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

Copyright violations by an offsite party

When reviewing an external link to an article I was working on earlier this week, I discovered that the link in question contained text that I had written for the article earlier this year verbatim. When I posed my problem earlier in the week on the #wp-en IRC channel I was advised to send something off to Wikimedia Legal but the WMF's attorney informed me that they did not protect projects' copyrights. This is the second time I've had content that I've worked on to some extent taken wholesale by another website (I've done my best to contact the first one) but I am more wary about this second instance because it isn't some shitty fansite stealing text word-for-word but a multi-million dollar corporation. I am at a loss as to what to do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Start with the process outlined at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process, and use the Standard CC-BY-SA violation letter to initiate contact with the website. Unfortunately I think I'm right in saying that you're responsible for defending your own copyright (which kinda sucks, but there you go), so you're rather on your own - as the copyright holder, only you can give them the telling-off they deserve. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where to find the contact information for the website in question. They only have a support queue. I will attempt to send a message to support@their domain name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing the link in question? Maybe others can find the relevant contact details. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.funimation.com —Ryulong (琉竜) 15:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Address, phone and email: [1]. You're right, support@... does seem to be their only registered email.Yunshui 雲‍水 15:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• It'd be more helpful if you could post exactly what is alleged to have been taken. For those who know nothing of this, it'd like MGM or Pixar or Disney taking your work for their own purposes. Without more information to go on, I cannot really comment further. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Funimation blatantly copied the summary I had written in April for the first Ghost in the Shell: Arise installment which more or less exists in the exact same state as of the last time I checked the article. The only difference is that Funimation's version does not include the word "Set" before the phrase "In the year".—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You should tag the talk page with {{Backwardscopy}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were so worried about this, but there does appear to be merit to the argument. I used an old version from June after the announcement that they had acquired the rights.[2] Specifically this version.[3] As no previous cache is available at Archive.org, I did a duplication detector result.[4] With that being said, I'd contact Jackie Smith (Public relations manager) or possibly Joseph Nicholson (Marketing and Communications Executive). At the very least they might be able to direct you to the right person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a postal address. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

They seem to have completely changed their description of the show now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved (well technically you could still pursue them for the earlier violation, but while I understand how you must feel, I don't think there's much point trying that) but for future reference you could try gpl-violations.org if you need to take it further. It's possible they will refuse since the site violated one of the GFDL or CC* rather than the GPL but they might be willing to offer help as it's still a free content and copyleft issue. You can also list them at Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. * = I presume you wrote the material by yourself or with the assistance of other editors rather than taking it from a CC source, so it's completely dual licenced. In which case the site had to comply with at least one of those licences. Of course even if you partially took the content from a CC only source, you couldn't sue them for violating that licence. The CC only holder would need to do that. So even in that case it's still really a GFDL or CC issue from your POV. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Concern about Jezebel1349

Reluctantly I must inform admins of the case of the fairly new account of Jezebel1349 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is currently in the middle of a 24 hour block. Shortly after being blocked, she put blatantly racial and sexual invective in reply to me on her talkpage, including thinly veiled threatening language ("I have "surprises" for you looser, just wait..."), although she did then remove that part ([5]). So obviously I am a little concerned. This is after she repeatedly blanked references based only on IDONTLIKEIT. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Currently she is scheduled to come off her block some time tomorrow. I'm not sure I want to find out what "surprises" she has in store for me at that time, what can I do? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Block extended to 1 week with no talk page privs. If disruption continues after block release, please alert me or bring it back here to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the sudden rash of trouble did not die down at the same article Madai and there is currently an SPI for the above Jezebel1349 and User:Iranzamin-Iranzamin Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iranzamin-Iranzamin that needs attention. Iranzamin-Iranzamin has a nearly identical habit of making false claims about my race on Talk:Madai which she perceives as "Indic-Pakistani-gypsy" for whatever bizarre reason: [6] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney edit-warring/personal attacks

In just the past two weeks, MilesMoney has been repeatedly warned about their behavior in what appears to be at least five different incidents: [7][8][9][10][11]

MilesMoney responded to the the most recent warning with the request "Go away and don't come back", so I'll respect that and ask for others to alert the user to the existence of this discussion. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified MilesMoney of this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Some of those warnings are over the top. The first one involves one revert in a 24 hour period. The second one involves, at most, two reverts in a 24 hour period, something the OP is culpable of as well. The third one involves two reverts, the same number made by Roccodrift who did not respect WP:BRD. The fourth was legitimate, but happened 25 days ago. The fifth, may breach our WP:NPA policy slightly, but I've seen far worse from Sitush on MilesMoney's talk page, for example "Given that I am not the first that you have banished of late, and given your obvious incompetence, it does rather beg a question concerning your righteousness.". - MrX 14:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• If you are going to link to a diff involving me then I'd appreciate it if you could try to put it into context. For this one, you need to read the collapsed section here and probably also this on Bbb23's talk page. One difficulty that keeps raising its head is that MM routinely bans people from their talk page & often does so early in a discussion, making it difficult to resolve issues without escalating them to drama boards such as this - there is a chilling effect. I'll try to compile a list. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's his prerogative to ban people from his talk page, especially if they harangue him, as seems to be the case in the past few days. You're responsible for your own words, regardless of context. You don't hold the highground when you accuse others of the same type of behavior that you engage in. - MrX 15:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What kind of context would like to sugar coat this in? "Do you really think I give a damn abut your formal warning? I'll just carry on editing as I always have - the likes of you do not scare me: grow up." - MrX 15:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Sitush's conduct. Saying a user can ban other users from their talk pages is superficially accurate, but if a user develops a pattern of such bans, it may be reasonable to infer that they are not collaborative. MM provokes and others push back. Understandable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine. If that's the standard that were using, then there's nothing wrong with MilesMoney's conduct either. Others provoke and MilesMoney pushes back. - MrX 15:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Template:Cue After looking at WP:EDR, I have found that there is no formal interaction ban between MM and Sitush, so MM is just being a big you-know-what. However, it would be appreciated if these two opened a case at WP:DR instead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:DRN, and that board is not for conduct disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean that, and I have corrected it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair comment and I wish MilesMoney would refrain from banning editors from his talk page (including myself, BTW). My point is, there's enough trout to go around, and nothing here is actionable by an admin. - MrX 15:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I personally would appreciate it if MilesMoney didn't make comments like this ("what you say literally makes no sense. It's not even clear enough to be wrong."). I have a thick skin so I don't know if it's a personal attack or not, but I do think it is not helpful to furthering discussion and might make many feel their contributions on the talk page are useless so they might as well stop editing there. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That diff isn't a personal attack ... it doesn't even border on uncivil - kinda like Mexico and Belgium. ES&L 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The correct country is Austria, and in that little world on Wikipedia, everything is uncivil, nothing makes any sense, and all the participants snipe at each other incessantly. We should topic-ban all of them; either that, or get very large, resilient ear plugs.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Is this a fishing expedition? The diff showing a warning from me is because of a series of reverts at BLP Joss Whedon concerning an uncited section. MilesMoney brought references and eventually got talk page consensus for including the material. This diff is part of a larger pattern showing that MilesMoney likes a scrap—he likes to revert, bully and argue—but the result in this case was better for the article and reader. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's unfair to call this a "fishing expedition". Hector was concerned about what he perceived to be a pattern of behavior. He brought his concerns to MM and was told to go away, which only tends to confirm the pattern. Whether there's sufficient evidence to sanction MM is more complex, but I don't see this as a baseless report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Note I haven't called for any particular form of action, I'm just 'reporting it up the chain of command'. MM seems to be having some trouble-- in just my own encounter, at one point, I think we had 6 different editors rejecting the controversial edit and MM was still warring on it. I tried to issue a very nice and sincere warning and got an extremely hostile response. My warning going unheeded, I thought I should drop a note here and let the experts sort it out. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no "chain of command". Edit-warring goes to WP:AN/EW, long-term behaviour goes to WP:RFC/U, and content disputes go to WP:DRN. You only come to ANI if you're requesting a specific action: a block or topic ban ES&L 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess part of my job here is to defend Hector. Your procedural statement is a bit constrained and hypertechnical. Editors may come here if they want to report a problem that hasn't yet risen to the level of starting an RfC/U. An editor may come here if all they want is a warning to the reported user. An editor may come here because they think there's a problem meriting administrative attention but they're not sure what the appropriate sanction is, and maybe there is none. Now, if you want to say instead that you believe no administrative intervention is required, that's a different matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hector reinserted a BLP violation then templated Miles for removing Hector's violation even after Miles had clearly explained the issue on talk and had taken it to BLP. Hector, you should withdraw this complaint. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A strong talk page consensus held it was not a BLP violation. MM can disagree with that consensus, and that consensus can change, but edit warring against consensus is unacceptable behavior, and attacking me for holding him to that level of competence is doubly unacceptable. Specifico, you do your friend (non-friend?) a disservice when you condone his behavior-- he may well belief in his opinion, but it is not acceptable for him to act as though his opinion outweighs or negates the opinion of the rest of community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I consider it a Personal Attack for you to call MilesMoney my friend and you should strike that remark. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, sorry (and confused!) that you found that offensive, but clearly, you deserve the right to characterize your relationship or lack thereof however you wish. My apologies for apparently implying something you didn't want implied.HectorMoffet (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hector, please state exactly what was it that you were implying and please explain why you are confused that I would find it offensive? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney's use of the policy BLPCRIME here as grounds for removing part of a section heading doesn't make any sense. Maybe the part about lobbying needed to go, but that has nothing to do with the BLP, much less the subsection on BLPCRIME in policy. I suggest MilesMoney cease using fraudulent rationales in their edit summaries.--MONGO 16:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the rationale makes no sense, but do you have to call it "fraudulent"?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did have to call that fraudulent...and I could do without the snippy remark.--MONGO 02:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, in case anyone is wondering, MONGO's rather belated response stems from this.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I was merely trying to save you some grief by not having that party drag you into a miserable time sapping waste of your time, but thats up to you, which as you put it yourself there, was complex. Most of your responses here at these noticeboards consist of critiquing other's comments rather than dealing with the issue at hand, which obfuscates solving the real problems, and undermines the purposes of the noticeboards...all it does is make others exasperated. I have yet to see you offer any solid remedy on the issue of MilesMoney, perhaps because you have none, when all one really need to is a little groundwork and the truth will be known if you know how to do it, and it doesn't need a checkuser.--MONGO 03:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@MONGO:, pray, don't keep us all in suspense ;) There have been various sock accusations levelled at MilesMoney at various times (as recently as this weekend). They've come to nothing at SPI. If you've done some groundwork that enlightens that situation or any other regarding MM - whether favourable to MM or not - then please do share it. Perhaps just say here that you've emailed admin X about it if you think that whatever you have is sensitive. I'd rather not waste more of my time preparing for a RfC/U if it isn't needed. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has gone on long enough & so I've started User:Sitush/summary. I hope to complete the talk page resume in the next few hours. I realise that some people may consider it to be an attack page & I'll accept it if the thing is deleted for that reason. It should certainly be deleted when the community has reached some sort of decision about the behavioural issues. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pursuant to WP:ATTACK, it could be deleted ("keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate"). However, pursuant to WP:UP#POLEMIC (which is not policy but is more specific), it is okay based on your purpose ("The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."). As an aside, although I have not reviewed the list, based on its length, I wonder if an RfC/U would be more appropriate. Entirely up to you (and any other editors), of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect RfC/U is where this mess is going to end up because I'm not convinced that ANI will deal with it. Either way, it is not my intention to retain the thing for any longer than is strictly necessary and I am including favourable stuff (barnstars issued etc). That said, I'm not going to work on it exclusively - there'll soon be a huge backlog of poor stuff on the caste etc articles unless I do some maintenance there also. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to assemble diffs in ones userspace regarding another editor's behavior so long as it is soon thereafter placed in a RfcU or with arbcom, afterwhich it can be deleted.--MONGO 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to amplify something from Binksternet's earlier comment: "... he likes to revert, bully and argue". This is a concise and well-stated encapsulation of the problem and moreover, when even Miles' supporters are saying this I think there is a consensus that his behavior is combative. Roccodrift (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It is but we need diffs, not encapsulations. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be another witch hunt. In all the diffs thus far presented (e.g., User:Carolmooredc's complaint about Miles' drawing attention to her inscrutable writing style -- a genuine problem, which makes it hard to collaborate with her on WP), no credible case has been made for any disciplinary action. So Sitush -- a guy who says "grow up", calls out people's "incompetence", and then has the gall to complain about other users making "personal" comments -- is now trying to rehash totally off-topic stuff from July, because he sees the ANI as an opportunity to punish Miles. Absolutely contemptible conduct. Close this thread and leave Miles alone. Steeletrap (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't you find it odd that there should be so many of these so-called witch hunt against the same person? Something must be wrong, surely, either with their actions or those of their accusers? And don't worry if you feel left out: your own actions will likely be raised in due course. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What I infer when I see a ton of witch-hunts against one editors is that there may be a bunch of people out to get him, whether it be that they disagree with him or otherwise. KonveyorBelt 21:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I said that there seems to be something wrong somewhere, not necessarily wrt one person. On the other hand, assuming that the "bunch of people" are not meatpuppets, consensus has its part to play in this. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the phenomenon not "odd", but it's easily understood. There's a significant number of relatively long-time users who feel that, due to their seniority, they are entitled to bait excitable newcomers into behavior which can be used to denigrate and impugn the newbies. These elders, as would be expected, are those who have devoted and continue to devote a significant amount of time and attention to WP. Over time, they form relationships with other elders and with various Admins. Those who become Admins tend to be even-tempered and are in general disinclined to take strong action. Their role is largely confined to facilitation in uncontroversial matters and identifying and vetting consensus on talk and noticeboard threads. Because the WP elders are the only ones with enough site knowledge, time and interest to challenge or depose an Admin, the Admins have an understandable bias in favor of giving free rein to the elders. To a social scientist and libertarian such as myself this is easily understood. It's likely a stable situation, because the relatively junior editors who actually come here to work on content are unlikely to be willing to devote the time required to compile dossiers of diffs and recruit allies and navigate the political processes of this community. The result is that WP, which is commonly understood to be dedicated to and thrive on openness, actually operates as a rather closed and reactionary community. I'm not expressing any personal opinion or evaluation about this state of affairs, just observing one aspect of why it is neither "odd" nor "wrong". SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Some generalized and, yes, personalized criticism of a large number of editors and admins doesn't seem to be a very appropriate response to a discussion of one editor's behavior. And being a libertarian means you have some respect for the contract/agreement you make when you join wikipedia, including rules on how to change policies you don't like. Criticizing alleged elites who actually have learned the rules and attempt to live by them because you have some problem with attempted enforcement of voluntary agreed upon rules, while giving no constructive suggestions, isn't particularly libertarian. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole point is that the 'elites' are violating the 'voluntary contract' of the community, by prioritizing relationships and politics over sober enforcement of the rules. Your insinuation that he is not a good libertarian is a personal attack that should be removed from the article. (How would you like it if someone told you you're not a good feminist or anti-war activist?) Steeletrap (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think here by "personal attack" we're talking about the one defined and forbidden by Wikipedia policy, and such certainly isn't that. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Legionarius

Legionarius and IP 130.88.164.18 are acting like they own the article Arena Corinthians , and they are simply preventing me from editing, reverting all my edits. The article seemed a great advertisement when I started inserting "bad" data about the stadium, on the involvement of mafias, corruption and other notorious problems involving this stadium. Then this user and this IP, one of them reportedly Corinhtians supporter (as evidenced by this diff : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arena_Corinthians&diff=584127037&oldid=584077211, where he says in Portuguese "MY world championship"), and a great chance that Legionarius also be supporter of Corinthians, started making total reversals of my issues, under the most absurd arguments possible : that my sources were not reliable (ridiculous, as they are excellent sources and very reliable) that it has nothing to do with the article (yes, it has!) while they are trying to block me in all possible ways. Not achieving success, departed to an unnecessary "Dispute resolution noticeboard", to try to intimidate me. Now both reverted again my editions and soon after, gone : Legionarius does not edit by the last the two days and the IP, 3 days. That is, they simply want to keep the article as if it were a gigantic unreal propaganda pro team they support, hiding important facts concerning the subject. I ask that both should be blocked from Wikipedia, or at least prevented from editing this article , since both been acting in the same format that single-purpose accounts: Legionatius only edit this article, specifically, since June 2013, and the IP (which seems to be the same person, or known, because he acts together Legionarius, and was blocked by block evasion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:130.88.164.18&diff=584602079&oldid=584550024) basically just edited this article also . I'm sick of this bias . Rauzaruku (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you're fresh off and WP:EW block on this article and just repeated the edit that you were blocked for, continuing the edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Administrators. This is an unfortunate situation. First, I am not 130.88.164.18. [12]

When I rewrote the article and put it to GA this gentleman gave me a warning the article would never be stable and comparing the club to a murderer.[13] After some months he showed up adding several libelous additions from biased sources. Discussions have been underway. There are too many diffs to list. I will try to put a timeline here:

1. Article rewritten and put up to GA. Message from user:[14] . Highlights: demonstrably buying titles, connects with the Brazilian media mafia, it's like trying to highlight an article about a thief or a murderer.

2.Somebody put a rebuttal and he deleted it. [15] Summary: Corinthians fans opinions aren't relevant.

3. He makes changes to reflect his POV[16], followed by about 10 others. I say that it is not a good source, because it is biased. [17] He got into an edit war with user 130.88.164.18.

3. Other rebuttals:My "accusations" are not accusations, they are proven , documented and referenced facts . Try removing anything, and I call the administrators to block and ban you, You better stop lying about the source, and I do not invention texts. In the report, there are documented facts and personal statements of those involved. If you don't show interest in documenting the relevant facts to the articles, then you are a partial editor, and this article is not afford to be GA. And, in fact, you've been acting like a "single-purpose account" for a long time here. 5 years out of Wikipedia and you returned into account single-purpose format - an entire semester just editing this article. Impressively partial.

3. I contact him on his talk page. Not being successful, I put up a RfC[18], using the GA version as a base. As he ignores the RfC, I reverted it and asked repeatedly to put his comments on the RfC. That got me blocked.

4. His offer of consensus is If you want a consensus from me, do a section with "the offical Globo-CBF-Federal Government-Russian Mafia" version.[19]. I really cannot go there,as just there is no indication that this is true.

Rauzaruku has some problems with his English, what makes the conversation more difficult. i.e., he mistook disgusted for disgusting. Not criticizing; just saying that he may be taking statements the wrong way.

He historically has been showing this POV pushing behavior on other articles, like on Portuguese Language[20][21], Partido da Imprensa Golpista [22], discussing medal orders on articles, Rodrigo Constantino, Instituto Millenium(the last two with User: Al Lemos).

On the Portuguese Wikipedia, he was banned when using other nicks:

Dariusvista

CoalaBR and his puppets, more puppets, other puppets and Some more puppets.

As Rauzaruku he was blocked once for POV pushing and uncivility and now he is up again for blocking.

You can find plenty of uncivil comments and POV pushing on his history. His main pet peeves are Corinthians and Politics.

Is there and admin that is bot and admin here and on PT:wiki?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks for reading!

Legionarius (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This guy is a comedy. He is not discussing the article, just the people. His only goal is to block who edit his "sacred" article... I'm doing a hard work here in the swimming section for months, but it's so good to ignore all my contributions (more than 400 articles created, and more than 90% of my time evolving articles) and focus only in the moments there I'm fighting against vandals here.... extremely partial. I would like to know why you stopped 5 years to edit here, and suddenly, started to edit only in Arena Corinthians for 6 months, someone is paying you and stuff? Or you have more accounts? This is very strange. I'm waiting you discuss the article (you didn't nothing yet), and don't try to ban me all the time, trying to protect your giant Corinthians propaganda. Al Lemos is another partial editor, just like you, who wants to use Wikipedia to do political propaganda. This coward run from here to vandalize another wikis. You could follow this example. I want to see an administrator saying that my sources are not acceptable, not a wiki-lawyer trying to ban me. Oh, and I'm waiting you to do something more useful in your life, than to be 6 months using Wikipedia as your personal blog. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. To keep things short, I am the opposite of all the accusations you put. Regarding the content discussion, please read the talk page as it is very detailed there, a long text. Once an admin get a chance to look at this incident you raised and advises on the next steps, I will resume editing and communicating. Legionarius (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this dispute except for the fact that I closed the unsuccessful case that was filed at WP:DRN. However, I wanted to make involved parties aware that, unlike WP:DRN which is a forum designed exclusively for content disputes, this forum is designed to address behavioral problems in editors. So it is appropriate for editors here to discuss behavioral problems in a civil way, using diffs to support their allegations. Also, editors should be aware that if they come to this forum with unclean hands there is the possibility of the WP:Boomerang effect. Good luck to both of you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Rauzaruku also defaced the article on Fr:wiki, Es:wiki and on It:wiki.Legionarius (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You are so cool, man. Don't have nothing to do in your HUE HUE BR life, except to edit Wikipedia and your beloved team article, and watch my edits. Wow, amazing. Want a trophy by your life inutility? I'm still waiting you discuss the sources and the text, not myself. As well as you don't have arguments to do against the extreme notability and reliability of my sources, you keep trying to block me. Pathetic. You're hitting the water. When you stop to act as a single-purpose account, a fanatical supporter of Corinthians and a wiki-lawyer, call me. Why do not you try to edit other articles? Oh yeah, six months ago, someone must have paid you to use Wikipedia as pro-Corinthians propaganda blog and since then you just edit this article, I forgot it. Well, I don't need to do nothing, except to wait Legionarius grow up and write a section with the official version of the history, but he don't want to do it, so, I can't do nothing. If he try to erase it all again, I will revert this vandal again. And that's it to me, good night. Now I'll edit swimming articles again, I'll not lose more time with this. I suggest to filter Legionarius from editing this article, this will finish our problem. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I was going to block Rauzaruku for the above rants alone already (they are littered with personal attacks), but I threw in continued edit warring on the article--their preferred version contains at least one clear-cut BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. If they don't learn from this, given their long history of disruption across numerous articles and numerous Wikis, and a few socks being thrown in as well, I'd support an indef. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Rauzaruku is back reverting the articles on Fr:wiki, Es:wiki and on It:wiki.Legionarius (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bookspam

User:Dutchy85 has added "bookspam" to the lead paragraphs of dozens of articles. The book appears to be self-published. It's been out for four years, but has no reviews on Amazon. I haven't established a link between the account and the author, but I haven't much time this morning. There's a lot to revert, an I figured I'd run it by the group first in any case since this is the first time I've encountered "book spamming" to this degree. Rklawton (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Rklawton - the book is not self published it's from McFarland who are a very legitimate publishing house. It the book is a resource on AIP films and I am going through it. http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-3309-4. I am not the author of the book I just have a copy of it. I am just a fan of AIP films and trying to increase the reference sources for AIP films on wikipedia.Dutchy85 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've already determined that McFarland is not "a very legitimate publishing house" in the way you're suggesting. It's barely a step away from POD. ES&L 14:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• EatsShootsAndLeaves, please tell me where we've determined that, to satisfy my Wikipedian and professional curiosity. I have some questions about McFarland, but I wouldn't put it as you just did, at least not yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Rklawton, I really think you should have discussed this with the user first; I'm not sure this as yet adds up to an incident that should be listed here. Now, a discussion on this topic is very welcome, of course, though this may not be the best venue. Anyway, I've looked at a couple of McFarland books and they're kind of hit and miss. I got one on my desk that I've cited here (in No Such Thing (film)) because I have faith in the particular book.

  Now, Dutchy's edits could be entirely valid; if there is no other reason in their edit history to think this might be spam we have to accept it. I've done this too, though not to this extent: you run into a useful book and start citing it all over the place. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I've not scrolled through Dutchy85's edits, but I have seen his or her additions of gross figures to numerous film article infoboxes, so this is not a single-purpose account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Two other points: I cannot locate any discussion on WP:RSN about McFarland, specifically that they are "barely a step away from POD", so it would be good to have a pointer to such a discussion. Second, I note that Rklawton has nominated the article McFarland & Company, about the company, for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that link, BMK. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The book is held in over 200 libraries according to worldcat. I have not seen it, but I consider it porobably acceptable as a usable source, at least for factual material, The place for this discussion is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If 200 libraries actually bought the book, I'd be impressed. The fact is, McFarland is an independent publisher. They accept for publishing whatever you're willing to pay them to assemble and publish. A book published by them is no more reliable than anything else self published. Now if we can find some indication of reliability, that would be different, but I'm not seeing any. Here on Wikipedia, if someone wants to claim a source is reliable, then the burden is on them to demonstrate it's reliable rather than the other way around. At any rate, given the volume of editing, I'm looking for several things - a general feeling for whether or not these edits should be revered, and a general idea of whether or not the account's editing privileges should be revoked. We've had enough Wiki-PR type nonsense already, and I'm not all that keen on seeing it continue. Rklawton (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a gulf of difference between an academic, specialty press and a vanity press! Coming out with statements such as "They accept for publishing whatever you're willing to pay them to assemble and publish. A book published by them is no more reliable than anything else self published" is plain wrong. You question the "reliability" of their works; try the Reference and User Services Association of the American Library Association. Their 2012 awards for Outstanding Reference Sources includes McFarland's The Polish American Encyclopedia[23]; in 2011 Off Broadway Musicals, 1910 – 2007: Casts, Credits, Songs, Critical Reception and Performance Data of More Than 1,800 Shows[24]; 2010 Broadway Plays and Musicals: Descriptions and Essential Facts[25]. Also in 2010, McFarland were picked for RUSA's Best Historical materials with The New Woman in Print and Pictures: An Annotated Bibliography[26]. In 2006 McFarland's The Titanic in Print and on Screen: An Annotated Guide to Books, Films, Television Shows, and Other Media was picked by RUSA for Best Bibliographies in History[27]. Sure, they publish niche works, but you are way off mark with this unwarranted criticism of McFarland's practices and credentials. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Their website is quire explicit that they do not accept payment for publication. The idea that Dutchy's editing privileges should be revoked because you have a bug up your butt about McFarland is absurd and, if done, likely an abuse of your responsibilities as an admin. Take a look at the AfD you started, which is pretty much a snow keep at this point, for the community's take on your view of McFarland. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than take action myself in this case, I put it up for discussion here. And that's fully appropriate. Your language and your tone, however, are not appropriate, and if it persists, you will find your own account posted here as the subject of a new discussion. Rklawton (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My tone is completely appropriate, especially considering what very much looks like a retaliatory WP:BATTLEGROUND AfD nomination, and especially considering you brought this issue here without doing the least bit of investigation into Dutchy's editing history. Instead you're making strong charges against an entirely innocent editor without evidence and throwing around threats of "revoking editing privilgees" and filing unwarranted AN/I reports because someone spoke frankly to you. I'm sure you enjoy shooting from the hip, but your administrative responsibilities call for more than that, which you have not fulfilled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspected Attempt at Outing [28]

Hello. Could someone please look into and/or advise on procedure/action concerning an incident of a suspected attempt at Outing [29] a user via a possibly Uncivil comment posted by Socialmedium on the Talk Page of the Institute for Learning Wikipedia Article. Here is the text in question;

"Joel, I suggest you, ahem, get a life.Socialmedium (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)"

N.B. A previous comment by Socialmedium in the same Article began; "Dear anonymous contributor known as '82.38.143.36', "

Both comments can be found here [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks LetsDoItRight (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I do suggest that an admin with a little time and some patience take a look at the article Institute for Learning and its talk page because it looks very much like some things are going on there. Specifically, User:Socialmedium appears to be an SPA, possibly with a COI, but almost certainly with a fixed POV, who is attempting ownership of the article. On the other side, I'd suggest the possibility of socking, both via IPs and throw-away accounts. The "outing" comment above also raises the possibility that this editing conflict is a real-world dispute that's moved on-Wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Another user re-editing my talk page comments

User:Drmargi has repeatedly re-edited my comments in a talk page discussion. I pointed out that this is not allowed per talk page guidelines and that he/she does not have my permission to do this. She nonetheless continued.

• [31]
• [32]
• [33]

ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 18:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personal attacks should be removed, but Template:RPA is better than the text Drmagi used. Welcome to the world of WP:BOOMERANG. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 18:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Didn't know about the template. Thank you! Corrected, and my edits stand. CK was asked several times to address the issue, not the editor, but refuses, with responses peppered with personal attacks. Consequently, I redacted them, per WP:NPOV which is within policy. --Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:NPOV is not relevant to redacting talk page comments.

2. The first two diffs show that Drmagi removed the comment "The article's self-appointed caretaker", claiming that this represented a personal attack. This is not a personal attack. See WP:NPA#WHATIS.

3. The third diff shows that Drmagi removed the comment "Grow up". The comment was uncivil. However, before we criticise ChakaKong for this, we should read WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, which says that one form of incivility is "taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Drmargi's repeated unwarranted accusations that ChakaKong was making personal attacks, and deleting parts of ChakaKong's talk page posts are a good example of baiting as described in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL.

Please could we consider a 6 hour block for Drmargi to give him/her time to reflect. If he/she continues his/her uncivil behaviour, the blocks should escalate.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Outside opinion: Looking at the provided diffs there is another way to interpret this. Drmargi being called a "self-proclaimed caretaker" can also be seen as an accusation of him having ownership issues, which could itself be seen as a personal attack. 90.193.35.112 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If CK discusses the issue and behaves in a WP:CIVIL manner, CK doesn't have a problem. End of story. This had gone dormant two days ago, and it wasn't me who stirred it up again. He's been nothing but belligerent from the start, and I'm not prepared to tolerate his name calling and false accusations. They are personal attacks designed to bully me into the outcome he desires. Period. --Drmargi (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent genre warring by Alcatrazzrapper

I'm not sure exactly where I should go for this. It seems Alcatrazzrapper is a WP:GWAR and WP:SPA which has done nothing but change genres on hip hop album articles without any discussion at all. I gave him a final warning on the 3rd, but he has not stopped. Perhaps a block is in order, but I will leave that decision up to an admin. Jinkinson talk to me 20:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• This and this are properly verified, so it seems to me they're following guidelines in at least those two edits. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Front Page Image

Currently File:Uniform tiling 433-t0.png is on the "Today's Featured Article", but it might be a good idea to switch images. Reds and blues close together in images appear to "flash" (for lack of a better term) and might cause a seizure in someone who is sensitive to those colors. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

User: 78.156.109.166

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

---

This IP address is being exclusively to troll at the WP:Help Desk and the various sections of the WP:Reference Desk.

Some of the Help Desk diffs follow: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

IP address has been blocked once. I did not look up the block entry. A longer block is needed for this troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Original block was for randomly adding the words "Michael Jackson" to articles (eg). I am not sure if the editor is a troll, but has had some difficulty understanding how to work on Wikipedia (to put it mildly). I support a longer block until the editor can understand complex text necessary to edit on the project. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor's current focus of asking strange questions at the Help Desk and the Reference Desk and then restating the question so that the original answer was not an answer seems to be characteristic of a troll. At least one other editor at the Help Desk has said that we (the Help Desk regulars) are being trolled. Even if the editor is not a troll, he or she is not here to be constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do the links not work for me? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy.[34] Doc talk 10:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Obvious trolling, see e.g. Wikipedia:Help desk#Opinion questions in the Reference Desk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• In case it's not clear from the bible related diffs alone, the user has a habit of making rude demands demand for yes or no answer, refactored after he was criticisd, giving bizarre excuses for his behavior I don't have Google, "Uh... Did I mention memory?" > "Can't even read your text just above, because my drug..." asking back-to-back opinion questions "Are we in hell? Serious question", and editing his remarks after the fact without leaving any trace like a crossout or brackets. He is obviously aware of his behavior, given he assures us his answers are serious, and sliently edits his comments when subject to criticism. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Kafziel abusing admin tools and overriding long established consensus

Hello all. I would like to make an ANI report against Kafziel even though he has only responded to one warning message (so I presume he has only read one), because (1) it seems quite serious and may even constitute enough reason for a permanent desysopping and (2) reversion of his edits needs administrative attention anyway.

Kafziel has been making edits against consensus with articles at WP:AfC, the main issue being he deletes articles that he does not accept. The proper course of action based on wide consensus is to simply decline the article and allow the reviewee to read the comments on why the article was declined and allow them to improve the article and resubmit it. As I am not an administrator, I do not have access to the specific content in each article, but a list of articles that he has deleted can be found at Special:Log/Kafziel. Huon has also brought up four especially troublesome deletions at his talk page, namely first, A7 deletion outside of mainspace, second, inappropriate G13 deletion as it has been actively worked on in October, so that's only one or two months, not six, third, CSD of article he moved into mainspace just minutes before, and fourth, which Huon did not explain.

Kafziel then responded, citing that AfC is not policy and also IAR. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding on what consensus and WP:IAR mean. After that, User:Hasteur, User:SilkTork and I confronted him about his edits. User:Hasteur has also emailed ArbCom about this. This is his rationale behind doing his actions, but of course that is, again, against consensus and is detrimental to the AfC project, whose aims is to help a user create an article through feedback and guidance. If we need to resort to such measures to clear the backlog, we might as well not have AfC altogether. I also suspect that he has resorted to accepting every article to clear out the backlog before, but this post is getting lengthy and it's late at night for me so I'll probably add another post tomorrow if I can find evidence of that.

Ok, now for the administrative part: I request the recovery of all the articles that User:Kafziel has deleted inappropriately, possibly with an apology note to the writer's talk page.

Thanks and goodnight, I'll come back tomorrow. Darylgolden^(talk) 13:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• AFC again, eh? Don't see much "feedback" whether the article is deleted or not. That being said, this is going a bit further beyond bounds than I've seen before. Is there a list of AFC entries which need to be undeleted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• While there is some degree of good intention in Kafziel's efforts in the AfC namespace, and Crisco makes a fair point, these actions are totally out of processes and ultimately make it harder for the limited number of Wikiproject AFC members who try to offer feedback and answer help requests. I would request Kafziel to stop unilaterally deleting AfC submissions (whether he moves them mainspace first or not...). If he does so, then I see no need for this AN/I thread to go any further. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's just figure this out for a second - outright promotion and BLP violations would be subject to immediate speedy deletion when rejected, and sensibly, so would AFC's of articles that already exist. If I look at User:Kafziel's most recent deletions in the AFC space:

1. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Osseointegration Group of Australia (A10 - identical article already exists) ... appears to be a valid deletion
2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Opsonin Pharma Limited (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) ... valid CSD reasoning
3. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ras Al Khaimah Tourism Development Authority (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) ... again, a valid CSD reasoning
4. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Ninivaggi (WP:CSD#A7) ... hmmm, perhaps no proper reason to delete
5. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A1K9 (G13: Abandoned Article for creation – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND/G13) ... again, valid deletion reason.

So, from those 5 ... can someone tell me what the problem is (other than #4)? ES&L 16:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still a bit unsettling that Kafziel would unilaterally interpret his role in a way that put him at loggerheads with editors at AfC. There is no way for regular editors to review speedy deletions. It's admirable that he would try to clear out the large backlog, but not by any means necessary. I don't blame users for being suspicious at an admin moving pages to the article space simply so he can speedy delete them under a rationale that applies only to the main space. If an ordinary user were to start moving pages and then request speedy deletion, I assume this would be considered disruptive editing. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Kafziel's conduct is cavalier and out of process. The A category of speedy delete shouldn't be used on AFC articles. The G category, of course, can be used, although normally the creator should be given an opportunity to correct the problem, except perhaps in egregious circumstances. In any event, if he wants an AFC article deleted based on a valid criterion, he should tag it rather than delete it directly. His reliance on IAR appears to me to be a self-serving justification to do what he wants. He should take Silk Tork's advice and go work somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

4 is a copyright violation of this, right action, wrong reason. AfCs are not immune to speedy deletion on blatant spam/copyright/BLP grounds, but it seems to me that the main issue here is whether it's correct to move to main space just to SD. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EatsShootsAndLeaves With respect, there's actually consensus approved ways to deal with your examples

1. Decline as Exists, wait for G13 to become eligible, and then delete. A10 is not valid in the AfC project space.
2. AfC pages are given a little more leeway in terms of the Advertising rationalle and as such this would have been beter served by an eventual G13 nomination
3. Again, Advertising is given a more leeway.
4. A7 is for article space, not the AfC project space.
5. G13 perhaps, but there's already a systematic process going through and notifying creators and nominating for G13 so that there is an opportunity for review.

For these reasons, ES&L, the defense is shaky at best and outright wrong when considered by a normal editor. Hasteur (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd say that using an "A" CSD criterion for something not in article space is a problem, no matter what else is going on. And that's ignoring that AfC is designed to be a place where failure and re-shaping of articles is allowed, which means that "nope this doesn't pass now, deleting" completely short-circuits the workflow. I'm very much sympathetic to the sense that AfC is filled with deletable crap, and to wondering why leave it all there instead of dealing with it, and I might even support a proposal that we start giving people less leash at AfC as far as things like advertisement articles, but the current process is set up to deliberately not be the "one chance and done" situation a user would be put in when creating an article in mainspace. That means not insta-deleting if an article isn't up to snuff.

  I'm also sympathetic to "Wikiprojects can't tell us what to do", and Kafziel's claim that since he's not a member of AfC, he's not bound by how its members do things, but in this case I would venture to say that "don't delete declined stuff unless it meets G10, G12 or G13" is not a wikiproject guideline; it's pretty much a universal one followed by any user who touches AfC from the reviewing end. I'm not a member of Wikiproject AfC (in fact, I tend to forget it exists), but I handle AfCs and I do it by accepting or declining submissions, not deleting them. Consensus among everyone I know of other than Kafziel who handles AfCs is that AfCs are deleted upon review only in circumstances where they contain BLP violations or copyvio. "I know what consensus is, and I know that people object to what I'm doing, but I don't feel like doing it according to consensus" isn't ignoring the rules, it's flouting them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jimfbleak Even if it was a copyright violation the standard practice for AfC is to decline, mark as a copyright violation Template:AFC_submission/comments and if it's a bulk violation, then to blank the page. Deleting is straight up out of process especially when deleting for the wrong rationale. Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Standard practice is therefore completely wrong. It is illegal to infringe copyright, and I don't think copyright owners would see AfC as a refuge from US law. FWIW, I just deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Sisters for copyright infringement and blatant spamming. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation is not "illegal", it's a violation of the copyright holder's rights, and therefore a civil matter, which is a very different thing. Let's not get all hyperbolic here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright infringement is, of course, a G category and can be used outside of article name space. However, it's not that big a deal if the page is blanked. We remove copyright infringment from existing articles without deleting them. We only use G12 when it's a new article and the entire article infringes. If it's done at AfC, the problem is still fixable, and, in any event, whether deleted or not copyright infringement still took place; you don't eliminate the original infringement by deleting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't agree with applying any of the A criterion to AfC but not only is it absolutely wrong to not mark a blatant copyright violation (or attack page) for immediate deletion, but those are in the instructions for reviewers at AfC (though I should qualify that I was the one who edited the project to change the former wrong process of just blanking these, when I found that that was in the instructions [35]).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that an attack page should be deleted. There's no reasonable basis to think it's correctable. I still disagree with the copyright infringement issue as a lot of users don't understand the problem but could correct it if given a chance, but, at the same time, it doesn't bother me all that much if it is deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations and attack pages can and should be deleted in AfC space. That's not at issue here. I pointed out a couple of problematic deletions on Kafziel's talk page: The A7 deletion outside the mainspace mentioned above, a G13 deletion of a non-stale draft, another A7 Kafziel deleted minutes after moving it into the mainspace himself (he says moving it was a mistake and he reconsidered, but there are a bunch of others he treated in the same fashion: Brainz, Tyrolean Independent Film Festival, Lambloch. Several of those seem to be about notable topics and could be de-spamified with comparatively little effort, making Kafziel's G11 rationales dubious. I might accept A10 for AfC drafts if we already have a sufficiently similar article, but in many cases what would be needed is a histmerge, not deletion of a draft that actually predates the article (see for example [36] and The Osseointegration Group of Australia).

In summary, trying to clean up the AfC backlog is a laudable goal, but deleting everything not ready for the mainspace yet is not the way to do it. Huon (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there have been thousands of articles accepted in Afc which started out being very promotional or having no references at all. Crisco 1492 says there isn't much guidance given, but the help is spread over many talk pages, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, on the users' talk pages and on the talk pages of the reviewers (such as mine HERE. I do sometimes nominate duplicate articles for deletion, but only after checking that they don't hold a significant part of the mainspace article's history. The submissions are not in article space, and are all marked inside the submit template with NOINDEX, so the urgency to remove them is much lower (except in the case of attack pages or copyvios of course). If Afc submissions are to be treated the same as regular mainspace articles, then Afc might as well be shut down. I proposed this on a temporary basis recently as a measure to deal with the backlog, and the response was far from positive. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted some AfC submissions as G11, and deleted some as duplicates (though I use G6 rather than A10). I know quite a few other admins who do so also, and I would not say there is a consensus never to use these criteria at AfC. (FWIW, I point out that one of the multiple defects of the AfC process is the lack of a good way of handling duplicates) However, the standards for both of these are much more liberal than for articles in mainspace, because they can be improved and are at AfC for improvement. I will delete an AfC that is an outright advertisement, or an so promotional that despite multiple submissions it appears it will never get fixed, but the criterion for articles in mainspace is merely not fixable by normal editing but requiring extensive rewriting. AfC is the place for such rewriting. With respect to the articles about, the tourism development G11 could conceivably be edited into acceptability, but the Opsonin one is something I might have deleted also. I will delete an afc that is an exact copy as A6, but not one which is merely substantially a duplicate, because it might be possible to merge some of the material. Of course the deletion as A7 is improper, and I would have considered it improper even as an article, because it makes a plausible claim to significance as CEO of a significant company.

I consider it acceptable to delete an occasional G13 out of the normal sequence, and many admins have done so, but only if it has been there considerably more than the minimal 6 months (the point which the routine backlog clearance process has reached is at about 14 months at the moment) . I will sometimes do this for something altogether hopeless. The article mentioned above was 7 months old, and is not utterly hopeless, though unlikely. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

1. @Fluffernutter I don't agree with "I'm not part of the WikiProject, therefore I don't follow their rules." It's like saying you're not part of Wikipedia, therefore you can do whatever you want with Wikipedia articles - this is not a valid excuse because even if you claim that you are not part of Wikipedia, you are editing its articles and therefore must still follow rules when doing so. Similarly, Kafziel may not be part of the AfC wikiproject, but he is editing pages under the AfC project, and since there is an established consensus with how to deal with such articles, he must follow consensus. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Can we discuss about the articles that should be recovered? At present, I feel that this is the most urgent issue, as his actions have probably hurt a lot of newbies who may be worried about their articles being deleted and they may not know what to do. I would say recover every article deleted under the 'A' criteria, including pages which have been moved to mainspace before being deleted. Articles deleted under G11 that are promotional in tone but still contain substantial information should also be recovered. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Are you sure you're replying to the right person, Darylgolden? I didn't say anything resembling the words you're saying I said; my point was in fact that "I'm not a member of Wikiproject:AfC" is not an excuse to not abide by community guidelines and consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case I apologise for misreading your comment, Fluffernutter. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

To start with, since G13s are restored in response to a good-faith request if there is no other problem preventing it, I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A1K9/ I am prepared to restore the others except Opsonin, but I have no objection if another admin wants to restore that one also, because if we disagree, it's not a valid speedy G11. For non-obvious cases, the procedure for deletion is to list the article for a discussion at MfD. We may work out something better when we have the drafts namespace implemented.Perhaps the admin who works most with these ( User:Kudpung ) will comment. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm the admin who works most on these; perhaps one who has done the largest nubers of dG13 eletions but there are dozens of admins whose names we hardly ever come across who gnome away occasionally at the CSD cat doing perhaps there or four at a time, but it still happens very often that while I am reviewing one G13, by the time I reach for the delete button - or rescue it - someone else has already deleted it. My main concern is that it appears to me that if there are too many G13 in the the queue, some admins who know how to do it may simply be doing batch deletions without looking at any of them; creating a new backlog from an old one is counter productive. Due to the huge backlog, the vast majority of G13 are over a year old, so theoretically there should be no more qualms about deleting them than an expired PROD, after all, the creators have had long enough - and many of the creations have not even actually been submitted. I've rescued a tiny few but generally the vast majority of G13 would never be let into mainspace under any circumstances. When rejecting, we should never be bitey, but the myth that was put about by the Foundation in Haifa that most content creators began their Wiki careers as vandals was obviously wrong.

When the backlog is cleared, and all new creations in the backlog of articles the creators have never returned to are a maximum of only 6 months old, it will be time to pay even more attention to the drafts, but I will not be an editor who will dedicate time to repairing many of them for their lazy creators. Providing helpful friendly feedback so they can do it themselves, certainly, but otherwise my time is taken up with the repair of hundreds of new school articles that are far more worth saving than autobios of nn rappers or mixtape DJs, or blatant spam masquerading as articles.

What we do need are some coherent guidelines that ensure that all reviewers and deleting admins are singing from the same page, and in that respect, with the creation of a set of criteria of experience for reviewers, a draft namaspace, and some new ideas how it can be used, such as perhaps cloning a copy of the New Pages Feed/Curation Toolbare for use at AfC, everyones' lives, creators, reviewers, and admins, will be made much easier. It doesn't help however when some editors who work at AfC, whether they consider themselves part of the project or not, drive others away from the AfC project or even ultimately from Wikipedia. All they are doing is throwing the babies out with the bathwater. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Kafziel has not responded to this thread yet, but I would like to state that I really will have no problem if he promises to cease all activities in the AfC project and not edit in that area again. The main point of me opening this thread was actually to bring attention to the edits that needs reversion but since it involves some degree of acting against consensus and admin abuse, I posted it here instead of at WP:AN. So my ideal conclusion is with User:Kafziel agreeing not to edit AfC articles and the reversion of his deletions. Darylgolden^(talk) 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"...if he promises to cease all activities in the AfC project and not edit in that area again"...Seriously? AFC is one of the most backlogged areas of the project, and it's blatantly obvious that Kafziel is trying to move things forward with the best interests of the project at heart, but you want him 100% topic-banned from AFC? You could have suggested that perhaps he not personally delete anything, but NO...you want to kick him in the head instead? Way to undermine your argument. ES&L 12:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

At first, I'd be inclined to support a topic-ban of Kafziel from AFC. But then again, there is a really large backlog at AfC (which some admins and other editors have mentioned above), and there would be no problem if he left non-involved admins to delete the articles, rather than himself. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

user Bhutto gee

• Bhutto gee (talk · contribs)

Looks like another one from the sock farm (User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_20#Possible_sock.2Fmeatpuppet_Zubin_Irani, User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_19#Block_of_Jasmine_Aladin)and Emir Jamshedparineetichopra (talk · contribs) is back, doing the same disruptive editing on same articles and adding same unreliable sources in WP:BLP articles for example [37], [38] and [39].--Jockzain (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED"

Minphie (talk · contribs) is an editor affiliated with "Drug Free Australia". A participant of several content disputes with several other users, including me, he have now resorted to canvassing. Or rather more accurately, they have called out for fellow drug warriors to chime in and sway Wikipedia in their direction. This document with instructions on what to do flies in the face of most policies and guidelines. If not in words, so in spirit. I found it very troublesome and don't know what to do. So I leave it for you. Thanks. Steinberger (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Notified. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see that it is necessary to try to associate the WP editor with a real name, and I redacted it, But the call for meat-puppettry here is unmistakable. I think it warrants an indefinite block. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Pretty much WP:NOTHERE. Resolute 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The target list of articles given in the how-to guide linked appears to be as follows:

• Arguments for and against drug legalization (perhaps this refers to Arguments for and against drug prohibition?)
• Cannabis (and all its derivative pages
• Drug policy of Portugal
• Drug policy of Sweden
• Drug policy of the Netherlands
• Harm reduction
• Insite
• Medical cannabis
• Methadone
• Needle exchange program
• Prohibition
• Recreational use of drugs (presumably this means the article Recreational drug use)
• Rhetoric of Drugs (presumably this means the article The Rhetoric of Drugs)
• Supervised injection sites
• War on Drugs
• Zero tolerance

-- The Anome (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

• Support indefinite block for meat-puppetry. I would also like to note that they denied any WP:COI here and here, specifically in response to a question about Drug Free Australia. That is shown to be false by the PDF, above. Based on that, I would also propose an indefinite topic ban on any articles involving drug treatment, drug programs, or the like, broadly construed. GregJackP Boomer! 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Point of order - Minphie would only have a COI with regards to Drug Free Australia if they work for or with them, not if they were contacted by DFA as a local Wikipedian who was in support of the same cause(s). Even if Minphie does work for DFA, the COI would be restricted to a hypothetical article on DFA, not on drug policy writ large. People who are involved in a policy debate do not become conflicted in editing here. They risk WP:BATTLEGROUND violations (or WP:SOAP). As the editor was indeffed already, one could make a guess as to at least one admins' opinion on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The block notification says "it is clear that you are here to push a certain point of view rather than to contribute to building a neutral encyclopedia." I'm not disputing that (although there is an emphasis in the call for editors on citing sources) but I wonder whether this is any different to the Storming Wikipedia project. Why would one be allowed (even encouraged) and the other result in an indefinite block? StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Because one broadly encourages expanding the encyclopedia and reducing systemic bias, while the other is a coordinated attempt to impose a specific point of view on a narrow range of related articles? Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

While the "Storming Wikipedia" project should have the effect of encouraging more women to edit, some of the quotes in the article referenced above do indicate possible POV problems, and I'm sure that editors are watching for any bias that may appear. For the most part the group is trying to encourage women to edit, assuming that since they are women they will add material of interest to women. (I, for example, am into bluegrass music, computer programming and science fiction, and you all know how men neglect these topics.) This is a far cry, though, from providing a specific list of articles and explaining exactly how to gang up on other editors to shift the focus of the articles to reflect a certain POV. IF the Storming ladies did this, it would be equally unacceptable. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be a good idea for uninvolved admins to add the above articles to their watchlists, in case the promised meatpuppet army materializes. -- The Anome (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Just reading the document, it gives a good grounding on Wikipedia participation. Hopefully we'll get some more editors out of it. We encourage all participants, and so long as we keep an eye on what's going on, where's the problem? Surely we are not running around in circles because - gasp - there might be editors with different views to our own? Mind you, I wouldn't put too much faith in the advice for slow-moving edit wars. Three reverts in a day is merely the "bright line". Reverting twice a day for a week is still going to get a block. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, besides "teaching" from a very biased perspective ("[the other side] are very good at simply deleting [your addition] and putting some bogus explanation.", etc), the document also gives wrong information. It instructs recruited editors to use template:cite journal for every ref. It tells them they need to create an account to be able to contribute. It says that if you feel your text's provenance might be challenged, you support it by commenting on the talk page, rather than saying that you should support it in-text with a citation. It says that you only need to discuss after someone reverts you if you think the other person has a "reasonable rationale", and that otherwise you're "entitled to unilaterally revert" their revert. It implies that anyone reverting your edits is "the other side" who's operating "bogus"ly. It even gives instructions for how to game 3RR (in a way that's almost sure to get you blocked if you try it).

  It's possible to write a document that teaches a potentially-POV group of people the basics of editing Wikipedia well...but this isn't that document. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure, it's not perfect, but we have a truckload of resources that are very good and aimed precisely at new editors. There's a bunch of people happy to steer any newcomers straight. A bunch of new editors - if we should be so lucky to get a bunch - are either going to conform to Wikipedia policy or find their time here very difficult. We've been given a headsup on what to look out for, we can do that. I'll add those pages to my watchlist and see how any newbies behave. Without biting. --Pete (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like a fake to me. Its unlikely a pro-drug activist would be that blatant about violating wikipedia guidelines. Plus if you look carefully, theres a call for emails to be sent to him/her - possibly to entrap possible wrongdoers. Just a thought. Pass a Method talk 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I know some of these outfits--this one and the ones listed on their "Affiliates" document. I wouldn't put it past them. Or, why would you think such organizations would not want to try Wikipedia, just as they try to influence the media and various governmental and non-governmental organizations? It's the MO of any organization that wants to accomplish change, and these cats are quite passionate about it. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (EC) I don't see any reason to think it's fake. It's linked from [40] for example. And the website appears to be the correct website for the organisation known as Drug Free Australia [41]. I'm also in minor agreement with Pete that it's not really clear they're trying to violate wikipeda guidelines. Yes they've made numerous mistakes, but if you look at the document, it's clear they're telling people to properly respect the "rules" and to only communicate via wikipedia pages (the email bit appears to be to let them know rather than for offsite collusion, I suspect so they can disclose it if it ever comes up like it has now) etc. I also agree with StAnselm that whether or not something is inappropriate POV meatpuppetry or trying to correct systemic bias by recruiting a greater diverstiy of editors isn't always very clear. (Feminism may be wider ranging, but if you're recruiting editors to better represent the feminist POV, you're ultimately still recruiting editors with a specific POV with the belief that their POV is underrepresented which results in systemic bias and that by recruiting more editors with that POV, you will ensure it is fairly represented in discussions and articles will improve because of it.) Or to put it a different way, I can certainly see why from their POV they're being entirely proper and open about trying to correct systemic bias and help achieve NPOV by ensuring all viewpoints are fairly represented in any discussion by openly recruiting editors who's viewpoints they feel are underrepresented. It's not like this is the first time this has happened, e.g. as mentioned in Wikimania 2011. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The metadata also supports it being genuine, realizing of course that this can be faked too. GregJackP Boomer! 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - User 'Pass a Method' has a point, it could be fake. I can think of some editors here I would love to see blocked. If all it takes is for me to create a pro-meat puppetry flyer, stick their name on it and pass it around via pdf to have that accomplished...
  Anyway, (@Rschen7754:) why the rush to block? (blocked exactly 20 minutes after this ANI was created) The user has not even had an opportunity to comment here in their defence. It's not as if they were actively disrupting in the main or user space and a block was needed to protect the project. - ^theWOLFchild 04:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, in the (very unlikely) event that they can say something to effectively rebut the evidence, they can still do so on their talk page. Meanwhile, they are semi-active, and we don't want this issue to float away. --Rschen7754 05:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion - How about we pool our eyes and make a list of any new editors showing up on the pages listed above. We can keep a gentle watch over them, raise any concerns here, make sure all is good. Minimise disruption for all parties. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - (Not sure that as a non-admin I am ok to comment here, nevertheless) Can I ask what is different about the behaviour being investigated here and that of User:sgerbic - aside from the POV differences of the two? It doesn't feel evenhanded to me that this guy is being vilified for behaviour that on the surface simply reproduces SGerbic's. What am I missing? I'd love to know. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Any editor is able to comment here, this is just a noticeboard to get admin attention. As to your question, the difference is that no one has brought Sgerbic's alleged actions to ANI. Admin's don't have the ability (read superpower) to know what goes on everywhere. If you find issue with Sgerbic's editing, you'd have to provide evidence of this rather than just a vague statement. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• The difference is that Sgerbic and the "guerilla skeptics" have specified that they are interested in producing a balanced encyclopedia, that they don't want to push a POV and they want to improve coverage of skepticism. If Sgerbic and the guerilla skeptics were trying to slant articles in a more skeptical direction, I'd be very concerned. They seem more interested in building up coverage of the skeptical movement though. Still I think we should definitely keep an eye on groups like them to ensure they are being neutral and fair. If they can contribute material that's fair, NPOV and productive, we should welcome their contribution even if they have silly, overdramatic names like "guerilla" or market themselves as "storming Wikipedia". —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Observation – the section of the linked document authored by Minphie starts near the bottom of the second page, the part with the request for email notification and the biased editorialising etc appears to be writted by someone else at Drug Free Australia. Minphie's advice is poor in parts, no question, but alone it does not appear (to me) to be sufficient for a WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. EdChem (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. I think this has been done too hastily, and with insufficient evidence of meatpuppetry on Minphie's part. It appears that he was asked to give a brief introduction to editing on Wikipedia. Any of us might be asked to do the same. Certainly, we would avoid some of the things that Minphie said, but there is nothing here in what Minphie said about telling people what to write, or what biases to introduce. As mentioned above, that is a separate part of the document, written by persons unknown. This block is unjustified - if the editor is showing that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, he can be blocked on the basis of on-wiki edits; blocking him on the basis of this document is grossly unfair. StAnselm (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW while I stick by most of what I said above which was more intended to apply generally to what was going on, I think Minphie more or less screwed themselves.

In particular, while the general idea behind the document may be understandable and some may even consider it acceptable, the documument itself does make out the other side to be the enemy. I don't think this is uncommon in this sort of thing, IIRC it did happen a bit in the outside wikipedia responses to gender identity issues raised by the Chelsea Manning case, and I'm sure some of the response in many other cases e.g. the feminism one, ultimately when you're associated with calling others the enemy lefties, you can't expect things to end well for you. And even if we don't accept the author of the PDF and Minphie as the same person, Minphie was clearly involved in a lot of it.

And just as important, and again without having to accept whether or not Minphie is the same person as the author of the PDF (who is strongly associated with DFA), it's difficult to see how you can logically claim you don't have a COI according to our COI policies if you were involved in that document. Precisely what is a COI and how our COI policies interact with our privacy policies may be contentious but in a case like that your options really are to either declare your COI or refuse to comment because of privacy reasons. Saying 'I don't have a COI' when you helped write a document posted on an advocacy's organisations website calling for more wikipedia editors, an advocacy organisation which is heavily involved in a lot of what you're writing about, well that just dumb.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela

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

---

Could an admin possibly assist with a speedier speedy deletion of Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela to allow for the current article Death of Nelson Mandela to be moved to that title. I have updated the article to include information pertaining to the funeral with the aim of following the structure of other similar articles, e.g. Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. I only make a request here due to the large amount of traffic this page is and will receive as it gets closer to the funeral in addition to the fact that the redirect is no longer automatic due the the speedy deletion template I placed there. Thanks - Reallynca (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Tell me

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

---

Why can I not have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael John Lewis (talk • contribs) 23:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Because you do not yet meet our guidelines for notability. GregJackP Boomer! 23:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistent creation of inappropriate articles

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

---

• XavierTG (talk · contribs)

Not blatant vandalism, but this blast of articles detailing game rules isn't encyclopedic. User has not gotten the hint after numerous warnings and a block. And I suspect the most recent set of articles has been copied from elsewhere, but can't find the source(s). JNW (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I deleted their contributions. I don't know if they should be blocked indefinitely or not. The kids ate their dinner and shared their chocolate letter with me (Sinterklaas shipped them from the Netherlands), so I'm not really in a foul enough mood, maybe. But a block for incompetence, I wouldn't oppose. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Drmies. I confess I am in a foul mood--the parents are ailing far away and I missed work to tend to my gal, who's quite ill just now. JNW (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You got me in a really foul mood also, I felt like blocking someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia and I found one here ;). Blocked indefinitely, clearly warned and blocked before and didn't listen. No need in keeping him around making inappropriate game guides and blanking pages. Secret ^account 04:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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