Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261

• I received a routine history merge request to histmerge
  Black genocide, and routinely obeyed it. That caused an argument between two users at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Black genocide and User talk:George Ho#My user space
  . I was going to let their discussion run a day or two, but as the argument has now escalated to a 4-letter word, I better get a ruling on it before the dispute gets any more acrimonious. The two sides seem to be:
  • Binksternet: "Edits made in my sandbox should stay there."
  • George Ho: "A cut-and-pasted edit history should be re-united."
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

[Not an admin but happened to notice this:] Binksternet is right. The rationale for merging histories is to give credit to every editor in the article's history. This does not necessitate showing every single edit by the same user resulting in a certain revision, whether it was made to a sandbox version or to a text file on the editor's hard drive at home. If a user prefers to work on an article in a sandbox, it should be their own choice if they want to include all of their little edits in the article history or if they prefer to cut and paste bits in larger chunks. As a user, I certainly prefer to see shorter histories with more substantial edits when possible (as it is when all, or most, edits come from a single user).

In my view, there would have been no need for a merge of histories even if Binksternet had cut and pasted a text with several contributors, as long as he had re-merged his final version of the text with the main article. But in this case, Binksternet is not only the creator of the article but its one and only author. There is nobody else to give credit to by merging the page histories. The end result of the merge was obstruction of Binksternet's work and an unnecessarily long and messy article history. --Hegvald (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Move the edits back to his sandbox. Since there is no policy against cut-and-paste moves from one's sandbox, Bink's right to control his own userspace wins out here. If George Ho has a problem with that, well, he can just deal with it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, Anthony, Someguy1221 and Hegvald. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple users with clear POV as expressed on talk page are missattributing claims to CNN that are not in there at the Bundy standoff page. Even when the language is quoted, they decided to undo it so they can add in their original research or make claims about a youtube video not backed up by any objective viewing of the video. 70.8.153.27 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Page is protected after an edit war. Discussion on talk page is given a little more leeway so we'll see how it goes.--v/r - TP 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Full page protection over 10 ten days for IP revert war seems excessive for a current event. PP was done improperly without a template as well. This appears to be a dispute between two editors, not broad content. PP should be lifted (or at least reduced in time and scope) and editor sanctions meted out as appropriate. PP is more disruptive than the edit war. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Three points: (1) Lack of a template is a technicality, and not a reason for removal of protection in itself. (2) Only one party involved in the content dispute was an IP. (3) As I have indicated at your queries at both my talk page and at you RFPP request to remove or reduce protection, I will happily remove page protection early if/when consensus is reached on the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And the reason you don't see consensus building is because this was a two party edit war who have no incentive to reach consensus or even address it. Thousands of other editors, however are locked out because a two party edit war, better addressed through 3RR and blocks. You really don't expect the "winner" of a 10 day hiatus to show up on the talk page or his antagonist to continue the edit war they failed to resolve with reverts, do you? What is the rest of the community supposed to do while these two editors stifle the entire page? --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already replied on my talk page. Please keep the discussion in only one place going forward; it's not productive to need to address the same issue in multiple threads. I'll use whichever forum you prefer; either here, my talk page, ANI, or any other of your choice - but please lets keep it to just one going forward. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

For all interested parties, there is now a discussion at

WP:ANI#Page protection at Bundy standoff to address the page protections as well as accusations about my use of the page protection tools. Further discussion should be directed to that forum. --- Barek (talk • contribs

) - 04:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Corrected spelling. BMK (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting account. It seems it was created March 1st with 1 edit. Then March 6th, it made 9 nonsense edits to reach the confirmed editor userright. 1) Gaming the system, 2) Shows knowledge of the system. Many of it's edits are related to ethnicity/race. It made some edits relating to the crisis in Crimea, it argued over whether English were an ethnicity or a nationality, and then the edits you show above about whether the SPLC is a Jewish source (which I always imagined it was atheist). I'd say the account is

WP:NOTHERE.--v/r - TP

20:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

By "atheist" do you mean "secular"? BMK (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. I believe they are secular but I also personally believe they have an anti-religion bias (SPLC - ChristianPost.com controversy). But, yes, as a Wikipedia administrator I mean 'secular'.--v/r - TP 22:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting is too weak a word. I really don't understand why more admins don't immediately block an account with obvious sock-tuning edits: you don't need to know who is wearing a sock to identify it as a sock. Domeron is now indefed, drama should be over.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Because this isn't a 1-admin makes unilateral decisions sort of website. Which is why I left some comments and waited for the next admin.--v/r - TP 23:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Because some are insightful enough to realize a finite if small false positive rate is damaging to the encyclopedia, so getting a second opinion is sometimes appropriate. NE Ent 02:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

3 new, essay like, NPOV violating articles about discrimination against African American women have been created by multiple users in the last hour. Articles, in order of time created, located at

I think you actually mean

single purpose account. Blackmane (talk

) 18:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this is some kind of high school project or college course where students upload their papers to Wikipedia?--v/r - TP 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that these pages are not encyclopedia articles, they're certainly not spam or vandalism. They're misplaced, but the editors (who, I'm quite sure, are in the same class at university) are acting entirely in good faith. DS (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that they were probably made in good faith as a part of a gender studies class, I guess you shouldn't rush to conclusions. Retracting my previous assumptions that they were vandals.

talk

) 02:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/108.6.110.183 Once again, he ignores all attempts of communications, and all of his edits get reverted by one person or another. I went through and checked the infobox of all the articles I used rollback on, the Cartoon Network not the original broadcaster of the shows. Multiple times in the past an IP address appears, and does this exact same thing. Look at the edit history of ThunderCats (1985 TV series) [1] for example, and you can see this guy just keeps coming back again. Temporarily blocking IP addresses doesn't help, he just coming back again, and editing again. If every single article he continues to edit war this nonsense in constantly over a long period of time, was just blocked permanently from IP addresses from editing it, that'd work. I think its necessary to get rid of this guy. Dream Focus 02:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I need some admin help with this one. I am working on the WINC (AM) article, the station where Patsy Cline got her start. I have found an excellent photo of her standing next to a WINC microphone.

The website the image comes from is a fan page about Patsy Cline. It has alot of stories, old pictures and what not. At the bottom, it says the information is copyright "EllisNassour", but I'm wondering if this person really owns the copyright to that photo. The photo would be from after 1948, when Patsy first performed on WINC.

My question, since there isn't a confirmable copyright (and since anyone can snag a photo and put it on their fan page), is it possible for me to use this photo here on Wikipedia, specifically on the WINC (AM) article? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I found a cropped (and cleaned up) version of the same image on a Blogspot blog. In this case, no mention of a copyright is made, which further leads me to believe that "EllisNassour" does not own the copyright on the previously linked photo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• You want the
  WP:IMAGEHELP department. They're on the 4th floor. Rgrds. --64.85.216.69 (talk
  ) 13:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank ya, kindly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin help sort out

 Done The complete history of the article is now at Martian lava tube. — Scott • talk 14:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, now can the talk page be moved as well? This is especially important to preserve the DYK history. —

talk

) 22:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for missing that. Thanks Bushranger. — Scott • talk 22:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There are mutiple reversions at Pono (digital music service). I can't tell who is wrong. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who is "wrong". This should have been taken to

WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk

) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

How does this affect administrators? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they're not actually soulless, it just seems that way because of the job. NE Ent 12:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Though some do come without souls for easy installation.

tutterMouse (talk

) 07:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Admins are people too! 206.117.89.4 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This user [2] constantly removes any block notices on their user & talk page using sock accounts, people have re=added them before only to be instantly and constantly reverted before being stalked & abused online, should. Are they allowed to do that? 109.79.7.144 (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi protected by Floquenbeam. However the template was blatantly wrong anyway and as it wasn't added by the blocking admin there isn't really a need for it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually the template looks to be correct as if I'm reading the block log correct, that was what happened. Perhaps there's some confusion because talk page access was later removed by the blocking admin under their admin role only (but I'm pretty sure the disclaimer was only meant to apply to the new talk page removal not the earlier indef block). However I agree adding the template when not done by the blocking admin, arbcom, or by wider community consensus was unnecessary. While such a template would I guess technically fall under the active sanctions notice part of Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings, unlike with a sockpuppetry notice, it doesn't really seem that useful. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If the user just wants to leave the project, they should just be allowed to remove the block notice. Until a questionable change was made to the user page guideline a while back, this was permitted. –xeno^talk 15:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's very important to protect the right to vanish: if we insist on leaving a stain on Wikipedia where a banned, blocked, vanished or otherwise disaffected user once was, then they have a stronger incentive to come back and engage in

WP:VANISH implies that already. The default should be: "sorry it didn't work out, no hard feelings". I've requested renaming of several vanished users' accounts after email requests, I am not aware of any that have abused this, though of course there will be some. Guy (Help!

) 17:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(EC) BTW I'm guessing that the editor who started this thread is probably the same one who added it in the first place [3]. P.S. Just realised these edits were last month and not a few days ago. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I didn't have the chance to respond to this discussion regarding one of my adoptees, Duxwing. I've glanced through the discussion and I understand what's happened and what's being done about it. I will follow all guidelines regarding Duxwing's ban from editing certain topics:

Duxwing is prohibited from making copyedits to math and science articles for period of 6 months. They are further prohibited from making copyedits on all other Wikipedia pages for a period of 3 months, except where the edit has been reviewed and approved by their mentor. The latter restriction may be appealed at any time provided that the appeal has the full support of their mentor. Should the current mentoring relationship end prior to a successful completion, a new mentor must be approved by the community via ANI discussion.

Pinging involved users so they know I'm aware: @

Should anyone have any more questions regarding this, please feel free to leave a message here or leave me a message on my talk page.

Thanks, Newyorkadam (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Thank you for your efforts with the adoption program, the learning curve here can be steep. And best of luck to Duxwing. —Neotarf (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for helping. Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your attempts are appreciated - let us know if something comes up that you find challenging the panda ɛˢˡ” 23:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

I would like to create an article about the extended play D​.​A​.​I​.​S​.​Y. rage but Wikipedia naming conventions are keeping me from doing so and I was directed here. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I got a weird error when searching this term, but I was able to create the page (which I then deleted because I had no content for it). You should be able to create it by following this link

talk

) 19:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! it says I can't create the page. I made a draft for the article here: User:Littlecarmen/sandbox. Could you maybe create the page with that? Littlecarmen (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I dragged your most recent revision into the mainspace. Happy editing, –xeno^talk 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Littlecarmen (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@

Beeblebrox: This problem was probably due to the title blacklist. Graham87

10:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

D.A.I.S.Y. rage or D.A.I.S.Y. Rage without difficulty. Nyttend (talk

) 02:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

The semi-protection lasts two days, and pending changes will remain for two months. This is often a useful way to introduce an article back to open editing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks! — lfdder 18:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Pages related to the
   discretionary sanctions
   . This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.
2. topic-banned
   from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Steeletrap may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
3. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
4. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Carolmooredc may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
5. Editors who have not previously been involved in editing the articles at issue in this case are urged to review these articles to ensure that they are in compliance with the applicable policies and best practices, including neutrality and the policies governing biographical content.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

They've now also moved there talkpage now so was wondering if someone again could have a word?, Cheers -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• - And again..... I think perhaps a
  WP:CIR blocks in order since the editor seems to show no understanding of how things work, Like there username [4], Page protection [5] and page moves [6] -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→
  16:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Or, we could just, y'know, rename them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Brilliant idea lol, Seems they do understand CHU so blocks pointless I think -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please administer the IP 117.201.209.92 which is removing tags in Guntur page. No proper discussion on talk page before removal of tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin09 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem seems to have stopped for now. Please request page protection at

WP:RFPP if the problem resumes. -- Diannaa (talk

) 23:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Long story short - Nfitz (talk · contribs) has a long history of removing PRODs from articles which are then subsequently deleted at AFD. Looking at their talk page, this issue was first raised back in July 2008 by Number 57 (talk · contribs). If it was the odd one or two, then fair enough - but we are talking about lots here (by my count 45 between 10 February and 22 March, and plenty more before that) which means it is becoming increasingly disruptive; just have a look at their deleted contribs. By doing so you will also note that a significant number of PRODs were removed en masse on 19 March 2014 with the edit summary of just "no" - simply not good enough. Despite recent attempts to resolve this situation here and here and here, this continues - see Glen Kamara, which was deleted by AFD today. Basically, I simply don't think they fully understand notability.

I know this is a potentially controversial one given the very nature of PRODs, however I propose that Nfitz is topic banned from removing PROD tags from articles. The constant removal of PRODs from heaps of clearly non-notable articles is disruptive and simply has to stop. GiantSnowman 18:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Has this user make any effort to address the reason why an article was prodded in the first place, e.g. find sources, trim puffery, assert notability, etc...? Tarc (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@

proposed deletion. It's more that they either don't understand the notability guidelines, as GiantSnowman suggests above, and more importantly seem unable to learn what they are, or simply do not care, as Number57 suggests below. In any case, Nfitz tends to repeat the same deprod rationales despite seeing them rejected at afd time and again, and in doing so creates a lot of otherwise unnecessary work for the rest of us. Sir Sputnik (talk

) 19:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I know, just trying to see if this is a straight "drive-by de-prodding" or if there is effort to rectify the articles. If effort is being put in but the nature of the effort is consistently rejected at AfD, then that may be a case of

WP:COMPETENCE, yea. Being wrong isn't a crime; there's Article Rescue Squad members that are wrong...some spectacularly and nastily so...in deletion discussions all the time. It should be a rather high bar to meet for being wrong to be considered disruptive/incompetent. I'll hold off on voting until the subject weighs in. Tarc (talk

) 19:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: Appoligies, I misunderstood your meaning of addressing the reason for PROD'ing. In the sense of substantive improvements to the articles in question, these have been relatively few. I understood the phrase to mean providing a counter-argument to the PROD rationale. I agree that bar needs to be set high, but I think that systemically ignoring or failing to understand a core policy for six years qualifies. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I also support a topic ban, and would like to add a bit of context to some of the numbers GiantSnowman provided. At the time of writing this, the current article alerts archive for the WikiProject Football lists 70 articles deproded by Nfitz since 1 January of this year that were subsequently deleted. By comparison, the number of deleted deprods over the same time period by all other users combined was 30. (This second number also includes any number of procedural deprods where keeping the article was not the intention of the deproder.) Simply put, since the beginning of this year, roughly two-thirds of the PROD related afd work of the WikiProject Football is directly attributable to Nfitz and most of it was unnecessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately it seems that Nfitz is singularly incapable of using the prod/deprod system in a productive manner, and this has been going on for years. I would have no problem if the subjects of the articles he was deprodding met various notability criteria, but they clearly don't. When this was brought up in March, I pointed out that he had already deprodded almost 60 articles in 2014 alone that were subsequently deleted - creating a huge amount of pointless AfDs. I think he he knows full well what the notability criteria are, but overlooks them in favour of claiming just about every footballer ever meets the GNG (which they clearly don't). Only he alone knows why he does this, but a quick scan of his contributions over the last couple of years suggests that deprodding articles is now his major contribution to Wikipedia, and it's verging on SPA territory. Number 57 18:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Not just an ignorance of deletion policy, other issues include removing a BLPPROD with a edit summary of "add ref" ... which was someone's blog; deprodding 13 articles in 10 minutes with an argument based on
  WP:IAR". Not to mention what appears to be deliberately "misunderstanding" FOOTYN and GNG when it suits. Black Kite (talk
  ) 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Geez, BK...based on what you found, a topic ban AND a block for disruption appear appropriate DP 20:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"BLPPROD with a edit summary of "add ref" ... which was someone's blog" - uh what? I've always tried to be careful removing BLPProds, which I do take very seriously. As far as I understand, that is allowed if one adds a proper reference. And I think I almost always have done this. I added someone's blog? This doesn't ring a bell. Can you point it out? It's possibly an error I made. Don't the remaining edits predate my March 24th commitment to be more discerning? Nfitz (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You removed the BLPPROD on Firmansyah Priatna with the edit summary "add ref" by inserting a reference to http://forzapersija.blogspot.ca. The BLPPPROD was replaced by another editor. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang on @Black Kite:. I didn't think http://forzapersija.blogspot.ca was a blog. It might be hosted on blogspot, but it doesn't look like a blog. It's been used as a reference for other Persija Jakarta players by other editors, without objection. And that player also has a Wikipedia article in Indonesian at id:Firmansyah (pemain sepak bola kelahiran 1995). The Indonesian version uses [7] as a reference, but I had trouble opening it at the time, but it seems to be working now. I had no doubt in my mind that he was a real person, and a player on the team. I was actually unaware until now that the BLPprod had been restored. Reading further, yes it does seem to be a blog. I should have used the [8] as a better reference. A poor edit perhaps; however I don't believe there's a pattern of bad BLPprod removals by myself though. Also, it does seem bad form to BLPprod an article with a reference to a foreign-language version, which IS properly referenced. Why not just add the reference from the foreign language version instead of adding a BLPprod? It's not as if there's concerns that this isn't a real person. Nfitz (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading your original comment further, didn't have time originally. "removing a BLPPROD on the basis a completely unsourced article had an interwiki link to another language wiki" what is this referring to ... is that one where I then added a source in a later edit? "deliberately "misunderstanding" FOOTYN " What? I've never done anything of the kind. Are you violating

WP:FAITH? Your comments do seem short on context. Nfitz (talk

) 04:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Because I think there is a better way to do this than to ban someone from doing something that is not really against any the guideline. Yes its disruptive when someone removes PRODS for no real reason, and yes its even more disruptive when they are removed in mass, but theres nothing in the guideline against removing them so it really wouldn't be fair to ban someone for following the guideline. Despite my
  WP:PROD that not just "encourages" a reason, but "requires" a justified reason why the article should be kept, and not just the "It needs more discussion" argument, because thats a poor reason. That way we are not simply blocking for disruption, but theoretically closing the loop hole that created the disruption in the first place.--JOJ ^Hutton
  20:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The issue is not necessarily that Nfitz does not provide a reason, but that the reason he uses (at least in the AfD arguments) does not stand up to scrutiny in those debates. If this was a recent problem then I could understand your reluctance to support action, but this has been a problem for over half a decade. At what point do you stop assuming good faith and accept that someone is just disruptive? Do we just put up with a stream of completely pointless AfDs just to humour someone whose sole activity on Wikipedia is now deprodding articles and debating the results? Number 57 21:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Not suggesting that its not disruptive, but banning the user would be like continuing to bail the water out of a sinking boat while continuing to ignore and not fix the hole. Lets fix the hole in the boat first before topic banning people for doing something that is, albeit disruptive, not against guidelines. Because of we topic ban for this, where do we draw the line and how do we know its been crossed?--JOJ ^Hutton 22:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • But tightening up the guideline won't stop what he's doing unless the guideline is specifically edited to say that a prod cannot be removed from an article on a footballer unless they pass
        WP:NFOOTY - this is the precise problem (he always claims they meet the GNG), and I don't believe changing the guideline is possible solution (it would seem rather odd to include that one specific requirement), unless you have an alternative suggestion? Number 57
        22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I have to disagree with the assessment that Nfitz's actions do not violate policy. They do not violate
          Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Current PROD policy has it's down side, but works effectively when not abused. When it is, broader guidelines apply. Sir Sputnik (talk
          ) 22:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just oppose, per Jojhutton  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   21:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose given the nature of PRODs.--v/r - TP 00:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a last resort. I haven't run across this editor before, but sampling a number of the deleted contribs makes it pretty clear that this isn't as simple as explaining to them, and has gone on for a long time. There is a pattern to this, of deep misunderstanding of the deletion process as well as GNG, IAR and other basic policies. If they are not stopped from participating, they are headed down the path of getting a
  WP:DE block log before too long because these kinds of deletions are disruptive and becoming too frequent. A limited topic ban is the least disruptive way to allow the editor to contribute, while keeping them away from a problem area. If they really feel a PROD needs removing, they can bring it to someone else's attention, who can perhaps act as a filter, and in time they may actually learn what is and isn't an appropriate removal of PROD, by example. If the goal is to remove the disruption and give the editor the change to actually learn, this would appear to be the proper solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
  00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Point me to a guideline that says one shouldn't remove a Prod if one has concerns that there should be a wider discussion about it. Point me to any damage done to the project by going to AFD rather than just a PROD. Point me to the evidence of excessive prod removals since I made the agreement to be more discerning on March 24. Nfitz (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not even sure why this has been brought here. As far as I know this was all resolved in the original discussions that User:GiantSnowman referenced here and here. And also in the third discussion on this, that for some reason User:GiantSnowman failed to reference here. I've been open to discussion, I have made concessions, and I have tried to work constructively.

1. During the first discussion, I agreed on the 23rd of March to be more discerning about my prod removals, and provide a summary when I do so. Why then, has in this ANI has User:GiantSnowman chosen to cherry pick the prod removal stats, and only present the stats from before I agreed to this. If this is a case for ANI, shouldn't User:GiantSnowman be looking at the stats from after I made this commitment?
2. Since I made that commitment, the only article that User:GiantSnowman has identified in these discussions is Glen Kamara. This went to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Kamara. Given that there is one reference that goes toward establishing notability at [9] and that the article also exists in the Finnish-language Wikipedia at fi:Glen Kamara which also has references [10], [11], and [12], I didn't think it was unreasonable that before we deleted the article, that we shouldn't have had a more complete discussion at AFD.
3. Since I made the commitment to be more discerning, I haven't removed more than a handful of prods (as far as I recall); all in the topic area of Football. This despite there being well over 100 prods currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Article alerts, and probably another 100 or more during the entire 3 weeks since March 23. It's being made out that I've been removing prods without discernment, and this has never been the case.
4. User:GiantSnowman is focussing on articles where I removed a prod that have subsequently been deleted. This ignores the articles which have not been deleted. While I admit that more articles where I have deleted the prod, have ended up being deleted, than not; surely raising debates about other articles, that were prodded in error, and then are not deleted, does have value to the project.
5. Much is made that I deleted several prods with the summary "No" (or something like that, I'm afraid I don't have access to the tools to see). I should have been more detailed, and I already admitted that, but my recollection is that this was just shorthand, and all the prod removals were of a very specific theme, and I felt it unnecessary to go into further detail. I believe the topic area was Irish footballers, who had long playing careers in the top-level of Irish football, some dating back nearly a 100 years. These were mostly articles that had been here for years. I was very uncomfortable seeing the work of so many people over so many years deleted without any discussion.
6. I don't think removing a few prods, does any particular harm. It's not like no one has ever failed to notice! I think a healthy discussion of an article before deletion is not a bad thing. It also eliminates a problem we do see, that articles get resurrected time and time again, with no documentation for users on why they were deleted in the first place.
7. My prod removals have been in very narrow areas. Long-standing articles with many edits over the years. Articles that are well referenced or exist in other wikis. Articles for players that have made the first team and are virtually assured of making a start soon (I've never created one of these articles, but I see little point in deleting them, only to recreate them days, or weeks, later). Yes, I've made some mistakes. Yes, at some point in February I removed some prods in error, as I was unclear on which policy was current; this caused no harm.
8. I've broken no policies. I've been discerning about my prod removals. I've generally documented the reasons for my prod removals (other than the removals of March 19th which we've discussed above, and I've agreed to document in the future). And I've tried to enhance and improve the project.
9. I'm concerned that there is a failure to
   WP:AGF by User talk:GiantSnowman and some other editors (some of whom have magically appeared here already), when I have only the best interest of the project at heart; it's starting to feel like WP:Harassment
   . I've been subjected to quite a few harsh and rude comments from several editors that fail to assume good faith.
10. My understanding (or lack of) understanding of GNG has been raised. Which is interesting, given I'm not sure the majority of my prod removals over the years have been on GNG grounds (but then I lack the stats).
11. We all have different understandings and interpretations of
    WP:GNG; in this case though I believe that it is actually User:GiantSnowman
    (and perhaps the closing admin) who have missed the point.
12. I'm concerned that this is a bit of a
    Wikipedia:Witchhunt
    based on previous disagreements with some of the involved parties. I'd rather not go into details at this time, though some were discussed in the referenced discussions
13. As I've previously made User:GiantSnowman aware, my avaibility is very constrained on weekdays; I tend to make few, if any edits outside of weekends, these days. I may not be able to respond to any comments or queries until the weekend. Please don't take my silence as agreement, or a lack of interest.

Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That is largely

WP:TLDR but to respond to a few of your points following a skim read - yes I have been AGFing; you have removed PRODs from articles that have been barely referenced (all those Irish players, for example); the Jack Wilshere deletion was endorsed at DRV (which means GNG was reviewed twice, and both times it was agreed the article did not meet it); stating your bogus removals "does no harm" is nonsense as it does nothing but create a lot of work for a lot of people. GiantSnowman

10:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't

WP:FAITH; an examination of his talk page shows frequent complaints about this by many parties. Nfitz (talk

) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You posted an overlong long response that serves no useful purpise (for me, at least) in what is intended to be a constructive discussion. GiantSnowman 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My points were clear and concise. Why use a phrase like "overlong long"? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Why misprepresent what

WP:TLDR says? Nfitz (talk

) 01:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose given the statements above and the nature of prods. If BLPPRODs are being removed inappropriately on an even vaguely regular basis, that might be a real issue. But I'd prefer that be a different discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per
  WP:WITCHHUNT Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}
  07:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - accusations that this is harassment/a witchhunt are not only false but also extremely bad faith. I'd invite @Lugnuts: and Nfitz to rescind these accusations. Same goes for accusations that I have not been AGFing - given the fact there have been numerous discussions over 6 years, including three started by me, it has to be clear that AN has been a last resort. GiantSnowman 10:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Expressing concern that it's a bit

WP:Harrassment is surely at worst a bit bad faith, not extremely. Isn't the use of the term extremely unnecessarily dramatic? The use of AN here was entirely unnecessary given that the subject had been discussed at length already, and you'd already obtained the change in my use of Prods as per my March 24th agreement. The sole case you've been highlighting since then based on [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Kamara]] is highly debatable given the existence of fi:Glen Kamara (which references [14], [15], [16], and [17]). While the quality and depth of sources might not meet GNG, there is no reason that a more complete discussion does any harm. This was hardly a last resort. Once again, I apologize that I'm not going to have a chance to respond to anything else here until ... well possibly Easter, but certainly not for another 15 hours or so. Nfitz (talk

) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it has already been discussed elsewhere - a number of times, over a 6 year period, and with no real change in behaviour - shows that AN was necessary. If you do not listen to me (because you believe I have some kind of bad-faith agenda against you or whatever) then perhaps you will listen to the other editors who also express concerns about your behaviour. Also please do not ping me, there is no need as I am watching this discussion. GiantSnowman 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you also removed a PROD recently at

WP:CRYSTAL. To say your behaviour has changed and you have stopped removing PRODs on genuinely notable articles is simply not true. GiantSnowman

11:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that AFD has also resulted in a delete... GiantSnowman 11:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It might well have been deleted, but if you read the AFD it's not like I was the only person who thought that deleting it was a waste of time. How is this any different than the AFD for one of his teammates

WP:CRYSTAL. There's no harm to to the project by leaving a harmless, factually correct article in place for a few weeks, rather than starting a deletion process. It doesn't improve Wikipedia. Leaving the article, does ultimately improve Wikipedia, as it almost certainly would be in existence in the future. Nfitz (talk

) 01:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Invite to rescind politely declined (of course). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

On what basis? GiantSnowman 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the lengthy post from Nfitz. Above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Activity by the user in relation to PRODding and AfD has recently become very disruptive. I agree in principle with JOJ, but feel this is an example of a user gaming the system rather than deprodding to raise leginitimate concerns. One of the main points raised by Nfitz above is that he I think a healthy discussion of an article before deletion is not a bad thing. It also eliminates a problem we do see, that articles get resurrected time and time again, with no documentation for users on why they were deleted in the first place. Healthy debate is to be encouraged, and I do agree in principle that PRODs should be removed by anyone if they think there is a chance a !Keep consensus could be reached. However, one only has to look here to see that this user has clear problems understanding current notability consensus. To provide a few examples, beyond the regular dismissal of
  WP:COMPETENCY
  issues have arisen recently:

1. Here a suggestion that it is biased to apply the same notability criteria to people in western and non-western countries, in addition to unfounded and unexplained distasteful accusations of racism.
2. Here the same copy and paste comments in a different article.
3. Here a suggestion that because
   WP:NFOOTY
   does not specifically cover semi-professional teams the article should be automatically kept despite not presenting any GNG support.
4. Here one of a number where Nfitz fails to grasp the notion that the
   fully professional league listing
   , as a current consensus on initial notability, is an inclusive list, so if a country is noton it the players from those leagues are automaticall deemed non-notable unless GNG can be shown specifically.
5. Here, here and here some of numerous instances where he admist that a player is currently non-notable, but essentially
   begs
   for it to be kept for a while to see if the person becomes notable.

Althought this discussion is around a PROD ban, the examples above to me highlight an editor who has significant problems understanding the current consensus around notability within football and continues to fight against this consensus in a manner which is disruptive. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In point 1 and 2, I never made an accusation of racism. I made the comment that "To delete articles of top players in such non-western countries would show

WP:BIAS

and systemic racism." There's a world of difference between making an accusation of racism, and expressing concern about systemic racism. I made this clear whan you comented on the AFD, and you failed to respond. I'd like an apology from you on this. I've never accused anyone of racism. I'm disturbed that you would twist my words to make it look like this. Why would you drop the word "systemic" which completely changes the meaning of what I wrote?

In point 3, I was pointing out that the team plays at 4th tier of football, at a level that does compete in national cups. While this doesn't quite meet the working of

WP:BIAS. No, I didn't offer any evidence for GNG for Penticton Pinnacles simply because I have never had the chance to look for any. Though looking quickly now, I do see some [18] [19] [20] [21]

. Should we reconsider this?

In point 4, hinges on whether Costa Rica has a fully professional league. There's been no clear consensus on this at

WP:FPL

seem to linger forever.

Point 5 - the first 2 examples are similar to Andrew Stone. The third ... what? I argued GNG, with several sources, and even you admitted that one "could form part of a GNG claim"; though that is the only example you have that does partially support the case here. Nfitz (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No apology will be forthcoming whatsoever. Systemic racism, just means lots of people being rcist all the time. I find it inconvcievable that you cannot understand the connection between saying "if this article is deleted it suggests systemic racism" and editors feeling that if they are to suggest an opinion contrary to yours they might well be accused of partaking / supporting such a view, since systemic racism can only occur if individual editors share such opinions whether as a group or acting as individuals. Your Penticton points are irrelevant as you "GNG" is just

WP:ROUTINE match reports and very localised news reporting. To be honest, did you even look at this link? I'm not sure what you are rying to achieve, but that link clearly shows you are failing. Fenix down (talk

) 13:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Fenix, your statement that "Systemic racism, just means lots of people being rcist all the time" is wrong.

ISBN 9781442202184

) is supposed to be a good explanation, but this simple example might give you the flavor of it: Imagine a world in which many racially disadvantaged people had last names that started with "Weird", because centuries ago, people thought their ancestors looked weird. So instead of "Smith" or "Jones", the descendants would be named "Weirdsmith" or "Weirdjones".

Now imagine that someone is giving away cupcakes to schoolkids. He doesn't know if he has enough to go around, but he'll give away as many as possible. He wants the kids to line up in an orderly way, with no pushing or shoving so he can make sure that nobody takes two. He doesn't know who arrived first. He's sensitive to issues of height and weight, so he doesn't want to ask them to line up according to size. In a panic, he looks around and sees an alphabet poster. This gives him the idea to ask the kids to line up in alphabetical order by last name. Is he being a racist? No, not really: He didn't say or think, "All of you kids with this race, go to the back of the line." It didn't even occur to him that what he chose had any connection to race. But is the outcome racist anyway? Yes, it is: some kids were—however indirectly and unintentionally—given advantages or disadvantages based on their race. Kids in the "advantaged" race, on average, had less anxiety about whether the cupcakes would be gone before they received one. Kids in the "disadvantaged" race, on average, had more anxiety about not getting a cupcake. That's what "systemic" or "structural" racism is about: applying seemingly neutral rules in ways that have strongly biased results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Fenix down says that No apology will be forthcoming whatsoever. Systemic racism, just means lots of people being rcist all the time. An example of systemic racism would be the British Monarchy. With nothing buy white skin as far down the line of succession that I've ever seen, despite the current racial makeup of the UK, and despite the number of recently arrived foreigners marrying in, then there's something odd going on. Does that make the Queen a racist? Not to my knowledge. If one accused the monarchy of being systemically racist, one would not be accusing any particular member of the monarchy of being racist (nor do I think the majority are). (to pick a random example that would surely not offend anyone here). I'm still waiting for the apology ... not so much because of what you said here, but because I've already clarified previously that I'm talking about systemic racism, and not thinking any individual here is racist. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunate support Do I believe they they're sincerely trying to improve the 'pedia? Yes, and their explanation above makes that clear. However, that same explanation shows that they have an understanding of the de-prodding process that is nearly wholesale against what the process is supposed to be about. We don't de-prod "because in my opinion it should stay". We don't de-prod because "a similar article exists in another language with far more lenient
  WP:CRYSTAL reasons. We don't de-prod and add inappropriate ref's/EL's. We de-prod because we're in the immediate process of completely and directly addressing the reasons behind the prod. Even if only 10% of their de-prodding ran afoul of this (which unfortunately it's a much higher percentage), such de-proddings are wholly disruptive in their nature. For at least the next 6 months, if they come across a PROD, they should a) attempt to fix the issues, b) discuss the changes since the PROD tag was attached on the article talkpage and how they improved it since the PRIOD, but c) leave the damn PROD tag alone ES&L
  12:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoping between sock accounts on the same thread? Oh dear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying reading

properly linked according to policy ES&L

13:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's also remember that unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry are considered

personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about unsubstantiated? They're two accounts being run by the same person, but I just thought it was worth mentioning for the those not in the know. Pot, kettle, black about accusations of bad faith too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Two accounts being run by the same person" =/= "sockpuppets". Sorry if you didn't mean it that way, but if the S-word is tossed out it's automatically an accusation of nefarious doings, whether it's intended that way or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"We de-prod because we're in the immediate process of completely and directly addressing the reasons behind the prod. " Can you point me to this guideline? Can you tell me what's wrong with deprodding a long-standing article because your uncomfortable with deleting it without having a fuller discussion at AFD? Can you tell me how I have harmed the project? I've only ever deprodded a fraction of articles on a very specific topic. Surely discussing 10 articles at AFD, and then deleting 9 of them, is a far better outcome than deleting a single article in error, at Prod, with little paper trail about what happened and why. Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• On the back of ES&L's suggestions about "discuss[ing] the changes" - I am more than happy to volunteer to be a 'mentor' of sorts, should Nfitz be in agreement i.e. if Nfitz wishes to challenge a PROD, I am happy to discuss the notability of the article and/or merits of the PROD tag and we can then decide on next best actions. GiantSnowman 12:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, it's not like he is always wrong in discussions and I do welcome dissenting opinion, however much I disagree with it in the main in this instance. However, I wonder whether it might be better idea to have someone outside

WP:INVOLVED issues. Fenix down (talk

) 13:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• That would complete the solution and offer the best chance of getting the topic ban lifted in a reasonable period of time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• If I am deemed too 'INVOLVED' to be a useful mentor in this situation - either by Nfitz or the wider community - then so be it. My offer, however, still stands. GiantSnowman 15:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. GiantSnowman's offer of a mentorship-type situation is the best outcome, but if that does not work out I feel that this situation has gone on too long to remain unresolved. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• If the only outcome is to have a mentor or ban from PRODs, I'd be willing to do the mentoring. Keep in mind, I'm pretty far on the inclusionist side of the spectrum... Hobit (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• If we have an 'inclusionist' mentor then we should also have a 'deletionist' mentor. GiantSnowman 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, all that is necessary to do is to see that he keeps within the spectrum of reasonable behavior, and Hobit's inclusiveness is not outside of it, certainly not to the degree he would be an inappropriate mentor. . I would be extremely reluctant to accept that a good faith but mistaken de-prodding is disruptive except in the most extreme of cases; forcing things into discussion at AfD is an inherently reasonable way of handling disputes. I point out that the proper relationship of the sports guidelines and the GNG is one of the most perennially disputed areas of WP, and there have been cases in the past of maneuvering people into a situation where they get blocked because of their differing view of notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. PROD is a relatively recent invention, after all, designed merely to lighten the load on AFD. AFD is the default venue for considering deletion of articles. I would counsel the user to explain de-prodding in more detail, to try to resolve the concerns more of the time, but in the end the entire process that set up PROD was designed around precisely this ability for any editor on any grounds, even pure whim, to remove the tag. If it becomes an issue beyond this one user then maybe policy might be revised but right now there is no problem to fix, other than a user who seems to be keener on keeping articles than on improving them. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you DGG. Work kept me from finishing a reply for hours, but this is exactly what I wanted to say. It isn't about "inclusionist" or "deletionist", it is about reasonable standards of when to use PROD, when to dePROD, and when to dePROD and send to AFD. The problem that necessitates a topic ban isn't one of determining where the grey area is, it is about understanding the process on the whole. Unquestionably, I trust Hobit to act as a filter and mentor in that respect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I completely disagree that a topic ban is necessary. I agreed to User:GiantSnowman on March 24th that I would be more discerning, and provide more complete information. And I believe I have done so. This is evidenced by User:GiantSnowman focussing on the pre-March 24th stats here. I don't think either the examples brought here of prod removals since that date are stellar examples of me removing prods for articles that should not be; one is a player who is deemed notable enough by another language Wikipedia to have a referenced article. And the second is I think a justified concern about deleting articles that will very likely be recreated justifiably in the near future - this has created great debate in other recent AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hyland, so it's hardly an issue where there is a clear consensus. Finally, this entire discussion ignores examples of where I have removed a Prod, that has then got to AfD as keep (or not even gone to AFD at all). Some examples are [22] [23] [24] [25] Nfitz (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we already know that you don't think there's a problem - and that's why the community was FORCED to consider such a topic ban. If you had taken 2 seconds and listened to complaints, we wouldn't have to do it. Now's waaaayyy too late to suggest there's no need for one - you proved that it's a necessity  the panda  ₯’ 00:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hang on. That's my whole point. I did listen to complaints. I agreed on March 23rd to be more discerning. And I have done so. That's why the stats presented here precede that date. I've only deprodded or taken to DRV a prod I'd had removed 5 times since then (well, one a handful of edits before, but I'd already knew I was going to concede), despite there being over 200 prods in that period of time. Of those 5, 3 articles still stand, 1 had significant debate by others at AFD, and the 5th did have some sources that went towards establishing GNG. Also see my response to Giant Snowman below. Don't my actions since March 23rd mean that I had listened to complaints? It doesn't mean I'm infallible, but how am I deleting prods en masse? Nfitz (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Again, please don't ping me, there is no need. The examples you have stated are (unfortunately) in the minority and I have provided examples of very recent PROD removals that resulted in 'delete' at AFD -
  Andrew Stone (footballer). I cannot provide any more because you do not seem to have removed any more PRODs. So, as far as I can tell, 100% of the PRODs removed after 24 March have had articles deleted... GiantSnowman
  07:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't ping you. Hang on, so your case that I ignored our earlier discussion and am deleting prods on mass is entirely predicated on TWO prod removals? One of which at least had some debatable GNG content, and the other was subject to some debate by OTHERS at AFD? Though you are mistakened. You are mistaken though, I have removed other prods since then. I agreed to be a bit more discerning about my prod removals and provide a summary at 14:36 UTC on March 23rd. Shortly beforehand (5 edits) I did remove the prod for
  WP:ANI for mass deletions of prods, but how is 4 (or 5) out of 200 mass deletions? I conceded the argument over 3 weeks ago. My prod removal since then shows that I took it seriously, and have changed how I am editing. So why are we here? Nfitz (talk
  ) 02:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• You did - every time you link to a username, it gives that editor a notification. It's annoying. Back on topic - the only 'debate' that was had was a few editor trying to justify speculation and
  WP:CRYSTALBALLERY, and myself and other editors trying to explain why you were wrong. Guess who the closing admin decided had the stronger argument? So of the 4 PRODs you have removed, 2 have been deleted. Have the other 2 been sent to AFD and kept? If not it's irrelevant, it doesn't necessarily mean they are notable and your PROD removal was correct, it just means someone hasn't noticed. GiantSnowman
  09:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Andrew Stone (footballer)? Nfitz (talk
  ) 13:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Both of those were poor closes and would almost certainly have been reversed if anyone could have been bothered to take them to WP:DRV. WP:CRYSTAL is quite clear, and the closing admin should not have used WP:IAR to override consensus. Your point? Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• My point is that if I'm deprodding the occasional article on the same basis that Admin's and other editors are using, that while these handful of prod removals might disagree with some people, they are not that extreme. Your are correct.
  WP:NORUSH on how to deal with such articles that frequently get created at the beginning of the season, as players that have never played professionally previously are signed to the first team. Nfitz (talk
  ) 21:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hyland is now notable - but the AFD close was still poor. However Iheanacho is not notable and the close was AWFUL - I will be taking to DRV. GiantSnowman 09:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose prod ban at present, could be convinced otherwise in the future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per the very concept of PROD. PROD is about uncontested deletions. If this guy contests them, no matter what, then they are no more "uncontested". If he was just mass-removing PRODs as soon as they pop out, for the lulz, then maybe we could have a case. But he seems to give reasons for it: weak reasons, but reasons. We can't just say "I don't like what this guy contests, many of us wouldn't contest them, so ban him from PROD". This is enforcing groupthink. All the guy is doing is forcing us to discuss articles before deleting them; I would say this is a definite improvement for the encyclopedia.--cyclopia^speak! 08:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose AfD has 'original jurisdiction' as it were, over this process, the very nature of the PROD process is a way to lighten the load on AfD not create an ironclad 'CSD lite' category of deletion requests. dePRODing qua dePRODing cannot be disruptive. The disruption then, cannot lie in the action itself (as other disruptive acts, cf. vandalism, can) but only in the intention. I see nothing here that points to malicious intent regarding the dePRODings, so there is nothing actionable here. Crazynas ^t 12:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose looking at his deleted contributions in the last month he clearly isn't mass deprodding articles at present. Whatever discussions took place after the 19th March they seem to have worked and this attempt to take things further is unnecessary and unhelpful. ϢereSpielChequers 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WereSpielChequers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Been stalking this thread for a while, so I believe I have a handle on the arguments. The issue is not a breach of procedure, but irritation by some in the community. No WP breach has been committed, as far as I can see. Strongly concur with the various arguments encapsulated in the above 4 opposes.
  talk
  ) 01:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is no policy violation whatsoever. If you don't like the reasons for a dePROD, just AFD the article and if your reasons are valid the article will be deleted in a week, I can't see where the issue is. Cavarrone 05:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No idea which noticeboard, if any, is the best for this, so here goes...

Many of you are probably aware of the low quality edits that plague the articles on Indian villages. Looking at a few, I noticed a very strange pattern of the same mistakes being added to different articles by different people. It made me wonder whether this is some translation tool problem, some "template" problem, sockpuppetry, or anything else.

The pattern which I first noticed (there are many other similarities as well) was "is bounded by by" (sic!), like in:

• Kodair, added 9 March 2014 by 96.231.58.45
• Vaikom Taluk, added 16 June 2013 by User:Praanthan
• Zarugumilli, added 15 April 2014 by 106.51.102.78
• Shangus, added 16 January 2014 by User:Sauood07
• Husnabad, added 4 October 2013 by 49.204.91.242
• Tadoor, added 26 August 2013 by User:Vij7411
• Pattan, added 8 February 2014 by User:My231736

This is very similar to many other articles about the same subject where the text "is surrounded by" is used instead of "is bounded by by", but with the same pattern otherwise (e.g. Piprali, Matanhail, Dahina, ...). Looking further back, I find suspicious articles like Gangesvara Siva Temple (20 September 2011, User:Ti era23) and Belesvara Siva Temple (30 August 2011, User:Lord Krsna), Lakhesvara Siva Temple (19 September 2011, User:Rksarangi) where the latter two show all characteristics of a copy-paste from outside Wikipedia gone wrong...

Has anyone any ideas, experience, ... about what is going on here, and whether any action (apart from cleanup of course) needs to be taken? There may be a good explanation, but I fear that we are hosting many copyvios imported through poor translations tools, and the number of editors involved is also very strange...

I think it may be worth letting the

Indian Wikiproject know; particularly on the Noticeboard for India-related topics. Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, the former functionary (YellowMonkey) who has had the most experience in dealing with socks in this area and who managed these issues well is no longer editing Wikipedia. I think your fears may be justified, and that there is also a lot of original research included in some areas of those articles, but best to await confirmation from another editor to be safe. Ncmvocalist (talk

) 15:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I dropped a note at

Fram (talk

) 06:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The text for Zarugumilli is copied from [28]. I guess there has been more copying going on. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, thanks, I see that e.g.

Fram (talk

) 13:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps those articles can be turned into stubs with just a couple of lines establishing their notability? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge backlog at

It's been much worse in the past but we could always do with more admins patrolling there, it's like some see it as AIV's far less interesting brother.

tutterMouse (talk

) 17:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I put a pretty good dent in them, someone else might want to fill in the gaps. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is to advise the community that I am about to block the following accounts indefinitely for sockpuppetry:

• talk · contribs
  )
• Hierophant443 (talk · contribs)
• Raebodep1962 (talk · contribs)

The accounts were brought to my attention by an experienced user with sufficient evidence to run a check and carry out additional investigations. The following findings should be reviewed more closely by the community:

• Five instances where the ColonelHenry and Hierophant443 accounts both participated in the same AFD[29]; administrators encouraged to review the results and determine if consensus would have been altered.
• Edits by Raebodep1962 - a new account created only 4 days ago - required suppression due to severe BLP violations of poorly sourced libellous allegations
• Serious questions about the veracity of the article Order of the Bull's Blood
• ColonelHenry, on creating the account, confirms that he had a prior account. This account has been identified, and was associated in its earliest editing with another hoax article in 2004

Because of this, it is important to review at least all article creations by these editors, as well as edits to BLPs. This is a lot of editing to review, and the community's assistance is really needed here.

Note that I will be going offline shortly; however, my findings have been verified by another checkuser and shared with several others. Risker (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note: blocks now complete, I wanted to include the diff of this posting in the block log. The ColonelHenry and Hierophant443 accounts have been advised of the block and instructed to post any statement on their talk page; should they do so, it may be useful to transclude their comments to this section. Risker (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I can confirm that there is an unambiguous match between the three accounts, and it is plain to see that ColonelHenry and Hierophant443 have been used contrary to
  policy. ​—DoRD (talk
  )​ 12:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just completed an examination of the article Order of the Bull's Blood. It was entirely composed of misrepresented or completely unverifiable sources. Now reduced to the only directly verifiable sourced information (check the article's history for a step-by-step record), it's only two sentences long and indicates that the "society" was demonstrably a hoax. — Scott • talk 14:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I stopped short of taking the article to AfD as well, but I do think that it should be subject to a deletion discussion. — Scott • talk 16:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have reviewed all the AfDs and decided to restore The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture. Please see the AfD for a (brief) rationale, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture. (We'll wait for the next AfD nomination for this article--if you do, please have the courtesy of notifying DGG.) The rest look fine, as in, they'd be concluded the same without the socking. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• While the FAC process involves oftentimes more than a dozen editors and it's unlikely that hoax material or bad sourcing or other issues would have slipped through, ColonelHenry was the nominator of seven FA's and I didn't count the number of GA's....great.--MONGO 16:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• CH currently has another article posted at FAC, awaiting comments....unless someone wants to grab the helm here it should be withdrawn.--MONGO 16:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC) CH apparently self requested the article be removed from consideration.--MONGO 01:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think that he necessarily mixed up hoaxing with article reviewing, but to be honest, I think he was a terrible reviewer, as Talk:Pedra da Gávea#Comments from others and the ANI discussion linked to therein would show. If that was representative of his work, I would certainly suggest that it's re-examined. — Scott • talk 16:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of self-nominations, articles created and substantively written by him, with many in the field of Rutgers University history (His user name is one of the founders of the university) This one is also open (again, almost solely written by him) and has an unfortunate comment about "promoting an inaccuracy--something I am loathe to do". __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Risker and Scott I have emailed you both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Question: Was the original, pre-ColonelHenry account already indef blocked? If not, should it be? BMK (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO, if it is not blocked, it should be. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Upon reflection, I don't think blocking the old account is necessary. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe Risker did not mention it above because it was an account where RTV was exercised. I'm also not going to link to it directly because I'm uncertain of how to proceed in the case of user abuse following an earlier privacy request, but it's very quickly revealed by looking at the history of the hoax articles. Anyone reading this, remove my comment if you think I've gone too far, but I can't imagine that it's going to stay secret for long. — Scott • talk 16:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

An RTV is not legitimate when the editor returns. Returning to editing abrogates the non-vanished editor's right to privacy, so the vanished user name should be re-named back to what it was. There are also some obvious throw-away accounts connected to the editing of the hoax article. I assume they're all too old to connect to ColonelHenry via CU, unfortunately. BMK (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but I've dropped a note at

WP:BN asking for some bureaucrat opinions on the topic here. — Scott • talk

18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It would nullify his courtesy vanishing. Any crat is welcome to reverse the vanishing. I won't be able to get to it for about 8 hours. (Nihonjoe using his public machine account). Joeatworknotsecure (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be highly appropriate for that to be done. What ColonelHenry did is, by far, the worst thing one can do to damage Wikipedia. Vandals add "penis" and "poop" to articles, and our readers will be annoyed, but they know it's not supposed to be there. However, a hoax article which looks well-documented is a direct stab at our credibility. If I can indulge in a bit of hyperbole, creating well-made hoax articles should be considered to be our equivalent of

High treason

, and the perpetrator deserves no sympathy or quarter from us. We don't do punishment, but we do protect the project from damage, and tracking what this person did and under what names will certainly help in protecting the project from him in the future. To me, he went away a little too easily to believe that there aren't still other accounts connected to him that are operational, which is good reason to indef block the throwaway accounts from the hoax:

• LoyalSon (talk · contribs · logs) - created 13 May 2007, first edit 13 May 2007, last edit 19 October 2007, all edits related to subject
• Lodge443 (talk · contribs · logs) - created 9 April 2007, first edit 9 April 2007, last edit 21 April 2010, all edits related to subject (in the Daily Princetonian article, "Lodge443" is given as an alias for the supposed secret society)
• ResearchRU (talk · contribs · logs) - created 11 April 2010, first edit 11 April 2010, last edit 14 April 2010, both edits to hoax article (My error - BMK (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC))
• Anonymous1900 (talk · contribs · logs) - created 14 April 2010, first edit 14 April 2010, last edit 1 July 2010, all edits related

BMK (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree although I wouldn't use the words high treason. But I've believed for a while that there are well-established editors who have socks. It's just so easy to create faux accounts and if an editor with a particular reputation wants to edit without the accompanying baggage, it's likely they will get away with it unless it is editing a high profile or controversial article. Of course, creating hoax articles with false sources goes way beyond creating a sock and merits the highest rebuke.

But, this is not an accusation because CU requires demonstrable proof which I don't have and pursuing sock accounts is not how I want to spend my time here. But thanks to Risker and DoRD for a job well done. I hope you checked for sleeper accounts as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank checkusers Risker and DoRD for the job they've done here, as well as Scott for cleaning up the "Bull's Blood" article. Is there any further investigative work that can be done to uncover the full extent of abuse over the past several years? Kurtis ^(talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

ColonelHenry's previous account was

• Brotherhood of the Golden Dagger (2004, converted to redirect then deleted in 2005)
• Newcastle Group (2004, AfD 2005)
• Christopher D. Thieme (2005, AfD 2005)

and the probable sockpuppets:

• PtonJew06 (talk · contribs · logs)
• 4.188.213.114 (talk · contribs · logs)
• 66.171.124.70 (talk · contribs · logs)

— Scott • talk 20:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC) More:

• 174.57.57.45 (talk · contribs · logs)
• BlackBaron (talk · contribs · logs)
• CDThieme (talk · contribs · logs)

— Scott • talk 18:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think you can add 4.188.213.145 (talk · contribs · logs) who vouched for the existence of the Newcastle Group and Christopher D. Thieme in the AfDs. BMK (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Interestingly, changing a user's name does not change their sigs in previous comments, so in the AfD for Christopher D. Thieme, linked above, you'll find a comment from signed by "ExplorerCDT", who we know to be ColonelHenry, in which he claims to be Christopher D. Thieme, but he also claims that the 4.188 IPs are "stalkers". BMK (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - RTV will remove you from the gaze of search engines, but it provides no barrier to any human - even if the renaming log entries are deleted, prior talk page contributions (and file uploads) permanently record user names. If Flow ever becomes a reality, that'll no longer be the case for discussions; but there are definitely arguments for and against that being a good thing. — Scott • talk 11:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I am loathe to answer this because I really don't understand exactly how the rules about "outing" work. BMK (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand that.

WP:RTV is for people who leave, not people who stick around to insert hoaxes.__ E L A Q U E A T E

23:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I've been here a pretty long time, and I really, honestly do not understand at all what is and isn't permitted under the outing policy, or at least how it has been enforced. Given that, I've got to be reticent, as I have no desire to take a block for outing. BMK (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Two things; I can confirm what the two checkusers above have already stated. Secondly, can we possibly set up a formal
  WP:SPI case to track this one. I suspect that rabbit hole goes very deep indeed, so to speak, and that this editor will likely be back again and again. It will be useful to collate and track this stuff, as it clearly goes back almost ten years - Alison ^❤
  20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (on my cell here)

(1) agree, (2) facepalm.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I went to check, and found a previous CU request, since deleted. Restoring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColonelHenry for community review. I've not looked at it in detail yet, but there may be previous socks - Alison ^❤ 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I find it interesting (or ironic) that Colonel Henry was working on the article on
  Robert Clark Young. He noted on his User page that he had an article about himself on Wikipedia (written by others), maybe that could be checked as well although I don't know if that would be considered outing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}
  21:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Are you thinking that ColonelHenry is the return of Qworty? I would be surprised if that was true, since I don't see any connection between Robert Clark Young and Rutgers, which I would expect to be the case. So, "ironic" is probably correct. BMK (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• I have removed the parts of the Young biography that were of interest to ColonelHenry. I removed the bit about a documentary showing Young caring for his elderly parents, as the sources were all primary and failed to show the documentary was important. I also removed a bunch of arguments against Brad Vice, Young's nemesis, arguments that had nothing to do with Young. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• ColonelHenry appears to have been inserting references into articles to "unpublished works" by either an alias of himself, or a family member: Brau Kettle, Casper Shafer, Lake Owassa, Minisink. This is a continuation of similar behavior as ExplorerCDT, e.g. Sussex County, New Jersey. It seems to me that we're going to have to examine his edits in detail. — Scott • talk 22:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed those insertions from those articles. They may well be legitimate, but since they are all unpublished, there's no easy way to verify them, so removal would seem to be the best action. BMK (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What does the community think about creating a Suspected hoax article tag. "Volunteers are checking it's veracity" type wording. At least it looks better and shows we are on the case as an issue to casual and first time users. There may be a significant number out there. Any work ever been done on hoax article durations before being discovered, frequency, etc?

talk

) 23:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is some discussion in Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not exactly what you're envisioning, but there is a {{hoax}} template. Deor (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• There shall be no gravedancing and all, but isn't it nice that he gets to put "retired" on his talk page as if it were voluntary? Drmies (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The very first edit summary for ColonelHenry describes him as coming off of a "five-year hiatus", so it's probably well within thematic resonance.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    •  Like
• I also suspect Fran Hetzner. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No surviving contributions of any substance from this account, so probably a moot point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Since nobody else will mention it: it looks as if all this was started by a blog on an external site, which I will not name, or link to, in trembling fear for my wiki-life. ;P I will, however, give my thanks to the "March Hare" for a very interesting blog. Also, according to the comments on that blog, there are several more named socks/IPs. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have some firsthand experience with that. Apparently, it's fine to use a WO blog post to improve or correct a situation in WP as long as you don't actually link to it or even mention it. One of the weird things about the culture of this place. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

List of socks

I agree with Alison above that this likely goes deeper than we think, and so I have created Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColonelHenry and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColonelHenry to aid us. GiantSnowman 09:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don´t think the Fran Hetzner-account is one of his socks. More likely to be some COI editor. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to remove, I only tagged following comments from @Drmies: above. GiantSnowman 10:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Huldra, so de-tagged it. — Scott • talk 13:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Scott: - see also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of CDThieme, seems to be a list of socks of a sock account from 2008... GiantSnowman 18:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just found these.

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of CDThieme
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive56#CDThieme sockpuppetry

— Scott • talk 18:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to move any from this new (or old...) category to the ColonelHenry one, unless you think it's wise? But I've turned it into a subcat anyway, so it's still linked. GiantSnowman 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That works for me, but I have virtually zilch experience of working in this particular admin area. I'm sure if anyone knows better they can fix it. — Scott • talk 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So, if I have this straight, in terms of primary accounts, we've got:

• ExplorerCDT (now Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32) - from September 2004 to February 2007, who uploaded images as theirs using the RL name
• CDThieme - from April 2005 to October 2006
• (5 year gap - presumably while the RL person was otherwise engaged with the State of New Jersey)
• ColonelHenry - from May 2012 to April 2014

then there are 2 confirmed sockpuppets and 17 about 16 (?) suspected sockpuppets connected to the 3 accounts.

@GiantSnowman: My suggestion would be to do away with the secondary layer and list all the suspected sockpuppets under ColonelHenry. It seems confusing to me as I went through it just now. BMK (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive56#CDThieme sockpuppetry. GiantSnowman 20:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What the hell did I just read? He was proven to have vote stacked, and all he got at the time was a slap on the wrist? Kurtis ^(talk) 12:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Community ban proposal