguar (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well now I'm curious, how would you stop us? --Golbez (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know but it's going to be really upsetting if somebody deletes them. I'll have to create more outside of China. Jaguar (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If you create additional content which is accurate and meets wikipedia standards, that's great. If you create more content which is inaccurate and fails wikipedia standards, it would probably get deleted. Your choice. bobrayner (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is implying that all 10,000 of my articles have errors. That is by far not true. I estimated that around 20% of the 8,000 Chinese townships have errors, maybe under 1,000 articles. It's not that much and it is fixable by a bot or manual users. Jaguar (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Point is: NONE of them have a reliable source according to WP:RS, so that needs to be changed. If you have a proposal how to do that (and improve all errors), then be my/our guest. However, I am afraid that this takes a lot of time (I myself have 5000 edits in total or so, so the mere suggestion to find and correct 1000 errors without a clear bot/plan sounds very ambitious). L.tak (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A User:JaguarBot might be in the question. Jaguar (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh Jaguar. :-( You do not understand Chinese. A bot won't either. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess so, but a bot can at least correct the errors! Jaguar (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)\

Great! Please make an action plan on User:Jaguar/ChineseTowns of what the bot should do. By which mechanism it would find wrong names, what would be the basis for interlangs and which reliable source it would be based on. If that is credible, I am willing to reconsider... L.tak (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jaguar, read my support below. We're not saying all of your 10,000 articles have errors. It's the fact that we don't know which of the 10,000 articles have errors and regardless of whether some do or don't all of the articles would have to be checked. Blackmane (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but also support sandboxing or the like for a limited time period (let's say: 1 year, which means 30 articles per day) if someone is willing to "adopt" them L.tak (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support; while we should have articles on all of these places, these are not even useful stepping stones in that direction. —Kusma (t·c) 14:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support owing to the terrible state these are in, especially with what Blackmane and Kusma have unearthed. I'm also open to moving these all over to userspace, to be returned only after source verification and content verification is done on an individual basis. —SpacemanSpiff 14:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• SupportNeutral if Jaguar (talk · contribs) can fix all of them up within a month, then it's fine. However, if he cannot Nuke the new pages Jaguar made. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I don't have any expectation based on the conversations above that these are going to get fixed. Or if they can be fixed. There's a lack of understanding by Jaguar that even if most are accurate, the extremely unacceptable error (which appears to be randomly distributed through the set) rate introduces too many errors with little or no notice to readers that there are errors. Shadowjams (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, and I would also suggest that Jaguar does not attempt to "create more outside of China" as such mass edits of a similar nature could be considered as further disruption. GiantSnowman 15:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yup. I can grudgingly accept geospam when it is properly prepared, extracted from data we know to be reliable and then carried out in an automated manner (which means that if there are any obvious screwups that these can be resolved with a bare minimum of drama). None of that is true here. "Turn all redlinks blue" is not an end to itself, and general community consensus is that the acceptable error rate goes down rapidly with an increase in editing rate. And whether or not Jaguar was privy to the debates or not, we've been down this road before, and the pattern is the same as always: the editor responsible repeatedly denies the scale of the problem until it is revealed to be wholly unmanageable, and yet still insists that the positives (of having more articles) outweigh the negatives (that the articles contain either no information at all, or objectively false information). The worst thing that can happen is that Wikipedia becomes the canonical source for information on a subject (due to our huge PageRank) while that information is wrong. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This popped up on my watchlist, and I thought, "Oh, it can't be THAT bad." It can, and it is. We now have thousands of articles of which we have no way of ascertaining the accuracy. And we have a user (Jaguar) who left a comment that basically amounts to a threat if these are deleted. I think the time for action is here on this issue. LHM 15:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support because we are encyclopedia first and playing ground for whiny pouty children second last. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't that be "second last never"? GiantSnowman 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• (ec) Fetchcomms, I think that's needlessly personal. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, given the header box Jaguar has seen fit to place on their talk page, this is somewhat accurate now. Blackmane (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • He removed 'not' from the longstanding header box in response [10] to a complaint it was no longer accurate. When I saw it it seemed more like wry humour used in a stressful situation than obstructiveness. Anyway ymmv. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Blackmane - you can do exams at any age, and that certainly doesn't justify describing another editor as "whiny, pouty" - their response, however, perhaps does. GiantSnowman 16:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Theirs is an unacceptable response certainly. Although as an aside User:Geogre/Comic did spring to mind. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Now you're at it! Jaguar (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Jaguar, go read the poem "If—". You don't have to read much less respond to all comments in this section, and sometimes it's better not to do that. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I've read it. I think you're right. Jaguar (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I had been meaning that I was going to revert their attack on fetchomms. As for the childishness, I was referring to the info box that was below the exam one. oh well, moving along then Blackmane (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Multiple(edit conflict) Sadly, I will have to Support this motion to delete. However, if there is an option to put them into some sort of incubator outside of article space I would prefer that. Jaguar, it's great that you chose this set of articles to create and I applaud you for that. It's also great that you agreed to go back to correct errors and that shouldn't take all that long if you get stuck into it. However, the problem here now isn't just the article errors, it's the referencing. It took me almost 25min to look for the correct page in the reference (I don't know how long it took Kusma) when clicking on a link that should take me straight there, but can you see the problem with doing that for 10,000 articles? If I had to do that for all 10,000 articles, that's almost 170 days worth of editor man-hours. The other problem is that you are more concerned with the rate of your article creations rather than the accuracy of your article creations, this you freely admitted to. The very fact that you failed to check the accuracy of the location information prior to creating the article is also very concerning. The example I highlighted before I easily checked by entering the name into Google maps. You could have done this before creating the article and corrected the list before creating your article, but instead you chose to take the information at face value and prized speed above accuracy. None of us here want to delete your articles out of spite or malice but out of consideration of the huge expenditure of editor hours required to clean up. Blackmane (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Changing them based on Google maps would be so great either – the example you pointed out might not be an error, as noted above. But I agree with you that the real problem here is the lack of referencing, which has been inherited from List of township-level divisions of Henan and similar articles, and multiplied several hundred-fold. Kanguole 17:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That's why I said it was a first order approximation. Given the scale of the problem, sampling merely a handful of articles is hardly statistically relevant. I was aiming for a hand waving estimate on what might be the upper limit of the problem, but as we see now, I most likely have vastly understated and underestimated the scale. Blackmane (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, there is a bunch of problems that leave no other option, IMHO. 8000+ stubs with barely one sentence and one basic infobox. An unknown percentage contains errors or is totally mistaken. Not based in any reliable source, so they are impossible to verify. The creator fixed a few after a lot of prodding, but the fixed articles still contain basic errors and no reliable source (example of one "fix" made, only the glaring error in the name is fixed, the only source is still a Chinese forum with lists of names, it links to a list of articles not to the specific page that holds the information, the name is not translated to Chinese so I can't even search its Chinese name in the forum to find the correct page and translate it, never mind that the whole article still seems to be based on the unsourced article List_of_township-level_divisions_of_Fujian). The whole thing should be deleted as salvageable without complete rewriting, and future mass creations should be based on a reliable database that is cited in the created articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• 20-Mule Team Support: Oh hell yes. "This is an encyclopædia. If we can't be sure that something is accurate, it shouldn't be in article-space," given above by bobrayner is .sig-worthy if Wikipedia had .sigs. Something I've often said is that Wikipedia is not a race - we don't hand out door prizes for the most new articles (deletions, prods, redirects, AfDs) thrown up in an hour's time. There is never such a burning need for an article that WP:V and WP:IRS has to be set aside. Ravenswing 16:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - doubtless Jaguar means well, but these are unreliable (because they're unreferenced) and hard to check (because they lack such basic information as the Chinese characters, pinyin and district). They're a net negative – best to start over. Kanguole 17:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - 8,200 incorrectly sourced articles about locations that may not be where they are listed, which may be named incorrectly, and which may not even exist is a serious concern, and there's no easy solution other than starting from scratch. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Torchiest and others. 8200 completely unreferenced pages is a serious problem. Under the circumstances, I suppose we might be able to give someone a few days to copy them to disk, but nothing more than that. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's probably not necessary to pile on, but for future events with different editors it may be desirable to get a clear consensus that the mass creation of junk stubs is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Sure, the pages look pretty, and if someone else cleaned them up, it would be handy to have been the creator of many articles. However, as described above, this is an encyclopedia and content-by-guesswork is not acceptable. Mass creation means there must be sources that are ultra-reliable—the content must be known to be accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I am not convinced by his contribution to this section that Jaguar understands what he did wrong, or has the capability (or time) to fix them. Correcting misinformation is much harder than starting from scratch with new information. It is better for an encyclopedia to have a lack of information rather than misinformation, since the misinformation could be seen as authoritative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support: If Jaguar had made 10K articles all based off a reliable source (say, an official government census, if China has such a thing), and even if all that source verified was the exact location of the place and its governmental hierarchy (township, city, etc.), I would say that these could be kept, even if they had lots of template errors, missing info, etc. But right now, we don't even have evidence that these places exist, other than that some previous Wikipedia editor added them to a different Wikipedia list. As Johnuniq said, consensus is already clear but the overall message needs to be more clear: mass article creation must be at least a little bit reliable, and there appears to be a relatively high chance that any given article in this series isn't just incomplete or mal-formatted, but actually completely wrong about its most basic fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment — since when was ANI the new AfD? I appreciate we're talking about a large number of articles here, but I don't believe it's wise to set a precedent that articles can be deleted based on ANI consensus. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe a similar action occurred in the past when an editor mass created articles on Pakistani townships. However, I think what we're aiming at here is an agreement by the community to put forward 10k articles for deletion. How that would be properly managed without having ANI look like AfD (except in the case of blatant copyvios) is another question. Blackmane (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • AfD is designed for single articles. However, as long as editors have the ability to create multiple articles, we'll need the ability to delete multiple articles sometimes - and trying to shoehorn them into AfD can be rather disruptive. I don't want to get hung up on bureaucracy - AfD is just a way of gauging the community's stance on whether an article should be kept or deleted, and we're getting the same community discussion here. Considering that it all came about of an AN/I dramathread, discussing it here is probably the best option. However, in future we might want to explore better ways to deal with mass-deletion proposals. bobrayner (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support As I've said on Jaguar's talk page, just fixing up the Chinese characters in the stubs is a potential nightmare because of the ambiguity of pinyin. It would be better to start again. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Attack account

• Anderson Cooper Exposer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already reported to AIV. The only reason I brought it here is that it also smells a lot like someone's sock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and locked, but I don't have local CU. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually non-SUL, but thanks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's also oversighted, so no log entries. I've been told that this is User:Mr. Kruzkin.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for JIM ME BOY

• JIM ME BOY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anderson Cooper Exposer is a sock of this guy. I'm surprised there's no community ban yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah Egg Centric 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. If he has created 30+ sockpuppets, and has still been socking 'till today, he deserves nothing other than a community ban. →Bmusician 12:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Over-zealous speedy deletion tagging

Editor A:-)Brunuś has been abusively tagging pages for speedy deletion: please see Special:Contributions/A:-)Brunuś and the editor's talk page, particularly at User_talk:A:-)Brunuś#Your_speedy_deletion_tagging. Repeated warnings from several editors have elicited no response there, but he has just posted to my talk page after I posted that I was about to report him to the admins.. He appears to be tagging the pages in good faith, but is quite misguided about speedy deletion and is WP:BITEing many new editors. Can some admins please step in and cool his/her jets a bit? Thanks, Scopecreep (talk)

I'd say that his twinkle access could be temporarily removed, until he can demonstrate proper knowledge of CSD.--Slon02 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Last I heard it was no longer possible to revoke twinkle access, has that changed? Monty₈₄₅ 19:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to re-consider my WP:AGF, having seen this WP:POINTy addition. Scopecreep (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not to sure about the "WIKIPEDIA-SUX" notice on A:-)Brunuś' userpage. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of them look fine, I just sent one of his CSD turn downs to AFD. It wasn't a speedy, but it needs deleting. That said, if the user is abusing Twinkle, a sanction can be voted on it. It is easy to tell if someone is using Twinkle, even if it can't be physically ripped from someone's hand. He has 705 edits on the en.wiki [11] since 2008. Not sure we are at that point yet, so I say give him some WP:ROPE and see what happens in the next 24 hours, he may be imploding anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A brief lashout that doesn't harm anybody is IMO fine. I just wish this editor started communicating instead of carrying on and showing his frustrations by pointy articles like that. Despite other good CSD work I see in this users history, without him providing more feedback, I cant but agree with revoking twinkle for a few weeks. Lacking the technical means, this can be construed the same way topic-bans are. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think you guys are reaching for the wrong tool. One can easily nominate things for speedy deletion without any automated tools. A temporary topic ban on CSD tagging is what we should be discussing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fair point. I could support that too. Say two weeks, and specifically allowing PROD. I would like to stress that the problem is far too many bad taggings amongs a large majority of good taggings. Anyone in favor, against? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Illegal fake message bar

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

---

User:Lugnuts has an orange bar on his user page resembling the "You have new messages" bar. Bars such as these have been deemed illegal on user pages in this RFC, as well as WP:SMI, a Wikipedia guideline. Lugnuts has repeatedly reverted removals of the bar, as shown.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] He has also ignored attempts to notify him of why the message bar is illegal on his talk page, as shown.[20][21][22][23][24][25] Can it be deleted and he not be allowed to put it back? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

But it is funny, and we have a policy of WP:IAR. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but to me it seems silly to ignore a rule when a long RFC took place regarding this exact type of case. IAR generally only applies when there is a broad rule with a specific application that seems to detract from Wikipedia, but in this case the guideline and RFC are aimed exclusively at this specific case. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Aye, WP:IAR speaks to improving or maintaining the project, and the consensus was apparently to specifically disallow those entirely because they did the opposite. -— Isarra ༆ 00:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an appalling state of affairs, I expect that you notified Lugnuts long before anyone had the chance to paste fake block templates on his/her talkpage. Damn! Spoilsport

There is the old you don't have new messages trick. and iar is for the plus side of the scales.Penyulap ☏ 00:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've warned the user, and removed the false bar. I'll block if he restores it: consensus is clear that this is a form of disruptive editing.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Concerned by an editor

hi

i have seen this edit summary in 'recent changes' where an editor says 'f--- off and die' which i think is not very civil and i don't know if wikipedia administrators need to be told of an editor saying such things to another editor. the other editor says smething about a pretend new messages sign and the editor deletes the message with 'f--- off and die'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lugnuts&curid=4868225&diff=493620426&oldid=493595952

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.102.100 (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's just someone venting, presumably because others have removed a fake message bar from their user page (see above). I support the removal of fake message bars, and I support CIVIL, but this matter does not need any further attention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

24.185.205.143

Resolved

24.185.205.143 (talk · contribs)

What's to be done, if anything, about this odd one? The IP user began by posing a near-gibberish question on Talk:Mary Poppins (film). What we've seen since looks like classing trolling behavior. Not exactly on the order of ItsLassieTime or somebody like that. But just weirdness, and possibly starting to branch into other disruption. Any ideas? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a job for the Teahouse. Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, per [[WP:Watchtower]], you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate. If it's a new user, we should help them. If it's a troll, we should ignore them.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to ignore escalating (though childish) disruption. An admin has now lowered the Admiral Boom on the IP for 2 weeks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

See, I told you there was no reason to get excited. The low-key approach is always the... erm. I'll just shut up now... if that's OK with everyone... --Shirt58 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to say anything more, I can't stop you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

IP 198.228.200.157 Disruptive Editing on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

personal attacks, deleting others talk comments by IP 198.228.200.157 - see [26], [27]. The latter occured after being warned: [28], [29]. Short block requested. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to MBisanz. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Now 198.228.200.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) WP:EVADE block of 198.228.200.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), continuing the personal attacks and edit warring at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin - see [30]. Block of latest IP for block evasion plus semi-protect of Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin requested. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Its a bad candidate for protection, its a high visibility article, semi-protected article. Protecting the talk page will leave no way for new/IP editors to contribute to the article, and will make it harder for them to alert us to any potential issues, which given the nature of the subject is a problem. Further there have been recent constructive IP/new editor contributions to the talk page. Better to just play whack a mole with the socks for awhile. Monty₈₄₅ 05:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be a very small range. A 12-24 hour rangeblock would probably cause minimal disruption if it keeps up. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Either Rangeblock or block of latest IP would be appreciated. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's 198.228.200.x 's latest foray.[31] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I just hit 198.228.200.144/28 with a rangeblock for 72 hours (that only hits up to 16 users), but my guess is that it needs to be a little bit wider than that. If the same person pops up, bring it back here and I or someone else can see if there's a viable larger range. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Trouble with stale Kosovo move proposal

We have a bit of trouble at Talk:Kosovo about an old move/merge proposal that has been sitting around for over three months and has gone stale with a "no consensus" situation. Some participants have tried to formally close it [32][33][34][35][36], in a non-admin, involved closure, which in a case like this I understand can be legitimate (there is no clear requirement move closures have to be done by admins, and in this case the "no consensus" outcome seems obvious). One newly arrived editor, Ottomanist (talk · contribs) has strenuously opposed the closure, reverting it several times [37][38][39][40][41]. The article is under Arbcom sanctions and a general 1RR, although it seems not quite clear whether the 1RR applies to the talkpage too.

Personally, I can somehow sympathize with Ottomanist, who argues that the process was hijacked by national interest factions and doesn't represent a legitimate consensus the way it is now. This is indeed the case (it's one of those cases that will never be solved properly unless editors with preconceived opinions determined by collective national interests are decisively sidelined; a whiff of Macedonia is in the air). I'm involved, as I !voted on the same side as Ottomanist earlier, but I agree with the editors on the other side that at this point it makes no sense to force the process open again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I agree, but I do not sympathize with Ottomanist. He's not a neutral party over there, and every single major discussion on Talk:Kosovo is bound to be "hijacked by national interest factions" to some degree - from both sides. I have seen ample evidence of "solidarity" within both the Serbian and the Albanian "factions", on that talkpage specifically and in general.

Imo Ottomanist's actions are, in fact, a good example of the type of behavior that makes-up a big part of the problem on that talkpage. The discussion was effectively over in early March, but because he disagrees with the result of the RM, he has kept it open for several months through talkpage edit-warring. I was rather amazed when he reverted Future's closure of the thread, and I'm reasonably certain he's actually hoping this report will help his cause as well - every vote counts, you know. That kind of fanaticism and WP:HORSE is just disruptive (although I think the WP:HORSE would actually have decomposed long ago in this case :)). -- Director (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't generally disagree with your assessment; just a factual correction: Ottomanist didn't "keep it open for several months". He only started editing last week. The move process was just sitting around stale for so long, but formally it was still legitimately open when he first tried to comment on it. (Actually, I remember somebody had tried to close it some time ago, and back then it was me who reverted the closure (once) because at that time I felt it was inappropriate to have a closure by an involved party.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Its really besides the point. Will someone just close that thing? Its been up since January. -- Director (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As the thread has been closed by an admin (Future) [42], I've now re-instated the closure. User:Ottomanist is clearly opposed to closing the thread for POV reasons, and imo really ought to be warned and/or sanctioned for reverting an admin closure and edit-warring [43][44][45][46][47] against everybody else on the talkpage of a sensitive article under WP:ARBCOM probation. -- Director (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite banal now - everybody knows that Serbian editors act as a bloc. I don't see why impartial editors don't get on to this- the whole free, English-speaking world recognises that the Republic of Kosovo has the same borders as Kosovo. The issue is summed up best by one editor:

"We had lots of polls on whether to split Kosovo. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the wrong version got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality."

Ottomanist (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "everybody knows" Serbian editors oppose the move, pro-Albanian editors (like yourself) support it, and there are uninvolved editors on both sides. There is no consensus for the move. Not only was the thread closed by an admin, it was closed by an admin that actually supported the move. The RM has been up since January, there's been no debate for two months - and it is over. Nobody is "gaming the system", except you - by keeping the RM open until you have your way. Keep content disputes on the talkpage please. -- Director (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll let the admins decide if there are two Kosovos or one. Ottomanist (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know, "there can be only one Kosovo!!", right? Please tell me you're not here trying to canvass admins? Perchance you are unaware that this is not the place where people "decide" on content disputes? Frankly I can not believe you are actually hoping to use a report on your behavior to close an RM in your favor. -- Director (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if there are one or two but I do know a lack of consensus. Closed it again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that Ottomanist is in fact not a new user, but rather a sock of Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as this [48] makes obvious (that and the unique combination of pro-Albanian and pro-Ottoman POV, which made Interestedinfairness stand out from other users in this area). He owns up to being a returning user [49], but won't say what was the name of his old account. The bit about being a casual user is malarkey, as Interestedinfairness was anything but a "casual user". As Interestedinfairness, he had racked up a block log, and also gotten a formal ARBMAC warning and a one-month topic ban from Kosovo, for disruptive behavior. Thus, starting a new account is problematic per WP:SCRUTINY. At a minimum, he should be compelled to disclose his former account on his userpage. Athenean (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Now it makes complete sense. After I attempted to close the thread, the user actually followed my contribs and reverted my edits on a completely unrelated article (Government of National Salvation) [50]. Sort of like "get away from my article or I'll oppose you on that one". "Casual user" my foot. Athenean, just post an SPI report. -- Director (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he did disclose the previous account, on being asked ([51]), so there's nothing much an SPI would be useful for. But of course I agree he's been disruptive, and I'm slightly curious why no admin has got the banhammer out yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:BruceGrubb's disruption of WP:RS/N

Could an administrator please take action against User:BruceGrubb for disruption of the WP:RS/N process? In particular, IDHT over clear snow, leading to escalating personal attacks. We normally don't need admin supervision as it is a low intensity space, but BruceGrubb has issues with WP:IDHT (the initing cause of the RS/N thread [52] [53] [54]), WP:NPA ([55], "Because you are all basically the Smithsonian is not reliable and that is TOTALLY MAD AS A HATTER INSANE." ), WP:BATTLEGROUND ([56] [57])—these amount to disruption of the collegial atmosphere of WP:RS/N. They appear to be an enthusiastic editor, who has some issues getting in the way of a vast and positive contribution to the encyclopaedia. While the user's civility issues need to be dealt with elsewhere; the disruption of WP:RS/N needs to be restrained, and immediately so. (User notified) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that in case you are not aware of it, Bruce Grubb was topic banned on WP:AN (need to look at his talk page history to see the link I guess) partly due to the use of "less than reliable sources", self-published items, etc. and WP:Walls of text was mentioned there. So it is ironic to have a RSN dispute now.... History2007 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fifelfoo is IMHO trying to cover up what IMHO are obvious attempt of WP:GAME the results. He archive the thread after only three short hours and now tries to revert to that version and I call WP:VANDAL. @History2007 the sources Fifelfoo is disputing with his behavior are Niemi's Robert History in the Media: Film And Television ABC-CLIO ISBN-13: 978-1576079522 Saburo, Ienaga The Pacific War 1931-1945 [http://pantheon.knopfdoubleday.com/ Pantheon) ISBN 978-0394734965 Peterson, Barbara Bennett (2006) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, preserver of spirit and hope Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116 Dick, Bernard F. (1996) in The star-spangled screen: the American World War II film University Press of Kentucky -- It (Prelude To War) claims to provide "factual information of events leading up to World War II" — a valid enough aim." Rollins Peter C.; John E. O'Connor's Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History University Press of Kentucky - "It's (Prelude to war's) aim was to provide factual information of events leading up to the war" Alpers, Benjamin Leontief (2003) Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture by University of North Carolina Press pg 178-179 - "Capra defend the film's style, maintaining that it was simply the most effective way to package fact." Thomas Patrick Doherty's (1999) Projections of war: Hollywood, American culture, and World War II Columbia University Press Page 72 Gordon Martel's The World War Two Reader (reprinting much of Benjamin Leontief Alpers work) Psychology Press (ie Routledge) pg 167-168 Let's see four modern University Press book and a modern work published "publisher of quality academic books, journals & online reference" in my favor. How this relates to the matrer History2007 talks about I would love to see him explain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I've checked only Rollings/Peters, and you read a very small snippet out of context. The source emphatically does not support your claim. Just a few lines down, the approach is called "plainly interpretative", and half a page down, it describes Dick's account (which you take as gospel) as "naive" and claims that "the central tenet of the genre was [...] promoting the state". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC) That would be a matter to discuss on RSN WHICH IS MY POINT. By archiving it after only three hours and continuing to fiddle with it (see [[58]] for that nonsense) Fifelfoo is preventing any meaningful discussion on the matter ie WP:VANDAL. I should mention Rollings/Peters is talking about "Dick's personal account" and shifts back and forth in the text between that account and his own views on the matter. Rollings/Peters do NOT say that Dick or the film itself stated that "it's aim was to provide factual information of events leading up to the war" but rather throws that sentence in the middle about talking about Dick's personal account. So is that Dick's view or Rollings/Peters? Again a matter to be thrashed out in RSN--if we are given enough blasted time to do so.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I would comment that I have not looked at any of the sources discussed here, but only noted the WP:AN issue with Bruce Grubb above because it included a number of RS and source misrepresentation discussions before. History2007 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC) If you haven't looked at ANY of the material (which would by definition include Prelude to war itself) in THIS case why are you wasting our time getting involed? IMHO it comes off as WP:HOUNDING--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC) No, I had seen that RSN discussion but did not want to be involved given that I did not know the topic. Yet given that "issues with sources" had been mentioned on AN before, it might have been appropriate to mention it here. That's all. History2007 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC) History2007, your lack of knowledge regarding this specific case is making your position ridiculous. As I stated in the RNS Prelude to War was produced by the Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government making it an official US document and therefor an official view of the United States Government for 1942-1945. Kindly explain how THAT position relates to the case you keep bringing up. WHERE is misrepresentation in THAT statement regarding Prelude to War itself you claim I am making? SHOW US or stop wasting our time and don't divert the issue either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I would suggest calming down, your aggression does not help your case. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I don't think History2007 is the person who looks ridiculous here. The fact is that you are repeating exactly the pattern of behaviour that got you topic banned from Christianity articles. It appears increasingly evident that your wilful adoption of contrarian views and attempts to force them into articles by twisting sources is a general behavioural problem. You can't do it one area any more, so you do it somewhere else. On the topic in question, you may or may not be aware that is claim that WWII somehow began in 1931 has been made before; there was a dispute about the lede approximately a year ago (I haven't time to look up the diffs). Of course even your own source is called Prelude to war. No one doubts that the the Eastern theatre of war emerged as an extension of the long-standing Sino-Japanese conflict, but that does not mean that the World War began when the Sino-Japanese war did. The illogicality of that claim is obvious. A local war is not a world war. Rather the Sino-Japanese conflict became absorbed into the World War that began in 1939. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• BruceGrubb's disruption of RS/N continues. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is also noted that BruceGrubb has also acted wildly inappropriately in this discussion as well, with egregious violations of WP:CIVILITY. I believe that, as Paul B has noted above, there is increasing evidence that BruceGrubb has little if any ability to either act in accord with behavior guidelines or recognize the applicability of WP:FRINGE to any number of sources which meet basic RS standards. I believe the evidence is becoming increasingly obvious that some sort of general sanction or restriction may be in order. I personally believe that the time has come to consider civility restrictions, based on the grossly unacceptable "Mad hatter insane" comment and others, and possibly probation from some policy and guideline pages. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• As a regular editor on RSN, I agree with Fifelfoo's opinion, that BruceGrubb's attitude is not appropriate for RSN. He has referred to me, in his most recent all caps outburst, as "mad as a hatter insane" as well. He seems to be annoyed that the other editors at RSN don't agree with him, and is often the case in these situations, instead of taking a disinterested 3rd party opinion, has decided to argue the point at length. Which would not be a problem if he restrained himself to the issues, but he has not. His behaviour on the page seems clearly disruptive to the board's function. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Two things here. @Paul B: Prelude to war clearly states and I quote again "remember that date: Sept 18, 1931 a date you should remember as well as Dec 7, 1941. For on that date in 1931 the war we are now fighting begun." A letter to the editor of LIFE Sep 21, 1942 Page 6 states "You think World War II began in 1933, by Hitler's seizing power, but the Chinese people shall insist that World War II began on Sept. 18, 1931 by Japan's invasion of Manchuria. "He knew the story well, because it had been he who transmitted the orders for the Japanese troops to march that snowy September 18, 1931, which is actually the date when World War II started." Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific Even the obscure The China monthly review: Volume 98 1941:SEP-NOV pg 353 states "Although we didn't realize it at the time, World War II started on the night of Sept. 18,' 1931, when a small clique of Japanese officers secretly issued orders for Japanese troops to move from their barracks in Manchuria and Korea,..." @Despayre: I meant the position of holding of what editors saying what I believed to be reference to the Smithsonian program titled "Titanic's Final Mystery" to be unreliable to be mad hatter insane NOT the editors themselves. Key difference. Besides in the Prelude to War I set the perimeters under which I was looking for reliability which you, Binksternet, Fifelfoo promptly ignored: "reliable source for the US views of 1942-1945" WP:IRS clearly states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I did NOT ask regarding "current historiography of WWII" (Fifelfoo), I expressly stated "All Documentaries have some propaganda elements to them" which Binksternet ignored with his comment. I stated that "Although during the war itself Prelude to War stated 18 September 1931 was the date the world war started," was what I wanted to add which you also ignored. I said nothing nor in anyway implied Prelude to War itself was scholarly. None of you three addressed the reliability of Prelude to War within the perimeters I originally set so of course give I have ADHD I was going to get peeved about ignoring the context reliability which was clearly spelled out up front and doubly so when it appeared the Smithsonian program titled "Titanic's Final Mystery" was getting the same unreliable song and dance--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Bruce, this is ANI, not the talk page of the WWII article. It's not the place to go into detail arguing the toss about what the documentary actually said, or interpretations of it, nor is it the place to discuss its reliability as a source. Thatr would be back on RSN. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Paul B, you made a comment about Prelude to War that made no sense given what the film itself and contemporary sources said. I note that Colonel Warden also has commented here on the flaws in content with regards to the WWII article and you have made no comments on that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC) No, I went straight over and corrected the error, which was just an easily made slip. And I replied to your points on the talk page. Neither I nor Colonel Warden filled ANI with walls of text arguing the toss and distracting from the issue. Paul B (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC) What's interesting here is that, while these various editors have been fighting over the start date, some blatant misinformation has been slipped into that part of the article and been left there for over two weeks now. This is the statement that "the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany, and subsequent declarations of war on Germany and Italy by France and most of the countries of the British Empire". In fact, so far as Italy is concerned, it was Italy that declared war on France and the British Empire and that didn't happen until 10 June 1940. The error was introduced by another editor who has a good quote from Bertrand Russell on his user page, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves...". Warden (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC) One of the sources above effectively states that while Sept 1, 1939 is a commonly referenced date when WWII begun is more a where you were situation. In Asia is 1931 or 1937, for Europe 1939 is the most comment date I have seen and for US December 7, 1941.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed civility restrictions on BruceGrubb

Proposed - I suggested these in my comment above, so I guess it is sorta incumbent on me to formally propose them. Some of Bruce's comments indicated above have been so appalling that I think the name WP:CIVILITY is inadequate to appropriately describe them. Nor is this the first time that Bruce has displayed problems in this area. His recent ban from Christianity related content was at least in part brought on by similar behavior there. I believe that this editor has a significant, long-term problem with civility and reasonable behavior, as demonstrated here and elsewhere on this and similar wikipedia space pages. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed probation on BruceGrubb

Proposed - As I am the one who suggested them above. Basically, Bruce, if you can't behave on noticeboards and the like, I really don't think that we are obligated to allow you to continue to post there. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am familiar with BruceGrubb from the editing of Weston Price and its talk page. A while back he militated against Ronz in the same unacceptable tone that he is using here with Hrafn. Perhaps in this case his edits have been even more unreasonable. His two targets could not be more different: Hrafn vociferous, stating his views openly; Ronz very much the opposite. However, the edits of BruceGrubb have been similar for both. Mathsci (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Militated against Ronz?" Please. Ronz is one of the most infuriating editors to deal with on this entire project. That someone got frustrated with Ronz isn't a black mark, it's normal. I was also involved at Weston Price and I can tell you that Ronz was heading towards trouble in that situation, not BruceGrubb. I have no comments on anything else. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I spend a lot of time at RSN as you can see. I have no axe to grind, never met this editor before, and have never edited that article. The fact that I disagreed with him, and then he goes on to make personal comments about me in other RSN question/sections (I've never seen him active on the page before, certainly not recently), works like a deterrent to me helping on WP, I don't like being insulted any more than anyone else. His behaviour needs adjusting if he wants to continue to use/contribute to that board, imo. (if this section is for admin comments only, please remove this text without asking me). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh there is no Hrafn involved here in this thread. I should mention that as I pointed out in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive747#User:Ronz_behaviour it was frustration at nothing being done about an editor that seemingly everyone that had actually encountered had some form of problem with and the "oh this isn't our problem" and apparent "I not hearing you because you used the wrong form. La La La" attitude in the board up to then. Ronz had been so bad that even Jimbo Wales himself had to warn him about his actions.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be with your edits, not anybody else's. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As Griswaldo said as far the Weston Price article was concerned that was not true.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Global warming denialism as fringe science?

Is there a consensus on Wikipedia about labeling global warming denialsm as a fringe science/pseudoscience?JoelWhy (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there an incident you are reporting? To your question, the subject of global warming has not really been discussed much on Wikipedia </sarcasm> but you might try [59] and work your way backward. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 16:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No incident (yet). I patrolled a new page on An Inconsistent Truth, which is some "documentary" trying to cast dispersions on the science (and on Al Gore, in particular, because, as we all know, Al Gore is a famous scientist, and all of our conclusions on global warming are based on his findings...) Anyhow, I cleaned up all the NPOV issues in the article and I noted in the Talk section that if he wants to summarize the movie, that's fine, but that he can't try to make any factual claims based on the movie that aren't in line with the science. Having dealt with my share of denialsists, I don't think he'll be satisfied with this (but, who knows...)

Anyhow, I'm really more interested in this as a general issue. I noticed that we don't use the word "fringe" on the Global warming page or the Global warming controversy page, which I found a bit peculiar. So, I wanted to see where things stood on the issue.JoelWhy (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so that didn't take long. I don't necessarily need an admin to intervene at this point, but my spider senses are tingling -- if anyone wants to review the An Inconsistent Truth page/history, I'm pretty sure it's going to need some assistance from a higher power in the very near future.JoelWhy (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I took a look in the meantime, and I think (non admin opinion) that the cruxt of it is that the article should be about the documentary, not the science, which is part of what you said on the talk page. But I'd also caution labeling the views of climate change denialists/skeptics as "fringe". Doing so serves no purpose other than getting feathers ruffles, and it is a rather convoluted issue on both sides. I think this can probably be closed. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks Quinn.JoelWhy (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in on this discussion since I am in contact with the people who made this movie. All they're trying to do is put up a summary of the plot and JoelWhy keeps deleting it. The plot is all about debunking Gore's contention that global warming is manmade. We have cited references for each point but the points are central in the plot, otherwise there is no plot summary other than "This is a movie that argues the other side." What is disturbing is that obviously JoelWhy has an agenda. He calls any opinion contrary to his "fringe." Some of THE most respected scientists in the world question Gore's position on this including Dr. John Christy, who is interviewed for the film. In our plot summary we list some of the major points of contention in the film and list newspaper articles and studies as references. To my knowledge, that's exactly what the Wiki community asks. For JoelWhy to continually delete this section is nothing less than censorship and I would hope the "consensus" here would be that no one person should be able to do that.

Take a look at the An Inconsistent Truth article and see if it doesn't match up nicely with Gore's movie's article. All we're asking is for the same consideration. The Authenticator

First of all, read WP:COI. You shouldn't be acting on behalf of the movie's creators. What you're adding is slanted presentation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, with reference to your contact with the people who made the movie, please see WP:CONFLICT. (Given the history of articles you've worked on, I suspect there you've failed to disclose your COI on most of the articles you've worked on in Wikipedia.) Secondly, are you seriously accusing me of having an agenda after using the article to refer to Al Gore as "the prophet of the global warming movement", and stating, as a matter of fact, "Gore's claim of a scientific consensus is far from the truth." Thirdly, you've attempted to cite to articles that don't mention the movie at all, and are simply being used to try to discredit the science of global warming (again, see WP:COATRACK). I could go on, but I think the discussion on the Talk page discredits most of the assertions you have made here.JoelWhy (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is COI there, there probably is COI at Phil Valentine, a really bad BLP. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Inconsistent Truth, as this film does not appear to meet (or even approach) the relevant notability criteria. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

recognizable logo used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry and Portal:Furry

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

---

File:Furry blue paw logo.png is "derived from the paw in WikiFur's logo", yet it is used as the furry WikiProject template emblem, and the emblem for the furry portal portalbox. as such, this logo is widely seen on wikipedia, and its use as an emblem for the furry wikiproject template and portalbox seems inappropriate, since we have other free images, like this one, for example, that are not identifiable with any website. these emblems are widely seen, and imo, they should not be identifiable with any site. i looked for an answer at WP:SPAM, but was unable to find one there, and WP:Help desk had no answer, so i guess i will ask about this here.

• 
  "wikiproject furry" and "furry portal" logo
• 
  the WikiFur logo
• 
  neutral image unconnected with any site

-badmachine 16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wikifur logo is in the public domain. It is completely alright to use and/or modify the photo. In the future, it would be better to take questions like this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

it isnt a copyright question. the logo is recognizable, and therefore promotes a website. -badmachine 16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet, if the reader didn't already know it was the logo of the site, they would have no idea it was promoting anything. I really don't see the problem. Its fair to discuss which logo is a better choice, but that is not a question for AN/I. Monty₈₄₅ 16:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Help desk thread was active for under 24 hours, it seems a bit uncharitable to claim they "had no answer". I will post there to note that the matter was brought here. Doniago (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• thank you for that. i wasnt sure what to do, and im still not sure this is the right venue, but i dont know which one is. it is worth mentioning that the owner of WikiFur is the most active participant in the project. -badmachine 16:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• The community might want to consider a logo change, as we might want to keep Wikipedia's logos unique and not associate with other sites. But, unless it's a copyvio (which as stated above, it appears to not be), I don't really see this as a policy problem, especially not something for ANI. Maybe begin a discussion at the project or portal talk page instead. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Repeated false vandalism accusations by User:Nick Cooper

User:Nick Cooper will not stop leaving vandalism warnings on my page. I have repeatedly explained to him that disagreeing with him in a content dispute is not vandalism, and have asked him to read WP:NOTVAND at least seven times. He continues to leave false warnings on my page, and is now reporting me for vandalism [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Both are well past 3RR. May be somewhat counterproductive, but not obviously trolling. Strong candidate for WP:LAME. a13ean (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Page protected for 3 days, either editor will face a short block if they post to each others' talk pages again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The inherent problem is that 89.100.207.51 did not understand the remit of the page, deleted content, and then ignored all explanations as to why they were wrong. Since then, they have attempted to turn the page into what they mistakenly thought it was - and now claim it should be - rather than what it has been for over five years, and indeed from the day it was created. Apart from being downright abusive, 89.100.207.51 has consistently failed to offer any rational justification on the Talk page as to why the page should be changed, and has ignored all the explanations as to why it was created in the form it was, and what its remit is. It is also notable that the page is question is based on another one, but 89.100.207.51 has made no attempt to make similar changes there. I've explained all this numerous times, but 89.100.207.51 refuses to acknowledge or discuss any of it. I'm not sure what difference three days is going to make. It is also unfortunate that the page has been locked in the form 89.100.207.51 wants it to be, rather than the long-standing version that existed up until the point this dispute started. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that there was an editing dispute going on, instead of continuing discussion, you starting issuing vandalism warnings to the IP, the IP started issuing you warnings for issuing inappropriate warnings. Without weighing in on what the outcome of the underlying content dispute, it seems the IP editor was discussing in good faith, and even when other editors suggested you may be wrong, you disregarded that and kept on going at it the the IP and failed to adhere to WP:AGF. Step away from the conflict for a few days while the page is protected and then take a look at your own conduct. Monty₈₄₅ 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Which "other editors" are you referring to? The three who replied to 89.100.207.51's slanted RFC before anyone had had a chance to explain the actual background and remit of the page? Nick Cooper (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically Murry1975's comments. More generally, what I don't think your getting is that there is no definite remit of an article, it is by its nature determined by consensus. Also, regardless of the remit of the article, you need to understand that WP:Vandalism is editing with the intent to disrup Wikipedia, and I haven't seen anything to justify your classification of the edits that lead to the edit war as being vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 21:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975 said that the article should have remained in its original state pending the 30 days of the RFC. 89.100.207.51 ignored that, and kept changing it back to the version they wanted, while claiming consensus long before the 30 days were up (and which aren't yet). 89.100.207.51 originally claimed that the content did not match the page name, but rather than propose or discuss a change of name, they insisted that long-standing content should be deleted. How is this constructive? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case, what about the de facto consensus evidenced by an article being in an essentially stable form for many years, generally only edited as appropriate by editors interested or knowledgable in the field? Does that count for nothing, just because an editor unfamiliar with the subject stumbles across it, and manages to gain some short-term support amongst other previously uninvolved editors to change it? This dispute started because 89.100.207.51 removed content from the page twice ([71], [72]), which was reverted by Mervyn first ([73]), and then myself ([74]), with similar explanations in the edit summary, all on 27 April. 89.100.207.51 deleted the content again an 28 April ([75]), at the same time opening an RFC on what they though the remit of the page should be, rather than discussing the issue on the Talk page first. 89.100.207.51 gained initial support from three editors - none of whom had edited the page previously - before I reverted the page to its long-standing version on 2 May ([76]). No other editors offered an opinion after that point, apart from Mervyn, who disagreed with the RFC on 4 May, yet 89.100.207.51 started claiming "consensus" from 8 May, just ten days after opening the RFC. Nick Cooper (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling my editing "spitefully destructive censorship" [77] is abusive. If you don't want people to abuse you back, don't abuse them in the first place. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And that's enough to justify you saying "Go fuck yourself"? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. "Go fuck yourself" only expresses my personal distaste with how you're behaving towards me. Calling my edits "spitefully destructive censorship" adversely affects my standing in the community, as does your twenty or so deliberately false accusations of vandalism, and your refusal to pay attention to the twenty or so times that I asked you to read WP:NOTVAND and explained to you that disagreeing with you is not the same thing as vandalism . 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So where does your repeated refusal to accept the original and long-standing remit of the page fit in, and to even acknowledge let alone answer questions put to you? This cuts both ways. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin closure requested

Resolved

 – Topic ban enacted. AniMate 03:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin or group of admins is requested to please review WP:AN#Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike and effect a closure. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack review

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

---

Just wondering if anyone sees anything actionable with regard to this comment, particularly in light of the recent arbcom admonishment. -Scottywong| converse _ 19:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

...meh Juliancolton (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an escalation from the personal criticism that you started, to be honest - there was no need to attack Hipocrite at that RfA, no matter what you thought of his opinion on voluntary recall. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's the "attack"? -Scottywong| converse _ 19:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but look: either we really do mean it when we say that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA mandates that you do not respond in kind to personal attacks, ever, in any way shape or form, or we don't. One would think that someone admonished by ArbCom for incivility would take especial care, oh, I don't know, not to be uncivil. Either Malleus doesn't get it, or he doesn't give a damn; the distinction doesn't matter a bit. Ravenswing 20:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing Mealleus does is actionable. He's been blocked so many times that whatever he does is understandable since he's been so wronged in the past. You should know that. Besides, that's nothing. Malleus has called me a pretentious asshole and pretentious twat. At least yours didn't involve a body part. Of course we could say civility is violated in these instances, and it's an ongoing problem, but we would of course be wrong, for some reason. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Scottywong, if you cannot see that your comment about Hipocrite was a condescending put-down, then I have to question your judgment. I think you need to walk away, cool down, and come back tomorrow and rethink it - and not escalate things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Boing on this. — Ched :  ?  20:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What comment are we talking about? Someone post a diff, for those of us not privy, please. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this one — Ched :  ?  20:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll admit there was some attitude given (purposely) in my comments at the RfA. However, I fail to see how this is justification for being called a "pretentious prig" without consequence. Just thought I'd test the waters here, feel free to hat this thread if it's clear that nothing will come of it. -Scottywong| yak _ 20:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, now, hang on, this is awesome. As long as I can claim that someone had it coming to him by way of a comment I can claim was "condescending" or contained "attitude," I can say what I want about him, and there can't be any comeback to me over it? That's good to know! Ravenswing 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to remember that new rule for the future as well. It seems to only apply to certain editors though, and ironically it's usually the least civil ones. -Scottywong| babble _ 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Scottywong is begging for the boomerang here - there is nothing to see here apart from his disruptive unnecessary escalation - we can focus on that and his recent poor personal admin actions fully protecting his user pages from discussion whilst under usual investigative discussion.Youreallycan 20:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm is disruptive, but insulting someone explicitly isn't? Ravenswing 20:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• An opener reports and their desire to close the report when the focus has moved to their actions is not something users should edit war about - shame on you ENT - there is discussion about this admin unresolved and your closure is not correct at all - Youreallycan 20:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive unnecessary escalation you say? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• (I'm not going to war to unclose this, but I would argue that SW asked for it to be closed iff it's clear that nothing will come of it, and adequate time has hardly been given for comment by anyone who didn't find it immediately) Answering what one perceives to be rudeness or condescension with overt nastiness and name-calling is pretty clearly not adhering to our civility policy, which quite clearly states that everyone is responsible for their own behavior, and that claiming to have been provoked does not excuse you from attacking someone. It's exceptionally clear at this point that Malleus has been warned, in every possible way, about his incivility and knows better than this. It is also, unfortunately, very clear to me that the community is for whatever reason - I suspect institutional inertia - unlikely to deal with this issue adequately, and that this thread will probably result in name-calling and insults among people who weren't even party to the dispute in the first place. We all know very well that any attempt to admonish or block Malleus will cause an uproar, on both sides of the "civility divide". Though those above who say that Scottywong needs to cool off, and probably apologize to Hipocrite, are right, that doesn't excuse Malleus's behavior here. As unpleasant as the prospect is, I'd say that the only route open for dealing with further (accusations of) incivility by Malleus is to go back to Arbcom and request either Arbitration Enforcement or a review of the Civility Enforcement case (which of the two it is is beyond me - is AE used for cases where there aren't specific restrictions, but rather admonishments?); the community is emphatically incapable of handling the issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't need an apology, as I assumed one when the comment was edited. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This closure is a restriction of discussion in regards to an unresolved issue - I am following a One revert edit pattern but I have let the closer User:Nobody Ent know on his talk page that I consider this unresolved and that I object to his edit warring closure - Youreallycan 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What can be tried is to replay the entire exchange on a sandbox page, and see if you are all capable of communicating without anyone feeling insulted. Count Iblis (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Something of note

Does this look suspicious to anyone? When this is used, I am beginning to think that they are socks, with information being deleted very slowly. I would SPI this, but since I don't know the sockpuppeteer, I am going here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and this, which added a user from two years ago who did exactly the same thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• The behavior suggests there is an experienced sock master behind them, given the effort taken to avoid red-linked user page and user talk links. The socks themselves haven't really done anything that bad, removing content from an article months/years apart when none of them have been blocked isn't exactly serious sock puppetry. Monty₈₄₅ 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Merridew? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Doubt it. Jack is back as User:Br'er Rabbit, with the blessing of Arbcom, apparently. Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

CU results being posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Casadesus. --MuZemike 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an odd one. The edits don't seem bad in themselves, and the socks haven't been disruptive. The parent account (Casadesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been around since April 2008 but has a clean block log. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to evade scrutiny as there aren't any sanctions against the account. I'm mystified as to why he seems to have created no fewer than twelve socks, none of which is older than 23 March this year. Ordinarily I'd suggest blocking the guy but I suggest given these rather bizarre circumstances that he should be invited to explain his reasons. There may be a legitimate explanation (e.g. other people using his computer). I've notified him on his talk page, though as he's not edited since 2 April we may be in for a wait. Prioryman (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stürmburg, as it is possible that that I may have hit a false positive there (I have not blocked the user, yet), and that user has not edited that article. --MuZemike 22:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Stürmburg is the sockmaster. The first sock in the sequence that you found, namely Sobamlo (talk · contribs), dates back to 23 March while Stürmburg was created on 14 May. None of them seem to have been used for very long or for many edits. Some haven't been used at all. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any simultaneous socking - accounts seem to have been created and then discarded one after the other, being used consecutively rather than simultaneously. It's an unusual pattern, to say the least. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree here, as I think that Casa and the others share a similar characteristic, as they all remove text. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do not understand why the edits were reverted. The article was considerably improved by those edits - better sourcing, improved sentence structure, better grammar. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to revert to the "other" version, I will be going back to the most recent one. Risker (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they also removed information, which was useful. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It also removed a lot of biased information and interpretation of sources, and corrected errors and contradictions. This process is called editing. Just because someone's stuck information into an article doesn't mean that it is good information or valuable information or does anything to increase the understanding of the subject. Risker (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

True. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted back to the article's condition after the work done by the "serial accounts". I have no objection to knowledgeable editors discussing whether or not the edits made by those accounts improve the article or remove too much; however, the discussion would be more appropriate on the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullying tactics from User:Seb az86556

Constantly reverting edits and data links on my user page that I have inserted to record another editor's project investigating the suspected dozen or more IPsockets of my IP address. I have a personal interest in this project, of course, as it implicates me, as an editor. To understand how this system of reporting works I am watching closely to observe how another editor, attempting another WP:Bullying tactic to suppress my edits, alledges I can post from various cities hundred of km. away from each other. I have attempted to give notices and discuss this perceived harrassment with this user with several attempts on my and his talk page. He just ignores any comments, refuses discussion, deletes any discussion I make on my, or his, talk page and posts more threatening or belittling text. If this is the way editors, attempting to help out, are treated something needs to be done about the constant wiki-spam injected into readers pages about being able to edit articles. From the few dozen IP addresses I have observed, this is not the case and an Internet propagated lie to the public. It doesn't take a genius to see that IP editors are targetted in Wikipedia by a certain group of seasoned editors that will bully IP editors until they give up. User:Seb az86556 certainly fits this description. I have spent more of my latest edit time defending allegations inserted in to my IP talk page than I have editing. I have attempted to get assistance but constant "look at me" notices, from some, distract from this process time. From my past experiences in these matters the user in question will be the major deciding factor in this matter and therefore I have lost any faith in the system. I would like it to go on record and perhaps after hundred of complaints, about this WP:Bully, somebody will wake up and rescue the WP methods before it crashes as a useful tool. Thanks 99.251.114.120 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)
• 99.251.114.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Adding links only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody please notify Seb az86556 of this? I understand I am supposed to notify the editor involved. I do not know understand how to use templates and he will only inject more warnings on my talk page for vandalism. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You just copy the template from the instructions, paste it onto his Talk page, and sign it. I find it helpful to put it in its own section, but it's not strictly necessary. Anyway, I've done it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that anyone has done anything to you that was unwarranted. At least some of your editing pattern appears to be disruptive. You were blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights on May 9 for edit warring. That block was extended for personal attacks on the same day, and again extended on May 10 for a week because of inappropriate use of your Talk page during your block. Other than your global criticism of how IPs are treated generally - this is not the place for that - I don't see why you're here except perhaps to draw further attention to yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have time to give this the attention it deserves, although I have looked through the IPs contribs somewhat. All I can recommend to the IP is "duck!". I'm pretty sure one of my famous heart to heart talks wouldn't do the trick here as I think the IP lacks the clue factor to benefit from it. As such, I will leave it to someone else to apply the proper inspection and remedy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:TJD2 has been continuously changing or removing sourced content

These edits all pertain to the article Falling in Reverse: [78][79][[80][81][82][83]Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have continuously reminded this user to consult the talk page about the genre, but they continue to revert my work without explaining their reasoning. This user refuses to discuss at the talk page, and made a revert which removed/blanked sourced information that had been since added, as well as an updated image. We have established on the talk page that FiR is Post Hardcore and not screamo. If a source said they were country for example, it would be unreliable and we wouldn't put it in the article; the same goes for screamo. This has already been discussed. TJD2 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see you discussing it either. There this section, "Links to proove FIR is metalcore", which basically consists of a bunch of guys wanking over what songs are in what genres and why they are experts. Allmusic is generally considered to be reliable for genres, and they list a bunch of genres including screamo. Edit-warring aside (I'm going to count reverts in a moment), Hoponpop appears to be correct. Besides, you keep removing a reference to Allmusic--on what grounds? No, those edit summaries that boil down to "shut up it's on the talk page", well, it's not on the talk page, at least no consensus that can be called reasonably argued on the basis of reliable sources. Oh, if a reliable source calls something country, it's country. You seem to be arguing from your own taste and convictions. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Looking at the history I see more nonsense: you, TJD2, accused Hoponpop of "blatant vandalism"--that's obviously false. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism as in removing information that had since been added (images, past members, etc.). At the time I saw it as vandalism but it was an admitted oversight on their part. I'm not arguing from my own tastes, I am simply pointing out that there was a discussion on the issue and the users involved came to a consensus. I was merely protecting that consensus. As a side note, I was not even involved in the discussion save the fact that they listed a song that wasn't by FiR as an example of pop punk. BUT I would gladly discuss the genre changes with Hoponpop if he was willing (though he is not). TJD2 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling something vandalism when it is not automatically escalates a situation. Your next step in content disputes is dispute resolution ... otherwise, I'm not sure what you're requesting from admin? A block for content arguments? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violation from user: EmJhay Sowkie

EmJhay Sowkie (talk · contribs) has been creating multiple Phillipines-X bilateral articles all with some form of copyright violation. at least one I got speedy deleted.

At least 4 notifications/warnings have been made with no change in behaviour [84].

number of the articles are lifted from foreign ministry websites or news articles including:

• Paraguay–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bolivia–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chile–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Palau–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Venezuela–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Philippines-Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LibStar (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

user now indefinitely blocked. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled across this mess while working the CSD queue. I've indef blocked the editor, but would appreciate some help in cleaning up the remaining copyvios. It looks like just about everything he's written is a copy/paste from a news source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad someone else caught these I kept seeing them in the queue but was busy elsewhere. Ridernyc (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A nuke caught most of the "relations" articles, and I deleted the rest. All I looked at were copyvios. The closest to non-copyvio was one copied from the New Zealand government, but that one was still under a "no derivatives" license. The rest were either unspecified or explicitly marked as "all rights reserved." The "Philippines-Foo relations" seemed to be the problem, I didn't find any issue with the templates he's made, or edits to existing articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review

I have just blocked User: Badmachine indefinitely. I'm not the first admin to do or propose this--see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Badmachine Blocked and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#my user page. I gave Badmachine a clear final warning for disruptive behavior in this edit; this was in response to him suggesting that a stained glass of Jesus be used as the main picture for rapper Lil B, because, in his words, "thats lil b isnt it? ". This user, while sometimes making good edits to mainspace, is nothing but a bloody drama magnet outside of it, particularly in reference to his userpage. The specific behavior that prompted the indefinite block was the most recent incarnation of his userpage, which I deleted.

Now, why did I delete a userpage out of process, and block an editor who I know has been unblocked for? Because the most recent version of the user page made specific claims that a specific, living human being (or, possibly a fictional construct of Badmachine, but WP:BLP does not allow me to guess) was the perpetrator of child pornography, molestation, etc. Of course, no references were provided (yes, userspace is not article space, but nothing is exempt from WP:BLP). There is absolutely no conceivable way in my mind, given the vast amount of attention that has been paid to Badmachine's userpage before, that he could have possibly thought that this was acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, the userpage admitted two particularly relevant points: " Badmachine took up his current view that trolling is a necessary part of the evolution of Internet users into thicker-skinned people" and "Badmachine remains particularly amused by the hypocrisy stemming from the fact that Wikmedia hosts every sort of porn imaginable, yet prevents images of penises on his user page, despite Wikipedia's claim of being uncensored." This was WP:POINTy, to say the least. This user is only here to push our buttons, for the lulz, shall we say. The mainspace edits simply cannot make up for this disruption.

Could I conceive of a path for Badmachine to return to active editing? At a bare minimum, it would involve the permanent deletion of his user page, the removal of anything from his user talk page not added by another user or put there as a response to another user, and an understanding that any disruption anywhere would mean a return to a blocked status. Do I think it's worth the effort? Certainly not.

Finally, please note that I am now walking away from the computer (because I have to go home). I strongly suggest that no one undo this block without a clear community consensus. Should a community consensus arise at a later point, fine. Also, another admin should take a look at the deleted content, and determine if the specific claims about child pornography require WMF involvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see User_talk:Badmachine#May_2012 - I've posted my own comments there. I've also restored the 'offending' userpage, which I can attest is Badmachine's own biography, and have redacted and suppressed material that may be required by policy. Feel free to judge accordingly. However, I strongly believe that whether Badmachine should be blocked for 'trolling' or whatev, he should not be blocked for posting his own brief life-story to his user page. This is just seriously wrong. Please read my own comments on his talk page. I cannot unblock myself, as he's an RL friend so that would be just wrong, but please take what I'm saying into consideration. I can't sit by and see him blocked indef for posting his life story - Alison ^❤ 08:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And I have deleted it again, because it still was a blatant BLP violation. Furthermore, you shouldn't have used the tools in this case Alison, since your COI clerly makes you involved (albeit with the best intentions). Voicing your opinion, like you did here, is perfect, but you should have left the rest to others. Fram (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Badmachine has been quite successful; we still get drama-threads like this one which absorb other editors' time. Giving extra attention is not the solution. Can't we get back to working on the encyclopædia's other problems? bobrayner (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block As I noted at User talk:Badmachine on May 13, "No individual action warrants an indef block, but in totality it is clear that WP:HERE applies—Badmachine is just testing the limits of Wikipedia." It does not matter whether the user is a troll or not, the issue is whether what they are doing is significantly different from what a clever and patient troll would do (it's not). Prior to the current issue, the user's page has been deleted by user request four times (log). That should not be necessary. It is not reasonable to apply WP:AGF when a user displays a GNAA logo on their talk page and posts "More amusing to Badmachine is that the prevention of penises is at least somewhat justifiable, but that the addition of the GNAA logo to his userpage makes Wikipedians shit their collective panties" (that was on the now-deleted user page)—what the user fails to appreciate is that we are (mostly) adult, and we don't care about porn/GNAA/whatever, so long as it happens somewhere else because this is an encylopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block; nothing much against trolls in general. But their actions should not be welcomed here. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Good block - the user is clearly here to troll & disrupt. GiantSnowman 09:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wow, what exactly is wrong with all of you? I imagine it must be some sort of mental disorder. It's pathetic really. Allison comes and reverts a deletion, because she apparently knows the guy (hence the involvement I assume) and as such vouches for the veracity of the user page bio, which was termed offending and as such the obvious problem, so her involvement actually increases her weight of opinion in this particular matter. But that isn't what this is about, is it, no no. This is about the inabilities of many wikipedians to see past their own self-righteous ideals. Ideals that make wikipedia the crap that it is today...it was once a wonderful place, now it has devolved into a bunch of man-childs arguing over jokes made on TALK pages for god's sake and factual user bio's confirmed by someone who apparently knows the guy. Grow up. You people seem like something from a kids in the hall episode about a wayward mental facility in French Quebec. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, mysterious IP whose first edit is to AN/I! Thanks for making my point for me. bobrayner (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Badmachine has posted a link to a pastebin copy which is supposedly (I'm not doubting the veracity, just that, well, it is pastebin, so I can't confirm it) of an article from the Ohio Dispatch that confirms key portions of the original story--the perpetrator, the conviction, some details about the crime. It doesn't of course identify the victim. This may change some people's views of the block and/or deletion, so I wanted others to be aware of it. Also, the user had posted an unblock request, which User:Boing! said Zebedee declined. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the deleted user page also contained negative unsourced statements about other (possibly) living people, e.g. a member of his family. Fram (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the content of the user page, surely this is a case of WP:NOTWEBHOST - "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." GiantSnowman 10:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In practice that is rarely enforced for active editors -- for example, how is your atheism relevant to the encyclopedia? Nobody Ent 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you're playing devil's advocate, but there's a massive difference between a small userbox and a massive autobiography full of criminal accusations about BLPs. GiantSnowman 10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• In addition, it's not only the user page that's the problem here - that is merely one issue, among many. GiantSnowman 10:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• While WP:NOTWEBHOST does make some very broad suggestions about what is / isn't allowed, none of it is distinct. Looking back at Wikipedia:User_page it clearly states: "There is no fixed use for user pages, except that usually one's user page has something about oneself" Now I would consider a biographical page about the author fully about oneself as suggested here. While the other page (something that is hidden away and even refers back to User_page as the primary source of information on namespace content) clearly says it is not a social networking site and should have some relevancy to the encyclopedia. If you take this to mean he should not have his bio on there, then please, from your own, User:GiantSnowman I request that you remove "Hello, my name is GiantSnowman, and I live in North Yorkshire. I am an English Literature graduate who works in finance, and I occassionally blog for the Huffington Post. I am interested in politics, literature, film, and music; strangely, my edits on Wikipedia do not reflect this at all – instead I concentrate mainly on the beautiful game." as it too is fully irrelevant to the encyclopedia. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, there's a massive difference between briefly explaining a bit about me and listing what areas interest me, both on & off Wikipedia, and a massive autobiography full of criminal accusations about BLPs. GiantSnowman 10:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I endorse the block, as it is not appropriate to use Wikipedia user space to make unsupported criminal allegations (whether true or not). I declined the unblock request largely because the request itself included a link to a screenshot of the user page containing the unsupported allegations. Badmachine has responded by saying he can go and get proof of his allegations and hopes that that will allow him to restore them to his user page. But I think that is largely missing the point - user pages are not meant as web hosts for this kind of thing, and editors' time should not be wasted checking the veracity of allegations made on user pages. But having said all that, I place great store on Alison's words, and I'm happy to accept her assurance that Badmachine is not intentionally trolling here - he has clearly suffered some events in his life that could cause serious damage, and I think we should take that into account. However, Wikipedia is not therapy, and I don't think Badmachine's detailed life events should be posted here. I've suggested that he posts a brief bio with no names named, and I would support an unblock if he agrees to post no more than that on his user page (and I think his giving us some idea of what he wants to do towards improving the encyclopedia would help). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I still find the ban unacceptable and the fact you keep calling them "allegations" of any sort shows a lack of understanding of what the term even means. There are no allegations in his bio, as the suggestion was that the man was convicted of the crimes and as such they aren't a suggestion of criminal allegations, ie. they're not a statement revolving around the act of the crime and it's assertion of it happening rather around the conviction and the preface of what for and not at all surrounding a plead for action based upon what you incorrectly label "allegations". Please see Allegation for further information. That aside, the suggestion of "brief" bio is a rather arbitrary term. For myself who can write novels about whatever subject I happen to be writing on, brief may find itself several pages. Which obviously many other wikipedians would too, considering the length of some of the talk page bio's I've come across. What I actually see here is a wikipedian who many have a problem with because he doesn't necessarily fall into their self-imposed clonal mold, he's from different circumstances, from a different mode of thought, but a wikipedian, a competent editor, and an otherwise decent person. This whole thing is ridiculous and I find the fact any of this happening a black mark on wikipedia's open and non-discriminating nature. Sad, very sad. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Honestly I think the user page is a sideshow and not really a major concern (i.e. could easily be fixed). The elephant in the room is the ongoing trolling as evidenced by the blocking admin. Badmachine exhibits the traditional usenet toll behaviour, as Alison noted, and can't seem to restrain himself. That is disruptive IMO. At the very least, for an unblock he needs to agree not to engage in that again. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • so it is okay for an admin to use a non-issue for the reason to pursue a ban to get people riled up so that his case that normally failed to reach a ban consensus would be easier to push through? That isn't very good behavior in and of itself. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack by User: Historiographer

User: Historiographer wrote a personal attack using a racial slur Jjokbari: "Japanese users, who diminished to Korea-related articles like Kusunose, are kept always annoying deeds that. In those days, I'm also used to do that like you against these troublesome Jjokbaries".[85]] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist-motivated vandalism by the user:星光下的人.

Nationalist-motivated vandalism, of List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and of List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Charles,_Prince_of_Wales, at [86] and at [87], respectively. Cannot write English properly, and many of his edits in the English Wikipedia were unhelpful, or even downright disruptive. Edit-summaries were often left blank, if they were not rants, and in Chinese, instead. Fairly nationalistic Userpage at the Chinese Wikipedia, at [88]. The user appears to be pursuing some fringe theories (possibly over the use of surnames) over Chinese historical articles, across the different language-versions of Wikipedia, or that he is in fact simply trolling. The User was indefinitely blocked, according to these, at [89] and at [90], in the Japanese Wikipedia, at [91], by the User:Vigorous action, at [92], for "Move-Vandalism" (ブロック設定を無期限に変更しました。ブロックの詳細(アカウント作成のブロック、自分のトークページの編集禁止) (ブロック破りを認めたため。荒らし: 移動荒らし。)) ([93]; [94]), and later also for suspected sock-puppetry [95]; [96]; [97]; [98]. I had reported this to the wikipedia:AIV, but was recommended, as it is too complex, to bring this matter up to here instead. I thank you. — KC9TV 08:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)