Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive187

Possible wikistalker

Sorry, but just as a follow up: forget about the wikistalking for the moment; one of the changes that he's insisting on is the insertion of a link to a pornographic website ([18]). I'd removed this from the references section before he'd arrived, but he's now inserting it into the text. It's unnecessary, and there's no indication that it doesn't lead to a document giving an account of the porn-related usage of "teenybopper". What's the policy on such links? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty suspect judgement to me - you can find porno sites with all sorts of names - it does not mean the term is widely in use in that manner. --Fredrick day 13:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is clearly spam-tastic and should go. - brenneman 13:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I think that he's stopped trying to replace the link, but I'll keep an eye on it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:213.249.130.70

• Blocked, look out for reappearances with other IPs. I'll semiprotect the articles if necessary. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Further on the Professor Tim Pierce situation

Seconded. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{09:12, Saturday, January 27 2007}

For my part, I think this issue to have been entirely overblown, and I surely can't understand editors' being so irked by a relatively innocuous incitement to vandalism, but I don't think Jimbo's upbraiding of Zoe to be particularly constructive. Zoe appears to have made her role as a "private citizen" (as against an official representative of the Foundation) exceedingly clear in her correspondences (I may have misstated the case a bit; see

referencing an editor rather than her conduct and, even as I might agree with his description of this situation, I can't help but understand it has high-handed. Joe

20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then." Well that's nice. He or Jimbo should have told Zoe that. It isn't like Mr. Pierce didn't know Zoe was writing to him. No offense, but that lack of communication here from the WMF end is a much bigger problem than Zoe's conduct. If she'd been informed, I doubt she would of continued to pursue this. Someone needs to apologize to her for not letting her know what was going on. Nor was the hostility "random" (AGF Jimbo?). Vandalism is not a "random" subject around here. pschemp | talk 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, endorse a lot of that from Joe. Quite simply, do we have a guarantee that this will not happen again? If so, then this whole thing can be archived and forgotten.

Deletion!

20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Guarantee from whom? Mr Pierce or Zoe? (That's a rhetorical question). Carcharoth 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The voice of reason. This was massively, massively inappropriate. Hopefully all concerned are suitably chastened and that's the end of it. It seems like the University saw this complaint for the spurious nonsense that it was, but if not I hope Jimbo has attempted to use his influence to make right any damage done to Mr. Pierce's reputation.

✉

21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe says above that Zoe made her role as a 'private citizen' clear in her messages; actually I think it was quite the opposite from her first letter. I would never think to sign a message "Wikipedia system administrator" (system administrator?) and, even if we in the Wikipedia world know that 'admin' doesn't imply action associated with the Foundation, there's no reason to suppose that Mr. Pierce would have known that. That said, pschemp is right that if the situation had already been resolved, a note to that effect in the original thread would likely have preempted all of this. Opabinia regalis 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I based that comment on a review of only some of the correspondence, and in my cursory review I somehow missed "Wikipedia system administrator". Though I don't know that one would have inferred from Zoe's note that she was writing in some official capacity, I readily concede that my initial characterization was not quite accurate. To the extent that Jimbo's comments were restricted to Zoe's ostensibly acting as a Foundation representative, they were probably, as Conti observes, not inappropriate (at least in substance if not in tone); I do continue to think, though, that his comments were unnecessarily broad in scope. Joe 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

what? someone unconnected with Wikipedia would not infer that an email coming off someone identifing themselves as a XXXXX,XXXXX Wikipedia Systems Administrator was not actually from Wikipedia (and no I don't expect anyone not connected to the project to any distinction between this site and the actual foundation) - pull the other one. --Fredrick day 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm glad that it's resolved and we can all move on, I think it's important to note that there can be no doubt at all that Zoe's intentions were to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia, and that she would have dropped the matter immediately if either Jimbo had stated that the matter had been resolved or Mr Pierce had agreed not to do it again. I haven't involved myself with this topic so far, but I read various comments about trying to ruin a man and deprive him of his livelihood, etc., and it was obvious that Zoe was looking for a simple assurance that he didn't intend to give this assignment to any future students, and that he was refusing to give this assurance. Musical Linguist 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

She would have dropped it if Jimbo has stated it had been resolved? What about all the editors and admin who said "hold on a minute this is wrong" - right until the end, Zoe did not acknowledge any concern - she carried on in an entirely high-handed manner. She did not try to get any concensus about WHOM to e-mail or WHAT to email - she just want off as a loose cannon. ---- —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs

) 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Fred, you seem familiar somehow. Would we know you better under a different username? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a previous account - it was never blocked, warned or anything like that. I used my right to vanish and started again from scratch. All activity with the old account ceased before I started using this one, I have not edited any article that my old account did or anything of that natute to game the system. So the answer is "yes" and the answer to the second un-asked question is "no I'm not the sockpuppet of some banned user". --Fredrick day 10:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that if Jimbo had made it clear here that he'd taken care of it, Zoe (whose efforts in this matter I thoroughly applaud) wouldn't have felt compelled to pursue it. "Random hostility" isn't a good description of her actions at all. Her actions were neither random (Pierce fired the first salvo here) nor hostile (she made a good-faith effort to resolve it directly with Pierce in a way that protected Wikipedia from future attacks). Asking her to stop is completely within Jimbo's rights, but let's not pillory her for actions that a lot of experienced users and admins supported. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that settles that, then. Go vandalize all you want, nobody at Wikipedia gives a flying fig. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to go OTT. We deal with vandalism all the time. It's not a big problem. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I think the main point here is that some things just do not rightly fall under the purvey of editors and admins. What should have happened once the Pierce incident was discovered was to report it to Brad and Jimbo. There is a time to "know your role" and not overreach it. There is a time to work through and under authority. This was one of them. No blame, just live and learn. CyberAnth 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Particularly the learning bit. Please let's not forget this incident when something similar happens again in the future. Let's hope that individual admins won't be so quick to take certain actions upon themselves, and let's hope that there is better communication and understanding all round between admins and the WMF staff.

WP:JIMBO, here are the details of the resolution. —xyzzy_n

00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This Professor sounds real childish anyway - best not rise to his bait. LuciferMorgan 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What an odd statement. We are talking about a guy who has been hounded for several days, has been accused- totally without any justification whatsoever- of committing a crime, and seems ultimately to have (bizarrely) been threatened with having the G-Men sicced on him! All this for setting a well-intentioned, albeit perhaps a little clumsy, class assignment with a very important and worthwhile aim (and, let us hope, effect). I am fed up with seeing this guy unfairly maligned when he has done absolutely nothing wrong. It strikes me that it is not he that has acted childishly in this scenario. Jimbo has handled the situation as it should have always been handled- sensibly, proportionately, and in an adult fashion. Let that be the end of it. Badgerpatrol 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears from her talkpage that Zoe has now left the building. --Fredrick day 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does. And that's a big loss. She was (is) one of the best we've got. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Discussion

I sent an email to the Northern Illinois University Public Affairs people concerning Professor Tim Pierce's assigning Wikipedia vandalism to his students, and did not receive a response to that one, nor to the subsequent one. When I sent a third, indicating that I would be contacting the press if they did not get back to me by the end of day Friday, Melanie Magara, Assistant Vice President for Public Affairs, finally contacted me, and indicated that I should contact the Ethics people in their legal department. That is my next move. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed this one. Link(s) to some history would be appreciated, mostly for curiosity's sake. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As of now, it’s right at the top of this page, but here is a permanent link, anyway. —xyzzy_n 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, thanks. I did a ctrl-f for that but couldn't find it. Must have mistyped. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

wow - what are we trying to do here? get a guy sacked? Flogged in the streets? he's stopped already hasn't he? we don't hound other vandals do we? This is a man's life you are trying to fuck up here, over a few poxy edits? This is way out of line. --Fredrick day 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If he refuses to respond to emails. This is a bit harsh, but ignoring Zoe's emails is no good either. 128.118.60.168 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

He didn't refuse to respond to my emails, in fact he has responded to every one I sent. It was the PR department who wouldn't respond. But he has never said that he wont' do it again. In addition, destruction of a privately-owned website is a federal offense. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

if you read it - he did (and I bet at this point, he wish he'd never bothered - by the way did anyone inform him that his answers and I guess what he assumed to private emails would be posted all over wikipedia?), his university did not. --Fredrick day 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is here. Seems to me like a fairly useful and sensible exercise, providing- as he states in the quote above- he undertook to revert all the instances of vandalism himself if it wasn't otherwise done. I also have seen plenty of instances where Wikipedia is used as a citation in student work, or where Wikipedia-derived information is included uncited. It's completely unacceptable, as I think everyone here realises. There are other ways to make this point, but this is a reasonable one in my view (provided no lasting damage is done). Contacting university authorities (who presumably will take no action anyway- what exactly is he supposed to have done wrong, or even contrary to academic regulations?) or the press (who surely are also unlikely to be interested in this non-story) is way, way over the top. Let's keep a sense of perspective. Badgerpatrol 23:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally support taking this to the press, mainly because I don't feel any real action is going to be taken otherwise. Don't vandalize unless you're happy to appear in the news next day.

Yuser31415 (Editor review two!)

23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the first section on this matter, the prof had not reverted all the vandalism. Anyway, the issue for us should be that of all the things that can be done on Wikipedia, the students were effectively encouraged to stay away from it except for vandalism. Personally, I think that’s a bad perspective and it is good to protest against it being taught. —xyzzy_n 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow - this is getting totally out of line - so blocks are preventive not punitive but hey by the way, we reserve the right to fuck you over in real life (punitive). He did wrong, he said he was sorry, I would guess he's told the students to stop doing this. Don't you think he gets it? that it was wrong. Isn't that where the community normally stops? the user admits he did wrong and stops his actions (in this case encouraging others to do such edits to wikipedia). At that point, we normally allow registered users to carry on their business - but since we have his name and address, we are going to drive the point home? Have a little power trip? --Fredrick day 23:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe can probably clarify this, but my impression was he only apologised for the vandalism that he hadn’t reverted himself and that he did not think he did anything wrong in general. (Corollary: he’s going to do the same thing next year.) —xyzzy_n 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that getting him into trouble punatively is really an answer, but that he and/or his university to make a statement that it's not cool to vandalize Wikipedia as a class assignment (and they won't do it again) might be a more worthwhile and positive focus. Bitnine 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is completely fine with me. I just want a promise not to do it again, and an understanding as to why it was wrong. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Off him? So if you are in conversation with him, why did you feel the need to bring in the wider university? Why take that step when there is still conversation going on. --Fredrick day 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "off him". I took it further because he refused to concede that he might be wrong, and also refused to concede that he would not do it again. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read this entire thread and the earlier one and nowhere do I see that this professor has apologized. From Zoe's description, his response to feedback was to defend the vandalism. I'm not sure how many e-mails Zoe has traded (three tries seems like an appropriate number), but if he proves to be that resistant to input I see nothing wrong with contacting the university's student newspaper. It seems the instructor's aim was to raise awareness about Wikipedia's level of reliability. A good investigative article could do that on a university-wide level as well as explore some relevant questions about academic ethics. Despite what some respondants have posted, this would be preventative rather than punitive: unless some meaningful consequence arises he may repeat the assignment next semester or recommend it to his colleagues. If an individual vandalizes Wikipedia privately then of course we handle it privately, yet he has made an academic assignment of vandalizing Wikipedia - and from the threads I read he did not even undo all the damage that assignment had caused. That teaches his students to violate site policies. Some student journalists could impart a better corrective lesson. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

the "story" here is the one all the sites that watch wikipedia will pick up on - "Wikipedia tries to run man's career off the road". --Fredrick day 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. It will be that a professor, a public employee, advocates vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

After this display, I'll be advocating to students and staff at my place not to come near this place with a ten-foot pole. --Fredrick day 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Frederick, I cannot tell if you are the same person as the professor, but if you are, if you would come clean at this point and say, "sorry, I won't do it again", it looks to me like Zoe, et al. would be backing off quite quickly. That's all they're asking for. No need to eat crow and play mr. penitent: just say, "I won't do it again". That will suffice. 128.118.106.28 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I live in the UK, I'd ask you keep your half-ass sherlock holmes act to yourself. --Fredrick day 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you aren't the professor: I must say, I would be appalled if a professor at my university gave me the assignment to vandalize out of some vindictive annoyance at Wikipedia (and, such professors do exist: they hate seeing it cited in papers, and hate it being plagiarized in papers even more). And, upon being contacted, if he refused to stop, I see no problem whatsoever with contacting the school paper. In other words, if you don't think what you did was wrong, then it won't be a problem if everyone knows about it, right? 128.118.106.28 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He did not encourage vandalism out of vindictive annoyance. He did it to demonstrate to his students how unreliable Wikipedia is as a source. If a student found a piece of paper in the street with "the Moon is made of cheese" written on it, surely you would accept that it is not wise to cite that as a source in their next planetary science essay. Wikipedia is a cut above that, but the same principle applies. No student should ever cite Wikipedia in any of their work nor rely upon it any way, unless the topic at hand is Wikipedia itself or something closely related. Teachers who hate seeing it cited in papers and hate seeing it plagiarised are simply doing their job effectively. Badgerpatrol 12:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the professor in question should make clear he won't do this again, I don't think having Wikipedia editors aggressively demanding a grovelling apology is the right way to go. Any demands should come from our version of 'official'. ie. the WMF office. I personally would be offended if one of the millions of Wikipedia editors took it on themselves to write to me in a situation like this. Apologies if Zoe was acting in some official capacity, but I haven't seen any indication of this so far. Carcharoth 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, no need for a grovelling apology: just, "I won't do it again, I didn't realize it would be that big a deal; I'm a good guy deep down, and I really have everyone's best intention in mind". That's all. Perhaps, Zoe could send another email to him before going to the newspaper, though, relating this. 128.118.106.28 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Pierce is *not* a professor!

Some quick googling reveals that Tim Pierce holds the rank of instructor, and his highest degree is an M.A. This guy isn't a professor, he's a graduate student, with probably less than two years of teaching experience. I think siccing the press on him is a bit heavy-handed, and very likely could have negative effects on his career. He doesn't have the protection of tenure, or even of being a hired employee--he's still a student. Even if Zoe's intent isn't punitive, this situation may very easily result in a punitive effect upon Mr. Pierce.

Furthermore, this seems like a disproportionate response to someone's first offense. I don't think it's normal to contact people's real-life employers for on-wiki offenses; it certainly doesn't seem to me like it should be done unless there's an ongoing pattern of abuse. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that latter part is so cut and dry in this case. Not only are we talking about an employer, but also a body whose members were instructed and proceeded to perform vandalism. If it were just Mr. Pierce himself performing vandalism, I would be in complete agreement. That being said, I think that quickly seeking a promise that he's not going to do this again is probably the best solution to sate all parties involved. Bitnine 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets just range-block the school for a week if it happens again and for each further offence escalate the block. If the school is unwilling to deal with this internally then any activity from the school is a liability. Trying to send the media after him... is...well... Overzealous. ---

WRE

) 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

An "instructor" is often a non-tenure track teaching position existing at many colleges where the number of classes being taught is larger than can be reasonable covered by a department's normal faculty. He is not listed as graduate student, and most likely this is his full-time career. 128.32.95.83 00:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's possible, but "instructor" is also a title given to graduate students who have received an MA and are working on their PhD. Pierce got his MA from NIU, so I think it's quite possible he's a PhD student. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Google suggests he's been an instructor for at least 8 years. (bottom of page) 128.32.95.83 01:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I need to work on my google-fu. NIU doesn't even grant a PhD in communications. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's Henningsen's page, not Pierce's page. Peirce has his name on the bottom, as 'web dude'. Let's be real careful here. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether Pierce is a prof or a grad student isn't really that relevant. The relevant issue is whether Wikipedia benefits by responding in this fashion. I'm not sure if it does. If we were dealing with large scale or organized vandalism it might make sense. The only argument that might support continued pursuit is that we have had so many of these sorts of instances that it might make sense to make an example of one to deter future problems. However, given that all of these idiots seem to be unaware of almost any previous attempts to do what they've done (and some seem to think of themselves as frightfully clever) I doubt any teacher or prof will be aware of this event occuring even if we get this guy humiliated/sacked/disciplined/reprimanded/whatevered. All of that said, a promise that he isn't going to do this again is highly reasonable to work for, and going to the student paper if necessary to get that sort of statement out of him strikes me as fine. JoshuaZ 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's somewhat important to note that Pierce isn't a professor, simply because the employment status of adjunct faculty is often tenuous--their contracts are often year to year, or even semester to semester. Adjuncts who find their way into the news--even the campus paper--for anything "controversial" often find that their contracts aren't renewed. It's more difficult for professors to lose their jobs. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The situation is not that this person vandalized Wikipedia, it is that he made a classroom assignment in a mandatory course that the students in the class also vandalize Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone attempted to contact Henningsen? Seems Henningsen's in a supervisory position, relative to Pierce. I'd suggest that you escalte SLOWLY and judiciously, hitting each step. Direct supervisor, department, dean, and so on. The more steps you take, the better the odds you'll find a sympathetic ear, or hit the 'bull**** ceiling', that is, the point where someone's got too much to do to put up with too much hassle, and calls Pierce on the carpet. As other editors have said, 'Wikipedia ruins Journalism Professor's Career' is how this will play out in the media. 'Internet Nerds versus Student Nerds'. That's the angle that will be portrayed, if anyone in the media bothers to care at all on the slowest news day around. If a button click can undo it, no one will see it a horrible vandalism. I suggest bringing this to Henningsen. He was an attorney, per that page. I suspect he understands that incitement and conspiracy to vandalize are more serious than the idle hands of teens at home. That this was done under the auspices of NIU, and more specifically, where he should've caught the problem, are far more important. Try him before running to the biggest names at NIU. Just one editor's view. (Disclaimer - I am not an Admin. I am familiar with academia.) ThuranX 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're concluding that Henningsen is in a supervisory role because of his webpage, but that page hasn't been updated since 1999. A look at NIU's course schedule shows that Pierce is teaching some sections of COMS 100, an intro-level course that has tons of sections; this is the course where students got the vandalism assignment, per this post. The director of the COMS 100 course is Ferald Bryan. It might be productive to contact Prof. Bryan, I'd certainly prefer that step to contacting the media.

(If this post is giving out too much personal info, please remove it.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do worry that we might be relying too much on one post. I understand other people have more information, having been in direct contact with NIU. Just be careful everyone, that's all. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Right after this started (Jan 20), I contacted the department chair and assistant chair and Prof Bryan and asked them to investigate. They responded. They're aware. Georgewilliamherbert 04:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, might you be so kind as to provide your real world identity and location so that Mr. Pierce can further pursue this matter with you? Likewise for Zoe and anyone else involved in this cowardly and disgraceful series of actions. Life isn't a game, folks. Hiding behind our pseuds, we're going to take this guy down? One of the very academics upon whom we rely for our best material? Were I Mr. Pierce, and I lost my job due to this, I would strongly consider further action. Wouldn't you? It's an unforgivable lapse of judgement to consider the vandalism of a few articles - an everyday occurance - to merit this kind of action. Simply unforgivable. Decisive action is in order.Proabivouac 11:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on assuming good faith there, Probavouac. In order:

• I provided that info to Pierce, his dept chair and assistant chair and Prof Bryan when I contacted them.
• I made no assumption of the accuracy of the first report and asked them not to, either; I asked them to investigate and stated that I took the claimed incident as a serious abuse by someone. I was rather explicit in saying that I didn't know whether Pierce had done it and that they should not act until they were able to determine what happened. I also apologized in advance if turned out that this was a Joe job framing Pierce.

You're right, this is not a game. I don't take WP as a game, and the professors involved didn't take the incident as a game. I made a responsible and precise report of what was known (vandalism) and claimed without factual confirmation (Instructor Pierce behind it) and left it for them to determine the truth of the situation and handle it.

The email will be provided to anyone who wants to see a copy if there is any question as to its contents.

You owe me an apology. Georgewilliamherbert 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for having characterizing your actions as cowardly. However, they remain disgraceful.Proabivouac 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Proabivouac, that sounds perilously close to a legal threat. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why, are you planning on banning him? It sounds nothing of the sort to me. If I were Zoe's professor, I think I might make this play required reading for her. Let's everybody calm down and grow up- this is way over the top.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgerpatrol (talk • contribs)

Of course it's not, Zoe. I'm not Mr. Pierce, and I have no idea what if any action could be taken. It's simply very unwise to give people cause to consider it. I consider that the virtual nature of this box, wherein you do good work, has led you to lose perspective. This noticeboard must never be allowed to become a platform for organizing real-world harassment, however justified you think it may be.Proabivouac 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. This has gone beyond bizarre. There's no need to discuss there any further until there are more developments. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Pierce: Over the top

Is this a joke? I have seen people hand out revolting death threats on this encyclopaedia (including to me in the past) and escape with a slapped wrist. This guy sets a class assignment which may or may not have been misjudged (I personally still think it wasn't an unreasonable idea), with a good-faith intent (to demonstrate to his students the perfectly reasonable point that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for their assignments) and with, as it seems to me, zero lasting damage- and some people here appear keen to get him the sack! WTF?!!?? I'd like someone to point out to me exactly what academic regulations, or US laws, this chap has broken. If - as I strongly suspect- he hasn't broken or infringed any, what is the purpose of continuing this harassment? Badgerpatrol 09:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Academic regulations vary from institution to institution, though having worked in several myself, I do feel confident in saying that someone in a position of authority over students would never be permitted to encourage or require them to commit vandalism or other socially disruptive behaviour as part of a research experiment or a course assignment. Such a violation would be all the more severe if it weren't a single student who was incited to vandalize but rather an entire class—and keep in mind that first-year undegraduate classes, as the one in question presumably is, can have hundreds of students. (This is also the reason that many people here see this incident as worse than isolated legal or death threats from individuals. We are talking about an authority who has allegedly ordered a large number of people—possibly hundreds—to disrupt Wikipedia in contravention of its stated purpose and usage policies. I doubt that even the infamous GNAA vandal group had such human resources to draw upon, and it certainly didn't have the coercive authority to get them to do its bidding.)

With respect to your assertion that we are "harassing" the instructor, I don't see that anyone has. Certain editors have contacted those responsible for ensuring the instructor's compliance to academic codes, asking them to investigate the matter. That is, to find out if the version of events we have been presented with is accurate, and if so, to determine whether they constitute a violation of their academic code. —Psychonaut 10:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also worked in numerous academic institutions. This isn't academic misconduct by any measure that I have ever come across. As I note below, there is no comparison between actual, real-world vandalism and this kind of incident. Disrupting Wikipedia is not a crime, and I would not personally characterise it as necessarily socially disruptive, especially in this case where the intent was obviously good-faith. Unless he has a personal account, in which case he should probably receive an appropriate ban, this chap is not subject to Wikipedia's usage policies. With the best will in the world, anybody that sees this incident as worse than a death threat (= a highly illegal act, at least in the jurisdiction where I live, which carries a sentence of up to 10 years' in gaol) is an idiot. There is a real need to place this incident into perspective, I think. Your language- " coercive authority" " do its bidding" is faintly ridiculous. We are talking about a class assignment (I can't see how it could possibly have been an assessed class assignment either, so I presume it was basically presented to the students as a more-or-less optional exemplar exercise). One can only hope that his department will pretty much laugh off such a spurious complaint after a cursory examination. I might personally suggest alternative means to make his substantive point, but I would also pat him on the back for making it. If those students have come away from this with the lesson ingrained in them that Wiki is not a reliable source, and hopefully more generally an idea of the kinds of sources that they can or can't rely upon when forming opinions, then they will have learned pretty much the most important lesson that organised education can provide. If you are a decent tutor, then I suggest you ought to think the same thing. Badgerpatrol 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Having chased someone for academic misconduct before, I suspect that he's unlikely to be sacked for this, unless he's already on the nose anyway.

But imagine if a visual arts lecturer had forced his kids to spray paint railway trains, then what would your reaction be? If the claims made are true, then this isn't a person I'd want teaching any child of mine. If he accepts that he made a mistake and agrees not to do it again, then I'd be happy to see things left where they are. But if he plans to do it again, well, what would you recommend? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference between "vandalising" Wikipedia (can we even say it's vandlaism when the intent is good faith?) and spray painting a train is two-fold: 1) One cannot erase any damage made to a train by the simple expedient of pressing a couple of buttons; 2) Vandalising a train is emphatically against the law. Any academic who encouraged his students to break a just law would no-doubt be fired PDQ. There is absolutely no comparison between your analogies whatsoever. Once again, I'd like to hear someone explicitly state what academic regulations he's broken, and therefore exactly how this is "academic misconduct". Whether he is likely to get the bullet or not, it is completely unreasonable to harass this guy in this way. Badgerpatrol 10:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that all the damage has been undone? Even if every edit has been undone, which I think is unlikely, what if some of the students decided that they enjoyed vandalising? Not all damage that happens here can be undone by pushing buttons on a computer. And I'm still waiting to hear if he's going to do it again.

Here's a different metaphor for you. What if he told his students to go into the university library and replace some of the books there with fakes that look real but aren't. Some of them are complete nonsense. Some of them are believable, but still wrong. And no-one has any way of knowing if all of these fake books have been detected and removed. And he intends to do it again. What then? If you don't like the idea of reporting him to his boss, what do you suggest instead? Ignoring him and letting him do it twice a year for as long as he's teaching? You don't like our proposal, but do you have a better one? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the damage has been undone, but I am sure that all the damage can easily be undone and more importantly, if you look above you will see that Pierce himself undertook to undo any vandalism himself before he set the exercise. If some of the students decide that they want to vandalise Wikipedia for the sake of wanton destruction then they are exercising their own free will- he has not encouraged them to wantonly vandalise for amusement, but rather to reinforce a key educational principle. Some editors note above that they have in the past made "vandal" edits to Wikipedia in order to demonstrate the limitations of the medium, and then reverted themselves. This is the same, except on a larger scale. As for your other metaphor- that is a far more sensible one, but again you miss the key point which is that Pierce has kept track of all his students' edits and has undertaken to revert them himself if they or another party do not do so. If the library exercise you mention was a temporary one, with careful track kept of where the fake material was placed, to be collected later, then I wouldn't have any problem with it whatsoever. To be quite honest, my action in this case would be to email Pierce, set out your case, and suggest an alternative, less controversial means to make the same point (i.e. limited, supervised reverts). If he doesn't accept your case and wants to do it his way, then so be it, it's not for us to interfere with how he teaches his students. If the Wikipdia community decides it doesn't want him to do it, then that's fine too- block the relevent IPs. He is not burning down the Library of Alexandria- he is making a very valid point, namely that Wikipedia is not to be trusted. That's just good teaching. Badgerpatrol 11:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He has resolved to repair the damage, but that's a resolution we're pretty sure he can't keep. What he's doing may not be ilegal, but it's immoral. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

I find this completely outrageous, not on Mr. Pierce's part, but on ours. Get a grip, Zoe. I agree with 99% of what you do, but this is simply wrong. We are volunteers here, and we're threatening Mr. Pierce's career. As several people have observed, we show infinitely more kindness to outright trolls and serial vandals. All we've proven is that it's a fool who involves themselves in Wikipedia in any way using their real world identity. Most of the time, it's untracable, so our frustration builds. Now we have a target, so we fire away? Identifying himself was his real mistake, wasn't it? The correct solution is to identify the problem, rv the vandalism and walk away. Going after real world individuals is sometimes justifiable if they're similarly harassing other editors, but articles we can and should fix. The lack of empathy here I'd find morally disgusting if I didn't chalk it up clueless immaturity. We're going to have some fellow cursing Wikipedia for his lack of a job and a future while we're wanking over edit counts and AfD's. Who knows what will come of that? If we continue to give people very good reasons to hate Wikipedia, it will sooner or later come back to us one way or another. I think losing one's job qualifies as a very good reason.

I motion to 1) end this discussion forthwith, and to cease attacking and remove mention of Mr. Pierce from this site 2) temporarily block (preventatively, not punatively) any editors, admins or others, involved in harassing him 3) leave any further decisions to the office or to Mr. Wales.Proabivouac 11:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Proabivouac's and others' concerns here. Leave the guy alone, please. We normally treat "legal threats" and threats of real-world contacting of employers and the like as bannable offenses, no matter how valid a complaint the person who does the threatening thinks they have. We shouldn't be indulging in such behaviour ourselves now. Contacting the school to get the person damaged in his professional life and career is an absolute no-no. This has already gone way too far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this has gone too far (though maybe it wouldn't have if Mr. Pierce had simply apologised, and agreed not to use such a stupid method again), but I don't think that advocating a block to all those who are trying to protect wikipedia from mass vandalism is the best idea. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as what is off-wiki should stay off-wiki, I'm a rather firm beleiver that except in clearcut cases of long term abuse, what happens on-wiki stays on wiki. Cheers, ✎

Neutrality Project

) 12:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, "the Halo," neither you nor anyone else has the moral right to attack real people (excepting tyrants and the like) from behind your pseud: it's an abuse of the anonymity we're graciously allowed on this forum. A block is well warranted not just on moral but on practical grounds: by negatively intervening in someone's career, we leave the foundation open to further action. If God forbid we actually succeed, we have one very angry individual on our hands whom we can't simply wish away on this virtual noticeboard. It's vital that this kind of thing be run by the office. We can't have smart but clueless kids playing games with people's lives. Someone not being able to edit Wikipedia for awhile is trivial in the scheme of things.Proabivouac 12:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to you too, I seriously doubt that the objective of getting in touch with the university that Mr. Pierce works for was to get him fired. It was to stop a tutor and all his students from vandalising with out having to block the entire university. It is important to assume good faith on the part of the editors who contacted the university, who I think believed they were acting for the good of the encyclopedia. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He is surely not going to get fired, and one may hope that that was not the intent of anyone contacting the university.... But clearly, contacting the university President (I'm not sure who that is, but I imagine it's something akin to a chancellor, vice chancellor, provost etc) to officially complain about one of their lecturer's actions could obviously potentially harm Pierce's career and get him into trouble. As stated ad nauseum, far, far, far worse offences (sometimes actual criminal acts) on Wikipedia are brushed aside with comparitively little action. I agree- with few exceptions, what's on wiki should stay on-wiki, and to harass someone in their real life because of (good faith!!) actions taken on here is absolutely bang out of order. I do hope as an aside that someone has pointed the university authorities to this noticeboard so that they can see for themselves the diversity of opinion to be found here and the context of the complaint. Let this be a sobering lesson to everyone- never, EVER use your real name or allow your personal details to be seen here on Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 13:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:: It is important to assume good faith on the part of the editors who contacted the university, who I think believed they were acting for the good of the encyclopedia. - I am assuming good faith of the editors but the sheer lack of consideration of the possible impact demonstrates that a) all and any such actions should be discussed very very deeply before implementation of said actions, that b) (and don't take this as a knock, it's not intended to) many of our editors and administrators while excellent here are quite young and without being rude, quite naive about the real-world ramifications (because of a lack of practical experience) of contacting a real world organisation in such a manner. It's fine saying "hey he's not going to be sacked!" and more than likely he's not - BUT we exist in a world where mis-use of email is used as a rod to beat staff with. While HE might not get sacked, that's not to say someone else would not be in a similar situation. I agree with others, it's one thing to contact an individual but contacting someone's employers (let alone multiple departments in the same organisation!) should be a WP:OFFICE action. --Fredrick day 14:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, how did we get here? This is a massive overreaction; please rethink. This guy evidently didn't know what he was doing and delved in without doing the proper research (he had people print old copies of the articles?) but that doesn't merit going after him with such vigor, which looks vindictive even if it isn't intended that way. As someone said above, we extend more courtesy and give more 'second chances' to the most inveterate of trolls. Opabinia regalis 15:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We got here because he won't pledge not to do it again. Would you rather we blocked the entire university in perpetuity? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That would the correct way of dealing with this matter, albeit an extreme solution. If someone infringes Wikipedia's rules, then the solution should be found on Wikipedia. You are talking about making someone accountable in real life for something that occurs on-Wiki. That is in my view only ever a last ditch solution when said person has broken the law, not a comparitively unimportant community-defined Wikipedia rule. As correctly stated elsewhere, pretty much anything that spills over into the real world should be left to a WP:OFFICE action, and is not the domain of individual editors. By the same token, I'm sure you thought you were doing the right thing, and I'm sure you acted in good faith, albeit precipitously. Badgerpatrol 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So what's actually happening now? Above you mentioned an ultimate of friday (for a response) that you has made to the university? Are you still chasing them? Have you ceased activity because of community concern? --Fredrick day 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, I don't think that "community concern" is opposed to my actions. In the second place, I am waiting for a response from the University's ethics office. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WHAT! have you actually read all of the comments here? you don't see community concern there? I'm sorry but I find that an amazing statement to make. --Fredrick day 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Community concern is irrelevant. If Zoe or anyone else, acting as a private individual, wishes to contact the university about this matter it is none of our business. Seeing as admins, unlike Jimbo or those from WP:OFFICE, do not speak for the Wikimedia Foundation they would be acting as private individuals who have been affected by this outrageous misconduct.

Deletion!

21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a complete cop-out, disgusting in fact. I am now going to act as a "private individual" and write to prof. Pierce (using my real name) and tell him that I think the conduct is an total disgrace. It's a complete cop-out because it is effectively a backdoor that allows people hiding under pseduonoms to email people's workplaces in regards to wikipedia and then say "hey but actually this is nothing to do with wikipedia - it's a private thing". I think this stinks - totally stinks. --Fredrick day 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are completely free to do that: enjoy. This does not change the fact that when someone misuses their academic authority in this way to destroy knowledge, rather than build, we, acting as individual Wikipedians, should have the ability to complain about it. Vandalizing Wikipedia should not lead to workplaces being contacted - though we contact schools, do we not, to stop persistent vandalism by the kids - but misusing your academic authority in this manner by encouraging others to vandalize should certainly do so.

Deletion!

21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And actually now I think about it, how did we get here? that implies that others were involved in deciding to send the email and that dicussion occured. Where did this discussion occur? Where was the concensus to send those emails? Who are the we you mention? --Fredrick day 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. What a stunning, draconian display of presumed power carried from cyberspace to the real world. There are people who have to work for a living to feed their families, pay their mortgages, go to the doctor or the dentist, and most of these people have to, in some way, interact with cyberspace at some point in time. Very few people in this world have the luxury of not working. As a student I learned something important from a professor's inapprorpriate attempt at a Wikipedia assignment, and so did the professor. We have just taught this instructor's students what kind of a community we are--I hope it's a pretty picture we painted, or even an accurate one.KP Botany 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, this academic's conduct sickens me. The wanton destruction of knowledge - free knowledge, yet - violates just about every single academic principle I can think of. If humanity has got to the stage where we will happily destroy knowledge in some petty game of "my source is better than yours", then it is time to start despairing. The Wikipedians who have to waste their volunteer time in reverts and blocks have every right to be cheesed off and to pursue the matter further. This...person...deserves at least rap over the knuckles, and some detailed lessons in clarity of thinking.

Deletion!

20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Badgerpatrol 16:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Capricious section break

I split the section here because it seems to be on a slighty different tack, and used "capricious" in place of the overused "arbitrary" for the sake of variety. Picaroon 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow guys.... what are you all thinking? This is completely overblown here. Pierce might have been a bit out of line, but he was illustrating a valid point: we should not be used for academic papers. He showed that to his students. Doing is better then learning. Look at this like the reporters who snuck knives and such past TSA to show how poorly they perform,ed. It may have been somewhat out of line, but beutifully made the point to many people. Zoe, chill out a bit. You're normally on the ball, so I trust you. Breathe deep for a minute and you'll see. -

M^ask

21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case of wrecking the free-content work of others and then wasting the time of a large amount of people on a spectacular scale, no, doing is not better than learning. Petty intellectual games like this are revolting, not only in the time they waste but also in the small-minded willingness to destroy displayed.

Deletion!

21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, we must remember that not everyone takes this encyclopedia as seriously as those of us who write and otherwise maintain it do. The general public doesn't give us the respect that our millions of hours deserve, and we shouldn't blame them; they know no better, and they won't until they come along and begin editing. There's even an

essay sortof about this. Picaroon

23:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that essay, but unfortunately it is also one of the most stubby, incomplete essays I have ever seen. Carcharoth 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Pierce’s point was not a valid one. Here’s what you do, if you’re reading. Stand in front of the class. Speak clearly: “Any papers using Wikipedia as a primary source will be handed back to you unmarked. We do not use wikipedia as a primary source because it isn’t trust worthy at the level I want you writing. Anyone can put anything on there, regardless of whether it is true or not, so don’t use it.” You know, that will be enough. It is what I was told, and, surprise surprise, I didn’t use wikipedia as a primary source. Mr. Pierce, if I remember correctly, is teaching at a university. These people aren’t stupid. If you tell them not to do something, they won’t do it, and if they do, make them change it. Mr. Pierce could have stopped all this a long time ago, and the thing that I’m really worried about is the fact that because of one mans bad idea we may (though probably won’t) have to ban an entire university. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Because what he's suggesting is the online equivalent of his asking his classmembers to pick a random store, throw a brick through the front window and see how long it takes the cops to arrive. HalfShadow 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You don't have to pay for and replace a broken window when you vandalize Wikipedia. All you have to do is click once on the rollback button, and it's all good again. Some of the comments on this thread sound like vandalism on Wikipedia should be a punishable crime. That's just absurd. --

✉

23:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

HalfShadow: I refer you to my comment about the general public not taking Wikipedia seriously. Throwing bricks through windows is viewed as bad by the general public and the Wikipedia community. Vandalizing Wikipedia is viewed as bad by the Wikipedia community, but not the general public. Picaroon 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't wikipedia vandalism be a crime? All that clicking takes a lot of people a lot of time. If we had just one button marked "roll back all vandalism" I might agree with you, but we don't and I don't. Cheers, Ben Aveling 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it a crime? Because we allow - no, encourage - people to edit. Think about it like this: markets encourage people to shop. Why isn't buying all the cereal in the aisle a crime, then? Why isn't taking all the free samples of brownies a crime, then? It might sound like a random comparison, but if you think, its quite similar. Picaroon 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thsi would be more like taking all the free samples, or throwing the brownies all over the store. Actually, it would be more like getting a hundred people to knock over everything in the shelves of the whole store for a couple weeks and maybe replace some foods with diarrhetics. Stores encourage people to come in and buy goods, or even to just look at them, but that does not mean that anyone is free to come in the store and do whatever they want. —Centrx→talk • 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Every second I have to waste cleaning after a 'comedic genius' is a second I could have spent accomplishing something. Regardless, effectively telling your class to 'bust up the joint' is hardly what I'd call proper behavior for a teacher.HalfShadow 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that it isn't the best behaviour to tell your students to go and vandalize Wikipedia. But we voiced our opinion, and I think that's all that we should do. What stops you from just accomplishing something, anyways? No one ever forced you to revert vandalism, to the best of my knowledge.--

✉

00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Halo: Hindsight is 20:20. Yours is a very good description of a better way to do have explained to the students what's wrong with using Wikipedia to write papers. Now, how do you suggest we get the message out? A disclaimed at the top of pages? An ad campaign? Those methods might or might not work. Preaching to the choir here about whats wrong with Tim's assignment will not work. Picaroon 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand your point Picaroon, but I wasn't trying to preach to the choir. I was trying to show AKMask that Mr. Peirces point wasn't as valid as he may first have thought it to be. Sorry if I got off the beaten track along the way there :P Thε Halo ^Θ 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perspective

One thing I don't understand. Mr Pierce's defenders seem to be saying "what he did was no big deal, therefore we shouldn't complain, because he will get sacked." If it's no big deal, he won't get sacked whatever we do. So why so worried? Personally, I'm not even after an apology, just a commitment that it won't happen again. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is more that if you turn up here as a real person and annoy the wrong Wikipedia editors and don't agree with what they (correctly) say the site is about and how it works, and you disrupt the site in the process (by giving a public lecture, say - imagine Jimbo giving a lecture and telling people to try editing Wikipedia - "add anything you like - it doesn't matter, it will be reverted within seconds if it is wrong"), then some Wikipedia editors may aggressively engage you in discussion by sending you e-mails, and sending other people e-mails, until you back down and admit you were wrong and won't do it again. I'm concerned that this has been more about getting the instructor to admit that he was wrong, rather than helping him understand how Wikipedia works, and trying to convert him, rather than alienate him. Being diplomatic, in other words, rather than argumentative. Carcharoth 01:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Project

) 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Informational Request

You know, I would really like to see what exactly is being sent out, if possible. Particularly if there is any potential interaction with the media (as well as educational institutions), it would be very good to see exactly what is being said and how or to whom it is being attributed. Bitnine 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have put the texts of my correspondences at User:Zoe/Pierce. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you were a bit quick on the draw there, Zoe. You could have said, maybe, "please promise not to do it again; this is the wrong way of going about it"; I didn't detect much warning for "I'm going to the press". 146.186.44.199 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My letter to the department administrators is at: User:Georgewilliamherbert/PierceLetter Georgewilliamherbert 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The ethics department has reponded, unfortunately, from my point of view, clearly wrongly. I have asked Brad Patrick for his input. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think most of what there is to be said has been said, on all sides of the matter. I would add, however, that I have grave reservations about the statement in one of Zoe's letters that "I don't think we need to discuss the illegalities of defacing a website. Such actions are a federal offense." We all dislike vandalism and those who encourage vandals, but that's a long way away from saying that vandals are criminals. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I can only applaud the measured response of that ethics office in replying to Zoe, and am utterly amazed at the impropriety of the tone Zoe had used both to them and the teacher. I'd very much recommend to put this to rest now in order for us not to make ourselves look completely stupid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Newyorkbrad & FutPerf. Mr Stephen 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read the mail pages, I disagree with some of the points Zoe made in the correspondence with NIU (and in Zoe’s place, I would have written rather differently). However, I still think it was right to complain. —xyzzy_n 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone directed Mr. Pierce and the NIU administrators to the relevant policy pages, e.g.,

WP:VAND? From the correspondence that was posted, it doesn't look like it. Thanks to Zoe and Georgewilliamherbert for posting these. --Akhilleus (talk

) 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the appropriate initial contact with Mr. Pierce would have pointed out these policies, described how we deal with vandalism in practice, and suggested an alternative means of making the same point (e.g., having the students edit a sandbox) without disrupting others' efforts. Taking the time to thoroughly explain to him why we have a problem with his assignment and ways he could work with us, would likely have produced much more satisfactory results; as it is, we got a bunch of needlessly bombastic emails to university officials and a needlessly long thread in which people compare scribbling on a website to breaking a store window. This could have been an opportunity to educate an obviously ill-informed academic about how Wikipedia works, and instead we probably just alienated him (and his colleagues) further. Opabinia regalis 01:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with this analysis of the situation. Carcharoth 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Zoe and Georgewilliamherbert for posting the correspondence they sent and received. It is rather instructive to see the different approaches they took. Zoe engaged in aggressive questioning of the instructor in question, while George wrote calmly and at length to possibly the people responsible for the instructor's conduct, taking the time to explain himself. It was also interesting to note that Zoe signed as 'Wikipedia system administrator' (which could give the appearance of speaking for Wikipedia), while George (more correctly, in my opinion) said "I am not speaking for Wikipedia in any official capacity (I have no organizational official standing) other than as a user and editor."

I also thought Zoe's threat to go to the press (the university's ethics office was restrained enough to only call it a veiled threat) was intended by Zoe to provoke a response, and I find that very worrying. This could easily have escalated the situation when there was absolutely no need to adopt that attitude.

So, what can we learn from this? Would Zoe and George do things differently, or even do nothing, if this happened again? I'd really hope that some people would do things differently next time. This episode has not cast Wikipedia in a good light. Carcharoth 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Be brutually honest - from a purely internal perspective, the most concern aspect for me is that even after debate raged for almost 3 days, Zoe posts only a few hours ago In the first place, I don't think that "community concern" is opposed to my actions. - I find that an amazing statement to make considering some of the comments that have been made here.. I haven't interacted with Zoe before this wikidrama but it suggests that various people are invisible to her or... well I just don't know! --Fredrick day 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea for people to post suggestions (even subtle ones) in any part of Wikipedia that a named person has acted illegally or broken Federal law. I see the requests for information above - my comments are not an attack on anyone, they are simply meant as advice.

Hobson

03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Site block?

We have a site, with a set of known vandals, where the vandals have stated they may continue to vandalize, and the site's administration has indicated they will take no action.

This sounds like the definition of when and why we use a site-wide indef IP block.... Georgewilliamherbert 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That does sound like the logical conclusion to the problem, yes.  :) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Because vandalism is still going on? Well is it (outside of normal patterns)? Where does he states that he plans to carry on? I don't see that? --Fredrick day 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Far, far too much potential for collateral damage by blocking an entire college. At most, I'd support a checkuser if the college's IP can be determined, to assess whether there is an ongoing vandalism problem that is materially higher than normal. Newyorkbrad 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser of whom? Of all of the students who have been assigned to vandalize? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Some colleges have a single IP for all the computers in their network. I know little about the technicalities of IP assignment, but that might (or might not) be true in this instance. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, wow. NIU and Mr. Pierce were straight-forward, and Wikipedia accused them of a federal crime. I thought that someone had recently quoted that administrators aren't godheads or something, according to Jimbo Wales. Criminal accusation are usually handled through the DA's office, not by one individual throwing an accusation at another or at an institution. Crimes should be reported to the proper law enforcement officials, not used as threats against someone. And since when is this not an apology, "So, in the sense that I've caused a lot of work on people's part in what's going on, I'm sorry for that?" He apologized, admitted it was a poorly thought out exercise, after explaining that he had weighed potential consequences, that he had tried just instructing his students not to use Wikipedia, and he's being battered down with the threat of criminal actions. I've seen too much of Wikipedia administrators who can't simply back down from something. When someone is being reasonable, after doing something unreasonable, you latch onto their current sense of reason, you don't keep attacking them. KP Botany 04:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the above. I think this issue has gotten to the point where I have contacted Jimbo here to solicit his involvement. I strongly encourage others to do the same. CyberAnth 06:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This should have been handled by Brad Patrick to begin with. Or at least from the point where the University's legal department got involved. This could have backfired horribly had the teacher been fired and then sued Wikipedia for defamation causing him to get fired. 1 million dollars from the last fundraiser may sound like a lot but when you get into things like this we could have gotten into serious economic/legal trouble here. A site/department block sounds like a good idea. That is perfectly within our discretion (no need for legal help to do that) and would solve the problem.

MartinDK

09:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(IANALBIPOOT) I cannot imagine any cause of action—certainly not defamation—that Pierce, were he to be fired over this, could essay against the Foundation generally or against any editor who contacted the university specifically (other causes of action, relative, for instance, to a characterization publicly of his conduct as somehow criminal, might be more tenable, but such causes would not be relative to his termination). I, to be sure, would not be inclined to contact the university about conduct to which I have no grave objection, but there is, IMHO, almost surely no legal liability for an individual who should undertake to make such contact; I have always understood, indeed, the practice of contacting an employer of someone with whom one has a quarrel to disseminate true information apropos of the former in order that he/she might be fired to be relatively common, but I gather from this discussion that there are those who think such practice to be immoral. Joe 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe, I posted that message minutes before Jimbo posted his message. I had no idea, as did no one else apparently, that the foundation had already been involved. had Zoe been told this by Jimbo I believe she would have let Jimbo take care of this. I don't doubt that she really wanted to do Wikipedia a big favor by going through all this trouble. I just happen to believe that such matters are better handled by the foundation. Jimbo should have posted here when he settled the matter. I think we should just move on and let Jimbo know that sometimes things happen on ANI that might make it beneficial for Wikipedia and the foundation in general to pay closer attention to this board and post here before so-called wildly inappropriate things take place.

MartinDK

22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See Jimbo's edit at the top of this greater section. Case closed, everyone.

masterka

09:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:JB196 socks

I just noticed that prior to creating the AfD Shopstermax (talk · contribs), the oldest account, also removed refs from wrestling articles. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really...If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Wrestling , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GhettoV1 , they're all listed there and there. DogJesterExtra 18:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The user talk is an automatic bot which links to all AfD's that it crawls for such as the AfD posted by ((User|Shopstermax}}, whose article Nadev Rozenfield is linked nowhere else but the bot post on that users page. –– Lid^(Talk) 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More accounts - Several of these accounts first act after being created was to create another account greatly increasing the likelihood of sockpuppetry. These are:

• Hipchop (talk · contribs) created ZimZamZang (talk · contribs)
• Shopstermax (talk · contribs) created DarkUmp243 (talk · contribs)
• Aqua Nation (talk · contribs) created Blizzardofsnow (talk · contribs)
• WP:SOCK accounts, the AfD's will be db-banned as a speedy keep with no prejudice towards renomination SirFozzie
  19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are these afd's still open? Aren't we supposed to close any afd's that jb opens? 146.186.221.141 21:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We haven't "Proven" That the accounts are

WP:RfCU open against all of them. Until it's proven (or an admin decides that there's enough circumstantial evidence that this is another set of JB socks), our hands are tied. It's one of those things where I'm sure it's him, but my opinion don't count for much, at least in this :) SirFozzie 05:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The RFCU has been deemed Unneccessary as it seems there is already enough evidence that these are all sockpuppets of JB196 so would an admin mind blocking them all? –– Lid^(Talk

) 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Per that result, I'm going to close the afd's, even though I'm not an admin. That seems like an OK from jpgordan. Any admins, please block them now. Part Deux 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Update - many more socks - Many thanks to SirFozzie (talk · contribs) for bringing it up and admin Jpgordon (talk · contribs) for running the CU but a total of fifty socks have been uncovered by the checkuser, some known many unknown, that need blocking. The full list can be found here and require admin help blocking them all. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged all socks listed at the RfCU case page. Phew. Luna Santin 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy crudstunk, I thought we might find a few more.. but sixty or so? (even if some of em were retreads?) That's ridiculous. Thanks Lid for updating the LTA page on JB. SirFozzie 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Multilingual Warnings?

no template I know of. But I have to ask, if they don't speak any English, why are they editing here? pschemp | talk 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I warn the user with this? I don't know why they are editing here. I tried to warn the user to edit on ITA WP on the talk page, but she still speaks Italian on the talk page.

I found the 1st level warning on ITA WP.

Grazie per aver fatto un test con Wikipedia. La modifica che hai effettuato ci è sembrata essere un test; la tua prova è stata quindi rimossa e la pagina ripristinata. Per favore, per ulteriori prove, utilizza la pagina delle prove, dal momento che le voci vengono ripristinate rapidamente. Puoi dare un'occhiata alla guida introduttiva per imparare a contribuire sulle pagine del nostro progetto. Grazie.

Real96 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons also has some at Commons:Message templates, although most are not what you need, a few might be helpful. Click on the language you want to get the text you need. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c

00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a

Real96

07:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you mean Western languages aside English not Anglo-languages?!? --Asterion^talk 09:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. Western languages versus non.

Real96 03:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a Rosetta Stone template is a great idea. Perhaps the kind folk at commons would help us create it? I'll try to go ask for help if someone else hasn't started this. What would the exact wording need to be? Needs to be encouraging and useful. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a Rosetta Stone type template saying that if you cannot speak English, then you cannot contribute here. Wow, that would be very helpful, but wouldn't it be hard to enforce? Some editors claim a basic proficiency in English, which they don't evidence - I've edited many articles where most of my time was spent cleaning up English grammar and punctuation to a rudimentary level. Also, how do we feel about talk pages almost exclusively in other languages? I've encountered personal attacks oon talk pages in other languages, and had to go hunting for an admin who spoke the language and could deal with it, and I've had to go to other wikis to find basic policies to quote for non-English speakers. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 14:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean hard to enforce, since we already require English as the language of contributions. For those who speak only some English, or speak it poorly, they can still benefit the project. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Right - so I'm still not following the original comment about not contributing here if you cannot speak English? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also certain obvious errors and interwiki's require almost no english to correct. If people's contributions are a problem they should probably be pointe to a wikipedia in a language they are fluent in, but I don't think that setting any kind of enforceable standard is a good idea. Eluchil404 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, a template that helps the user find the right place, and gives a little guidance to them, in the user's native language, might be a friendly thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for example if Spanish text is inserted into a page, the user can be warned with:

Bienevidos a Wikipedia de Ingles. Este enciclopedia es totalmente en Ingles. Por favor, va al [es.wikipedia.org Wikipedia de Espanol] para contribuya en espanol. Gracias!

(note: my spanish is a little weak.)

Real96

02:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A good start would be here. Lectonar 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Only Account

Blocked indef. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Might want to post this on

Need help?

) 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In my (limited) experience AIV would have knocked it back as having no recent activity --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I posted it here... Nationalparks 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but when I do AIV, I know vandal only accounts don't need to be currently active to block. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This will make you laugh arrived on 13 Jan and made a couple of token edits. On Jan 20 "he" replied to a welcome message, two edits. "His" first edit of any substance was to pick up a conversation in the middle on a vexatious suspected sockpuppet investigation on BenBurch and FAAFA: [20].

At 15:49, User:DeanHinnen posted a comment on "his" talk starting "You sound like a very level-headed voice with regard to BenBurch and FAAFA on the Free Republic article"... ([21])

At 19:55, January 20, 2007, User:DeanHinnen posted an invitation to articipate in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch to "his" talk: [22] and at 22:27, January 28 2007 he did so.

At 22:45, January 28, 2007, Fenstern made his first edit to (the talk page of) Free Republic, where he was supposedly already a voice of reason with plenty of experience with BenBurch and FAAFA.

I am more than happy to believe that Fenstern does indeed have a long history on that article and with those users... but not under that account. I have blocked "him" as a sock of User:BryanFromPalatine. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you made a good call. Durova^Charge! 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus personal attacksHe's at it again. I'd have blocked him, but I might be thought of as being in conflict with him, so could someone else have a look and see if they agree with a block? The latest attack is here, in which he dscribes another editor's minor formatting improvement as anti-Semitic, and then argues in his usual peculiar style at user talk:Ludvikus#Reverts on Jews and Bolshevism topics.

Or would it be OK for me to block him, as I'm unconnected to his current conflict? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's unacceptable behavior by Ludvikus. I've left him a firm warning that repeating this will result in a block. My opinion is this one example on its own doesn't warrant a block, but any further repetition of this sort of behavior should garner a block. If you see further examples, please feel free to bring them to my attention and I'll be happy to act as an outside opinion. Best, Gwernol 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact it's the latest in a very long line of such instances;

DavidShankBone

appears to be a fashion photographer. Recently he had uploaded numerous photos he attributes to himself, and offers under creative commons licensing. I removed some self-promotional wording from his user page. He appears to have replaced valid photographs in numerous articles with his own photographs. My personal judgement (just my opinion) is that in most cases he added his own lower quality, less precise image to replace a better image. I see this as an extension of his self-promotion attempt.

I expect that he will be upset at having some of those images reverted. First, I want to be sure that my opinion that self-promotion on your own user page (offering free use of your images) is really not appropriate, and that others agree that large scale replacement of other images with his own images is not appropriate.

I'm only asking for other editors opinions here, not trying to demonize anyone. Of course he has made other valuable contributions, but I am only asking about borderline self-promotion! Atom 16:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He does seem to have added some images of buildings where there were no images before. But his habit of removing someone elses image, or moving the lede image down into the article and placing his image in lede seems self-promotional. This is reinforced (for me) in that the previous image seems of better quality(IMO).

• Self promotional user page[23] (now edited)
• Replaced photos in articles[24][25]
• Low quality additions to articles.[26][27]
• Moved lede image sown, and replaced with his own image.[28][29]
• Added a good photo where none existed before:[30]
• Adds a poor quality image to an article that already has four better quality images. The name of the image has his name imbedded to self-promote.[31]

Atom 14:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what this editor's issue is, but I suspect that she just does not like the Imitation of Christ photograph from

DavidShankBone 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Low quality additions to articles.[35][36]

Moved lede image down, and replaced with his own image.[37][38]

I shuffled the photographs on the page to replace low-quality image of the Prometheus statue (which I placed toward the bottom) with a photograph showing the whole of Rockefeller Plaza taken from an office building (a shot that is difficult to get unless you have access - I had access, it was at law office).--

DavidShankBone 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Added a good photo where none existed before:[39]

Adds a poor quality image to an article that already has four better quality images. The name of the image has his name imbedded to self-promote.[40]

I don't know what the User means by "embedded" by name - it's in the title of the photograph, but that's not self-promotion. Self-promotion deals with putting your own name in the article. Google doesn't even pick them up.

One of my hobbies is going around taking photographs of famous buildings, people and places around New York City. I do a lot of interesting stuff. This editor's actions above has a dampening affect on contributions. Much of what he has reverted or flagged for deletion has no business having done so. A perfectly great example of sequins I put on the Sequin page has been flagged for deletion? I replaced a 96KB photograph of a sequined ass with a full-sequined dress at 863KB - is this really a proper use of this editor's time? At one moment the editor complains I'm putting up too-poor-of-quality photographs; then the editor complains when I put better quality photographs up. Compare the former photograph with the one I put up.

My apologies. Obviously we have different opinions which I am sure we can work out on the talk page of a given article. In this case another opinion might be that a very good closeup of sequins on the sequin article was removed and replaced with a very large image that showed less detail of sequins, and more detail of unrelated things. The database now has an 863KB image instead of one one-tenth that size that illustrated the topic of the article better.

Regarding self promotion, that can be done in a variety of ways. You deserve attribution for the image, and that should be part of the image attributes in the database. Attaching your name to the name of the image is not how we normally do that. By itself it is minor, with the other aspects I complained about, it seems like self-promotion to me. Atom 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally perplexed by this. I also don't appreciate that this editor is making edits to my User page, highlighting a benefit of our open-use images, and only as an after-thought checks it out. Is this really how we want to operate? --

DavidShankBone

14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I also note this editor has followed no guidelines with this entry. The editor has reverted the images and pages, has flagged them for delete without creating discussion pages for the same (even the

DavidShankBone has done anything wrong, and has improved a great many articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης

) 15:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I was asking for an opinion on whether the manner on which this photographer was approaching self promotion was appropriate, not trying to villify the editor, or suggest that other aspects of his participation had any problem. Did you see where I said "First, I want to be sure that my opinion that self-promotion on your own user page (offering free use of your images) is really not appropriate"? Atom 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is he replacing fair use by copyleft, by any chance? --Kim Bruning 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No - every one of my photographs (see my talk page for an exhaustive listing) is licensed under Creative Commons 2.5 attribution, unless it is of a painting (

DavidShankBone

15:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Aannd, yes he is, indeed, in at least one case. Sooo, if that's the pattern, we might want to give DavidShankBone a barnstar for his good work so far. I hope someone has time to track that down.

Thank you! I replaced a copyrighted photograph on

DavidShankBone

15:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the magazine covers are much prettier, they're not copyleft. We at least have a free image now, and we can always get better ones later. We can also orphan and delete the magazine covers perhaps? :-) --Kim Bruning 15:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that there is something terribly wrong with this editor. I have suggested that the high quality images of buildings he has provided is excellent, and appreciated. What I was asking is if the self-promotion, and apparent replacement of good quality images with his own (without discussion) was appropriate. It may be your, or others opinion that removing a fair-use high quality image with a low-quality poor image is okay. That is a matter of opinion.

A consistent pattern of replacing a lede image with ones own image (whether is happens to be fair use or not) without discussion, and titling the image itself with the photographers name as part of the image, and putting on the top of ones user page "SPRUCE UP YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINE/ZINE, POWERPOINT, BLOG, ADVERTISING OR COMPANY NEWSLETTER WITH MY IMAGES, FREE FOR ALL!" seems to me like self promotion to me. The fact that it is not yet profitable does not make it less self-promotion. I merely asked if this type of borderline, subtle, entrenchment strategy marketing (giving free images in order to get noticed and build a market) was appropriate, or at least what others opinions about this was. The fact that this editor has offered other contributions (of value) is a completely unrelated topic. Atom

Atom, David: Neither one of you has ever posted on the other’s talk page. Try talking about your issues there. As for David’s user page, I’d advise trimming it down to the stuff actually relevant to the project plus a link to a homepage elsewhere with the other stuff. —xyzzy_n 15:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no trouble trimming my User page down, but what this editor took out doesn't merit editing. I could take out all the "About me" stuff - no problem. I also noted that this editor made no attempt to contact me and went about deleting images from pages with no discussion, and attempted to have the images deleted without following any of the guielines. --

DavidShankBone 15:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss things further on his talk page. Personally, it seems like we have many things in common. The last thing I want to do is alienate someone who has so much to offer to Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that the photographs of buildings that he has done are superb. Unfortunately my opinion is that the photogrpahs of people does not meet that standard. Regardless of my singular opinion of the artwork, the addition of images where none existed before is very valuable. The replacement of other peoples images with ones own image, or the movement of an outstanding lede image out of lede, and insertion of ones own image is not appropriate. This should both should always be avoided because of the appearance of vanity, self promotion and conflict of interest. Also, attaching his name to the title of the image seems self-promotional as well. Attribution is important, but that is not our established method for doing that.

Having looked a bit further, there's not really that much happening here. Also concur with xyzzy_n. Would it be ok to close this discussion now? --Kim Bruning

15:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I confess to having no problems with the user page myself, but that's just an opinion. Kim Bruning's suggestion was a good one, though, and I've taken the liberty of awarding DavidShankBone a barnstar for all the work that he's done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We allow attribution on images, the images are topical, and in the examples given seem better than others. I would like to thank David for releasing these images into a compatible license. If consensus wants a different image then fine, but unless he is fighting consensus it looks productive. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, of course attribution is important. It goes on the attributes of the image, not as part of the file name, or watermarked into the image. The issue I asked for opinions about was the larger picture of self-promotion as a series of small things. That one thing is, of course relatively unimportant.Atom 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The last thing that I would suggest is that this editor is only doing negative contributions. Many of them are quite obviously positive. My objection (and I've tried to state it politely -- to not offend, if that has not come across) is to the self-promotion. I hope that he will continue to provide free use images of buildings and architecture (obviously his area of talent and expertise) all he wants. I brought the discussion here primarily because I did want clarification regarding borderline self-promotion, not to argue, deconstruct his work or offend. Atom 15:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I am grateful to anybody who adds free images to Wikipedia, no matter what the quality. Some articles are desperate for images, but have none because of WP:FU considerations. David, can I send you a wish list??? :-) Jeffpw 15:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff - this is exactly why I do what I do. I have a personal beef with

DavidShankBone

16:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is not as though he is resisting the consensus for which image to use on an article, unless I am missing something. We now have these images in an irrevocably compatible license forever, for any purpose. This is a good thing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Atom, the way you went about this is offensive because you replaced a high-quality image I put up on the

DavidShankBone

15:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I have said before several places. The replacement of the detailed (but small file size)image of sequin with a huge image that showed less detail about sequins, and more unrelated detail is what seemed innapropriate to me. No discussion on the talk page, just an assumption that your image was better. When you replaced the good image, that's where it should have been discussed. My return to the previous image was fixing the problem. Atom 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And, my editing is not the topic here, your self promotion is the topic. This is precisely the forum for asking questions about what others perceive as self-promotion, or not. I appreciate that you feel attacked here, but I am not attacking, only asking a simply question of other editors. Trying to attack back does not address the self-promotion issue at all. Atom 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a good point that David was not contacted on his talk page before this posting here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do hope that image of Imitation of Christ was restored. It was a great image, and added to the article. Jeffpw 16:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Atom, you don't need to copy edit other's comments, or delete other's comments from this discussion. I have reverted to restore the discussion to how it was before you changed it. Jeffpw 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(Jeffpw) Look it doesn't help things when you revert my edits before I even have a chance to fix it. Edit conflicts on this page are frequent. I got an edit conflict, inserted my comments, realized the problem, and then you undo my changes before I can even fix it. Have some patience. It takes more than 30 seconds to reinsert comments made in four or five different places that took a half an hour to insert. Atom 16:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had the same problem, the system does not warn me of an edit conflict and my addition cancels out others edits. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffpw; I opened the edit window to add a comment, and found that what I meant to comment on had disappeared. Atom, I can see no-one who responded to your complaint characterising it as a personal attack. We did, however, say that DavidShankBone was doing nothing wrong. You might not like that response, but you do yourself no favours by attacking us. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when did I attack you? I'm fine with you disagreeing, that's why I asked for your opinion. Atom 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it would have been nice if someone had merely answered my question regarding self-promotion, rather than trying to characterize it as some kind of personal attack. The reason I did not discuss this with David in advance was that I was asking a question about the nature of borderline self-promotion. Had I gotten some confirmation, I would have discussed the issue directly with him. Had others said, "NO I don't think so" I would have dropped the issue. Atom 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Atom, an issue you thrust upon yourself is that you are wasting time going after *good* edits, correcting typos on a Talk page, and causing other editors to spend their time with addressing edits that add value, when there are a lot of edits that need to be removed. If you have an itchy editing finger, I suggest you watch the Years and Days pages, where several pre-teens a day add their birth under "notable births" --

DavidShankBone

16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This also does not address the simple question I asked for opinions on.

WP:USER says "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." But it also says things like "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia" and "You might want to add quotations that you like, or a picture, or some of your favorite Wikipedia articles or images" and "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." Is the statement you quote self-promotional text that should be removed, or is it just an enthusiastic pointer to the images this user has contributed? Clearly you think it's the former, but the latter interpretation is not unreasonable. It's certainly not your typical case of advertising copy and spam links. Shimeru

20:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote canvassing

I've placed the standard disclaimer at the top of the article; it normally helps to cut down on meatpuppet traffic. (Note that not all the people coming in from outside will necessarily be meatpuppets; some may have valid opinions, but it's important that they state them rather than just saying 'keep'.) --ais523 16:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I only saw one contributor to the discussion who was newish (it was his thirteenth edit). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And btw, no problem placing the notice here, ais523. --

Ron & Fez, I will be first to say that neither Midnight Rider nor East Side Dave are notable enough for articles and will vote so once I have a bit more free time. —bbatsell ¿?

20:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

65.18.81.23

This one is now blocked, and I've blocked another IP out of this range, whose vandalism to Civil rights movement went unreverted for three hours. Sandstein 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Antandrus/Erin Problems

I am including boxingwear's (so rudely deleted) 5 13 2007 reply to the archives 188 false charges:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive188&diff=130546332&oldid=130393606 http://antandrus.tripod.com

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive187&oldid=1142526655"