Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor??

This section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo to free up space on this page. MuZemike (the following timestamp was delayed several days to maintain visibility on this page) MuZemike 02:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits and User:Mooretwin

I'm calling this one. No admin action forthcoming, situation too unclear.--Tznkai (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mooretwin on User:Vintagekits

I have now become sufficiently irritated by User:Vintagekits' attacks on me and harassment of my editing to post a notice here. Here are a list of personal attacks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It now appears that the sole purpose of his presence on Wikipedia is to follow my edits and revert them. It seems clear to me that he uses my "user contributions" page for this purpose. On 10th August, for example, he turned up on obscure Northern Ireland football club pages in which he had never previously shown interest - purely to revert, e.g. Tandragee Rovers.

On 23rd September, he logged into Wikipedia and all he did was revert edits that I had made: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

He then left a message on my talk page, which I removed, only for him to revert. Mooretwin (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

With no knowledge of the rights and wrongs of this particular dispute, I can certainly confirm from experience that Vintagekits does have a regular and longstanding interest in the history of Irish football. – iridescent 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me as though Mooretwin refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question over why he is using a blogspot blog as a source in multiple articles, in the case of Eric Treverrow it is the only source in the article. The edit to Tandragee Rovers is perfectly correct too, as when Mick Hoy was playing that flag was not used. Mooretwin is more than aware that "Northern Irish" can be a contentious term when applied to people and is best avoided, yet for some reason he keeps using it even applying it to living people. O Fenian (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those opinions addresses the complaint. Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Claims of stalking have not substance at all, in addition to Vin having a longstanding interest in the history of Irish football they have also had a longstanding interest in the history. Posting on a editors user page as opposed to their talk page is wrong. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Asking you a legitimate question about your policy violations, or fixing your use of contentious terms or flags in inappropriate contexts is not harassment. Adding his question back may not have been unacceptable, but that was only brought about by your refusal to answer the question it seems. O Fenian (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Vintagekits has long been considered one of "those" users - he does some excellent content work, but somehow can't quite grasp the idea that one should comment on the content, not the editor. His block log says it all; he makes personal attacks and comments, refuses to discuss them and then comes back for more. The version of WP:WQA found here is another example of his behaviour, and he's had multiple ANI threads before. Short of a block I really don't know what we're meant to do with him; he does excellent sports-related work, but does so with a potty mouth. Topic bans only work if the problem is with the editors attitude towards a certain area, and this is just a problem with his attitude. This is a prime example - while his actions were correct, his personal comments while making them (and elsewhere) were not. Ironholds (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

His actions weren't correct, unless one thinks that edit-warring is correct. His reverts on various club pages (Tandragee Rovers being only one example) were on the basis of an erroneous claim of precedent, subsequently debunked here. In any case, the complaint is less about the correctness of any individual reverts, but the fact that the user is clearly using WP merely to pursue me and to make personal attacks. Mooretwin (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin often tendentiously edits, and often goes against consensus, as he does on the GAA article. Tfz 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That block list is as long as my arm. And his editing is a violation of the spirit of User:Vintagekits/terms, if not the terms. I highly suggest opening arbitration on this user, and the blocks never seem to stick, or be effective. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no "spirit" of the block; it was designed to keep him away from baronetcy/history articles after a series of disputes on the subjects, because he's a productive editor in other areas. His actions here do not at all violate the topic ban.

The notion of Mooretwin reporting another editor for "harassment of my editing" is, frankly, difficult to take seriously. This is not the forum for POINTY irony. A goodly proportion of the blocks were by warring Admins so should play no part in assessing the merits (none) of the current complaint. Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quite frankly a long block is all I can see happening at the moment. He's been gradually excluded from topics where he works because of his attitude and incivility at those topics, and this has done nothing to stop him - he's just been rude elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• From a review of the diff's supplied by Mooretwin I can see two instances of violation of WP:CIVIL - well, 3 actually but 1 & 2 are the same! - which I will speak to VK about. However, I see much amiss regarding the body of Mooretwin's complaint. VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles. I also find Mooretwin is being something more than tendatious when altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland". If VK is perhaps teetering on the limits of his conditions, it is because he is being poked with sharpened sticks. I seriously suggest that Mooretwin look at his own approach to matters before re-engaging with editors in this very sensitive area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, thats not entirely accurate. Vk is no longer "active" in either Ireland related editing or sport subjects. He has expressed his intention to no longer edit articles, but to continue to contribute to discussions. This he has more or less adhered to this with the exception of reverting the edits of Mooretwin and one or two other editors, mainly on the issues of Irish/British nationality, every couple of days. There does come a point when this type of single purpose editing - essentially low-grade revert warring targeted on a few individuals - becomes an issue.

The only reason Vk was allowed back from his numerous indefinite blocks was because of his reputation as an excellent content contributer, which was seen by some as sufficiently valuable to counter the persistent incivility, abuse, personal attacks, threats, sockpuppeteering, and edit warring. If that content contribution is no longer occurring, and all we are left with is the personal attacks, confrontational attitude and edit warring, how exactly is this helping the project? Now I'm not advocating action in this instance and I don't condone the actions of Mooretwin on the Northern Irish issue either, but I also think its time we stopped using Vk's supposed excellent content contributions as continued justification for his poor behavior. Vk needs to be made aware that if all he intends to do is pop up once to twice a week to revert a few of his enemies contributions and then make a few personal attacks, then we have no need for him. Rockpocket 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not good to revert an editor's deletion of your post on their userpage. Having one's postings deleted in that fashion is 'regrettably' common (trust me, I know). GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to how thick skinned we expect people to be around here. Unfortunately that totally depends on which editor is slinging the insults. I agree with Rockpocket, but VK will come back to full-time editing eventually. Some of us just can't keep away, despite our best intentions. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 00:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support long or indefinite block. The incidents submitted are not very problematic individually, but as part of a pattern of conduct, they are. We are much too tolerant, in general, of editors who are (as the block log shows) incapable of observing basic rules of civil interaction. The disruption they cause generally outweighs the contributions they make.  Sandstein  05:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin is causing disruption over many articles, and must be tackled. This[1] is the genre of tendentious editing he is involved in. He must be called to order. Tfz 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU says there is much amiss regarding the body of my complaint, because "VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles". He misses the point. VK has not shown any interest ever during my time on WIkipedia in editing articles relating to Irish League (i.e. Northern Ireland) or amateur/intermediate-level football in Northern Ireland. He had never posted on those sites and the only way he turned up on those sites was through following my edits. Also, it is a misrepresentation to say that I have been "altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland"". It is the other way round - VK has been altering these to change them from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland", presumably for some kind of political reason, based on the odd claim - supported by a small number of like-minded political editors - that "Northern Irish" is somehow "POV". The essence of this complaint is that the apparently sole purpose of VK's editing now is to pursue me and revert my edits. Mooretwin (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stu, it all totally depends on who is slinging the insults. Rock has a high tolerance when it come to certain editors, but since he has stalked and hassled Vin enough to be told to leave him alone, pushing GD's comment out of the way to address LessHeard’s points an example of their want to counter a constructive comment. Sandstein, you ability to act as an impartial Admin is already being questioned, and your contribution hear is possibly one of the reasons why. While admitting that the incidents hear and not very problematic, they try to suggest that as a patter of conduct they are a problem. That again depends like Stu has said on who the editor is? For example, here is a pattern and compared to Vin’s not very problematic posts a very clear pattern, but its ignored. Or the whole heap of accusations being made in the course of this discussion with multiple abuses of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and being spread across a number of pages [2] [3] [4]. Now neither Sandstein or Rock have mentioned Mooretwins pattern of behaviour at all, which again bears out Stu’s comments, and until such time as they do, ANI is simply a tool to further personal axes or as a form of harassment. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood what I meant Domer, and I'm certain that I have no idea what you are talking about. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. I have no clue what Domer is claiming Sandstein I have done (Until we mention Mooretwin's behaviour - which I did - "ANI is simply a tool to further personal axes" WTF?); if you would like to me address your concerns, then you will need to clarify what you mean. Rockpocket 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Until the close of the Eastern European Mailing List Arbcom case, any comment supporting Sandstein's views must be viewed with suspicion and discounted. Sandstein has been asked (and seems to be refusing) to lay down his tools pending the outcome of that case. I think this especially necessary when Sandstein takes it upon himself to comment on editors who have been involved in controversial political matters, as has Vintagekits. Sandstein's presence is at present guaranteed to exacerbate and confuse issues. Giano (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Vintagekits has no relation to Eastern Europe. His initial political interests (now protected by a topic ban) were on Ireland. Unless you're suggesting Sandstein is involved in a Secret British Mailing List as well this is completely irrelevant. Regardless, Sandstein is expressing his opinion as an editor, not as an admin. He'd be out of place to institute the block now he's "voted" anyway. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There are certain similarities between the Rusavia's persecution by a politicaly operated mailing list and Vintagekit's persecution by a similar group of now banned users and socks, in both cases Admins have been fooled and tricked and Arbcom cases abused. My point is that it is concerning that Sandstein, with his history, is dropping by and advocating long blocks on subjects and editors of whom he presumably knows nothing. One wonders why? Giano (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence, here or elsewhere, of a "similiar group of now banned users" persecuting Vintagekits. If you have evidence of this, feel free to drop it in at any time. Sandstein may well be familiar with vintagekits - he's at ANI so often that one doesn't need to work in the same content area to see his "work". Ironholds (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you so ignorant of VK's history - or are you trying (badly) to be amusing? You "have seen no evidence" - are you newly arrived of just trolling for trouble? Giano (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Vintagekits around here before in relation to the baronetcy thing, but I'm not aware of any cabal-esque action taken by other users to smear him. It's neither total ignorance, humour or trolling, simply a lack of (oh the irony) encyclopaedic knowledge. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Will VK still be aloud to work on the Boxing articles? I hope he'll be. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, this discussion pretty much sums up why I dont really edit here anymore. Mooretwin is possibly the most disruptive editor on wikipedia at the moment and consistantly ignores concensus and refuses to answer simply question with regards his interpretation to policy. Yet he comes he to bitch and provide a completely one side view of whats going on - totally slanted and without any balance at all but he still gets unquestioned support from the individuals that have pretty much driven me off here. Sandstein calls for an indefinate block - God you are laughable - please explain to me why I deserve an indefinate block (this should be good!) have you even looked at the links that Mooretwin has provided which he says breach NPA? Here are a few examples 1. correctly challenging calling someone "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland" - is that a personal attack on Mooretwin? No! It's removing a POV and potentially BLP comment and replacing it with something that is neutral and factually accurate. 2. [5] telling him he was canvassing - which he does often and gets away with it despite multiple warnings - thats a personal attack? Saying he is editing in a POV and disruptive manner which was confirmed by admins - thats a personal attack? Asking him why he is using a blog as the only source for multiple articles! is that a personal attack?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds what do you mean by Sandstein has "voted" anyway? With baseless accusations like this tread, no wonder some editors are here so often. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Domer: His "support long/indefinite block" comment is similar to the sort of thing used in block/ban discussions here. Giano was implying that he shouldn't be taken into account because of his actions with the tools elsewhere, I was pointing out that he wasn't offering to use the tools here, he was simply "voting" (which would prevent him from "tooling up" altogether. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Though it goes against the spirit of Collaboration, perhaps an agreement between VK & MT can be reached. Howabout each editor not showing up at an article where the other is at? Also neither editor post at the other's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh - no! I was forced away from the Baronet articles to appease Kittybrewster and the issue I was there for still hasnt been sorted. Mooretwin is busy pushing his POV on wikipedia there doesnt seem to be anyone keeping an eye on him. I've done nothing wrong - just because the usual suspects - Rockpocket, Sandstein and Ironholds turn up to back up Mooretwins moronic rantings here doesnt mean that what he says are correct - because it isnt - thankfully others here have been quick to point that out. Mooretwin's objective is to try and some sort of topic ban or such other tools put in place so that he can carry on pushing his POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured it would serve both of you best, if you both avoided each other. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Vintagekits' topic ban as listed at /terms has been superseded by another topic ban, and the Arbitration Committee confirmed that ban by motion /terms is historical and should probably be deleted. It is in any case, not topical.--Tznkai (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• This is a user who is on the cusp between problem and "vested". Laughably, here Vintagekits asks how it is possible to sort out an issue if an editor deletes a comment, when inded s/he reverted my attempt to sort out an issue. Not an impressive stance. This resulted in a block (one that was supported by many other I might add). My patience has already been exhausted but I feel the community may wish to give this editor "another chance". Regretably, I think that this is consensus and that this thread probably is not going to go any furher. Arbitration is, I feel, likely to be unproductive. Bluntly - give Vintagekits enought rope. We don't do vested conributors around here. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Coming at this with no previous interest in football or Vintagekits (but of both British and Irish background, so familiar with the issue), can I just point out that Mooretwin is either POV pushing or (unlikely, but en-Wikipedia is occasionally edited by folks from such as the Far East who occasionally make such faux pas) ignorant of the issue. "Northern Irish" is not a nationality - one group of occupants of the six counties views themselves as Irish, the other group as British. Neither would use the term to describe themselves, and reversion by somebody is inevitable. Mooretwins protestations that the reversion is by Vintagekits is therefore without merit, and should be at the minimum (if Mooretwin xyrself is not to warrant examination) be disregarded. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Excuse my frankness, but that is complete nonsense based on entirely fallacious and simplistic reasoning. It does not follow that because someone views him or herself as British or Irish that he or she therefore does not view him or herself as Northern Irish. There is no evidence to support such a fallacy. It is, ironically, a POV.
• Vintagekits succeeded in getting a category (or categories) changed from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland", but with the express outcome that no precedent had been set. I created some stubs and wrote them in the "house style" which refers to "Northern Irish" (or "English" or "Scottish", etc.) footballers.
• In any case, this all misses the point. It doesn't matter what particular edits Vintagekits is reverting: the complaint is that, in addition to the personal attacks and incivility, his sole purpose on WP now appears to be to follow me around in order to revert me. He has turned up out of the blue at various articles on which he has never edited, solely to revert me. He has logged on to Wikipedia, checked out my contributions, reverted my edits, and then logged off.
• Ironically, in attempting to defend himself, Vintagekits has continued to attack me on this page, calling me a "POV pusher", (ironically) saying I am "possibly the most disruptive editor on Wikipedia" and referring to "moronic rantings". I am not pushing any POV: on the contrary, I wish to remove POV from Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support long or indefinite block per Sandstein. --John (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here[6] is Mooretwin using the system for more of his disruption. He's perfectly entitled to do that, I know, but it's edit after edit after edit. Someone has to watch his tendentious editing. Tfz 14:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment appears to have no relevance to this section, which is about Vintagekits. This is the third intervention that TfZ has made here, each time to attack me, with odd examples of edits that he doesn't like, and at no time to comment on the subject of the incident. Mooretwin (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it reflects on your motive to rid opposition from other editors. I attacked your continuous disruptive editing, and not you. You claim that you are removing pov, but in my experience that is the worst form of editing that can happen here at Wikipedia. You basically remove edits you wp:idontlikeit, and there is much that can come under that heading for almost all editors, but they don't do that. You are already making tendentious edits[7] to Ireland related articles when the linking is still being discussed at IRCOLL. Tfz 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please restrict comments here to the topic. Your accusations are not appropriate here. Mooretwin (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The comments are appropriate here. This discussion should be closed and you should be told that your use of Northern Irish, or a loyalist flag to represent NI must be discouraged. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffs please for that last? --John (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read the discussion you would notice they have already been provided. You did read the discussion before commenting didn't you? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In the absense of any diffs to back up Domer's accusation, we should warn Mooretwin, block Vintagekits indef, and get on with improving the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Warn me for what?? Mooretwin (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen reason to indeff vintagekits yet either. This thread seems pretty incomprehensible as it is.--Tznkai (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tznkai time to close this spiraling mess. BigDunc 08:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So you reckon that if you have enough like-minded mates to turn an incident into a "spiralling mess", you can get away with personal attacks and stalking. I see. I suggest instead that admins deal with the complaint itself and not be distracted by off-topic personal comments. Mooretwin (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Close this off now, as per BigDunc and the other editors. Agree broadly with LessHeard's insight. Tfz 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears John did not read the discussion, and still they want Vin blocked! Close this down its going no were fast. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the term "Northern Irish" is a BLP violation or POV or extremely sensitive? Briefly and with a couple of wiki references, if possible? this and this by VK appear to be disruption, but I am willing to listen to an explanation of why it might in fact be sensitive before making final judgement. I believe the term is in use in the United States in common parlance, even among Irish immigrants to the US, but perhaps it is legitimately sensitive elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Because its a politically loaded term and can indicate sectarnian/religous/plitical/ethnic allegency.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, what term isn't politically loaded in NI VK? So yes some people find the term offensive. You would have to ask them why. It doesn't stop 29% of people in NI describing themselves as such. That's 4% more than describe themselves as Irish, and even 25% of Catholics identify as Northern Irish. The term is currently avoided on Wikipedia as it is not a nationality. It is however a valid denonym and identity. But if it is not a nationality, then neither is English, Scottish or Welsh - just British. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so less than a third of people from Northern Ireland would describe themselves as "Northern Irish" - I dont think you would get the same response for "Scottish" or "Welsh" - do you think less than a third of people in the US describe themselves as "American" or those in the "Republic of Ireland" as "Irish". It is potentially BLP and should be avoided as a label that is slapped on people "from Northern Ireland". Mooretwin knows this and has done for over a year (at least) but still attempts to try and sneak it into articles.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And even less people describe themselves as Irish. So following your logic describing people from NI as Irish is also potentially BLP. Yet many articles do so, simply because the subject is Irish. Yet you're not bothered about these BLP concerns? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is potentially BLP to simply describe someone from NI as Irish - and British for that matter. Best practice is that it should be sourced.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how the two links you have provided could ever be construed as disruptive. If you knew anything at all you would know that it was removing a POV label and replacing it with a neutral description.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Describing people from NI as Irish is also potentially BLP in the absence of sources which support this. Again, this is not the forum for content discussions, and should be closed. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought that edits like the two GWH highlighted are disruptive too. Coming from an editor who is supposed to be editing under a restriction, with a block log as long as my arm and proud of it ("28 and counting!", he boasts on his user page), these seem like grounds for a block. Vintagekits has led a charmed life here because his supporters traditionally have cried out against supposed British bias, and pointed to his (supposedly) stellar article writing skills (I don't see it myself, but there you go). Now that Vk has "retired", which in his case seems to mean retired from any constructive work and devoted himself purely to disruption, per Rockpocket I see no reason to continue to allow him to edit here. I support an indefinite block. --John (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You make me laugh! Please explain how replacing a POV label with a neutral, factually article description could be construed as disruptive? You've been hankering after an indefinate block on me for years and not got one - is this because I mocked you after your faux retirement?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "POV label". There's no evidence to support these claims by a small group of editors campaigning, for whatever reason, to revert all mentions of "Northern Irish". Vintagekits succeeded in getting a couple of categories renamed, but only with the express statement that no precedent had been set in doing so. Regardless, he took it upon himself to follow me around and revert on any articles which used the term. Mooretwin (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin is being deliberately dishonest there. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 10#Category:Northern Irish association football clubs shows him replying to a post by Vintagekits with this link in it, which states that "Northern Irish is . . . politically loaded in Northern Ireland". Mooretwin's insistence on using it in favour of more neutral phrasing such as "from Northern Ireland" shows how tendentious his editing is. O Fenian (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The view of one obscure author in a footnote in a single book, who displays his own ignorance about citizenship in the same footnote, isn't very convincing evidence. Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though, for digging out confirmation that there is "no precedent viz the wholesale elimination of the term as part of category names. That decision was specific to the area of people-by-nationality and there appears to be little consensus to extend it", and "This rename ... does not mean that if (sic) you can't use the term "Northern Irish".. Mooretwin (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, thank you for pulling out that source proving that it is politically loaded! I think that proves my stance.

Mooretwin, would you agree that the term "Northern Irish" can be viewed as offensive by some people in Northern Ireland?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Some recent edits (28th September) by VK, in pursuit of his campaign (note these do not relate to "BLP"): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Mooretwin (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and I and others will continue to make them because they are correct NPOV edits. Now do you want to answer the question posed above or are you just going to ignore the substantive issue like you have in the discussion below.
• Lets put the cards on the table and stop of this politiking and effing about.
• A. Would you agree that the term "Northern Irish" can be viewed as offensive by some people in Northern Ireland?
• B. What are you trying to achieve by using the term "Northern Irish" - i.e. what does it mean.
• C. Why are you using a blog as the only source to create articles?

I dont think I can make this muddied issue more simple than the above - now are you prepared to give some straight answers and sort this issue out or is just a campaign to create more of your drama?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Without wanting to cause even more drama here, I think that once you strip away all the shouting, you are left with the following objective truths:

1. ArbCom has held "Decorum" as a guiding principle in dozens of cases, including where User:Vintagekits is named as a party. They have held that a record of good contributions is not a shield to hide behind to excuse bad behaviour, and that Wikipedia expects both good contributions and good behaviour.
2. Vintagekits has been a solid contributor. They have also shown very poor behaviour, and demonstrated an inability to remain civil during a dispute.
3. Blocking aims to prevent disruption and damage, rather than to punish poor behaviour, but it is expected that if someone is causing disruption and/or damage, that they will not repeat their poor behaviour, hence poor behaviour is a fator, and lengths may escalate as appropriate.
4. Vintagekits' behaviour has not substantially improved (as evidenced from the ever-growing block log). They wear their block log as a badge of honour.

In summary, we have a limb with an infected wound, and the infection is not responding to the usual treatments. The only recourse is amputation. It seems reasonable that no action the community takes is going to change Vintagekits' behaviour, the only things we're left with are a topic ban, which would effectively exclude them from making any useful contributions in article space (and just risks moving the problem), or an indefinite block. Note that I'm not taking sides here - User:Mooretwin is another matter. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits "demonstrated an inability to remain civil during a dispute" - have you read this discussion? Despite a number of attempts to bait me I havent risen to it. Kind of proves you wrong doesnt it! Thanks for your "well thought out" addition to this discussion though eh!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits on User:Mooretwin

• Mooretwin (talk · contribs)

Recently this user has been creating a number of articles with the sole source being a blog which does not satisfy WP:RS. For example see, Clancy McDermott, Eric Treverrow, George Dunlop (footballer) and Sammy Hughes (footballer).

I attempted to raise the issue on his talk page but my comment was deleted without reply. When I restored the comment it was then removed by another editor who outlined that I should not restore comments on another editors talkpage if they have deleted them. So I have come here to get an admin to step in and sort it out.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you take it to Articles for Deletion? Don't see what this has got to do with ANI. Mooretwin (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that your response to why you are using a blog as the only source to create an article? It is precisely that kind of answer what I am here and why you cause so much trouble.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

VK - even assuming you are entirely accurate in assessing the RS issue here, this would be a routine page deletion discussion. Unless you are asserting he's inserting intentionally false material (creating hoax articles), creation of poorly sourced articles is not an admin noticeboard issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe its part of a multi fronted campaign of general low level distruption. I am not calling into question the notability of the individuals to which the articles relate I am highlighting Mooretwins use of blogs to build articles and his refusal to discuss to issue or even answer simple polite questions as to why he is using it.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

VK is assuming nothing, he is entirely accurate in assessing the RS issue here. Mooretwin is inserting intentionally and knowingly, contentious information, be it on flags or the term Northern Irish. I agree that this is not an admin noticeboard issue and should be closed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The usage of 'Northern Irish' should be discouraged, as it's a very sensative term. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Any chance Mooretwin could comment on why he is using a blog as the only source for articles or is it just drama he crave??? I thought this place was for sortin shit out!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Still waiting for a response to this (from either an admin or Mooretwin) - which is really the only issue here with any substance to it. It seems people (John and Sandstein in particular) would prefer to focus on the non existent personal attacks that Mooretwin has dreamt up. Typical wikipedia eh!Vintagekits (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Still nowt!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion can roughly be summed up as: this entire thread is a confusing mess and is going no where, in any direction.--Tznkai (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this site as a WP:RS (something Vintagekits has raised above), I personally view this site as reliable. Just because it is a blog does not mean it isn't reliable - WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", and contributors to the NIFG blog include respected and established football contibutors such as George Glass, who is a senior researcher over at IFFHS, another respected online footballing source. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Were any of the contributions outlined above submitted by George Glass? Can you tell me who submitted the details to the site for each of the articles outlined above?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Alas, none of the blogs on the four players you highlighted have named authors, so no. But that doesn't prevent it from being a reliable source. Sources such as the BBC rarely publishes authors names, and yet that is still higlly reliable! GiantSnowman 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye, thats because its a recognised source with a editorial code and policy and not a blog that anyone could add to. It's like saying some recognised experts contribute to wikipedia so all contribution to wikipedia consitute a reliable source!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You know full well that contributing to a blog is NOT the same as editing Wikipedia! GiantSnowman 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is very little difference - except if you are talkin shite on wikipedia someone will correct it - whereas on a blog it aint.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, if there's no difference - go to that blog then, or any blog for that matter, and try and edit it. What's that, you can't simply edit any old blog? So there is a difference! GiantSnowman 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point VK is making is that there is no fact-checking going on.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point - it is a blog so only invited people can contribute to it, right? And as I have said, established and trustworthy researchers contribute, right? So that implies that there IS fact-checking going on - the administrators of the blog aren't gonna have George Glass contributing one minute, and Joe Bloggs the next! GiantSnowman 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, it means you think there's fact-checking going on. There is no evidence that there is, there is no disclaimer verifying if they are experts or not.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no way you can verify if the people that wrote the blog are experts or not, therefore, you cannot assume there is fact checking going on. For all you know, it could be a single person making up a hoax. There is no possible way to verify anything. Therefore, per our various policy on such matter, it cannot be used. Wikipedia operates on verifiability, and if we can't verify this information, it can't be used, period.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still see it as reliable, and so we'll have to agree to disagree! For what it's worth, whenever I use the NIFG blog as a source, it is always with another source as well for extra-verifiablity. I'll try and find some more sources for the 5 players you have sent to AfD to show notability. Regards, GiantSnowman 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how it is reliable then.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you not read my earlier posts that established & respected editors contribute to it?!? GiantSnowman 21:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You claim one guy (who I've never heard of) is a recognised author - I doubt that that conveys WP:V to the whole blog.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read your posts, but I don't see where on this site it is asserted that anyone that is established or respected contributes to it. All I see is authorless posts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This blog contains research by George Glass - the same George Glass who is a contributor to the respected and reliable IFFHS. GiantSnowman 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should go start a blog and reference George Class, then use all my own information. After all, anyone can cite something to someone, but there still remains no proof it was his information, or is there?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm getting bored of this now. The reliability of this blog doesn't matter for the five players you have AfDed - as I said earlier to try and put an end to this conversation, we'll have to agree to disagree - because I have shown notability in other ways, using other sources! GiantSnowman 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about notability or other sources, we're talking about your apparent idea that this blog is reliable, except that you have no proof that it is. The fact of the matter is you have no ground to stand on, you can't back up your opinion. You're not agreeing to disagree, you're refusing to admit that you're wrong. As I said before, I could create a blog and say that it contains information from 'so and so', but there is no proof that it does in fact contain information from that person, so, again: prove the blog reliable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that in my experience, information from the NIFG about other players matches information in other, established printed sources. And as I have shown on these five players' articles, info on NIFG matches info on other sources. Fact. Now drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. GiantSnowman 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you can't admit that the source is unreliable, despite the heavy evidence to the contrary.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reindent, getting ridiculous now! How does me saying "NIFG says X, and RS also says X, therefore NIFG is a RS" show that it is an unreliable source?!?!? Surely the opposite has just occured. I'd like to suggest that you can't admit that the source IS reliable! GiantSnowman 22:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. Like I said earlier, one can say that information is gathered from X, but without any proof to back it up, it doesn't count. In order for this blog to be used in the way you suggest, it would have to include a link to the NIFG article which states what the blog reports. Simply saying Information has been obtained from X isn't good enough.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me. I'm not talking about the article with contributions from Glass, I'm on about other articles on that blog. They have the same information as other reliable sources, ergo it is reliable! GiantSnowman 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the hard-to-miss notice at the top of this page, is there any administrator assistance required here? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Block needed: compromised/shared account

• Red Thunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have control of this account. Based on userpages, there's no way they were originally the same person. In addition, he claims to be using the Red Thunder account as a bot. I have had no headway trying to explain to him how Wikipedia works and what it's for. Perhaps someone with greater patience can try. → ROUX ₪ 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you did better research than you did with this one. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Thunder has no edits since March. You would need a steward to run a checkuser on other projects where he may be active. Thatcher 02:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but User:Guitarherochristopher claims he has access to the account and is (will be?) using it as a bot. This is a problem on two fronts. → ROUX ₪ 04:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Until Red Thunder has current edits, there are no local checkuser findings. Since Red Thunder is a unified global account, a steward can get his IPs from another project and either look to see if there is evidence of compromise, or save them for when Red Thunder starts editing again. It may in fact just be trolling by GHC. Thatcher 07:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect it is just trolling. In other news, if you attempt to roll back edits which leave no net change on the page content, a message pops up as if the rollback was successful, but nothing actually happens. huh. I would leave a note on GHC's talk page asking about this but it would appear that such a measure would be an exercise in futility. Protonk (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The user has confirmed here that he has access to the account; I am waiting for proof. → ROUX ₪ 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• It occurs to me that GHC may also be User:Coldplay Expert. Crafty (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll bite. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guitarherochristopher filed. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not guitarherochristopher, I can assure you of that fact. (Or vice versa)--Coldplay Expert 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think his dad wants a word with you. :) [8] Crafty (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How odd. This is the second father with an autistic son misusing Wikipedia I've seen. Hm. In any case, could an admin please contact the father and explain the problems? It will be more effective coming from someone who can say (in some sense) that they can speak for Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Y'know Roux, I don't think it's GHC dad. Admittedly I was wrong about the sockpuppet thing, but I think I'm on stronger ground with this assertion. ;) Crafty (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
      • That would be the case with the other one I'm thinking about as well. In that case, it would seem (based on stuff found elsewhere online; this guy is somewhat notorious) that it's an older man with some weird obsessions. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Weird obsessions you say? You don't have his number by any chance? :) Crafty (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I know several of the usernames he tends to use. This case is weirdly similar, but in totally different subject areas. Odd. → ROUX ₪ 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher claims to be in 8th grade, let's consider his age when dealing with him. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been. Multiple people have attempted to engage him to no avail. And I find it... difficult to believe the comment is actually from the putative father; I just received one in my inbox (funny how he says he can't use Wikipedia but finds Special:Emailuser no problem) that... well let's just say there's no way it was written by an adult. → ROUX ₪ 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you all belive me now when I tell you that I am not associated with him?--Coldplay Expert 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate problem

Guitarherochristopher keeps putting nonfree images on his userpage and elsewhere in his userspace. He's been warned about this at least twice--once by me, once on Sept 12. The cluelessness is becoming aggressive at this point. I don't have the patience to keep trying to educate here. Can someone else please jump in? → ROUX ₪ 03:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Guitarherochristopher

This is a message which may explain User:Guitarherochristopher's behaviour on Wikipedia, and follows on from his alleged sockpuppetry. I was looking at Coldplay Expert's talk page and I found this written there. I'm not sure if this has been noted already or if this page is the right place to report it, but if the message is true it may explain his disruptive editing behaviour on Wikipedia. - Nimbusania talk 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

His conduct with others isn't all that good. major concern is him talking about his 13 year son on this, which does not add up to truth. Also, Others complain of him of failing to distinguish a user page and talk page on User_talk:Roux#Question:. I hope he can offer some insight why he is conducting himself in this way. He may listen to some advise as he did when he was warned of vandalism to the article Coldplay on User_talk:Guitarherochristopher#The Vandalism Is All Yellow. He later made some meaningful contribution to the article as you can see on [Article differences between revisions)]. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 10:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I say we just outright ban him and get rid of this headache. What are the chances that Guitarherochristopher is autistic? Probably slim to none. What are the chances that his father really discovered who his best friend on Wikipedia is and posted a message on his talk page explaining his son is autistic? Is it really even reasonable that someone who is autistic would be engaging in editing on Wikipedia? This is all just too bizarre. Seems like Guitarherochristopher is just playing some stupid game and trying to fool people. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of people on the Autism spectrum would be highly capable of editing Wikipedia, so I'd rein that comment back if I wuz u. Which does of course not guarantee either that he is 13 or that his father wrote the other comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have Autism, and I can safely say that I can work out this site. 'Autism' in general is a bit of a broad and varied topic anyway. — neuro^(talk) 18:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not his "Best friend on Wikipedia" despite what he has said in the past. I am glad that you all have now realized that I am not a Sock but I still what to tell you that I do not support any actions by him. In fact I was fooled by his fake note. I will support any decision that you guys have. I hope that you all belive me on this matter.--Coldplay Expert 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As irritating as some are finding the situation, I still think there is some hope that this user can become constructive, he just needs some guidance. I'm happy to mentor/adopt Chris, at least until he is on the right track. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you should try to adopt him, he has made some good edits in the past, he just needs guidence.--Coldplay Expert 22:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes this could work, as he has made some constructive edits in the past, particularly on articles about subjects he appears to be passionate about (Coldplay-related etc). - Nimbusania talk 22:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh one quick question Nimbusania, why were you looking at my talk page?--Coldplay Expert 01:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He (or any other editor) can look at your talk page anytime they'd like. When an editor has some questionable edits, it's fairly common to look at their other edits to see if there's a pattern. Dayewalker (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not mad at him/her at all. I thought that s/he was goint to tell me something and got caught uo in the note that GHC's father sent me. So I thought that by asking that question s/he might remember. I dont have any problem with anyone looking at anything of mine like my talk page.--Coldplay Expert 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Global Consciousness Project

There is severe POV pushing, edit warring, OR and synthesis from user:Simonm223 and User:Jan Arkesteijn by recursively adding irrelevant/unsourced/OR/synthesis statements into the article. user:Simonm223 was so emotional and in win-lose behaviour while editing that he needed to go out, to have some bike and steam off, as he mentioned here and here while searching for recruits on fringe theories noticeboard, which of course is a violation of WP:Noticeboards.

Timeline:

1- I challenged pseudoscience categorization several times, by first engaging in discussion and then by asking a reliable source from the editors claiming that the project is certainly pseudoscience: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15],

2- While the "debate" continues, user:Simonm223 decides he became too much emotional and takes a break here, but in fact, as I mentioned above, he asks "help" from "like-minded" users by posting that emotional message to fringe theories noticeboard.

3- While the "debate" on pseudoscience issue continues, user:Simonm223 thinks that he/she presented sufficient valid arguments and before publishing his/her arguments/findings/conclusions through a reliable publisher (and referring to afterwards in wikipedia), he adds "pseudoscientific experiment" phrase to the article and justifies his edit by stating in edit summary that "as per discussion on talk page" here. I am sure, we can't find any other superior example over such disruptive contribution. I undo the damage done. user:Simonm223 insists on that his damage should stay. I undo the damage once again.

4- user:Simonm223 adds a material based on an article by physicist Stanley Jeffreys, which is in fact about the first group of experiments carried out by PEAR in 1982 here and here. There is no connection between PEAR and GCP, even if there were a connection, Jeffers' article can not still qualify to exist in GCP article because it is not about GCP. I object the addition of the material and present my argument here. Then I undo here and here

5- Without bothering to present any source, user:Simonm223 distorts the industrial "identification/naming" of the type of random number generators used in the project here. If any reliable source questions such thing, it should be mentioned either in hardware random number generator article or as a separate statement in GCP article. Removing "truly" is disruptive. I undo here.

6- User:Jan Arkesteijn removes "truly" and adds the material about Jeffreys' article once again here. Adds a bit more POV pushing here. I undo here and here.

7- user:Shoemaker's Holiday comes into the scene and removes "truly" and adds the material about Jeffreys' article one more time here. I revert here. user:Simonm223 intervenes once again here. I undo once again. user:Simonm223 reverts once again here and claims that the irrelevant material provide neutrality to the article. How can an irrelevant, clearly POV push be presented as warranting the neutrality? Removes "truly" one more time here.

8- I remove irrelevant material once again and bring "truly" back here and here.

9- User:Jan Arkesteijn removes "truly", adds the material about Jeffreys' article and adds "pseudoscience categorization" one more time here. I undo by presenting "evidence" on talk page here.

10- user:Simonm223 gives me 3RR warning here and warns some other collaborators here about edit warring as if he was not one of the edit warriors. He/she also "restores page to consensus version" here; what consensus he/she's talking about is another mystery.

11- I give "original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material" warning to user:Simonm223 here.

12- Some other strange ideas from other users arrive with some accompanying accusations and wikilawyering here, here and here.

I believe above collection of misconducts, edit warring, inappropriate behaviours such as adding OR and synthesis by especially user:Simonm223 and User:Jan Arkesteijn should properly be balanced with correct measures like topic ban, block or any other sanction that I'm not aware of right now. Logos5557 (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Logos5557 believes that aliens created the Egyptian pyramids, along with the "face" and a pyramid on Mars. He also believes NASA is covering up evidence of UFOs. Clearly, that is the kind of editor we need to carefully retain in order to make a quality reference work. Hipocrite (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors' beliefs aren't particularly relevant -- what they can show through citations to reliable third-party sources is. More problematic could be if an editor, regardless of belief, doesn't abide by WP:3RR, WP:BRD, etc. Rational skeptics who work in research can be just as "wrong" as believers in the paranormal when it comes to editing practices. Rather than whacking at Logos5557's beliefs, time'd be better spent ensuring the disputed article's content stands up to WP:V. --EEMIV (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And I concur with that point. However the only user who has violated WP:3RR is Logos5557 (talk · contribs) he launched this ANI when he was warned about edit warring against consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actual Timeline of Events

Full page history here

25 September, final edit prior to edit war. [16]

27 September: Logos5557 (talk · contribs) breaks WP: 3RR: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]

27 September, 1912: I warn Logos5557 about edit warring [23]

27 September, 1914: I make my most recent edit to page [24]

27 September, 20:03: Logos5557 warns me about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (disregarding the fact that what I inserted (and left in after first reversion) was all derived from cited WP:RS. [25]

28 September, 00:29 (I have made no intervening edits to Global Consciousness Project) Logos 5557 notifies me that he has opened the WP:ANI here. [26] Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me concur with EEMIV's points, too, if that will get some sort of support. I do not agree, unsurprisingly, with your assertion about edit warring. Is there anything wrong with launching an ANI after some sort of magical warning? I take Hipocrite's comment as a "declaration of concurrence", as an "endorsement of the case" since he/she concentrates on my "beliefs" instead of addressing the facts of the case. Logos5557 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess being the second (and third ... which is a minor edit to my previous comment) link in point 12 makes me involved despite not being notified. On to the OP's points:

1. Please read WP:Edit warring. There is no WP:TRUTH exception.
2. A neutral notice to the Fringe theories/Noticeboard is perfectly acceptable as a means of attracting outside eyes to an article.
3. One editor alone cannot edit war, but please see WP:Vandalism and avoid describing other editors' good faith contributions as "damage".

4-11.  Stop edit warring and call a request for comment. Notifying another user of the three-revert rule (and that it is sufficient but not necessary evidence of edit warring) is considered evidence that that user is aware of the issue. Please avoid templating the regulars, as it is more likely to escalate the dispute and rigidify positions than just talking it out on the page dedicated to that purpose. A friendly (or at least neutral) request to usertalk that points at an issue on articletalk you wish to be addressed is fine.

12.  Logos5557, please consider that if a significant number of other editors think that you are wrong, then you should at least evaluate your points. Edit warring will not achieve consensus. Incivility will not achieve consensus. Throwing around wiki-acronyms will not achieve consensus. Talking it out should lead to consensus, though it may not match your opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not notifying you and other editor (voiceofreason) personally, about this ANI. I thought it would be sufficient to place a notification on article talk page for those who would like to get involved, here.

1- I guess you should read WP:Edit warring, too. It states here that "If you are claiming an exemption it is a good idea to make sure that there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains and justifies the exemption."

2- I don't think that Simonm223's notice to fringe noticeboard was neutral at all. Fringe noticeboard is not a "military trench" for "recruits" to get some rest and to look for some relief.

3- "Damage" happens when a user base his/her edits (which he/she makes in article) on discussions (actually Simonm223 based on his personal opinions) made in article's talk page, without presenting the sources verifying the information added, because that contradicts with very fundamental principles of wikipedia. I'm just calling a spade a spade here.

4-11- I believe my "trials" in article talk page are sufficient evidences of "trying to resolve the issues by communication".

12- "A significant number of other editors"; can you define "significant number" and guidelines on which numbers should be accepted as significant in which cases? Is 3 enough? 4? Or is this some sort of confirmation of your non-neutrality in this case. Logos5557 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS does not apply directly to talk page discussions. So long as it stays within the bounds of WP:CIVIL I am free to express my opinion on a talk page. If I can not find a RS for my opinions and put them onto the actual article page then, at that point, these statements enter into the WP:RS policy realm. Am I honestly being attacked for holding an opinion in talk space? Can any indications be made that I edited the article in any way counter to Wikipedia policy? Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I object against the qualification POV pushing concerning this edit. That is simply a corrected and improved summary of the source. Logos5557 has a clever way of turning things around. He makes us believe that PEAR is something completely different then Global Consciousness Project, and that because of that, the criticism of Jeffers does not apply, therefore reverting it, reverting it, reverting it. But PEAR is an acronym of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab from which the Global Consciousness Project originated. This is simply his way of taking out a major point of critism, namely the critisism of Jeffers. I can imagine that Logos5557 does not like what Jeffers is saying, because it pulls away the very foundation underneath the Global Consciousness Project. It were Jahn and Dunne from PEAR who made the false assumption that in a cumulative random number generator the baseline hovers around the zero line. But it doesn't, just like in coin flipping the chance does not increase for heads, after a large sequence of tails. It is this fallacy that crawled into the project as a means to distinguish between normal random and abnormal random behaviour. And the random number generators are the bricks in the building of GCP. Pull them out, and nothing is left. So Jeffers has to go, and Logo5557 does anything to achieve that.

As for the term random number generator: there are in real life random number generators and pseudorandom number generators. One generates random numbers, and the other doesn't. But what are truly random number generators? In what way do they differ from random number generators? In nothing, therefore this is a pleonasm, only suggesting some devine extra quality that is not there. In literature, truly random number generators only point at flaws in practical designs of previous random number generators, or are part of advertisement language. So call it edit-warring, but I just like to get the text right.

Is the Global Consciousness Project pseudoscience. Yes, because the solid criticism of Jeffers, as far as I can see, was never taken up. Yes, because independent scientist, May and Spottiswoode, looked at the GCP's flagship, the 0911-attack, and concluded that despite the hailed results of GCP, no anomaly was there. Yes, because there is no independent confirmation of GCP's results. May and Spottiswoode advised to, at least, split up GCP's world wide network into two halves, so if an anomaly would occur in one network, it could be tested in the other network. GCP, as far as I know, never took that up either. And even if they will, they will not have nulled design flaws (Jeffers), and they will not have nulled the possible bias of human interpretors, because it would still be the same team with the same prepossession that would do the analysis. Only when an entirely different and independent team, with different equipment comes up with the same result, we may be talking about science. Untill then it's not. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jan Arkesteijn for confirming my assertions of OR and synthesis. GCP has certainly no connection with PEAR, and with Jahn and Dunne. Do you see their names in GCP team list? Even if they give any support/contribution to GCP, criticisms should be about GCP studies/experiments/papers, to be included in GCP article. Why didn't GCP never take Jeffers' "solid ciriticism" up; because it is not related to GCP. Why Jahn and Dunne didn't answer Jeffers? I really don't know. but my guess is; they publish a paper in 80's, somebody wakes up after 20 years and criticise their paper to "rebutt" whole PEAR. I wish they "answer the call" some day if they haven't retired yet. You present May and Spottiswoode as if they had crumbled "GCP's flagship". This is not true, either. I didn't search extensively (may be some people from GCP have published a detailed paper on their criticism as well) but GCP replied their criticism here [27]. What Simonm223 and Jan Arkesteijn do not understand here that we can't synthesize things out from sources (things which those sources do not say), and put in wikipedia articles. There are two main types of random number generators; hardware (or truly random) and software (or pseudorandom). When "truly" is removed, it becomes unclear which type is referred to. It seems I should better have launched this incident on administrators noticeboard. Logos5557 (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the above response to defend myself against your false accusation of POV-pushing. If you look at that edit you will see it is not.
Now you accuse me of Original Research. I went through the article and there is no contribution of me in the recent or not so recent past, that could be named Original Research.
Could you please stop this harassment!
In the talkpage I asked to stop the pointless discussion that was going on, only to let myself drag into it for just a while. I am not going to continu that discussion here. There is only one person that is creating a lot of fuss, and that is you! Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223 launches a proposal for merge here, I guess in order to justify his/her addition of Jeffers' article about a PEAR experiment into GCP article. Logos5557 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility Issues

Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has had repeated reminders of WP:CIVIL some related to this issue and some not. The tendentious debating, peppered with personal insults and slights is making it very difficult to dispassionately edit any article he is involved with. This is an ongoing issue with him. Can we please wrap this up? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to state where are the proofs that I breached WP:CIVIL? Logos5557 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

user Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has had repeated reminders of wp:civility here, here, here and here, many of his responses to these concerns have been flippant and/or rude. His conduct on the Talk:Global Consciousness Project page show much of the same behavior. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And where are the diffs for my flippant and/or rude responses? By the way; you should click "prev" link in related history page and present the resultant link as diff here. Logos5557 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a complete list but it should be sufficient to demonstrate a continued trend:

• Borderline civility, suggests other editor needs to "educate himself"
• Again suggests other editor needs to educate himself on WP policy, requests Arbcom intervention over AfD
• Calls another childish, implies they are a sock puppet.
• Accuses another editor of either sock puppetry or trolling. Tells DBachmann that he assumes bad faith.
• Calls another editor a mimicking monkey, is warned for civility over this one.
• responds flippantly to a warning from another editor
• responds to a warning about civility by saying he has to in order to discourage behaviour he feels to be inappropriate.
• clear WP:CIVIL violation
• Replies flippantly to warnings over above violation

Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And then there is the other issue - Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has broken 3RR before:

• [28]

So the pattern: Incivil comments, edit warring and when it's clear consensus is against him he goes and asks for Admin intervention, characterizing the other involved parties as violating Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Simonm223's efforts to preserve civility in wikipedia despite the majority of the diffs he/she presented are some months old (there are even a year old appendices here), however could we please confine ourselves with global consciousness project. Although I wonder why he/she (as being one of the participants of those discussions) didn't use his/her warning/reporting abilities at the times these occurred, I suggest Simonm223 to raise these in the proper venue. I promise, I will not name his/her reporting as "complaining" as he did here and I will be happy to participate and defend myself for each and every case. Logos5557 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ref WP:SPADE. I called you WP:ANI complaint a complaint. You throw around insults. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My concerns regarding civility are that you participate in a repeating pattern of behaviour. Thus past issues are relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to caution users to evaluate the incidents they think are the violations of WP:CIVIL very carefully, by quoting "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." Logos5557 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict}Well that's the whole point, this is not an isolated offense but rather a continued pattern of behaviour on your part. Part and parcel with this is taking up content disputes where consensus is against you and where you have been warned off edit warring to Admin in hopes of getting intervention - which you have a past history of doing, along with insulting other editors and breaking WP:3RR. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You can proceed however you like, I'm not worrying for anything, but my concern is irrelevant issues may extend this ANI case unnecessarily longer. Logos5557 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If this case were just a content dispute, I would have taken it to RfC or other dispute resolution processes. This case is more than content dispute; there are some users on skeptic side who distorts the facts and puts wikipedia in a humiliating position, not to mention other minor side effects. If I couldn't convince those users by myself to stop, then some admin tools should intervene for the sake of wikipedia. There is nothing wrong in taking this case here, I'm just pursuing the utmost reputation of wikipedia. Consensus, if there was any in this case, does not mean that the facts can be distorted however the group of users like, otherwise cabals become legal. Logos5557 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? In a discussion about concerns regarding your civility you say that the editors you disagree with are humiliating wikipedia? Then you accuse of us being a cabal? Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a noticeboard, not a battleground. Everyone stop arguing, and let some admins wade through this lot and see if there's any need for admin action, that being the point of this noticeboard. Fences&Windows 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Closure?

Could someone uninvolved please review and close the above thread? It is degenerating away from productive discussion, and it is my experience that bickering from the usual suspects rarely leads to any conclusion, satisfactory or otherwise. The likely to be productive options, as I see them, are: archive this discussion with a recommendation to seek and adhere to consensus at the talkpage, with recourse to page protection as needed; move this discussion to a request for comment (user or article) or remand it to mediation; or open community ban proceedings based on Simonm223's difference links above. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive566 § Help with editor assuming bad faith

• Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: I've made absolutely certain User:JBsupreme is aware of this AN/I discussion. He removed the notification from his talk page. [29] --Tothwolf (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made two previous AN/I reports and this is still unresolved. Since the first two reports, User:Miami33139 has continued to wikistalk/wikihound and has even attempted to bring others into their own efforts. I seem to have come to the attention of Miami33139 due to tagging articles for the WP:COMP workflow.

The first AN/I report that I made on September 15th can be found here. The second AN/I report that I made on September 17th can be found here. Miami33139 refused to participate in the second AN/I discussion.

Since the second AN/I report, Miami33139 has also continued their bulk removal of edits made to articles by User:Ed Fitzgerald. This month alone Miami33139 has removed 100s, possibly as many as 500 or more of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. [30] This seems to have originally started around January 2009 [31] and since then Miami33139 took this on as a personal crusade to remove his edits, up to the point where User:Ed Fitzgerald left Wikipedia. There was also a WQA regarding Ed's edits here and an AN/I report made by Miami33139 here. They have been using "T - I have tidied." in many of their edit summaries when removing Ed's edits but have also used other text in the past.

Furthermore, Miami33139 seems to consider the lack of action over the last two AN/I reports indication that their actions are acceptable. See [32]

Timeline of interaction

• Prior to the What wp is not revert below, It appears Miami33139 began digging into my contributions due to my work on the WP:COMP deletion tagging workflow.
• Reverted my removal of an invalid CSD R2 for What wp is not [33]
• Got involved in the Davfs2 AfD [34]
• Modified User:ParkerJones2007/Comparison of Prolog standards compliance which was userfied during the Comparison of Prolog standards compliance AfD that I had recently participated in. [35]
• After !voting in the Davfs2 AfD, they began mass prodding a number of articles relating to Linux file systems [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] and subsequently nominated one for deletion when it was de-prodded. [42] (kept)
• Nominated NexIRC for deletion at AfD after seeing my edits to the article. [43] (merge/redirect)
• Nominated What wp is not for deletion at RfD. [44] (kept)
  • It was at this point I made the first AN/I report. Two days later after realizing they were mass-reverting User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits I made the second AN/I report. It was at this point that Miami33139 stepped up their wikistalking efforts to a whole new level.
• Got involved in the Parchive AfD [45] (kept)
• Got involved in the ProSystem (Emulator) AfD [46] (merge/redirect)
• Got involved in the Parchive DRV [47]
  • I decided at this point to try an experiment and tag (see articles' talk pages) and !vote in a number of WP:COMP articles that were at AfD as a test to see if Miami33139 really was without a doubt monitoring my contribs. They were.
• Celemony AfD [48]
• Elecard MPEG Player AfD [49]
• OneFinger AfD [50]
• Fortitude HTTP AfD [51]
  • Miami33139 then decided to nominate more articles I've worked on for deletion and attempted to CSD G8 a template I had created for Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients.
• Nominated Psotnic for deletion at AfD after seeing my edits to the article. [52]
• Attempted to CSD G8 Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC [53]
• Nominated ZNC (IRC bouncer) for deletion at AfD. [54]
• Nominated Bip IRC Proxy for deletion at AfD. [55]
• Nominated PsyBNC for deletion at AfD. [56]
• Nominated Psyced for deletion at AfD. [57]
• Prodded KoolChat. [58]
• Filed a WQA against me here. [59] [60] (Note this diff, which also shows that they have been monitoring my contributions. [61])
• Got involved in the QuickPar AfD [62]
• Made a borderline personal attack on my talk page after having been told in the WQA to disengage. [63] (removed by another editor)
• Canvassed and attempted to bring User:JBsupreme and User:Joe Chill into their own efforts. [64] [65]
• Got involved in the SmartPAR AfD [66]
• Prodded Quiet Internet Pager. [67]
• Nominated Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC for deletion at TfD [68]
  • Note Miami33139 appears to be attempting in the TfD [69] to get all the subtemplates removed in an attempt to damage Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, which they know I've spent months so far restructuring and expanding.
• Nominated Quiet Internet Pager for deletion at AfD. [70]
• Prodded rcirc. [71]
• Got involved in the Leafpad AfD [72]
• Prodded Bottler (IRC client). [73]
• Prodded Pork client. [74]

I do not believe Miami33139 has any intentions of disengaging as they were asked/told repeatedly in the WQA [75] [76] [77] and the above diffs and Miami33139's contribution history should speak for itself.

In addition, after these edits by User:JBsupreme and User:Joe Chill on 5 of the AfDs and the TfD Miami33139 initiated, it appears as though there may be some off-wiki communication and meatpuppetry occurring. I do not believe there to be sockpuppetry involved but given Miami33139's attempts to bring these two editors into their own efforts against me, [78] [79] I do not believe these !votes cannot be considered coincidental.

• Psotnic AfD [80] [81]
• ZNC (IRC bouncer) AfD [82] [83]
• Bip IRC Proxy AfD [84] [85]
• Psyced AfD [86] [87]
• PsyBNC (2nd nomination) AfD [88] [89]
• Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC TfD [90]

--Tothwolf (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• This timeline of edits does appear to be worrying, and I think Miami needs to explain the apparent correlation between the two edit histories quickly. If none is forthcoming, some remedies spring to mind, such as interaction bans. Comment from Miami is, however, what is needed at this point. For transparency, Tothwolf notified me of this thread as well as at least one other administrator - the notification was neutral in tone, and I am unaware of any significant involvement with either editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was almost certainly notified because of my article rescue of UMSDOS (AfD discussion), which tacitly demonstrated as false claims that independent sources do not exist. I found it quite easy to find sources in that particular case. Possibly my question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZNC (IRC bouncer) — a little bit of AFD patrol to try to eke out a good rationale that a closing administrator can hang xyr hat from — is relevant, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, you rescued the UMSDOS article by changing the topic to FAT Filesystems and Linux. I was perfectly happy to remove my nomination with the expansion from a single topic to an umbrella topic. This does not "tacitly demonstrated as false claims that independent sources do not exist" because you changed the subject matter to find sources about. You changed the subject, managing to include the previous info, and I withdrew the nomination. That is good faith from both of us and fairly normal process. This has nothing to do with Tothwolf either, yet you seem to be using it here to hammer me about bad faith in a discussion about Tothwolf. Miami33139 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
      • False. The subject matter did not change. It expanded, and sources were found by the simple action of sticking the word "UMSDOS" into a search engine. As I said, I found that quite easy. And since I didn't mention doing this, either in the AN/I discussion or the AFD discussion, it was tacit by the very definition of the word. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to go back to my regular editing pattern of working on technology, Linux, and IRC-related articles, and doing occasional deletion tagging for WP:COMP when other editors get bogged down but I'm currently unable to do so as something as simple as a vandalism revert or a minor template change will cause User:Miami33139 to AfD said article. [91] [92]
    Miami33139 has historically not worked on articles in these areas but while having to sift through contribs to create the above list, I found a troubling pattern of what appears to be bad {{prod}} and CSD tagging. Miami33139 claims a deletion percentage of 80% [93] and while I would think this is probably not something to brag about, I can't help but wonder just how many of these are badly placed prod and CSD tags, especially with this comment that they made at TfD regarding their own CSD tagging efforts of subtemplates. [94]
    I found additional evidence of bad CSD tagging while looking at Comparison of media players as Miami33139 had most recently largely been targeting media player type software for deletion. Possible examples may include [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] all of which are/were still in use at the time that they were CSD tagged and deleted. See Comparison of media players#Video players and Comparison of media players#Audio players.
    Given Miami33139's attempt to CSD G8 and now TFD Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC, [108] [109] which they saw me create while expanding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, I think it is quite obvious this was meant as harassment and they are abusing both CSD and TFD.
    Their removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits are as equally worrying and it seems as though my raising concerns over those removals may have been what led Miami33139 to step up the level of their actions against me.
    Given the history I see in Miami33139's contributions, I personally would support a restriction for Miami33139 barring them from using any sort of JavaScript (monobook.js, Greasemonkey, etc) or other forms of automated editing tools as it would appear that they have a long history of misusing them.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• I originally discussed some of these issues with User:Miami33139 following his report to wp:wqa. I was disappointed in that, even as I was advising him his best bet was to disengage, he was taking concrete steps that appeared likely to unnecessarily escalate tensions with User:Tothwolf. Like Fritzpol, I was troubled by the number of instances in which User:Miami33139 tagged articles for deletion only hours after User:Tothwolf had last edited said articles. At some point, the sheer frequency of those occurrences being happenstance begins to stretch the assumption of good faith to its limits. user:J aka justen (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a note, as I haven't been able to go through all of the evidence, but User:Miami33139 edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celemony ([110]) before Tothwolf made any edit ([111]) on the talkpage. This by no means makes all of the evidence wrong, but it shouldn't be taken at face value. Quantpole (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Struck from list above, good catch, thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What's up with you and assuming bad faith? I didn't talk to them off-wiki. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• You were supposed to notify everyone involved in the report. Your issue is with Miami so leave me the hell out of it. Joe Chill (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You were involved in this within the past 24 hours at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Tothwolf. You were involving yourself in it, by creating reports on this very noticeboard within the past 48 hours, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Help with editor assuming bad faith and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#CSD-G4. You are currently involved in this within the past 48 hours with a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination), where you seem to be suffering from a severe case of "I'm not listening!". Crying that you aren't involved (since you clearly are) and that you didn't know this was happening at WP:AN/I (when you started two of these discussions) isn't really going to wash. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I never said that I wasn't involved. I said that I should have been notified! How was I supposed to know that Tothwolf would start this report? My first post here has nothing to do with Tothwolf. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Probably by the very method that you demonstrably did know. You are, after all, here. And you were already here on this noticeboard, starting discussions yourself about this. This is a discussion of your interactions with Tothwolf and others. Wikilawyering over formalities that your very presence here clearly demonstrates to be needless is, as I said, really not going to wash. Nor, indeed, is your claim that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Help with editor assuming bad faith is not about Tothwolf, given that it clearly is. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I said that the csd-g4 discussion wasn't about this (which is the first one). I found out about this discussion on accident because I thought that the issue with Tothwolf was over. I am not wiki-lawyering. I have been participating in software AFDs for a year. I said zero uncivil things, but I'm still being attacked. Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
        • And it has been hours with no replies and with how this discussion is going, there will most likely be no conclusion like most posts at ANI. The person that started the report hasn't bothered to reply in the last several hours and his recent edit here was to fix a spelling error. No one besides me has replied in the past several hours. Uncle G was only able to respond to me with false claims and not to Miami's long post down below. Quantpole and J seems to be done with the discussion and if that is, it was a longer time ago. No one else besides us seems to be interested in this discussion. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

response

Tothwolf is crying wolf. Note [112], [113], [114], are not about me. Tothwolf has been accusing JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and probably others of bad faith, retaliation, and targeting him in the last several days in deletion discussions. These accusations from him are getting stale.

It may be tl;dr, but I have thoroughly answered this here: User_talk:Miami33139#Wikistalking. I also requested intervention here, Wikipedia:WQA#User:Tothwolf, over the weekend, because Tothwolf is accusing multiple people of harassing him. Most of this "evidence" is nothing more than saying I have been involved in PROD or AfD discussions for software that is not apparently notable. It has nothing to do with him and I have been doing this for a year! except for the fact that he works or is somehow involved with a company that makes products that have to to with IRC so he feels invested in this area. Any examination of my deletion discussions over the last year, will show you that this last week has been absolutely routine.

To the extent it is about him, I looked at his contribution history when I first encountered him, in a public deletion discussion opened by someone else. I opened the category of Linux file systems, opened all the articles, and if they didn't have any usable references, I tagged them in various ways. I didn't look at Tothwolf to find them. I can look back to June to find my first interest in deletion/notability of the IRC category. I didn't find this via Tothwolf. Note that the suggestion to look at more IRC articles [115] here, did not come from Tothwolf. When he accused me of stalking him, I did not open his contribution history afterwards, but found the same articles and discussions via JBsupreme, Joe Chill and just opening the AfD page.

The most interesting things I have looked at have been things in AfD nominated by other people, not Tothwolf, then opening up the category of the article, or the contribution history of the nominator. This is an example, not involving Tothwolf, that AfD discussions happen totally rationally, in good faith, with my ability to recognize a fixed article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UMSDOS in his absence.

Since Tothwolf has a COI in this issue, and his "keep everything philosophy" about software is diametric to mine, it is just plain destiny that we will butt heads in this arena. Since he puts the Computing project wiki-banner on articles en-mass, there is no doubt he will have edited articles I start looking at. This is an open and transparent project without article or area ownership. Contributing to Wikipedia is under the assumption that contributions will be edited mercilessly, and that includes deletion. It's part of the Wikipedia charter. There is no personal crusade against him.

This is too long already. Miami33139 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Added point by point discussion of each bullet in Tothwolf's list, about half of which do not actually involve him: User:Miami33139/nothing. Miami33139 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's surprising that what Tothwolf is doing is considered acceptable. After my ANI post ended with him calling me disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, and admitting that I didn't break any policies but was only breaking his belief about them was over, it started up again with him calling me a meatpuppet. I don't understand why people think that this is acceptable. Joe Chill (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • And it's surprising that people get so pestered by users that they get chased off the project. The only difference between this and the high-profile case is that a phone hasn't rung yet. I'm not commenting on the merits of the case (though I am of the opinion this seems like harassment), but I would wisely advise all parties to use common sense in regards to each other. Toth, Miami, TSC, etc. That means no harassment, no stalking users (TSC), and no accusations of harassment. Disengage. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence of wikistalking and harassment

I did some additional WP:COMP workflow tagging (see article talk pages) and it brought additional wikistalking evidence. The workflow bot has not updated yet (it won't update for approximately another 24 hours) so everything below was clearly taken from my contribs. Note the timestamps on the edits.

• JollysFastVNC (tag) [116] [117] [118]
• Monit (tag) [119]
• Nemu64 (tag) [120]
• MyPaint (tag) [121] [122]

Since User:Theserialcomma has been attempting to stir things up with regards to this AN/I report and Miami33139 [123] [124] (as they've done with other things in the past), the sudden !vote by Theserialcomma in the JollysFastVNC AfD was not a coincidence and their contribs [125] are quite telling.

User:JBsupreme is also becoming increasingly aggressive in his attempts to escalate things since I started this AN/I discussion.

• Got involved in the Quiet Internet Pager AfD User:Miami33139 initiated (see above) [126]
• Endorsed the prod of rcirc that User:Miami33139 placed (see above) [127]
• Got involved in the Leafpad AfD [128]
• Nominated E2compr for AfD after seeing my de-prodded and addition of a merge template as part of the WP:COMP workflow. [129]
• Nominated BitchX for AfD after seeing it in my tagging work. [130] (The nomination of this one is actually downright silly as it has references and we can easily find plenty more things with which to improve this article.)

With regards to the two AfD nominations, JBsupreme does not edit at all in this area. The E2compr and BitchX AfD nominations were pulled directly from my contributions and are blatant attempts to escalate things. Note that JBsupreme has an extremely long history of this type of behaviour with other editors and AfDs.

I also want to point out Miami33139 immediately got involved in the two AfD nominations JBsupreme made. If this isn't meatpuppetry, it is clearly some form of tag teaming behaviour. [131] [132]

Just before I posted this, User:JBsupreme decided to take things even further.

• Nominated Coolsmile for AfD after seeing it in my tagging work. [133]
• Mass-tagged a large number of IRC client software articles as CSD A7 (and A7 does not apply to software). [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139]

--Tothwolf (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Per User:Mikaey[[140]], any admin who wants to see another admin's perspective of tothwolf's previous behavior, just check out User:Mikaey/Tothwolf) (only viewable by an admin, but Mikaey gives permission for it to be undeleted (here: [[141]]), Theserialcomma (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • See [142] for a few important details that Theserialcomma left out (and would prefer not to talk about). --Tothwolf (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly just you assuming bad faith on everyone that wants articles that you think is notable deleted. Everyone you notified about this added section seem to be done with this ANI report because of their editing history. I don't need to read the deleted subpage above to know that it's about your bad behavior from the wording of the serialcomma's comment. This ANI report has gone against you. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe, I'm still trying to AGF with some of your actions and if I were you, I'd leave this one alone. Theserialcomma's past actions have been well documented by both myself and others and if they really are intent on it, a full AN/I report can be made. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It should have been AGF the whole time when all of my comments were civil. That was the only time when I assumed bad faith towards you. If you can do it constantly to me and Uncle G did it twice, why can't I get one comment like that in? With your recent post on Miami's talk page, it seems like you don't suspect him of anything anymore. If that is true, do you think that this should be closed? Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe, to answer some of your questions, I think part of the problem is that in many of the recent AfDs your comments have not always been completely civil. I did note that you backed off this situation with regards to the actions Miami33139 was taking (completely opposite of what JBsupreme did) which is the main reason why I'm still willing to AGF. It currently looks to me like you got caught up in some of the things Miami33139 was stirring up without realizing what was happening.
As for any issues between you and Uncle G, I don't have anything to do with that and I can't really comment on it.
If you were referring to this message that I left on Miami33139's talk page, [143] I guess I'm still trying to create something good from a bad situation. I thought if Miami33139 were going to suggest article mergers (which I assume they saw me do on e2compr/ext2 (which User:JBsupreme followed behind me and nominated for deletion), the responsible thing for me to do would be to explain how to use the {{mergefrom}} template since they had overlooked it while applying several {{mergeto}} templates to other articles that I had on my watchlist.
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What comments weren't civil? I tried to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination) as civil as I could which was hard with you assuming bad faith. When an editor asked me if I had a conflict of interest in the OneFingers AFD and had an edit summary of wikilawyering, that got taken care of with him making one post on my talk page. When an editor that didn't understand AFD !voted keep because it was verified on the Leafpad AFD, I told him about the rules without any uncivil comments. When an editor tried hard to keep OneFinger by his opinion, it was solved by me and other editors explaining the rules to him in a civil way. Saying "I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources" isn't uncivil. On the other hand, you called me disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, and attacked me for having a different interpretation of guidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2009: (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe's Own Editor instead of the OneFinger AfD? Where I see an issue is you attempt to browbeat other editors who express their opinion. There are no rules that prevent editors from !voting however they like in AfD. In the end, if a large group of editors forms a consensus that it benefits Wikipedia to keep an article that doesn't quite meet the notability guideline on its own, they may do so. The Wikipedia:Notability guideline can be and sometimes is overruled by consensus and the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy.
Joe, I'm willing to admit I may have been wrong in referring to you as a possible meatpuppet of Miami33139 so how about we just bury the hatchet regarding our disagreements and work on improving Wikipedia? This is using up both our free time and I don't know about you, but I'd rather be working on fixing up some articles. As I mentioned above, I'm willing to AGF and assume you just got caught up in the mess Miami33139 and JBsupreme have been causing. Given the patterns of edits linked above, you can probably understand why I originally brought that up as a possibility.
--Tothwolf (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to !votes that I disagreed with which is very common in AFD. If I was doing it to save an article, most likely no one would complain (like you for instance). I was not being a bully. If you have problems with me replying to keeps, you have a problem with almost everyone in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

...and that can be seen as browbeating other editors and actually isn't that common. You don't have to agree with other editors but you should at least respect their opinion as to why something should be kept or whatever and not try to force them to change their !vote by referring to the notability guideline and such. I would appreciate it you would stop implying that I want to "keep" everything that goes through AfD though. You have no idea how many articles I see go through the various workflows that have been prodded, sent to AfD, etc that absolutely should go. I think the difference between you and I are is I tend to be more focused on the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And in most AFDs that I participate in, people reply to another !vote. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Joe Chill and I have resolved our differences in a discussion continued on his talk page. While Miami33139 may have attempted to bring both he and JBsupreme into their own efforts, [144] [145] I do not feel Miami33139 was effective in their attempt with Joe Chill, therefore I do not feel Joe Chill was attempting to act maliciously with regards to his above linked edits.

This still leaves the issues with regards to User:Miami33139 and User:JBsupreme currently unresolved.

--Tothwolf (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption/harassment 2009-09-30

User:Miami33139:

• Mass-AfD'd more articles [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151]
• Trying to get access to a deleted subpage [152] [153] (Note: this is the same subpage User:Theserialcomma keeps trying to get)
• Participated in the AfDs User:JBsupreme created [154] [155]
• Continuing to be abusive towards other editors in AfD [156] [157] [158]

User:JBsupreme:

• Added a bogus speedy deletion template to WeeChat [159]
• Mass-AfD'd more articles [160] [161] [162] [163]
• Initiated a RFD for LeetIRC [164] [165] [166] [167]
• Added a {{prod}} to the transcluded Template:Latest stable software release/ccorp-irc template [168] in an attempt to get Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients deleted via prod. (See Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 September 2009)

--Tothwolf (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment from a largely unrelated user (note that I have participated, in agreement with the aforementioned editors, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination)):

It seems to me that they are not harassing you per se, they are simply pushing for deletion of a large number of articles (that, I assume, you are somehow related to (perhaps you wrote them, edited, etc)). In my opinion, these will resolve themselves-- articles are only deleted if there is consensus to do so; as such, the deletion (or keeping) of any of these articles will be good for Wikipedia. If the articles are indeed notable enough to have an article, then consensus will keep them.

To extrapolate, if every article on Wikipedia was nominated for deletion, only good could happen: all the non-notable articles would get deleted, and all the notable ones would be kept.

Only issue that I see (other than un-civility, etc, that I haven't looked into) is that the above editors will influence consensus into deleting rather than keeping; if you believe that the articles would normally be kept, perhaps you should check WP:Article Rescue Squadron, who would provide third-party !votes without any accusation of canvassing. -M.Nelson (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Miami33139

not helpful

I fully admit that on 2009-9-30 I: Nominated some articles for deletion Requested a copy of a deleted user page for a valid purpose Participated in deletion discussions Made replies to comments in deletion discussoins These are all horrible transgressions. It is obvious that Tothwolf has used my contributions list to make a very thorough and undeniable record of my sins as shown by evidence in his diffs above. It is obvious that I am the center of a vast conspiracy against Tothwolf. This weekend this conspiracy consisted only of myself, but my charisma and leadership skills have recruited five more Wikipedia editors to the conspiracy in just the last three days. My ability to Time Travel has even recruited editors in the past to harass Tothwolf by by raising questions on his ability to assume good faith and not proscribe motives on his fellow editors. Tothwolf's understanding of what it means to collaboratively edit in an open and transparent project where contributions will be edited mercilessly are superior to mine, so I must be punished. I am a wikicriminal and I need wikiprison. Please put me out of Tothwolf's misery! Miami33139 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) According to Tothwolf, I am still, STILL!, committing horrible acts against Wikipedia policy, and he is commanding me to stop RIGHT NOW. Why has no administrator taken action my clear actions of stalking and harassing Tothwolf? Miami33139 (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Please stop trolling. Enigmamsg 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I'd love to. Can you close this entire meritless complaint so I don't have to keep putting up with it? Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC) No. I don't have the authority to close an AN/I discussion. This section is decidedly unhelpful, however, and I have edited the title. Enigmamsg 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I changed it again cause "misleading trolling" just seems BITEy to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

JBSupreme just nominated Notepad++ for deletion. Considering it's one of the most-widely-used free text editors out there, and part of his rationale was that the name was a ripoff of Notepad, I find it hard to see this as anything but disruptive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he followed my edit history, I am engaging in AfD discussion since a few days. It also might helps to look at his responses to my AfD edits, I wouldn't describe them as friendly. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulk removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits

This seems to have been largely overshadowed by several of the above sections so I am creating a new subsection for this. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In the second AN/I report that I made on September 17th I voiced my concern over Miami33139's removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald edits:

I realized today that the minor edits Miami33139 has been making [169] are removals of Ed Fitzgerald's edits. I really don't feel it is appropriate for Miami33139 to be systematically removing Ed Fitzgerald's edits, particularly after all the disagreement and heated discussion between Miami33139 and Ed Fitzgerald, some of which seems to have led to Ed's "retirement". Some past "discussion" between Miami33139 and Ed Fitzgerald can be found here.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU also expressed their concern at these removals of Ed Fitzgerald's edits. [170]

At the very beginning of this AN/I discussion I again raised this issue:

Since the second AN/I report, Miami33139 has also continued their bulk removal of edits made to articles by User:Ed Fitzgerald. This month alone Miami33139 has removed 100s, possibly as many as 500 or more of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. [171] This seems to have originally started around January 2009 [172] and since then Miami33139 took this on as a personal crusade to remove his edits, up to the point where User:Ed Fitzgerald left Wikipedia. There was also a WQA regarding Ed's edits here and an AN/I report made by Miami33139 here. They have been using "T - I have tidied." in many of their edit summaries when removing Ed's edits but have also used other text in the past.

So far the only response has been on Miami33139's talk page [173] and it leaves a lot of things unanswered.

If there is an actual valid, technical reason that Ed's edits are causing display problems for people then we really need to find out how and why so it can be corrected. If Miami33139 can point out a discussion where this was raised (I have been unable to find one) and there is community consensus to remove Ed's whitespace or layout changes, then we need to submit this to WP:BOTREQ to get it corrected asap (I'll even volunteer to put in the request).

If there is not a valid reason for these removals and if no discussion has taken place, then the bulk, semi-automated removals of Ed Fitzgerald's edits would likely be violating WP:HOUND and as LessHeard vanU pointed out in the last AN/I discussion [174] it could appear to others as being an attempt by Miami33139 to "win" a content dispute by taking advantage of Ed Fitzgerald's absence.

Furthermore, the only way I know of for Miami33139 to be tracking Ed Fitzgerald's whitespace and layout edits to remove them is to cull Ed's contributions, which in turn re-affirms the original issue I raised at the very beginning of this AN/I discussion regarding Miami33139's tracking of user's contributions and edits.

--Tothwolf (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, even assuming that Miami33139 did track the contributions of a retired user, I'm not really seeing the link here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that Miami33139 simply tracked Ed Fitzgerald's edits after he was gone. While Ed was still here editing, Miami33139 appears to follow behind him and remove his edits. Since Ed left, this month Miami33139 appears to have greatly picked up the pace of removing Ed's edits. I am going strictly by a side by side comparison of both of their contributions from the same time periods. To borrow from an old cliché, it reads like dueling pianos and explains why Ed Fitzgerald finally just up and left. This is very similar to the situation I found myself in with regards to Miami33139, with one major difference– I've not been willing to edit war with Miami33139. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You say "If there is a valid reason..." which I have said multiple times. The MoS says don't add wiki-elements, whitespace, fake columns, or other tricks in order to force some sort of preferred layout or style. These are issues for global CSS. This is exactly what most of the automated editors remove (advisor.js, AWB, wik.ed). I worked on a tool to find this stuff automated, but removal is by hand. Wikipedia's provided tools remove it automated, but finding it is by hand. That you have brought this up, again, shows you are grasping for things to attack me for.

You are mischaracterizing the circumstance of and blaming me entirely for Ed leaving, this was not the case. This is now the third time you've raised this at ANI about me. How am I to take you at your word that you want to see how you can collaboratively edit with me when what you want to do is dredge my history for mudslinging? Miami33139 (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF is this crap?

• I stumbled onto this discussion after witnessing a slew of IRC related articles being nominated for deletion in the past day or so. I first found the one for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitchX; I know very little about IRC clients but did some research and found tons out there about this one, and worked on the article some. Then I see that the same editors, JBSupreme and Miami-whatever are serially nominating them all; that by itself didn't automatically concern me, but then i seriously started to question what they were doing WP:BEFORE nominating, if anything. Then, I saw DGG chime in on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Z-Net, with what I would consider a very strong comment from him:

"*Keep and look for sources,and then come back here if you don;'t find any after a proper search, including likely printed manuals. You say that you are going through subject areas you recognize that are not an expert in (see your comment at the List of ircII scripts AfD a little above) looking for articles that happen not to have sources. Butthe criterion for deletion here is not "unsourced" but unsourceable". Attempts to use "unsourced" as the criterion have been thoroughly rejected buy the community. Our job is to construct sourced articles. This is attained by sourcing the ones that can be, and deleting the others. It is an abuse of process to use AfD to force sourcing--it should be used to delete the articles you tried properly to source with an appropriate search for sources, and failed to do so. There are certainly enough of them! -- I would never say otherwise. It is wrong to enter an article without looking for sources, and just as wrong to delete one without looking. DGG... "

So I looked at one other of the mass IRC death march AFDs, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kopete, and asked the nom, Miami, "So, if I spent some time digging through the 843 google news references to this software, and the 511 Google book references, the aggregate of these mentions could never equal notability? What did your WP:BEFORE due diligence show?" I got a reply comment from JBSupreme, "Delete. I just searched and found no evidence of notability for this product. What did you find, Milowent?" -- Now, very skeptical I looked and found a cornucopia of sources, some of which I included on the AFD discussion page.

So, in short, i don't know WTF is going on, but its disruptive. --Milowent (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What is your point - what is it you want to say? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That this behavior is disruptive and should stop. I think DGG's proposed remedy below would do that.--Milowent (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I've proposed a formalised wording of that in the section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(semi-)automated editing tools and prod/CSD tagging?

The other concern I voiced above was Miami33139's use of (semi-)automated editing tools. In addition to the mass-prods and mass-AfDs, while working on the above list of diffs and trying to figure out what was going on regarding their removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits, I also noted what seems to be a troubling pattern of bad {{prod}} and CSD tagging:

Miami33139 has historically not worked on articles in these areas but while having to sift through contribs to create the above list, I found a troubling pattern of what appears to be bad {{prod}} and CSD tagging. Miami33139 claims a deletion percentage of 80% [175] and while I would think this is probably not something to brag about, I can't help but wonder just how many of these are badly placed prod and CSD tags, especially with this comment that they made at TfD regarding their own CSD tagging efforts of subtemplates. [176]

I found additional evidence of bad CSD tagging while looking at Comparison of media players as Miami33139 had most recently largely been targeting media player type software for deletion. Possible examples may include [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] all of which are/were still in use at the time that they were CSD tagged and deleted. See Comparison of media players#Video players and Comparison of media players#Audio players.

Given Miami33139's attempt to CSD G8 and now TFD Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC, [190] [191] which they saw me create while expanding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, I think it is quite obvious this was meant as harassment and they are abusing both CSD and TFD.

Given all the above, it might be good for the community to know just what sort of (semi-)automated editing tools Miami33139 is using. From Miami33139's comments above [192] and a quick glace at Miami33139's monobook.js, it appears that those tools have been customized are also being used client side (i.e. Greasemonkey) and are not being used from monobook.js. I'm a little concerned that some of the (semi-)automated edits such as the removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits may be running afoul of the Bot policy.

--Tothwolf (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy - Tothwolf

Folks, the way I see it, this is a continuance of Tothwolf's pattern of behavior. He has shown a history of finding other users who make some sort of change to an article with which he has personal interest, and accusing them of disruption, harassment, and stalking. Therefore, in the absence of seeing any other sort of proposed remedy here, I propose the following:

Tothwolf is admonished for his failure to assume good faith on the part of other users, and for taking ownership of articles with which he has personal interest. If he continues to demonstrate inability to assume good faith on the part of other users, or if he demonstrates ownership of any article, he may be immediately blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator.

Thoughts? Yea's? Nay's? (P.S. -- this proposal is not necessarily meant to relieve any of the other involved users of their actions, as I have not thoroughly reviewed them. If someone else feels that a remedy should be imposed against them as well, please write one.) Mikaey, Devil's advocate 04:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the pointy section above. However, every evening I come to edit and Tothwolf has made a new post accusing all of my actions of the previous day as harassing him. Each day he ads one or two people to his harasser list. Despite the sarcasm, it does remain that participating in AfD is not harassment of any particular user. Outside of ANI, his discussions at AfD continue to attack the motives and good faith of those he has decided are conspiring against him. I have not targeted him, I am putting up with his accusations. I'd like some closure to the issue. Miami33139 (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yea on the Remedy. The links Tothwolf has put down in this thread (and there are PLENTY of them) are downright creepy in that they border on stalking, since he seems to know where everyone is at every moment on the articles in question. WP:OWN for him is definitely in violation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • To answer part of that, I cataloged most of these articles and have almost all of them on my watchlist to watch for vandalism. I think the mIRC article tended to get the most spam/vandalism but the edit filter has largely stopped the spamming issue there. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced; outright interaction bans may be the way to get rid of the core problem - while the rest of the editing restriction can be imposed separately; also let's not confuse admonishments with restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mikaey, as much as I like you as a person, in this instance I'm going to have to remind you that you and I have had a lot of interaction and discussion and I feel you are way too involved to make such a proposal.
  I've done my best given the fact that User:Miami33139 has without a doubt intentionally stalked my edits and attempted to cause trouble in several areas in which I edit on Wikipedia to remain civil. I may not be perfect, but I think the above evidence (and continued mass AfD nominations and some of the comments made in those AfDs today) by User:Miami33139 are clearly meant to be disruptive. There is no reason what so ever to mass-nominate this many articles without first attempting to improve or source them. I have largely not (yet) participated in these AfDs but many other editors in the AfDs have expressed a good deal of objection to User:Miami33139's behaviour. My work so far has been largely categorizing, sorting, and figuring out how and where to merge or expand many of these neglected stubs. I do not see at all how you could construe something as "taking ownership of articles".
  I'd also like to point out that these two comments made right here on AN/I by User:Miami33139 [193] [194] are also clearly attempts at baiting.
  I'm still open to working with User:Miami33139 on many of these articles if they expressed a desire to do so.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I opened your contribs history when we first ran into each other. I open the contribs history of most editors when they say something interesting. You flew off the handle when I participated in multiple public places which I thought were also interesting. That is not stalking! You asked me to stop (well, you accused me of stalking). I did, but continued to deal with articles in Category:IRC. You've claimed every action I took in normal editing since then as stalking you and causing trouble to you. I do not see how you are open to editing with me considering the amount of vitriol you are still sending me. Since J told me to disengage, I have only tried to interact with you on pure fact in public discussion, so I'm hesitant to save this reply, but I feel it necessary to (for the third time on ANI) rebut the claim that I am stalking you. Miami33139 (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing that really set things off here was your revert of my removal of the invalid CSD (which you and I did discuss and resolve later) on What wp is not [195] and then the AfD of NexIRC [196] after I reverted vandalism. From there it looks like things continued to escalate, up to the point now where we have a ton of articles at AfD.
I'm still more than willing to discuss things with you, but I do not feel it was appropriate for you to mass-prod and mass-AfD so many articles without attempting to improve them. I'm still happy to work with you on improving many of these if you'd like to have at go at adding references and expanding them. There is an enormous amount of work to do with regards to these articles and the WikiProject could use more editors who want to create better articles.
Would you be willing to hold off on any further prods or AfDs and continue our discussion on either your talk page or mine? It might make folks happier since that would allow this thread to quiet down.
--Tothwolf (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy (take 2)

In light of the conduct issues above, particularly those raised in the above section, and to follow up Mikaey's proposal, I propose the following:

• Probation Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Note: for the purposes of this restriction, an administrator will not be considered involved for enforcing this restriction.

1. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive or unseemly (including assumptions of bad faith and ownership of articles where he has a personal interest), he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for a definite or indefinite duration. The ban will take effect once that administrator has posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Tothwolf/Community sanction. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.
2. Should it be deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 uninvolved administrators to prevent harassment, Tothwolf may be banned from directly or indirectly interacting with, or commenting about any particular user(s) specified by those administrators. The ban will take effect once 1 of the administrators have posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Tothwolf/Community sanction.

One or both of these parts of probation may be imposed to, at least in part, get rid of this ANI drama. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This needs to go to the archives and never come back and Tothwolf needs to tone things down considerably. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, User:Joe Chill and I continued our discussion outside of AN/I and resolved our disagreements. See User talk:Joe_Chill#Leafpad.
  I have also continued try to open a dialog with both Miami33139 and JBsupreme. See User talk:Miami33139#Article mergers and User talk:JBsupreme#Hi, I hope you don't mind my asking. I would so much rather be editing than watching over my shoulder after I make an edit for the next revert or AfD, which is what has been happening with regards to Miami and JB (which as I type, I see more AfD nominations in my RSS reader which displays my watchlist).
  --Tothwolf (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems to me you are more concerned not with getting this mess of a thread closed, but with someone creating AfDs. AfDs happen, always have, always will. If the articles you create aren't notable, they will get nom'd for deletion regardless of who does it and they aren't going to stay, it is just a simple as that. By the same token, if the articles are notable, they will remain. Let the AfD process work itself out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, my main concern was what to me seemed like contribs stalking, which included a lot more than just AfDs. In the grand scheme of things, a few AfDs aren't going to matter much one way or the other. I would be lying if I said that the mass-prods and mass-AfDs without first checking for sources or attempting to improve articles does not worry me some. I'd still like to work out whatever differences Miami33139 and I have as it does not benefit Wikipedia for us to seemingly be at odds with each other. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to bring all of us into a discussion so we can settle whatever the underlying disagreement is? It seems like if this isn't first addressed none of this is going to help anyone. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Feel free to attempt to settle your disagreements with Miami33139, JB Supreme, or anyone else. But I'm not ready to gamble on whether you are able to reform your overall approach that led to these proposed remedies in the first place. I think these restrictions can address the underlying concerns with your conduct in the most effective way, short of full site bans or blocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Please see this subection below as I honestly do not feel that everything has been addressed here. The original AN/I discussion seems to have been redirected towards only myself and there are a number of concerns that have been previously raised that still need addressing. If I am completely off base, I will apologize and walk away from this. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I've clarified the header here to mean that this part is the remedy with respect to you - Miami33139 may get a similar section soon, based on whether your concerns are well-founded or not. The remedy sections should remain at the bottom of the discussion though as that inevitable leads to the threads being concluded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I wasn't sure how to order the sections. I still feel that I was trying to do the right thing by bringing these issues to AN/I but I'm always open to constructive criticism. If there is something I should have done differently in handling the situation, I would be more than happy to make future use of any pointers others can offer. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Personally, I'm beginning to wonder whether ArbCom may be the best place for this entire mess to go. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Possibly. Given how complex this situation is, that could very well be the next logical step. If someone decides that to be the best option I'll gladly provide my notes and diffs. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • If we do probation it should have a time limit--perhaps 6 months--both here and for others. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not fond of the idea that we need to come here to reimpose a restriction after 6 months if the restriction is still being used or invoked at the time. On the other hand, requiring us to review whether the remedies are still necessary after a definite time period (say, even 4 months) would lead to a better outcome I think, particularly if things are running smoothly. Would you object to that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy - Miami33139 and JBsupreme

• Anyone who looks at a bunch of articles on a subject will find some that need deletion. So, while I noticed some of these deletion nominations, they were in an area relatively unfamiliar to me, and I regarded it as perfectly plausible that people might write articles on non-notable computer programs, I didn't concern myself. But I started to see some to programs I did recognize, and I started looking at a few of them, I saw that they were being nominated with the claim of unsourced, and the sources were in fact self-evident. They were right up there usually, in the built in quick search of the Googles. What's more, many of these deletions have been defended by this user even after unambiguous sources have been pointed out. As for motivation, I can not decide if he's trying to harass, or being disruptive, or willfully ignorant of our policies, or just reckless. The proper remedy for this part is a ban of User:Miami33139 from deletion processes for a good while, and a shorter ban for JBSupreme. As for the wikistalking, i'd need to check that to see which side it's coming from, or both. (BTW, if anyone questions my willingness to delete, more than 1/4 of my AfD !votes are to delete, and, when I patrol speedy, as I do every day, I delete -- not just nominate, but actually delete as an admin -- over 10 articles every day. and I currently stand at number 129 among the admins doing the most deletions [197], with 8599 deletions over the two years I've been an admin.; 93% of my admin actions have been deletions. ) I don;t think I need to go into individual AfD nominations here--they've been listed above. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support bans. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I propose the following wordings of DGG's proposal:

• Topic ban JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from participating in deletion discussions and processes, broadly construed, for 1 month.
• Topic ban Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from participating in deletion discussions and processes, broadly construed, for 3 months.
• Probation Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Note: for the purposes of this restriction, an administrator will not be considered involved for enforcing this restriction.

1. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for a definite or indefinite duration. The ban will take effect once that administrator has posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Miami33139/Community sanction. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.
2. Should it be deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 uninvolved administrators to prevent harassment, Miami33139 may be banned from directly or indirectly interacting with, or commenting about any particular user(s) specified by those administrators. The ban will take effect once 1 of the administrators have posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Miami33139/Community sanction.

I hope that covers it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support, and struck comment above for clarity. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think the lengths are in accord with my proposal. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Z-Net, DGG, you posted quite a rant to me there saying I did not search for sources. I did. There are several dogpile votes from those who have opposed my deletion requests based on your statement. Let's get real: This is a script plugin for an IRC client.

There is nothing disruptive about asking for sources for software articles that are not from blogs and download directories. I understand people are upset by mass nominations of software articles, but they are an absolute mess. It appears that anyone who writes software gets a free pass to write about it on Wikipedia, because it is available for download and sourced to their developer blog.

In my own defense, when someone has brought forth relevent, non-trivial sources and fixed an article, I have withdrawn my nomination.

Please, really, go back and look at Z-Net and tell me you think that is notable and I am disruptive for nominating it.

As explained on that deletion discussion, attempts at using processes less than AfD (like PROD) are being actively removed by an IP address who removes PROD from every proposed software deletion. That is why the nominations are en-masse at AfD. Miami33139 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I said what I did on account of your nomination, which did not assert that you had checked, but just argued on the general principle that such scripts would intrinsically not be notable, and in context of your other nominations, for many of which sources were found. --I will re-check this particular one. I'll always reconsider a !vote if asked. I agree that such software can not be presumed to be notable without some evidence. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just now did check, and changed to a weak delete--see explanation of the AfD page--this is a rather difficult search & many apparent hits are for other things. I still hold to my statement as applying to your nominations in general., many of which did have genuine references to be found. If you had done a search, it would have helped if you had said so , for it did appear in view of the other noms that you were judging entirely by what was already in the article, which I continue to maintain is reckless and against the deletion guidelines. There is a difference between nominating for deletion, and asking for sources. I do have to apologize for any confusion. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • I think the probation should have a time limit, not be indefinite. I would suggest 6 months, both here and for others. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • See my reply in the above section on this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but will move to oppose if diffs can be provided that prove goodwill (strong support if more diffs turn up that prove ill will). Xavexgoem (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is a token showing of good faith. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UMSDOS upon someone taking the time to add required references and expand the article beyond what was proposed for deletion, I withdrew the nom. I follow the discussions on my proposals and discuss, and change my opinion as necessary. The problem really is that, the processes BEFORE nominating for deletion are being derailed. The nomination for deletion is usually based on being not notable. Requests to SHOW NOTABILITY are being removed, [198]. Since requesting notability via tags doesn't work, proposing deletion via PROD, should get someone to work on the underlying issues. Instead, the PROD notice is removed, without addressing the issues, [199]. All of them. Every single PROD is removed, without ever addressing the issue. This has resulted in mass nominations to AfD, which has obviously frustrated DGG - but this is not bad faith at all. It is a clear escalated process as a result of a group of editors who put their fingers in their ears and actively remove improvement notices and do not want to address basic policy issues. Miami33139 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

the notice is just the first step, and there's no point in doing a prod when one knows it is going to be removed without improvement. The best thing to do in such a case is to look for oneself. If that fails, or the needed refs would be something that special knowledge would be required to find, then a good next step is to ask for help at the workgroup. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Pardon, I mean diffs in regard to the accusations against you; these accusations are greater than an inclusionist/deletionist battle, or another's clue level. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The only person with an incentive to weigh in here is Miami. I've made my comment above. Rooting out bad behavior is such a pain when its much more fun to learn and contribute--Milowent (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Being a deletionist and enforcing the deletion policy isn't being disruptive, although nominating very large amounts of articles for deletion in a short space of time may be. This shouldn't be done because not every editor has the time to discuss 20 AFDs in 1 week. Both editors appear to be responding to keep arguments in their AFDs which shows they aren't just on a nomination spree. Miami33139 has shown above if their nomination is shown to be wrong, they will quickly admit it and withdraw the nomination. The above proposal is completely over the top. All that needs doing here is Miami33139 and JBsupreme need to be told to slow down on the large amount of nominations and suggest and try to restrict themselves to x amount of new nominations a week to give other editors time take part in all of them. Yes, there may be 100+ non-notable IRC client articles, but you can't nominate them all at the same time.--Otterathome (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown of AFD intersections

This is a breakdown of the various recent AFD discussions as of 2009-10-01 20:00 UTC

Article and AFD discussion	Miami33139	JBsupreme	Tothwolf	Other	Notes
IRC-related
Bersirc (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	1
Bip IRC Proxy (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	4
BitchX (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	Yes	7	"Based only on the multiple sources I added yesterday confirming the popularity of this client (and I can see there are more references out there about the client, I spent minimal time), I don't see how deleting this article improves the project." "And how does keeping it improve the project?" "so there is one chapter of one obscure book from a publisher that specializes in "geek" books"
Bottler (IRC client) (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	2
Coolsmile (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	No	2	"This entire category really needs to go […]"
ERC (IRC client) (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	5	"None of the sources you refer to amount to non-trivial."
Jini (IRC client) (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	No	2	"For those asking for deletion, it is nice and polite to show what effort has been to find searches, but it is not a requirement."
Konversation (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	Yes	2	"The burden is on the article creator to demonstrate the notability of the subject via references."
Kopete (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	2	"So, if I spent some time digging through the 843 google news references to this software, and the 511 Google book references, the aggregate of these mentions could never equal notability? What did your WP:BEFORE due diligence show?" "I just searched and found no evidence of notability for this product"
List of ircII scripts (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	Yes	3	"There is no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to another article […]"
Naim (chat program) (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	2
Neebly (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	No	0	"We really need to institute a CSD for software […]"
Nettalk (IRC client) (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	No	0	"Ugh! How far does the rabbit hole of non-notable chat clients go on Wikipedia, anyhow?" "the entire subcategory of software has these pockets of cruft."
Pork client (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	Yes	8
PIRCH (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	Yes	9
Psotnic (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	3	"I'd like to kindly ask that 83.254.210.47 log with their real account […]"
PsyBNC (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	Yes	8	"For example what have you searched for, how many hits did you get, what was the best reference you could find? […] Please prove you researched the topic properly for the purpose of establishing a meaningful notability discussion." "Please log in with your normal account if you have one." "anonymous users have the right to contribute" "stop harassing the anonymous user"
Psyced (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	6
Snak (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	No	1	"The burden is on the article creator […]"
Vortec IRC (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	No	1	Proposed Deletion contested by 83.254.210.47. "Contested prod by some anon." "The burden is on the creator."
WeeChat (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	5
Z-Net (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	Yes	5
ZNC (IRC bouncer) (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	Yes	6	"Please log in with your regular account so that we may validate you are not vote stacking. "
Computer software
E2compr (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	Yes	2	Source citations in the article
Elecard MPEG Player (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes	No	3
Fortitude HTTP (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes	No	5
LabPlot (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes	No	7
Leafpad (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes	Yes	14
Monit (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes	No	4
MyPaint (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes	No	4	"Thank god we don't have a bunch of "WP:IAR" hand wavers this time around and can delete this cleanly."
Parchive (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	Yes	5	"So far I see lots of hand waving and zero sources to back it up." "The WP:BURDEN on those who want to keep material in Wikipedia is to provide reliable sources disproving the rationale given for deletion."
QuickPar (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	Yes	4	"Despite JBsupreme's claims otherwise, the above book gives several pages coverage to this software and also includes a number of screenshots." "One mere mention as a tool does not make something notable." "Furthermore, the citations you have provided here do not surpass the definition of non-trivial coverage at all."
Quiet Internet Pager (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	4
SmartPAR (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	Yes	7	"This book is linked in the Deletion Review that JBsupreme initiated after he did not like the outcome of the Parchive AfD:" "Looks like passing coverage to me. Not honestly qualified as "non-trivial coverage" from a reliable third party, […]" "One mere mention in one book is not notable."
Spider Player (AfD discussion)	Yes (Nom)	Yes	No	2	"I have nothing more to add, there is no significant coverage."
TundraDraw (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes	No	3	"no sources in the article and it has had a week to get them added." "I'm waiting in the wings for my Wiki-stalking friend to attempt to counter me, but I'm guessing he'll just make some bad faith accusations and then find himself unable to produce any evidence of non-trivial coverage of this subject, once again."
Computer software companies
Celemony (AfD discussion)	Yes	Yes (Nom)	No	2

Edits of User:Fifelfoo

I would like to request some assistance at article Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The problem is with User:Fifelfoo. Please check older edits and reverts with other editors at this article.

Today he removed referenced content from the article per "it is a primary source" (The 1956 Revolution: a history in documents" written by Csaba Békés, Malcolm Byrne, János Rainer published in 2002 page ref.: 198). After this I added another reference (the official webpage of "THE INSTITUTE FOR THE HISTORY OF THE 1956 HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION" which is sponsored by the Hungarian government and written by scholars. However User:Fifelfoo removed it as non-RS, although that article has 203 references. After this, I reverted it and I added another reference written by Ferenc Glatz, historian, member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, but User:Fifelfoo removed the references with the comment: "If the Institute was so proud of the content, they would have published it on paper. Cite the paper". With his last edit he taged the references... After I warned him for vandalism, reference removal he called me a vandal...

I checked his userpage ("He researches labour history and socialist history"), talkpage (articles you might like to edit "Structural Marxism") and his contributions (like "Mass killings under Communist regimes") so I think we have a WP:COI, POV and WP:OR here.--B@xter⁹ 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for the removal of the Glatz source edit, it happened accidentally when trying to correct an edit where you added the IRH source and Glatz source at the same time. The IRH source is unacceptable due to SELF and being a non-academic publication of an academic institute (non academic publication modes is where academics put their more curious theories, and scholarship which cannot be known to meet the standards of their scholarly obligations due to lack of peer or scholarly press review). While the IRH is a scholarly institute, it isn't a scholarly press. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the content dispute and the dispute over what constitutes verifiable references/citations, these two editors — Baxter9 and Fifelfoo — are engaged in an edit war. I was going to place {{3RR}} warnings — a number that they have both exceeded — on their talk pages, but since it has escalated to ANI, I was not sure if that would still be appropriate. Further, the editor who filed the ANI complaint did not place a notice on the other editor’s talk page, so I have taken the liberty of doing so. Finally, while reviewing the edit war between these two editors, I noticed the edits of a third, brand new editor — Tyrker — who has edited only on this article. I reverted one of his edits as it deleted material accompanied by a verifiable reference/citation, a deletion done without an explanation. —  SpikeToronto  18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 Question: Is Fifelfoo correct that only documents that have been published in physical (i.e., paper) form may be cited on Wikipedia, notwithstanding that copies may be available on the Internet? In other words, is Fifelfoo correct that any source published solely on the Internet, regardless of how reputable the academic institution that web-published it may be, cannot be cited? What then of such notable sources as The New England Journal of Medicine, or The New York Times, that sometimes have internet-only articles/essays/editorials? As I understand it, Fifelfoo, in his edit summaries, is saying that an Internet source can only be cited if it is merely reprinting a paper-based publication. By that logic, The Huffington Post could never be cited, nor any of the myriad websites maintained by politicians and pundits. I believe that this issue lies at the crux of this dispute and the answer to this question is vital to the nature of sources cited throughout Wikipedia given that Internet-only sources are found throughout its millions of articles. —  SpikeToronto  18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is patently not true. reliable sources may be print-only, web-only, or print-reproduced-on-web. There are lots of sources on the web that are unreliable, but not because they are on the web. Are you sure that is what Fifelfoo is claiming? Could you include a diff that shows where he claims that only sources that appeared first in print can be counted as reliable? Without an actual diff, it is hard to understand if your characterization of his arguements are accurate. IF he is making that arguement, he is wrong. However, I don't know that he is actually making that arguement unless I can see the diffs myself. --Jayron32 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, he actually says it twice both times, in edit summaries. If you bring up the history of the page you can see the two comments - the diffs are already cited above. He also has some other strange views - you can't cite old documents "The following source is unacceptable (non-RS) due to age:" you can't cite textbooks "Requires verification that its not a textbook / textbook publisher:" and you can't cite anything that Fifelfoo thinks wasn't written by the right kind of historian "The following sources are unacceptable (non-RS) as they are not the work of historians, and thus produce the SYNTHESIS problem:" Oh, and you can't use any primary sources. (all of these are in his long section about FA on the talkpage, which he seems to have posted more or less all in one lump, sorry) Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT I think that it is a great shame that one of the few featured articles on Wikipedia is currently bogged down in an edit war. A quick resolution of the core issue between these two editors — what constitutes verifiable references/citations — can bring this to an end. —  SpikeToronto  18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that this is an editor with a unique perspective of what constitutes verifiable references/citations and that he may begin to undo articles throughout Wikipeida based on that unique perspective if he is not made more familiar with Wikipedia’s position in this regard. The probability of this is all the greater given his position statements made both in his edit summaries and on his user page, as Elen of the Roads correctly pointed out. —  SpikeToronto  20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to the third editor in the mix, would it be appropriate to use CheckUser to determine if s/he is a sock puppet of one of the two editors engaged in the edit war? —  SpikeToronto  20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I made 2 reverts, not more which is not 3RR. One of the reverts is a "revert of vandalism" (reference removal) which per wikipedia 3RR rule doesnt count, so actually I made 1 revert. (my first edit, added 1 reference, my second etit, 1th revert, added another reference, not a revert, my second revert, no more)

"A quick resolution of the core issue between these two editors — what constitutes verifiable references/citations — can bring this to an end" No, it wont. Because actually I am not involved in this and I am not interested in this topic. But other editors are. As the member of wikiproject Hungary I was informed about this, and I only stoped at the article to check things. Because every Hungarian knows that Corvin-köz was a major battleground, It was easy to find a reliable source. So I checked my books, and I added 1 reliable reference which was removed. Thats all. But the point is what Elen of the Roads said above: Fifelfoo rules this article and removes what he doesnt like. As I mentioned above, his first move was, to challange the new reference...--B@xter⁹ 20:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Baxter, I want to make sure this is clear, you are saying that in addition to the issue which Elen of the Roads and I have raised regarding Fifelfoo’s interpretation of WP:RS, there is a WP:OWN issue vis-à-vis this editor? —  SpikeToronto  20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time when I "met" Fifelfoo, so I dont know his edit pattern, but it is clear to me, that this "style" of editing (this source is not good bla..bla..bal..that source is not -RS..bla...bla..bla..) embarrass and frightens away users who want to make constructive edits. This is some sort of ownership. (from OWN: "If you find that the editor continues to be hostile...or wages revert wars...A common response by a primary editor confronted with ownership behavior is to threaten to leave the project..." I am sure, that primary editors will leave this article if this continues... Just check this revision history and comments...)--B@xter⁹ 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

+:Furthermore, I find it interesting that -it seems to be- that this user knows everything about wiki rules, including "how to cite your sources" and he also gives advices, but when it is about the victims of the revolution, he quickly forgets about this and he removes the content instead of using {{cn}} although this event has its own article on the Hungarian wikipedia.--B@xter⁹ 21:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly appreciate it if you didn't grossly mischaracterise my edits. Citation needed is not an appropriate on a Feature Article, think about why. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So now you’re adding point of view to the allegations? Thus, the issues are: WP:RS, WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV. I have to be honest, while all of these are important, because the editor in question’s position regarding verifiable references/citations is so unique, I think that the WP:RS dimension of this ANI is the single most important issue for the Administrators to resolve. It goes to the very heart of the Wikipedia project! —  SpikeToronto  22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe SpikeToronto is a neutral editor acting in good faith here. Managing to mischaracterise RS so rapidly in relation to a feature article, and "helpfully" summarising my position for me. Could you not put words into my mouth, thanks.

The Institute of Revolutionary History is a credible academic institute in Hungary. The Other user is attempting to cite a chronology from their website. Academic units draw a rather sharp distinction between academic publications, and non academic publications. Similarly, Historians do not publish in a chronology mode. IRH publishes, regularly. Additionally, as the document is in Hungarian, verification options go to machine translation because it isn't the product of a scholarly peer reviewed text. FA criteria involve a higher sourcing demand than start articles. Part of this demand is that the best kind of RS be used. Interestingly the best kind of RS are available, and the other editor made use of an acceptable text: one published by the Hungarian academy in a scholarly publishing mode.

Additionally, I do not appreciate the allegations of editing in bad faith because of my article interest. I suggest people look at my edit history.

The article is currently in Feature Article review because of major sourcing issues (it is constructed out of a primary source, and does not follow the standard scholarly discourse, instead being a SYN of various primary sources).

I find it a shame that a feature article on a non-Anglo/Western European history topic, which has been extensively written about in the scholarly press, is cited out of spurious ephemera and primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Ownership, I found a Featured Article with some very very disturbing sourcing, which fails to cite the major scholarly works, and is overly reliant on a UN report that drew from about 110 refugee respondents. So I laid out the problem on the talk page, and requested an article review. Yes, that's ownership, to establish the encyclopedic debate to move forward on a topic.

Regarding the perverse suggestions of bias / involvement because of my decisions to edit certain articles, I suggest people look at my editorial involvement at Mass killings under Communist regimes which has turned the article around through a slow consensus building process. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do believe this is all to do with it being a featured article, and Fifelfoo's view of what is and isn't acceptable on a featured article - which is kind of barse ackwards to my way of thinking. Fifelfoo says above that the use of citation required templating is not appropriate on a Featured article, use of machine translation not appropriate, primary sources not appropriate, wrong kind of historian not appropriate etc etc. Wrong way round surely. Find an article that has perfect sourcing, grammar, layout or whatever is required to meet the FA criteria, and put an FA sticker on it. Not, put the sticker on it whatever state it is in, and then start chopping out stuff that doesn't meet your singular view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I have never laid eyes on the article in question before today, and never edited it before today, I believe that Fifelfoo will not be able to make out his claim of bias on my part. Where I do have bias is in adhering to WP’s guidelines regarding verifiable references/citations. Perhaps the reason Fifelfoo singled me out for an accusation is because of my zealous request here for Administrator involvement to clarify this issue. Fifelfoo’s interpretation of verifiable references/citations is truly unique. I fear its taking hold of WP. Should the prevalence of this unique view grow, I fear the undoing of articles, especially those with Feature Article status. When can we expect an issue that goes to the heart of each and every article on Wikipedia to have some Administrator involvement and be resolved? —  SpikeToronto  00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Elen. The Article is currently a FA. What would you have us do when non-FA content is inserted into an FA? The article is at FAR, because I am deeply concerned that its sourcing quality and coverage do not meet current FA standards.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that Elen of the Roads’s first comment (way) above was inserted between what was a contiguous posting of mine. Thus, my COMMENT (way) above was meant to be immediately following my QUESTION (way) above. The COMMENT was not added after Elen of the Roads’s first comment; it preceded it. (See this edit.) —  SpikeToronto  00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. First post was responding to Jayron, not to anything SpikeToronto said. The timestamps should show the sequence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement of Fact

Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is currently a feature article. Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is under Wikipedia:Featured_article_review here Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956. Featured article review is an improvement process. I nominated Hungarian Revolution of 1956 for feature article review as a result of significant sourcing problems, which I raised on Talk:Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and at the Featured Article Review. User:Baxter9 and User:Fifelfoo disagree about some of the contents of Hungarian Revolution of 1956

This are the facts as I see them. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My statement of the case

As a current featured article, new material added should meet the Feature Article criteria for sourcing, including the highest form of reliability, verifiability, and avoid being Primary or Tertiary sources. User:Baxter9 is expanding Hungarian Revolution of 1956 in useful ways, but many of Baxter9's edits have been inadequately sourced. In my opinion a primary source like Békés and others The 1956 Revolution: a history in documents (2002) [indicated above by Baxter9], is unacceptable. Creating an article from Primary sources is SYN/OR. Doing this to a featured article is immediately removable. Regarding the Corvin Alley fighters, Baxter9 has been attempting to use a webpage from the IRH. The IRH as an academic institute has the capacity to publish scholarly sources in a scholarly manner. By citing an IRH article not published in a scholarly manner, and one (which to my pitiful Hungarian) is a chronology of events, rather than narrative history (the standard Academic form of history), it is not RS. I removed this source and the uncited sentence. Baxter9 then provided a superior citation (in addition to the poor citation), one produced by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, but unfortunately failed to provide a full academic citation (using the template is not the issue). Baxter9's citation was not verifiable as it did not allow other Wikipedians to find the material Baxter9 was citing: "Ferenc Glatz, MTA; Kornélia Burucs, Zsuzsa Frisnyák, Éva Kovács, János Pótó. A magyarok krónikája. [where]: Magyar Könyvklub. p. 690. ISBN 9632270703." is still not a verifiable citation, but its sufficient to indicate that the material is sourced. A citation requires attribution to the specific Author involved, I doubt that a work of this length with 5 personal authors and an institutional author is a single monograph: its a work with chapters individually authored and an editor. The provided citation doesn't indicate the English language title translation (a common courtesy). A machine translation "The Chronicle of the Hungarians" (In English Chronicle has poor connotations in disciplinary history, I suspect the machine translator is poor in this regard) indicates that this isn't a specialist work as a whole on 1956: a non-optimum citation. Provide the chapter, for instance out of 700+ pages, its likely that 690 is the Hungarian nation around 1956... its likely the actual chapter is a 56 chapter. [This is exactly why I get tetchy about low quality sources: it breaks VERIFIABILITY].Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In relation to Baxter9's content. Claiming Corvin alley is the most esteemed group of fighters was a long bow to draw (Csepel and the Hungarian student/youth militia which briefly retook Parliament square are clear counter examples). Claiming it was the strongest fortified position is much less contentious, though I still want to see a correct full citation for the work cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV. I demand Featured Article grade RS. This means the best kind of RS available. This, as an academic topic, does have the best kind of RS available: RS from the academic community produced in the peer review and scholarly publisher mode. We don't need to settle for anything less, and producing a history not from the RS secondary sources is SYN. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding OWN. My editorial involvement has been to revert Baxter9's uncited, or unacceptably cited contributions; and, when Baxter9 presented cited and RS cited contributions, to not revert. I am currently waiting on a large scale review, and have not edited the article substantively while I'm awaiting that Review process to conclude. I do not believe this is OWN: I like Baxter9's content additions. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV in relation to my editorial outlook and article involvement. This is a disgusting assertion about my editing and I would like any people who made it to retract it. I encourage people to peruse my editorial history in this matter Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Internet sources. The issue isn't the modality (trees versus bits), as much as, IRH does not publish in the scholarly mode online, and is not a scholarly publishing house in itself. Citing JSTOR is fine. Citing a SELF published website, where an academic institute is not publishing in its academic mode, isn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, & I know it's a side issue, citing JSTOR is not fine. You cite the journal in which the work was actually published, and then add the convenience link to JSTOR where you read it & where people with access to it can read it also. Essentially everything in JSTOR was first in print, and has print as the version of record. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I was gesturing at the difference between Scholarly Publication, and mere utterances of a scholarly research unit. A better example would be that insta-peer review archive that physicists / mathematicians have established as an example of an online-only scholarly peer reviewed non-traditional mode. That's a scholarly publication. Fred's Maths Blog on Department of Foo at University of Bar isn't scholarly publication, even though Fred could well be a scholar, and his blog could be wonderfully scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fifelfoo! This is what I wanted. I misread you as saying that something published only on the Internet, and never in paper form, was unacceptable. This was a problem for me because, in my world, there are some medical publications that, while peer-reviewed, only publish certain material online. Plus, some of the data presentations (e.g., charts, graphs, etc.) are, in essence, presentations of primary material as they are mere statements of clinical results without analysis, the analysis being in the text. Thus, I (mis)took your position to be that in a wikiarticle of, for instance, a medical nature, a wikieditor would not be able to present the chart — because it is primary data — nor could s/he present the analysis of the data since it was never published in hardcopy form, notwithstanding its having been peer reviewed prior to its online publication. Thank you for straightening this out for me! —  SpikeToronto  04:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad we reached the same page about trees/bytes versus scholarly/non-scholarly modes of publishing. PRIMARY materials are no good for verification and they are unreliable sources. PRIMARY materials are good for illustration, and for humanising, or explaining reliable sources. Lets imagine three scenarios: Sue conducts research "On the horrible disease of Wikipedia editing" published in the peer reviewed scholarly journal with a high citation count (we're talking medical science here) "Journal of Encyclopedia related Medicine". Sue's journal article includes a chart, "Data on Wikipedia editing diseases". If you cite Sue's chart, you're reusing PRIMARY materials. If you cite Sue's findings that's great. If you cite Sue's findings, and illustrate them with the chart, that's great and better reading. Primary materials should not be cited for Verification purposes. Articles should not be written out of primary sources. Articles should be written out of secondary sources. Where Primary sources are appropriate they should be used to illustrate: much like graphics and photos illustrate but do not convey the basis of an article (generally, there's always an exception). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My statements in relation to SpikeToronto's involvement here

I perceive, very strongly SpikeTomato'sSpikeToronto's [no offence intended, the colour red must have triggered it 04:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)] question above to be a mischaracterisation of the issue, which he presented before I had an opportunity to respond. That's within acceptable behaviour, but a bit uncivil. More worrying is the fact that people expect low quality RS to be acceptable on Featured Articles. History as a discipline does not esteem textbooks, works published 60+ years ago (generally, some specific examples) due to disciplinary change. History as a discursive discipline constantly improves its analysis, and old works are like old science: built on poor premises and poor evidence when compared to that available today. This, "Baxter, I want to make sure this is clear, you are saying that in addition to the issue..." "So now you're adding point of view to the allegations..." is whipping up a dispute, rather than working towards consensus. I don't believe I can discuss this in good faith with you, as you've displayed an interest in extending the dispute rather than working towards consensus. (I still believe I can work with Baxter9 and Elen of the Roads regarding this; we may disagree but I feel confident in their attitude towards this incident being one of consensus building. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I am not interested in the article on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, per se. I truly hope it maintains its Featured Article status and that you and the other editors achieve consensus. My primary interest in this ANI is your interpretation — as stated in your edit summaries, on your user page, and here in your postings to this thread — regarding what sources are and are not acceptable. It appears to be a restatement, a rewriting, of the Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and customs regarding reliable sources. Thus, in addition to wanting the article to maintain its FA status and for a consensus amongst it editors to be achieved, I await a position from the Administrators on the verifiable references/citations issue since it has ramifications far beyond the article in question. If your interpretation of the reliable sources rules/guidelines is correct — and it may very well be — then it will have a dramatic impact on those of us who do recent changes patrol. That is why I think it is one of the most important matters raised at ANI recently. And, you should want this assessment from the Administrators too, Fifelfoo, since it will provide an extremely useful clarification vis-à-vis reliable sources with which we can all ensure compliance throughout Wikipedia. —  SpikeToronto  04:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the administrator's job to judge verifiability, reliability, or citations: they are, like so much else, a content dispute. See WP:RSN for sourcing disputes. For Primary sources, see WP:RS#Overview "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." For my general frustration with people using primary and tertiary sources to write articles, using edited collections of primary sources, using unacceptable material claimed as scholarship, failing to reference the major works of a field, and picking the eyes out of unscholarly utterances indexed by google scholar, books or search; and for the poor quality of articles resulting, see the frustrations arising in this dispute (though the other editor is not an example of the problem, as he is expanding a section of the article that has been omitted as the article was written synthetically from primaries). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Source quality requirements in Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria's 1c), which does not require a particularly hard headed conclusion to draw that for an academic topic "high-quality reliable sources" are works produced by academics in the mode of academic publication. This is a higher hurdle than non Featured articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where you get this from - being a featured article does *not* prevent the addition of non-academic references, *any* reliable source may be added. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

<quote> Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1)(c) well-researched: ...Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources</quote> I suppose you can add any old reliable source if you like. But claims can't be supported by any old reliable source, they can be supported only by a "high quality" reliable source. What do you think high quality reliable sources mean in relation to articles in academic disciplines? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You see, this is back to the barse ackward thing. The standard is that articles which ARE GOOD ENOUGH to be featured articles WILL contain high quality sources - not that ONCE an article is FA, other sources MAY NO LONGER be used. I think it would be helpful to clear up whether the consensus is that Fifelfoo is right in seeking to remove all content and sources which do not meet his criteria for scholarly sources (which does not I think make it into the requirement for FA, or constitute the only requirement for RS, although it is mentioned there). I see no reason to exclude for example university level teaching materials, which Fifelfoo specifically objects to, reliable news sources such as the BBC (which ditto), or well substantiated primary sources where they are not being used in a way which violates SYNTHESIS (ditto with a vengeance).Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"well substantiated primary sources where they are not being used in a way which violates SYNTHESIS" are not used to substantiate claims, see RS. University level teaching material in discourse based fields, ie, US style synthetic textbooks, are either source books which contain the occasional scholarly essay, the essay is generally citeable through its original scholarly publication, or primary which cannot substantiate claims per RS. The BBC is not a historian, and can't generate an acceptable high quality RS narrative because its not a historian. What do you call a feature article that is allowed to no longer meet featured article criteria? I think your attitude is ass backwards, using second rate narratives synthesised out of first year texts, primaries, and newspaper articles is a great way to produce original research which bears no relationship to the scholarly discourses that mark out the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This view would appear to prevent us ever having a featured article on (say) The Boston Redsox, JRR Tolkien or the Titanic, because I'm not aware of there being that many peer reviewed academic sources on any of these three topics (Shippey for Tolkien I suppose). I think you are taking WP:RS to an extreme where it was never intended to go. I appreciate this may not be the forum to discuss this, but would like to see further discussion on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My claim is strictly in relation to areas covered by Academic disciplines where the coverage is sufficiently dense. Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Zinc Marginalism are all adequately covered by a dense academic literature. In fact, the articles are the academic literature, there are no discourses worth making encyclopedia articles about on these topics outside of the academic discourse. Boston Redsox may be an example of a work who's coverage will be mostly popular. The Simpsons probably was worth covering from non-academic RS, but is probably going to shift in the next five to ten years to be best covered by academic sources. But say, Australian Cricket should have its core historical narrative formed out of academic sports history (which does exist of it), prior to going to books produced by ex-Cricketers. Some areas which may not have source density amongst academics might be fringe Marxist topics, such as Left Communism, or other similar "edges". But even then, there are a couple of good works on Left Communism from academia which can form the core structure, before retreating to second tier RSes for secondary claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem with this discussion as being polluted by Fifelfoos own interpretation of guidelines and text and these interpretations could be misrepresented as actual guidelines or practice to follow. For example take this sentence, which does not require a particularly hard headed conclusion to draw that for an academic topic "high-quality reliable sources" are works produced by academics in the mode of academic publication.. First off there is no such conclusion. Second the distinction between academic topics and what, "normal topics(?)" is entirely invented by Fifelfoo as far as the Farc is concerned. The featured article criteria knows no such categorization and mentions no widely different standards according to category. It would be absurd to have different standards of FA on different articles. At one point we should accept that Wikipedia went in one direction and Citizendum and other projects went another direction. Hobartimus (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate you retracting your characterisation of my interpretation and as pollutive and the negative implications regarding my character. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you're claiming I'm polluting this discussion because I am making an ambit claim in a free-rolling discussion where other editors have specifically asked me to advance an interesting view? Anyway, to address your substantive issues: If any topic can be sourced at the highest quality level, it should be sourced there first. Article composition should be dictated by the highest quality sources. Perhaps you're not familiar with the effect of OR in the humanities where people pick the eyes out of google scholar, finding unevidenced throw away lines in unrelated journals whose articles are published non-peer reviewed by non-specialists. Quite often these "reliable sources" are not only included (as they should be, if they form something more than a FRINGE in terms of density of writing, rather than critical opinion), but quite often they dominate articles where the body of scholarship suggests other conclusions entirely. Sourcing of topics should be dictated by the description of the topic in the highest quality sources, with secondary quality sources supplementing, but not driving the narrative of the article. Why does Feature Article Criteria draw a distinction between high-quality sources and other reliable sources? The article which started this debate, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, is currently under Featured Article Review. It has a deep over reliance on a UN report published in 1956, instead of relying on the large volume of scholarly accounts. Writing a historical narrative out of documents from the time is the production of a secondary source. Wikipedia is thankfully not a tertiary source written by erudite scholars on academically driven topics, but we can do better than being a secondary source written out of primaries. As I've been repeatedly saying, the poor quality of sourcing on Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and the fact that the most prolific English Language author in the field Bill Lomax is missing, has a deep impact on line-by-line verifiability, article focus, construction, and weight. This is because there are reliable sources, and "high quality" reliable sources, a specification listed in the Featured Article criteria, but left up to individual editors to implement. The standard for high quality in the disciplinary practice of history, and in most academic fields is relatively clear and transparent. Much as an article should not be written out of primary sources, and then be salted with google search eye-picked secondaries, articles which have a scholarly literature and debate should not be written out of poor, short, unreviewed popular works, and then salted with google scholar eye-picked high quality reliable sources. The reason this should not be the practice, is that lower quality reliable sources misweight, fail to engage in quality work, misquote, misemphasise, overstate, understate, and often provide an article framework that bears no relationship to the broader literature. The should indicates I'm stating an ambition, not a policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Similar problem

I've never run into Baxter before, and only recently run into Fifelfoo at the renamed Communist genocide page. Fidelfoo has a tremendous problem with tendentious editing, trying to dominate the article by coming up with frivolous citation and RS rules.

I've found myself in an embarrassing situation there - he's been reverting my footnote formating - and in frustration I've reverted his footnote formatting reversions twice. We also have differences on substantive matters where there were also reversions. In short, I estimate he has 6 reversions in 16 hours just on Communist genocide, and I've had 4 reversions in the same period. This is obviously a problem for both of us. All this while this ANI is going on. It's pretty obvious that Fidelfoo needs to do a bit of self-evaluation. Smallbones (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You might have a typo there, the third letter in my username is an f (though an amusing typo!)

I have a problem with people added "sources" so poor, or so poorly cited, that they are unverifiable. Verifiability is the quality of the citation provided.

Smallbones is editing outside of a hard won consensus at Communist Genocide, and not engaging in any of the attempts to improve their contributions (tagging and in article commentary, reference to talk page and built consensus). For the consensus: Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#A summary of the consensus editorial direction, and warning about content lying outside of that consensus. For Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Early theories para attempts to discuss before reverting (before even thinking of reverting content under the consensus. For Smallbones problematic edit Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Dewey, Koestler, Conquest. Smallbone's edit is the first paragraph in the (only) section of a heatedly contested article that directly discusses the article topic. Repeated AfDs and reviews have called for the article to address its topic out of a discourse in scholarly literature. Smallbones has been asked repeatedly to substantiate that the sources they use are academic, involved in the scholarly debate of, specifically: general, universal, or cross-cultural causes for mass killings in multiple communist states. Sadly, they've not expanded or contextualised their edit to do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Smallbones' characterisation of the "troubles" he has encountered with sourcing on Mass killings under Communist regimes, and concur with Fifelfoo's. I do think Fifelfoo is quite strict with sourcing, but that may not be a bad thing, and has little to do with the mass killings page, where dodgy sourcing and POV has been a real problem.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My questions and remarks

After quick reading the comments my questions and remarks are:

1) Is it true that if I use the "most commonly used form" of {{cn}} instead of full than my work is "inadequately sourced", "so poorly cited, that they are unverifiable" "I have a problem with people added "sources" so poor, or so poorly cited, that they are unverifiable" "but unfortunately failed to provide a full academic citation" or it downgrades the reference ("Your reference wasn't quality.") "incorrect citation, makes reference non RS" so it can be removed? "Incorrect" citation really makes a reference non-RS? Where can I find this rule? At WP:RS?

2) "hasn't gone through an academic press"? A reliable source MUST BE from academic press or academic?

3)If a book has a chronology section, or written in this style (note, that my reference is NOT a chronology) for example (from a reliable sorce's chronology list "Albert Einstein was born and died (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) Means I can not use this book as a reliable source or reference because the information is from a chronology secttion or the book was written in that style? Where can I find this rule?

4) If the source is reliable written by scholars,"but they aren't a scholarly publishing house" it is unacceptable and it can be removed?

5)"Baxter9's citation was not verifiable as it did not allow other Wikipedians to find the material Baxter9 was citing: "Ferenc Glatz, MTA; Kornélia Burucs, Zsuzsa Frisnyák, Éva Kovács, János Pótó. A magyarok krónikája. [where]: Magyar Könyvklub. p. 690. ISBN 9632270703." is still not a verifiable citation" It is the mots commonly used form of {{cn}}. If I use this, than my source becomes non verifiable? Where can I find this rule? At WP:RS or at Template:Cite book?

6)"The provided citation...isn't a specialist work as a whole on 1956" This source is peer reviewed, written by historians (like Ferenc Glatz, Hungarian Academy of Sciences). So my source is non reliable? I cant use it? Where can I find this rule? At WP:RS?

7)From Wikipedia:Featured article criteria "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations...1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes () or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)" Again: 1. and 2.

8)"primary source like Békés and others The 1956 Revolution: a history in documents (2002) [indicated above by Baxter9], is unacceptable". Why is this a primary source and unacceptable? It was wrote in 2002 and the fact that it uses documents doesnt mean that it doesnt "may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" and researches made in the XXI century. It should be re-added. Actually it is a secondary source. From WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source" "* Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, (in this case contemporary documents) often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5] Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source."

9) "if not being TERTIARY which is again inappropriate for an encyclopedia" From WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."

10) "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

11)"You see, this is back to the barse ackward thing. The standard is that articles which ARE GOOD ENOUGH to be featured articles WILL contain high quality sources - not that ONCE an article is FA, other sources MAY NO LONGER be used. I think it would be helpful to clear up whether the consensus is that Fifelfoo is right in seeking to remove all content and sources which do not meet his criteria for scholarly sources (which does not I think make it into the requirement for FA, or constitute the only requirement for RS, although it is mentioned there). I see no reason to exclude for example university level teaching materials, which Fifelfoo specifically objects to, reliable news sources such as the BBC (which ditto), or well substantiated primary sources where they are not being used in a way which violates SYNTHESIS (ditto with a vengeance)" Totally agree.

12) "I see the problem with this discussion as being polluted by Fifelfoos own interpretation of guidelines and text and these interpretations could be misrepresented as actual guidelines or practice to follow. For example take this sentence, which does not require a particularly hard headed conclusion to draw that for an academic topic "high-quality reliable sources" are works produced by academics in the mode of academic publication.. First off there is no such conclusion. Second the distinction between academic topics and what, "normal topics(?)" is entirely invented by Fifelfoo as far as the Farc is concerned. The featured article criteria knows no such categorization and mentions no widely different standards according to category. It would be absurd to have different standards of FA on different articles. At one point we should accept that Wikipedia went in one direction and Citizendum and other projects went another direction." Totally agree.

13) COI: It looks like I am not the only one here.

14) Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1)(c) well-researched: ...Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources</quote> "I suppose you can add any old reliable source if you like...But claims can't be supported by any old reliable source" "being a featured article does *not* prevent the addition of non-academic references, *any* reliable source may be added." So what kind of sources can be used at featured articles? Is "But claims can't be supported by any old reliable source" correct?

The same source problems at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive2

• Decline concern at the slab quotes (if it makes me feel TL;DR, and is more than a screen length, its a concern). Paraphrase in prose while cutting length, only use the most pertinent and telling sections of the letters as quotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

References are in unacceptable format; locations are missing for almost all works. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete might be a more accurate word. Locns added. –Moondyne 05:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With a history article, an incomplete reference is an unacceptable reference. Its somewhat like noting the margin of error, statistical correlation, or other basic academic structure of disciplinary acceptability. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement in the FA criteria for locations to be listed for references. While it's always nice to have locations, it is not a requirement for FA. Opposing an article solely for that lack is unactionable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you link and quote that? Location is an essential element of source verification, particularly where publishing houses publish UK and US editions in the same year under the same house, which may have different paginations, and demanded by most style guides in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Given that this is a Sports History / Social History FAC, and the standards of history are highly demanding as regards quality citations, including location. Location is also remarkably easy to fix, easier than fixing missing or incorrect alts. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that neither WP:V nor WP:CITE make any requirement that any citation system is required. Note at the top of WP:CITE, that the example given is lacking a location. You'll also note that the FA criteria don't prescribe any particular citation style, so editors are free to chose a style they are comfortable with, as long as its consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

or here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1 "incorrect citation, makes reference non RS, makes reference unverifiable. As a Tertiary source articles must be named and signed by an author, "Tucker, Spencer E.; Roberts, Priscilla Mary; Greene, et. al., Jack (2005). World War II: A Student Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1851098577. OCLC 57311334." // ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), p. 995 ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), p. 613 ^ Tucker, Roberts, et. al. (2005), pp. 846–847. If this Encyclopedia isn't a scholarly encyclopedia, I hope they've cited their secondary sources so you can locate them." or here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/George F. Kennan/archive1 "Sourcing question Is this "Gaddis, John Lewis (1990), Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United States: An Interpretive History (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw Hill, ISBN 0075572583." a text book? Its heavily relied upon and has a title and publisher that make me suspect it is. Amazon and Google Books provide no help. Amazon's citation service reduces my confidence further. This is a question going to over reliance, source quality, and the potential of finding a "better" source. It shouldn't roll the article back. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that textbooks are of a lower caste? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! "--B@xter⁹ 03:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Baxter9. You'll want to fix the quote of YellowMonkey, as it appears as though he's signing something here, when you're quoting him from off page.

1) Verifiability. Failure to provide full citation information means the claim cannot be verified: Author, Title, Title of work contained in, Editor of work contained in, Edition, Series, Number, Issue, Location, Publisher, Year, Pages of the work, Page cited in the work. This is not an exhaustive list, but you need to fully explain Authorial identity (many of your additions have conflated editors with authors, the authors of chapters with the author of a book), Title, Containing text and its provenance, Utterance details (Location, Publisher, Year), pages of the work referenced within the larger work, pages specifically connected to cite.

2) Reliability is a sliding scale. FAs have a concept of "High quality" reliable sources. From WP:RS you can see that the list of items are organised from most to least reliable. The most reliable sources are academically published. When claiming that a source makes a statement in relation to an academic discipline, there is an expectation that academically published sources will take priority. When a source is an utterance of a group of Academics, the question is: why did they utter in a non-academic manner.

3) Chronologies are incredibly problematic works, compiled generally by non-specialists, when they are compiled they omit large features of the causal demands of the discipline of history and substitute linear progress. Making a claim about a death date from a chronology is a reasonable use. Making a claim about a complex situation, such as the defence of Budapest 4-10 November from a chronology is not sustainable. Chronologies do not have the causal, purposive and interpretive argumentation to back them up.

4) Yes. Scholars have more than enough opportunity to publish in scholarly presses. Scholars emitting utterances claiming to be academic not in the scholarly publishing mode are instantly suspect, and should be engaged in close detail. When they're online, in Hungarian, no translation is provided, and IRH has a vast opportunity to put out books, it becomes immediately suspicious that they are publishing in a non-scholarly mode because the work does not meet the standards of scholarly publication. (Evaluating such a suspicion requires, guess what, full citations, and access to the material in a language other editors can read.)

5) The Hungarian Chronicle as you cited it: lacks a year, lacks a location. Originally you claimed a corporate author and five coauthors. For a 700ish page book. Do you know how suspicious this is? I have searched the web for a TOC listing, but there isn't one available. I strongly suspect this is an edited collection, with Glatz as the lead editor, and the other editors editing chapters. Your citation should then be [Chapter author], "Chapter title" [translation of chapter title into english] in A magyarok krónikája [The Hungarian Chronicle], (Place: Magyar Könyvlkub, year): [chapter-pages]; [cited pages from chapter]. You can use a different citation style but that content is required for verification. Some editors omit place. Omitting the other elements would make your citation Unverifiable.

6) You should be citing IRH's "Hungary 1956" or, IRH's "Defence of the Corvin Alley" or, a work specific to Hungary 1956. The Hungarian Chronicle is a survey history, a history of the entire nation. Its lack of specialisation makes it a less desirable source (even though it is still "high-quality"). Using the best possible source is the best possible response. In the discipline of history that means a work as specifically focused on the Article Topic as possible, or on a subsection, for instance, the November 4-10 defence of Budapest. I admit that I had become snippy when I accidentally reverted the Academy of Sciences' Hungarian Chronicle. I am again sorry for that, and the removal of the Hungarian Chronicle in that edit was accidental, I was intending to remove either the Békés source or the IRH website.

7) "High quality". What does High quality mean in a history article? Does it mean websites not published external to an institute in a non-academic publishing mode? Does it mean inadequately cited chapters in a national survey history? Does it mean randomly quoting a source book?

8) Békés. Its a primary source because the title is "a history in documents" and you didn't specify you were quoting an introduction or a contained scholarly essay. Documentary source books are compilations of primary sources. If you had bothered to list a chapter title, and were citing an essay rather than a primary source, then you wouldn't have been reverted. This is why full citations, not using some template, but actually including the required information to locate and verify the actual quoted section of a source is essential. A primary source contained in a sourcebook is still a primary source. A primary source contained inside a scholarly monograph as a slab quote, appendix, picture plate, or reading is a primary source. Primary sources cannot substantiate claims. In the discipline of history, asserting a fact about past occurances is a claim requiring verification. Primary sources in history are useful to colour and to illustrate, like the use of photographs, maps, and multimedia content.

9) Read Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History which very clearly discusses what kind of tertiary sources are appropriate: signed encyclopedia articles by academic specialists. Its kind of like eating "named meat".

10) Yes, exactly, this is why I reverted your citation of Békés.

11-12) No comment required.

13) Wikipedia is not HUAC. For the COI information, please see Talk:Libertarianism, where an editor who is upset that scholarly peer reviewed reliable sources disagree with her personal vision of an article made suggestions I have encouraged her to retract.

14) Exactly. WP:FAC changes the rules of the game. For Start-A class either project or general requirements, which demand reliable sources, rule. Of course, I would argue that high-quality sources should be used, and that articles should be built out of the debate in mainstream scholarly sources (ie: the best secondary sources). At Feature Article status the rules change. Suddenly claims cannot be substantiated by reliable sources (read the FAC at 1c, its rather clear). Only "high-quality" reliable sources can substantiate claims. In a field with a wide ranging academic secondary literature, which is on an academic subject, the meaning of "high-quality" is clear: scholarly output published in the scholarly mode.

14) kind of bleeds on into other issues. But note how I'm criticising "A Student Encyclopedia", ie a tertiary according to WP:RS/examples; and how I'm questioning the Kennan text book (further replies at Kennan's reviews may be illustrative, Kennan, due to its full citation is more clearly only questionable rather than being obviously anything.

thanks for your points Baxter9. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Remark

I’ve known Fifelfoo’s edits for 4 years. Despite his offbeat politics and sometimes bawdy style, I still respect his being open to discussion, and approachable with logical argument. Constructive editors with a unique perspective give a robust dialectic and a stronger encyclopedia. However, Fifelfoo’s recent exponentially increased activity [200] and seeming disregard for convention and procedure strike me as disruptive and very much out of character. I wonder if this is the same person.

Specifically, Fifelfoo is knowingly [201] (“The should indicates I'm stating an ambition, not a policy” - last line) applying a unique, personal set of sourcing criteria, (incl. interpretation of WP:RS), to existing articles. It does us no good to evaluate the (de)merits of those personal criteria ad infinitum on this page, because in the end, these are Fifelfoo’s criteria, not Wikipedia’s.

Instead, Fifelfoo is well advised firstly to advocate the merits of his personal interpretations and criteria at WP:RS before applying them to Wikipedia articles.István (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the exponential increase in editing activity is troubling, as is his new personal policy on Reliable Sources. This ANI section isn't needed anymore. If there is a question on the real WP:RS, it can be taken to WP:RSN. If there is a problem with multiple reversions, he's been warned here (twice) and on his user page, so it can be taken directly to WP:ANEW. Smallbones (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to think on this. Thanks Istvan.

But extensively reading policy before beginning the editing indicated, is that RS is so vague as to lack any meaning for a specific topic area: to ideosyncratically characterise the point there is effectively no RS policy outside of "Publication date: fine". RSN is a non-policy generating space. The RS/ subpage for applying RS is pretty poor. Any attempt to bring articles to the FAC, which now requests "high quality" RS (an undefined term) falls back on personal interpretation. And I tend to back away from 3RR edit warring, though I can see how my engagement can be seen to fall under Edit warring. sigh. I really didn't want to clarify and develop policy. It looks like I'll have to.

More importantly, Ill take on board Istvan's comments about my behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

After extensive digging through the RS sub page essay on history, the guidelines were created in 2006, and have been unrevised since then (despite the page starting with a request for revision). The History wikiproject points clearly at: Wikipedia:MILMOS#SOURCES for its sourcing criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:CobraBot

Resolved

 – No administrator action is required here, so please direct further comments to the VPP thread to keep everything in one place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: please try to keep discussion about whether this task is appropriate or not in one place - the VPP thread. Let's keep this area for discussing whether a block is appropriate or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This bot has been adding inappropriate links to Template:Infobox book in articles about books, specifically adding OCLC links to articles that already have ISBNs. These links are redundant, as the OCLC links to Worldcat, which is already one of the options given by the ISBN link via book sources, which gives the reader a choice of where to locate a book. The documentation for Template:Infobox book says "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN", whereas this bot is specifically designed to add an OCLC when there is an ISBN. The approval process for this bot didn't have any discussion about whether it conforms to policy and guidelines. For a full discussion please refer to yesterday's conversation between User:Gavin.collins and the bot operator here (which the bot operator deleted without the issue being resolved) and the further conversation between the bot operator and myself today. User:CobraBot has refused to stop the bot's operations on the basis of these requests, so I would request that the bot be blocked pending a proper discussion of whether its actions are desirable, as did not take place before it was approved. I'm not sure about where this further discussion should take place, as the bot approval pages seem to have very low traffic, so would like some advice from readers of this page as to where this should happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I this this is a serious issue because of the huge scale of the linkspamming. I have raised this issue both with Cybercobra and I am disappointed that he has not responded to my concerns. I have also raised this issue at Village Pump, as I am doubtful about the benefit (if any) from using Worldcat as a cataloguing tool. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness: my most recent response to Gavin. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also note that as of slightly before the start of this thread the bot was stopped for unrelated reasons. Upon notification of this thread, the bot was marked inactive (see [202], [203]) --Cybercobra (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Cybercobra commented that the bot was being suspended "pending an WP:ANI thread"[204]. If that was changed to "pending a much wider consensus that this is an appropriate task for a bot than the one person who approved it" I would be willing to close the discussion here, because it would not need administrator action such as blocking. I think that there's a much wider issue at stake here about the fact that one editor can put up a bot for approval, and it can get passed by one other editor because it works, without any consideration as to whether there is any consensus about whether the bot's actions are acceptable. At least if we are going to allow that to happen we should have an understanding that a bot operator should suspend a bot, pending discussion, in response to a good faith request by an established editor. WP:BRD is a well-known adage, but, when a bot is doing lots of bold edits it's impossible for a human to maintain the same pace to revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Bot Owners Noticeboard which is usually monitored by a large constuim of bot owners as well as members of the Bot Approval Group might be a better starting location for this discussion since the bot would of had to been of approved for this task before it was ran. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to repeat more widely something I already mentioned to Phil, the Bot Policy suggests Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval as a possible venue for discussion regarding the bot task. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think BAG can be of help, because I don't think WP:BAG operate provide any form of governance over bot activities; there is an oversight issue that now needs to be resolved here, as the bot's behaviour is controlled by an individual editor, Cybercobra. He may have obtained clearance to create all these direct links to to Worldcat from BAG, but it appears that the issue of linkspamming was not either not considered or understood by BAG in this case. Cyberbot may have created hundreds of links in good faith, but the current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation to use a specific external source to expand an article are inappropriate. There is no hard rule on when this crosses over from being a legitimate attempt to improve the article into being internal spam, but I think the mistake lies in linking directly to the Woldcat site, even if it is well intentioned.
I propose that not only should linking to the Worldcat website cease, but that it should also be rolled back by removing all of the links that have been created to date. I am not saying that the Worldcat number should not be used or added to articles (if that is of any benefit?); rather I am proposing that the hundreds of direct links to their site be removed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'll quote a relevant earlier comment I made: Alternative ways of "fixing" the problem {of supposed/possible linkspam} would be to: (a) disable the OCLC field {of the book infobox} from generating a link [possibly with an exception if no ISBN is provided] (b) disable the OCLC field from displaying at all if an ISBN is provided [thus making it silent metadata].

WRT the |oclc= parameter, I think any consensus on the proper usage of it is/was either nonexistent or quite poorly documented to say the least when I filed the BRFA. Therein (that is, on the proper usage of said parameter) is certainly a policy discussion worth having. As is the issue of if / under what circumstances the infobox should hyperlink the oclc parameter. And such discussions would certainly have bearing on the bot itself as its current task consists of interacting with instances of the infobox, and specifically said parameter thereof.

Therefore, may I put forth a proposal to end the wikidrama:

1. Whereas, Cybercobra shall request the BAG withdraw/revoke authorization for CobraBot's current bot task.
2. Whereas, all 3 parties shall jointly start and foster a general (by which it is meant, involving more than just the 3 parties) discussion or pair/series of related discussions on the topics of:
   1. guidelines regarding when the oclc parameter should or should not be filled in
   2. whether or under what circumstances the book infobox should cause the oclc parameter to generate a hyperlink.
3. Whereas, the details of where to hold and advertise said discussions shall be worked out betwixt the 3 parties in an amicable and not unnecessarily delayed discussion, on a different forum than this (ANI), to be held immediately following the entrance into force of this gentlemen's agreement.
4. Whereas, to avoid any further disputes, said discussions (excepting the one in #3) shall be not be closed by any of the 3 parties themselves.
5. Whereas, any similar (here meaning that its direct or indirect result is to add external links) future bot task undertaken by Cybercobra and CobraBot shall require a fresh BRFA, of which the other 2 parties shall be specifically notified, and any such task shall comply with the consensus(es) reached at the discussion(s) outlined in the following clauses, and no BFRA shall be filed for such a task until said discussions have concluded.
6. Whereas CobraBot's contribs are left intact, under the logic that modifying the book infobox template itself through said discussion(s) is a much easier, less labor and server-intensive way to centrally de-link OCLC#s if such is decided;
7. Whereas, this ANI thread is deemed closed and the 3 parties go back to productive editing, modulo participation in aforementioned discussion(s).

This proposal is merely a draft and is negotiable. Feedback/questions/reactions? I can elucidate the technological bits of point #6 in particular if there are any concerns. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And what about my proposal? It seems to me the only way to get rid of the linkspam you have created. No one asked you to create linkspam in the first place, so if seems to by you who should be responsible for making amends. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cybercobra bot does not add links to the WorldCat site. It simply populates |oclc= in the {{Infobox Book}}. Any linking is performed automatically by {{Infobox Book}}. Therefore, all links could be removed simply by changing {{Infobox Book}}. Also, the appropriate place for any complaints about the links is on the Template's Talk page. That is also the appropriate place for a discussion on how and when the |oclc= parameter should be used. HairyWombat (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, it is not the template's fault, nor the bot's fault that all of these links have been created. Cybercobra gas created these links and is responsible - the buck stops with him. If one or more of his proposals can achieve what I have requested, then all well and good. But if they can't, then my proposal still stands. In either case, we still need Cybercobra to effect a remedy. As editors, we are responible for own actions, and blaming other editors templates does not absolve us from this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

HairyWombat completely encapsulated my position and what I've been saying all along; your complaint is more overarching that just the bot; this is plainly obvious looking at your proposal, which has much farther implications than just CobraBot: "I propose that [...] linking to the Worldcat website cease [and that such linking] should also be rolled back by removing all of the links that have been created to date" (emphasis mine). Your complaint is that the infobox even has an OCLC# field in the first place and/or that it hyperlinks that field; logically, one would reason that you would still have complained somewhere regardless of how the fields came to be populated. Well, I'm not Czar of infobox book and I was not the one who way-back-when added that field to the template in the first place, nor was I the one who changed the infobox to generate hyperlinks when the OCLC field is populated. It's just that my bot, in good faith, with BRFA-approval, mass-adding data to the infoboxes, brought the fact that the infobox has and links the OCLC parameter to your attention. Your concerns about the infobox are valid ones, but not directly relevant to the bot, whose "linkspam", can, as HairyWombat explained, be entirely and centrally undone with just one edit to the infobox. Or if the field is not removed, but instead new guidance about its use is added, my bot would be obligated to comply with said guidance. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I really don't see the issue here. The bot is adding valid information to the infoboxes. Nothing wrong there. The issue seems to be with the infobox itself, and as has been noted multiple times, every single external link is eliminated via a single edit to the template. This is a simple content dispute, and should be discussed at the talk page for the template, or at the current village pump discussion. If consensus is to remove the OCLC field, then remove it, problem solved. Resolute 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I hear the argument about the infobox, but this is not relevant to discussion here - I am soley interested in the problem of linkspam created by Cybercobra. An analogy to this situation would be Flyposting, whereby the flyposter uses existing billboards as a platform unauthorised advertising posters. This is not dispute about the billboard per se (in this case the info template), as there is probably nothing wrong with it. The issue under discussion is whether or not the links created by his bot constitute linkspam (Cybercobra is silent on this issue), and whether or not any should be responsible for cleaning it up. You know my view on this, so what say you, Cybercobra: are the links to Worldcat linkspam or not? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with the template, as it is perfectly valid to have an OCLC link when there is no ISBN available. My problem is with this bot adding an OCLC when there is an ISBN, which is redundant - the ISBN link already allows the reader to choose to go to its Worldcat entry as well as to many other sites, so there is no need to add an extra link to Worldcat. Just because a parameter exists in a template and is valid in some cases it doesn't mean that it is valid in all cases, and this bot adds it in precisely those cases where it is invalid. The documentation for {{Infobox book}} says "use OCLC when the book has no ISBN". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to ThaddeusB, I disagree that no administrator action is required to stop linkspam in this case. I think it is your & Cyberbobra's duty to bring a halt to linkspam as soon as it has been brought to your attention, and I feel in this instance you have fallen short of your responsibility to do so. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any support for a block, which is the only admin action even remotely in play. You strongly disagree with the use of the parameter, which is fine. However, the correct action is to either get consensus to change the way the parameter works, or to get consensus that a bot shouldn't add the parameter. Those are both editorial decisions, not administrator ones, and the discussion about the issue is already taking place elsewhere. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert in template coding, but you could probably, very easily I imagine, set a parameter that hides the OCLC field if the ISBN parameter is used. This is hardly linkspam, no matter how many times you attempt to pass it off as such. Resolute 17:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not resolved. This bot's edits are subverting the WP:BRD processes, by making bold edits that no human editor can be expected to keep up with and revert. The bot has continued to do this despite this assurance, and despite no consensus having been reached about whether it is appropriate to have two separate links to Worldcat in articles about books. Also, as the originator of this thread, I reiterate that my problem (as opposed to is Gavin Collins's, who does not speak for me) is not with the existence of the OCLC parameter in {{infobox book}}, or the fact that it creates a link to Worldcat, which is perfectly valid when there is no ISBN, but with the addition by this bot of a redundant link to Worldcat when the ISBN link already links to Worldcat. The bot owner has refused to stop its operation pending consensus on this issue so the account needs to be blocked until consensus is reached. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The ANI issue (or rather lack there of) IS resolved as there is no administrator action necessary. Are you seriously suggesting that an admin block the bot? (Edit: I see now the answer to this is yes) If not, then it is far more productive to have the discussion in only one place (and from what I see on VPP there isn't even any consensus it is a bad idea, not alone consensus to "stop it now"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did stop operation...Until 2 different admins here saw no problem and one closed the thread. As has been said, the edits can be "reverted" by humans by modifying the infobox in a relatively simple way; The infobox's guidance on the use of the OCLC parameter could also be changed. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In what relatively simple way? I have no knowledge of template syntax, and do not wish to remove the capability to include an OCLC link where no ISBN link is present. There's nothing at all simple about what I would have to do to revert these edits, but it would be extremely simple for User:Cybercobra (by stopping the bot) or an administrator (by blocking the bot account) to prevent any more of these edits from happening until a consensus is reached. An administrator deciding to close this thread doesn't mean that there is consensus that your bot should continue to add redundant links, and the fact that you have started doing so again means that you need to be blocked, as you are clearly incapable of seeing that there is no consensus in favour of these edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely why the discussion should be only in one place... As I already stated on the VPP thread, the functionality of the template can easily be changed if there is consensus for that. I even volunteered to do it myself.

Again, the bot is doing nothing wrong based on current policy and was approved to do exactly what it is doing. There is nothing blockable here, and crossing out "resolved" won't change that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not familiar with the fancier bits of template syntax, but something roughly like {{#if | {{isbn}} | {{oclc}} | [http://worldcat.org/oclc/{{oclc}} {{oclc}}]}}. Speaking as a programmer, someone familiar with templates could bang a simple version of it out in 3 minutes; 7 minutes to handle the corner cases (e.g. "N/A" or "None" or "No" as the ISBN). And again, the bot adds data, not links directly, and I hardly think adding data is controversial. I'm telling you guys, it would be much more fruitful and productive to start a discussion about changing the infobox book template, either on its talk or at the Pump. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyberbot may be working with the template, but by adding an OCLC number, it is sill creating links to the Worldcat site which is linkspam, pure and simple, because a link has been created which "explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article". First things first: Acknowledge we have a linkspam problem, and stop the bot in the first instance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, please stop characterizing this as linkspam. The bot, as has been explained you to many times, is not adding links, just data. The template takes that data and makes links -- therefore, the template's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss whether it should be linking the OCLC number. Not here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I characterise the link to Worldcat as linkspam, as it meets the defintion precisely - no one has said why it is not so. I also understand the distinction you are trying to make between the configuration of the template and adding of data, but the result is still linkspam. If I load bullets into a gun and pull the trigger, should I be blaimless for death or injury on account of the fact that I did not manufacture the gun, or configure it to fire the bullets? Sure, the template plays a part, but in this instance it is Cybercobra that is the prime mover. The bot has to stop until the admins clean up the template (as it is write-protected). If the template can't be reconfigured, then Cyberbots edits need to be rolled back. In the extremely unlikely event that Cybercobra is unwilling to comply, then a block needs to be effected. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how an OCLC page, which contains little more than basic bibliographic data, some external links to find the book at a library or buy it, and some transcluded user-submitted reviews, could reasonably be used to expand an article in any nontrivial way; the links generated by the infobox are not "source solicitations" as defined in WP:LINKSPAM. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"If the template can't be reconfigured" -- You haven't made any good-faith attempt whatsoever to even try and ask an admin to reconfigure it! You have not made a single posting to the template's talkpage. Why you think mass-reverting 11K edits (which added data of debateable but non-zero value) would be easier than 1 template edit is completely beyond me. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, one more call for Cybercobra or the bot to be blocked for linkspam when they're doing no such thing, and you'll be the one blocked for disruption. Got it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he is, abeit with good intensions, but if he was doing so deliberately then it would be a different case. If a direct weblink to a book cataloguing service is not a form of "source solicitation", then I don't know what is. If linkspam is not a problem for you, then all well and good. But when it gets up to 3 or 4 links to different cataloguing services for every article about a book being added by bots, you will see the light. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Except we're not near that point yet and no one is suggesting anything like that be done. From reading the VPP thread, the closest thing was a stale discussion on the template talk about adding an LCCN field to the infobox. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for continuing attacks on other editors for distinguishing between adding links and filling in template parameters. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors are responsible for the results of their edits, whether they enter the text directly or do it via templates. How is it a blockable offence to point out that fact? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, would it be appropriate to close this thread with {{discussion top}} and its sibling, and a pointer to the Pump thread? I've understood the (not illegitimate) concerns raised since the start of the dispute, listed (repeatedly) several ways the aggrieved users could properly (not to mention more efficiently and with less drama) deal with this (e.g. BRFA appeal, editing the infobox template or its usage instructions) and put forth a quite reasonable good-faith proposal for compromise (see somewhere way above). Not to mention 3 different admins finding no ANI-relevant aspect to the dispute. This is quite tiresome and edging towards harassment. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All I have asked for since starting this thread was that the bot should stop running until a consensus has been reached as to whether it is appropriate to automatically add an OCLC link to an article about a book where there is already an ISBN, and nobody has yet shown where such a consensus has been reached, meaning that the bot is running in violation of bot policy, which says "in order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... performs only tasks for which there is consensus". Is it too much to ask that admins should respond to issues raised here by implementing policy rather than by blocking users who raise legitimate concerns? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Now he's trying to divert attention from himself by claiming I blocked him for commenting on my admin review. Lovely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look for possible ownership issues

Could someone please take a look at Smiley face murders and it's talkpage for possible WP:OWNership issues. Several editors have tried for months to make some sort of edit to improve the article but have been shouted down repeatedly. The most recent talkpage contributions are really glaring with potential ownership issues making statements like "you won't be able to edit the article until you actually work something out with others" while being the only contributing editor resisting a change. They have impugned living people by casting aspersions on their motivations with no proof whatsoever and no indication that the impugned were even involved with editing the article. They have refused compromise after compromise all the while suggesting we were repeating ourselves over and over again. They have tried to push back and accuse me of Ownership as well but I simply want any edit to be made that contributes to the article, I've offered compromises that didn't include the "subject of objection" only to have the argument move to suggesting that the Larry King show was not a reliable source (again, despite any actual proof of this). Could someone please provide some enforceable direction on this article, one way or the other? Thank you. Padillah (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I wouldn't call the Larry King show a reliable source myself, except in a primary sense (Joe Blow appeared on the Larry King show and said "Foo" - in which case I'd want to be able to reference a transcript or video clip). Just a small point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact that is exactly the manner in which it was presented. Transcript citation and all. Padillah (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I take it back. It's a perfectly reasonable source. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether a source is reasonable or not does not in itself mean that including it passes other concerns... and the ones here are WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Even if you let a infotainment talk show slide and call it reliable, it in no way means that we should include anything anyone says on it if it means that the end result is giving more weight to the fringe/extreme minority view on a topic. This is an attempt to use a Wikipedia article to not just describe a theory and give the experts views on it, but to go through and dig up every minor person who supported it in an attempt to fill the article with these individuals and slant readers' perceptions. Whether the editors in question know they are doing that or are just to stubborn to realize it is another question, but some of the comments on the talk page show that editors want to ignore WP:NPOV entirely. They argue that, hey, if Gallileo was right even though the people at the time didn't think so (a bad argument to start with), we should therefore go ahead and present the minority side as a major side just in case they were right. On top of that, this particular article has been hit by people promoting their own personal websites witht heir own fringe theories and have used sockpuppets. It's a hot bed a raving woowoo lunacy, which is why following NPOV to the letter is so important. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Errr....it's a fringe theory, and the article is about the fringe theory. The article needs to explain the fringe theory, even if it also states that the regular policedudes all think its a crap theory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the problem editor here appears to be DreamGuy. Seeing as he's there on the talk page lecturing BWilkins on his failure to understand policy (which must be a bit like lecturing the Pope on the workings of the Holy See), I'm not sure this requires action by the admins. If the rest of you have agreed, make the changes. Consensus doesn't mean everyone has to agree. (This comment posted by Elen about an hour ago Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Oh, for crying out loud... No, to clarify, a number of of editors have agreed that the changes cannot be made because they violate our rules on WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. But the people who want to push the POV simply ignore those editors and just start up new sections on the talk page pretending that earlier discussions never happened and then, when I am the only person who bothers to respond (the others thinking it shouldn't be necessary to repeat themselves), these guys try to act as if it's only a single editor opposing the idea. That's so misleading as to almost have to be intentionally deceptive, and you seem to have fallen for it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that he has made it abundantly clear that any change he does not agree with will be reverted as violating WP:UNDUE. We have made the change... we have made the compromise change... He reverts them no questions asked. We have posted possible changes on the talkpage and had no input from him for a day, then we put the change in the article and he reverts it within hours. I suppose the three of us could gang up on him and get him blocked for 3RR but that's not nice, so I brought it here. Padillah (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, you have made it clear that you are going to ignore all the editors who disagree with you and very deceptively pretend it's only one person. All this despite there having been a number of editors who disagreed with you and have explained why Wikipedia's policies don't support what you insist has to be done. You have never tried for any compromise other than saying you are compromise and suggesting as a compromise the very thing you wanted to do from the beginning. Frankly, your actions here suggest that you are intentionally trying to mislead admins about what's been going on in order to try to get one to take action against me based upon your false claims. This kind of behavior is an extremely disruptive attempt to game the system, and it seems to me it should be a blockable offense if you are caught doing it again. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not, you are making clear that you are going to ignore the majority of editors that don't agree with you. Why do you get to ignore me, AngryApathy, Cla86, Simonm223, and Bwilkins but insist I'm being unreasonable when I disagree with you, Richard, 2/0, and Croatalus? You disagreeing with 5 people is more stable than my disagreeing with 4? Why? As for misleading anyone I'm not the one that pointed anyone out. I mentioned the page and suggested that someone was displaying ownership problems. Somehow they thought of you all by themselves. I have led no one so by extension have misled no one. Padillah (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that certain editors have learned that when they have a POV they want advanced but can't get consensus to support them that they can just run off to ANI and present an extremely misleading summary of events to try to deceive people and then a handful of people chime in based solely upon this misleading information.

I should also note that the editor in question never notified me of this ANI thread and posted it here under a nondescriptive section title and so was able to come here and give his extremely misleading claims unopposed until someone else alerted me to it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The only POV that the article needs to better represent the theory or simply be deleted as too fringe. Just because two cops have a theory doesn't mean we need a WP article about it. Notability aside, mentioning it at all is UNDUE weight if there are only two adherents. Padillah (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, am I singling you out specifically or am I being nondescriptive? I can't do both. You say I'm posting here singling you out but then claim I am being sneaky and nondescriptive. Could it be that I am being non-descriptive in an effort not to single you out? Besides, not only did I post a notice to this on the talkpage so did BasketofPuppies so there was notification. What claims have I made? You insist I have made misleading claims, what are they specifically? What did I claim and how is it misleading? Padillah (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are serious ownership issues in the article. DreamGuy has excluded sources, such as an Associate Professor in a relevant field, presented on CNN, as "undue weight" in supporting a kooky fringe theory. In any other article, that would have been accepted as a reliable source. An article about a fringe theory should not exclude all otherwise-reliable sources which support the theory. Edison (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there something in particular that an RFC (subject or user) or any of the other dispute resolutions methods won't be effective for? As of right now, I see people wanting admins to come in and hash out a content dispute here, which isn't going to happen. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I tried very hard to make sure the phrasing above was regarding the OWNership issues one editor has taken with the article and not make this about a cry for help "overpowering" some viewpoint. I never meant to have anyone come and help or weigh in on the content of the article. I was trying to bring what I perceived to be ownership problems with a specific editor to the attention of an admin. I'm sorry if I misrepresented myself. Padillah (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to chime in, dispute resolution is mentioned in WP:OWN as the solution to such content disputes. In fact, dispute resolution should pretty much always be the path taken to solve content disputes if involved parties can't come to an agreement themselves. It's not something that is generally actionable by an administrator, unless other editing behaviors accompany it (such as WP:3RR). I suggest closing this thread and taking the advice in the ownership policy. Not to be a dick but in general it's best to read and try to understand a policy before using it to justify your actions. I assume you just missed the parts about the policy that discuss how to resolve the issue. -- Atama頭 19:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links and the reminder. Since there were more than one editor I didn't think "3O" qualified. I had posed an RfC but the editor was maintaining the results favored their side (when it was pretty much a tie either way). And since the editor themselves had tried to attract attention on the Fringe notice board, I wasn't sure what steps were left. I must admit, I've never found the dispute resolution very straight forward. There are suggestions of places to go but no real description of how to escalate. Padillah (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not straight-forward unfortunately. I don't know that it really can be because each situation is different so you can't have a set of numbered instructions. Basically, I think of dispute resolution as the "road to arbitration". Arbitration is complicated and slow and ponderous and a last resort but sometimes it's the only thing that works. My advice is, look over WP:DR and try everything there that is applicable, and try to make a good faith effort at it. In other words, with each step you should genuinely try to resolve the issue, don't do it just to get it out of the way and say you tried. Usually it's best to start from the top-down, with editor assistance/3O if it's only you and one other editor in the dispute, asking at a particular Wikiproject next (if one applies), go to a noticeboard (again if one applies), then RFC. Try informal or formal mediation next, but that will only work if everyone agrees to it. If none of that works then your last resort is arbitration, but hopefully somewhere along the way the problem has resolved itself somehow (either someone gave up or was convinced they were wrong, or one of the previous attempts at a compromise worked). All of this is slow but except for a few cases (like bad info at a BLP) there's no "hurry" to "fix" an article so it shouldn't matter. In any case, my personal suggestion to you is to see if any other kind of dispute resolution hasn't been tried yet (like mediation) and try that, and failing that you should go to arbitration. -- Atama頭 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now, I'm all for editing articles in which we find a personal interest, but the user Padillah has shown a contemptuous attitude towards editors with whom he disagrees with. In the rare circumstance when others have pressed the issue, he gets very aggressive and keeps up the contemptuous attitude and snarky comments. I think any reasonable editor can conclude that the user's interest is more towards serving a particular point of view than it is in improving Wikipedia within our accepted policies, guidelines, and norms. Richard (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

99.144.255.247

99.144.255.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP has been warned several times for BLP violations in the article, and the talk page of Roman Polanski, the IP edit warred multiple times [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210], adding material against consensus. This disruption resulted in the semi-protection of the article. Now, the IP continues POV-pushing and keeps inserting BLP violations (accusations of pedophilia and possession of child pornography without reliable sources to back them up) on the talk page. The IP should be blocked to stop this disruption. Cenarium (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the IP user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did add "Is currently a fugitive" to the Polanski article. Do I need to produce a ref for that here? I also changed "plead guilty" to "convicted" and changed the capital S in sex to lower case. All of those edits linked above were mine. If that "disruption" caused Cenarium to lock the article - perhaps this discussion should widen a bit.99.144.255.247 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources for everything you add to an article, particularly if the information is contentious, and the article is about a living person. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious about noting that Roman Polanski is "currently a fugitive", indeed it is directly related to his world famous "conviction". Is there also doubt about spelling sex with a lower-case? Honestly, I do not get your point. Do you wish to presently see a ref supporting those facts you indicate are somehow "contentious"? Do you seriously not think those editions are/were supported yesterday when they were entered?99.144.255.247 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you think that "fugitive" is absolutely the correct word to put into the article, you should have no trouble finding a source to back it up (if it's accurate, there is bound to be a newspaper article or something which you can use as a reference). I look forward to seeing it! ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[211] --Smashville^talk 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link[212] to numerous NYT's articles describing him as a 'fugitive". (Thousands more exist around the world, but the NYT's is representative of the class) He is currently being described as such and will remain so until his return. If it occurs.99.144.255.247 (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, this week, he's been arrested. How can he still be a fugitive? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, if he's been arrested by the Swiss Police, I'm not entirely clear what makes him "currently a fugitive" – ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This IP seems to be a single purpose account created only with the Polanski bio in mind, and has imo been adding excessive content to the talkpage and failed to stop when warned. It is a talkpage and not a place to just add content that you could not get into the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhm...how can an IP (as in, something without an account) be a single purpose account? It doesn't sound too sinister if he has been proposing content for an article on a talk page for that article. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything all that contentious about the edits. Is there any question that Polanski is not a fugitive? I mean, it's already properly sourced in the article. --Smashville^talk 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's all good as you say, why has he got a gaggle of warnings on his talkpage? Its excessive ranting and raving on the talkpage, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The gaggle of warnings on his talkpage appear to be unwarranted and I advise you and the others to take a look at WP:BITE. --Smashville^talk 19:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia bite. I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you on that but I expect time will tell. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well...in this humble admin's opinion, it appears to be more of a WP:BITE issue than anything else. He hasn't really posted anything that contentious (and...seriously...adding Polanski's conviction to the lead is POV pushing?) nor anything that appears to be in bad faith. Instead of screaming "Block! Block! Block!", perhaps some of you could actually participate in dialogue with him instead of simply hounding him for his talkpage comments. --Smashville^talk 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a bunch of good faith and respect to you for that. At this point in time with the coverage I imagine that the talkpage is getting a lot of views, so I felt the excesive ranting (it is not discussion is it?) on the talkpage was a bit much, but I am more than happy to leave it to your experience. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not about adding that he was a fugitive, but the accusations of possession of child pornography and pedophilia that are wholly unsubstantiated. The IP cited only one source, for a topless photo, if this were child pornography, then Wikipedia would host much worse child pornography on Virgin Killer (talk page) and many other pages. Smashville, this is not a BITE issue at all, would you argue we should not block people for BLP violations on the grounds of WP:BITE ? maybe we should not block newcomers for vandalizing too ? the user had plenty of occasions to discuss but kept restoring the material. WP:CENSOR is no free pass to violate BLP (and the policy states this). Cenarium (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The page is already semi-protected and by the time you had made this report, he hadn't made an edit to the article in over a day. What purpose would a block have served? --Smashville^talk 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP repeatedly restored the BLP violations on the talk page. We have a policy, WP:BLP, and it needs to be enforced when editors repeatedly violate it. I had a similar experience on Talk:Barack Obama, it's clear in policy that sections starting right off based on BLP violations and have no incidence on the content of the article should immediately be deleted, they are in practice often collapsed when too much developed. So have I done, but it's useless when there's someone always restoring them. Cenarium (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed discussion long after it was created without contention. You removed discussion unilaterally without consensus. I've reverted it one time - and I opened up a section discussing BLP concerns. This is BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Your abuse of the three letter BLP to wave around as you want is not supported by policy and your abuse of this forum to battle for you in a content dispute is a gross violation.99.141.254.118 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stranger still - I've just noticed that your time-stamped complaint about me predates my actions by a couple of hours.

First you commented in the section:[213]. Then you collapsed it 7 hours later:[214] and then a couple of minutes later[215] while it's still collapsed and with nothing happening you arrive here to ban me? Your actions are unacceptable and your edit history via the time stamp shows them to be false and unsupported accusations designed only to further your own interests at the expense of fellow editors by abusing the system.99.141.254.118 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh really ? We had a little edit war long before that [216], [217], [218] and I repeatedly told you why I was removing the material on your talk page and in the edit summaries, I stopped the removals after having reported to ANI. Cenarium (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

After trying to familiarize myself with this topic (Polanski and related events) and help in editing it, I would like to voice my opinion that this IP is in-fact being very tendentious on talk pages and in his edits. He has morphed into another IP (as shown in his last signatures above), and is continuing in the same manner. The "ranting" description applied above is not wholly uncalled for. That's all I have to say about this.

IP has made 169 edits to Polanski and Talk page in last day..., take that for what you will.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the entire exchange I had with P&P[219]. If that type of exchange is unacceptable here, I'd be surprised. But then again, considering Cenarium tried to first get me banned for having the audacity to say Polanski was convicted - or his latest attempt to ban me by making a false accusation above - who knows what acceptable community standards are around here. 99.141.254.118 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on just that exchange, I was commenting on the whole thing I'd read through. In fact, if it makes you feel better, at first I didn't even realize you were the same IP.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As to your totals, note that like in this sequence[220], I tend to retouch each edit quite a few times for all manner of reasons. It also occurred over three days in an active high volume article, not one. In fact, it pales next to the roughly 60% of all edits which are signed by you and that completely dominate the talk page at [talk:arrest of roman polanski]. Now that's a significant number.99.141.254.118 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I reiterate my request for admin action, the IP restored again the sections accusing Polanski of pedophilia and creation and possession of child pornography, those accusations are wholly unsubstantiated and of no relevance whatsoever to the article, just ranting and unacceptable POV-pushing violating to the extreme WP:BLP. This lack of BLP enforcement is really disgusting. Cenarium (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP now moved to improperly edit and edit-war on Anjelica Huston, [221], [222], citing inexistent consensus for material violating WP:UNDUE and potentially WP:BLP (with hidden implications), and argues to have the same material inserted in the page Roman Polanski. And while I'm sure there are more interesting matters, the material clearly violating the BLP policy remains on Talk:Roman Polanski. Cenarium (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Notpietru

Block log now includes a notice of the prior history. We're done here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{unresolved|I'm unarchiving this because it wasn't given proper attention, and should be dealt with.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)}}

• Pietru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Notpietru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Could some independent admin please look at the recent trolling behavior of User:Notpietru? He's been making not unreasonable edits to Maltese (dog) but his commentary is obviously designed to provoke others. See [223] (Mljet / Malta theory of origin is the center of the dispute), [224], [225], [226], [227]. Much of this is directed at Imbris, who has barely even edited the article recently, though he has been provoked into complaining. I tried to warn him about this confrontational approach; see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#User:Pietru / User:Notpietru and Maltese (dog), in which I requested independent input before but received none. Mangojuice^talk 05:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this still going on? This is hardly new behavior. He started a new account, but he has a block history under his old account, pretty much for this exact sort of behavior. He has serious WP:OWN issues it seems, which have led to edit warring over numerous Malta-related articles for some time... --Jayron32 05:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

His old account was blocked for one month on August 8th, his new account(the one above) was registered on August 15th, meaning it was used for block evasion, and therefore abusive sockpuppetry. It should therefore be blocked indef.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Read april as august. Ya.. oops. Either way, he should still be blocked for disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

As the unresolved template states, this wasn't completely discussed, so I unarchived it so it could be discussed properly, and something can be done about the user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered a Sockpuppet Investigation? Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on it, as they're obviously using unconfirmed socks to separate their edit history, or, as more people know it, WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting... User:Pietru is redirected to User:Notpietru. Mjroots (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Which of course means he's not trying to hide anything, which of course means he's not using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny or for any reason which is listed as a bad use of socks under WP:SOCK. Of course, that does NOT mean his behavior is not blockable, it just means that he's not socking against policy. --Jayron32 05:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong there. The redirect was added by another user, not notpietru. Check the history for proof.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, the user did confirm to be the other account. Oh well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone have an issue if I just gave a one-second block mentioning the prior block log? He doesn't deserve to be blocked but he shouldn't get a clean block log just by changing names (and I think in fact, his edits should be transferred). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it probably doesn't matter, but I'm okay with that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So...is this where you yentas apologise to me, I forgive you, and somebody does something constructive around here for a change? Stranger things have happened. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not apologizing to you. You've done the exact same type of edits that have gotten you blocked in the past.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgive you anyway. Such is charity! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... that "yentas" is a bit un-called for. No matter how obscure of a slur you pick for a personal attack, it's still a personal attack, and still shows disregard for the mechanics of the community.... I hope using obscure slurs doesn't make you feel somehow urbane and sophisticated; objectively superior to those who you address it to. Pompous would be more appropriate.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Obscure"? "Slur"?? And seeing as how the term originated in ghettos amongst a suppressed minority, I don't see how it fits as sophisticated or pompous. If you've never encountered the term before, you might benefit from a little more reading/life experience. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Link to an illegal copy of Window Clippings in an image

The Wordpad screenshot comes from a hacking site and the non-free media use rationale includes a link to a page where an illegal copy of Window Clippings can be downloaded (Window Clippings 2.1.28 inc. keygen.zip); the image should be changed and the Window Clippings link should point to its official site (http://www.windowclippings.com/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maangago (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial uploader/contributor informed. It may be best to replace that image with one sourced from a legal avenue. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt we should not link to illegal material. I have replaced the link with one to the official website. I will try to check better the links/images/uploads. Thanks SF007 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If nessercery i run windows 7 on my laptop i can screenie and upload in order to provide a legit picture Kira Chinmoku (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan101 and User:Meursault2004

Using his User:Ice Age lover account, our infamous sock User:Bambifan101 has again managed to persuade an administrator on another language Wiki, this time User:Meursault2004 a sysop of three Wikipedia's including the Javanese one, to make edits on his behalf. The articles hit were Teletubbies, The Fox and the Hound and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.[228][229] Meursault2004] and the same editor on the Indonisian Wiki (while also possibly trying to recruit another)[230]. However, as Meursault2004 appears to be well aware that Bambifan101 is a permanently blocked user (Bambifan helpfully pointed him to his long term abuse page), is there any administrative action needed regarding Meursault2004? He made the edits have the vandal told him why he was blocked and did his usual bragging about his history here (and which socks have been mistagged as him and so forth), so these edits appear to have been done with the full knowledge that he would be aiding a banned user get around his ban. From their discussions, Robin Hood (1973 film) is the next he plans to do. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Block the meatpuppet indefinitely - in fact, I'll do it myself. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am a sysop on three projects and as such I listen to every user even the so-called banned ones. Before doing the edits for this Ice Age lover of course I did some research and I was convinced that his edits seem good to me. I always assume good faith. I invite you to do the same for me Jéské Couriano. Please dont call me meatpuppet'. I have been on Wikipedia since 2003. Meursault2004 (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There are limits to AGF, and when he himself pointed you to his long term abuse report, which also notes his tricking one of the Russian admins into editing for him (who ended up being blocked indefinately here), that should have been all the warning you needed. He TOLD you he was blocked, he told you why, but you edited for him anyway. You did, in fact, meat puppet and act for a banned editor in violation of that ban. As such, you should be blocked here. You are claiming you were just AGFing, but the conversation clearly shows you did know exactly why he couldn't edit, so helped him anyway. Why? I also see after your being warned, you still edited for him, even if you did self-revert later[231] again, why? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You cite policy but you omit the important clause "unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." ... Don't do that. Don't speak in blanket terms unless you're sure that clause doesn't apply. And don't be so hasty to call for blocks... you've been the victim of hasty calls for blocks yourself IIRC. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the block was lifted, but I can't find any statement by Meursault2004 that recognizes that what he did was wrong. Can someone point me at one?—Kww(talk) 13:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"have independent reasons for making them" would indicate that the editor was active on the article or topic, he wasn't. "able to confirm that the changes are verifiable" - the wholesale ones on the Fox and the Hound clearly were not. These edits do not fall within the clause. The conversations on the other wikis clearly show the edits were done word for word at Bambifan101's request, and for no other reason and without evaluating any of them or doing them on an independent level. And it is not a "hasty" call for a block. I AGFed until I saw the conversations where it became Meursault2004 was not just another of Bambifan101's unwitting victims, but willing and willfully edited for a blocked sockpuppet without any regard for the validity of the requested edits, without paying any attention to the LTA and its notes there, nor to the talk page history. Sorry, but I expect a sysop to stop and go "hmm, why would a banned editor be banned? why does he want me to redo these edits?" and at the least investigate and discuss with someone here if he isn't familiar with the issue rather than just doing it and calling it AGFing.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As I told you some things seem correct. And I did the research myself. For exemple that bay thing in Teletubbies, the correct name is indeed Jessica Smith. So from the statements and actions you made, I assume that it is not allowed to listen to a banned user even if he is right? Is that what you are saying? Furthermore what is a meat puppet? According to the Wikipedia entry "a meat puppet is a new user invited to an internet discussion solely to influence it, similar to a sock puppet". This is very offensive. As a matter of fact I have been here a long time longer than you are or Jéské Couriano, so I am not new. Yes Collectionan your contributions on English Wikipedia are far greater than mine and I respect you for that. I understand that you are emotionally involved in this matter. But please don't call me names and judge any contribution I made on its own merrit. And do not threaten with block and let's sort thing out. Meursault2004 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You got the essence there: it is not allowed to listen to a banned user even if he is right, even though it is actually it is not allowed to edit for a banned user even if he is right. A meat puppet is someone that edits on behalf of another. If you did any research on your own, though, it's hard to call it "meat puppeting", because the phrase implies that you simply do what the other account tells you to do without applying judgment. Doesn't make editing on behalf of a banned user any more acceptable, though.—Kww(talk) 13:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Mellow, everyone. I just noticed this; not sure just what's happened, but guess what? Everyone here is reasonably familiar to me and you're all serious people. Please just talk this through, ok? Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If the edit is good, the edit is good. Where is the bad edit? Where is the incident?

If Meursault2004 can work with this banned user, a long term problem may be resolved in the process. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the edits were good. He basically did a massive copy/paste of Bambifan101's edits over the existing articles. No, he can't work with this banned user, he has been banned for a reason and blocked nearly 300 times for a reason. His edits are not "good" 99.9% of the time and there is no value in his .1% occasional good contributions. The sock in question is already being banned by the Global stewards now, just like all the rest of his new socks are. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jéské : You'd block a 'crat from another wikipedia over this? Seriously? Meursault2004 is standing behind the edits. Judge the edits. If they're good there is no issue here. If they're not good, deal with that in good faith. A ban of Meursault2004 is completely uncalled for and is, frankly, an appalling suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

His being a 'crat is not a get out of jail free card. Meursault2004 knew exactly what he was doing, and was even helpfully pointed to the LTA on Bambifan101 BY Bambifan101 (which includes notes about the last admin who did the same thing). Meursault2004 chose to disregard that and perform the exact edits Bambifan101 requested, down to the letter, anyway. The edits were not good and do not show that Meursault2004 used any personal judgement of their value or validity. He just did them. They were not HIS edits, they were 100% Bambifan101's done by proxy. That is a blockable offense per policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got to disagree with Lar, here: until Meursault2004 acknowledges that what he did was wrong, I think a block is quite justified, regardless of his status on other projects. His behaviour shows a complete lack of judgment. Proxy editing for a banned user is certainly a blockable offense.—Kww(talk) 13:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is not a blockable offense. I take input from wherever I can get it. If a banned editor contacts me about something and the edit is important enough to make, I will make it. Judge me by the edit, not the source of the information. Edits directly by a banned editor don't stand, we revert them on sight. UNLESS someone is willing to stand behind them. I see no need for Meursault2004 to acknowledge any wrong doing. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Meursault2004 is not unwilling to discuss. Why would he be blocked?

I want a diff, with an explanation of why the content in the diff is wrong.

If the reason why the diff is erroneous is explained, I am sure that Meursault2004 will apologise.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He has been unwilling to make the very simple statement that he will not proxy for banned editors. The massive edit he made was essentially a minor cleanup of Bambifan101's previous version. He knowingly proxied for a banned editor, and has not agreed to never to so again, nor even acknowledged that his behaviour is unacceptable. I don't see why blocking him pending such an acknowledgement and agreement is even controversial.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) On Teletubbies, he first removed half the article[232] (explained as a technical issue which is highly likely), other than that, he added some questionable sources[233] (one a propoganda/seriously non-NPOV site). Not so bad, as a whole, but not great either. The big one, though, is The Fox and the Hound where restored Bambifan101's vandalized version[234] with a gut of inappropriate content, including OR, bloated plot, random made up reception, inappropriate character section, fact tagging and VC tagging valid content, removing legitimately sourced content, and restoring bad prose in the production section over better written and sourced content. In short, undoing months of clean up by legitimate editors to restore a hideous version of the article with even more bad content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks John for the support. For Kww. That is not true. I read all the edits and it all seem fine to me. I haven't noticed any vandalism in it. It was not a complete lack of judgment but common sense and AGF. But if it is not allowed to listen to a banned user even if he is right, even though it is actually it is not allowed to edit for a banned user even if he is right then I'll have to respect it. That is if it is indeed the official policy of English Wikipedia. I regret this whole things have happened. Meursault2004 (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not official policy. You would be advised not to make wholesale edits that are word for word what you were asked to add, but there is nothing wrong with getting input from someone else and evaluating it and deciding what makes sense to do. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Editing on behalf of banned users is most certainly policy. He did not take "input", he restored the preferred version of a banned editor. That's not taking input, it is proxy editing. It is a blockable offense. Are we going to allow this new strategy of Bambifan101's to succeed? Searching for admins and crats from other Wikipedias and persuading them to edit by proxy, believing that the status of the person he recruits will allow his edits to persist? I'm not asking for some lifetime ban, I'm asking for Meursault2004 to concisely state that he understands that he violated the policy against proxy editing and that he will not do so again.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's policy when taken as a whole. You can't quote from it piecemeal. You have to include the exception. Now, what's being said is that a wholesale edit was reintroduced without any analysis of whether it was a good edit. That's not really a good idea and I suspect Meursault2004 knows that now. Asking him to reiterate that understanding... that he has to actually think about, research, perhaps paraphrase, not introduce material that had been edit warred over, etc. in short be a reasonable content contributor in that area... that's reasonable. Calling for a ban isn't. What you're asking M to do is reasonable. You're just not citing the whole policy. Maybe that's a nit but I don't think so, I think it moves us from rigid to reasonable. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read it, then the vandalism would have been obvious. If you had read the LTA he himself pointed you to, it also would have been obvious. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My friends, if this isn't proof positive that someone in charge of this site needs to act and act immediately in sending a formal complaint to this little freak's IP, I don't know what is. It is high time that this ends immediately on a TOS violation. This is at least the second time of which I'm aware that Bambifan has gone to other projects to recruit unsuspecting users into doing his dirty work. The mess this unsupervised and undisciplined brat leaves on these projects is almost unmeasurable in terms of wasted volunteer time. Let's end this now by drop-kicking this idiot off of these projects once and for all. He runs roughshod at Simple English and if he speaks some of the other languages of the wikis he screws with, I'm MascotGuy. I'd just as soon see a Grawp meatpuppet elevated to administrator than to see just one more keystroke on The Fox and the Hound from this yo-yo. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, while you're at it, how about doing the same for Jarlaxle? Same situation, except Bambifan's recruiting from within. I predict that people would rather burn than take action to avoid the fire lit under their tuckus. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He does not run roughshod at Simple. Just because some of his good edits were left doesn't mean we let him do whatever he wants. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if not roughshod, then certainly with impunity. I pointed out at Simple that no edit of his should be allowed to stand. If a good edit of his stands, what's to stop him from continuing? Not that blocking him and protecting his targets have done any good up until now, but the less encouragement, the better. I actually tried to reason with him at Simple and friends, this kid's nutty as a fruitcake. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike here where there are very large numbers of editors, simple needs what good edits it can get. So as long as its a good edit most editors there see no reason to be petty and delete the edit. After all he is going to come back whether we delete the edit or not. In fact I would guess he is more likely to come back if you delete the edit because you are doing what he wants you to do....give him attention. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that User:Meursault2004 should be blocked immediately, but the proxying should stop. Period. We are at the point now where in order to tease out disruptive edits we have to follow Bambifan's global accounts in order to check for conversations where he induces sysops on other projects to disrupt ours. That's a huge amount of wasted resources. If the proxying doesn't stop then yes, we can and should block User:Meursault2004 to prevent disruption to this project. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, IF he inserts stuff wholesale going forward with no research/thought/analysis/etc of his own. But standing behind edits isn't itself open and shut bannable. It's just not. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus here, Lar, seems to be that proxying for a banned user is bannable, and that has generally been the impression I got from the Ockham scandal. I initially did block him indefinitely from this thread, but after I saw some diplomacy taking place, I decided to give the benefit of the doubt and unblock him so that he can defend himself. Privilege isn't a get-out-of-jail free card, Lar, and anyone keeping track of bans against admins knows that or should know that by now. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" in some AN/I thread is whoever turns up. It can't override policy which is what we do. It turns out that these edits are crap, and Bambi played this guy. He needs to say "Nope, not going to get fooled again, not going to just redo edits again" and we all need to move on, because standing behind edits isn't itself open and shut bannable. I do it myself from time to time, after care, investigation, and forethought. Those of you with your big swinging... banhammers... need to calm down. No wonder a good portion of the rest of the wikipedia user base thinks en:wp is a wasteland of drama-mongering and kneejerk reactions. If M makes the undertaking outlined, he should be unblocked and remain unblocked. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that if statement. We are close to the shoals of "policy for the sake of policy" but BF101 is capital B Banned for subtle vandalism, harassment and sockpuppeting. Once that happens our only response to attempts to circumvent this ban should be RBI. The answer to questions from him about inserting edits on wikipedia should almost always be "I won't do that, but if you can edit productively on another project and avoid socking for X months, you can request to be unbanned on en.wp". If the answer is "sure, I'll look at your edits and insert them into the page if they are kosher" then we circumvent one of the purposes of the ban. We want BF101 to grow bored with wikipedia and go away. That may take years. It may never happen. But it is guaranteed not to happen if we get into a debate about it each time he attempts to find a proxy. Let's also not forget that his ban is for exceedingly subtle vandalism. Subtle enough that I can't tell good edits from bad unless I have seen the movie before (which is approaching P=0 as I grow older). subtle enough that a proxy couldn't be expected to tell 100% of the time, especially if that proxy was picked as a mark. I also don't really agree with your end-state analysis of this. In my mind, the edits aren't all that important, the disruption is. If BF101's proxy makes some edits which marginally improve our coverage of some new Disney film, who cares? The larger result is that we have dashed months of sock hunting, rangeblocking, emails to bell south, etc. for some spelling changes to 1-2 articles. The same comparison pops up in other, more malicious areas. We have proxies for banned editors at Cold fusion, which we refuse to identify and block on the grounds that the proxy claims to be acting semi-autonomously. The immediate impact might be a marginal improvement in those articles but the larger result is that the banned editor now has a freely available conduit directly to the content area that got them banned in the first place. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The next proxy absolutely should be banned. There's simply no excuse for someone to take up this idiot's mantle especially since he has no qualms about explaining who he is. I have to respectfully disagree with Dj regarding his antics at Simple. Either he's banned or he isn't, good or bad. It's true he's craving attention, but he's like the elephant in the living room adage. Ignoring him doesn't change the fact he's here. If Simple lacks editors, I will not only cheerfully turn my attention to Simple (which I've been meaning to do anyway), but I will personally replace any of his good edits with my own. Lose a Bambifan, gain yours truly on a more regular basis and I daresay other good editors from over here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you replace his edits with yours, after care and forethought, you're standing behind them. Nothing at all wrong with that. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Again? As I was (I believe) the person who blocked the previous xwikipedia admin who was fooled into proxying for Bambifan101 I suggest that the response for any admin (interesting that Bambifan101 cultivates admins as opposed to "ordinary" non-enWP editors to do his dirty work, as this bloated section testifies there is a reluctance to sanction flag enabled editors against non admins) is to block them indefinitely without prejudice to an unblock once they agree not to proxy for a banned en-WP individual. I would strongly urge people not to agree that these unwitting proxies edits should be judged on the content alone, because that way resolves to Bambifan101 recruiting ever more admins and such to continue to make disruptive edits. Create a block template for such instances, such as "You have been recruited by a known banned sockpuppet and meatpuppet operator to continue by proxy their campaign to disruput Wikipedia. You are blocked indefinitely unless you confirm you will not edit on the behest of this editor." It may seem a little harsh, but unless the community is prepared to put up with Bambifan101 resorting to this tactic with increasing frequency it may be the only way to stop it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree entirely with Lar and John Vandenberg. Why not simply have a rule that no one should ever make mistakes, and if they do, they will be blocked? Meursault understands he was played, is older and wiser and more people are aware of this tactic. Nothing else need be done in this case, and policy should not be stretched beyond what it actually says and intends. Durova's suggestion below has possibilities of averting future problems.John Z (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with your assessment that "more people are aware of this tactic" on the basis that it isn't *people* we should be informing, but *wikis*. Bambifan is recruiting specifically from smaller wikis and specifically users with privilege. The more wikis that know their admins are at risk and to tell them to block anyone purporting to be Bambifan on sight, the better. I think he's almost at the point of a Jarlaxle-style WMF-wide ban here. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 08:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please resolve policy issues at policy talk

WMF has plenty of small projects. Along with them are 'small project editors' who gain ops (sysop, 'cratship, et. al.) but lack firsthand experience in the nuances of entrenched politics that popluate this site. We're the 800 pound gorilla; we can't complain when a chimp slips on our own banana peel.

This thread is a prime example of why it's a good idea to declare the intention to proxy openly in a public place before actually proxying. So when a manipulator tries to talk someone with a reputation into risking that hard-earned reputation over nonsense, the community gets a minimal-drama opportunity to head off the problem before real damage gets done. Rather than a logjam afterward like this thread.

My proposal for advance disclosure re: proxies has been stated at banning policy talk. If you think it makes sense, help write it into policy. Durova³²⁰ 21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean WT:Banning policy... if not please correct. If you did, I'm not sure which section you mean. Perhaps you could clarify? ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, there. Durova³²⁰ 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just reviewed that page again. The discussion over alternate wordings seems to have stalled out several weeks ago. Just pointing folks there may not be sufficient, someone maybe needs to actually get it restarted with a new section heading, summarizing what has went before, and which wordings got some support, and try to get a new consensus. There are some extreme views on both sides that appear to hamper finding consensus for a reasonable middle (which would be a statement of what we actually do). ++Lar: t/c 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

I am truly worried that the above category has become a BLP nightmare. Several of the individuals in this category are rarely known for their stance on homosexuality, or have homosexuality as one component of many issues that they support/oppose. Mainly, I'm worried that the inclusion of any individual with anything other than the most blatantly anti-gay remarks is both non-neutral and a violation. Perhaps something like Category:Anti-homosexuality activists is more apt, though that would only cover probably half the subjects.

I am, of course, neither supporting nor not-supporting the above; but this is a very uncool category as is. I bring this up here, because I know I'll probably just be reverted and yelled at if I remove the categories by hand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Category talk:Homophobia, it hasn't been to a CFD in a few years. You might want to consider that avenue. I agree that things like this are a bad idea. Maybe a focus on just removing the biographies for now and then a further filtering discussion at the cat talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's really slippery BLP territory. It's like having something like "Category:Bigotry" or "Category:Left wing pinko commie". Now, if someone has actively opposed minority rights, there could be a far less in-your-face POV-pushing term. The suggestion for "Category:Anti-homosexuality activists" is closer to the mark, but that's still slippery, because it assumes that anyone who opposes gay marriage, for example, is "anti-homosexuality", which is a matter of opinion. Negative categories like this are risky unless the subject is specifically and verifiably on record as literally being anti-this-or-that. For example, it would be safe to call George Wallace a segregationist. It would be POV-pushing to call him a racist, unless you can find his own words someplace stating something about white supremacy. (Which would be much easier to do for someone like George Lincoln Rockwell, for example.) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A shorter way of saying it, as the OP hints at, is that such a category is a quick and easy way to create an "enemies list". That's not what wikipedia's purpose is. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm against biographical articles being added to such categories; a recent incident of an editor trying to add Category:Racism to Spike Lee comes to mind. Perhaps the inclusions criteria ought to be discussed at Category talk:Homophobia, and at CfD if no agreement is forthcoming? It could be useful to post notifications of the discussion to the LGBT and Discrimination wikiprojects.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We would definitely need specific and clear criteria for such a category. Evil saltine (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• AGGGHHHH .... Sko ... what did you do to your sig? ... change the text to black. ;) — Ched :  ?  03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Many similar categories don't include individuals accused of the trait, though they may include people who have written about it significantly. I suggest that the criteria be set to exclude those accused of homophobia, though that discussion should occur either on that category's talk page or CFD, not here.   Will Beback  talk  08:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I'd rather have a subcategory, something like Homophobia scholars. Scholars who study the subject are appropriate to include. Random individuals people call homophobes aren't the way to go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've long complained about the same issue on Category:Antisemitism (which has the same shabby disclaimer on the top). I agree with Skomorokh; categories like this shouldn't have biographies included. An article can discuss nuances like whether someone was accused of homophobia/antisemitism/racism, which sources say this, what the subject's response was, etc. A category cannot. And I don't think a disclaimer at the top of the category page (not visible from the article itself) is sufficient to meet WP:V and (in the cases of living people) WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest not using that category in articles about individuals. We have few individuals in Category:Gay, the main exception being Judy Garland as gay icon, and that's questionable. --John Nagle (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've personally gone through the cat and removed a few questionable individuals - hope that helps a bit. I do appreciate that I'm hardly the most popular man in town at the mo, but I do try and help where I can. Ironholds (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on the category talk page

In light of the above discussion, I've made a proposal as to the scope of this category on the talk page. Interested parties, please see Category_talk:Homophobia#Propose_the_exclusion_of_biographical_articles_from_this_category. Thanks,  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Patterns of sneaky vandalism

I've been noting a trend lately at newpages: A brand new account, or a long-dormant one, will create a new article that is either about some non-notable friend of theirs or something else not notable. When the article is tagged for speedy, they log out and remove the speedy with an IP. They do the same thing with PRODs, which then forces the article to go to AFD. On a related note, a long-dormant account created the following [235] an apparently normal redirect. Then an IP (probably the same person) came along after the page had theoretically been patrolled and changed it to vandalism [236]. I've been seeing this trend and I think it's an attempt to get garbage past newpage patrollers, spam filters, abuse filters, etc. Not sure what we can do about it but thought people ought to be aware of it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Newpage patrollers perhaps should watch pages they prod or list for speedy (I do, at least). If not, if you have a pattern, I would venture we could warn (and then block) both characters for gaming the system. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion that is deleted by IPs should be restored in my opinion. IPs really can't be trusted. --Rockstone (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

IPs can't be trusted? Nice assume bad faith there. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tags that are removed by *anybody* should be replaced. Being an IP is nothing to do with it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What I mean by "IPs can't be trusted" is that IPs can't be trusted to remove Speedy Deletion Tags. Users with Usernames however, should have the right to delete the speedy Deletion tags if they intend to fix the problem, but only if they are not the original Author. (Not that I'm I'm saying this should be policy!) --Rockstone (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't policy, and you're not saying that it should be policy, so why are you saying it at all? If you don't mind me asking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, lets not turn this into an opinion thread. Neither of your suggestions, Elen or Rockstone, match current policy. If you think policy should be changed, then this is not the correct venue. — neuro^(talk) 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

MFD process check

moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently closed and deleted this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nalxhal. Seems SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) has twice reverted[237][238] in order to re-open the listing sputing something about " is not due to the bad deletion, but due to the bad close"[239]. I origionaly used the AFD closing template, but changed it to the MFD as I don't do alot of these. Someone want to review this, attempting to "Undelete" through brute force removal of the "archive " template seems a little odd.--Hu12 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who voted for deletion, I may be biased, but I endorse both the deletion and the close. SmokeyJoe has tried to use an ArbCom ruling as basis for his opposition, while ignoring the most salient point of the statement: ""This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria."" → ROUX ₪ 01:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Whenever anybody refers to speedy deletion as "out of process" you know they're wikilawyering: speedy deletion has no process outside the head of the deleting admin. Either the article should have been deleted or it should not. If there is a dispute about it, it can be taken up at deletion review. And May Jimbo Have Mercy On Its Revisions. --TS 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to get so used to reciting the rules that a user can momentarily forget their purpose, and attempt to enforce them for no other reason than to enforce them. It looks to me that Naxhal probably isn't here to build an encyclopedia, so I endorse the deletion, which had no chance of ending in keep, regardless. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion. In my view, a bad close is a DRV issue. That's exactly the type of thing DRV is meant for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ricky. There is some subtlety here, I can see that some see process wonkery or wikilawering, but I don’t believe I’m alone in believing that WP:CSD, especially in its first paragraph, is deliberately restrictive. When admins unilaterally expand generously on CSD, especially while citing “SPEEDY DELETION”, the community looses control. I see this MfD as a thin end of the wedge case, and do not seek to undelete. To go to DRV over the process of a deletion, where undeletion is not sought, would be pointless, as it has been agreed there before that DRV is not there for mere protests. I don’t think that this is quite important enough for DRV, and was content to discuss on the MfD talk page. I note that I have annoyed Roux in consistently arguing in direct opposition to his opinions in some MfDs over the last week or so, and concede some point to what he says above, but no, this was not a good IAR deletion, there was no reason to let the MfD run its course, and if it was an IAR deletion, the close should reflect that fact. I am sure that there is not consensus that old userpages may be speedily deleted for being old userpages. Ideally, Hu12 will modify the close to remove the false implied citation of one of the CSD criteria. I’ve registered my objection, and am prepared to leave it here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for the deletion were clearly spelled out in the close. IAR was implied. There was no chance that page wasn't going to be deleted. Hu12 acted well within his remit. What exactly is the problem here? You're upset that a stupid inappropriate waste of userspace was deleted without you having the chance to rabbit on again with your bizarre postmodern interpretations of motivations for writing such pages, and even more bizarre suggestions that things unacceptable for userspace be userfied to your userspace instead? You seem to be solidly anti-deletion-of-anything, maybe that's the problem. Yes, CSD is deliberately restrictive. And the ArbCom decision that you quoted said, I'll remind you: "This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria." Hu12 used IAR to improve the encyclopedia, and is well supported by the very evidence you used to try and hang him. I'm not really sure what you're complaining about here, but take off the Spiderman costume already. Useless pages will be deleted, there's not a lot you can do about it, get over it. → ROUX ₪ 12:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I am most disappointed in the comment immediately above. It doesn't seem to be constructive and verges on a personal attack in places. You're clearly annoyed at the moment, but please think twice before pressing the "save page" button. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Martin as to Roux's comment. I also agree with SmokeyJoe that WP:NOT is not a speedy criteria and has been misused more often than I can remember. However, as a going forward matter, the only suggestion would be to tell Hu12 that CSD criteria for user pages is very limited and this isn't appropriate. If it's being argued as a speedy close of the discussion per WP:SNOW, that looks inappropriate as well (two editors does not make a SNOW). To invoke WP:IAR over deletion discussion is very concerning (anyone remember an admin arguing IAR allowed him to delete articles unilaterally for whatever reason he wanted?). Why invoke IAR over something that within a few days was going to be deleted anyways? It was a single userspace, let it sit there at AFD. There's been plenty of userpages that look similar we've kept around. As a policy matter, this deserved the full seven days of discussion, regardless of the fact that the results clearly would have been the same, but as a practical matter, I hope everyone could just agree to drop it and move on. Nobody has come out smelling like a rose in my view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems the confusion here is because I closed the MFD "report" as a "speedy", When the actual deletion was not rationaled with CSD criteria. Should have just marked the "report" as "deleted.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Community ban discussion regarding The undertow

This morning, arbitrator Risker (talk · contribs) posted a motion stating that:

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools.[240] At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee ban.

This might have been triggered in some way by my arbitration request against Law, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight, which remains technically open. Risker has indefinitely blocked Law, and the Committee is now set to pass a motion that would restrict The undertow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that one account.

I propose that the community complement that restriction with a community ban of The undertow (under any account) for an egregious violation of community trust (editing with a sockpuppet in evasion of a ban, violating WP:BAN, and using a sockpuppet to gain adminship, violating WP:SOCK). At the same time, we should review WP:Requests for adminship/Law for lessons learned.  Sandstein  07:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument for banning is underdetermined by the facts (at least those presented here). Sure, the guy was deceptive, abused the community trust and as an administrator conducted themselves in a questionable manner. That's a good reason to subject him to a lot of scrutiny in the future, and to think long and hard about trusting him with positions of responsibility, but his contributions to the project have been overwhelmingly positive and in good faith.

Banning is a drastic and extraordinary measure, and should be reserved for those who are both unambiguously disruptive and who have shown that they are irreformable. Has he acted intentionally to harm the encyclopaedia or its authors? Has he shown a lack of understanding of the problems others have raised with his behaviour, or a dogmatic refusal to reform? Does it appear extremely unlikely that he will be a productive contributor in the near future?

Far from it, from what I have seen. Subject the undertow to regular checkusers and forbid him access to advanced permissions, if needs be, but banning would seem a complete overreaction.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Could someone please post a link to The undertow's original ban and explain how that ban would be violated by creating a new sock account, gaining adminship for it, and/or wheel warring to undermine enforcement of the Obama arbcom ruling? Wikidemon (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So far I've found this (only admins can see this deleted edit). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Back a bit further (again, only admins can see this), Undertow seems to have been blocked (not banned) for disruption after a discussion on the arbcom mailing list, then came back a few months later as Law, without disclosing the Undertow account at the RfA or anywhere else. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying slightly: The undertow was blocked for 9 months on 16 July 2008. [241] Law was created on 4 September 2008. [242] Rd232 ^talk 08:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I see that was June, not July. Note that The Undertow had been de-sysoped the month before that block. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• No other comment but to point here, here, here, and here. Vassyana (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sheesh, the fact that an Arbcom-banned user can come back during his sanctions, regain the tools, and continue using them controversially just makes a complete joke of the system. He's obviously treating this whole thing as a game. Therefore, support ban. Spellcast (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Egregious abuse of trust and most recently, tools. Support userban for whatever length of time has community support. Should be at least 6 months. R. Baley (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On 16 March of this year The undertow's block automatically lifted and two days later he made this "first" edit, only 20 minutes after having made this string of edits as Law. However, after that he made fewer than 20 edits as The undertow and stopped altogether within 3 weeks. I guess one should wonder if he banked any other accounts, sleeper or otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I trust that a checkuser has been run on the Law account to see whether any other accounts are associated with it?  Sandstein  12:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• support a community ban. Clearly doesn't respect the community.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* An unfortunate turn of events. I have added a related question to all current RFA candidates, and will attempt to continue to do so for future candidates. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The reasons behind the initial nine-month block/ban of User:The undertow were not publicly disclosed at the time of the block and involve private information provided to the Arbitration Committee as it was constituted at the time of the block. The circumstances that led to that block were no longer operative at the time the User:Law account was created; I will not venture to guess how the Arbitration Committee at that time would have responded to a request to lift the block. The information that has led to this motion came to the Arbitration Committee's attention yesterday following an off-wiki dispute between User:Law and other editors and is unrelated to any other on-wiki issues including current requests for arbitration and arbitration cases. I hope this clarifies some of the issues being raised here. Risker (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• It seems clear to me that there were other administrators who were aware of his return as Law, and who should have disclosed this information a long time ago to ArbCom and the community. I think its disappointing, to say the least, that The undertow's deception drew in others who also held the trust of the community. Nathan ^T 12:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there proof for that?  Sandstein  12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Jennavecia and perhaps MZMcBride. Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a typically ludicrous situation. The fact that Law was able to regain the tools just goes to show that he should never have been banned in the first place, because he was committed to improving the project. Needless to say, I oppose banning the Law account; if the account was doing good work, it should be permitted to continue doing good work. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. Everyking (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Block, Desysopping, but I also think a community ban is premature. Is there any indication that an appeal of the 9 month block would have been successful? A 9 month block is unusual in itself; they're usually 6 or 12. Adminship was not requested while under community sanction (Block expired 16 March, adminship looks like late April). Ignoring the fact that he would not have been granted adminship so soon, what would the reaction be if he started off with Law after the arbcom block expired? I'm concerned that we're reaching for the banhammer too quickly. I'm also concerned that editors who may have suspected (or even been aware of) the connection will be sanctioned, and I don't think that's proper, either. We should limit the ZOMG DRAMA here, if possible. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban at this time. The full facts of the matter are not known. It is unwise to take action without knowing the facts. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, please. There are dozens and dozens of editors who want to walk away from this project but can't. People retire all the time and come back days—sometimes hours&mdsh;later. Yet people honestly think that when an editor gets banned, they just walk away? As difficult as it is to leave when you want to, you think it's easy to walk away when you don't but you're told to? Ponder it for a moment. That's ridiculous. If a study was conducted, I'd be willing to wager quite a bit that the vast majority of banned editors are among us. Hell, the sheer number of admins that are former users of undisclosed accounts is crazy. Whether or not they're previously banned users, RVTs, socks, whatever is unclear, but you can tell my their early contribs that they weren't just joining the party.

  He came back as Law because he couldn't stay away. This is nothing if not commonplace. Many banned editors come back as abusive socks. The Kohser, for example. He was unbanned after what, a couple dozen abusive socks? Different circumstances, of course, but the_undertow started over. He created a new account, he avoided his old pages, wrote new articles, took them to DYK, made new friends, learned new areas, got adminship and, despite what Sandstein thinks (as if he has room to talk after blocking someone for a month for making a grammatical change in an article that violated an ArbCom sanction by a stretch, then fast-tracking it to RFAR, completely blowing off AN/I (he didn't trust you then, but he trusts you now, community?)), Law was a good admin. For pretty much any admin to say otherwise based on a couple "questionable" action makes them a hypocrite, because we've all made actions that others questioned.

  This is a website. People seem to forget that. Preventative, not punitive. From what are you protecting the project? Banned editors make appeals to be unbanned all the time. The ones that are allowed back are so on faith. On a promise that they'll be good. That they've reformed and can be a good editor again. Here you have proof. He's been editing for over a year and while his contributions are not perfect (name me one editor's whose are), he has thousands of edits that improved the project.

  The point of temp banning editors is to reform them. That goal was clearly accomplished. It just happened in less time that the arbitrary number ArbCom threw down. And as for others knowing, anyone that would put this website before a friendship is a rat. That's just silly. Lara 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Loyalty to friends is good, but that does not include helping them violate trusts. If your friend is doing something wrong, you don't turn them in. You tell them to do the right thing, and don't help them do the wrong thing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Wrong thing? What's right and wrong is subjective. Let's be sure we're using the correct terms here. He was breaking a rule on a website. Be clear. Doing wrong things, for me, is a moral matter. This website is wrong on a lot of levels. Him evading a ban because he wanted to improve this project is not, in any way as I understand the word, wrong. Lara 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, per Jennavecia and Everyking. I might have even participated in the original ban discussion (can't remember) but he's clearly shown himself to be a dedicated editor (and admin) once again. Any kind of block is a) Punitive and b) Ludicrous. He will keep coming back, despite banning him. I wrote an analogy somewhere on banned users editing recently. There are some kinds of editors who should not be allowed to edit, period. Law/Undertow is not that kind of editor. He had a few disputes, he upset some influencial people. His was a political ban. There is no proof whatsoever that allowing him to continue as an admin is a) Damaging or b) Against community wishes. The community voted him in. The fact they did proves the ban was political, because as soon as the person behind the account is discovered, the user (who was well-respected in the community) suddenly becomes an unperson, deleted from our community, for the crime of wanting to edit and help out. My analogy was like this: banned users are usually banned for good reasons. They are, essentially, criminals of the wiki-world. They are barred from editing here, as far as possible. But it's like this. Suppose you got home one day, and having left the house in a mess that morning, you're confused to discover the whole place is now spick and span. You check round, and find nothing missing. There is, however, a note, which informs you that if you want your house cleaned again, to ring a particular number. You're pleasantly surprised, that someone is coming in to clean your house, but on the other hand, you're a little irritated they have broken the law by trespassing/breaking and entering your property. Now if this person was a Wikipedian, they would immediately call the police, give them the number, and have them arrested. What they technically did was wrong; they went on to property they should not have done. However, they did many good things while they were there. Does the Wikipedian then return everything to its prior state, out of spite? Often, they do. Even if it was worse. Law/Undertow is like that. He was technically not allowed here, but he has done so much good it's making his "illegal" return look irrelevant. We should be welcoming him back, since he has not caused any problems, not shunning him away again, simply because he broke a petty Wikipedia politics law. Majorly talk 13:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, but that has to be one of the worst analogies I can imagine. I come home, find that someone has broken into my house and mysteriously gone through my things and cleaned everything, and I'm supposed to be just a little irritated that they broke the law? :) I suspect it would be an awful lot stronger than that, and yes, I would ring the police. - Bilby (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's trying to illustrate how you can break a "law" and be doing a good thing at the same time. Like somebody escaping from prison and starting a new life. It's ludicrous to ban a productive editor. Majorly talk 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - I believe the desysop is appropriate. However, I do not believe a ban is. The undertow has attacked me quite a lot (and sometimes viciously) over the past year. He is not my friend, nor wants to be, nor ever could be considered such. I find him unpleasant. However, I do not believe his original ban or this ban would be appropriate (Long block? fine. Ban? no.). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Hold This broke less than 10 hours ago. Its a dramahappy situation with a lot of editors being (predictably and understandably) emotional.--Tznkai (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose ban - Do you really want to ban a productive editor? It is clear that if given the chance this editor will contribute productively to the project. A ban, to me, would seem nothing more than needless politics and bureaucracy. — neuro^(talk) 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think it is likely that a ban will implemented at this point, but just in case, I oppose a ban for the reasons outlined by Neurolysis. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia

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

Jennavecia strongly supported Law's RFA. [243][244][245][246][247] How does it look when an administrator knowingly supports a deception like that? Not very good at all. It's one thing to stand aside and do nothing, but quite something else to actively assist block evasion and sock puppetry. I think Jennavecia has some explaining to do. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's as may be, but I see 100 other editors who supported as well. Should we question them? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They did not publicly state that they knew who Law was. I would assume good faith of the others; they were deceived. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You know full well I suspect that Casliber knows them too, as do others. I don't see this developing into anything other than a mess. DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cas apparently did not notice the RFA, but I agree this would be a mess. I do hate these goddamn open secrets though. Cool Hand Luke 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What leads you to believe Casliber knew that Law was the_undertow? Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that. Who are the others who knew? What is your evidence that they knew? At this point I'm looking for an explanation of something that looks bad. Did Law get permission from ArbCom to start a new account during The undertow's block? Did Law get permission to run an RFA without disclosing the prior circumstances. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Redacted. Happy to redact further if I am requested to. [248][249][250] DrKiernan (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to come off as snarky as I did... But my main worry is that this mess started with a request to learn what we could from Law's RFA, and now feels very much like "What did they know and when did they know it?" Even if some admins knew (and I did not, owing to my extended wikibreak), there are sometimes plausible reasons for a new, undisclosed account. Some editors may have known and AGF'ed that it was proper, or reasonably so. Some may have AGF'ed that arbcom had given it their blessing, even if nonpublicly to avoid OUTing the new identity. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be, that's why I asked for explanations rather than heads on pikes. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He's my best friend. Big deal. I trust him. That's why I supported him. I don't care if he broke a rule on a website. He wanted to get into new areas, I knew his intentions were good (which is more than I can say for most of the RFAs I vote in, where I assume the intentions for people I don't know are good), so I supported him. I'll always have his back no matter what, because we're friends regardless of what's going on with Wikipedia. I would never put a website before a friendship. And I would never not get his back because I'm an admin. If you don't trust me with my tools, recall me, but I won't be admonished for supporting my best friend. Lara 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Loyalty to friends is good, but that does not include helping them violate trusts. If your friend is doing something wrong, you don't turn them in. You tell them to do the right thing, or help them to do the right thing, and especially don't help them do the wrong thing. I'm not sure anybody is going to do anything to you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you lied, and he lied, and so did the other administrators who were aware of his background but kept it a secret. If he'd returned openly, as he should have, maybe he would have regained adminship on his own merits without having to hide his past? Should we accept that administrators can lie to us about whatever they choose, so long as they can argue afterwards that it was for the good of the encyclopedia? Nathan ^T 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't lie. I don't by that "if you know and don't tell you're a liar." No. When I was asked by ArbCom if I knew, I told them I did. Lara 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand how friendship can sway things, as it should, but I see deep, root worries about trust here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to single out one person here because they have been honest. Who knew what, and when, why they didn't inform the committee, or stop the Law RfA, or advise against the Law resysop - I think there is merit to these questions, in order to learn how to avoid this in the future. However that would require a full RFAR case or an RFC, and I suspect that the answers would probably be quite divisive. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If they were honest, they'd have revealed highly relevant information at the RFA, or recused themselves from participating if they felt friendship came first. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Going down a "what do you know and when did you know it?" route here is only going to lead to bad blood and loads of eDrama. Seriously, just let this side-tangent to the affair drop. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Screaming "McCarthyism" isn't exactly a recipe for reducing drama. Shall I scream "coverup" and "double standards"? Then where will we be? No, let's discuss this rationally. McCarthy was a scum, and I do not appreciate you comparing me to him at all. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you're lighting the torches and calling for a witch hunt, i.e. "I think Jennavecia has some explaining to do.", don't be surprised if you get called out on it. What were you hoping to accomplish here? Some kind of "aiding and abetting" wiki-trial? Please. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? That's a bit dramatic, eh? If someone has been behaving unethically, pointing this out is hardly a "witch hunt". Friday (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• When you are a sysop, site standards come before personal relationships. Being a sysop is a position of trust. If personal relationship is going to influence you, then you must recuse yourself from the matter, or disclose the relationship so that others can view your opinion in a proper light. Do you agree, Jennavecia? I'm not interested in punishing you, only in making clear how things should operate. Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is rare that I agree with Jehochman. However, in this case I do. Note that while there are situations where asking people when they knew something can be inappropriate, that doesn't mean asking such is inherently bad. Given Jenna's comments and her history with the Undertow, I have a lot of trouble believing that she did not know that Law was Undertow when she so strongly supported his RfA. Some explanation from her is definitely in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have me on /ignore on WP? I didn't know that was possible. >_> Lara 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman stirs drama. This is what he does. I don't understand why anyone would ask him not to. That said, J, your logic is flawed. Putting my friendship first by recusing in his RFA? That makes no sense. You take Wikipedia way to seriously. There are bigger issues (like the BLP plague) than a banned editor coming back to help the project so much so that people are now "shocked" to find out. You're drama-mongering and politicking. I'm unmoved. So conduct your study, but don't anticipate my participation. It's a website. Lara 14:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You knowingly aided a sock puppet account to gain adminship. That was a clear breach of trust on your part. All you need to do is indicate that you understand and won't make the same mistake again. If you can't do that, I think you should not be a sysop. Don't try to evade responsibility for your actions by making personal attacks against me. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Law isn't a sockpuppet. And please tell me what damage to the encyclopedia this has caused. Thanks! Majorly talk 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

An alternate account used to evade a block is definitively a sock puppet. There is such a thing as reputation, Wikipedia's reputation. There is morale. Users get blocked for sock puppetry and block evasion all the time. Here we have an account that was allowed to flout the rules because he was friends with administrators. Doesn't that strike you as unfair, and bad for Wikipedia's reputation? Don't you see how that damages our ability to recruit and retain volunteers? Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I submit that there is no comment here, no action that could be taken with regard to Law/Undertow, no ruling from the arbcom, that could benefit Wikipedia's reputation. However well-intentioned, however reasonable this thread started, it is now Drama, and when has Drama ever helped our reputation? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Nepotism is bad. We need to show that we don't allow it. I am hoping to demonstrate that users in positions of trust, especially admins who aspire to gain Oversight access,[251] are not allowed to help their "best friend" flout the rules. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's as may be. In this particular case, Arbcom didn't even block The_undertow for the violation, they just blocked Law (Law having requested desysoping on 20 September). Any sanction against Jennavecia or others would A) not be preventative, and B) be harsher than the sanction against The_undertow. So I guess my question becomes, on point, what administrative remedy would you like to see in this specific instance? The next question would be if there is consensus for such a remedy; I suspect that there is not. The broader issues of nepotism and Wikipedia's Reputation can be left for another discussion, as Tznkai notes. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The community may well ban The undertow, and Arbcom may well take away sysop privileges for those most responsible for promoting his sockpuppet's adminship. I found this response[252] by Lara to my legitimate question about Law, which turns out to be more well-founded than I realize, to be less than forthcoming. Even before I knew she was defending her "best friend" I thought her attitude was unduly bite-y and undignified for an administrator dealing with an honest question on a meta-page. Now that I know she was playing favorites, I'm not very happy. The world is full of circumstances large and small where we are required to put duty before friendship, from the workplace to things as simple as not lying on government forms. Wikipedia too is a place where we are supposted to treat everyone fairly and not lie in our use of tools and policies. Perhas Lara is simply not well versed here and can learn. But a deliberately defiant attitude that she would deceive us and break policy to promote sock administrators (and who knows what else) if they are her friends is inconsistent with being trusted as an admin. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reputation

This deserves it's own heading. Wikipedia's reputation. You're saying that this situation reflects on Wikipedia's reputation? YGBSM. I could write 15 paragraphs about why Wikipedia's reputation is a joke. This situation and those like it aren't to be attributed. People like you, who stir up drama at every given opportunity, Jehochman, is what gives Wikipedia bad reputation. If Wikipedia was mellow and people cared more about the content than the politics and drama, things would be better. You perpetuate the poor reputation. To project it any other way is laughable. Lara 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What does YGBSM mean? Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"You've gotta be shitting me". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Nepotism is the problem. Read my comment above. Users consistently complain about favoritism. If you have powerful friends, you can do whatever you like here, while others get sanctioned for minor infractions. Nepotism is a real problem that contributes to loss of volunteers. We need to address it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you propose we do that? Anything you propose will drive somebody from the project, one way or another.UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

e/c:I agree with the general notion that what happens behind the curtain does not negatively effect Wikipedia's reputation, which includes pretty much all of our little fights on adminship and so called drama stirring. That said, personal attacks are not helpful and they should stop.--Tznkai (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Inernally, it hurts the faith that insiders have in the institution. Every organization, fraternity, project, whatever, has problems. What hurts the reputation is not dealing with the problems to the extent that something very bad happens that catches the public's imagination. Fake Wikipedia admins have become nationwide news before. This won't get to that level unless one of these people turns out to be a well known or scandalous individual promoting his or her own interests, or something like that. In any event, fixing a problem is a lot better for an organization's reputation than letting it linger for fear of bad PR. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman

Jehochman's comments are completely ridiculous.

Nepotism isn't a problem on this project. Nepotism is why I'm unemployed. The problem on the project is long-time established users who are known best for the drama they stir up needlessly. The problem on the project is that there is no adequate enforcement of behavioral issues. Incivility is met with blocks for personal attacks. Personal attacks are ignored when made my vested users. "Personal attack!" is cried when someone is offended. Old Guard editors and admins can do absolutely anything they want most of the time. POV problems are rampant. The BLP problem is only getting worse. There are a lot of problems on this project. Nepotism isn't one of them. In-fighting is one of them.

And to say that Law was able to do this because I knew. That's stupid. I didn't get Law adminship. I didn't protect him against the big bad wolves. I knew and I supported him in various things, like his RFA, because I know and trust him. Law worked on articles. I'm almost exclusively working on BLPs and the related pages. If you don't trust me, J, then recall me. My procedure is really simple. I'll waive the week of discussion on my talk and let it stand with this thread. Once this thread is archived, if you're not pleased with the level of drama, just dive right into that page. Lara 14:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the substantive problem is a much more serious issue than those who complain about it. This is a significant, real problem that has lead to the apparent resignation of one Arbcom member, and a different socking incident lead to the recent resignation of another. This issue troubles a lot of people who are not normally troubled, not only Jehochman, who seems like the proverbial stuck clock that's right twice a day. Someone who complains that everything on Wikipedia is a travesty is occasionally right when describing things that really are travesties. Meanwhile, I think Lara's vehement protests, defense of Law / The undertow, and attacks on those who disagree, all undermine her authority as an administrator. It might be wise to stand for a new RfA, but I would suggest waiting for the various discussions to die down to see if we can have a community consensus on just how seriously we will take the problem of people knowingly facilitating socking. Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to double vote?

Accuser convinced that there was no attempt to double vote. Cool Hand Luke 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On February 8, The undertow requested unblock so that he could vote in the OS/CU elections (on his deleted talk page). On February 7, Law had already voted for several candidates. Cool Hand Luke 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC) There was no double voting, and if we are to assume without evidence that the editor would act in such an abusive manner, then why bother having this discussion to begin with?  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Because he tried to vote. He was either trying to double vote or trying to use two accounts in the voting to avoid connecting votes to Law. Neither is a good thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Did Law vote for every candidate? Lara 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I checked. No. He didn't. Law had different friends and acquaintances than the_undertow. Voting for different candidates in the same election with different accounts isn't double voting. An intention to do so clearly isn't either. Lara 14:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Undertow withdrew his request for unblock on 13 February, and does not appear to have voted at all as Undertow. As far as the OS/CU elections, there does not appear to have been a violation. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I dislike the deception in asking for an unblock when the user had been editing for several months, but I found The undertow's explaination credible. He's given me permission to post it, and I reproduce it below: "The implication that I wanted to double vote makes no sense. I wanted to show support for some as the_undertow. If you notice, I never voted twice in anything, never used the accounts on the same project and never used them to somehow promote an agenda. It's not like I'm completely lacking in ethics. Notice how I used undertow to vote in certain RfA's and Law in others during the same week? I never double-voted -- just ask Risker. -Chip" I've omitted an unrelated statement which does not seem to be factual. It's true that he never double voted. He's not the most honest character, but I don't think he was trying to double vote. Cool Hand Luke 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for following that up, CHL. Let's lay this accusation to rest, shall we.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check please

This is getting ugly, and the questioning of each other's ethics really is not going to end well. It would appear that the original block was expired. Applying for tools may have been unethical, but was not illegal. We all have our own reasons for supporting or opposing RfA's ... perhaps someone thought a block was originally inappropriate, who knows the internal thoughts. Let's go back to the WP:AGF concept, and believe that all of us believe we're doing what's best at the time. We've possibly been all found to be asses, but RFA is a community decision nonetheless. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I voted for Law without knowing who he was, and I am pleased to have done so. I'm not pleased the community decision has now been reversed because certain people don't like the fact they voted for an evil banned person. It's all political, and no actual consideration to the encyclopedia has been made. Majorly talk 14:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ban him. Clearly the guy is here on a mission to create drama. Frankly, we can do without this. Plus, not mentioning your previous history of instability, blocks, legal threats and demoppings at ones RFA is very, very poor form: that is a breach of trust. Goodbye! Moreschi (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Law (talk · contribs) has 3,300 edits to the article space, which is nearly 50% of his total contribution history. He has additionally started 17 new articles. A breach of trust it may be, but it's unfair to say this user is solely on "a mission to create drama". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Haha. Law is the one creating drama? XD Oh, god. Please. He's not even participating here in order to minimize drama. If not for Sandstein posting, there wouldn't be drama. If not for Jehochman politicking, there would be less drama. You certainly stir up your share of drama too, honey. Lara 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban Actually, after seeing this[253], I would suggest giving User:Law the bum's rush. To have an admin openly declare that there are certain policies that they don't follow and will not enforce is, IMO, a greater offense to the community than slinking back in with multiple accounts. How did it happen that someone with a stated unwillingness to perform the administrator's job was granted the status of administrator? The only reason we have admins is to enforce policy, using tools with which us lowly editors can't be trusted. L0b0t (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Opting not to participate, butting out if you will, based upon one of the wisest postings I've seen in quite a spell. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh come off it. I don't enforce WP:BLOCK, would you like me banned too? Even if one accepts that an unwillingness to enforce particular policies is grounds to refuse someone administrator access, that is an entirely different matter from concluding that that person should be prohibited from ever contributing to the encyclopaedia in any capacity ever again. Refer to the subsection title.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Tacky A tacky abuse of trust. I don't know about a ban but I am sure going to oppose any future RfA. Even without this recent exposure of his abuse of trust I would not support this person as an admin due to his tendency to ignore policy and use the tools based on personal opinion. I have no problem with him editing articles if he sticks to only the one account and follows our other rules. Chillum 14:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• A couple thoughts. Wikipedia was founded on the idea of anonymity. The majority of "accounts" here hide their real life identities, and edit for the improvement of the project. Some folks even adopt certain personalities with their online accounts. My question is this: Does "Account:X" edit to improve the project? Personally, if an account is doing good things here - I really don't care what size, shape, or gender is behind the edits. Sometimes what people know and what they think they know can be two entirely different things. If we're all going to start pointing fingers, accusing people of bad motives, and start-up some USENET shit-storm - to be perfectly blunt - it is a path to the dark side, and will not lead to anything good. Real people are being hurt everyday here because of BLP violations. Articles exist out there without references. Simply stated, there are better things to do folks than engage in this type of "gotcha" game. — Ched :  ?  14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (Disclaimer: I'm friends with the editor.) I agree, Ched. As Law, he was a good admin and good editor. Right now, he is a net positive to the project, and I do not think he should be banned. However, having to go through a future RfA seems reasonable and like the best option. hmwith☮ 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Addendum: I don't object to him sticking with The_undertow as a username, however, as ArbCom decided. hmwith☮ 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• WP:STICK? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• A banned user socked to gain admin tools. Some admins knew about this and kept shtum. Others complain when the situation is exposed. Why is anyone surprised? This is normal behaviour for the admin community. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no community ban

Multiple administrators have objected to a community ban, myself included. There is not going to be one unless new facts come out and a new discussion starts. There is no need to pile on unless people have some sort of new perspective to add to the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd suggest archiving this entire discussion and let the dust settle. If the_undertow/Law requests an unblock then a new and calm discussion should take place. –xeno^talk 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo xeno's comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He's not blocked. Lara 14:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom voted 9-0 to limit User:The_undertow to 1 account, specifically Truth cannot be realized through consensus, nor compromise. Truth is absolute.. User:Law was blocked indef as a result, but Undertow has not been blocked or otherwise sanctioned. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops - stricken. Anyhow, my motion to close still stands. Tensions are running high and I don't think much productivity is to be had here, at least not today. –xeno^talk 14:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why they say ANI sweeps stuff under the rug when the higher-ups get caught with their fingers in the cookie-jar. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple. Because WP:RFC is thataway. "All the world's a stage", but in spite of the rumors this is a serious administrative board and not a free ranging venue for drama. Durova³²⁰ 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone would like to take part in an UNOFFICIAL discussion on alternate accounts/sockpuppets, etcetera, I've set up a discussion at User:SirFozzie/Alternate. Discussion on the issue as a whole is welcome, (I'm not interested in calling for bans on specific users, just discussion of where the project can go from here) SirFozzie (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it will be more useful to clarify and strengthen policy rather than to focus an RFC on an individual. Jehochman ^Talk 12:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Situation

As I understand it, the situation is currently:

• Law is the undertow, currently previously under a several month ban, who evaded ban, made a sock, became admin as sock, and now the Law account is de-sysopped and banned. the undertow account has had no action taken against it.
• Lara aka Jennavecia knew at the time of Law's Rfa that he was the undertow. When concern was expressed at the breach of trust implied in knowingly abetting the undertow in evading ArbCom sanctions, she responded "he's my best friend, get over it",[254] as well as "I'll always have his back no matter what"[255] and accused at least one of those voicing concerns of "causing drama".
• Lara further compared her transgressions with other, non related issues, stating or implying her actions were not important in the larger picture.
• Various people voiced opinions on tangential issues; was Law a good admin, etc.
• GlassCobra, who nominated Law,[256] has also admitted he knew and abetted Law/the undertow in evading ArbCom sanctions[257]

that's the situation as I see it currently. I am still mulling over (and finding and reading) details. I do not believe I have missed anything core to this issue. If I have, I will add it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The undertow ban has expired. –xeno^talk 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I will correct this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my understanding as well. Lara's behavior has been quite unreasonable, and damaging to the project. Will people ever get it through their heads that all this making of "friends" and "enemies" is seriously harmful to Wikipedia? Don't we have real life for that sort of thing? Friday (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• One argument that has been raised is that the people knowing "didn't do any harm" by not informing people, and that Law's contributions after returning have been entirely proper and have not contained any eyebrow-raising. Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight counters this completely - the undertow was a friend of COM, we knew he was a friend of CoM, and if this knowledge had been available to the community as a whole than Law's unblock of CoM would have been treated substantially differently. The argument that withholding the information did no harm is thus moot - it allowed a biased admin to unblock a friend, something entirely improper. People crying that Law's actions have been those of a saint may want to look up that thread and revise their worldview somewhat. Ironholds (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly this kind of stuff makes me not want to contribute to Wikipedia anymore. What's the point when everything is controlled behind the scenes by people like Lara and her friends who are above the rules? This is the first time since I started contributing to the encyclopedia that I've felt that this might be a bad place. :( -- Atama頭 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Now at Arbcom - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Falafel

Resolved

 – Content issue, no admin action required.  Sandstein  09:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Would like to request a neutral admin review the addition of a photo of sliced falafel that has been added to the falafel article. There is currently a discussion regarding it at Talk:Falafel#Images --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not selected on their strengths in falafel imagery judgment; what you have there is a disagreement over content that should be settled by dispute resolution if you can't come to an agreement on the talkpage. Alternatively, editors who do know a thing or two about content issues might be found at these noticeboards. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:3O is also a good place to get the opinion of others.  Sandstein  09:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I find myself suddenly hungry for ground chickpeas (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A literal "food fight" on wikipedia. I find myself hungry for an Angusburger. I'm not sure what that is, but I'm guessing it's a Scottish/German dish. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And here I am, just a few blocks from this[258] joint. I think my lunch problem is solved. PhGustaf (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Now, I may have to walk to the only spot in town that does a fit hummus. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of road names

User:BrownHairedGirl

I wish to complain about BHG in relation to edit warring on Irish roads articles. The N3 road article was originally set up in October 2004 and over the years numerous links to it were created from a host of articles. It was moved much later to N3 road (Ireland) without any consultation or discussion with the editors on the article or anyone else. I proposed to move the article back to it's original location and said so on BHGs page; least she have any objections. She immediately dabbed dozens of links to N3 road to N3 road (Ireland); before any discussion even started. There were links that had remained unchanged for many years. This was a blatant, aggressive, provocative, non-collaborationist and disruptive course of action. I restored the original links, making explicitly clear that they should not be changed until the naming issue was resolved. At this stage User:Dpmuk, another admin tag-reverted the links to the dabbed version. As both are Admins I cannot tackle such blatant edit warring myself; so I wish to raise the issue here. I would also point out (while 100% familiar with WP:OWN) that I created most of the linked articles; many of the road articles and BHG's input has been restricted in the main to mass bot-type impositions of her own preferences (and to help build up a massive edit-count). Dpmuk is an editor on British roads (I think ) but has never been involved to any significant extent on Irish roads articles.

At the very least I feel these editors should be total to restore all recently dabbed links until the naming issue is resolved; and they should be warned not to use any Admin powers or tools on roads related articles until all the naming issues they have been edit warring on are resolved. Sarah777 (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are complaining that User:BrownHairedGirl has been correctly disambiguating links from N3 road to N3 road (Ireland)? Jeni ^(talk) 14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Read what said and don't be disingenuous please: I am complaining of blatant, aggressive, provocative, non-collaborationist and disruptive editing by an Admin and edit warring by two Admins. Sarah777 (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I restored the original links, making explicitly clear that they should not be changed until - no, doesn't work like that. You don't get to declare a given version fixed until you're happy William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It works whatever the British majority say it will work. In the case of BHG she made the moves of very long-established links in the face of an ongoing discussion and despite my having asked her not to. Funny I recall you telling folk they were blocked for something "after I warned them". Of course, I know, different rules apply. Sarah777 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They can be as long established as they like, but if they are pointing to the wrong place, they need fixing. Jeni ^(talk) 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see - so that would be the same as when User:Sarah777, who hadn't been involvedin any editing on British motorways, moved M1 motorway to M1 motorway (Great Britain) - twice - [259] [260] without any consultation or discussion with editors on the article, and without fixing any of the hundreds of incoming links to the article? If you want a "blatant, aggressive, provocative, non-collaborationist and disruptive course of action" I 'd suggest that's a far better example. And ironically, I even agree with Sarah on the N3 issue. Black Kite 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology Kite; I was following what appeared to be accepted as "best practice". Sarah777 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you informed the subject of this discussion? Syrthiss (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The history of the N3 road (Ireland) is that it was moved for disambiguation purposes from N3 road to N3 road (Ireland) in July 2008, and remained stable at that location until Sarah began a series of page moves in September, all of which were promptly reverted. Today she announced her intention to move it again, so I opened a requested move discussion to seek consensus. My disambiguation of incoming links does not prejudice the outcome of that discussion, because if the road is moved to the primary topic, a redirect will ensure that all the incoming links still work; it also assists the discussion, because the large number of undisambiguated links meant that whatlinkshere massively under-erestimated the number of internal links to the article, which is sometimes a factor in move discussions. However, failure to redirect leaves incoming links pointing to a disambiguation page.

I have explained the situation at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#N3.2C_google_it and at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Arbcom_please, where an uninvolved editor has described my editing as disrupting a user's attempt to make a point by building an encyclopedia.

I am puzzled that Sarah has opened this complaint by denouncing a page move which was uncontested for 14 months as having been done "without any consultation or discussion", when she has been busy moving lots of roads and did even participate in a centralised discussion I opened on one of her previous move sessions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

the convention so far has been for Irish N-roads to be located at "Nx road (Ireland)", where x is the road number. No, the convention for five years until someone moved then all without consultation was Nx road. When I tried to apply this imposition to the M1 (UK) I realised that in fact, it wasn't a convention. Sarah777 (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't informed and the fact that my user name is quoted incorrectly would obviously make it hard for anyone else to do so. I'd also like to point out that I am not an admin and have never made myself out to be one. I'd also like to point out that I'm not particularly active on any roads article (although I may have occasionally edited UK road articles in the past) and came accross this mess while looking at requested moves as I informed Sarah777 on her talk page. I'm happy for anyone to look at what I've done as, with one excpetion, I feel I have acted reasonably and within policy. The one exception is N3 road where I admit I may have been in error due to me misreading the edit logs. I missed the fact that the Irish road was at this page until moved on the 20th September. As such I should probably have treated the subsquently redirect to point at this page as a revert and discussed the issue rather than reverting back to point to N3 (as a disambiguation page). In both this and my subsquent revert I thought (incorrectly) that I was restoring the page to it's 'stable' state and so in keeping with normal wikipedia practice. It was only later that I realised my oversight and I can only apologise for this. Dpmuk (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dpmuk, you were right first time, and in your latest comment you seem to have missed the move on Sept 18th. Here's the move history:

• October 2004 - article created
• July 2008: article moved to N3 road (Ireland)
• 18 Sept 2009 - article moved to N3 road by Sarah777
• 20 Sept 2009 - article moved to N3 road (Ireland) by Nono64
• 26 September - article moved to N3 national road by Sarah777
• 26 September - article moved to to N3 road (Ireland) by BrownHairedGirl

So far as I can see, the stable location of the page is that which existed for the 14 months up to 18 Sept 2009, when Sarah began her series of contested moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Grr, I hate working my way round move logs and the like. In that case it looks like I somehow managed to do the correct thing despite completely misreading the situation! As an aside does anyone know how to suggest that the move log reports pages both moved from and to a title as opposed to the current situation where it only reports pages moved from a title? Dpmuk (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

BHG VS Sarah?? i thought you two were on the same side! lol. I would just like to say no motorway articles should be moved without RM, to prevent edit warring. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been paying attention, BW. :)

Like any two editors, we agree on some things and disagree on others; see for example the discussion on the M50 motorway, where I disagreed with Sarah777. I prioritise disambiguation except in cases of a clear primary topic (i.e. one significantly more important than all other topics with the same name), but like the British editors such as Jeni, Sarah777 wants articles from her country to be at the primary topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an unfair representation of "what I want". What I want is that the same policy, whether 100% dab or "primacy" be applied to all countries. Please stop implying contradiction when the reality is more complicated - but extremely consistent and non-nationalist. Sarah777 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh i see, i tuned out of the motorway articles in the past couple of days, it just seems to be going on and on and on. I disagree with all those positions myself. The page hits are good enough to show primary topic for me and when its pretty close i support disam. As someone that gets accused of British POV pushing by some id just like to point out i supported an Ireland motorway as the primary topic despite there being a British motorway! BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Madison and Fifth Avenues buses. I hail from Manhattan where I use the M1 bus to get around town sometime. I would love nothing better than to bring peace between the English and the Irish, both heavy users of M1 bus in New York City. I'm amazed that such an apparently uncontroversial topic can cause this disruption. It would be good, I think, if the editing slows down a bit. My experience, at WP, with which BHG is quite familiar, has made me think that pages where edit wars have occurred, could use a special WP Flag advising editors to slow down. Furthermore, it would be extremely useful if an effort was made to narrow down the issues, and come to an agreement as to what exact Content issues are in dispute. At the moment, I'm inspired to come and help out here only because I'm extremely familiar with the work of one Administrator. I'm also extremely curious as to the relation of one's functions as an Administrator, and those of a Content editor. But looking at this page at a glance, it is not possible to figure out what the exact issues in dispute are. But I'm willing to listen and learn, and help resolve the conflict - if I'm welcome, of course. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's quite simple really. Is the N3 road in Ireland/Eire/the Irish Republic (whatever the reader wishes to call the country) the only N3 road in the world? If yes, then the article should be at N3 road. If there are othere N3 roads elswhere (e.g. France), then N3 road should be a disambig page, and the article disambiguated by country (N3 road, Foostate), N3 road, Fooland) etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Mjroots, that's pretty much how I have been arguing for things to be done, and by remaining neutral between countries that approach also addresses any systemic bias issue. Unfortunately the vagueness of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has led to some editors engaging in a sterile and pointless my-road-is-more-important-than-yours exercise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'd support dabbing in all cases of duplicate road names. But that has been voted down by the community in relation to UK roads. Where primacy is the default position. So the same rule must apply to roads in all other countries. It isn't sustainable or acceptable to have a separate rule for the UK. BHG would like to impose dabbing on UK roads, but can't, due to the numerical strength of British nationalist editors. So her solution is to impose it on Iriah roads regardless; ironically with the support of many of those same British nationalist editors. The mass dabbing of links was reverted by me and re-imposed by a British roads editor who were never before seen near an Irish roads article. Jeni springs to mind. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, AFAICS the Irish roads were dabbed over a year ago, without controversy, so those are the stable versions. You know how things work in that situation: if a move is contested, we go to an RM discussion. Your moves have been contested, so we have an RM.

I quite agree that we have a problem with British nationalist editors using their numerical strength to oppose dabbing of British roads. This causes problems for readers, and for editors trying to maintain the internal links which those readers use.

But I can see no gain for readers in insisting that the problem on British roads be replicated elsewhere. Two wrongs don't make a right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the idea we must have a dab for every single article on a road or motorway just because more than one exists. If there is a primary topic which people are clearly looking for which can be judged by several methods including looking at page hits each of the articles get then that belongs at the prime spot. Only if its NOT clear then there should be a dab. That is how its been handled at M1, M2, M3 and M4 and many want M50 and M18 handled. There will be very strong oppostion to this idea. One only needs to look at the number of opposes over at M1 motorway for the Requested move of that page. This idea that it must be a dab by default is a non starter. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BritishW; you prove my point. The fact that you choose to ignore is that you and numerous other British rush to defend the primacy of British roads. All the M50 case proved was that there are more British nationalists than WP:NPOV supporting editors. We knew that already. Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly related

Could a completely uninvolved and neutral admin please consider closing the move discussions at Talk:M3 motorway#Requested move and Talk:M4 motorway#Requested move as appropriate, they have been ongoing for over a week now, and now going round in circles with accusations of bad faith flying around! Talk:M18 motorway#Requested move has also been going for a week, and pretty much in the same situation! Jeni ^(talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, those RMs should be closed however i dont want it to spread to the next motorway article as happened after M1 and M2 were dealt with. The recent spike in activity around these motorway positions is so very strange, whilst ofcourse it could be totally unrelated i still think it rather odd this is occuring so soon after the Ireland article naming vote closed. AS i have said before i was expecting some fall out / punishment for the outcome of the vote there, i confess i didnt imagine it would take us to the motorway articles though. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that those discussions should be closed, and by a completely uninvolved and neutral admin.

May I suggest that it would be much the best if the admin concerned were neither Irish nor British, and preferably someone who is not from an English-speaking country? (Probably not so any of them around, but it'd still be helpful if possible). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldnt be by a British or Irish admin, however this problem with people from English speaking countries is totally unacceptable. This is the English speaking Wikipedia, What is considered primary in the English speaking world may be different to what is considered primary in different languages.. but there are different language wikipedias for those people anyway. The majority of readers and editors here are likely to be from English speaking nations. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys/girls! Lets not let the content dispute spill out here. I'm sure whoever chooses to close it will consider themselves to be in a perfectly acceptable position to do so and will fully justify their actions. Jeni ^(talk) 16:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I cant stand the attacks on the English speaking nations when people moan about them dominating the English language wikipedia, what on earth do people expect. Such "problems" if it can even be described as a problem considering this English language wikipedia is meant to cater for the English speaking world is likely to be repeated on all other wikipedias with their respective languages. If there was just ONE wikipedia (Something i would quite like), in the true universal language of English then i would accept that things wouldnt be the way they are today on here, but its not. This is the ENglish language wikipedia for the English speaking world. If that means an American article is given prime spot over something in Asia that most English speaking people have never heard of i see no problem at all with that. Infact if we had to go through a huge list of different articles because when ever you enter a term it takes you to a dab page, im sure some people would get fed up with using wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh :(

BW, my suggestion is not an attack on anyone, let alone English-speaking nations (I'm a citizen of one of them and live in another). It's a suggestion that life will be easier for everyone if the closing admin is someone who cannot be accused of cultural bias in favour of either side. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to get some perspective and civility on these issues, could I second the proposal above to require an RM procedure before moving any article about any road in Great Britain, Ireland or Northern Ireland. I think this should also apply to disambiguation pages listing roads in any of these places too. For fairness it should apply to everybody, not just people who have been involved with any of the recent discussions or moves. The should be 2 exceptions to this:

1. Anybody could revert obvious vandalism (with this explicitly not applying to titles that are plausible (e.g. Moving M25 motorway to M25 motorway (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, although unlikely to get consensus is plausible; moving it to M25 motorway ate my hamster is not plausible).
2. Any uninvolved (in the whole dispute, not just a single page) administrator could, at their discretion, revert page moves made without going through RM.

I stress I'd like this to apply to everyone, including me, as an attempt to avoid any more controversial moves. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn! Just as I was ready to move it to M25 motorway ate my hamster. Wonder how many hits it would get. Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's true though, it did eat my hamster, maybe I'll find it when I go to London tomorrow! Jeni ^(talk) 16:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1,000,000% support - It is the best way to go in this situation. I'd also support handing out short sharp blocks for users that knowingly violate this. Jeni ^(talk) 16:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, reluctantly. Avoiding move wars is a great idea, but what we have seen lately is that any attempt to move articles on British roads produces a paranoid reaction, with British editors piling in to try to find reasons to maintain "their" road as a primary topic, with UK geography project being used as a noticeboard. Given the numerical strength of British editors, this tends to create a high vote for maintaining UK roads at pole position, and it's noteable that some editors have been partisan and inconsistent in how they assess each renaming proposal. So Thryduulf's well-intentioned proposal has the effect of locking in the status quo, even if that's not the intention -- because as we have seen already, any move of a British road will be pounced on by some editors, and advertiaing every move with an RM merely invites a controversy which might not otherwise apply.
  Rather than yet another threat of blocks, a better approach would be to put a moratorium on such moves pending an RFC on the application of "primary topic" to roads. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • So let me get this straight, you believe it is perfectly OK to make controversial moves with no consensus? Jeni ^(talk) 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Not at all! I firmly that believe that consensus is the way to go. However, the problem here is that the consensus decision-making process doesn't work when editors start !voting on partisan national lines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

IF M2 had not been moved then you may have a case, but its clear some British editors who supporter M1 remaining in the same place backed that move. It must be handled on a case by case basis and i think it should be done along the lines M1/M2 were dealt with. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have explained elsewhere that I do not vote on national grounds, I vote based on the evidence available for each topic. If I see a road that isn't a primary topic but should be based on the evidence, then I will support that being moved to the primary topic, just as I will oppose such a move if the evidence shows a different road is the primary topic or there is no primary topic. I will do this regardless of which country the road is in, including Ireland. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I start to wonder if the actual solution to all these problems is to ban anyone who identifies as Irish or British from editing any article that concerns Britain or Ireland. Rather sad to see that we can't even behave like rational human beings when dealing with articles on sodding roads. Must everything be a battleground? Plenty of good content editors have been damaged by these spats, can't we all just learn from their example and pretend that geography articles are about geography and not a chance to replay out a centuries long conflict in proxy? Wiki won't solve the Northern Ireland issue. Someone should add 'Jimmy Carter' to the Wikipedia Is Not article. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Those sanctioned by Arbcom for pushing ANTI British POV should probably avoid such topics yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There has to be some kind of naming policy (and what should be the primary article, if any) hammered out for these road articles. As there appears to be discussions spread over several articles I think it might be a good idea to create a specific discussion page for this with a neutral Admin to oversee the debates. Any obvious bias should be ignored or even deleted, which would also include PRO British POV. Jack forbes (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope if you are going to make comments like that you'll include pro Irish POV, which we have seen far too much of recently. Jeni ^(talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was making my point in answer to BWs comment above. There should be no pro or anti anything on wikipedia, that doesn't mean there isn't. Jack forbes (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a lot of fighting going on about highway naming conventions. I'd like to point everyone's attention to WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC, when events very very similar to this happened in the United States. Basically, the Arbitration Committee got involved and it got pretty nasty. I encourage everyone to get this resolved in good faith in a peaceable way before this goes to Arbitration. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think this is going to be a long term dispute between the two groups, we have far more interesting conflicts going on over different articles. The problem will be reduced once the current RMs are sorted and if people dont just move articles themselves without consensus, it shouldnt need to go all the way to arbcom to deal with this. Besides some of the editors involved in this matter have been involved in another matter that went to arbcom. If there was one thing all sides could agree on, it was arbcoms failure to resolve our problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Support I support User:Jack forbes's constructive recommendation just made above. I'm neutral on all Anglo-Celtic distinctions. I'd like to know why we do not have more specific guideline on roads at Wikipedia. I noticed a reference to primary topic just made. Apparently, that's not enough. So let's open a page to create a WP policy specifically designed to address such issues on our English language encyclopedia. To do that aren't nationalistic issues obviously going to become moot? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:Thryduulf made reference to "primary topic." But maybe there's a way to make this distinction more objective when it comes to Roads named identically, but in different countries. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• I also strongly recommend to Flag such disputed articles with the Flag: {{controversial}} at the top of the pages Talk page (which I've just done).
• And here's what the DAB page for N3 road has:

    ==Roads==
    *N3 road (Ireland), a National Primary Route
    *N3 road (Belgium), one of the national roads in Belgium
    *N3 road (Senegal), one of the national roads in Senegal
    *N3 road (South Africa), a road connecting Johannesburg to Durban
    *N3, European large goods vehicles above 12 tonnes
    *N3, IATA code for the Russian airline Omskavia

• So the conflict ought to be with South Africans - but it isn't, right? So we should have a rule based on these kinds of conditions (defined for us by the DAB page. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• PS: I also noticed no one bothered to put a reference to the DAB page in question. That indicates to me that there's no real controversy with the "N3 road" in any other country besides Ireland. Nevertheless, a clear WP policy does not exist to assist us in making a ruled decision! --Ludvikus (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the N3 road, the proposed move is that the Irish road should be the primary topic. However as of the last time I looked, everybody who had expressed an opinion thought that neither the Irish nor South African roads were the primary topic. The proposer of the move is Irish. Last I looked opinions and other contributions had come from Irish, British and American editors. I am not aware that any South Africans have commented. The other controversial topics that I have been involved in are all cases where British, Irish and other motorways share the same number, with both one or more Irish editors accusing other editors of having a pro-British and/or anti-Irish POV and one or more British editors accusing other editors of having a pro-Irish and/or anti-British POV. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 and Irish national primary roads

I am seeking move protection of a series of articles on National primary roads in Ireland. I am making the request here because WP:RFPP's format seems ill-suited to a group request such as this. Here's why I am seeking this:

Sarah777 (talk · contribs) posted to my talk page this morning stating her intention to move N11 road (Ireland) to N11 road unless she receives a "valid objection". See User talk:BrownHairedGirl#N11_road.2C_clear_primary_location and the procedural move request which I opened at Talk:N11 road (Ireland)#Requested_move).

This follows a similar approach to moving N3 road (Ireland) (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#N3.2C_google_it), which is now being discussed at Talk:N3 road (Ireland)#Requested_move), and a series of other disputes about the naming of British and Irish roads and motorways.

I have requested move-protection for N11 road (Ireland) (see request here), so that rather than a further move-war occurring, a discussion can take place to seek consensus on whether or not to move. (Just be be open about my own position, I have yet to see any such moves of Irish N-roads that I can support, and I prefer disambiguation in all cases I have examined so far).

It appears from Sarah's recent comments that she would like to move all Irish National primary roads to the primary topic (i.e. removing the "(Ireland)" disambiguator). That may be appropriate in some cases, but given the recent controversies in these areas (see e.g. #BrownHairedGirl above) it seems to me to best that any such moves are preceded either by a requested move discussion for each move or a centralised discussion on the issue. (However, Sarah did not respond to a centralised discussion which I opened on a previous set of moves which she began for these roads, and which I notified her about).

Rather than risking further escalation of this controversy, which could lead to threatened or actual blocks of individuals, may I suggest that all the Irish national primary roads should be move protected? This would ensure that no moves took place without consensus being formed in a requested move discussion.

The articles concerned are: M1 motorway (Republic of Ireland), N2 road (Ireland), N4 road (Ireland), N5 road (Ireland), N6 road (Ireland), M6 motorway (Ireland), N7 road (Ireland), M7 motorway (Ireland), N8 road (Ireland), M8 motorway (Ireland), N9 road (Ireland), M9 motorway (Ireland), N10 road (Ireland), N11 road (Ireland), N12 road (Ireland), N13 road (Ireland), N14 road (Ireland), N15 road (Ireland), N16 road (Ireland), N17 road (Ireland), N18 road (Ireland), M18 motorway (Ireland), N19 road (Ireland), N20 road (Ireland), N21 road (Ireland), N22 road (Ireland), N23 road (Ireland), N24 road (Ireland), N25 road (Ireland), N26 road (Ireland), N27 road (Ireland), N28 road (Ireland), N29 road (Ireland), N30 road (Ireland), N31 road (Ireland), N32 road (Ireland), N33 road (Ireland), M50 motorway (Ireland).

Sorry if I should have taken this to WP:RFPP, but as above I was concerned that it would overload that page to make a group request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sarah777 notified here about this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pages are only very rarely protected against a single editor. It is usually preferable to deal with the single editor directly. DrKiernan (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to support all the major players in this dispute submitting to a ban on moving motorway / road pages without the RM process. That should include the two admins who have been involved extensively. That would take away the need for page protection BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bans tend to lead to blocks, which in this area only inflames tensions.

Simply disabling the switch is a way of achieving the same thing, but with much less drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am currently drafting an RfC/U on this user about this subject which I tend to sumbit shortly. I know that announcing this in this way isn't normal but I'm doing so in an attempt to avoid overlap or anyone else starting an RfC/U at the same time. I will try to finish my draft as quickly as possible so the situation can be normalised. Dpmuk (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC/U started: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 2. Dpmuk (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As per my statement there, and our discussion on my talk page, I think that this RFC/U was well-intentioned but unhelpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! I have not ever said anywhere that all Irish N-roads should be primary. I really wish people would stop claiming that I did. What I said is:

• (1) My first preference (as per BHG so far as I can see) is that all roads of the letter/number type be dabbed where there are multiple versions.
• (2) This preference was rejected on a number of British roads articles and the community supported the identification of primary cases which would be the default; such as the British M1 motorway.
• (3) I then sought to apply this policy to Irish roads which I believe are primary (Examples; M50 motorway, N11 road). Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with University of Pittsburgh article

Today, I removed File:PittPanthers.png from the infobox of University of Pittsburgh [261], citing WP:MOSLOGO and the use of iconizaton of trademark logos (last paragraph of that guideline). An hour later, I was reverted by User:Crazypaco, who claimed the wordmark was commonly used to represent the university. I reverted him [262] indicating I would leave more on his talk page, which I did. But, before I could even complete my comments on his talk page, he reverted me again [263].

Repeating in part what I said on his talk page, the athletic department's wordmark is but one of many wordmarks in use by the university in question (examples: [264][265][266][267]). It isn't used on the university main page (http://www.pitt.edu/) to represent themselves. It is used on their athletics department page (http://www.pittsburghpanthers.com/). Should we include every wordmark the university uses in the infobox just to make sure nobody is confused about what page they landed on?

Some assistance, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed it again, but since it quite clearly fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 you don't even need admin assistance here, because removing non-free images that fail that policy falls clearly under the exceptions to 3RR. If the editor wants to keep re-instating it, that's xes call, but I'll leave a note anyway to hopefully prevent him getting blocked. Black Kite 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• The wordmark is not currently marked as non-free. User:BQZip01 decided it was free under pd-textlogo back in January of this year. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Got confused between the two. I've removed File:UofPittsburgh Logo.svg as spurious to the main non-free logo. BQZip is probably correct that the one you removed is copyright-free, but you're still right about MOSLOGO. Black Kite 18:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As noted in our discussion, I agree with the interpretation that File:UofPittsburgh Logo.svg is spurious and its removal justified, in contrast to Hammersoft's removal of the block Pitt and script Cal logos from their respective article infoboxes for reasons outlined below. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Hammersoft comments regarding discussion of edits and reversions:

I also left the reasoning for my reversion of Hammersoft's edit on his/her talk page, which I believe was logical. That discussion has now been blanked (I assume because he/she is just being tidy): see the original conversation here. I will repost my reasoning below for consideration. Obviously, I think this is a dispute between competing opinions of WP:MOSLOGO, and in my opinion begs the question of the utility of identifying marks in the infoboxes. I believe this also impacts many other articles, including Hammersofts' removal of the script Cal logo from University of California at Berkley. Certainly I want to avoid further any edit warring, and welcome a consensus for the fair use rationale for such popular/athletic logo inclusion that populate university article infoboxes.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Hammersoft's suggestion that the use of these logos would lead to an uncontrolled proliferation of other marks or is inappropriate for the university article:

No, not every logo or wordmark should be used, but in the case of the Cal "script" logo and Pitt "block" logo, they are perhaps the most popularly recognized logos of both institutions. Both of these marks are widely used in popular culture and third party publications to identify those institutions, and in the case of Pitt, it is used by the university itself in non-athletic contexts. It's absence from the front page of the university's website is not evidence against such use, nor is it reasoning for not including it for the quick identification of the institution by a general public. Further, such "athletic" or popular logos do not typically represent only one part of the university, but the university community as a whole, as opposed to the examples provided for particular colleges or departments which represent only individual components within particular universities.

To concentrate for the moment only on the issue of athletic logo inclusion, regardless of their use in other university contexts, in university article infoboxes, one could easily argue that athletic marks for the majority of universities in the United States are probably the most the most recognizable logos of any particular institution because athletic programs are typically a school's most visible public face. Michigan State University's block S would be another example, or University of Miami's "U", and these are much more immediately recognizable than the respective official seals of either university. Therefore, it could be argued that their omission would be detrimental to the understanding, if not at least the association and identification, of those institutions. And in the particular case of Pitt and Cal, their wordmarks depict commonly used alternative names for those institutions, further enhancing the value of their inclusion in those infoboxes. If the purpose of the infobox logos is for the identification of the institution that is the topic of the article, then it is a disservice to not include them. CrazyPaco (talk)

Furthermore, the use of popular or alternative university logos for athletic programs and teams should not disqualify their utility for identification of the institution in an institution's infobox. Nor does the use of these logos in the infoboxes of the articles of individual athletic teams disqualify their use in the university infobox, especially since such articles are considered to independently and individually meet the criteria of WP:notability (e.g. University of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Panthers football are self-sufficient articles not relying on the other's existence, or, the Pitt football article is not a sub-article of the University of Pittsburgh).

• In Reply to Black Kite in regards to the block "PITT" and script "Cal" logos use as a violation of Wikipedia:NFCC #3a and #8

I think the interpretation of Wikipedia:NFCC #3a and #8 as justification for their removal is flawed for the following reasons.

"3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."

The block Pitt logo and script Cal logo clearly contain different images than the seals or other formal logos of the universities they represent. They are both popularly used identifying marks of those universities and both are word marks of widely used alternate names for both universities not otherwise contained in other logos: "Pitt" and "Cal". Therefore the other logos in the infoboxes for those articles do not "convey equivalent significant information."

"8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

As both marks are widely used in popular culture and third party publications to identify those institutions, one could argue that they are the marks most identified with their respective institutions. Therefore, it could be argued that their omission would be detrimental to the understanding, if not at least the association and identification, of those institutions. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there is no policy violation of Wikipedia:Edit warring or WP:TRR in the reversion of Hammersoft's edits. I further should note, that Hammersoft made no attempt at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution prior to posting this issue on this Administrator's noticeboard, and refused my offer to bring it up for discussion at WP:UNI or other relevant projects (see here). My reversal of his edits was due to what I perceived as poor interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO for reasons outlined above. Since Hammersoft has engaged in removing images from university articles, for which hundreds of examples of similar use have long existed, some in FA designated articles, it can be reasonably assumed he was acting arbitrarily without seeking consensus for his interpretation. While his patrolling of WP:NFCC is beyond admirable, I believe in this case he has applied his individual interpretation of fair-use policy prematurely. I know there are contrasting philosophies of WP:Silence and WP:OTHERCRAP here, but this is a case, due to the large number of affected articles and possibllity for non-uniform editing across the topic of universities, I believe discussion should have proceeded WP:Bold. In fact, his unwillingness to proceed with established WP:DISPUTE resolution methods, instead directly posting it as an incident on the noticeboard, is disturbing, especially in light of the fact there was by no definition any wikipedia policy violation which is easily determined by an examination of edit histories. In any case, it is under discussion now, which his good. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Crazypaco, I've refactored your comments. You were shredding other people's comments while responding to them. Respond after their comments please. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for the fix. I will further correct my shredding. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Responding to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument that this usage has existed in featured articles, so it's ok: I found four other university articles that were promoted without this usage. Duke, Georgetown, Texas A&M and Michigan. See the problem with thinking that because something passed as FA with a certain format it is supposedly automatically an endorsement that the style used is the proper style? Don't use articles as models of what is and what is not acceptable. Use our manual of style. That's what it is there for. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, my argument for the inclusion of these sorts of logos has nothing to do with WP:OTHERCRAP. Rather, I mean to cite WP:Silence as why the imposing of an individual's interpretation of WP:MOS onto hundreds of existing articles prior to reasonable discussion is not the way I would have proceeded. I believe a discussion about the utility of these logo's inclusions, why such a utility may have caused them to be placed in the infoboxes in the first place, is useful, and now, thankfully, this is what is being done here. I'm sure such reasoning would have been gleaned from initiating a discussion at WP:UNI prior to widespread removal, and likewise the case stated for their removal could have been pressed. Regardless, in my interpretation of policy, I feel that inclusion of the logos, and thus the reversions of you edits, were completely in line with the WP:MOS. In regards to the particular institutions you just mentioned, you'll notice that both Texas A&M and Michigan include a non-free "athletic" mark as part of their logo in their infoboxes, indicative of the fact that universities do indeed use athletic logos to represent the university as a whole. From personal experience, I can tell you that this is especially the case for Texas A&M. Duke and Georgetown have mascot logos, but do not really have athletic logos that include a wordmark that significantly differs from those that are already displayed in their infoboxes. Are you familiar with academia and college athletics regarding logo use? CrazyPaco (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• The gross exaggeration of my actions does not help your argument Crazypaco. You claim I've done this to hundreds of articles. That's blatantly false. At last count, I'd done this less than 20 times. This is because the vast majority of university articles don't do it the way you want the University of Pittsburgh article to do it. Some may, but it's a subset, and not the dominant style. As to proceeding ahead without seeking some consensus; consensus already existed. The last paragraph of WP:MOSLOGO is pretty clear on this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant to claim that your actions affect 100s of articles (edit: although rereading my previous edit I can see why that it would be misinterpreted as you already having editing them, and apologies if this was the case), and your interpretation of this policy certainly does affect 100s of articles, whether or not you have gotten to them to edit the logos out yet. All you have to do is leaf through the articles from BCS conference universities to see that. This discussion is for the clarification of policy of whether it is appropriate to include such logos in the infobox for identification purposes. Consensus clearly does not exist on your interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO and Fair use, based on the fact that 1) my interpretation differs, 2) WP:Silence on dozens if not hundreds of articles for a significant length of time, and 3) the inclusion of the logo field in the College Infobox template. You can't just keep citing WP:MOSLOGO claiming it prevents use of these logos in the infobox for these identification purposes because I don't see anywhere where that is the case.You other argument seems to be that you are trying to claim that these logos aren't used to represent a university as a whole in that they are instead just used to represent athletic teams. Well which teams then? One of them or just the entirety of them as a whole? That is like assuming that universities don't send their mascots to represent themselves in non-athletic events, which is absolutely untrue. In fact, many universities, like UMiami, use both their "U" and their Ibis logo in many academic contexts. In the actual real world, many of these logos are used to represent the entire university as well as athletic teams, and I have to assume that you are therefore just unfamiliar with the culture of the institutions and their logo usage which could reflect a lack of expert knowledge. Anyway, to avoid getting into a circular argument that no one wants to read, I'll try to refrain from posting further, so that, hopefully, others will give their opinions on this matter. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• My actions don't affect 100s of articles, and couldn't. We're talking about a small minority of articles that are in violation of the WP:MOSLOGO guideline. It isn't my interpretation. This guideline is very clear. If you want to continue to make this claim that I'm making a unilateral decision that I'm right and you're wrong, we can just as well reverse it. That turns it into a nice little sandbox war, don't you think? "He hit me first!" "Did not!" "Did to!" Enough with the accusations of unilateral interpretations please, thank you. As to your claims that WP:SILENCE supports you; rubbish. I can just as well claim it supports me. Afterall, far more articles do not have the logos than do. And yes, I'm completely unfamiliar with college sports and don't have a fucking clue when it comes to understanding what a sports logo is. I am, after all, a certified idiot. My userpage even says so! It must be true! I sure as hell would never be mistaken for an expert on anything. Hell, I can barely tie my shoes without a manual and the use of toilet paper is beyond my comprehension. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are nearing issues with WP:CIVIL. I offered, and still do so, to take this through the appropriate methodologies of WP:DISPUTE. You refused, and instead brought it immediately to the administrator's noticeboard. I'm still seeking to gather opinion at WP:UNI, because that is the appropriate place to do so, not on the administrators noticeboard. I am also happy to have request for comments placed or have it discussed on any other appropriate talk page. I will abide by any decision reached at WP:UNI or elsewhere, and welcome any result so that the guidelines for Template:Infobox university are clear and standardized. Until then I see no consensus for your interpretation. Sorry if you are offended by my disagreement with you, but running to the administrators noticeboard when someone reverses your edit on a disagreement is not how Wikipedia works. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you had better back off on accusations of me violating WP:CIVIL and focus on the debate at hand, rather than accusing me of making unilateral decisions, being unfamiliar with college sports, and lacking in expert knowledge. If you want to look at WP:CIVIL concerns, look in the mirror. I don't appreciate your accusations against me. I said NOTHING about you. My insults were directed specifically at myself. No, I didn't refuse to handle this in a manner in compliance with WP:DISPUTE. I refused to handle it in the manner you wanted me to. What I did in posting here was entirely appropriate. You were editing in violation of a style guideline here, edit warring to enforce it, and acting faster than I could discuss things with you. That's why I gave up and brought it here, where an administrator could handle the issue. A guideline isn't in dispute because you disagree with it. If you think the guideline should be changed, then start an RfC yourself to have it changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You are the one using profanity. There was no violation of wikipedia editing policy which is evident by the [edit history]. You did refuse to WP:DISPUTE as seen here. The only thing that was violated was your sense of the WP:MOSLOGO policy, which does not prevent the use of logos as is under discussion here, and the inappropriate posting to the administrators' noticeboard. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Profanity directed at myself. WP:DISPUTE isn't a step by step procedure wherein every step must be followed. There are multiple avenues for dispute resolution. You're upset because I chose one of the paths available to me there, rather than choose your path. And yet again you talk about me having a unilateral understanding of WP:MOSLOGO. I've already refuted this, and in fact the only other editor contributing to this discussion happens to agree with me. Not so unilateral now, is it? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the other editor's statements were first about the wrong logo, and although he agrees with you, he also backed off his comments that it isn't arguable. He also seems to disagree with your policy, as do other editors, that these logos have no place in the body of the article covering athletics. This is a different dispute, however, and one where you inaccurately use Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 point 5 as your justification, even admitting that "sort of" addresses it. As I said, your crusade to enforce WP:NFCC is admirable, but your interpretations of how policy "sort of" can be used to clear out images suggests copyright paranoia, an unwillingness to determine the individual appropriateness of logos, or the potential for alternative and multiple uses of the logos in question, e.g. beyond the athletic teams. Along those lines, please quote me the fair-use or logo policy where multiple, and completely different, current-use logos can not be used to help identify the topic of an article in an infobox. This is already standard practice in the infoboxes in question as seen by the designation of multiple image fields. It does not violate WP:MOSLOGO, WP:FUG or WP:LOGO. You are seem to hang your justification on making big assumptions that their use is restricted to sub-entities within the universities (e.g. athletic teams). I am not going to change you opinion on this, I realize that, nor will you change mine. Others will have to weigh in. I will be happy to abide by any result of the discussions, and either way, as I have stated, I look forward to uniform implementation of policy and style. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• And now you accuse me of copyright paranoia. Sorry, too much now. WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW. When you can figure out how to talk with people without casting aspersions on them or evaluating them personally in the process, then we can talk. Until then, I have no interest in discussing this with you further. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags

I return to editing today to find three(!) sockpuppet tags on my talk page, all stating I may be a sock of Eyrian (talk · contribs). Two of the three are the only edits by the accusers, 195.65.106.20 (talk · contribs) and 86.169.169.178 (talk · contribs). Of course they are wrong, but I'm reluctant to just delete them because of the appearance of trying to hide something. Is there a process for refuting and removing them? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer this on the IP's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This could be a sockpuppet of User:Eyrian. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in knowing what you base that on. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The same editing patterns, Eyrian's IP socking, articles in common owing to what's very likely more than happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh heavens, I've missed Eyrian. Especially at the textile arts project. Seriously, if you are Eyrian please email. It's been two years; a lot of water under the bridge. We all make mistakes. Let's move forward. Considering the history, you'd have no better advocate for a legitimate return. Sincerely, Durova³²⁰ 19:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not. I've edited under the accounts CovenantD and Pairadox, but never even heard of Eyrian until today. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Then no further comment; I really don't know. Wishing Eyrian would come back though. Durova³²⁰ 20:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested in getting this cleared up. I have never been banned. Gwen, you mentioned IP socking by Eyrain - do the IP addresses resolve to same geographic location as mine? That might be one way to refute this. BTW, I tend to do my editing from the Special:Contributions/newbies page, so what I encounter is totally random or determined by other editors based on your perspective. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see a geographic matchup in Houston Texas, USA. I think you're Eyrian. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem then - take a look at this, this, this and this. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Two of those are Houston. Sockies sometimes know how to find proxies too (or maybe you've taken trips elsewhere now and then). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Houston is the 4th largest city in the United States. Is there anything about the actual editing behavior that makes you think the users are related? --Smashville^talk 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles in common, big, fast, long editing spurts, so unlikely this happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

None of those are Houston. They all show BayArea or, more specifically, Mountain View CA. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wanton soup?

You're posting like a wanton sock, too. Do what y'all like, I've said what I have to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If he is a malicious sock, he has managed to be in two places at the same time: [268] [269]. --Smashville^talk 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say he's malicious, I said he was wanton. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're above comment doesn't address Smashville's point. I don't think there's a connection between Eryrian and 98.248. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 22:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Eryian? Is that you? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The hell? No, I am not Eryian! I've been here since April, and I've got a mentor and users who'll back me up on this! You're accusing me of socking just for commenting and disagreeing with you? That strikes me as paranoid in a worrying manner. I dropped in because I occasionally check out ANI to comment on things. I'd never heard of Eryian till this thread. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

<-- outdent ->After looking at the last 1500 edits by Eryian, I see only two or three articles that overlap. And I resent the implication that I'm a dumpling. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? It appears you share several common proteins with dumplings. You are required to present evidence that you are not edible. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A wonton is not a dumpling! The humble wonton skin may look exotic but it's also the most versatile pasta you can invite into your kitchen. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going by the lede of wonton. Are you saying that WP is wrong? <gasp> 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was relying on google! Also , see also Ravioli is an internal link on the wonton page, anyhow, I am sure it was not an insult, and this is not the place for chit chat. It can be upsetting being accused of socking but it is a part of life here, I suggest all moving on for now. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. On the other hand, I don't want to leave an accusation open-ended. I'd be more comfortable withdrawing from this discussion if Gwen responded, hopefully with an apology and a recall of her accusation. But I suspect from her absence of recent edits that she's gone to bed. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 23:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So far she's been wrong about the location and articles in common. Nor has she responded to Smashville. Of course, she may be one of those editors who can't seem to admit they're wrong and that's why we haven't heard back. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's why we haven't heard back. Judging by her contribs, she seems to stop editing every day at 22:30 UTC, and resume at around 07:00 UTC. I assume that's nighttime in her time zone. (This constitutes Wikistalking, doesn't it? Oops.) A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 01:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wontons, raviolis, tortellonis, they're all dumplings. Taken altogether, all I've seen here are helpful, often cheerful edits. IP, you might think about getting an account, but you don't need to. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Move warring at Latvian hockey player article

Something12356789101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring over the location of the Sandis Ozoliņš (moving it to Sandis Ozolinsh) article since he registered in July. In total, he's moved the page four times in less than 3 months, moving it 3 times in September alone. The user also apparently had issues with the article White people in his early editing career. Opinions?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In my somewhat unexperienced (and certainly non-sysop) opinion, this could have been dealt with simply by warning the user with {{Uw-move1}} to {{Uw-move4}}, and once it passed {{Uw-move4}} (last warning), taking it to WP:AIV (or perhaps here) and having an admin deal a block as promised. As the user had not been warned about the moves until now, perhaps the message you delivered [270] will convince him/her to stop without any more attention. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the player uses the spelling Sandis Ozolinsh in official NHL documents and that spelling predominates the English sources. 28,400 at Google for "Sandis Ozolinsh" and 8640 at Google for Sandis Ozoliņš. In Latvian Wikipedia, they may use a different spelling. But at English Wikipedia, we generally use the English spelling. I have never once seen an English language newspaper, sportscast, or the back of his Jersey use any spelling but Sandis Ozolinsh. --Jayron32 02:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There are 94,100 ghits for "Sandis Ozolins", which covers anything that uses the Latvian diacritics. I am sure that we have redirects for a reason. "Ozolinsh" is merely used in the NHL, and is not his legal name. This as far as I know trumps the English name of a person. I'm not aware of the hockey WikiProject's standards (it has been a while since I was involved with article names for hockey players).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Its still not worth edit warring about in either direction. --Jayron32 03:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Little is. But what fun would this encyclopedia be otherwise? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I get 78000 off that same search and if I go to another page and back to the first page it now reports only 29,600. None of the other results seem to jump around like that. It should be noted that the second search that got 8640, didn't use "". Using those it only gives 720 results. Both of those searches go on for hundreds of results. The other search which is giving results all over the place actually peters out around 400. Its very unlikely that an english user is going to be searching for him using latvian diacritics. we should be using the name that would mostly likely be entered by an english speakinig user browsing the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. We don't use surname first for Hungarians, why should we use Latvian diacrtics for a hockey player whose name, for most English speakers, would not use them? I thought this was the English language Wikipedia, not the Latvian language Wikipedia. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Another installment of the Great Serbian Haček War (or the Legendary Icelandic Thorn Saga, or the Infamous ßerlin Streetnames ßattle). Guys, this has been debated a million times; there is no consensus on the general principle here, and very likely never will be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lceliku

Lceliku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -M.Nelson (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lceliku seems to be a POV-pusher. What he did in all of his edits up to now (he is a new user) is to add pro-Albanian unsourced staff in specific articles related to Greece and Albania. He even copied the article Souliotes and pasted it creating a new article under the title Albanian Souliotes, only to add the word Albanian in the title of the article. - Sthenel (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

article needs attention

Resolved

Could someone take a look at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center with attention to the list of salaries, and do whatever you think is needed. I would fix it myself, but I work there, and don't want to appear WP:COIish. Thanks. - cohesion 01:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maratha

Pduk (talk · contribs) is way past 3 reverts against multiple editors, with each revert including name-calling ("stupid is again abusing marathas", "you are uncultural uncivilised stupid ").[271] Also needs a lesson in clue about Wikipedia. Priyanath ^talk 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The user is on a 48 hour block for "pov pushing, 3RR violation, personal attacks by ethnically aligned SPA"; blocked by User:YellowMonkey. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked, thanks. Priyanath ^talk 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at the 3RR noticeboard

Nine open reports at WP:AN3 - admin assistance welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nine reports remaining ... - 2/0 (cont.) 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong???.

3 days ago. User:Raeky marked 5 of my photos as Possibly unfree File. This user is saying that they all have fake Metadata. this example is a photo of myself. I removed it from the list of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 27. The user marked File:Photo of Lil Rob.jpg & File:MS-13 Tattoo.jpg & File:Photo of Downtown Los Angeles, California.jpg and File:Photo of Proper Dos group.jpg for deletion. I don’t know what to do about this. Can you help me out. I think this user don’t like me.

User:Raeky has a history of abusing templates and more. If I think of something else. I will add it here. --Zink Dawg -- 02:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Zink Dawg; it looks like the misunderstanding stems from the fact that different versions of these images can be found online, in some cases as published media, so it seems strange that they would be tagged as "new" and released into the public domain. Perhaps it might help if you could tell us a little more about the sources of the images. Did you take them yourself, and if not, how did you come to be the copyright holder? Thanks,  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I took the photos myself. I am the copyright holder.--Zink Dawg -- 02:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There are identical photos on other websites with 2007 copyright dates.

You need to explain how this could happen. Our presumption, when we find older versions of exactly the same image, and multiple problems with the same user, is that someone is gaming our system trying to violate other websites' and photographers copyrights on images. You are currently at the point we normally block indefinitely until a suitable explanation is supplied, and/or you apologize and admit to the full extent of your copyright violations and help us clean them up.

If you'd like to think it over tonight and come clean tomorrow morning, that's fine, but please be aware that you are likely to get blocked really soon thereafter if you have not provided sufficient explanation.

If you intend to keep asserting your innocence, please first review the images that were found by Raeky and explain to us how this could possibly be a simple coincidence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that his other image uploads are suspect as well... I get the impression from his user page that he lives in Southern California... I don't think they get icicles there. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tineye dosn't turn up anything for the new ice images, but yes it is something to consider given this user's history. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete all of my images. I don’t want anymore problems from users. I will never upload a another image. --Zink Dawg -- 06:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please talk to him, telling him that he's always welcome to make useful contributions that don't deal with images or copyvios? Let's not see him leave like this. MuZemike 08:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you think that i should stay on Wikipedia???--Zink Dawg -- 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely your call. If you do stay I suggest you put a little thought into the fact that WP is a community and there are bound to be conflicts. Padillah (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting sucks!

• Just stick around! There's always other stuff to do which you can find productive. I was almost compelled to leave the project not too long ago. Just shift your focus a little, try something a little different; you might actually find something out there in which you will like and like doing. You seem to do have done some vandalism-hunting. You can keep going with that, and there are some good tools out there that can help you out with that. There are over 3,000,000 articles on the English Wikipedia, and there is always some huge backlog that needs some attention. There are probably more stubs out there than you can imagine that need attention. There's always going to be some conflict going on. You made a mistake you may not have been aware of. Don't worry about it - we all do. Padillah is right that Wikipedia is a community, but that community is almost entirely made up of humans (the other small percentage being bots, but that's something different), and humans make mistakes, especially when starting out something new. So I stay stick around and see what you want to do. MuZemike 18:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will stay on Wikipedia. Can someone restore my user page now. Thanks..--Zink Dawg -- 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:23prootie and Issue regarding Tagalog language/Disruptive editing

I want to report this matter, because it boils up my blood, but I do not want to involved into any edit warring.

User:23prootie insists on adding Baybayin scripts on the article, but that script is no longer in use. He showed me an article, like, the Kazakh language that uses Arabic on its infobox. I told him that Kazakh naturally uses Arabic in writing, but Tagalog no longer uses Baybayin.

The conflict is that he adds translation of the phrase wikang Tagalog in Baybayin, which signifies that that is the ancient spelling of Tagalog itself. It is okay, but Baybayin is no longer in use. Plus, we are not certain if ancient Tagalog calls their language wikang Tagalog as what modern Tagalogs do.

I told him that the infobox suggests the native name of the language, but not the way it was written in a script that is no longer in use.

FYI User:23prootie has been a consistent edit warrior and reported many times at at ANI. See here.

What can I/we do about this? Thanks a lot.--JL 09 _^q?c 07:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User also moved Commonwealth of the Philippines to Philippine Commonwealth without consensus.--JL 09 _^q?c 11:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RE to 23prootie's move: He/she moved the Commonwealth article for the fourth time today without dealing with a page-move consensus (i.e., he/she decided the move for himself/herself when he/she found a source in the NY Times showing Philippine Commonwealth instead of the name Commonwealth of the Philippines). The conventional long name is the real name of the former government, but the Philippine.. one is used only for shortening in writing. 23prootie warned twice regarding this move (and I will attempt for the 4th time, with level 4 user warning). I don't know if he/she will ignore it then continue for disruption.--JL 09 _^q?c 12:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a serious issue, I think the nominator mis-understands policies such as WP:OWN and WP:Good Faith.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 12:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps reverting multiple times or moving page more than four times without consensus makes it a real issue. User has been blocked many times but return, possibly, to previous behaviours why he/she was blocked.--JL 09 _^q?c 12:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my part in escalating the move/revert war, anad I will not revert User:23prootie' s move any longer. I thought that once I asked the user to discuss the moves first, and await an consensus to move the page, that the user would wait, but they have refused to stop. JL has also agreed to stop reverting. If this "is not a serious issue", as 23p claims, then why do they keep insisting on reverting against a consensus? I think it is obvious this user does not intend to abide by any consensus that disagrees with their position. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree on stopping the revert war if you agree on not removing my reliable sources and agree on not flooding my talk page with warnings. Gosh!--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm interpreting this that user will still insist to go on warring, even if other editors will remove/add edits that is beyond the taste of the concerned user, if I am not mistaken.--JL 09 _^q?c 13:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Irvine22 a disruptive editor?

There has been a long-standing issue with Irvine22, primarily on the PIRA page, but also on others. Irvine22 has been confirmed as a puppetmaster for the purposes of block evasion, refused to acknowledge or apologize for the incident, and then began to implement a series of disruptive, POV edits without discussing the matter on the talk page. His edits have been almost universally reverted, and yet he continues to make them, after being told many times by many editors as well as one admin to raise issues on the talk page first. He shows no sign of ceasing this behaviour, nor will he acknowledge, much less address, any criticism of it. The page's resident admin, User:Rd232, suggested that I raise the matter on the ANI page if it continued, so that is what I am doing now.

Following is a small sampling of Irvine22's more recent edits. Note that I have only selected edits for which there was no consensus, that were later reverted. These also all occurred after his block and subsequent sockpuppetry. They also occurred after he was repeatedly told not to edit the article without first seeking consensus, or at the very least providing an adequate source.

The edits:

[272] This edit was reverted, and a new section started on the talk page. Instead of trying to reach a consensus, he restored the edit with the explanation "per discussion". It was not.

[273]

[274] This POV edit was reverted. Irvine22 restored it. It was reverted again. So he restored it again. It was reverted again and he was told to bring the matter up on the talk page. So he restored it again. And again. And again. Actually a quick glance at the page's history will show you the behaviour he regularly partakes in. I really wish I could link to more, but I simply don't have the time. Rest assured, there are dozens.

Talk page disruption begins here

Irvine22 has also been dismissive of advice and instructions to change his editing habits, as can be seen here, and especially on the PIRA talk page, beginning here.

Note Irvine22's polite yet dismissive tone throughout all of this. He is almost pathologically incapable of acknowledging any wrongdoing on his part, or criticism of his actions. I am not sure if this is a deliberate attempt to game, or the result of some actual personality disorder for which he cannot be fully faulted.

I haven't the time to go digging through his edit history. I really wish I did. I will, however, link to this page on the PIRA talk page and invite further comments from the editors there.

Thank you for your time.

P.S. I apologize if this request is not in the correct category. It crosses several, and I didn't want to pigeonhole it as a 3rr issue, as the problem extends far beyond simple edit warring.

Throwaway85 (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85 is a sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasticated (talk • contribs)

No, although you are not the first to make such an accusation. See my talk page and the Domer48 sock investigation for more detail. Otherwise, back to the issue at hand. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The evidence of Throwaway85 being a sockpuppet is in his/her edit history. It's not difficult enough to find, although he/she has covered his/her tracks better than most sockpuppets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasticated (talk • contribs)

This thread is not about Throwaway85. If you have evidence, WP:SPI is that way. Rd232 ^talk 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway beat me to it making a similar report. This is by its nature a problematic page and is covered by the Arbcom ruling on The Troubles (the fact that a newly created editor immediately arrived to make the above unsigned accusation is pretty typical) Irvine has been very careful to avoid a technical violation of 3RR, but in practice has been constantly edit warring without discussing matters on the talk page. Each edit is different, but each follows a similar set of themes. I was planning to take to arbitration enforcement later today if the behaviour continued, but as its has been raised here would just add my support to the request for someone (ideally with knowledge of the multiple edit wars and related issues around the Troubles) to take a look at this. --Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately in starting this thread, Throwaway85 was unaware that just before it I temporarily blocked (48 hours for edit warring) and temporarily topic banned Irvine22 [275]. I'd suggest that in the interests of minimising drama we close this thread and see how things go with the ban; otherwise, Irvine22 should presumably be unblocked so he can participate here. Rd232 ^talk 09:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

has Inving22 ever been blocked? if this is his first time, i suggest, he should be given an opportunity to answer questions raised, and give us an insight to why he is disruptive in his conduct with others. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 09:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Easy to check - prior block with extension for block evasion with a sock here--Snowded ^TALK 10:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks, i see, he deserved another block. I will follow him up to have a word with him, and see how best he can contribute to Wikipedia with minimum disruption to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by fngosa (talk • contribs)

Okay, thanks Rd232. I'm more than happy to wait and see what the results of this latest block will be. I will, however, save my original post somewhere, as it took forever to write and something tells me I'll need it again. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee code of conduct

Proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee code of conduct. Input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User insistently performing date linking

Okay, we have a static IP user, 203.97.255.42 (talk · contribs), who insists on continually linking all the dates the come across and enter into articles. Now this user performs good edits, mainly to railway related articles, but their date linking is becoming a little disruptive. Their talk page is full of pleas not to link dates, links to the MOS, and warnings for disruptive editing over this point. However the user refuses to reply to any communications, and takes no notice of the discussions. I myself have furnished the user with two minor blocks for disruptive editing over this point to try and draw them to the discussion page and save people the tedious work of delinking their dates, but it isn't working. Other than this point they are a good and useful editor, and I'm loathe to do any more blocking on the account as a result over one persistent point. Any ideas? Canterbury Tail talk 11:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User had been blocked before, another block is inevitable. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 13:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't linking/delinking still prohibited by arb sanctions? –xeno^talk 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• See the policy: Wikipedia:Linking#Specific_cases. As I recall, the arbcom outcome only sanctioned individual editors from linking/delinking. However, if the IP doesn't stop soon I wouldn't see any other way but a block. I've left a last warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, mass de-linking is prohibited, but it says nothing about mass linking. –xeno^talk 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that's because the policy already says dates shouldn't be linked in sweeping batches, but there was a delinking/linking war, which they felt a need to stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy? Or MOS preference? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My botch, guideline (I'd forgotten). I'll fix the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

98.163.228.37

Resolved

98.163.228.37 (talk · contribs) Hate speech and suggested violence. [276]. I thought this was extreeme enough to block immediately. Infrogmation (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Block looks fine to me. –xeno^talk 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you blocked is fine, but is a 6 month duration a good idea for what appears to me to be a dynamic IP address with no previous edits? Perhaps I didn't read the WHOIS properly, but it's worthwhile for a more technically competent person than me looking to see if it's dynamic or shared or whatever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't look to see it was 6 months. Agreed that a week would probably be better, without prejudice to re-apply. –xeno^talk 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses: "Long-term blocks should never be used for isolated incidents". Even a week might border on excessive, assuming you never want this person to edit again. 31 hours? I'll reset it to 72 hours as a compromise. If they come back on the same IP and spout the same stuff it can be extended. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the shortening. This editor has probably already reset their connection and onto a new IP anyway. –xeno^talk 15:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Enigma^msg 17:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Would endorse shortening of length. — neuro^(talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted the block length and watchlisted the pages. Endorse the lack of warning, by the way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple IP user

Resolved

 – One Article semi-protected, rangeblock set

Sock IP's are doing the same thing all over again mainly in the following articles.

• List_of_ancient_cities_in_Illyria,
• Dimale
• User or Users repeats changes does not even quote the title of a ref correctly ,the title is
• Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization

and he just puts the title of the chapter as he does not want under any circumstances to write the above title.Removes all or most refs especially those he doenst like,interprets them in his own way,removes map,leaves them epigrammaticaly and rewrites the article(Dimale).Uses these Ip's and a few more.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.4.77
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.59.4
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.27.214
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.49.216
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.61.56
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.27.214
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.59.4
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.4.77
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.60.49
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.28.91
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.33.38
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.202.1.78
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.73.219.34

Megistias (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected both articles for a month. Black Kite 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked 87.202.0.0/18 for 1 week for continued disruption (as well as harassment of editors). MuZemike 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I was about to do that myself, so I've unprotected Dimale so that the good-faith editor can continue to edit. Black Kite 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Wrightman690 and Eighty Four, Pennsylvania

I'm not positive another admin needs to be involved here, but I'm gonna run this up the flagpole anyway. Wrightman has edited almost solely at the page for Eighty Four. He started off with simple vandalism about 18 months ago, and then moved on to adding unreferenced material in the form of theories about the odd name of the town. The result is an ultra-slow motion edit war spanning the last year in which these unsourced theories were repeatedly added and removed, sometimes by me, sometimes by others. Eventually, Wrightman began a thread on my talk page about this. I advised him to review the policies on original research and reliable sources. He replied that there was a blog somewhere and that he was going to get a pettition going to force Wikipedia to include the theories and ban me from editing the Eighty Four page. I replied that a blog is not a source and I dismissed his threat as laughable, and this was his reply: [277]. The tone of that remark is sufficiently ugly that I thought maybe it was time for some fresh eyes to look at this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(I've notified them of this thread, but they seem to only drop by sporadically, it could be a week or more before there is any reply) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 at world domination

• World domination is a controversial article - it tends to attract believers in conspiracy theories.

1. One such theory is call at WP "Jewish world conspiracy" and is explicitly listed in List of conspiracy theories.
2. I've worked on this difficult article to trim it of its WP:Original research as much as possible.
3. I've discussed issues on the page's Talk before deleting any content, and only then edited out the inappropriate material.
4. The article also disregarded it's DAB page and I've made amendments in response to other editor's contributions.
5. I also attempted to prevent the article from introducing a WP:Neologism, as well as non-English transliterations (perhaps from Russian).
6. After all this hard, and slow work, User:Toddy1 appeared, made postings on the Talk page, and simply Reverted twice the work that has been done by consensus.
7. He also appears to be promoting his own WP:Original research.
8. But besides appropriate action against his Disruption of Wikipedia work by Consensus,

I think it would be useful to Flag particularly controversial topics better; and there should also be a better way of identifying "Original research." I believe this is one article that needs such Flaging. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any administrator planning to take action on this should please read User talk:Ludvikus#Unblock request.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If anything, this post on ANI makes it clear that Ludvikus is living up to his promises. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• ADM BHG has advised me to do this. I would not have made this posting without her recommendation. I hope to return here to post a Diff to her advice. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Here it is, her ----- "BrownHairedGirl (talk)" ----- explicit advice to me personally: [278]. --Ludvikus (talk) --Ludvikus (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • She didn't have the time for me - so I'm doing exactly what she told me to do. I intend to follow the directions of WP Administrators - to the letter - even if I don't like it. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's my personal WP policy now that every WP Administrator is a General, and every WP Editor is a Corporal. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• As an admin, I find that concept darkly appealing, but it is not the case. We aren't generals, we're just users the community has seen fit to trust with a few extra tools. Following any advice an admin gives you could make your head spin, as we don't exactly present a united front. Anyway, if there is an ongoing dispute on the page I would suggest you file a report at WP:RPP and discuss the matter on the talk page. I commend you for trying to solicit outside input, but I'm not sure an admin is needed just yet. Consider requests for comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• So I'm following the advice of Adm. BHG. First look at what Toddy! just did here: [279]undoafter=317294728&undo=317354876]
• He posted the signature of an anonymous editor - and it makes my query look ridiculous.
• It appears to me like an attempt to mislead editors into misunderstanding my query - regarding the identity of an unsigned posting.
• You probably are unaware. I have a terrible past record - and it's extremely difficult for me to perform effectively without the input of administrators - at this stage. I therefore ask you to permit me to follow the advice of well-respected editor BHG.
• You are obviously giving insufficient weight to the authority of WP Administrators to Ban or Restrict editors.
• My conduct must be impeccable. And I think it is. I ask you to defer to the recommendation of ADM BHG - WP Policy requires.
• I wish to do exactly what she recommended - especially because she recently ruled on a restriction involving myself. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since you're contradicting her "orders" now, I'm compelled to follow her's until she advises me otherwise. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Pd1 uob, 116.71.145.227 and User:123kasi adding same copyvio in new articles

The same copyrighted material has been added in newly created articles repeatedly (all G12 speedily deleted). The copyvio is a half-page segment of this book [[280]]. It has been added at least in Kasi Tribe, Kansi (now cleaned up), Kasi or Kassi, Kasi Killa Quetta‎, Kasi Pashtun (now tagged), Kasi (tribe), Kasi Quetta, Kasi by Arif Kasi (previously deleted), and several talk pages; some having been deleted more than once (not to mention the author removal of deletion tags once or twice, as well as other articles that I am not aware of). The material always includes the same name and email in a "feedback" section, suggesting they are all the same user. User:Pd1 uob has been repeatedly warned but now the same material has been added by the IP and a new user account (possibly by other IPs too in the past, including 116.71.148.198). Therefore, trying again to explain to him not to create new separate articles and copyvio etc (as I wrote to User Talk:Pd1 uob) seems useless. As this is a huge waste of time (each time an admin has to check the copyvio), I ask here for some kind of help/intervention or at least notifying to prevent more waste of time (hoping to have done that in the correct forum). If not for the copyvio, I would have given up already... Cheers Antipastor (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The repeated insert of a copyvio would have been enough for at least a one-month block, but with the sock involved, it's indef. I was about to block 123kasi as well, but Rhaworth beat me to it. I'm also gonna request an SPI investigation to smoke out any more socks, given the long-term disruption. Blueboy96 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

consultant needed

will someone please give an advice to Jeff_G. on how and when to issue warnings on other editor's talk pages. i think he is misusing these warnings, and applying them where they have no merit. thanks. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff G has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide WP:DIFFs to show which warning(s) you feel are inappropriately placed.  Frank  |  talk  20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suspect the diffs that this IP thinks are inappropriate are [281] and [282]. Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can see is that you have made no attempt to actually discuss this with Jeff and instead have told him to "Get a life". --Smashville^talk 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IP edit warring on Satoshi Yamamoto and Hidenori Kusaka

I've already filled out a RFPP request, but this is going to need more immediate attention. A dynamic IP has been edit warring with multiple editors on the article Satoshi Yamamoto and Hidenori Kusaka. The IP has been including an unreliable source in the form of an open edited "wiki" of an anime news website and over the notability and sourcing tags. In order to avoid the letter of the 3RR rule, the editor changes their IP every so often. And is now removing other editor's comments at WT:MANGA.[[283]] —Farix (t | c) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed my own edits on WT:MANGA, which is allowed. --75.60.13.107 (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You clearly removed TheFarix's comment and replaced it with "Why do you hate Pokemon?" --Smashville^talk 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's looking like this is the same editor who previously been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and vandalism on Pokemon articles. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathemagician57721) —Farix (t | c) 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur that this is clearly Mathemagician. I hope the 12-hour block placed on the IP is sufficient, however. MuZemike 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the IP has been blocked, but his talk page could use protection equal to the same length as he has been spamming it with personal attacks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page editing revoked by User:Beeblebrox. MuZemike 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)