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

Use of Wikipedia for class project

New user Globalecon (talk · contribs) posted an article "Global Economics", since userfied to User:Globalecon/Global Economics, from which it appears that he is a professor planning to use Wikipedia as a web-space provider for his students' project papers. He advises them to put {{underconstruction}} at the top to avoid editing by others. Four student project articles have already appeared. How tolerant are we of this sort of thing? JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on the article produced. Of those four student essays, I think the last two of those, once wikified, could be perfectly adequate articles (I haven't checked to see if they duplicate existing content, though). The first two probably couldn't - and the first is at AfD already. Black Kite 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of teachers having their students write or significantly improve Wikipedia articles as part of a class. So long as everything is properly researched and written, I don't see much of a problem. --clpo13_(talk) 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We've had featured articles come out of school projects, see WP:SUP and the recent Signpost article on the 2000th FA. Simply using Wikipedia for a school project isn't an issue at all (and should be encouraged, in my opinion). If the articles produced don't meet our standards, we just deal with them in the usual manner, perhaps giving a little bit of leeway to allow them a chance to improve the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Brock University, apparently. I take issue with his attempt to WP:OWN the articles. Wikipedia is not a personal playground to store your stuff. Not the mainspace, at least. Otherwise, there's obviously nothing wrong with people creating legitimate articles, whether it's for a college experiment or something else. Enigma ^message 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Two of the four articles are now at AfD, and the other two have been tagged (one by me) with proposals to merge into existing articles. Deor (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it a problem that User:Globalecon/Global Economics mentions the real names of the students working on these pages? Although they're adults, the folks involved in this project seem to be new to Wikipedia and may not be fully apprised of the risks. Additionally, the names seem to have been posted by the professor running the project, not the students themselves. A full name plus the fact that they attend Brock University might be more information than is wise to disclose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and not only the university, but a specific class there. Maybe the names should be changed to initials, or first names and last initials? And the more specific info oversighted? Aleta ^Sing 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further update: there are now eight articles listed on that page. One does not exist (and has never existed), 3 are on AfD, 1 has been prodded, and two have been proposed for merging (only 1 is actually going to survive on its own). And all of them have been tagged for cleanup. Hut 8.5 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another update: There are now nine articles listed and I suspect there are more to come. I hope this isn't one of those big lecture classes with 50 or 60 students. As it is, it's starting to put quite a strain on the time of admins and others monitoring this project, e.g. tagging, warning, participation in AfDs and merge discussions etc. It's a pity the professor who organized the project didn't read Wikipedia:School and university projects first. Many of the current pitfalls (and subsequent clean-ups), could have been avoided. Sigh! Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I see nothing wrong with a professor assigning students the task of contributing to Wikipedia, I can't see how they can claim any right not to have their articles edited by others. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok so long as they don't violate any of Wikipedia's policies. If they are POV pushing, claiming ownership of articles or anything else I think they should be warned. Wikipedia is not a free web host. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone could just fire an email off to the guy. I'm sure the Prof's page at the university has his email. Just a quick email explaining that it is cool to assign students to work on wikipedia but the manner in which students are being assigned violates the principles on which WP is based. Shouldn't be hard. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sent off a polite email (to his univ account) thanking him for encouraging contributions, but letting him know that he might want to read the discussion here and on his talk page. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Question Are you sure the professor is from Brock University? The Paul Hamilton there is in the Politcal Science Dept. On the other hand, Paul V. Hamilton is a professor in the economics department (specialising in global economics) at Marshall University. Observe this comment in AfD discussion: Global censorship of Youth's books:

• Do NOT Delete This is a draft for course. Please leave unaltered until May 15, 2008. Thanks. pvh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.9.9 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only are the initals at the end of the comment congruent with "Paul V. Hamilton", the IP traces back to Marshall University. His email address can be found here. I notice that User talk:Globalecon also has "email this user" enabled. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, I wasn't sure. That was just my best guess from an Internet search. Apparently, I was wrong. Enigma ^message 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Sent an email as suggested by Protonk and Bfigura via "email this user". JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Here are a few thoughts/clarifications: (1) Yes, I am a professor at Marshall (not Brock), (2) This is part of a class assignment (it's not an online class as one person suggested), (3) The students have been made aware of WP article criteria; if they don't live up to that criteria then their article can rightly be edited or deleted, (4) The "under-construction" / "please do not edit" was an attempt to give the student a few days to shape up the article. This idea was suggested on the main Wikipedia tutorial page. It was not meant to be interpreted as an exception to WP edit policy, (5) I will abbreviate the student names to preserve confidentiality, (6) Yes, ultimately there will be a wide range in the quality and suitability of articles. I've asked students to take their best shot; there are about 100 students in my two sections so unless you want to quit your day job I'd suggest that you give us a few days (May 10) to sort things out. I will personally delete any articles that don't meet the WP criteria after grading them in about a week. Globalecon (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, you can't personally delete articles, even your own. Only an administrator can do that. The individual authors can request deletion themselves by blanking the article and replacing it with {{db-author}}. But an administrator still has to do the deletion, and it becomes even more complicated if others outside your project add sunstantially to the articles, despite your requests. Thus, Wikipedia administrators will potentially end up having to manually delete or merge 100 articles, even if they wait until after May 10th. Mightn't it be better for the students to write their articles on their user pages or their user subpages and only contemplate publishing them in the mainspace once you and they have a greater understanding of what kind of articles are likely to survive and why? Just a thought. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any links to good / featured articles created as part of school projects? That way it'd be easy to say "this is how it's done right", and WP gets to keep newbie editors who aren't disillusioned about having to complete schoolwork which then gets deleted because they've been told to do it wrong. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As Hersfold said above, El Señor Presidente came out of a school project, and was our 2,000th FA. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: one of the batch of five articles promote as the 2,000th. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-14/Dispatches. And not a typical educational experiment, because they were accessorized by the FA-Team, comprising many of Wiki's prolific FA writers, who did a good deal of the kind of tweaking and fine-tuning needed to achieve FA status. My past experiences with these educational projects has been more along the lines of what I'm reading here: a most frustrating time sink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that we had the invaluable help of the FA-Team, but that's not why we avoided this problem. I'd say that the three errors made in this case are:

• that the professor has no history on Wikipedia
• that the professor shows no sign of wanting to edit actively to support his students
• that the students are asked to pick their own article topics, rather than improve existing articles or fill clear gaps
• that the students are writing the articles off-line and then uploading them in what is inevitably a non-Wikipedia format
• that the students are writing the articles off-line, in a genre more suitable to term papers than encyclopedia articles
• that the class has no clear goal beyond uploading content, any content

WP:MMM avoided all these errors. And it's in large part because we did avoid them, that we were, I believe, an attractive prospect for the FA-Team, and the collaboration could get off to a good start. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion: Why not create the articles in Globalecon’s userspace, i.e. User:Globalecon/Article title here, User:Globalecon/Another article, etc.? Globalecon could then simply add {{db-userreq}} to the ones he wants deleted and the articles worth keeping could then be moved out to mainspace. —Travis^talk 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, of course, I’ve just seen the very handy link to Wikipedia:School and university projects on Globalecon’s talk page. —Travis^talk 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree that articles could be worked on in userspace but, people on both ends need to be aware of the NOT webhost thing. I'd suggest to the students and anyone else to write the text of the article in Word/or other word-like form and use the help pages alot in order to "wikify" it. They can then present the professor with text only (the way the article would look) and the "wiki" bit with code inserted. Finished articles could then be uploaded (if appropriate) and judged by the community on their own merits separate from any issues with the class. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are now 17 articles listed at User:Globalecon/Global Economics (although some have already been deleted). If there are really going to be about a hundred of these, and if no one can persuade the teacher to get his students to do something other than what they've been doing, AfD is going to be severely clogged up for some time to come. Deor (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• People are now using that page as a source for articles to PROD or send to AFD. :P I looked through the pages listed there, and most of them have received that treatment. Enigma ^message 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Enigmaman, you mean that wasn't what it was there for? How far do they have to go before we can rangeblock Marshall until May 10th? The prof doesn't seem to want to work within the rules here so this entire project doesn't seem much different concerted vandalism attack. One Hundred articles to be deleted, redirected, or merged? Woof...I'm sure we've all got better things to do than to be this guy's unpaid TAs. (sorry to sound so BITEY, but he appears unwilling to work with us, why should we allow him to swamp WP?) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ha, I was actually considering recommending that myself. I think any administrator would be hesitant to rangeblock a university, even temporarily, but that seems to be where this is headed. The pages keep coming, and the professor isn't stepping in and informing the students of policy. He created a monster that is gaining strength. Enigma ^message 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is real merit in what the academic in question is trying to do here, but only if he'd take the advice of others and have his students create their articles in userspace, after which any worthy offerings can be transported to mainspace or merged into existing articles. I can see this becoming very disruptive in a very short space of time. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm really pretty sure that we don't rangeblock a university to prevent people from attempting to contribute articles in good faith. I don't have the whole blocking policy memorized or anything, but I'm really pretty sure about that. I also very seriously doubt I skipped over the part of WP:VANDAL where people honestly attempting to contribute articles, the best they can, with mixed success, are treated with contempt and dirision, and have their contributions called vandalism. With all the pure crap we get every day, with all the POV pushing and vandalism and egotistical ANI dramafests and editors drummed out of wikipedia by assholes, this is the way we treat people honestly trying to create something? We have 2 million someodd articles; these are automatically the 100 worst? AfD if you must, redirect if you must, try to convince the professor to alter his system if you must, or (God forbid) try to improve the articles if you must. I could care less if the professor's plan works or not, but let's show at least the students, the ones contributing articles the best they can, the ones who don't really have much of a choice in the matter, a tiny bit of respect. --barneca (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't consider it vandalism, but this is without question disruption. I agree that the professor is responsible more than the students, but no one said these were the 100 worst articles. Rather, it's an individual coordinating the mass addition of articles that don't belong in the mainspace. That's disruption, especially since he and many of the students have been informed of this and have not taken any steps to rectify the situation. Enigma ^message 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Would anyone have any objection to my creating a bright shiny banner at that listing page with links to helpful policies (like YFA/SYNTH/OR/NPOV) and a note that articles/essays that don't comply with those policies will probably be deleted in short order? Not to phrase it in a bitey way, but more along the line of the pragmatic tone of WP:OUTCOMES? After all, if the students aren't learning policies in class, someone needs to point them out. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• That would be helpful, thanks. Enigma ^message 04:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Hopefully not too bitey. Feel free to reword/recolor as needed. (I ended up deciding against invoking blink tags). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this part of the professor's note above especially troubling: "so unless you want to quit your day job I'd suggest that you give us a few days (May 10) to sort things out. I will personally delete any articles that don't meet the WP criteria after grading them in about a week." That sort of obvious arrogance, in the face of all this talk about how out of sorts with our policies he is, seems to say he knows that he's abusing the webhosting aspect of WP, but that he's somehow better than us, arrogating rights beyond our admins' power to assure us that he'll sort this all out for us later. It's a clear attitude that our policies don't matter to him. I would support a full university-wide rangeblock, if contacting his department head, or the dean of academics office doesn't yield satisfactory results. But go up the chain of command, then rangeblock the university. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have the range to block if need be? Nakon 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

206.212.0.0/18 -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI, it would seem that at least half of the students are coming in via non-university ISP's. (Based on my whois'ing the IP editors who added pages. About half were verizon/comcast). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a bold admin might ignore all rules and unilaterally move the respective articles to the relevant place in userspace, namely the good professor's userspace? Granted some of these essays seem to have been added to existing articles in the mainspace. X Marx The Spot (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As the coordinator of WP:MMM, I've started writing up some advice about how to use Wikipedia in educational assignments, and how not to. This does seem like a textbook example of how not to. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Up above, it was noted that the students' real and full names appeared in the User:Globalecon/Global Economics page. This has since been reduced to just initials, but their full names still appear in the page's history. Can/Should we get an administrator to purge a few history versions to protect their privacy? It seems like the proper thing to do given the situation. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Update After a very bad start, there has at least been some improvement. There are now two articles that are useful. Maybe if we try encourage, rather than discourage, this project will blossom. Maybe no school project will ever be able to emulate WP:MMM, but we can at least encourage them to try. Noble Story (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we get an update on the university's position on his actions and disregard for the rules of this project? Has anyone contacted them regarding this? ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Positive Reinforcement

I'm going to try some positive reinforcement. The good articles (those being kept, or not redirected/deleted) get a Y, so that people will have some idea what constitutes a good effort. (I'll explain this in the top box too). With any luck, it won't be necessary to go rouge and start handing out N's. (Seriously, that would not be nice -- it's not the kids fault that they weren't told how to go about this). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) ....assuming I could go rouge, I think I might be missing a bit... --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a "redirect" graphic to show that some of them no longer point to the article uploaded by the student? Thanks for the work on this Bfig... LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I was working from Category:Image_insertion_templates and Category:Image_with_comment_templates. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too

If they're writing the papers in Wikipedia space, they need to give more to Wikipedia than they get.

Every one of those articles should be created in userspace with the explicit goal of creating quality encyclopedic entries. This summer I myself fully intend to require my students to either create Wikipedia articles on appropriate topics for which no articles already exist or seriously revise articles that are deficient. The goal is to create articles appropriate for Wikipedia while learning about their topics. I am stressing that they should use usernames that do not reflect their real names or personally identifying information, and that they MUST create these pages in their userspace, where the articles will remain until they are appropriate in quantity and quality of content.

I must stress that I personally have a history with Wikipedia, and I plan to support my students in their work. For purposes of their education, the most practical reason for doing their work through Wikipedia will be so that I can guide them through the editing process.Doczilla _STOMP! 05:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone asked me about the idea that students could learn more about how Wikipedia works by posting in mainspace. He/she preferred not to post that comment here. Anyway, here's my reply on something I don't feel a need to have a private conversation over when the question was about the topic presented here on this forum.

(1) They will disrupt Wikipedia with junk articles that aren't fit yet. An article that isn't even a real article yet doesn't belong outside userspace when the person fully intends to keep working on it. (2) Academically, this would be first and foremost for them to learn about their topics, not to learn about Wikipedia even though it should create an article that would benefit Wikipedia. By working in userspace, they can do their own work and develop the article without interference from other editors who might take charge of the whole thing. (3) See previously mentioned ownership problems. Once it leaves userspace, they don't own the work and they have no right to expect others to leave the things alone. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally in projects like this, the students should be learning both about their academic topics and how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, there's no point in assigning the students to post their essays on Wikipedia instead of simply submitting them in the normal way. The Wikipedia part just becomes a gimmick. Having said that, I strongly agree with you about starting the papers in user space. Furthermore, I don't think that the "user page first method" is incompatible with achieving both goals. But this is assuming that when the articles go into the mainspace, the professor/teacher is prepared to put a lot of thought and hands-on effort into guiding the students through the editing process and the interaction with 'outside' editors and the Wikipedia community as a whole. Hats off to this professor!!

However, the GlobalEcon project is more than a little problematic, and probably a special case. The professor there seems to know nothing about how Wikipedia works, and appears to be giving little or no guidance (and worse, giving wrong information) to his students. He doesn't really interact on his talk page or the various article talk pages (nor does he encourage his students to). In fact, he explictly and actively discourages any kind of collaborative editing, e.g. requesting that nobody touch his students' articles until he's graded them, after which he appears not to care at all what happens to them. He doesn't take up the constructive suggestions that have been offered, and seems unwilling to explore Wikipedia and its resources for himself, e.g. [1]. I also made some suggestions here about the issue of his students uploading copyright images and claiming them as "self made" and/or failing to document them properly. No comment from him, no guidance added for his students (at least on the project page). Today I found another problematic upload from one of them.

Given that the GlobalEcon project ends in 10 days, and there is no sign that the students and their professor are intending to engage or collaborate with Wikipedia apart from storing their essays here, they're certainly not going to learn any more about Wikipedia itself by posting directly to the mainspace. In this case, the most pragmatic approach is to minimize the disruption they're causing by strongly encouraging them to write the articles first on their user pages. Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have added to the warning box on the project page a P.S. about image copyrights. JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest

You can't stop good faith contributions to the wiki. We try, desperately, to make sure that new articles are better written, blah blah blah, but guess what people, this is no different from the massive amounts of articles we get every single day. So stop bitching about it and let these people edit like everyone else is allowed to do. We want to improve the situation, but never to prevent good faith article contribution. Never. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that. There are now several articles that have been made by students that can be improved. I have a suggestion: Why not assign several veteran editors to oversee the project, and maybe one veteran for each student (or at least students who have created worthwhile articles). After all, WP:MMM probably couldn't have had such great success without the FA-Team's help. I think we should definitely try to reproduce a mentoring system in this case. Noble Story (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in quite a lot of sympathy with this approach, and agree that good faith contributions should never be pro-actively prevented. And, I suppose it's worth approaching the professor with your suggestion, but I see a couple of potential problems.

1. The professor doesn't seem to be open to this, at least up to now. He's not taken up the offers of help from other educators, nor has he signed on to Wikipedia:School and university projects, although he has been strongly encouraged to do so.

2. GlobalEcon is not a group or even a collaborative project. It is quite unlike the WP:MMM project. It appears that each GlobalEcon student is expected to write their own essay and not contribute to those of other students on the course. It also appears that they are being graded individually on their articles (hence the requests to leave them 'untouched' until they're completed and the professor has marked them.) The quality and quantity of the mentoring could have a differential effect on the students' grade outcomes, giving some an unfair advantage in producing a good article.

Addenda. The re-directs and multiple re-directs on some of these articles could also produce differential grade outcomes unless the professor is clued in about how to access page histories and what a re-direct is, e.g. this not so fab article now redirects to the quite spiffy Deforestation. But that's not Wikipedia's problem. Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing to do in this case is to minimize the disruption while the class assignment runs its course and then work to improve the surviving articles. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering this: What is the ultimate goal of this project? If the professor sets goals similar to WP:MMM (i.e A+ for FA, A for GA), then the project has hope. But if the only aim is to just keep the article on Wikipedia without getting deleted, then I don't think anything can be done to help.

Actually I'm feeling sorry for (some of) the students. There have been maybe four or five good article created, and with help, they could be greatly improved, but it seems that their professor's unhelpfulness is really messing everything up. Noble Story (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm feeling sorry for all of the students. They've been thrown in at the deep end, with no preparation, guidance or support. Many of them are having their work raked over the coals in AfDs, sometimes quite brutally. And, they appear to have had no choice about uploading this stuff to Wikipedia - it's an assignment. I think all of us participating in the AfDs need to keep this mind, when discussing the students' work - be frank but considerate at the same time.

What is the ultimate goal of this project? As far as I can make out from what the students have been uploading and the professor's comments here, and here, the goal is for each of them to write an academic essay and publish it as a Wikipedia article. (Despite the fact that some key criteria for a good academic essay - original thought and a novel synthesis of ideas - are incompatible with writing a viable Wikipedia article.) The students are to try and avoid anyone else editing their 'articles' so they will be all their own work and more easily assessed as such. The professor then marks them, and that's that. He doesn't appear to care one way or another what happens to the articles after he's marked them.

Oh well, 35 articles up, just another 65 to go.;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly share your sympathies for these kids and heartily applaud your optimism and positive outlook, but I think that if we are to be totally fair, they should be treated as any other Wikipedian would -- both positive and negative. In as much as it would be wrong to be prejudiced against their articles for being part of this assignment or simply IP-blocking them outright (as was discussed above), it would also be wrong to give them any preferential treatment as well. Ultimately, the Wikipedia community is not responsible for this professor's actions, including his class assignments or grading system. We should not place ourselves in the position to be sensitive in any way how this professor may grade his students off-wiki based on anyone's actions on-wiki. That is not our place and it would be presumptuous for us to make it so. That is between the students, their professor, and administration of their university. To me, the solution is simple. If the articles need fixing, we fix them. If the articles need deleting, they go to AfD. Not only does WP:OWN indicate that editors can not retain ownership of articles themselves, it also means that we as a community can't assign ownership of an article to any editor either. Given that, these students don't own these articles and they are subject to the same rules as any other article. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% that we should just treat these students as any other editors, and these articles like any other new articles. The problem is, we generally treat any other editor who, in good faith, creates an article that doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion, like crap. So I guess when I suggest we treat the students with respect, I'm not sure whether to say "like any other editor" or not. --barneca (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help but chuckle because, as much as I'm ashamed to say so, you are absolutely right that sometimes well-meaning editors are "treated like crap". I suppose my actual point was that we shouldn't lay kid gloves on these articles simply because this professor might give his students poor marks as a result. We shouldn't allow that kind of reasoning to enter the equation. By all means, though, these editors should be treated with the utmost respect that is deserved by any Wikipedian. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mightn't the fairest thing be to delete all of these articles, so that every student is treated in the same way and their clueless teacher is thwarted in his effort to use WP as a Web host. Then, after the class project is over, we could have a combined DRV to restore the few that show promise of becoming legit articles. Deor (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No. If it's a decent article, it would be both counterproductive and very WP:POINTy to delete it simply because it was begun as part of this class assignment. Aleta ^Sing 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think all of us participating in the AfDs need to keep this mind, when discussing the students' work - be frank but considerate at the same time. all those other new people contributing new articles can fuck off? why isn't the educator a puppet-master, and blocked for disruption? don't block the students for making contributions. 81.100.114.76 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So what do we do with articles like these?

• Economics of the Fifa World Cup
• Fifa world cup impacts on the economy

Yes, AfD works, but it's a time sink. --John Nagle (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They were up for four minutes before being AFD'd. That IMO is out of order. Maybe it's worth putting an underconstruction tag up for them, maybe they don't know how to? Edit: I've cleaned up the references. D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Four minutes to afd is normal. thats not diferent to any other afd. 81.100.114.76 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One such article might be legitimate. Two articles with essentially the same content from the same editor is spamming. They were sent to AfD by different editors. No speedy deletion category applies, so AfD is appropriate. And, in the end, they're essays inappropriate to Wikipedia, even after the formatting is fixed. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it spamming. (S)he may not know how to create a redirect and created a duplicate on error. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, how is it spamming? These are very inexperienced editors. The student probably wanted to change the title but didn't know how to move a page or create a re-direct. I think we can show a little understanding here. As has been said at the AfD, pouncing on articles from this project with minutes of their appearance and AfD-ing them seems a bit pointy. In each case, I think we should ask ourselves, "If I happened on this article by chance and didn't know it came from the GlobalEcon project, would I probably tag it for clean-up and wait a few days to give the editor a chance before sending it to AfD? Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And the answer is (and should be) "Yes." Furthermore, there's obviously a difference of opinion over on AfD as to the worth of these articles, and they're not quite as universally disparaged as all of that. When all is said and done, though, yes: this prof is being a pain in the butt, he plainly expects Wikipedia to be something other than what it is, and yes, there's going to be a lot more AfDs before this is done. Not, mind you, that AfD doesn't get 100-150 articles a day all by itself, that there aren't hundreds of editors who don't already do this kind of cleanup, and that we should be in the habit of telling otherwise willing students that they're not allowed to play here.  RGTraynor  17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least agree, as a beginning point, that the problem is not with the contributors themselves, but with the leadership they're (not) being provided? Could we perhaps create some sort of temporary project page, the barest possible bones of article-writing, policy, et al, to provide these (potentially good, potentially long-term and valued) contributors with the leadership they're (completely, totally, utterly NOT) getting at the other end of this project? Yes, I know--not our job, not our problem--but I would imagine that a little TLC and Wiki-spirit could go a long way in nurturing contributors. This isn't like we're trying to reform a pack of vandals--these could be great Wikipedians someday, given some guidance and leadership from OUR end. Just a thought. Gladys J Cortez 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The page here where they list their articles is effectively a project page, and already has a box at the top which gives them advice and links (in plain English, not Wiki-acronyms) to WP:YFA, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:CITE and WP:REDUNDANT, together with suggestions for promising subjects. That should be enough to set them on the right lines. JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also attempting to point out some common issues in an effort to make their job (and ours) easier and more productive. Please add what you think is needed. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a page (User:Globalecon/Tips) with tips on what to do if their article gets deleted, redirected, or radically changed; how to back up their article; and how to stay in touch with what's going on with their article and their project (and why they should!). I've also linked it to the banner notice on their project page. Hopefully, it will help at least a few of the hapless students, although I'm not sure whether their instructor has even told them to look at the project page for updates after they've uploaded their offerings. On evidence, it looks like not. Sigh! Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A set up?

One almost wonders if the purpose of this isn't something else. In looking at some of the topics, their connections are tenuous at best (the viral marketing of a movie, for example). I almost wonder if the entire point isn't an experiment in disrupting an open informational economy, and observing the effects, in which case we're all playing into the hands of the class, and giving them plenty of raw data to use. I guess we'll find out whether this is benign willful ignorance, or malicious, deliberate interruptions. ThuranX (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's needlessly harsh. It's much more likely that this is simply what happens when you tell a bunch of students to go write articles yet fail to provide proper guidance on what the difference between an essay and an article is. (Or fully explain the rest of our policies for that matter). Overall, the average here is still better than at NewPagePatrol. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you just threw AGF out the window there. Even if they are engaging in such an experiment, the only we can do is benefit from whatever paper gets published in the end. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, good faith was assumed at the beginning of all of this, as it should have been. After an opening, the professor hasn't commented. Numerous editors have suggested moving the articles out of the mainspace so they can be worked on without disrupting the wiki, and they've ignored it. It seems that his students are being required to put something up on wikipedia whether it belongs here or not, and they're not being required to actually learn how to do so within the rules. Now, those articles are being deleted because there's no communication between the professor, his class, and wikipedia. It seems like a lot of work from all parties that will all go to waste. Redrocket (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Celanor, AGF isn't infinite. When numerous editors attempt numerous avenues of recourse, and the behavior persists, among numerous people, one can assume there's an outside pressure. whether it is simply to get a grade, or some other force, we don't know, but clearly, there's an awareness of our policies, and an intent to disregard them. All I said is that I can see there being other explanations. I didnt' offer some grand conspiracy theory, as some here suggest, just an explanation for why so many people are behaving in the same 'ignore those guys' manner. That they seem to be testing the boundaries, at least is clear, why not ponder (and that's all I did), if they arent' testing other things as well? ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is not only needlessly harsh but exceedingly far fetched. Having said that, the professor's persistent refusal to address the concerns expressed here and at his project or even to communicate with those of us trying to help him out of this mess could be seen as acting in bad faith at this point. On the other hand, he may be deeply embarassed by the debacle (rightly so!) and is simply 'covering his eyes' until the project is finished. I also agree with Bfigura that overall, the average here is still better than at NewPagePatrol. Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I do find the lack of communication on the part of either professor or students to be odd to the point of disconcerting. (NB I also emailed the professor directly today; no response.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This response from a fairly experience editor who helped a friend from the GlobalEcon project upload her paper to Wikpedia is quite interesting. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the students are not editing the articles they've created once they're uploaded, which makes me suspect that the "under construction" tags at the top of the articles are simply being placed there to try to delay deletion of the articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the oddest thing of all to me. The fact that the coordinating professor should take the time to edit an article on a TV game show, but not respond to any of the queries and suggestions that have been directed his way. In fact, as far as I am aware, not a single student or the professor have responded in any way, except for a couple of initial pleas by the professor for his students' essays to remain unedited. Plus as far as I know he hasn't responded to any email; he certainly hasn't responded to mine. It's all rather strange. I'm at the point of saying delete 'em all, and block the professor's account. --02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Project management

I've started to tabulate the "uploads", initials, current article titles, and fates at User:Globalecon/Global_Economics#Student_articles. Can I suggest that any article up for deletion be userfied, either after Prod or AFD, instead of being deleted (if that is the consensus outcome)? I think it will save a bit of grief. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the table with the latest information on these articles for tracking purposes. However, I disagree about userfication upon deletion saving us a bit of grief. I'm not exactly sure how that would save us grief at all. In fact, as a matter of fairness, we would have to undelete and userfy about 30-40 articles that have already been deleted and/or redirected at this point, plus explain to the students what userfication means, and how or even whether to move them back into article space, and on and on. That sounds like a lot MORE grief to me. No, I have to stand by my original point that we shouldn't give these students or their articles any preferential treatment, above and beyond what we are already doing. Again, it's all a matter of fairness. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think anything is going to have to be explained to anyone, as neither students nor professor show any sign of coming back to the articles. As such, it's not immediately obvious how this fits under "good faith." They are all "drive-by" article additions. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

When this is all said and done, we need to come up with a policy on what to do in this situation. Anything we do now, whether it's delete them all or userfy them for future reference, will be setting a precedent. Redrocket (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Each article stands on its own merits -- nothing more or less. The reasons why an editor is here has no bearing at all on that. Even blatant conflicts of interest don't necessarily forbid contributions if done in good faith and meet our inclusion criteria. In other words, I see no reason why we should have any specific policy at all for class assignments. So, here's my personal policy in a nutshell: As long as editors are acting in good faith, their motivations for being here should not have any bearing at all on how we treat them OR their contributions.. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shinmawa, so are you saying we shouldn't save the articles in name space unless they specifically ask for it in retrospect? I agree with that sentiment, I feel they should be treated just as other users. I'm just trying to make sure I'm reading your comment in the right way. Redrocket (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying. If we wouldn't do it for the hundreds of other articles currently in PROD and AFD -- or do it for the thousands of other new users who have registered accounts in the last week -- we shouldn't do it for these students. We aren't doing auto-deletes or auto-userfies for anyone else, so we shouldn't do it for them either. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Preach, brother. I agree with you completely. Redrocket (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments of ShinmaWa and Redrocket re userfying to save the students and their (clueless) professor grief. I've also written a guide for them (and future students who suffer the same fate) on how to go about retrieving their deleted articles themselves. However, I do support userfying in this case, for a rather different reason. The GlobalEcon 'project' is a textbook example of the worst possible way to use Wikipedia as an assignment in schools and universities. It will be useful to point future education projects, (especially potentially problematic ones) not only to the fate of the articles (i.e., the table started by Rifleman 82 and regularly updated several other editors in the discussion here) but also to concrete examples of what is unsuitable. Having said that, I don't think admins who close deletion debates or speedy delete articles from this project should feel obliged to userfy them. We already have quite few quite spiffy examples of... er... unsuitable contributions.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that great table (which could be so useful for future education) is in the user's userspace, so he could delete it, no? Shouldn't it be placed somewhere more durable? Maybe somewhere on a sub-page at Wikipedia:School and university projects? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent and refusing to see the point

I am here at the AN/I as a last resort after a two long weeks of requesting, begging and demanding WP:RS citations from User:Naadapriya. The user raised questions about jurisdiction of a Hogenakkal falls as well as removing details about a certain project which is proposed in the falls area. Anyways, leaving details of the dispute aside, to solve the dispute itself I had first asked the user to provide WP:RS material, and in failing to see any progress, I sought third party opinion and we recently also had an RfC too. Even before the RfC I left a detailed message on his beating around the bush attitude on his talk page here. When the RfC was still going on both Naadapriya and I were asked not to revert or make any changes by the admin who was staying as an outside opiner[2]. But, Naadapriya sought help of User:Skbhat [3] to add his views. Is this acceptable? Nevertheless, my major concern is that the user still fails to produce RS materia but seem to go on and on with the same story, but no RS with the support of another user (User:Skbhat). Everyone else on the talk page including the admins involved in the RfC have asked them repeatedly to show some reliable citations, but till date none. Because of this the article page has to be kept protected. The user's attitude is stalling the progress of the article. I get very little time on wiki and it is really unfair for a user to be stuborn and waste fellow editors time. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I also know if I will be breaching WP:Canvas if I alert the admins involved in this issue about this AN/I namely:

• SHEFFIELDSTEEL
• John Carter and
• Renee
  

as well as the other frustrated editor like me @ the $un$hine .. I reckon they will be able to throw more light into the issue. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate the issue which is actively discussed is dragged here.(please see discussions)

1. Before I made my comment several editors already had opposed to the statement in the lead about location of falls
2. Editors opposing my correction repeatedly refused to accept the WP:RS citations based on Govt sites and Google map
3. Those recent ones presented by user:JeremyMcCracken and user:skbhat were also refused by above group of editors.
4. Rfc was prematurely initiated by solicited editor who joined the discussions with adhoc comments.
5. Naadapriya did not invite user:skbhat to add comment. Responded to comments on talk page.
6. Todate the group of editors appeared to have coordinated by Wikiality123 have refused to provide WP:RS about the strong statement that falls is in a particular state.
7. Most responses by above group of editors except User:SheffieldSteel included personal attacks. Above comment is a typical example of false accusations.
8. All inquiries by Admns are answered either by me or other editors.
9. During my tenure in Wikipedia this has taken maximum time but I do not regret in the interest of accuracy of information.

It is request refer this issue back to discussions which is almost coming to conclusion with a proposed NPOV statement that will not contradict view points of all editors involved in discussions sofar. I do not plan to further respond here since it is waste of valuable time of Admns unless I am asked by an Admn.

Naadapriya (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

As someone who regularly monitors this page, I saw the notice myself. I will confirm that Naadapriya has regularly insisted that the page in question meet the standards of his own interpretation of sources, that interpretation not being explicitly stated in the sources themselves. Many/most of the other editors who have been involved in the discussion have also commented on his refusal to respond directly to points made against him, and at least one editor other than myself has indicated that his refusal to directly address points made by others, and instead simply basically repeat himself, makes it very hard to assume good faith of him. There has been an RfC initiated by Naadapriya on the talk page. The consensus of the RfC was that Naadapriya's position was not well supported by the evidence. I believe that this editor, who has already received a two-week block for abusive sockpuppetry since his account creation in December, seemingly also over pushing POV regarding Karnataka, may have some difficulties with POV and policy. This is somewhat supported by the fact that almost all, if not all, of his edits to date have related to Karnataka and certain opinions about it, including his more problematic edits. I am now finding myself forced to question whether this editor places his own opinions and goals over those of the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No choice but to respond. Above comment is typical example of ad hoc comments by editors defending current POV statement in the lead opposed by about 10 editors to date. Following are responses to above inaccurate statements.

1. Above Editor did not regularly monitor the page. Joined to canvas on Apr 23, 2008 with possible invitation from Wikiality123 though discussions are going on since June 23, 07.
2. Majority of comments by above editor to date are criticizing approach of other editors and blindly defending current POV statement without giving technical reasons.
3. 'RfC initiated by Naadapriya' is a false statement. It was initiated by editors opposing NPOV statement that falls is on the border.
4. Naadapriya was not involved in 'sockpuppetry' as explained and acknowledged in the talk page. It was a result of multiuser system which was corrected later.
5. Yes most of my edits are about Karnataka a subject I know well. Grew up wondering around falls area. Obtained a post graduate training in irrigation/Hydraulics Eng studying about hydroelectric projects near falls and water projects. Wikipedia expects editors to be knowledgeable about the articles they get involved in. It does not expect editors to jump in the middle and make ad hoc comments to Canvas for someone else as done by some opposing editors.. To date naadapriya has made all comments with WP:RS support.
6. Naadapriya strongly believes in diligent use of wikipedia's WP:Be Bold policy. Naadapriya (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that I was mistaken about who started the RfC. Sheffield started the RfC. Also, it should be noted that I have on several other occasions commented on this page, which makes it clear that the page is in fact on my watchlist. Regarding User:skhbat, it is curious that per that editor's contribution history here the account has been extant since 2005, but only made 8 previous edits before becoming involved in the current debate, and none of them to the page in question. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly advice Naadapriya to read what others are saying before you respond. John was clearly saying that he monitors this page (AN/I) page and wasn't talking about the Hogenakkal falls page. Yes I did invite John to the Hogenakkal page as a third party. I also asked another third party User:Walton One here and ShefeildSteel joined us after the AN/I Naadapriya filed agaisnt me. Details of which can be found here. The whole procedure was followed as per Wiki protocols. As in, if we have a trouble with a particular editor, to take it to their talk page and see if we can resolve it, then further if it goes on, get a third party (I asked for more than one third party) and at last an RfC. I, with all my conscience, have tried everything to WP:AGF with this user. Its not just me. The admin (Shefeildstreel)who precided over the AN/I that was filed agaisnt me by Naadapriya would himself later while posting his messages would say as a reply to Naadapriya (in his edit summary) that its difficult to AGf [4].I reckon all that is humanly possible has been done and I'm not a Mahatma enough to show more patience. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What is even more painful is that Naadapriya keeps telling us that he/she is a irrigation engineer, but till date, he or she wouldn't add anything constructive to this article which is on a water falls. Nothing about the hydrolics or geology or landscape or anything at all. BUT would just talk about the jurisdiction of the place with no RS. huh? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I against Wikiality123 was because of use of 'BS'. He was warned here. In spite of that he continued to use unwarranted words which were ignored. Wikipedia is a source of accurate summary information not a text book to teach on Irrigation. Yes I am a trained Irrigation engineer therefore confidently stated that there is no relation between water falls and water project (that too when it does not exist). Wikility123 disagreed repeatedly!! without technical justifications and solicited support for his POV from other editors. Now he has dragged the issue here which is unwarranted. Just like the first sentence of the previous comment he appears to condition other editor's views to support his POV.

The latest [NPOV]] lead statement proposed by user:skbhat et. al. based on input of all editors to date is the best solution to conclude this ongoing saga and move on. Naadapriya (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there is no "et. al." to the rather remarkable proposal of the previously extremely inactive skhbat except Naardapriya himself. I believe that information should be noted. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed obvious that I disgreed with Naadapriya's POV repeatedly and consistently, because it had and has no RS to back it, in spite of us asking the user to produce such a one persistently. This is why am here anyways! As for the use of the term BS, I had already explained to the admin who looked at it that it was WP:Bullshit that I was refering too, and not the user. Naadapriya did not notify me of the AN/I that he had filed against me, which he/she should have done. More over after I explained the use of the term BS, ShefieldSteel struk off the word warning in my talk page to reminder as any one can see here. To add to it ShefieldSteel himself commented that all he can see was examples of Wikiality123 being tirelessly polite to Naadapriya and further more in his own talk page he said that he did not think that what I was saying was that bad [5], but nevertheless in his own words he was trying to resolve the situation so that discussion about the real problem (where the Falls is located) can continue. Which by his good virtue he did and unfortunately Naadapriya still doesn't accept the fact. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd alike to make a couple of minor additions and corrections to the above accounts:

• The content dispute (where the Falls is located) is complicated by real-world disputes over access to an island below the falls, and usage of water from the river. Sources relating to these disputes are often cited as evidence regarding the location of the Falls, although so far none of them address that question directly. Attempts to point this out to Naadapriya have fallen on deaf ears.
• My involvement: I am not an admin, merely an editor trying to help resolve a difficult issue. Apologies to anyone I may have mis-led. It was I who initiated the RfC about the location of the Falls. Unfortunately it did not get many responses, due perhaps to technical problems with the RfC system (or my own ineptitude).
• I have not gone so far to to say that I think Naadapriya is acting in bad faith. I have said that their contribs are now tending towards disruptive/tendentious, but (per my own interpretation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA) there's a difference between cause and effect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on your position that counters the misinterpretation of your views by others, particularly wikiality123, is appreciated It is unfortunate you did not apply 'so far none of them address that question directly' to editors who are refusing to accept NPOV lead statement. I have listened to your views with good faith. Naadapriya (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Update on the user's recent editsI have pointed this out in the article page too

Naadapriya has come up with a proposal to change the lead which can be found here. Althouth the user called it for some reason Most accurate, WP:RS based, nonpolitical and unbiased NPOV Lead statement, as I shall show you below, not only that the user had failed to understand the meaning of RS and wasting other's time and energy, but also blatantly used references which do not claim anything what they have been used for.

• The first change was the sentence It is located near Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts from where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka, but the citations shown[6] [7] [8] [9] doesn't even mention the word Chamarajanagar
  

• Next was to include the distance from the city of Chennai, which logically not a big problem, but the reference Naadapriya shows us didn't say it at all[10]
  
• Next sentence Naadapriya stated was near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills backed by this reference, but once again the citation has no content even in the subpages about this.
• Then the last sentence stating that Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls is once again the same story[11].

So basically the changes that Naadapriya proposed were backed by citations that doesn't claim so. This is indeed a case of delibrately misleading the reader. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers to above comments are posted in discussions of the article. It is requested to focus on ANI issue here if there is one and discuss technical issues in articles discussions. Otherwise it is waste of time to ADMNs.Naadapriya (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you still haven't justified using citations which don't state what you use it for as citations. I request an admin to attend to this as a matter of urgency, since we are just going in circles in the talk page of the article, with the progress almost to nill. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this on article's discussion page.Naadapriya (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation seems to be the way to go here. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I shall go to mediation, but please make sure that Naadapriya is fine with that too. I don't want to hear from the user that I initiated Mediation without his/her consent. In case the user is not up for it, I reckon we have no other option than to stay in AN/I. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Prematurely it was taken to RFC which failed except for adhoc inputs from solicited parties to retain the current POV statement. It has disrupted the discussions and wasted time. Contradicting comments (sounding neutral but supporting POV) by so called invited ( solicited!!)3rd parties have further stalled the progress towards accuracy. It was dragged to AN/I with false accusations on Naadapriya and also skbhat just to stall the progress. Let the suggestion for mediation come from Admns who have objective views about the article otherwise AN/I is fine for now. I would continue in discussion till Admns suggest otherwise. Currently Admns have added tags as best solution which need to stay till POV and speculative infos are removed. BTW to ALL- What happened to discussions on AN\I page about use of BS by one editor. Am I looking at a wrong place. It is related to the article. Please restore if any one of you has removed it. If it can not be done then wikipedia's special help will be sought to restore it.Naadapriya (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I take that Naadapriya doesn't want it to be taken to Mediation. I think then it is best for an admin to look into this and decide. I am left with very little options. Sorry John Carter I did want to take your advice as you can see. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One should stop misinterpreting comments by others by selective responses. Advice from neutral party is needed not from solicited party to support current POV Naadapriya (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, as I mentioned on your talk page, I am moving on to mediation. The AN/I is going no where. Wasn't ShefeildSteel a neutral party? Reene a neutral party? Did you take their advice? Did I call ShefeildStreel or Reene? I will keep this reply from you for the record. I am moving on to mediation. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No one accept anyone as neutral party when they do not even agree on universal defination of border which belongs either both sides or a neutral third party. Biased comments speak to themselves. E. g . one editor started with make believe statement that Naadapriya trying to get 'upper hand' (It was in AN/I biut currently appeared have been deleted without notice). We need to wait for neutral parties (preferably Admns) who voluntarily participate. Till then tags are the best solution by Admn. Naadapriya (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have assumed that when you file an AN/I you would follow that up and see what is going on there. Anyways, the specific AN/I which you are accusing us of deleting is in the archives. Please do not modify archived stuff anyways. You do not find John Carter as a neutral party although he left messages in Karnataka project page about the ongoing discussion as well as Tamil Nadu project. Anyways, there is no use sitting here. I think it is best for us to find mediators to solve the crisis. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if this AN/I be revisited anytime in the future, a request for mediation has been filed here. I hope a resolution may soon be reached. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban

Mccready (talk · contribs) has been placed under a topic ban and probation, as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#Topic ban. He is banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed, for six months. He is under probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed, for the same duration. He must explain all reverts except blatant vandalism on the article's talk page and is warned against further disruption, such as ignoring consensus or edit warring. Mccready has been notified.[12] Vassyana (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested review

Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested a review of the above topic ban.[13] Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update. I have reset Mccready's block to one month for canvassing on this issue. I am not taking any action on a longer block or alterations to his topic ban until the conversation runs its course here. Vassyana (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Since his response to the topic ban reveals a lack of understanding of his wrongdoing and a lack of repentance, I suggest a longer topic ban, or an indef ban. Nothing he has said indicates that he will change in any way after the ban is lifted. He has no intention to reform. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the response I am referring to above:

• "WOW. This is a new low for wikipedia. A user proposes such a drastic action, then the same user closes the discussion before I have a chance to respond. Great. What of all the errors in the info presented? What of the obvious bias in those who expressed a view (overwhelmingly altmeders)? What of the ridiculous assertion that I don't contribute to discussion on acupuncture? Since when do edit summaries not count? What of the many editors said my info was accurate and highly germane, but merely not formatted correctly and should have been referenced in lead rather than included. I'd like a review and a chance to put my defence. This is ridiculous." Mccready [14]

• That response doesn't indicate any degree of understanding that can lead to improvement. -- Fyslee / talk 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Per Fyslee. Keep the ban, and extend to a year if there is additional disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Response. (This is posted on behalf of Mccready.[15][16]) I acknowledge I placed links on the acupuncture page (on average once per day for a few days) to 16 Cochrane studies showing acupuncture has no proven effect. After further research this was changed to 18 and I suspect further research would increase that number. I noted in my edit summaries the reasons, so the accusation that I have not communicated is not well founded. It had also been discussed on the talkpage previously by me. The record of talk on acupuncture also shows I have spent much time already, before this action, putting the point about UNDUE weight. The aim of inserting the 18 studies was to focus attention on the inappropriateness of the article mentioning first the tiny number of studies showing acupuncture MAY have effect, as against the overwhelming number of studies and metastudies showing no effect. My aim was also to note that the use of the Ernst sources was misleading (particularly on placebo if I recall correctly) - I had already discussed this on talk - so again, the accusation I don't communicate is ill-founded. I also noted in the ESs that I had limited time that week. I have often been the only pro-science editor on this page amongst a plethora of acupuncturist believers, most of whom have little editing experience and show little inclination to examine the sources properly, but who like to cheer on any edit which supports acupuncture, even going to the extent of leaving congratulatory messages on Jim Butler's talkpage. Other editors when alerted to my action agreed that my research was good. However there was legitimate objection to how my edit was formatted and placed. I acknowledged this in my ESs and was happy, as I said repeatedly and as I've said on my talk above, for the information to be summarized in the lead with the information below. What I objected to, and said so in my ESs was deletion of well-sourced research showing acupuncture is pointless (sorry about the pun). In the face of constant deletion of the information by acupuncturists (the claim that it was already below was erroneous because there were significant gaps) my view was that the information should be replaced, even if the formatting and position weren't ideal - I have since had time to fix this. I believe the proposed ban is too severe. The accusation that I do not use talk is patently motivated by a desire to get rid of a pro-science editor. The actions of Jim Butler in particular in supporting the proposed ban are clearly coloured by his wish as an acupuncturist to have the acupuncture page the way he wants it. I am happy to present more information as to why the discussion on the proposed ban contains many errors (claims on block frequency, mistaken blocks in past which were acknowledged by blockers etc), but do not wish to waste any more of the community's time. Accusations that I am not a net benefit to the project, (even Jim Butler has said my research is good) have only been expressed by altmeders for obvious reasons. Yes I am a robust editor and robustly express my views but this proposed ban is inappropriate. Overall I doubt that any objective person could say I am not a net benefit to the project. Indeed without me I can confidently say that the acupuncture page would be a much worse ad for acupuncture than it currently is. I might finish by saying that a careful analysis of all my work on acupuncture would take quite a bit more time than the editors you mention have had. My work on uncovering the research showing cultural bias in some of the studies from Chinese researchers is a case in point and one also objected to, unfortunately, by Jim Butler. I cannot recall but it may even be Mastcell who I wrote to (certainly it was a pro-science editor) saying Mastcell's views on acupuncture were skewed by the "apparent" science showing its effectiveness. These are not easy issues to deal with and need quite a bit of time and expertise. I throw myself on the intelligence of the community in deciding this issue and urge you to look at the facts sans emotion and special pleading from the altmeders. Mccready (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (posted by Vassyana (talk))
  • Further response.[17] Give a dog a bad name is the problem here and a concerted effort by altmeders to sideline a robust pro-science editor. Here is my block history.
    • Block 1 by a young admin Ruud Koot who was editing the same article he blocked me on. He didn't block himself for reverting me.
    • Block 2 by Friday. yes I'm happy to own up to that in Aug 2006
    • Block 3 by Flonight who was editing the same article (she didn't block herself for reverting me and I was unblocked)
    • Block 4 - mistake by KrakatoaKatie who then unblocked me herself and apologised.
    • Block 5 - by trigger happy Mastcell for violating the "spirit" of 3RR. This was reduced in time on appeal. So we have one real blocks which I deserved in Aug 2006 and yet I have been given a bad name by the altmeders who claim, without details, I've been blocked ad nauseum. The current block, which I dispute, is for "disruption". My defence - a question of the lesser evil considering my limited time at the time has not been addressed. As I said these are complex matters and need to be judged on facts - not on appearances as presented by a vocal altmed cabal of editors. Mccready (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (posted by Vassyana (talk))
  • Comment: Notably, the above passage is by far the longest comment that Mccready has made on a talk page in many weeks if not months. During his most recent round of edit warring on Acupuncture, he reverted 15 times between April 3 and April 26 (see archived AN/I thread). In that same period of time, he made exactly zero contributions at Talk:Acupuncture (cf. page history) despite being invited to discuss. His typical explanation is that he has a slow internet connection and "doesn't have time to do detailed battle with believers". Yet he seems perfectly able to write at length when sanctions are imposed (see his talk page). A chronic problem editor with major blind spots, imo. (As for his criticisms of me, why is it that I manage to work just fine with other skeptical editors, like Orangemarlin and Eldereft and Fyslee?) --Jim Butler (t) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note Two points: first, it is transparently false that only "altmeders" have said Mccready does more harm than good. Second, FWIW, Mccready's assertion that I objected to material he added on cultural bias in acu research is incorrect. He added the material on 6 February 2008, to the lead (as he habitually does for new material, notwithstanding WP:LEAD). On 14 February 2008 I added the material to the appropriate section of the article (and expanded it a little). I've never objected to its inclusion. --Jim Butler (t) 05:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that we as a community need to make a clear distinction between insistence on high quality references and POV-pushing of fringe sources. Mccready is without a doubt guilty of edit warring and generally showing an abrasive personality, but the value of the research argues for leniency. I think some quality time with WP:Dispute resolution or a posting to the fringe theories noticeboard might have saved some headache, but here we are. The disruptive behavior merits a ban. A 0RR on acupuncture and chiropractic might be considered some weeks or months hence if their confrontational editing style softens. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: Mccready's positive contributions are good, but not unique, and are far outweighed by the negatives. On Cochrane Collaboration reviews, I restored a bunch on 5 February 2008 (the same ones Mccready would later go on to attempt to add to the lead section, redundantly and via edit warring: see 15(!!) diffs here). On cultural bias in research, Mccready added two good sources on 6 February 2008, however, I had likewise added refs on that subject on 11 January 2008. So, sure, he had made some good contributions, but they are not unique; other editors are equally capable of doing straightforward Cochrane and Pubmed searches. What most other editors do not do, as we know, is endlessly edit war and disrupt. That's why I believe that little of value will be lost via a topic ban, and a great deal of harm will be prevented. And I'm all for allowing him to contribute and improve his collaborative skills in other areas where his bias is not so intractable. --Jim Butler (t) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse increasing indef site ban There is canvassing afoot, I will disclose to another admin or an arb if this is disputed. I reccomend a longer topic ban. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering the user has no understanding of the term WP:CANVASS (subsequent activities to my first post) and that they've now insulted my reputation via email, I support an indef site ban. MBisanz ^talk 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Make the topic ban indefinite: The last time Mccready was topic-banned (in September 2006, by FloNight), he simply disappeared from WP for about a year (see contribution history) only to return with the exact same behavior pattern. He learned nothing from that ban, is impervious to advice, and is oblivious to the extent of his editorial misconduct. Some editors seem to be "incorrigible" in this way, and he is one of them. Make the topic ban indefinite. --Jim Butler (t) 08:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note Further evidence of Mccready's misconduct can be found archived here, including evidence of edit-warring against 5 editors, disingenuousness (leaving a message on my talk page and then saying, just half an hour later, that I'd "ignored" it), and possible COI. --Jim Butler (t) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment When I see this, it makes me sad: "I don't contribute to discussion...? Since when do edit summaries not count?" I'm sick of seeing edit wars where both parties justify their actions using only their edit summaries. That, to me, is not contributing to discussion. It says to me that the author just doesn't get the wiki process. If there's a solution to this that allows Mccready to return to productive editing in this area, I think it has to start from that realisation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I've just declined Mccready's most recent unblock request as it continued to display bad faith and a complete disregard for consensus. Since he was blocked for bad faith and this discussion is still ongoing, it seems inappropriate to unblock him while he's still accusing others and we're still discussing his fate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For ease of reference: Mccready's unblock request.[18] Hersfold's decline.[19] My comment to Mccready, expressing healthy skepticism about his unfamiliarity with conduct rule.[20] Vassyana (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I originally tried a less harsh restriction, which didn't work out. I would suggest the topic ban be kept until such a time Mccready has demonstrated an understanding of the problems with his editing style, which have been explained to him by me and several others. henrik•talk 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments? Vassyana (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep topic ban From a review of the statements by the editor, posted by Vassuana, the thrust of Mccreadys request appears to be that everybody else is wrong, likely to be biased in action and interpretation, and that Mccready is the only purveyor of the truth. Under the circumstances I do not see how allowing this editor to return to an area of previous conflict is going to be anything but disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment; I agree with the above statement. In the two years since I left a comment on Mccready's talk page requesting that he not revert other editors without an explanation, it appears that he's been stubbornly slow to come around to a consensus-based approach to editing. I appreciate that the topic areas he works in can be contentious, but that doesn't excuse one from fully embracing how we do things around here. The block and the topic ban should remain in place so that Mccready can take some time to consider changing the behaviour that, as he's been repeatedly told by many editors, is not productive or particularly welcome. -/- Warren 18:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:U.S.A./coolpics

This was recently discussed here, with consensus being that it broke no policy. However, AuburnPilot has deleted it without giving any reason why and I can't see any good reason, either. Am I mistaken, or was this out of order? I really hope it's the former and he was simply e-mailed about deleting it by the user or something. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the previous AN/I discussion, or the archive it was in? Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also there are several other examples and (I think) failed deletion discussions over it, but I couldn't for the life of me tell you where to find them. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's here Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User_page#Images_on_user_pages says, "There is broad consensus that you should not have any image on your userpage that would bring the project into disrepute (per Jimbo Wales), and you may be asked to remove such images." Hosting a pornographic gallery in your userpage would obviously be an example of something that brings the project into disrepute. Your userspace is not free webhosting and if you use it for things unrelated to developing an encyclopedia, they can and will be deleted. The user in question has ZERO mainspace edits and has had the account over two years so there is no way that a case can be made that this gallery had anything to do with the development of an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the blank deletion summary, I'm not sure how that happened. I deleted the page mostly per WP:NOTMYSPACE, but also per the deletion discussion related to a very similar page; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jacob Green696/Naked Chicks for more information. Also note that U.S.A. (talk · contribs) has zero contributions to the encyclopedia, and was essentially using this as a webhost. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, the user self-identifies as a 12-year-old [21]. I am not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that knowingly allowing a 12-year-old to maintain a porn gallery is a good thing. --B (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely the right decision. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that not a crime in the US? You view at 18 there, same as here in the UK, right? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Or 21, in some locales. Actually, I'm not sure if it's the viewing or the purveyance that is the crime here. Antelan^talk 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If viewing porn under 21 is a crime, I should have been in jail years ago :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think U.S.A.'s gallery benefited the encyclopedia, and certainly could be deleted per WP:NOTMYSPACE. Working from memory, however, it wasn't pornography. It was pictures of women in bikinis/underwear that were on the commons. I don't think we have much in the way of actual pornography on this site. It's perfectly legal for any individual to look at the kinds of images U.S.A. had in his gallery. Darkspots (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Even the likes of Image:Het1.jpg? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what memory will do for you, and I of course can't see the deleted version. Playing devil's advocate, though, WP isn't censored. We don't have a "click here if you're over 18" button on anything. none of this is to say that the page should not have been deleted under NOTMYSPACE Darkspots (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A good number of the images were unquestionably pornographic, not arguable at all. But even if they weren't, there is no possible way to argue that allowing a 12-year-old user to maintain a gallery of nude women is a good thing. If anyone things it is, then we don't really have much to talk about because we disagree on such a fundamental level. If we don't know a user's age or if they are merely accessing content, then we as a community have taken the (unfortunate IMO) stance of saying we won't try to stop them. But here we know the user is a 12-year-old and they aren't merely viewing the content - they are PUBLISHING IT. Every time you hit the submit button, you are a PUBLISHER. No reputable site anywhere would knowingly allow a 12-year-old to publish a porn gallery. --B (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I just voted to delete Image:Het1.jpg over at the Commons, although I doubt I know enough about Commons policy to have been very effective. I can't see the images, so I'm going to stop contending they were not pornographic. I think that we're in a gray area that, luckily, we've never been burned by. Since nobody knows anyone's age here unless a user claims to be a certain age, we could end up in trouble at any point if we allow sexual content that minors cannot legally publish/view/whatever. I mean, I could be a minor, and I could go drop this image into Pornography, and it wouldn't even be a bad-faith edit. Right? Darkspots (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As with many things on Wikipedia, there are three different questions - what is legal, what is right ethically/morally, and what isn't going to get us bad PR. I have no idea what the law is in their case so I can't answer the first. But for the latter two, there's a difference between allowing a 12-year-old to co-author an encyclopedia article and allowing a 12-year-old to publish in his user space a gallery of naked women. --B (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to all those pr0n concerns, at least one image was non-free. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought Garion96 had removed all the non-free ones. Maybe it was added later? Darkspots (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Image:Het1.jpg, shouldn't it be on the naughty image list? If that list is used, it should prevent pictures like that being used where they're not encyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 21:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And it's currently being considered for deletion. Darkspots (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was in two minds as to what to do here, but after discovering that he'd had at least two images that were deleted as child porn, I decided to block him indef. Please review. Blueboy96 22:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wonder if there's a larger issue that could haunt us some day. "Those freaks over at Wikipedia let my thirteen-year-old son write slobbering articles about porn stars and post their pornographic images all over the internet". We don't know how old anyone is. Publishing is publishing, whether it's an article we feel is encyclopedic or not. Darkspots (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

re "Those freaks over at Wikipedia let my thirteen-year-old son write slobbering articles about porn stars and post their pornographic images all over the internet"; of course, no one at Wikipedia (or Wikia) allowed any minor to write, view or whatever on Wikipedia or any other part of the internet - and there are a load more graphic content that can be freely viewed! That would be the responsibility of the person who pays for the internet connection and likely purchased the hardware that allowed access. While it may not be good PR, and not something that most volunteers here would condone, the fact that a minor has created such a page does not reflect upon the encyclopedia but rather on those who are supposed to be the responsible adult(s) concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with indef; good call. Zero mainspace edits + wanking gallery + user claims to be underage + 2 images deleted as child porn = real problem. We don't need that here. Durova^Charge! 06:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Without trying to stir up too much drama here, what, if anything should be done with a user who posted child pornography to Wikipedia? Understandably this is an (alleged) 12-year old, however what should be done in a situation like this? Obviously indef blocking is the right way to go, but should there be any further action done on a legal level, i.e. contacting their ISP? I'm not trying to start a witch hunt, but the fact this user posted child porn to Wikipedia is a bit disturbing to say the least. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• uk editors should contact the internet watch foundation and report the images (anonymous is possible). they should privately email wikipedia and ask for the iage to be deletd. they are guilty of a crime when they viewed the image, they should delete throgughly the image fromthere discs. 81.100.114.76 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Did User:U.S.A. upload the images that were deleted as child pornography? Were they deleted because they were pornographic and lacked a statement of the model's ages, or were they obviously photographs of children? Darkspots (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The images in question were on Commons. I don't know who uploaded them there (haven't looked, don't care, outside our scope). --B (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

They were uploaded by commons:user:capissimo; all of their uploaded images were blatant copyright violations and some were of clearly underage children. east.718 at 16:20, May 3, 2008

Here's my rationale for the indef. While he didn't upload them, he did post them in his gallery. In my view, linking to something that any reasonable person would know to be child porn (which is essentially what U.S.A. did) is as much a blockable offense as uploading child porn. It's a logical corollary to our policies which forbid linking to copyvios or libel. Blueboy96 18:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I encountered one of those pictures recently while going over the Exhibitionism article (see my comments on its talk page), and I wouldn't say they were "obviously" CP — if they had been, I'd have nominated them for deletion myself. I'm not a Commons admin so I can't check this, but from what I remember, the pictures showed some young but, at least to my eye, grown-up men and women in various states of undress, attending what, based on the pictures themselves and the uploader's comments on their userpage (still present in the history) I took to be a naked bike ride event at a university. If Riana says they were known child pornography images, I'm not going to argue with that, but the ones I saw were neither obviously of underage people, nor, indeed, obviously pornographic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any of the images, but I'm inclined to trust you, knowing how dishonest people can be on this issue. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Blockable, absolutely--good block. I'm kicking myself for not checking the list of pictures more closely at the last ANI discussion--I should not have accepted the statement of the other user that the images were okay, whether or not I personally felt like wading through them. Legally actionable, as Wildthing asked? That's the question. My personal feeling is no, perhaps we should report uploaders however. Darkspots (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my question too. I wasn't aware of who uploaded the pics, but my question was directed about the person who would have originally uploaded those pictures. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I only quickly gave it a glance to remove fair use images. I really wasn't going over every picture in detail to see if it was suitable for wikipedia or not. That is a more a concern towards the uploaders of the images, not the creator of this list. Garion96 (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Several users have subgalleries of their userpage of things like the porn on wikipedia. I remember Cyde had some weird pics, though I don't remember if any were porn and I don't remember the URL. I don't remember the names of the others because they're not well known but someone and probably someone else had a gallery of all the porn and there was another subpage of all the drawn sexual activities. In addition, there are many people that have tons and tons of user subpages for example. However, if the person had CP as one of their pictures they did need to be blocked and the pictures deleted. William Ortiz (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The alleged CP images were deleted before the gallery was, I believe. Anyway, if the images were not obvious, as Ilmari Karonen has said above, then I'd question whether even the uploader should be blocked - though, apparently, he need to be banned anyway for copyright violation. I certainly disagree with this bloock, though. Yes, the user had never contributed to articles so we wouldn't miss him, and if he ever wanted to he would surely created a new account, but on principle I don't think he should be banned without any kind of warning. I endorse the deletion, though, as it was an inappropriate use of userspace, especially but not only because of his self-admitted age (The bad images are not a reason the gallery must be deleted, only the images themselves). The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could someone deal with 25 minutes worth here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk)

User:ElisaEXPLOSiON

This user is evading her block via this account User:ElisaENTiCiNG Landon1980 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as self-admitted sock. MBisanz ^talk 05:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is currently blocked for 2 months (expiring June 4) for being a block evading sockpuppet abusive sockpuppetry. It appears that the block evasion sockpuppetry continues, this time as an evading one. Should the current block expire as set in June? Toddst1 (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say re-up to August 4. MBisanz ^talk 07:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edit with that sock was on 25 April, extending now would be a bit punitive. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen worse. --Lemmey talk 07:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I corrected / ammended my statement above. To Max's point, the user was blocked "for abusive sockpuppetry". That sounds to me like a punitive block in itself. If that was a solid block, it would seem to me that evading that block with yet another puppet would be a reason to extend it. Am I missing something? Can someone post a link to the original discussion that led to the block? Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

← I'm having trouble finding it in the archives... I really loathe the current AN search function. You can see bits of the discussion through her contribs, such as this. It appears to have been a problem with a lack of mainspace edits, using the site as a social network, that sort of thing. The sockpuppet was interestingly used for constructive mainspace edits. I really don't even think that block was warranted, let alone extending the original block. For that matter I'm not even sure about that original block, but what's done is done I suppose. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why I raised the question. It seemed like an odd time for an abusive sock to be blocked. Usually they're not blocked or they're indefinitely blocked from my experience. Perhaps those involved should be drawn into the conversation to give their €0.02 worth. Toddst1 (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think User:East718 was involved, maybe ping him. MBisanz ^talk 08:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there's your problem. --Lemmey talk 14:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? east.718 at 16:06, May 3, 2008

Yeah thats right. On the salad. Where it belongs. Where there is no turning back. --Lemmey talk 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be the discussion that led to the block. Not your run-of-the-mill sock. Given the extent and the persistence of the abuse, I would support an indefinite block. Toddst1 (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't. I'd ask for a simple promise that it won't happen again, and pending that, let the block expire when it was originally supposed to. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though she is my adoptee, I am afraid I will have to remain neutral in this discussion. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's something approaching a (failed) promise here (unblock request). I don't see any indication that any future promises would be taken any more seriously. I'm kind of baffled by this thinking as abusive sockpuppeteers and block evading sockpuppeteers are routinely not only indefinitely blocked, but banned - especially with continuing puppetry. If you notice, she's never taken responsibility for the first round (which I was not involved in). We're seeing a pattern now, not just a lapse of judgement. Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the age of the user I wouldn't support indef unless we had more to go on, my suggestion would be 2-3 months from the last edit by the confirmed sock, so treat that date rather than today's date as the reset point. If she proves incapable of maturing to a point where she can contribute acceptably, then we might need to consider what options are available. Orderinchaos 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mayfield Park, Southampton

Please see discussion on User talk:Voice of All re Mayfield Park, Southampton. I would be obliged if somebody would restore that page and make sure that it isn't deleted so speedily again. Over-zealous deleting really doesn't help Wikipedia. I'll complete the page on Mayfield Park, but I've no great enthusiasm for it now. This process has wasted a lot of my time.Hethurs (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The part of his discussion page that Voice of All was quick to delete yesterday, on the basis that it was a "incomprehensible rant" is also worth a read. They were somebody else's comments, not mine I hasten to add, but they were absolutely right. Hethurs (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that you've been directed to WP:DRV already and declined to follow through there, but that is the proper forum for an un-deletion request. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've offered to assist this editor, have advised him accordingly on his talk, and have dropped a note to VoA advising him as well. This is in the hope we can move on - this is no biggie, possibly a slightly broad interpretation of A7, but I'm sure we can resolve the editors issues. Pedro :  Chat  10:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. All seems to have been sorted. I've been editing the page, usefully I hope. I'm still stunned that pages can be categorized as A7 incorrectly and thrown out immediately by an automated process, before the page has even had a chance to develop to a reasonable standard. Should the Bots function be restricted to selecting candidates for this sort of review, not actually deleting them ? Hethurs (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that it was deleted by a bot? Corvus cornix_talk 20:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent Personal Attacks

Despite a one week ban [[22]], more warnings [[23]], every other day this user says anyone who disagrees with him is member of a cult trying to hide information [[24]].

The PA is annoying, but what is worse is the attitude behind it, and the impossibility of discussion that results from it. Sethie (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He's right that a few of you are followers of that belief system though, aren't you? Merkin's mum 16:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"a few of you"??? Aren't you the one who is into abnormal psychology, demonology, and seed cake? Wanderer57 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a few are but a few are not, but being a member of a group does not prevent one from editing an article any more than being an extremely angry ex-member of a group does unless s/he is editing in a POV manner and/or ignoring core Wikpedia policies. I think most on that page are committed to Wikipedia core policies and civility with the exception of one disruptive editor. Renee (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked Cult free world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 48 hours, for disruptive and tendentious editing and general aggression. There have been too many complaints for this to continue unaddressed, I think. This despite my having a distinct sympathy with his agenda. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cult-free-world has never accused me of being a cultist, and I'm pretty sure I've disagreed with them in the past. Perhaps it's because I've never edited the article they're trying to build in their user space; I don't know. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to come participate and see what happens. EVERY user who has participated and disagreed with this user and his socks, has been labeled as a "member of a cult," "Zombie" and "Cult member trying to hide information." Except for Will Babeck. he was the only one to not receive these honors, though his involvement was minimal.

Thanks for the block Guy.... same behavior, same 5th attempt to recreate the same articles, third username, this is getting old.Sethie (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted edits

Hello. I am working on something on Wikinews and I need an administrator to e-mail me and look up some deleted edits/history. I am not really familiar a lot with WP so bare with me :-) Anyone who can help or can give me advice would be greatly appreciated. My e-mail is jason[DOT]safoutin[ASPERAND]wikinewsie[DOT]org. DragonFire1024 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm another one who's also a whole lot more active on Wikinews than Wikipedia. This relates to the WMF being sued, and a lot of the material having already been deleted. Yes, it is the Bauer case, and I could say lots of nasty things about the woman being really unintelligent to sue one of the main sites on the Internet. By trying to sue Wikipedia when they've already removed the information I think most people would agree you've made yourself fair game. The documents detailing what is alleged to have been published on Wikipedia have yet to make it into the PACER US court system, so its what people here can help us turn up that we need to work from. --Brian McNeil /^talk 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't take this personally, but as Mike Godwin (legal counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation) has already advised, one of the defense points for the Foundation is that the article(s) are deleted and not accessible to the outside world. Exactly how can it be justified to make this deleted content available to Wikinews without directly affecting the Foundation's legal position? Just because you are working with a sibling project does not mean you should have access to information that would be denied to every other news outlet. I urge any admins reading this request to consult with Mike Godwin before releasing any information from deleted pages. Risker (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to raise a concern I had the other day. Does Deletedpedia (or whatever it's called) have any bearing on this? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a copy of this article on Deletionpedia, or any evidence they deleted it. (I think the bot they use is programmed not to upload attack pages or BLP deletions.) Hut 8.5 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits, part 94

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long-term behavioral problem, having threatened violence, verbally abused people here when drunk, and created multiple socks to evade his various blocks. He is currently indefinitely blocked since February. He has continued to create new socks since then. Here is the archive of the decision to indefinitely block him. There is currently a discussion at User talk:Vintagekits#Is VK to return? regarding unblocking him. Vk states that he is ready to come back and will stay away from contentious areas. Personally, I do not think this user is capable of that and has had too many last chances already. I see no evidence presently that the user has learned or changed from the experience of being blocked, as evidenced by his continuing sock abuse. I would require at least three months without evidence of sock abuse before I would even consider unblocking. However I thought I would raise it here to give the community a chance to discuss the matter. --John (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• You know, when you state the issues like that, I immediately diagnose pugnacious Irishman. Nothing wrong with being a pugnacious Irishman, of course, but this particular one seems to bring a rather difficult combination of contentious subjects, aggressive action and unwillingness to compromise. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• 26 socks? Sorry, but no. Blueboy96 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• While I remain essentially neutral on the issue of Vintagekits (my basic philosophy is that I don't care whose account it is as long as the edits are good), I am having a hard time rectifying this fait accompli lack of consideration for unblock with the unblock we saw yesterday of User:Jack Merridew, who also had lots of socks (some of which it seems were Arbcom-banned), has repeatedly used his socks to edit in areas where he's had problems before, and has (according to some interpretations) harassed other editors in good standing. Now, both Jack Merridew and Vintagekits have made good contributions in areas of the encyclopedia. Jack Merridew was unblocked without any conditions or anyone agreeing to mentor him. Many of VK's socks were blocked simply for being socks, and their edits were all encyclopedic. Help me out here to see the difference between the two cases. Risker (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Compare this with this to see why this is apples and oranges. --John (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, no, not quite a fair comparison. Merridew was a successor account to an account that had several socks as well, and JM was socking too.. all that means is that he was bad-handing with more proficiency than VK. Relata refero (disp.) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to a second umpteenth chance here, given that VK seems to have realised that the problem comes when you mix passion and contentious subjects. There are areas where his input was wholly beneficial to the project, such as boxing, and I know he wants to work on the Olympics. If someone is brave enough to mentor him, and we have a voluntary but enforceable restriction keeping him clear of the Troubles, broadly constructed, and any engagement with the likes of Kittybrewster, I suspect we'd have a net benefit to the project. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the details of the Merridew case; however, the problem with Vk has always been that he seems unable to stay away from Irish-related topics; almost anything he gets involved in morphs into a refighting of the Irish struggle. Mentorship and warning him to stick to boxing articles have both already been tried before without success, so I remain pessimistic about the prospects should he be unblocked. In my opinion, the added value of his contributions are outweighed by the time-sink of admin work that I fear this will become (again) should he be unblocked. Of course, YMMV. --John (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I can understand some of your concerns. Who was VK's mentor in the past? And at what point was he restricted to boxing articles? It strikes me that because those things had been *discussed* in the past, it is assumed that they were in place, but I'm not finding any firm decisions on these points. Not suggesting any bad faith on anyone's part, to be clear; I've misremembered many a conversation myself over the years. Risker (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• User:SirFozzie was his mentor. I feel sure the broken promise about sticking to boxing articles is somewhere in the 3.7k deleted revisions to his talk page, but I did not investigate further. As Andrwsc observes here, this may be a moot point anyway, as editing boxing articles has been problematic for him in the past. I did come up with this, which shows the level of nose-thumbing he has indulged in towards the project by creating multiple socks while indefinitely blocked. I do see some evidence of him having changed his ways, in the last months, but I feel he may be just saying the right things that he thinks will let him edit again. I certainly don't see a consensus either here or in the discussion at his talk to unblock either. --John (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Since this is an Olympics year we could trial a return on the basis that he edits only that area of articles (and boxing?) per Guys comments? If there is no concerns brought up during that period we could then expand the topic base, and generally review the matter and expand the topic until only those verbotten geopolitical subjects are excluded. During this time any bad behaviour in the first instance means back to Olympics only subjects and subsequent violation (or only violation in the first period) results in the block being reimposed. I suggest this would minimise the risk to the encyclopedia together with a chance of getting some good contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If it influences anyone's decision, I just spent a relaxing evening at Special:Newpages, and there are a lot of boxing articles being created in preparation for the Olympics. It appears that because Latin American countries and so on that are major in the certain (non-heavyweight?) divisions are not normally given that much attention between Olympics, we have something of a deficit there.. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason at all not to give Vk a trial run. Again, here and elsewhere, some of the anti-VK brigade seem to me, despite my best attempts to WP:AGF, motivated by vindictiveness and anti-Irishness combined with a certain strain of repugnant authoritarianism. (I am certainly not saying all or even most editors are motivated by any of these but OTOH some editors seem to be guided by all three. Time to let Vk out. Sarah777 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits was indefinitely blocked after having been discovered multiple-voting, using sock-puppets, in the recent ArbCom elections. His recent record, up until his blocking, had been broadly acceptable and he had kept his nose clean; in contrast, his previous record had been horrendous and extremely disruptive to the extent that, in contrast to Sarah777, I was astonished that he got away with it for so long. John, may I suggest that you notify the other Admins associated with 'the Troubles' about this discussion for their input? My own view, for what it's worth, is that both Vintagekits and David Lauder (talk · contribs · logs) (who was also found to have cast multiple votes but has a better record) should be blocked for three months, which would, in practice, allow both back towards the end of this month. There should also be an absolute zero tolerance for incivility/ rudeness/ baiting thereafter; any raising of the temperature on 'the Troubles' or Irish-related articles should be stamped on extremely hard; we could do without some of Vintagekit's recent comments on his own Talk page, which are simply designed to wind-up others, for example. I wonder if Giano might be prepared to take on an over-sight role if it comes to that? --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits has agreed that if allowed to return to abide by the stringeant condtions outlined here [25]. Two senior Admins, Lar and Alison, have both indicated support for this plan. VK truly wants to edit and prove himself responsible, to deny him oppportunity is to the detriment of the project. If he should fail to keep to those coonditions then the machinery can easily be applied for a permanent ban. Giano (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. All we need is a consensus to unblock (so far absent) and a reliable volunteer to enforce the conditions (no sign of that either). --John (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I edit boxing articles quite frecuently so I could enforce the conditions, if he limits all contributions to those articles he may be able to control the other issues. However, we still need a consensus. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the conditions outlined by Giano are fine in principle: they do provide for a very strict form of probation. However, as Giano has noted on VK's talk page, VK has not yet publicly agreed to these conditions.

If VK is to be allowed to return, I think that there should be:

1. a restatement of Giano's proposal in a numbered list form, with the wording double checked for ambiguity (I didn't spot any ambiguity myself, but it's best to double-check), including named mentors
2. An unequivocally clear public statement from Vk that he accepts the conditions in letter and in spirit and that he accepts the named mentors
3. For the avoidance of any doubt, it should be a condition of the unblock that the conditions are displayed prominently at the top of his user page, with a clear link to this ANI discussion and to Vk's acceptance of the terms and a link to any mentors who have been agreed.

That way, there shouldn't be any scope for confusion about what was agreed and why. I think that this is important both to ensure that Vk doesn't overstep the mark, but also to remove grounds for any others needling him about his return. If that's done, I think this is worth trying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AndalusianNaugahyde's sock accounts

I noticed the unblock of Doctorfluffy who was confirmed per checkuser to be editing on the same IP as AndalusianNaugahyde and Pilotbob. Whether or not these accounts stopped editing in the same AfDs as they did prior to whatever agreement that allowed for them to be unblocked and as seen here (at least 40 AfDs in which they both "voted"). I think the community should please re-examine their edits and status, which as you can see are very similar deletion-only edits in a rather meatpuppet like manner:

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

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

So, same IP and same ongoing area and pattern of participation, i.e. just going down the list of AfD and saying to delete practically everthing with a few extremely rare keeps seems rather fishy and they also write with a similar writing style. Plus, I see continued evidence of Doctorfluffy not really being a serious editor. Please notice his signature in AfDs last night and this morning: [26] and [27]. For user talk, notice he has "User talk:Doctorfluffy|fart in my face". I'm all for humor, but we're writing an encyclopedia, not a joke book.

Thus, his claim that he has a "mission" to delete articles continues with little to no actual article improvement and the silliness/immaturity of his "list of pages to masturbate to" also continues in his signature. See here for when his user page had the "mission" and "masturbate" stuff on it.

Here are all the confirmed/suspected socks/meatpuppets' blocks in order of account creation, which is why I named this thread after the first account on the below list):

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

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

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

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

• Doctorfluffytemp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Doctorfluffytemp3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Doctorfluffytemp4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Doctorfluffytemp5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, again, a confirmed checkuser, a block to Pilotbob for disruptive AfD participation prior to the checkuser results, and blatant block evasion by Doctofluffy.

Please note as well that Doctorfluffy also states on his talk page: "I wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Wikipedia". First, AfD is not a vote. Second, somehow, having a "mission" or "goal" seems to have a WP:POINT and one that does not allow for compromises with other editors.

I think that they are if not socks then meatpuppets, i.e. per Doctorfluffy's admission that he has a "mission" to delete stuff, both accounts are just focusing on deletion. While I may be an inclusionist, I absolutely argue to delete more than either Pilotbob or Doctorfluffy argues to keep and I have helped identify sock accounts that create articles that need to be deleted as I did at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Albert Ramos Jr (Football Player), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Ramos Jr, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markael James. Please also note that in this unfinished table in which I haven't even yet listed all the times I've argued to delete, I do in fact argue to delete more than in just token instances: User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. I do not see as much objectivity from either Pilotbob or Doctorfluffy.

Doctorfluffy was unblocked on 13 November 2007. Here are some his problematic edits since then:

• Poor language in edit summaries: [28], [29], [30]

• No idea what to make of this one: [31]

• Assumptions of bad faith: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]

• Incivility: [37], [38]

• Telling others what to do: [39], [40]

• WP:HOPELESS “votes“ in AfDs: [41]

• WP:PERNOM “votes“ in AfDs: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]

• Not notable “votes” in AfDs: [106], [107], [108], [109]

• Use of “cruft”: [110]

• Copy and paste assertions that articles “fail” some policy with no evidence or actual argument of how the articles allegedly fail the policy in question: [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129]

• Incredibly rapid copy and paste posts in multiple AfDs (some in under a minute):
  • 15:32, 5 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Tarawa (2nd nomination)‎ (→TCS Tarawa: del)
  • 15:31, 5 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Confederation (2nd nomination)‎ (delete)
  • 15:31, 5 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Concordia (2nd nomination)‎ (→TCS Concordia: delete)

• I did not identify ANY instances in which he (editor who called me a “fanatical inclusionist,” even though I have argued to delete well over a dozen times) argued to keep in his edit history; it’s possible I missed one, but it’s unlikely.

• No evidence of article improvement efforts.

What I see are two problems:

1. Lack of seriousness/maturity: Doctorfluffy had a section on his userpage listing "good pages to masturbate to", has "fart in my face" in his user signature, uses expressions like "lulz", etc. Even those like myself who have made positive gestures toward this editor as I did here and here, have not been respected in kind as he has indicated here.

2. If not sock, then meatpuppetry: Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy were confirmed per checkuser to be on the same IP after they voted in about 40 of the same AfDs; Doctorfluffy has stated that it is his "mission" and "goal" (which is a bit disconcerting as it sounds almost fanatical if not uncompromising) to delete articles; both Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy's edit histories are essentially to just nominate and vote to delete as many articles as possible. So, even if they stopped participating in the same discussions, their editing pattern and writing style remains strikingly similar and they seem to disagree with/criticize the same editors as well. Given that, I think it a reasonable conclusion that they are coordinating their efforts off-wiki. After all, even the admin who unblocked said after unblocking: "There was no exoneration of sockpuppetry. The CU results show a strong correlation between these IDs. It is just possible, yes, but very implausible, that they are different people. There was also no exoneration of meatpuppetry, the contrib history shows correlation, and there is admitted real life discussion (either there really was discussion between two closely associated people, or it was a sham discussion, doesn't matter which, same outcome)."

Thus, I really believe that the original suspicion of he and Pilotbob editing as sock or meatpuppets is confirmed by the accounts' subsequent editing habits, even if they avoided the same AfDs after initially supporting each other in roughly forty AfDs, and are in fact continuing to make disruptive pointed nominations and "votes" with immaturity or lack of seriousness as well. Therefore, I strongly urge and politely request that we reconisder their unblock status as there is little evidence that these accounts are really contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins take note, please. I think Roi makes a case worthy of examination. Durova^Charge! 19:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

a relatively minor point, but I just asked Doctorfluffy to change his sig. Let's see if he cooperates. DGG (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Roi brought this here at my urging, after he communicated with me privately (I am the unblocking admin, and I ran some checks at the time as well). I haven't done the research Roi did... all I did was do some spot checking of contribs looking for violations of the unblock agreement. I did not spot any such (although I may have missed some), and thus I would not say a reblock based on violation of the agreement is necessarily warranted. But Roi raises some serious concerns... I think it's a valid question to ask ourselves, again... is this user (if these are socks) or users (if these are editors editing from the same location) here to help build the encyclopedia? Is a contribution history that consists only or primarily of deletion activities nevertheless a valid one? I don't know the answer to that. If consensus is to block at this point I'm fine with that. A side note, all of the "temps" are acknowledged socks of Doctorfluffy, he said he was using them to comment on his case. That's a technical violation, yes, but it is in the past. I have retained the information on the checks I ran at the time, if other CUs want to consult it, please contact me. ++Lar: t/c 23:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I don't believe that I have violated the agreement we made. Le Grand is drawing a lot of what he says from old edits and edits to my namespace, and his examples of incivility are a stretch. My conduct in AFDs has been similar to other editors, many people make WP:ATA !votes and is it not a violation of any policy to do so. I wasn't aware that editting Wikipedia required me to be "serious" all the time, nor should I penalized by the way my userpage looked 8 months ago. I've done some limited work on the main space as well, including some vandal reverting and other minor changes. Ultimately, I think Le Grand is dragging up the issue of sockpuppetry, which has been resolved satisfactorily for some time now, simply to strengthen his otherwise limited case against me. Not that it should matter, but Naugahyde doesn't edit anymore - he was soured from the fiasco last November and didn't even pursue the agreement you offered myself and Pilotbob - and Pilotbob hasn't really editted in months either. Nonetheless, per your fair treatment during our last encounter you earned my respect and I will accept whatever determination you make regarding my conduct. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I show old examples to demonstrate a consistent pattern of unconstructive edits since your unblock in November, i.e. that it has been going on for months now. As far as the comments on your userpage being months old, i.e. when you said it's your "mission" to delete, the deletion only "votes" in AfDs demonstrate that you have apparently continued that "mission" in that you have never argued to keep anything unless I somehow overlooked an example. Yes, I am an inclusionist, but I have argued to delete many articles (I've even nominated some), which shows that I have clear standards for inclusion and exclusion. Only arguing to delete does not reveal such standards. Those who build up articles, but ocassionally argue to delete can say, "Well, you see from what I created what I think is worthwhile on Wikipedia." Saying "others do it to" with regards to all of the "per nom" and other weak arguments to avoid doesn't make doing it okay, especially when in your case, you ONLY argues to delete and have in various instances made pointed expressions about your motivations in that regard. It's one thing if every once in a while someone has a "per nom" vote rather than argument, but it's another thing when in Doctorfluffy's case it's scores of them and in such rapid succession that it's not likely anyone could have really read through the articles under question and preceding comments in the AfD, especially given the instances of posting verbatim rationales in multiple AfDs sometimes in under a minute. Finally, I think some of the sporadic gaps in Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy's editing, i.e. one was editing while the other stopped, could actually lend greater credence to them being the same person, i.e. focusing on one account at a time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: For those who might not be familiar with me, here is a list of contributions I've made in the past few months, minus those from the last two days when I decided to start participating in AFDs more actively again. It's mainly vandal reverting, removing of promotional links, spacing/formatting, typos, and tagging - all valid, constructive ways to help Wikipedia. I also went out of my way to thank one user on their talk page for their contributions to a subject I'm interested in, and someone even commented on my keen removal of spam from an article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether the unconstructive edits outweigh the positive ones. Declaring a "mission" and "goal" to delete articles and then stating that you do not intend to argue to keep any and then having an overwhelming number of AfDs in which you have copy and paste or "per nom" votes rather than arguments does not really help as it is in effect an agenda. Moreover, as regards here, what does such a signature add? It distracts from a serious discussion (and again, there are times where wit and humor are fine), but "toilet humor"? And again coupled with the "good pages to masturbate to" section on the old userpage, it just seems a trend. And the problems I raise seem similar to those raised against Pilotbob also after the November unblock agreement. Pilotbob's last edits concerned a deletion attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and the Pumpkin Queen, which has the similar false claims of no sources existing and the topic in question being not notable, when with relative ease I and others were able to demonstrate otherwise. It gets old in AfDs when they are declared to have no sources in existence only to have some of us find sources. Thus, the time/effort spent attempting to delete the page could have more constructively be spent finding the sources and expanding the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that in some office somewhere there are three people who share very similar if not identical views and editing patterns. It is almost like a competition to remove material. OK, what happens now? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of sockpuppetry was resolved over 6 months ago. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really as the unblocking admin clearly stated: "There was no exoneration of sockpuppetry. The CU results show a strong correlation between these IDs. It is just possible, yes, but very implausible, that they are different people. There was also no exoneration of meatpuppetry, the contrib history shows correlation, and there is admitted real life discussion (either there really was discussion between two closely associated people, or it was a sham discussion, doesn't matter which, same outcome)." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from an outside observer - a quick check shows that Pilotbob has not edited since February and AndalusianNaugahyde has not edited since November. All the remaining points raised by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles amount to "I don't like the way this user participates in Articles for Deletion". "Per nom" and "not notable" are completely acceptable arguments on AFD with longstanding use. This looks (to me anyway) to be a frivolous complaint based solely on a user's "deletionism" and reflective of an astonishing lack of Assumption of Good Faith on the part of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail right on the head. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, off base. Doctorfluffy has about 70 times where he just put "per nom" in AfD and a whole bunch of other "nnotable" or "fails X" votes rather than arguments. Consensus is that these are not arguments, but votes. AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Moreover, there are multiple instances of using "shit" or "fuck" in edit summaries. He created a userspace page of his that he kept redirecting to images of real human penises. Some instances of assuming bad faith as well have also been diffed above. The crux is that he was confirmed as a sock account; even when Lar unblocked him Lar said he does not necessarily believe Doctorfluffy and Pilotbob are not sock accounts, Doctorfluffy has NEVER (not even once as far as I could identify) argued to keep an article, and he has multiple instances of "votes" in under a minute (I gave one example of three copy and paste rationales in a row in under two minutes). The most edits he ever made to a mainspace page were 8. Thus, like Pilotbob, since November 2007, the balance of Doctorfluffy's contributions have been pointed efforts (remember it's his "mission" and "goal") to delete as many articles as possible with some other disturbing edits worked in, which incidentally is a pattern also shared by KleenupKrew, who also seems to have a pointed participation with regards to AFDs as evidenced by the username and various versions of his userpage (see [130] and [131]. Considering that his AfD contributions are mostly ones that fall on the arguments to avoid essay and have no balance whatsoever (he outright said on his talk page, he won't ever argue to keep), I honestly believe that these accounts are not really here to contribute construcitively and should be blocked idefinitely. They were given a chance to contribute constructively and while perhaps avoiding double-voting in AfDs have nevertheless exhibited other persistent problem edits. Having a "mission" to just want to delete articles is not conducive to consensus building and compromising. If I as an inclusionist am nevertheless willing to argue to delete numerous articles or be persuaded to change my mind and even support more deletionist candidates in RfAs, then it is imperative that all of us can exhibit such openness in order to really reach consensus on matters. Coming to AfD with the sole intent of only being interested in deleting the articles under question, regardless of what anyone says or will say is not helpful. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A per nom response to an AFD is not generally acceptable per WP:PERNOM. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and should be ignored by the closing admin. A bit like, let me think ... oh yes, WP:ITSNOTABLE, for example. Black Kite 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PERNOM is part of an essay, which has no standing as Wikipedia policy. Even so, the linked essay specifically states that "per nom" is acceptable when the nominator has spelled out sufficient reasons for deleting or keeping, and there is nothing substantial to add. Its use in AFD discussions is so common and accepted that use of "per nom" in deletion discussions is neither a sufficient, nor legitimate, reason to claim somebody is not a good faith editor. It should probably be removed from the "arguments to avoid" essay altogether. KleenupKrew (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not acceptable when it is used scores of time in rapid fashion by someone who has outright said he is unwilling to ever argue to keep anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

GRDC, much as you know I like you, PERNOM is exactly the same as your many votes that go "Keep as consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on XXX" which is basically just WP:ITSNOTABLE. I really wish you wouldn't keep putting those into AfDs, you know - you're capable of making really good arguments, and that type just strikes me as something you've thrown in when you can't think of any other reason to Keep. Black Kite 17:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is more or less why we're here. Le Grand and I have practically opposite philosophies regarding inclusion and he doesn't like that I have given up on trying to sway him in AFDs. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that I also argue to delete on occasion as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and I make all sorts of other contributions from welcoming new users to uploading photographs I took. Doctorfluffy is a single-purpose deletion account that even the unblocking admin admits is in all likelihood some kind of sock or meatpuppet who has also exhbited other disconcerting behavior. And for the articles I argue to keep, I usually also spend time working to improve the articles in question so my contributions to that process actually extends beyond even what I say in the AfD. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know you do - which is why those types of Keep votes usually seem completely pointless to me. A closing admin will (or at least should) ignore them just as they will probably skip over mechanical pernom votes. Black Kite 18:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing a policy, i.e. the First pillar, with an example that required actually looking for a source, i.e. a published specialized encyclopedia should never be ignored (doing so would actually be irresponsible of an admin) and is not justifiably comparable with mechanical pernom votes from accounts that not only never argue to keep, but that are associated with sock accounts, and that have expressed a single purpose and uncompromising and non consensus forming agenda to only focus on deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. 5P isn't a "catch-all" policy that says everything is notable - seriously, it's not - you can't just quote it as a reason for Keep if an article fails other policies badly, which is sometimes what you're doing. Black Kite 19:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I can in the context of larger arguments and I only say that for articles that pass other polciies quite well. Anyway, please do not sidetrack the discussion. We are talking about particular accounts, specifically Doctorfluffy, that had been confirmed per checkuser to be the same as several other editors and even when unblocked was NOT exonerated. Moreover, while they may have avoided the same AfDs, the accounts exhibited the same pattern and style of edits, which just further suggests working together for the same end. We are talking about on account that has a history of not approaching Wikipedia seriously (having a list of pages to masturbate to on his userpage, having strange userspace redirects to images of penises, having "fart in my face" in his signature and then not understanding what's wrong with it, etc.), expressing at various times that it is his "mission" and "goal" to delete articles and that he is unwilling to argue to keep articles. Please do not lose focus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can continue this elsewhere. Black Kite 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Genuinely curious, GRDC: can you point out an example of where you have voted to delete an article at AFD? As often as I run into you there, I can't remember you making an argument for deletion of any article.Kww (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the most recent instances in which I argued to delete articles include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Ramos Jr and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markael James. In regards to those, please also see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Albert Ramos Jr (Football Player). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen at least two. In one case someone joked that a new precedent had been set (WP:PUMPKINGKING or some such) that when Grand Roi votes delete, you know it's over. So it's memorable, but it does happen. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

stepping back a bit

(and starting a subheader, this is getting rather long) A few points here... in my view while the sockpuppetry allegations were not "dismissed" or "overturned", they are not relevant unless a clear pattern of abuse of the unblock agreement is shown. To do that, it needs to be shown that Doctorfluffy and other editors likely to be socks or meatpuppets have been editing in contravention of the sock policy. If that cannot be shown, then there is not a reason to block based on violation of the unblock agreement. In my checks (and I just carried out more) I'm not seeing that. I may have overlooked something, if so, I welcome correction. But absent that, I think Roi and everyone else should drop that aspect of this... it's in the past... and just focus on the question of whether this editor is exhibiting problematic behaviour.

I confess I'm ambivalent... this editor is here for one specific purpose. He has made some offsetting edits, sure, but by and large, the mission he's on is to suggest and support the deletion of articles that are eligible for deletion. Has someone carried out an exhaustive analysis of his comments to see how often he is on the side that carries the day (that is, that the article does get deleted)? If some significant fraction of his participation is of that nature, and especially if the noms he makes usually carry, then I would argue that, like it or not, he's not doing things that violate policy. (rather, he's doing useful work... we WANT to see things that don't belong here removed, after all) It is not a policy violation to focus on one aspect of work here, for if it were, than those that confine their edits to, say, 19th century women to the exclusion of 20th century men, for example, would be subject to sanction. Similarly, those that confine their edits to vandal reversion, or to identifying bad images, or what have you are also not subject to sanction for narrow focus. That this editor has a strong opinion about cruft is in and of not itself actionable. That he always argues in favour of deletion, is not in and of itself actionable, unless the arguments are disruptive (because they are not valid ones). That he uses short hand arguments like "per nom" is not, in my view actionable either. I say per nom all the time. It merely means "I agree with the nominator, the arguments are in my view valid"... it may not count for much when determining strength of argument but it's not a bad statement)

In short, after looking at what's been presented here I'm not seeing a case for a ban. Some counseling about being more collegial, perhaps? Sure. Some suggestions to put a bit more analysis into some of the delete comments? Sure. Some suggestion that it might be more enriching to broaden the area of interest, perhaps? Sure. But I'm not seeing an outright ban merited at this point. I may be overlooking things but that's my view at this time. I'm an inclusionist by and large (except when it comes to marginal BLPs) and I don't like people who mock or disparage or are monomaniacal in focus, but absent a rules violation here, you don't have to LIKE an editor to say there is no cause for banning. Again, I may have missed something. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's sufficient evidence though that even if he/they did not subsequently participate in the same AfDs, that Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy are nevertheless the same editor. If one of the two accounts is blocked and he is limited to one account, then okay, but others have also indicated above that they don't buy the two people with identical editing patterns and focus on the same IP claim. The problem with having a single purpose is that nowhere do I see any evidence of being open-minded to change his stance when an article is improved during an AfD. And the problem with the "per noms" are that they are just rapid-fire down many AfDs in such a manner that it is really, really unlikely anyone could have read through the article, read all the comments, and checked for sources to be sure that what others posted is indeed accurate. I have participated in a number of AfDs with a claim that no sources can be found in the nomination followed by rapid "per nom" delete votes only to look for sources myself and sure enough they do exist, which leads me and maybe others to improve the article, and still have those who voted to delete per nom never return to the discussion or acknowledge the improvements. Sometimes this occurs at the end of an AfD, which looks like a bunch of per nom snow that on the surface may overwhelm the last edit or two arguing to keep that improved the article under question. Plus, it is really helpful in understanding someone's knowledge of policy by seeing them create and expand articles. If someone ONLY wants to delete articles, then how do we know what does meet his or her inclusion criteria? I make no claim that I am not an inclusionist, but even today I nominated articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Creed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Satele), which demonstrates that I certainly do not think everything belongs on Wikipedia and that there is indeed valid work done in deleting articles and I've even included editors with deletionist userboxes on my list of nice wikipedians. Thus, I suppose it would just be helpful to see the same openness from other editors. I am not opposed to your suggestion that he seek coaching for a neutral party, perhaps through the adopt a user program. Thus, perhaps a compromise solution would be sticking to one account with the others blocked and seeking mentorship? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock policy does not prevent use of multiple accounts entirely. It prevents use of multiple accounts to influence consensus or to otherwise deceive. No evidence of such deception subsequent to the unblock has been presented. I think you should really let that part go, absent such evidence. As for singlemindedness... if I tell you that I am adamantly opposed to X and whenever I get a chance my efforts regarding matters related to X are to get X changed, does that make me blockable? I don't think so. Really, I think you should let this go, or present clear evidence of actual disruption. If 39 out of 44 nominations checked "resulted in either deletion or redirection" that is not evidence of disruption, it's evidence that this user has a good eye in spotting things that need to go. We can use all the help we can get, of whatever sort. I'm not seeing a consensus developing here to block this user, nor do I think it likely. That said I do want to commend you for your diligence and concern, Roi. Even if I think you're wrong in this case, being concerned about this sort of thing and bringing it forward is something to be encouraged as well. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think the lack of seriousness, the sockpuppetry, the single purpose, etc. all adds up. Anyway, I appreciate your commendation. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar, AFDs that I created are listed on my user page. 39 of 44 resulted in either deletion or redirection. I'm not going to swim through the 100's of AFDs in my contribs history, but I am very rarely the only person arguing for deletion. In other words, I don't make pointy controversial votes, nor do I ever vote against everyone else simply to be disruptive.

I avoid participating in AFDs where I would vote keep. I think I have a nicely worded explanation somewhere in my talk archives for this, but it boils down to that I have limited time and I'd rather work to see poor content removed.

I have been trying to participate in other areas, including formatting, vandal reverting, and spam removal. Please see my link near the top of this thread.

I fully believe that what I do here is helping the project and that my conduct is perfectly acceptable. I admit that sometimes I get frustrated in AFD debates and perhaps come off as condescending, but I always remain civil and I do not attack other editors. Looking closely at the examples of bad faith, incivility, and "telling others to do" provided by Le Grand above, I see no problem with any of those edits. It is not bad faith to ask users if they are familiar with policy or to articulate their arguments further. It is entirely reasonable to point out suspected sockpuppetry and, in fact, in the diff above, those users were actually banned IIRC. Stating to another user that you do not wish to start a discussion with them is not incivil, and "bringing the lulz" is hardly an insult.

I think Le Grand is grasping at straws here, hoping to drudge up the sockpuppetry incident all over again since he has very little of a case against me otherwise. Further, I believe he is only doing this because he doesn't like that I don't agree with many of rationales in AFDs and that, since my attempts to persuade him in the past were met with overwhelming inclusionist doctrine and broad misapplication of policies, I generally will no longer engage him in direct discussion. Other editors above me in this very thread are also complaining about his conduct in AFDs. He is making massive assumptions of bad faith and this thread is simply an attempt to get me banned because he doesn't like me. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying it is your "mission" is pointy as is rapidly voting in under a minute. If you are unwilling to ever argue to keep articles, then you have no place calling others "extreme inclusionists". If you do not see problems with your examples of assuming bad faith and incivility, then that too is problematics. The sockpuppet incident is a concern, because if as many suspect and has essentially been confirmed by checkuser you are also Pilotbob, then you should be limited to one account. No one else who is a neutral editor complains about me and AfDs are discussions, not votes, so those who approach it as votes, especially those who want to just rapidly post a "per nom" in as many AfDs as possible, or who are unable to back up their arguments are naturally going to be miffed when others engage them in actual discussion. As indicated the other who supported you above has a similar single-purpose deletion only modus operandi to you. I do not "not like" anyone here and nor would that be a reason why I would want someone banned. I do have a concern when I see a clear lack of seriousness, clear evidence of inadequately addressed sockpuppetry, and an uncompromising objective to seemingly never want to keep anything. Plus, I have said that I am not opposed to you being limited to one account and your seeking mentorship. Nor would i totally condemn you if I saw improved maturity/seriousness and more openmindness. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pumpkin, you are being WP:POINTy - in keeping with your idiosyncratic brand of what constitutes reasonable participation in AfD and your penchant for incessant comment against the arguments of those who disagree with you in a manner calculated to irritate (e.g. through unsustainable reference to the pillars). You hold extreme inclusionist views and while that is certainly your right, the self-appointed probity to judge the value of others' contributions is wide of the mark, disruptive, borderline rude in its application, and likely makes it only a matter of time before an WP:RFC is filed against you. Sockpuppetry is a problem and I am sure everyone is glad that you are being vigilant. But this seems like fishing for sanction against editors who disagree with you: citing WP:PERNOM (and as you know we are working on changing the wording to reflect actual practice) or !voting quickly is not a matter for WP:AN\I. Eusebeus (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Given that you also make pointed/extreme deletionist AfD "votes" (you outright said you would proxy for TTN and that you are not here to create articles) and judge others as well in not even borderline, but outright rude and disruptive manners, you are not really in much position to legitimately criticize me. Consider:

• Assuming bad faith: [132], [133], [134], [135]
• Incivility: [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141]
• Dramatizing: [142], [143], [144], [145], [146]
• Use of obscenity in edit summary: [147]
• Not signing post, using per nom/nnotable arguments to avoid in AfD: [148]
• More episode redirects a la TTN fashion: [149], [150], [151], [152]
• Please remember this thread and this thread

• While I have extended efforts to actually be nice to or make things betters with you, you have made no such efforts or extended any such courtesy to me. So, unless if those who call me an "extreme inclusionist" actually argue to keep as often as I argue to delete or make the efforts I at least try to make to ease tensions, I cannot take such claims against me as valid. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well that's a bloody disturbing reply what with all the manic OCD it suggests, and I think it largely confirms my point that you are a victim of your own blind rectitude (at best!) - especially given some of the diffs you "cite" in this pointless (or is it pointy) effort to denigrate my contribution record. You are seriously getting out of hand Pumpkin and something needs be done. Eusebeus (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Implying legal action

24.30.38.213 (talk · contribs) said, "Does not look good on your part and I'm sure my Lawyer (who is also from this Collins and Gibson line) would defiently be able to use it in court." The edit is here. APK ^{yada yada} 19:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:DOLT. Start by informing them of the no legal threats policy and see if they will retract that remark. Then we should see if they have a valid biography of living persons complaint and help as needed. Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a legal threat. Aside from this, there are WP:BLP and WP:COI worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note; just waiting for the response. APK ^{yada yada} 19:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Implied legal threats continue: [153] and [154]. This editor seems to believe that being called African-American seems to constitute a slur. Aramgar (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I left another message for the IP asking him/her to retract the legal threats. No reply, and the person is continuing to edit. A block is in order. APK ^{yada yada} 00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock drawer

What should be done when it appears someone is creating a set of new accounts, but has as yet made no edits, so there is no "behavioral pattern" to indicate sock puppetry? In the list of newly created userids I found 18:16, 3 May 2008 Shirleyshihfeng (Talk | contribs | block) New user account 18:16, 3 May 2008 Shirleyfengshih (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎ 18:14, 3 May 2008 Shirleyfeng (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎ 18:13, 3 May 2008 Shirleyshih (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎ Is there any valid basis for creating a clearly related set of new user accounts? Thanks. Edison (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say some n00b is just experimenting and can't make up their mind which form of their name they want to use. You often get people making more than one account in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I might leave a message asking which the user wished to use and block the others. Appropriate? Or is it permissable to have a large set of useraccounts? Edison (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no actual rule against having sock accounts, provided you aren't using them to get around a block. HalfShadow (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. There isn't really any reason to suspect they are going to do anything problematic with these accounts, and making a fuss about it might come across as bitey. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, do bother. Any time I see (via checkuser) a block of new user accounts made within minutes of each other, I assume that sleepers are being created. In this case, six accounts were made within 19 minutes; Edison missed User:Fengshih and User:Shihshirley. I've never encountered a pattern of this sort that is not abusive. There's no valid reason for creating such a block of accounts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The fallacies in your logic are in the second and fourth sentences. --Lemmey talk 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad you see them, want to clue the rest of us in? Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"I assume that sleepers are being created." & "I've never encountered a pattern of this sort that is not abusive." I've never heard a democrat I liked but I'm not going to write them all off. If the accounts become a problem, block them, its not like a single user or a bank of users can cause that much trouble. --Lemmey talk 22:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Lemmey is making quite... confrontational posts on AN/I threads relating to sockpuppetry. I have no idea why that would be. Just something odd I noticed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that SheffielSteel's signature includes the color green. I have no idea why that would be. Just something odd I noticed. We all have opinions, thanks for sharing.--Lemmey talk 22:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Lemmey didn't actually say what his protests were in lieu of discussing color-coordination, I'll just point out that even though he says a single user/bank of users isn't much trouble, this very page has at least a half a dozen discussions about socks or multiple vandals causing trouble, and reliable editors trying to stop the damage they're causing. Multiple editors and admins think this instance is worth talking about. Redrocket (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's less than 24 hours since the last sock of Dereks1x was blocked. I think is reasonable to expect more sock/sleeper accounts to be created or become active. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My protests are that blocking and banning should remain reactive actions and not proactive approaches when as stated above "there is no behavioral pattern to indicate sock puppetry" --Lemmey talk 23:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Creating blocks of accounts at the same time is in itself a behavioral patern that indicates sock puppetry. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with jpgordon here ... the mass creation of user IDs like this is always a portent of bad things to come. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an eye not be kept on them, but simple fact of the matter is, the user hasn't done anything 'wrong' yet. HalfShadow (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wageslave

There is a report on User:Wageslave's biased edits on his user page.--Playstationdude (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

His userpage is not an article, category, template, image, or discussion page. --Lemmey talk 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about this RFC about Wageslave's edits. Though, I don't know why he brought it up on WP:AN/I, since an RFC already exists. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Editorofthewiki

Has gone to mediation. Editorofthewiki has opened a mediation request addressing the underlying issues in the article and the related behaviours. —C.Fred (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Found no way other than coming here. User:Editorofthewiki is continuously blanking two references in the lead sentence of the article Zimbabwe Open University.[155] I know these two references are not important, but since these two references support the claim that it is a open university and it is located at Zimbabwe, I am keen in keeping them. Are these two refewrences harmful? Any neutral eye? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

His comment that "hey simply look out of line and ugly, and they serve no purpose." was inappropriate but he does have a point. "The Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU) is an open university in Zimbabwe." is a terribly bad sentence regardless of how many refs are in it. For that matter what is an 'Open' university? If it is something trivial it does not need to be sourced, if it is something not trivial, 'Open University' likely should be linked to something. --Lemmey talk 01:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it should be distance education university. Sometimes distance educattion universities are called open university, but not related Open University. I have reworded it to 'The Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU) is a distance education university in Zimbabwe." Thanks for the pointer. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll direct you to the introduction of University of Alabama. Note the link to public university, geographical information, and organizational information. The section has no sources whatsoever but all the numbers are sourced in the corresponding info box.--Lemmey talk 01:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has started to harass me and giving me threatening messages. Look at this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the admins handle that here and discuss my formatting comments on the article talk page. --Lemmey talk 01:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, please do not revert war on your talk page. You removed perfectly good content of discussion without explaining anything to me. This can be charicterised as loss of your rollback and a block. I showed an example of WP:V which specifically told not to over reference and yet you rolled this back twice, without comment. Rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism which I obviously didn't make, and I also want a third party to discuss this part of the debate. Also, I am not the only "editorofthewiki" that has asked you about this same question. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No. See WP:ROLLBACK. "The rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Wikipedia as a fast method of undoing nonproductive edits, usually vandalism" Anyone has the right to remove messages, especially from a uncivil troll, from his or her talk page. Stop giving me uncivil messages. You issued me uncivil message which I reverted. It could be reverted not using rollback feature, the result will be same. Also I don't want to continue discussion with a troll wasting my time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now Otelemur has given me a personal attack, calling me a troll despite my FA (Lazare Ponticelli) and my numerous DYKs when I try to readd meaningful information. I'm not good at linking diffs but it is at the top of his User talk history. Otelemur has now been causing disruption upon me when I raise valid points.

I have been nothing but civil, and your manner has been of utmost uncivility.Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 01:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I also want to note how I also have been trusted with the rollback permission. I also would like to know how my edits were unproductive. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Analysis - In spite of the past actions of both editors I've found that only Otolemur seems to have an unwillingness to cooperate with given advice and work towards mediation on this issue. The tone of Editorofthewiki's statements was harsh but his frustration is understandable. Given that, I find that none of Editorofthewiki's actions were so extreme as to warrant any sort of response beyond the warnings already stated. As for the article and Otolemur I hope that other editors or admins can explain the need for mediation better than I did, and determine if further action needs to be taken with regard to his behaviors. --Lemmey talk 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem arose regarding the article Zimbabwe Open University. I added two references in the lead which this user deleted. I thought the references are relevant because these describe the nature of ZOU. Which is why reverted these. However now I understand that the references were excessive and I myself removed these. The situation deteriorated by this message [156]. I politely advised him not to edit war in his talk page. In response he issued me a threatening message on a completely different article. I have disagreement on another article with another user, but that is a fact between us. The other user acted politely to me and I also acted politely to him. The problem is that I found the message by user extremely offensive. In response he started an edit war in my talk page and accused me that I violated 3rr [157]. The main problem about the article is solved. I requested him in his talk page to please don't issue me message, but he ignored. How he is telling that I am "harassing" him? What the "harassment" I made? I am calm and not engaging in any debate with this user per suggestion by Lemmey. The problem with the article is also solved. Now this user is continually edit warring in my talk page. The main issue regarding the article is finished. And I have no intention to stalk/harass this user, I have made a distance from this user. But this user is continuously issuing me messages. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Editorofthewiki is following proper channels for dispute resolutions; he has initiated a request for mediation. The message he left on Otolemur's talk page was a reasonable courtesy message that the case had been opened. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Implied threat of bodily harm

Resolved

Probably frivolous, and he's swiftly been blocked, but you never know. [158] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Might want to see this too. nneonneo ^talk 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of socks? And no two alike, I bet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The account has been blocked, the "threat" of harm can obviously not be carried out as the user has no idea where the other users location is. This looks resolved to me. Tiptoety ^talk 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser filed, just to be on the safe side. I doubt he has "thousands" of socks, but there is one suspected sock, Chicken Kidifidla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to check, and I bet there are a few more sleepers. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Barbara Bauer

Aside from this user having vandalized this page, isn't the username a bit astray of WP:Username? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah..um..given the current situation with that name...should...a name change be implemented immediately? Rgoodermote  01:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was kinda hinting at that, yes :) I mean, it won't do at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving a note for User:WJBscribe. Hopefully he is online. Rgoodermote  01:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Left note and corrected my bad copy/paste. Rgoodermote  01:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All edit summaries have been deleted/oversighted. I'll leave a note at WP:BN if no one else has. John Reaves 05:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible spammer/copyright violator (?)

Something very funny is going on with User:JudicialWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam).

He left two rather angry messages on my talk page because I tagged the article on Ernest M. Edsel with the {{likeresume}} tag. However, this is the message he left on the talk page of the Ernest M. Edsel article, and he left a similar message on User:FeanorStar7's talk page. So I don't know if this guy is a shill for Marquis Publications, or if he just has a problem with WP:OWN.

I don't like taking up your precious time with stuff like this, but I smell a rat here. I thought it would be best to let you sysops investigate this for yourselves. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For starters, this is another clear WP:Username worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I apologize if this is the wrong place for this sort of thing. If the regular admins' noticeboard would be a more appropriate place for this type of problem, please let me know. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, now he's deleted some of his previous comments on my talk page, and describing that "we only use information from MARQUIS"...very strange indeed. I'm not talking to this guy anymore, and I will no longer respond to his messages. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators should take note that Judicial Watch's user name is identical to that of this organization. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out this edit to the page of User:Knowsetfree. Looks like we may have some sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry going on as well. --Eastlaw (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shrew's fiddle

Resolved

 – No copyvio, but two somewhat questionable sources were removed.

Do administrators watch the main page? Someone created this article from the content of two not even usable "references" on the web, simply by using what's in the web pages and kinda moving it around a bit so it doesn't look like what it is: a blatant copyright infringement. It's now on the main page under "Did you know?" It should be removed from the main page, which, apparently, is just one more thing on Wikipedia that anyone can't edit. Can someone just remove it from the main page for now, like right now, and deal later with copyright issues? --Blechnic (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What copyright issues? I don't see anything that would be a copyright infringement from either of the two sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, most of it's been copied from another wiki. Neither of the other sources look reliable either. Should probably not be linked from the main page, at the very least. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does this look like stealthy spam of some kind to me? Gwen Gale (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Cause it probably is. I get that feeling too. I have a feeling the only people who've heard of this device are the ones who're trying to sell it. But that's just an offhand guess, as I haven't looked into this at all. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And look at the prime grazing land they bought for free. I wonder how many people will see this crap on the main page and click on those links? Nice to see they have so many supporters, too. Crap is crap, usually for more than one reason. --Blechnic (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm sending them a letter of congratulations. They were much more effective than that hagger spammer. --Blechnic (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What sort of advertisement are you guys seeing? What is on this site is an article on a medieval torture device. Unless I need my eyes checked, the onlything that might be wrong with the page here is not enough decent sources. No copyright issues (that I can tell) and no spam.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Referenced not to reliable sources, academic sources, books, journal articles or anything credible, but to two sites that sell the torture device to practitioners of BDSM. --Blechnic (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And have you asked the writer of the page why he had used those sources?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The second source has a prominent "store" link. Clever. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So does the first, it's just a bit further down, but that's the purpose of the website: their storefront. Yes, I think it's one of the best spams I've seen on Wikipedia. Elegant, simple, get it on the front page, administrators are fighting to save it. I'm impressed. --Blechnic (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am too, truth be told. Policy-friendly spam, but for a bit of dodginess as to WP:RS. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, heck, what's a reliable source when there's a store you can buy from? --Blechnic (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a copyvio to me. And this is terribly oblique spam if it is. Why all the bad faith assumptions? --Haemo (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See the talk page. Every sentence on the one website has been used, simply rearranged (although not all, there is at least one direct quote missing its quotation marks).

Anyway, it's clear it's easy to spam Wikipedia, and if you try and do it well, you'll be helped by Wikipedia administrators. An interesting turn of events: spam and crappy articles with no reliable sources are fought tooth and nail for. --Blechnic (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can find good sources if you want. But it's better just to pout than fix things, eh? --Haemo (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not my area. However, I did, as instructed in the first template, offer a [rewrite of the article]. So, no, I'm not just pouting. But man, are all of you fighting fiercely to keep these shops on the main page. Try to at least check to make some of the accusations against me plausable. Maybe you can buy one of these Shrew's fiddles from one of these shops advertising on the main page and put me in it! --Blechnic (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your argument has been "this article has crappy sources which makes it spam because they sell the device in question". The obvious solution would be to use the provided sources which do not have shop links instead. --Haemo (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The source with the shop link should be removed as a source, but I see no issues with the other source only just that it's maybe a little brief. Bidgee (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

They both have shop links. That's what they are, shops that sell BDSM devices. Once you remove them, since every line of text is from those sources, it's an unsources, unreference, unverified article that contains all the content of another website. --Blechnic (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason you are saying that the article constitutes spam is because the initial two sources of the article contain stores where you can purchase this item. None of the text is a copyright violation, as it is using the information from the sources. The arguments you make on the talk page by showing the sentences that you claim were copied only have one thing in common: the information that they convey to the reader.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you steal all of the content from a webpage, and rewrite it a bit here and there, you're stealing. You may not think so, but that doesn't change what's going on. Still, once those sources are gone, where's the information from? It's an unsourced Did you know on the main page now? --Blechnic (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to find the "shop" link in the other source. Bidgee (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Click on main page, then scroll down to shop. They seem like nice folks, here's the link they provide since it seems to belong on Wikipedia: [159] --Blechnic (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the two unreliable sources from the article since they offer no hint of reliability (much of their information may likely be anecdotal). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So, now the only source is a webpage advertising Google and Amazon? That's an improvement how? --Blechnic (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Point me to an article whos source doesn't have some form of advertising. Bidgee (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this seriously an issue? Web hosting isn't free. People utilize whatever advertising they can so they can host their websites. I typed in "Halsgeige" into Google, and tried to find sources that weren't also BDSM shops, as you were having an issue with that. Now you complain that this website has a searchbox from Google and a searchbox from Amazon.com.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with that one. However, this is far "beyond sources with ads." For all we know, whatever was in the original sources was made up by a distributer to sell stuff, give it a story. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And how can you be sure that is what the author of the article intended to do by writing this? ISD has been an editor for two years, has worked on getting articles and lists to featured status, and has multiple articles he had written onto the DYK section. This is all assuming bad faith on the initial author.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just on a side note, how many sales do they expect to get? I'm not too good on sex, but using a torture implement? They probably need spam links so they don't go bankrupt, but spam links are never OK...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 08:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

some people actually like that stuff george. you too young now, but google bdsm when you older (bondage domination sado-masochism)(tying people up, bossing people around, hurting people, being hurt). sex is werid. 81.100.114.76 (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was an article copied entirely from two sources, two pages that sell things. It's on the main page of Wikipedia. It didn't belong there any more than it belonged in Wikipedia. Editors are fighting me tooth and tail to keep this piece of crap. That's enough for me. Ryulong obviously wants this article, no matter what it is. And, yes, this is what spammers do, always find new ways to spam. And it's wonderful when they succeed so well. --Blechnic (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is the article a piece of crap? It's starting to look that you have a point of view against the article. Bidgee (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it's an article copied entirely from two unreliable sources. That is my point of view against the article. Apparently that isn't enough to get me anything but relentlessly attacked for thinking an article on the main page should be of higher quality, should constitute a well-written article, should not be based entirely on two non-verifiable, and non-reliable sources. --Blechnic (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Those two unreliable sources have since been removed. There is nothing wrong with the article now. I only need sources. Bidgee (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's enough of this. It's clear that copyright violations and spamming are encouraged on Wikipedia, and the spammers are winning by finding a very clever ruse to get on the front page. I will allow all copyright violations to stand for now on. And attack pages. And spam. --Blechnic (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of any of what you say? The article in question was written by someone who has had an account here (and edited regularly) for over 2 years. What was the plan. . . stealthily make over 11,000 edits to over 2500 pages and then *bam* spam wikipedia with the shrew's fiddle article? That is rather oblique. R. Baley (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Blechnic, you only seem to think that it's spam because the websites ISD used to source the article also had stores for people to buy the item (if they're into that sorta thing) and that the internal text conveyed the same information as the initial sources. You need to assume better faith of editors here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got a suspicion that this thing is a hoax. Look at the "shrew's fiddle for two", and try to visualize how it could possibly work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Like this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're right. It's my vizualisation power that's stunted just now. So, I wonder, in the bigger picture, is there an article for every medieval torture device? Or could this just be thrown in with an article about stocks, meriting a sentence or so? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the thing is a verifiable variation on the stocks. Either way the stealthy spam, which got attention because of the link from the main page, is gone from the article. It needs more work (if it's notable at all) but I think it's more or less ok for what it is. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth BCR canvassing

Please see here and here. I replied to her first diff indicated here, but just noticed she has also sought out support from still another editor who is obviously one who will likely support her side against me. For the larger context, please see here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm a he, thanks. Next, asking two users who are often involved with WP:VG to comment on a discussion to acquire larger input (I asked for "fresh comments," not "support me please") is perfectly fine. That you can't WP:AGF, are being extremely picky and frankly, anal about WP:CANVASS, and are being consistently obstinate there completely amazes me. Every single person in that discussion save you has disagreed with you (here for the uninvolved), and that you care to bring an ANI case over this is completely amazing. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For the uninvolved, this case is referring to this discussion concerning Weapons of Resident Evil 4. The topic was originally whether the article would be more suited to WP:GAN or WP:FLC (currently nominated at the former), but evolved into a discussion concerning whether the material in the table in the article violated WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT, as well as whether the article should be merged into Resident Evil 4. Le Roi has worked on the article significantly and was the one who nominated it for good article status. Before this discussion, I was completely uninvolved in the writing of this article, or any issues relating to it. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a she. Asking a neutral user involved with the project to comment is perfectly fine. Asking someone who does not like me and with whom you typically agree and support is not. Anyway, in various earlier discussions, others opposed the merge. Thus, when taken together, there is far less agreement then the most recent merge suggests. Please keep in mind that I am not the creator of the article under question, which means someone thinks it worthwhile, and nor am I the one who originally suggested it stand for GA review, which also suggests other good faith editors believe in the article. A half dozen or so in one night's worth of discussion when others have expressed opposite stances elsewhere on the project does not really reflect true consensus. And as for starting the ANI thread, it is not something I like to do, but I thought I replied to you civily and reasonably in other recent discussions on your and my talk pages and now given the VG project discussion (which really we are just discussing something; there's no reason to take anything personally or to get overly upset over) followed by the copy/paste posts on two other editors' talk page, it seemed best for someone neutral to resolve it. Finally, as I replied to you on the one page, I am always willing and happy to help you with any article as a means of easing any hostility. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking a user I trust, is very knowledgeable about policy, and whom I have known to comment solely on content regardless of personal feelings, is perfectly fine. That and those two were the first in a long range of people I was about to contact to raise awareness about the discussion, including User:Dihydrogen Monoxide (the original instigator of the thread), User:Judgesurreal777, User:Gary King, among others, and stopped for the sake of this thread. In any case, asking for more input when you're not budging an iota to the discussion at hand is a reason for bringing in more input in order to create more venues for discussion and solve the impasse. That you're bringing an WP:ANI case over this is frankly ridiculous, and again, a completely overreaching interpretation of WP:CANVASS. As for the article, I stated I was uninvolved in editing it to provide context for other users here. I have no interest in editing in as I never played the game, and frankly, since I'm free to edit whatever I deign to. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not when it is someone whom you well know has expressed a particular opinion against the main editor with whom you are disagreeing. Whereas I have expressed an agreement that some of the material can be duplicated, have you similarly compromised? As per my bringing it to ANI and my interpretation of CANVASS, please keep in mind that I saw two copy/paste posts in a row in which you outright comment on me and ask editors, including one whom you know but days ago expressed her dislike of me, to help you in a discussion for an article that you just worte above you "have no interest in editing in as I never played the game." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to compromise when consensus is clearly with me and you're straying against it. Again, for Collectonian, I have trusted her implicitly to act without regard to her feelings on the matter, as she has done so in the past. My point about bringing it to ANI was that you immediately threw WP:AGF out the window and decided to dramatize the whole issue by bringing it here when a comment on my talk page would have sufficed. As for me having no interest in editing in the article, that is entirely irrelevant. I'm involved in discussions every single day on articles I have never seen before and never edited. That does not deter me from providing my opinion on them or moving for changes to be made. People are not obliged to edit any article on Wikipedia, nor do they have to in order to have a say on matters concerning the article. That the discussion is occurring on the article's WikiProject makes this particularly pertinent. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not clearly with you; only in one discussion perhaps, but in other discussions consensus is far less clear as has been indicated. The problem was that you did not simply say, "Hey does anyone else have any other thoughts or input on This discussion?" You said: "This discussion is becoming annoying. I've about stretched my patience to the breaking point with this user (and as you know, I consider myself very even-tempered and overly civil), and his obstinate nature is about all I can handle." You threw AGF out the window and dramatized the issue in the manner and wording in which you sought help, just as she did but days ago. There are ways to request thoughts on topics without commenting on specific editors and without bringing in allies to take over an argument for you. And for what it's worth, if you'd rather just iron out any disagreements via email, I'm happy to discuss with you in that route as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Robertsonic1234

Resolved

 – Blocked by Oxymoron83 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Rudget (Help?) 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, will an admin please block this user for repeated vandalism to Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite warnings on his/her talk page. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Oxymoron83 stepped in. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rotary International and Pierre Larcin

The article is currently under attack by IP's who are obviously User:PierreLarcin. The comments to his editions are so typical. For more about this user, see Talk:Rotary International and this RfA. Yesterday it was dealt within WP:AIV, but I am now told that I should post here instead. Anyway, Pierre is back. I suggest a long semi-protection of Rotary International so that the discussion with Pierre can continue (if these personnal attacks can be considered as a discussion), but any clever suggestion is welcome. Bradipus (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have sprotected the article for 3 days to allow discussion to be uninterrupted here and on the article talkpage. Please lift or extend as is considered appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradipus tries as usual (he works the same way on french wiki : he wages an edit war on an unilatéral thesis and goes to Administrator pages to bring an alert) to manipulate people : Bradipus : - just above you said "I will delete it shortly" - here you said "list was replaced by an explanatory text" As far as French version shows, you never added information on the page of Rotary International, you use the "reformulation" opportunities + arguing there is an edit war THAT YOU INITIATE YOURSELF, you use your politician relations with other Administrators on Wiki, to edit pages following your own politician convictions. As you seem to be a "liberal" belgian politician and AS LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS seems in Belgium related to Rotary (politicians as Richard Miller, Louis Michel, Michel Foret ), you use your politicial influence on Wiki to edit WP pages according to your personal opinions.

Bradipus is related to "MR" (abusively called "Mouvement Réformateur" as he ALWAYS smooth on French wiki the pages of MR Politicians : verify, wikipedians:

1/ Bradipus as a "liberal" activist on MR pages http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mouvement_r%C3%A9formateur_%28Belgique%29&diff=18032283&oldid=18032169 please note Bradipus superb/provocative comment for edit : "un inconnu qui a une thèse bizarre sur base du programme 2003"/ "a stranger with a bizarre thesis on the 2003 project/(political)program" which means that Bradipus know the political project

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mouvement_r%C3%A9formateur_%28Belgique%29&diff=18031454&oldid=18031360 please note Bradipus superb/provocative comment for edit : "this funny thesis"/"cette these amusante"

2/ Bradipus as a provocative () liar : Bradipus IS HIMSELF concerned by Pinochet, and what did Bradipus delete here  ? Rotarian affiliation... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augusto_Pinochet&diff=prev&oldid=190361495 and above he says : "you ...are interested in Pinochet" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.229.242 (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the comments by the anon, which are the same as the edit summaries and on the article talkpage, pretty much prove Bradipus' complaint - this is a POV edit war by a group or individual who believe that Rotarians are some nefarious social political grouping and is disrupting the article. So, is there anything other than long term protection and whack a mole blocking that can be done? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Oleg Kikta

A classical tale of threats, Personal attacks: [160], [161]. Appears to be a single purpose account. --Kuban Cossack 13:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry a bit late, as I did not realise he was blocked, but also check is sock: 71.58.196.xx, like the one in operation on Kharkiv (check the history) --Kuban Cossack 13:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Prison IP vandalism or threat?

{{resolved|Likely vandalism, RBI}}

Unresolved

 – BoP notified, but I still think someone ought to contact the person referenced in the edit.

Okay this is probably just somebody being a nuisance but what makes it moderately scary is that this IP comes from a prison. The diff is vandalism because the David Sobel article is about an "education writer" not the lawyer from Tulsa or his daughter. I checked and yeah there actually is a lawyer from Tulsa called David Sobel - and that's what's worrying.

This IP (User:206.138.130.3) has a litany of final warnings for vandalism - the latest issued by myself at 19:42 (UTC) on Friday (may 2nd)[162]. The edit in question was made about an hour later. This IP also has a previous final warning from April 28th that was ignored by this user and has not been acted upon. I was going to report to AIV but since it may or may not be a threat I thought more eyes would be helpful--Cailil ^talk 13:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand; what is the problem? Rudget (Help?) 13:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I could be over reacting but this IP belongs to the Federal bureau of Prisons and the person using it made a post about the daughter of a lawyer. I could be putting 1 & 1 together and getting 11 but this looks "ify" to me--Cailil ^talk 13:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that the Federal Bureau of Prisons is a government agency that administers federal prisons, not a prison itself. —Travis^talk 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's likely a prison: Today, the Bureau consists of more than 114 institutions... The Bureau is responsible for the custody and care of approximately 201,000 Federal offenders. Approximately 85 percent of these inmates are confined in Bureau-operated correctional facilities or detention centers[163]. I think oversight is called for here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is highly unlikely that it is a prison. The IP resolves to Washington, DC, the the land of federal agencies. In any case, oversighting the comment by the IP, “David Sobel is also a lawyer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Father of Amanda Sobel. the sweetest girl I've ever know,” seems to be overkill. —Travis^talk 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said I might have over reacted - but if you're sure there's nothing sinister here what about the fact that the IP has ignored two final warnings?--Cailil ^talk 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP winds up at bop.gw.customer.alter.net. Following this, "gw" could be a two letter code for their prison facility in Gilmer, West Virginia. I wouldn't be startled if the billing info for a national network service pointed to Washington DC. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowing a bit about network naming and addressing, the fact that gw is between bop and customer makes me think that it stands for the BOP gateway from AlterNet. —Travis^talk 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How is a (possible) prisoner vandalising any different to a normal shared IP? Just revert, warn/block and leave it. There was nothing threatening about it...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the worry is WP:BLP. It could be a taunt that someone is aware of the true name of a family member. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Dendodge if I was a lawyer and a "(possible) prisoner" was making strange posts about my daughter I'd be concerned. But as I said I might have watched one too many episodes of the Sopranos and am over reacting. Not sure that we need to go to oversight though--Cailil ^talk 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One last comment then, only for more context, looking at the IP's posts, they seem to be feminist-related. gw could also stand for a "satellite" women's camp at Greenville, Illinois. [164] Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Following WP:RBI, can we again mark this as resolved? —Travis^talk 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking (and for your patience). Since I now think this could easily be someone killing time on a prison Internet connection at a women's prison, yes, I think we can mark it as resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it Travis and sorry if I over-reacted by posting here--Cailil ^talk 15:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RBI except for the fact that no one did step 2, apparently. Enigma ^message 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Given it's a shared IP and has settled down for now, maybe the block won't be needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ehm... I do think it is at least plausible that the edit was made from a prison, and, even if it's not, this would still be something the Bureau of Prisons ought to be notified about. Since no-one participating in this discussion seems to have actually done that, I've just fired off an e-mail to info#bop.gov (munged to avoid spambots). I think it would also be a good idea to notify David Sobel of Tulsa, Oklahoma himself, but I haven't been able to find any contact info beyond the address and phone number(s) on this page, and I'm somewhat reluctant to start making transatlantic phone calls to random attorneys myself. Could someone closer by maybe handle this? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A query re User:TTN

Resolved

• At 13:18, 4 May 2008 User:TTN edited User talk:TTN with edit remark "Let's remove these eyesores.", removing 6.6 Kbytes of matter about the blocks and warnings imposed on him for his campaign of deleting by redirecting. Should someone edit that matter back in and warn him? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove anything you like from your talk page. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No sysop action is needed, the content was in there for weeks, it is safe to asume that he has read it. I'm marking this as resolved. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Sinister beard man deleting comments from Articles for Deletion discussions

User: Sinister beard man has twice removed my comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigslist ad controversy‎. See diffs here: [165] [166]. This user's account was created today, six minutes before coming to AFD for their second and subsequent edits. KleenupKrew (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

They reverted my comment a third time making he/she on the verge of violating WP:3RR as well, although removing comments from a deletion discussion is vandalism in any case, 3RR or not: [167] KleenupKrew (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sinister beard man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Paradox: this account's fifth contrib has an edit comment "WP:BITE". No comment on the edit to Dramatica. The AfD edit war is over removal of SPA tags added by KleenupKrew (a common enough practice in itself). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden and other Buddhism articles

• Article links:
  • Dorje Shugden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Kelsang Gyatso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • New Kadampa Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Users:
  • Wisdombuddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Wikilama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Helen37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Trudy21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Truthsayer62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Peaceful5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• AN3 Report
• Previous ANI discussion

On April 17, six new users joined Wikipedia and started editing a group of Buddhism articles Dorje Shugden, among other Buddhism articles. They are all six obviously sock puppets or meat puppets. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wisdombuddha confirmed that Wisdombuddha = Wikilama and Helen37=Trudy21, but found no other relationship between them. Whether they are the same person or meat puppets, they are all single-purpose POV-pushing accounts. I came across this issue when examining the AN3 report and saw that they have driven Kt66 (talk · contribs) from the project. Their only talk page edits have been to complain that the article is not favorable to their denomination (or whatever it is called in Buddhism) and to make accusations against Kt66. I don't know a thing in this world about Buddhism, but I do know about meat puppetry and the disruption here seems obvious. Unless I hear any serious objections, my intention is to indefblock all six of them. WP:MEAT says that meat puppets may be treated like sock puppets. As such, I believe an indefinite block/community ban is warranted. Comments? --B (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the earlier discussion and confirmation of sockpuppetry (and near-certain metapuppetry), I thought the users were already blocked. If not, I'd definitely support it. I'm not familiar with the topic or specific edits, but it certainly seems they're purposefully disrupting topics and tag-teaming a responsible editor. Support. Redrocket (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can some kind of language or edit summary analysis be done like what was done on the Mantanmoreland arbitration case that showed the Mantanmoreland socks had unique edit summaries? William Ortiz (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they are one person or different people, all of them joined on the very same day (ie, meat puppets), are single-purpose POV-pushing accounts, and have driven a good editor from the project. Just assume for the moment that they are different people and my contention is that an indefblock is justified. --B (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops I meant to put this in the poetlister section. William Ortiz (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister unblock clarification

Following the unblock of user:Poetlister, there was some degree of (predictable) contention on the user's talk page whether the user was in fact properly blocked or not, and whether evidence supported this.

I feel strongly that this information would be worth summarizing to clarify the situation once and for all.

I have documented the circumstances and evidence of the blocks as part of my review of the block at ArbCom. To do this, I re-examined the evidence completely from scratch one last time, without any assumption whatsoever, from the original contributions, logs, and checkuser findings. I also (from scratch) rechecked the contribs for possible stacked pages, and every email on arbcom-l archives from 2005 onwards covering Poetlister's block, not relying on hearsay or others' self-selected evidence there, either.

In brief, the evidence that the eleven accounts concerned were abusive sockpuppets, was exceptionally strong. It covered both checkuser and behavior. It was as compelling as Archtransit; indeed as compelling and more extensively reviewed and rechecked than any other admin sock case I am aware of, ever.

Background

What ended up as the Runcorn sock ring was originally detected and blocked as sockpuppets of RachelBrown in 2005. It was unblocked not because of a flaw in the findings, but in effect, for good faith and a second chance, the unblocking admin specifically commenting to that effect on arbcom-l email and multiple others agreeing with the findings (see block log). Nine hours after Poetlister was blocked, the account Runcorn was created, which acted as a "good hand" account, and was RFA'ed in August 2006. (More specifically, Poetlister was blocked at 21:52, December 21, 2005, and Runcorn was created 12:36, December 22, 2005, nine hours later) Following RFA, the Runcorn account immediately (2 - 4 days later) began experimenting with unblocking and soft blocking anonymous proxies, and the entire sock ring moved to tor to hide their IPs and provide an alibi (both "Poetlister" and "Taxwoman" claimed later that nobody ever shared their PC and Poetlister stated if there was other use of the IP it was due to use of tor). The Runcorn account was routinely used to soften the hard IP-blocks on open proxies for the benefit of the other socks. However despite these attempts at obfustication, we were able in 2007 to checkuser them again and re-confirm they had indeed all been very likely using the same PC despite their claims. (Prior to this, on many dates the socks had used the same internet connection often minutes apart, one after the other.)

We looked closely at the alibi given, that these were all extremely close friends or room-mates. There was strong evidence that claims made by the users, including claims to be different people, were incorrect. Examples of the rebuttals I looked into included: that an SSP report was factually unreliable (filed by someone with a grudge), the block in 2007 was based on 2005's evidence only, the 2005 unblock proved innocence, the 2005 checkuser findings were unreliable, the allegations were tenuously founded. All inaccurate. I reviewed the evidence of the 2005 checkuser findings, and note that Kelly Martin's blog claims don't in any way contradict the core findings of common IP usage, nor do the 2005 findings contradict 2007. They support them. I re-examined the case for meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry, or "friends with similar interests" as well. No dice. Sockpuppetry remains the clear conclusion. For me, the evidence is compelling.

Extract - Couldn't it just be multiple users on the same computer?

The Committee has frequently held that, when users are editing in concert in a fashion that is indistinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, it should be considered sockpuppetry. Even if Poetlister's contention is true, the treatment is in accordance with well established policy. The account operator had a warning of communal and ArbCom concerns as early as December 2005 -- and the response was to ignore WP:SOCK (which the user obviously knew of) and instead create a new sock account immediately (Runcorn, 9 hours later) and seek to promote it to RFA, where the sockmaster immediately began using it to unblock anonymous proxies and add weight to the abusive agendas and stacking activities of the other existing socks.

All of this then led to a ban for the continuing identical conduct as 2005, plus admin tool abuse, in 2007.

If these were indeed different individuals (not a likely interpretation in the view of the many people who have rechecked the findings over time), then even so there was still gross willful abuse -- stacking via meatpuppetry, edit war team-tagging, and pushing of a COI and POV agenda on Wipipedia and its AFD via the admin account Runcorn and various others, as a sock/meatpuppetry ring.

But our interpretation overall (2005, 2007, 2008) is this is not the case. The view in both 2005 and 2007 (and 2008) was of clear-cut sockpuppetry. Either way, the use was abusive and likely intended to be concealed.

Extract - Kelly Martin's statement

Kelly Martin has stated she felt "pressured" to accept CU findings from 2005.

In fact the findings were considerably stronger than this suggests, showing considerable use by multiple users of the same IP within minutes of each other, for multiple ISPs, on multiple dates. Further CU findings from 2007 showed identical patterns, plus clear attempts to hide these via a (flawed) switch to anonymous proxies. This also allowed checkusers in 2007 to confirm that statements about not having shared computers, were likely to be incorrect.

Since this was May 2007, some 17 months later, and Checkuser data expires after a shorter period of time, the checkuser results being discussed are doubly confirmed as not being the ones KM is talking about, but newer checks in 2007, additional to the 2005 checks (which blatantly supported the same findings in the opinion of all other checkusers). A total of at least 7 experienced checkusers each independently rechecked the Checkuser results on the Runcorn/Poetlister group generally and came to the same conclusion. Additional to all of this there was considerable review of their findings and possible interpretations, by the Arbitration Committee.

Poetlister has repeatedly claimed to have done nothing wrong. This is not entirely accurate. An actual list of debates apparently "stacked" by Poetlister in breach of WP:SOCK includes:

• Talk:List of British Jews (with Newport [168][169])
• Team tag reversion in an edit war with an IP editor, on Cut to the chase, with Runcorn and LondonEye [170];
• Consensus stacking at Talk:Rosemary Tonks (with Brownlee [171] - Poetlister - Brownlee - Poetlister)
• A significant number of RFAs and AFDs. (See below)

As a sock-farm, these accounts stacked a number of debates (including some 40 RFAs, almost 60 xFDs, and an unknown number of article discussions), tried (incorrectly) to manipulate proxies to allow better hidden abuse or less easy detection following the 2005 block/unblocks, and supported COI/POV based edit warring on articles of interest to the sockmaster.

As the administrator "Runcorn", the sockmaster also mis-stated communal norms to parties disputing with the other socks (to the advantage of the other socks), closed discussions favorably, and spuriously blocked (and attempt to blacken and ban) a user who tried to draw communal attention to these actions, giving reasons that were completely spurious. (The user was quickly unblocked.)

There was also considerable behavioral evidence to support that these were all the same user.

Especially, their conduct towards each other is strange when one considers later claims these are closest of friends, indeed in some cases housemates and real-world friends/old family friends, people who hold hands at the computer, and the like. The behavior of these users on-wiki does not substantiate the story of "extreme close friends" portrayed in their explanations. They did not act as friends. What they did was stack votes, engage in socklike behavior and mannerisms, push the same views on the same articles, edit-war tag support each other, create a new account hours after the old ones was blocked, practice unblocking (and then go all out to soft-unblock) previously hard-blocked anonymous proxies for each other (this was Runcorn's main use of block/unblock for several months in 2007)... and to an exceptional degree try not to be noticed very much as connected accounts.

Unblock

We decided to unblock for one reason, and one reason only. Although the user has engaged in improper activities, they were also bona fide adders of content who have sought to remain involved on other WMF wiki projects, notably Wikiquote. It is a norm of the community that there is always a way back, and we feel that unblocking the Poetlister account for English Wikipedia use will build on the activity at Wikiquote and allow the user concerned to show whether they mean to act well here, almost a year later. It is not exoneration, for the identification as a sock-master was solid and well evidenced. It is rcognition that for whatever reason this was an admin sock-master who - when not abusing admin tools and edit/POV warring - did genuinely add a very wide range of good content as well. There is always a way back for those who wish it and are prepared to show evidence it might work out, and this user is being given his/her chance no less than other users who might be redeemable have been.

Time will tell whether this is a good call. Our hope as a committee is that it will be. For that reason we ask the community to accept the user as one who has sat out their block, and asked for a second chance.

In my mind, it has always been deeply regrettable that no detailed explanation of the evidence was given in 2007. Back then, the methods of analysis were still somewhat new and WP:BEANS was a serious concern when faced with a heavy-duty sock-master who had sought to bury their traces and managed to pass RFA. If it means anything, this is more than words, and we learned from this; the Runcorn admin-sock case and its ensuing dramas were the main reason for the March 2008 Archtransit admin-sock case evidence being explained in full, instead of merely "announced".

All other socks remain blocked and should only be unblocked under consultation with the Arbitration Committee.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee.

One point of impaired logic; Poetlisters claim of no wrongdoing is rebutted by evidence of vote stacking - which is only "wrong" if it is accepted that Poetlister socked (which she denies). I also note that "The Committee has frequently held that, when users are editing in concert in a fashion that is indistinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, it should be considered sockpuppetry. Even if Poetlister's contention is true, the treatment is in accordance with well established policy..." means that the determination of socking in the situation that Poetlister describes is a construct rather than unquestionable evidence.

You know, it would have been easier just to say "We accept the remote possibility that we might have got this wrong, so we are lifting the block on Poetlister on the basis that the editor will contribute usefully in the future" - even if you think you were right! Nevermind, it will pass but you sometimes have to admit to wrong even where one thinks there is none just for the sake of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and is done when appropriate. In this case nobody of the many who checked the full evidence has concluded it was "wrong" to the extent that your wording would suggest. There is always a "remote chance" since checkuser doesn't sit with a video feed behind a person's computer, but in practical terms there is a point where one says "it's exceptionally likely enough from the behavioral and checkuser evidence, to say that for Wikipedia communal purposes, it may be treated as one user."

That a remote possibility exists is not the same as acceptance that it is likely. In simple terms, we accept that remote possibility in all sock cases, and try to assess the evidence so that we don't conclude puppetry unless it really does seem to be the likely answer. In this case, that was the repeated conclusion. If a different term is needed for "Sufficiently likely sock to be treated as one", then thats a separate debate. The current norm is such accounts are described as sock puppets. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We have more of a "preponderance of evidence" standard than a "reasonable doubt" standard. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, it's a myth that some of the suspected socks (I don't recall the details but out of Poetlister, Taxwoman and Runcorn at least) voted on the same AfDs often. Also, wasn't there evidence Runcorn was a different person, given he always got up and started editing about 2 hours before the others?Merkin's mum 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The other evidence was rather more solid than "myth". And the stacking was widespread - some 40 RFAs were affected by this sock-master, and at least one user was blocked (with intent to blacken/ban) on visibly spurious grounds. The Poetlister account was involved in the stacking of 18 of the 60 stacked xFDs and 6 of the 40 stacked RFAs. As well, regarding Runcorn, odds that this new account, who has the same agenda, stacks the same areas of debates, uses admin tools consistently abusively to support the same agendas, edits via the same proxies, with other technical evidence suggesting the same connection, that was created 9 hours after Poetlister was blocked and is claimed to be a close family friend, who joins Wikipedia 9 hours after the block but never once mentions the block..... No. When you add up the existence of the sock ring, and the circumstances, use and agenda of the new account, its edit warring on the identical basis to the other socks... and its activities after RFA which basically serve the socking of the other socks... it is clear that beyond any usual level of evidence we normally require, that this was not a different person, but another GHBH sock. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec - with below)Which begs the question why Poetlister is now unblocked... now, I going to shut up in case that last point gets too much interest but my point stands; no matter how convinced the ArbCom/CU is about it being correct it may have been politic to allow the principle of the possibility of doubt being the part of the reason for unblocking to be aired. We may not be having this discussion had it were. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Most sockmasters on this scale purely disrupt, and go out abusing. That's our reading of the 2005 creation of "Runcorn". But this time, in 2007, through the Poetlister account, this user has made attempts to show good conduct for a long period instead, and with success. The idea that such users can be redeemed is meaningless if never given a chance. We decided to give that chance, as Deskana says, because of the work being done showing possibility for change. Time'll tell how it works out. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To be brief, the Arbitration Committee did not unblock Poetlister on the basis that the block was incorrect, based on faulty evidence, or inappropriate. We unblocked because Poetlister in recognition of the good contributions that have been made to other projects, and because we believe that there will be no further abuse of any kind. That said, this isn't something that needs dwelling on. It's all in the past now. Poetlister is unblocked and welcome to resume editing. Lets be glad of that much, and put the past behind us. --Deskana (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One clarification please: was the unblock made at Poetlister's request, and if yes - did that request contain any admittance of wrongdoing? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

She protested innocence intensely and still does. She is often a contributor to Wikiquote, and I think some of the other projects, and is well respected there.Merkin's mum 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been ongoing requests by various of the accounts to be unblocked - in fact I received my first before even being appointed to ArbCom. So yes there have been requests. And no - no admission was made. To anticipate the next question, it was because any user has the right to appeal a ban (requesting review isn't a problem), so the former isn't an issue, and the purpose of a block is to protect the wiki and we believe the scope for abuse to recur (especially following communal disclosure of past activities and with communal eyeballs) is sufficiently reduced to cover the latter. Obviously if there were any signs of renewed mis-use then the community will deal with it, but as Deskana says, we aren't punitive, we have a year's positive record showing the user can act well on other projects if they wish to, and we hope it's behind us all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's something that doesn't make sense to me here. Am I reading this right and the arbitration committee is contending that Poetlister, Runcorn, and lots of other people are really the same person? If so and you want to forgive this person, how did you decide to unblock Poetlister, as opposed to Runcorn or one of the other accounts? Maybe I'm just completely missing something here, but it seems like you (collectively, not you personally) are saying that the checkuser evidence was and is correct, but your actions don't reflect that belief. --B (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1. That's been the case since December 2005, and again in May 2007. Yes, same person, same modus, same alibis, same checkuser and behavior evidence, same involvement in same agendas and sock pushing, same stacking on same xFDs and RFAs... Yes.
2. Why Poetlister and none of the others? Because the Poetlister name is the one the user chose to reactivate with elsewhere in the community and gained respect on other wikis under, after the socks were removed from this wiki, and most recently appealed under.
3. The unblock's explained above. It's a chance to show change, not an exoneration of past socking and abuse. (Sorry, bit rushed here, was due out 2 hours ago)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Committee has frequently held that, when users are editing in concert in a fashion that is indistinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, it should be considered sockpuppetry." - What you've not clarified is whether the other accounts - e.g. Londoneye who is a user in good standing on Wikimedia Commons, Taxwoman who still posts as a separate person on WR, should be considered sockpuppets of this user going forward. Whether it "should be considered sockpuppetry" is quite a different question than whether it is in fact sockpuppetry, since the latter closes the door on ever unblocking any of the other accounts. --Random832 (contribs) 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that they were able to provide new pictures on demand does in fact mean they are distinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, whatever their other actions were, so at worst this is meatpuppetry. --Random832 (contribs) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as one can be sure online, the balance of evidence is way, way towards sockpuppetry for all of the accounts. We concluded repeatedly, they are socks not meats. the evidence was very strong, and the alibis weak. Each project acts independently on this, though, as Wikiquote themselves did. Again, apologies, Im outr of the door and will have to follow this thread up tomorrow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Also, how many RFAs had any three or more of the accounts voting in the same direction? How many had any two voting against each other? If you choose a large enough set of accounts, of course you can find numerous AFDs and RFAs that at least two voted on. --Random832 (contribs) 19:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You speak of the "balance of evidence" - what sort of evidence, in your view, would be required to refute this claim? If they (two or more of them) sent real identification (drivers licence, passports, whatever) to arbcom? If they (two or more of them) showed up in person at a meetup? There has to be _something_. --Random832 (contribs) 19:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Random832 above - while I'm neutral on who Runcorn is/was, the sheer difference in styles between Poetlister and Taxwoman, the difference between the articles they edit, and the fact that, if they are one person, they've spent much of the last year arguing with themselves on a certain WP:BADSITE do point to at the very least reasonable doubt. As I've argued elsewhere, Taxwoman at the very least was - and would be again - a net benefit to the encyclopedia, given her willingness to clean up articles most of us wouldn't touch with a barge pole. — iridescent 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Feh, the assertion is that they are all in the same place, presumably at or near UCL. If they want to meet me for a drink somewhere in the City, I'll verify they are all different people. This acto of selfless devotion has nothign whatever to do with the pictures they uploaded of themselves, not at all, nosiree. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, Guy. . .always willing to give until it hurts :-) R. Baley (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can some kind of language or edit summary analysis be done like what was done on the Mantanmoreland arbitration case that showed the Mantanmoreland socks had unique edit summaries? William Ortiz (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I went through the various accounts' contrib histories in quite a bit of detail, and absolutely everything (voting and editing patterns, timing, everything), pointed to sockpuppetry. I'm all for second chances, and I always have been, but I would like to see a requirement to admit to socking and identify all socks used before unblocking. That being said, if ArbCom has decided to unblock, well then, it is their decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Did they even have certain unique phrases of speech nobody else used? William Ortiz (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Random832 removed Runcorn from the list of banned users with the rationale: If there is only one person behind these accounts, then who is banned?[172] and an edit summary of Per the official story that all these accounts are still considered the same person who is being allowed to come back as Poetlister - if this story is accepted then the unblock constitutes an unban.[173] I have undo that edit, as Runcorn is still banned, and the Arbitrators have made it clear that this unban is based on the proviso that the harm cant be done with only one account being unbanned. There is no "official story" - there is only what we can reliable deduce, and what we can reliably assume. In this case, the CUers are saying they can reliably deduce that there was abuse of WP:SOCK, and due to Poetlisters continued fruitful involvement in other projects and her own recent commitments to not edit via open proxies we can reliably assume she is a dedicated Wikimedia and will keep her word. We may never know the true story. Ultimately it doesnt matter - Runcorns use of the admin tool was unacceptable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who said the above - not me - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)]

Why can't the publishable part of the evidence be published in detail as part of the requirements of her unblock? If the community's required to watch her, we should know what to watch for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What to watch for? That is easy : involvement in Jewish related community votes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bans are on people, not accounts. And unless there is some other person involved (which everyone seems to deny), there is no person who is banned. --Random832 (contribs) 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the operators of the Poetlister and Runcorn accounts are the same person (which was the whole reason for the ban in the first place), it does indeed seem that ArbCom has, in effect, lifted the ban and allowed that person to again edit under the Poetlister account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Random832, until arbcom removes the ban on Runcorn, your reading of this situation is incorrect. These accounts were banned because of violations of WP:SOCK - that includes meatpuppeting, which is one explanation, however unlikely that might be. As far as I know, the banned users claim they are different people. It is extraordinary that Runcorn is banned yet Poetlister is not, even though there is a significant community belief that they are the same person. Thankfully, arbcom have done the extraordinary and let the Poetlister account resume editing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Block & oversight needed

Resolved

 – Edits oversighted. Anthøny 19:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

81.152.62.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For edits to this page SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[174] by Deskana William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles on "probation" problems

There are a few articles aparently on "probation" where I've noticed some odd actions that might require a closer look. User:Bassettcat and User:John Nevard are hitting Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne and Naked short selling in ways that hint at undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Please take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.164.228 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:John Nevard has a bunch of recent edits that show a strange and supressed interest in Daniel Brandt. Bassettcat has edits like the accounts named in the Mantantmoreland arbitration such as [175] [176] those two make the article more negative to Byrne. William Ortiz (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, it's more trolling from people who may possibly be associated with Overstock. Or just durn crazy. John Nevard (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

paid editor?

Avineshjose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The COI article creations of this user raises this doubt. Please keep a watch on this user's contributions. Inappropriate and false citations to promote some business houses and some businessmen are numerous. For example, see Santosh George Kulangara, Labour India etc.

• What's the COI? Guy (Help!) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Socks of Mykungfu appearing again

Mykungfu, a blocked user from 2006 (and technically banned), is currently disrupting Wikipedia by using IP socks in order to push his POV on Alpha Phi Alpha by using ROF as a sock. He uses IPs to file CU cases who he disagrees with see where he stalks my notebook and brings it up to ANI, to the point of harassment (admins only - he files a SSP case). Currently, he is calling for a mediation case. The checkuser cases on him are inconclusive (because he IP hops), but his behavior between socks are similar. An admin admits that ROF's behavior is similar to MKF's. Here's one of his past socks where we say that he is banned. Also, see this SSP and this notice. In addition, one of MKF's socks in the past has created CC Poindexter.

Also in the past, he has harassed users for disagreeing with his MO (See the sock's contribs) and used AOL proxies to disrupt Wikipedia and to evade blocks.

Few applicable ANI threads from the past:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive208#Mykungfu_resurfacing.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive203#Mykungfu_back_at_it
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive186#A_sock_I_can.27t_block

Pages to be deleted:

• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22_Alpha_Phi_Alpha
• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22_List_of_Alpha_Phi_Alpha_brothers
• CC Poindexter
• And his user sandboxes.

Under CSD G5, I have requested his pages that he created as a sock as ROF to be deleted. However, Seresin believed that he wasn't banned (even though I provided strong evidence that he was banned) and would not delete the pages in question. He also reverted my tag of him being banned, even though strong evidence exists that he is banned. My request is for a.) the pages be deleted under G5 b.) ROF be blocked as a clear sock. c.) this sock needs to be blocked because it is a CU confirmed sock. Thanks. miranda 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That diff about the sandbox sealed it for me. All relevant articles speedied. Blueboy96 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved yet. User is sockpuppetting on his unblock page and making soapbox accusations. I am blanking it and suggest that an admin protect the page and block the sock. miranda 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin should protect the talk pages as well. I am tired of his harrassment. miranda 20:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Abusing unblock template miranda 20:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Naruto134 - repeated incivility after many warnings

I came across a wikiquette alert on this user, and after investigation felt that there had been a small incivility issue. I was going to leave a gentle note on the editor's talk page but upon further investigation found that this user has had numerous such warnings and suggestions left on their page, only to delete them and move on. My feeling was that adding another was going to be pointless. I am of the opinion that an administrator may need to step in and make a clear statement of the future consequences, should this not cease. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Smsarmad (talk · contribs)

Despite warnings, User:Smsarmad has been changing the denomination from Shi'a Islam to Sunni Islam in many articles on Pakistani politicians, and did so a few weeks ago using this anon. He first started removing the "Shi'a" part, then started replacing it with "Sunni". See this, this and the history pages of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Ayub Khan. He has decided to ignore the warnings and continue to impose his POV on these articles. See also WWGB who has been doing the same thing to these articles by removing references to "Shi'a Islam". LahoreKid (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I see a content dispute, and I don't think most admins are familiar enough with the subject to even begin making comment about which reference is more reliable. I suggest that you take the matter to the Pakistan WikiProject for some third party opinion. I would also suggest that people ignore the sectarian rhetoric being bandied about (by ip accounts generally). There is nothing that admins can do in this instance, I fear. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image Name

Resolved

Is this image name really appropriate?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 19:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, click on the image and you will see tha name.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was recently deleted. Is this resolved?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 19:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably so. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have an image re-naming bot on commons, if I can get support for it here and an active community involvement I am willing to port it to en wiki. β^{_{command 2}} 20:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Um I know this is marked resolved. But I want to comment that Beta's idea is a pretty good one. Rgoodermote  20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. An image-renaming bot can be useful.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 20:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell him or let him find out that the idea is a good one? Rgoodermote  21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I know its a good idea, but I need help getting the templates and getting users involved in tagging images for rename. I tried about six months ago to get this going but no one listened. Ive had the bot up and running on commons for months if people want to take a look. commons:User:BetacommandBot. I also have BCBot moving free images to commons see WP:MTC. I just need more momentum behind the ideas. β^{_{command 2}} 21:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin but I totally support the BOT being ported over here. Rgoodermote  22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

the question is can you convense enough people to get involved to get this thing off the ground? β^{_{command 2}} 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me a little bit I think I can. Rgoodermote  22:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me about 3-4 days and I think I can get enough people. Trying a cascade effect. No promises mate. Rgoodermote  22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea that will save people from having to deal with unwieldy image names... what has to happen? Accounting4Taste:talk 00:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that it would be possible to limit the length of image names via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Something like Image:.{80,} ought to do it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please curb User Rjecina???

• This user baselessly inserted {dubious} tag into the text and after valid and credible references - contributed by other editors - in the articles Srbosjek [177] and in Ethnic Cleansing in Croatia [178]

• Keeps deleting my contributions to Wikipedia accusing me pointlessly as if being someone else:

[179] [180], [181] [182] [183] --71.252.102.204 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've talked to him/her about it on his/her talk page. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:RfAOpposeBot II

Resolved

This is just asking for trouble. It's added "Bot opposes" to the two currently running RfAs. Could an administrator check this out? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted. Nakon 20:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Funny, though. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It'd be more funny if it were adding "I view self noms..." to all self nommed pages. =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, only two currently running rfa's??? Candidates too hesitant to run with the current atmosphere over there? Garion96 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Self noms are all but gone, I think. Well, one of the RfAs running is a self nom I suppose. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA needs more people, both applying for adminships and participating in the discussions. There are way too many questrions being asked of candidates. And lot's of people are opposing for stupid reasons which is ok if the admin closing ignores those reasons,.87.113.106.237 (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why did Nakon block this bot? What harm was it doing? RfA is not a vote, and invalid votes are ignored by whoever closes the discussion. 87.113.106.237 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What good was it doing? Checking how well the admin candidates react to disruption? I thought the consensus was that RfA is not trial by ordeal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well...I think consensus has changed. Garion96 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How about an unapproved bot preforming an unapproved task? Being a general annoyance? Disruption? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, what the hell is a "Bot oppose"? KnightLago (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked as well. Nakon 00:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

North American Union

Krazilec! is accusing users who disagree with him on content of engaging in vandalism.

• Earlier today I added a link to North American Confederacy.[184]
• Administrator Kralizec! reverted on the grounds that the NAC is fictional.[185]
• He then posts the 'uw-unsourced' template on my talkpage - as though the link to the other Wikipedia article needed a source.[186]
• When I revert to my version, he accuses me of vandalism.[187]
• If anything he should be blocked for edit warring. An administrator who is this unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies ought to be desysopped. 96.241.228.238 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So why are you posting a fictional “See also” link in a non-fictional article? It’s irrelevant to the NAU article (although adding such a link to the NAU might be useful in the NAC article as a way to point to a real-life parallel). Likewise, what is wrong with discussing the merits of placing your link in the NAU article on its talk page instead of simply counter-reverting? I recommend you assume good faith and discuss its relevancy as Krazilec! was attempting to encourage you. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the Manual of Style for links, "Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles that provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic" (emphasis mine). How would a reader's understanding of North American Union -a serious non-fiction article that is sourced to real-life government agencies, newspapers, and non-governmental organizations- be significantly improved by adding a link to North American Confederacy, an un-sourced and probably non-notable article on a fictional government of North America, Antarctica, the Moon, and Mars? If we start adding see also links to every fictional topic under the sun, Wikipedia articles will consist of 90% links and 10% content.

Since you are obviously familiar with Wikipedia, I am surprised you decided to get into a revert war rather than bring the issue up on the article's talk page in order to build consensus. While not everyone follows the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, it appears that you skipped the first three or four steps in the Dispute resolution process in order to bring the issue here to AN/I. Judging by the "feel free to try and wiggle your way out of this on WP:AN/I" comment you left on my talk page [188], it looks like you are just interested in generating wikidrama. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Describing an article on a "proposed" "theoretical" continental union, opposed by all three governments concerned, as non-fiction, insulted by an addition of a link to a fiction, seems overblown. If I had been the anon, I would have added a dab header instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WHeimbigner

The user, WHeimbignerhas created a sock pupped account User:70.247.164.82 and trolled and participated in a edit war, when he acknowledged that he wasn't logged in, and continued to revert edits for around 7 times. His account has not been used for anything productive other then trolling the Audacious Media Player page. The user should be blocked, so an incident like this will not occur again.

The edit war there appears to have ended. Could you mention how you determined that User:WHeimbigner is User:70.247.164.82? I don't see the relation looking at that article's history. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WHeimbigner has been notified of this thread. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Coupla blocks for review

Nicklausse (talk · contribs) indefinitely and Sumerophile (talk · contribs) for two weeks. See also WP:AE and their talk pages, plus Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile. Thanks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Implying legal action, pt. 2

No one has responded to this topic. Can someone look at it and take care of the issue. Thanks. APK ^{yada yada} 01:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to worry. JeanLatore (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's your choice but I'm just following WP:LEGAL policy. "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." APK ^{yada yada} 01:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Live and let live, bro. That's what i say. JeanLatore (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, bro. Anyone besides JeanLatore have an actual productive comment? The reason I brought this up is because the IP has driven away a talented editor from one of the articles. APK ^{yada yada} 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP tag-teaming by User:Orangemarlin

Earlier I came across the BLP Rosalind Picard that had not been edited in a while, which seemed to contain a short overly coatrackish tangent on how this computer scientist signed some creationist petition, so I reworded it to be more on-topic and added some sourced information on its relevance to her, etc. (diff) However I soon got reverted by User:Orangemarlin who called my edits "whitewashing."

What concerns me is that instead of discussing the problems with that edit when I asked him about it, OrangeMarlin rebuffed my inquiry without response and started edit warring; worse, he started asking friends to join him so he could game 3RR, going on and on about how I was a "POV pushing" "troll" for doing so.

As someone who frequently deals with BLPs through OTRS work, I'm pretty shocked to find this is the way these sorts of articles are being handled. I really think more eyeballs are needed here. krimpet✽ 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a whitewash. This was discussed at length on the article talk page, and has had considerable input from the community. If you can't be bothered to discuss your edits, if you can't be bothered to look at past discussions on the article talk page, if you repeat edits by a banned editor...what the heck do you expect people to make of your edits?

It's also noteworthy that you chose to bring it to AN/I, but you have yet to engage with your fellow editors on the article's talk page. Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I had every intention to discuss this - first on OrangeMarlin's talk page, then on the article talk page if needed, but it seems he immediately decided to escalate this into a major incident instead. krimpet✽ 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the way we do things around here - we discuss things first on the article talk page. And if you had bothered to read the article talk page, you would have seen that this was discussed. You are the person who escalated the matter...brining it to AN/I while refusing to discuss your edits. Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain where the requirement that edits must be discussed first comes from? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When you edit a page with a contentious history, and three established editors revert your changes, don't you think you should discuss your proposed changes before coming to AN/I? All the more when you are making edits typical of an indef-banned editor? Or has it become normal to ignore talk pages (where the issue was discussed at length) and come to AN/I? Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also funny that you accuse OM of tag-teaming, when he was one of three editors who undid your edits. If this is an OTRS issue, why did you not bother to cite a ticket? If it isn't, why bring it up? To claim some sort of special privilege?

Several editors reverted your edits, but rather than discuss the problems, you choose to call it tag-teaming. Several editors are involved, but you try to pin it on the one who is least well-connected politically. Why not use normal channels (ie, the article talk page)? Why the forum shopping? Why the attempt to smear one editor, when there are several involved? Seriously. Guettarda (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are straying from the subject I was trying to discuss. OrangeMarlin did blatantly intend to tag-team, as evidenced by those diffs I provided above. And this seems to be indicative of a much larger problem, which is why the community as a whole needs to step in. krimpet✽ 02:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The topic you were trying to discuss? You mean your refusal to discuss your edits? Or your smear against one editor, when several editors disagreed with your edit? And why have you chosen to ignore past discussion on the page's talk page? Why not discuss your edits? Why come here first? Have you never heard of the "bold-revert-discuss" cycle? It isn't "bold-revert-complain on AN/I", you know? Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As Krimpet said, he was going to discuss his changes before he was very quickly reverted by OM. OM did not discussion his reverts, and OM acted very inappropriately--a disturbing trend of his--which is why Krimpet came here, and I applaud him for doing so. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears Orangemarlin declined an offer to discuss the chagnes [189], and instead started reverting. In doing so, he described Krimpet as a "troll", which I think it simply unsupported by any evidence, and used Twinkle to remove here comment. Those would be reasons to discuss his edits here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OM refused to discuss changes? He wasn't making changes. Krimpet was making changes. He has refused to discuss his changes. Guettarda (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He declined Krimpet's offer to discuss the article, instead calling her a troll and encouraging others to assist him with edit warring. That sort of editing is a perfectly valid topic for an ANI discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OM was very clearly edit warring. His attempts to canvass for other warriors is not concealed. In addition, there have been others who have reverted those who reverted Krimpet's edits, so it is not so cut and dry as you would have it. OM's behavior and actions was very clearly contrary to established principles and Krimpet was well within his rights to report this here. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as a particularly important fact about a person. Picard appears to meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC independent of any support for an intelligent design document, and it looks like undue weight to me to say much about it. In particular, the sentence 'The petition, a two-sentence statement...' seems like it is intended as some sort of negative criticism. Why not just say she signed the document and link to an article that discusses it in depth? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OM acted in a very inappropriate manner. His use of automated tools to revert good faith edits without discussion was obviously inappropriate. Furthermore, his comments in the edit summaries as well as his personal attacks toward other administrators on his talk page are obviously unacceptable. There at least four longstanding Wikipedia polices OM violated in just this one instance. But this is just one of many strings of personal attacks and incivility OM has become involved in. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen Uber. We get it. You don't like OM. Fine, whatever. But do you really have to chime in every single time his name is mentioned and denounce him? Could you please act a little bit more mature. Thank you. Regarding the edits, removing that entire section about the petition is clearly a bad edit, especially considering the past problems with that article and the fact that the most recent discussion on the page was in regard to that petition. Baegis (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I don't tolerate people who blatantly violate some of Wikipedia's most longstanding policies. I'm sorry if this offends you or your friend. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Krimpet seems to have walked into a controversial article buzzsaw without realizing it. Krimpet is trying to apply the behavioral norms found on most articles to a highly controversial article. The fact is, the behavior norms are different - and anyone thinks they are or should be has never edited on a controversial article. The Rosalind Picard article is, thanks to Moulton, very controversial - particularly the DI petition discussion. Reverting "bold" edits to heavily discussed passages is the norm on such articles, and OM's behavior in that respect was par for the course. His subsequent incivility is problematic, but frankly, I think he was totally correct to revert Krimpet's removal of the DI petition (but not the first sentence). Raul654 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally any potentially controversial edit, especially on a controversial article, should be discussed on the talk page before even attempting the edit. Discuss it there, reach a consensus, and then make (or not make) the edit. It will then have a much better chance of surviving and edit wars will be avoided. -- Fyslee / talk 03:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the way wikipedia is set up: we encourage people to edit the page first. The issue here was premature reverting by people watching the article, who should have inquired what Krimpet was trying to accomplish in her edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that only applies to newbies. We expect established editors to be a tad more responsible. Anyway, the issue isn't the revert, it's what Krimpet did after his/her edit was reverted. Instead of taking it to talk, instead of looking at the article/talk page history, Krimpet chose to revert the revert (i.e., edit war), and then escalate the matter to AN/I. Either Krimpet has still not read the talk page, or s/he is simply being disruptive. All of this would have been avoided if s/he had bothered to behave in a collegial manner. Guettarda (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the wiki process only applies to newbies? Krimpet did take it to talk [190] at which point Orangemarlin called her a troll. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Raul: The lack of collegiality is the key problem; it shows up both in the comments and the use of twinkle to revert good-faith edits. The "us versus them" mentality shown here is unhealthy for the article and for wikipedia as a whole.

But I think Krimpet's assessment of the undue weight of that section is somewhat accurate (and I couldn't care less about ID one way or another). Picard would pass WP:ACADEMIC with or without the ID stuff, but the article appears to be written to emphasize it out of proportion to its importance in her career. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Krimpet should have looked at the article's history before making her/his edit. But that's only a minor faux pas. The problem was what s/he did next - instead of justifying her/his edit, instead of engaging her/his fellow editors, Krimpet chose to escalate the matter by bringing it here. Krimpet isn't a newbie - s/he should have known better. My fear is that s/he does know better...and came here anyway. Guettarda (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Krimpet attempted to discuss the matter with Orangemarlin, but he responded by calling her a troll and counting how many reverts he had left before he crossed 3RR. I don't see how you claim she didn't attempt to engage other editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I see no recent edits by Krimpet on Talk:Rosalind Picard. I would have thought that was the place to discuss edits. Guettarda (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And why did Krimpet choose to turn a content dispute into a personal dispute? You discuss content matters on the article talk page. You don't try to make it personal. And you don't take it to AN/I. You use the article talk page. You discuss your edits with all involved editors. Krimpet has edit warred, and s/he has brought a content dispute to AN/I while refusing to discuss her proposed edits. All I see here is disruption by Krimpet. Guettarda (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. Discussion on user talk pages is fine. Even WP:BRD encourages speaking directly with the reverter rather than trying to engage everyone at once. Orangemarlin had the opportunity to discuss the edits and declined it. If there is additional editing like that by Orangemarlin, I don't think short blocks would be out of the question. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)