Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive519

Could I get administrative eyes on

• Good call. Note that the editor that played with Axolotl is a logged in user, but we'll see what they do in response. I guess this gives someone some jollies, but it's beyond me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's channer vandalism - SIHULM is a forced Internet meme, and at present
  Mudkip's list article is indef-semi'd because anons will not quit adding it past what is already there. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker}
  ) 21:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is on probation

Clearly a desperate attempt to avoid a block off the article(because he already has a warning and the article is on probation),i dont see a warning there for me causing disruption at the article of current topic--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – he's already blocked after admitting to be a banned user. –xeno (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody hardblock this guy - just check his recent edits. Exxolon (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest just blocking for a week first, then hardblocking very quickly afterwards at the first sign of this behaviour being repeated - don't want to be toooooo harsh... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Nevermind, user has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User continues to revert MOS changes to articles, after previously being warned several times now to. Please check the user's talk page history. User is also claiming vandalism of others without citing evidence, and is therefore personally attacking them. User has been warned against such behavior as well. Lastly, this user has a history of being uncivil, and has been before.

The user above has also been blocked for said incivility, he has obviously learned nothing, as, after being warned by an admin not to claim vandalism and personal attcks of others without citing evidence, he does so anyway. Here he is commiting vandalism himself, and here he is again throwing accusations of vandalims just because a user was making MOS changes to the article. Lastly, here he is claiming that I have lied after reporting him for obvious incivility. If this user doesn't want to work constructively, then I would suggest a block, as he has been warned against this kind of behavior before, and was in fact blocked for it. All this new evidence shows is that he hasn't learned anything.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – It was snowing. So I got out my shovel and cleared the walk a bit. Much nicer now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Spitfire19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (redundant policies)
• Villagepumps header template edit

I've tagged the page for speedy and reverted the template edit. Wanted to make sure this got some attention. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:16, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the page is an example of 2nd catergory_{(or 1st)} of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, which explains:
Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.
If the reson for the page does not make sense to you, please explain. I extremely dislike it when people simply mark up pages with shortcuts to one of Wikipedia's forty-some policies. It just does not help with productivity. I wish to be as helpful with people who do not understand the meaning of content is the way I try it write it to be understood, so please be aware that I can not be helpful unless you ask for it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire19 (talk • contribs)

I couldn't find a

MfD is necessary in this case. Equazcion •✗/C •

04:56, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I didn't give you your explanation. Here it is: If you think a policy is redundant, you should express your concerns on its talk page, or at

Village pump (policy). There's no reason to go creating additional Village Pumps pages specifically for a certain type of policy complaint. If you have any further questions please feel free to respond, and I'll do my best to help. Equazcion •✗/C •

05:12, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

There is a very good reason why

WP:POINT isn't a CSD - it isn't objective enough. I see no reason to continue this discussion - just voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village pump (redundant policies). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu

11:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The change in the template violates {{

or}} section that I see on the page clearly doesn't belong there, however. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

18:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per MFD and

WP:SNOW. Let the wheel war begin.... wait for it... wait for it... NOW. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly a "terrible accusation". Besides, the evidence on which he bases accusing you of "intentionally making up caste conflicts", is in the diff you provide. He said you called nadars "toddy-tappers". I believe you were just quoting someone else, so that seems to be a misunderstanding. Anyway, I have no idea what you guys are going on about, but it looks like a content dispute with some minor civility issues to me. No administrator attention required for that.--Atlan (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what he says in the next line:

As i said there was never a thevar behind this controversy. You made that up yourself

I understand that by this he implies that I was the one who orchestrated this by tampering with the talk page of Thevar article or something of that sort. I hope User:Bake1987 clarifies and points out the evidence with which he comes to such conclusions. I have been here for close to two and a half years and never has anyone made such accusations against me.

Besides, I also feel disturbed by User:Bake1987's attitude of "speaking for a particular community" and pouncing on the slightest provocation upon things which may not even distantly intended to vilify his community. Considering the fact that most of the recent edits to the article has been made by a person whose motive seems to be to depict his community in a favourable manner, I wonder if it would be neutral,-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 01:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Bake1987 has retracted his comments at

neutrality. Thanks.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service}

04:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Socks blocked, living in a Hamish paradise. — 

neuro^(talk)

03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone ensure Tin Whistle Man (talk · contribs), Radio Tramp (talk · contribs) and friends are blocked and their votes at RfA stricken? Skomorokh 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like both were blocked. Synergy 14:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does it seem like there is an uptick recently with vandalism targeting (directly and indirectly) pages like AIV, CSD, etc? I ran across this yesterday, and don't seem to recall encountering such behavior often in the past. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's vandalism guaranteed to get an admin's attention. I can't see the point, but then I can't really see the point of any vandalism. --GedUK  15:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Notably, it also seems geared to lead admins into making a mistake with the mop, and thus slows us down by casting more doubt on the legitimacy of vandals and speedy candidates. Not that we shouldn't be doing due diligence on anything we delete or block, but this just slows us down considerably. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Hamish Ross again.  Confirmed Tactical Battle (talk · contribs), Compsci grad (talk · contribs), Tin Whistle Man (talk · contribs), Radio Tramp (talk · contribs), Page 3 Hubbard (talk · contribs), Eeeeeaaaaaaaggggghhhhh (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – — 

neuro^(talk)

03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please wander over there? Especially need 94.246.126.26 (talk) dealing with. DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done AIV cleared. SoWhy 15:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Harman Ross (talk · contribs) has reviewed a block as if he was an admin and giving level 4 warnings to IPs for edits that are not vandalism [3]

Just to make sure, is this a sock of the same guy who was pretending to be an admin a few days ago, or is he just some good faith new user? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminiscent of this particular editor.—Sandahl (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the warnings are bogus. He/she has reverted good edits and issued warnings for them. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

These two edits , one from each [4], [5] looks like the now blocked editor.—Sandahl (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

....and blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 00:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Look up about ten threads back to "Socks trolling RFA". This obviously belongs in that drawer. Check the name against some of those up there. Consider this edit: [6] from one of the above named socks. Just put this one in that drawer. This is getting to the point where we may need a checkuser-placed rangeblock to stop this guy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Possum Pint. If there are anymore, I'm sure they will turn up. Best. Synergy 02:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Possum Pint is Hamish Ross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

• 04:31, 3 March 2009 - He adds completely unsourced material to the article [7]. I removed it, and placed a warning [8] on his talk page.
• 04:44, 3 March 2009 - He adds the same unsourced material to the article a second time [9]. I start a discussion on the talk page [10]. I place more explanation on his talk page [11].
• 06:13, 3 March 2009 - He adds the same unsourced material to the article a third time, with a link placed in <ref></ref> formatting to http://www.adultswim.com/schedule - which simply notes the schedule of the episode itself, but does nothing to back up the unsourced material [12]. I note on his talk page that simply adding a link to the TV show's schedule is not a source [13]. I create an edit-notice prominent at the top of the article warning users not to insert material violating
  WP:NOR and completely unsourced material - MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Ocean's Three and a Half
  .
• 02:11, 4 March 2009 - He adds the same unsourced material back in yet again [14], after making an uncivil comment on the article's talk page [15].

Even though the material clearly violates

In addition, something should be done regarding TBone777 (talk · contribs).

Thank you for your time. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Done :-) - Philippe 05:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from with this. You are correct that wikipedia articles need proper citations. Yet, most articles about movies and TV shows tend to be edited by editors who watch the movie/show and edit what they see. Most articles about TV episodes almost never carry citations, although they should. Right or wrong, most editors let most of it go, myself included. Unless of course the information is completly wrong. Constant warning may not have been the best choice in this case, since the user who added the information just ignored them.

That being said, this seems to be a

WP:BRD problem. I would take it to the talk page and perhaps help work it out there, but thats not my decision, so whatever happens, I hope that it all gets worked out in the end.--Jojhutton (talk

) 05:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Jojhutton - I did take it to the talk page, as mentioned above. He essentially ignored that. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cirt has contributed a large number of featured and good articles about television. Durova^Charge! 05:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I tend to trust Cirt's judgment in these matters. But that shouldn't be taken to mean that Jojhutton doesn't make good points... just that I don't think they're totally on target in this case. - Philippe 05:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(After three editors spoke up in favor of these grammar / voice fixes which he keeps reverting, and now tagging:)

• "Smells of...sniff...sniff-sniff...sniff...GAMING the system." [16]
• "It should be obvious Jwy, I do not consider you or Arima as "good" faith editors! Yes, I have a specific remedy to propose - I just can't do it here!" [17]
• "We have some nice high cliffs here in North Carolina. I could point you towards a few if you would like, out of courtesy of course. LOL! It's a joke Arima, don't respond with your usual huffing and puffing." [18]
• "I'm sorry Ari, I was watching a cartoon and was laughing my arse off. It took precedence over your response. So, since I was distracted, would you please repeat what you wrote a little louder?" [19]
• "Darn TV! I'm sorry Ari, what did say again?" [20]
• "More important questions than yours are: Is Marvin Gaye? Does Helen Hunt? Is Billy Wilder? Does Tom Cruise? Does Gregory Peck? Is Barry White? I don't have all the answers like you do. Make up your own answers, you usually do." [21]
• "Let's call it WP:CIVIL_WAR. I'll be Lee and you can Saddam Hussein." [22]

arimareiji (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, this is another instance where WQA has sway, but since it is a recurring issue, maybe it does need to be addressed in this venue. I have already given Victor9876 the "yellow flag", cautioning him

WP:CIVIL for an all-out "pith" volley. Admin backup on this is now formally requested, if for no other reason than to calm the tempest brewing here. Edit Centric (talk

) 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, wrt the above - it has been at WQA twice in the past week. Once over Victor's editing others' comments, once over his gross incivility to Edit Centric. I followed another editor's lead at that page and took a break in the hope things would improve, but they haven't. arimareiji (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of the recent WQA betwixt myself and Victor9876, we worked that one out, even before 3-O intervention. (I guess that's a hallmark of being in that role myself.) IMHO, Victor9876 has the potential to be a very constructive editor here, but the tendency to become flippant gets in the way of that, in this instance to an intolerable degree.

Now there have been some recent developments in this dynamic, involving one Snipercraft, which may or may not have exacerbated the ongoing "troubles" at the article(s) in question. I personally am still not convinced that the creation of the Snipercraft account, nor it's interactions in the articles were completely "on the level", as the timing and circumstances were way too convenient to take at face value. I might be wrong about this, but something didn't feel right about it.

That situation aside, this entire untenable situation between editors needs a more forceful solution at this time. My regards, as always. Edit Centric (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the thread where the above occurred is Talk:Charles_Whitman#Request_for_arbitration. arimareiji (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't bother the admin that gets this with all of the volley's that Arimareiji has fired and get to the point. This occurred yesterday and today [[23]]. A new user, who followed my edits, reverted or totally changed the meanings of the content, requested Arbitration on the Charles Whitman Talkpage, claiming their writing was better than mine. (Please read it.) I have long suspected that Jwy and Arimareiji were in collusion together, to force changes that Jwy initially suggested and got involved in. After feigning ignorance or other issues, Jwy disappeared and Arimareiji showed up, later to claim as a 30 after he began taking up the same issue. Arimareiji is relentless and unabating in his passive-aggressive style of editing. He can not stifle himself, and will not reason with anyone and always misquotes or mis-applies WP:RULES to suit his purpose. There is no common sense application that he will listen to, and continues speaking, in what appears to be a war of attrition. You better give in or he will talk you into submission. At times, when a discussion has been left, he continues with a few more comments until someone returns, and it all starts over again. We went through a lenghthy RfA with Jwy, Arimareiji posted the content into the article, Jwy edited the content once it was in the article, so I changed the header to reflect what I felt the section read. At this point, I considered the talk page moot, and consensus over the past two weeks of bickering. I even conceded the argument on the talk page. Enter Snipercraft. Almost everyone, including myself, thought there was some merit to some of the edit. However, the disagreement grew back on the talk page, and Arimareiji reverted my reversion. The talk page was not resolved at that point. Follow the path of the few contributions of Snipercraft (note the name also fits the subject content), he cross posts to Jwy, he and Arimareiji have a conversation, and boom, the article page is open for another war. A newbie comes in and reaches a consensus with JWY and Arimareiji, after insulting me and another contributor Wildhartlivie. They were insulting and essentially mocked her and me. My belief is that they gamed the system, a CABAL, or whatever label applies. It became a war of numbers and Jwy and Arimareiji needed another player - enter Snipercraft. As Arimareiji notes in his revert, 3 to 0 consensus, because Wildhartlivie had not weighed in with her opinion of the content of the talk page. I mention on the page, that I do not trust the procedures and way this whole affair has been handled. The above replies to Arimareiji, were really meant to be humorous protests. He acknowledges humor to everyone but me. When I try to make light of something, there is broken rule or passive-agressive question for me. He answers direct questions for other editors, without giving them an opportunity to reply. Then claims WP is open for anyone to reply. I have been around the Whitman page longer than they have and have a grasp of the subject that they can never have. So I know what I can and can not put there. I do protect the page, and also know that I do not own it. So in closing, look at the catalyst today and yesterday, the previous issues went through two WQA's and were both resolved. The issues today and yesterday are about ego's and the suspicious appearance of Snipercraft. Wheeew! Thanks for looking!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(Addendum) I made charges of Arima above and just want to show an example from the first WQA. Please note that after Bwilkens responds to Arima, there are additional posts by Arima that have no response. Finally, when Bwilkens does respond, the tone is the same that Arima drew out of me with his peristence and lack of ability to stifle himself. Below is the exchange.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(The following x-posted by Victor9876 as thread history, I'm simply providing encapsulation)

Arima - give it up now, your replies are becoming disruptive, and you're not helping SOLVE an issue. If you don't believe in AGF then Wikipedia isn't for you. There are many reasons that might make someone post in the middle of your comments: a reading disability, lack of knowledge about how edits work, a lack of policy knowledge, etc. AGF. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at the pertinent edits before and after it before you respond. He entangles. I ask him to stop, and disentangle. He entangles again, replying "You're welcome, no problem!" I disentangle again, and tell him that his attempt at humor isn't funny. He stops doing it. But somehow, he only realized it today? Please AGF about how long I AGF'ed on this topic - AGF is not meant to cover repeatedly doing the same thing and pretending every time that you didn't know better. arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please read back to my original response to you, not to Victor's response to it. arimareiji (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

With that, you can rest assured I will leave this alone unless he continues, at which time I will take it to a more appropriate channel. WQA is only for voluntary compliance, and I put you in a bad spot by trying to get you to force anyone to listen. My apologies. arimareiji (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, you would not have liked the original reply to your response to me: good thing there was an edit conflict. And trust me, I recommend that you do not accuse me of not reading "pertinent edits". I will advise that you take something from this WQA as well: properly explaining issues (most people don't understand the word "refactor", for example) with an editor directly, and not running back for help everytime you perceive a minor issue will help your future cases on WQA, ANI, and anywhere else. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(end encapsulation / separation) Edit Centric (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I may have exhausted my

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 08:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

BMW - I genuinely don't know, but openly seems the best way to ask this: Would it be fair to say that since you typed the responses quoted above, that Victor's actions have cast him in a much-different light? Your initial impression, if I understood correctly, was that these could be innocent mistakes and that I was only jumping to conclusions. Do you still believe he's making innocent mistakes, given his responses to Edit Centric and his responses at the bottom of this thread (which is the topic)? arimareiji (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(Apparently moot for the time being, as his page reaffirms that he's not here to answer.) arimareiji (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

CliffNotes version of why I believe BMW is likely to have changed his mind about regarding Victor's actions being innocent mistakes since the first WQA. The enclosed are in addition to the comments listed at the top; same pattern of "I was only joking":

arimareiji (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure as arimareiji would admit, Cliff Notes are not the whole story. So allow me to present the whole story [[29]]. I honestly hate to do this because Edit Centric and I both apologized in the WQA and he has offered some great suggestions and we have both developed a mutual respect (at least I have) for each other. But as the reviewer will note in the 2nd WQA, after Edit Centric reviewed his own remarks that I responded to, he offered the apology first, I accepted and apologized myself, and Edit Centric asked for who ever came along to close the WQA because he had recused himself for being the one who brought the WQA and was an involved party. BMW came along after the request to close and apparently made comments, not having read the resolution, nor the request to close. Case closed.

Now again comes arimareiji and wants to resurrect the issue as a basis for blocking or banning me. As I stated in my first respnse, several paragraphs above, arimareiji can not stop. I mentioned and showed his propensity to continue adding messages when no one answers him. Look at the break from BMW's remarks and arimareiji's new accusations. Twice arimareiji posted until the silence drew his ire, and he wants to fuel the ill-will he has had for me since he joined the Whitman talk page. Snipercraft, the newbie that was a catalyst in this formal complaint, has requested and had his/her user page and user talk page deleted - by request. How odd. However, I did produce the link in my opening statement, and it still has the pertinent information with arimariji's contrib's there.

Also, you will note - I have not contributed to the Whitman talk page, nor had any discussions with anyone since this proceeding has begun, except to accept the yellow flag warning from Edit Centric. Arimareiji has, and quite amiciably with Jwy, who also is in the contrib's of the Snipercraft account. Other's have weighed in with great suggestions. I do not believe that BMW nor Edit Centric has any anymosity towards me, nor do I see any one else with ill feelings towards me except arimareiji. He has never posted anything constructive on the article page, nor, anywhere else I have been, to my knowledge. His sole purpose at this time, it appears, is to see his mission of having me banned, accomplished. I am not here asking for anyone to be punished or removed, but at this juncture, I think looking at arimareiji with the eye of the process and seeing his participation as an irritant that helped, in fact was the catalyst of my behavior, and be held to some formal standards as well. Again, I mostly work on the Whitman article, arimareiji has suggested from the beginning that I would eventually be at the least, topic banned. I would ask that arimareiji be banned from the Whitman talk page and article, so future events don't cause anymore friction there or here. This is not my decision to make (a quote from arimareiji to me in one of his opening introductions), but another cursory view of the rebuttals to arimareiji from others might be in order to assess his inability, to see that he is a large part of the problem. Thanks again for looking!--Victor9876 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The preceding combination of insinuations and allegations aren't worth responding to. A quick review of the talk page and archives demonstrates both 1) their blatant inaccuracy and 2) the fact that the diffs and quotes I've cited only scratch the surface of this ongoing pattern. The "whole story" he links to is simply the second WQA, which I had already linked to because it only backs up the quotes I pulled from it.

My issue is with Victor's behavior, not with him. He has demonstrated a great deal of knowledge that can be a valuable resource for the topic, if he can lay aside the incivility and defer to consensus in matters where he has CoI from personal involvement. arimareiji (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been no previous issue or charge concerning

conflict of interest or that he had any personal involvement with Charles Whitman or facts as noted in the article. That he has a personal opinion about issues involved in the article doesn't make it CoI, the policy for which clearly states "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." That he has some level of personal expertise in the case does not make it CoI. Please don't make insinuations of your own. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not true. In fact, you later responded to it by saying he had convinced you there wasn't one inherent in those statements. arimareiji (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Find one of those statements in the Charles Whitman Article. You can't because there is not one there. You are digging up your own accusations and displaying them according to your own personal view of what COI is from Talk Page discussions, not the Encyclopedia. I read the COI and as Wildhartlivie says above from the rules, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest". In fact, you were the one complaining of a heavy COI, and not anyone else. You were the one threatening to have it come to this, and also saying you did not want to see it happen. Yet, here we are. Do you see the irony in that?--Victor9876 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And again,

WP:WQA, which he participated in. He made nice with the other people at the WQA. It's my opinion that you don't intend to let up on this until you can possibly provoke some comment that might get him blocked and don't particularly want to make nice. That's fairly personal and biased in itself. It's starting to look quite vindictive to me and I'm wondering why you continue. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 03:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your statements revealing personal CoI wrt McCoy and Lavergne were in Talk, as you already know. The diffs are still there, and are linked. It's completely disingenuous to claim they don't exist because they're not in the article. arimareiji (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot take a statement that he can retrieve the links to a site with content that has been taken down to imply CoI. Have you not heard of internet archives? Yes, they can be retrieved. The statement revealed that he knew how to retrieve them. Anything else, is your synthesis. Personal knowledge of that does not equal personal CoI. In fact, not liking someone doesn't equal CoI. Just to note, you added to your comments by including more diffs. You have not proven CoI, although you have proven you are persistent in provoking this further. My comment about McCoy is posted above. Again, what is it that you want out of this? Shall I go cross-country and beat him with a bullwhip? Anything that you dig out is awash in the dissertations you have posted here and there. And let me ask, how is the posting above a response to what I said, unless it bordered on edit conflicts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie - It isn't a response to you, it's a response to Victor. Look at the time stamps; edits by you and Victor split the apparent order of who was answering what. arimareiji (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

After I posted that I noticed the time stamps. That's why I said it might have bordered on edit conflicts. it confused me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockery and assertion thereof

Actually this is a point where I disagree with Livie completely. (Although I usually do- she spends too much time in Michigan being didactic and not enough time in the real world.) If something is no longer posted, using the Internet Archive should NOT be a valid way to make a reference. I personally have had Time and Entertainment Weekly take DOWN erroneous articles. To have persons with excess time like Livie uses them as support via the IA is ludicrous.Actismel (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to any adminstrator who is looking at this thread: This posting was made by an account I tagged earlier today as a possible sock puppet of User:ColScott, only bolstered by the comment he made of "I personally have had Time and Entertainment Weekly take DOWN erroneous articles" - something some of the past socks of User:ColScott has said before, and this series of edits he made to his own article. This to me constitutes a personal attack and includes what the poster believes is personal information pertaining to where I live. I would request that this tangential post be removed and if anyone would care to, I suspect that sock puppet confirmation would be easily revealed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And has been blocked as a sock. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

All's well that ends well

I just spent a long time looking for arimareiji's link, [[30]] I was answering a request from Jwy, the website came back on line the next day.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, Wildhartlivie, I do not wish to see him topic-banned, blocked, or banned. That will be inevitable if he continues to treat people the way he has leading up to, during, and through two WQAs. But as Edit Centric noted previously, being brought up twice at WQA in one week by two different editors made no impact on him whatsoever. He was told point-blank twice there to stop

WP:ATTACKing

. This forum is the last place I can think of where he might listen.

In response to your claim that I'm trying to provoke him, here are the pertinent thread sections that prompted bringing this to AN/I. I believe any neutral party would see it the other way around from how you see it:

Quoted from Talk:Charles Whitman

3. Perhaps most to the point of all, echoing John's good question - do you have a specific remedy to propose here? arimareiji (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious Jwy, I do not consider you or Arima as "good" faith editors! Yes, I have a specific remedy to propose - I just can't do it here!--Victor9876 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would make resolution difficult amongst ourselves, so I'm taking a break while I decide what would be my best next step. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We have some nice high cliffs here in North Carolina. I could point you towards a few if you would like, out of courtesy of course. LOL! It's a joke Arima, don't respond with your usual huffing and puffing.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Victor: If you can't openly propose the remedy you desire on this specific page, there are other forums. If you can't openly propose the remedy you desire on any WP forum, then you might want to consider 1) why that's true, and 2) whether insinuating it is any better than openly proposing it.

Wrt your immediately-preceding comment, I've noted to you before that adding "LOL!" does not excuse incivility. However, on this occasion your comment is sufficiently indecipherable that it doesn't qualify as overt incivility. arimareiji (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ari, I was watching a cartoon and was laughing my arse off. It took precedence over your response. So, since I was distracted, would you please repeat what you wrote a little louder?--Victor9876 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Victor, could you please explain 1) where the reason is stated in

Darn TV! I'm sorry Ari, what did say again?--Victor9876 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

...

Additionally, Victor - could you explain why the lede now needs a wide smattering of fact tags, when its synonymous (but more awkwardly-phrased) ancestor apparently didn't? arimareiji (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

More important questions than yours are: Is Marvin Gaye? Does Helen Hunt? Is Billy Wilder? Does Tom Cruise? Does Gregory Peck? Is Barry White? I don't have all the answers like you do. Make up your own answers, you usually do.--Victor9876 (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you formally giving up on WP:CIVIL, and discussion versus edit-warring? arimareiji (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Let's call it WP:CIVIL_WAR. I'll be Lee and you can Saddam Hussein.--Victor9876 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I made my declaration above already. You, Jwy and Snipercraft have gamed the system, so no need for my input, just to be over-ruled by a cabal and not WP:RULES!--Victor9876 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

End quote.

Wildhartlivie, in response to your question of "how is the posting above a response to what I said, unless it bordered on edit conflicts?" - it wasn't. It was a response to Victor. Look at the time stamps of the comments. You inserted yours above mine, probably unintentionally. A later edit by Victor compounded it by splitting the tab levels, further confusing apparent order. arimareiji (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no valid purpose in reposting such a large block of text when you've already linked to the talk page and posted some of that at the beginning of this thread. This is becoming as disruptive as anything. What is it that you want? You just continue to post complaints but have yet to actually say what you want. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You asserted I was trying to provoke him - the actual text shows it's the other way around, with no room for questioning. Quoting what actually happened is a rather valid purpose when you continue to assert something that is contradicted by what actually happened. arimareiji (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The actual text shows that I answered Jwy's question from the top. I did not consider you, Jwy, or Snipercraft as good faith editors. But you had to keep pressing the issue with other questions. My answers were an attempt to amusingly let you know, that I was not going to answer your questions. But you pressed on and on. I finally had to re-iterate my declaration with my observations, again.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that you meant it to be amusing to anyone except yourself. I and others had warned you many times before then that incivility in the guise of "joking" isn't funny or civil, but you've continued even in this thread. Telling someone to "stifle" is funny on All in the Family, but not on Wikipedia. arimareiji (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)What about your statement to Wildhartlivie to "stuff it with a sock"? But that doesn't need to be answered Arima because this has gone on for weeks now and the game has to end sometime. Your "quid pro quo" line of questioning is never returned with a straight answer and always ends up as "quid pro only". I do not believe this will end with a "de novo".

To any administrator following this thread. Please close this and post your conclusions. I will accept whatever the outcome may be.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That was actually "put a sock in" insinuations that I was a sock, after she asserted (plausibly inadvertently) something that would constitute an accusation of being John/Jwy's sock. That was a while back, and that's an odd way for you to call for a halt to quid pro quo assertions that you've been the primary source of. (In fact, it seems to be the entire basis of your response.) arimareiji (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully a conclusion: Victor, question - In your defense, I note that you have stopped editing other editors' comments. If you're willing to continue that, and put a permanent end to sarcastically mocking fellow editors, that would resolve this completely. Are you willing to do so? arimareiji (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support such a resolution here. Should further issues come up about OR, which has been my main concern, I have discovered

WP:NORN which should get us faster, more directed help on that topic. (John User:Jwy talk

) 05:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Start: Cross-posted by Victor from his talk page before blanking

I've put up one last comment at AN/I. It would be good if you respond one way or another, but it's up to you. Whether or not you respond, I'll be leaving that thread alone - if you want the last word, it's yours. arimareiji (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

End of cross-post

Who's the authority here? Arimareiji comes into the talk page as an editor, then refers to himself as a 3:O, then strikes that, returns to being an editor involved in edit-warring, answers questions that are intended for clarification from specific editors, talks on behalf of WQA resolvers without their permission after he brings a WQA, and now he offers a behavior modification resolution that he himself has been guilty of, and associated with a less than honest Snipercraft who disappears. Now he offers me the last word. Also Jwy shows up as an endorser who had contact with Snipercraft and supports arimareiji. Thanks! I'll wait for an administrator's decision. That's my last word(s).--Victor9876 (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Tollund man blocked by Dominic [31] as a sockpuppet of Pickbothmanlol. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tollund_man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is correcting vandalism, but the non-standard warnings he issues are quite offensive. His edit summaries sometime threaten violence and death. perhaps someone with a little more authority and eloquence than me can explain proper wiki etiquette ?. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wuhwuzdat, thanks for reporting this.

Snigbrook has left the user a note. PhilKnight (talk

) 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I agree, some of these warnings are highly distasteful, esp. ?this but also this this and this. He has been warned now, so let's see how he responds. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also toned down his user page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(WQA Moderator Comments) - PhilKnight, I noted your comment about the content removal "hopefully being within Wiki policy". When in doubt, refer to

Just reviewing this, maybe it's just me, but why do a I get the feeling we are being trolled by this user? New user, as EC just stated coming in "guns blazing" with a "holier-than-thou" attitude. I know,

AGF

and all, but something seems a bit odd.

(WQA Moderator Comments) - Well again, let's keep an eye out on this one, with

WP:AGF as our base. If it's trolling, it will definitely be vetted out in the long haul. If otherwise (and I'm being an optimist here!), this could develop into a good thing. Either way, Semper Vigilans... Edit Centric (talk

) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(WQA Moderator Comments/UPDT) - Checked his edits since being warned, the incivility has toned down, but is still questionable. Special:Contributions/Tollund_man

One of my former supervisors told me something once, in regards to difficult customers; "Not all money is good money". Edit Centric (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

He's improving, but it would appear that he still misses the point. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. (Shaking my head,) I don't know what else we can do with this one, I provided him with direct links to the vandalism templates, and to the coaching section on warnings. My heart sinks... Edit Centric (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Per a recently completed checkuser result, requesting admin review and intervention. Perhaps semiprotection at Mae West and Talk:Mae West, Hippie and Talk:Hippie and/or soft rangeblocks. A disruptive sockpuppeteer, previously conduct RfC'd and CU-confirmed, returned and resumed disruption. Durova^Charge! 02:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the semi-protection and also urge rangeblocks on the IPs. This person has been persistent over the months in pressing POV content onto the Mae West article, and with this recent issue attempted to "vote-stack" through sock activity regarding the inclusion of the name

WP:RfC mentioned above, where the sock puppetry was revealed. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 04:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add another IP with the same initial set of numbers who has been editing the same articles and same goals, that of 217.209.96.84. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

These allegations of disruptive behavior, past and present, are fabrications = completely unfounded. See usercheck discussion here! Durova is way out of bounds in this case and is showing obvious bias. 217.209.96.212 (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The disruption continues: overwriting part of another editor's signature,[32] frivolous accusations of stalking[33][34] changing another editor's post.[35] Durova^Charge! 16:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked 217.209.96.0/25 for one month (should be uncontroversial). Still looking into it. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking into it further, the majority of disruption was coming from this range. Hopefully semi-protection isn't needed now, but if it becomes bad again, let me know or post to

WP:RFPP. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk

) 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Some eyes, please

Resolved

I am noticing that some edit-warring is occurring in Dan Schlund. The article was a recent AfD candidate twice, surviving twice, and it now appears that some folk who didn't like the outcome of the AfD are working extra hard to redirect the BLP article to a more general (and less connected) article. There is little in the way of seeking a consensus in the article discussion. One side is calling the redirects vandalism, and the other isn't saying much at all, except for attacking the editors. An RfPP was already filed, to await (and somewhat force) folk to the discussion table; still waiting on the protection. Maybe someone could step in and protect the article or a little bit in the unredirected state, so the article of the BLP remains live until some agreement is reached? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected by Philippe. Marking as resolved. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisting of AfD nominated by IP/SPA vandal

Special:Contributions/216.15.36.81 vandalized Garrison Courtney. IP was warned. IP then requested assistance in nominating page for deletion. This was declined. At the same time (06:48), Pilkington1984 registered. See Special:Contributions/Pilkington1984.

Pilkington1984 then nominated Garrison Courtney for deletion, improperly as an MfD. Zetawoof then helpfully created the AfD on behalf of Pilkington. The nomination made no proper deletion arguments, the only alleged issue was the verification of the title, which has subsequently been thoroughly confirmed. However, please do not debate the notability of the article here, do so on the AfD page if you wish to participate there. My only concern here is process. The defective nomination is mentioned because helping inexperienced editors to create a disruptive AfD is, itself, disruptive. However, the original AfD proceeded with little attention. Nevertheless, the nominator voted in it, again (besides nomination), as the original IP editor who had vandalized the article. Without that sock !vote and the SPA nominator, the !vote was 2 to 1 for Keep. This AfD would normally have closed as Keep or as No Consensus.

However, 5 days having elapsed, [[User:Ron Ritzman] relisted the AfD. This was a blatant disregard of AfD process. I have warned Ritzman. AfD when notability is marginal, can be highly disruptive, wasting great amounts of editor time for articles that are, by the conditions of the problem, marginal. Ritzman is not an administrator, and a relisting "to generate more thorough discussion" by definition wastes more time, and is only warranted when there are only a very few !votes for Delete, or no !votes at all other than the nominator.

A vandal/SPA has managed to disrupt the community, with the assistance of two editors. The clearest problem, though, is Ritzman's relisting. That AfD should have been left to close normally, which would have been minimally disruptive. AfD is bad enough without this serious misunderstanding of "consensus" as it relates to AfDs.

) 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, some of the relistings may be appropriate. I haven't actually undone any yet, and I've got other stuff to do. I'm still a bit concerned about what "may be appropriate," I'd prefer to leave anything marginal to an administrator to decide. (What's wrong with just leaving the AfD there for a while? Otherwise we are generating debate for the sake of generating debate i.e., "finding consensus." --

talk

) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the others but I think the relisting of Garrison Courtney that you use as an example was the right call. Whether a non-admin should have done it or not I don't know. -Djsasso (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the vandalism and sock vote aspects? BTW, thanks for changing the section heading, it's a little better. --

talk

) 17:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Non admins have just as much a right to relist discussions as admins do. We discussed this the last time we tried to take a crack at changing the relisting policy. Consensus seemed to be that relisting shouldn't be done where a "no consensus" close is more appropriate, but that when a debate (Even a debate with 1-2 participants) is relisted, that isn't a guarantee of 5 more days. Anyone can close the debate once they judge that some consensus has been reached or is not likely to be reached. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of non-admin closings of AfDs (those closures often cause more problems than they solve), I have no problems with non-admins relisting, especially in a case like this. My take on relisting is that if there have been few participants or there is a good chance that a few more days will let a consensus form, relisting is definitely the way to go. It's a far better use of everyone's time to extend the debate a few days than it is to close as no consensus and have the article come right back to AfD in a few weeks. And if the relisting was a bad idea, an admin can always come along and close the AfD, so little harm was done.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about non-admins, on principle. (I'd have However, AfD process can be abused. What would have been done if the nominator had been IP? Might as well have been! And a glance at contribs showed that the nominator had first vandalized the article? I have a simple request. Please look at the evidence presented with the report before stating that the relisting seems okay.

I came to have a separate question about relisting process, I haven't paid much attention to AfD process over most of the last year, and maybe I didn't have such a good understanding of it in the first place. But it seemed to be designed for minimal disruption. Relisting prolongs debate, and extended debate over deleting articles often generates more heat than light. I.e., there may be some improvement to an article, and then it's gone. Wasted time. Or there is no improvement and lots of editors commenting. Wasted time, no improvement. In the end, it is only one article out of two million. I'm not distressed if it's deleted or if it is kept. I didn't like that the nomination implied a false claim of position with the DEA, and so I went to the article and sourced what is there, to make it verifiable, if it's kept, or even if it's not (it might come back, or, perhaps, as I'd prefer to deletion, it might be merged). Merge could have been accomplished by one editor with possibly no debate at all. We have serious matters of content that are decided by fewer editors than have participated in the AfD.

It's clear from the present AfD debate that the community is divided on Keep or Delete, the likely outcome is No Consensus at this point, but it's the luck of the draw, sometimes. Now, what would have happened without the relisting? Not much different, except that maybe the result would have been Keep, depends. Without relisting, the AfD might have sat overtime, or not. What I find problematic is the idea that there is value in trying to find "consensus" when clearly the community isn't ready for it. As I understood it, the default situation with all articles is Keep. There are countless articles where some substantial segment of the community would want to Delete.

Relisting is a decision by an editor that we need to find consensus on the issue; in this case, that the community should bring broad attention to the suggestion of an IP vandal. Otherwise, leaving it alone leaves it to a responsible closer. Relisting postpones that and just adds more debate. In any case, if someone doesn't like the result, there is DRV, or there is simply waiting (with a Keep, more often) and renominating after a decent delay. Often by that time a consensus has developed. By that time the article might be more mature. Etc. Like I said above, I thought I understood the process. Maybe I didn't. --

talk

) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bother to read most of this discussion since I only really have one thing to say. Relisting an AfD does not cause harm. If an admin disagrees, they can close it. This is really a non issue. It does not "waste another editors time" since you are not obligated to prolong discussion, nor are you required to follow the reslisting templates suggestions. Have a nice day. Synergy 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For a discussion with a small number of participants taking sharply opposed view, relisting is a very useful course and should be done more frequently. It always attracts the attention of other editors not particularly involved in the topic who can provide their possibly more objective evaluations. Trying to judge consensus on three or four comments is often difficult. It's better to have one afd and decide. Relisting is also appropriate if there are major improvements late in the discussion, or if nobody at all has made a policy based argument one way or another. It decreases the number of articles that need to go to deletion review. The times when it is wrong is when there is clear consensus from a number of editors with a substantial discussion of the points, and it is hoped by someone that a different consensus might develop. Closing as nonconsensus without relisting is for those cases where there has been a full discussion of the issues, and it is clear that there is no agreement likely to be reached., In this particular instance, the relist was correct. DGG (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. Correct if the vandalism, SPA nomination, and the sock voting in the original AfD is considered? I do disagree on the benefits of relisting, except in certain situations, but we can discuss that elsewhere. --

talk

) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a guideline on relisting? I didn't see it quickly. If not, we should have one. I didn't find information on how to relist or the allowed and disallowed reasons at all. Can anyone simply extend the time for discussion, regardless? --

talk

) 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll find the guideline at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My concern has been increased, not decreased, by reading that. What is see is one editor routinely relisting a whole series of expiring AfDs. Relisting is a form of close, the guideline implies that it is a closer who makes the decision. I'd be concerned if I see one editor closing many AfDs at the same time; could the editor do the necessary research? A close is not simply a glance at !votes, rather the arguments and evidence are considered and checked, unless, sometimes, the consensus is snowing. In the particular instance, the relisting was that of an AfD which probably should have been speedy closed at the outset, as being the nomination of a vandal. There were enough !votes in the AfD to make relisting more questionable (the guideline says "only one or two commenting editors (including the nominator)," whereas there were four, plus the IP sock of the nominator), and when the sock vote -- which would be blatantly obvious to anyone who did the required footwork for a closing -- was excluded, it was two to one for Keep. Given that Keep isn't forever, and unless the closer thought the arguments crystal clear in the other direction, a Keep or possibly No Consensus closure would have been the least disruptive. Instead, we have this. I worked on the article to source it, in spite of my normal policy against fixing articles under the AfD gun, just because it was there, but then I noticed the vandalism and the SPA account created just to nominate, and the sock vote, and that's why I became concerned about relisting. --

talk

) 23:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for starting this dramafest. My only purpose in relisting AFD discussions is to give more time for a consensus to form to debates with few or no comments and I don't look that closely at who's nominating and who's !voting because unlike Abd, I never viewed it as a close. I also close AFD discussions and I'm a lot more careful with those, particularly with all the recent drama surrounding non admin closures.

Have I made mistakes relisting? Maybe I have but this is the first time I've been yelled at for one. I always felt that if someone thinks that an AFD discussion shouldn't have been relisted, then he can just close it. In the case of the Garrison Courtney AFD, here's what I saw at the time it was relisted. 2 "keeps", 2 "deletes" (one unsigned), one editor not sure. At the time relisting seemed like the prudent thing to do. As for how fast they I relist, I use Mr Zman's script which is pretty fast. My goal is to get all the short debates relisted onto a fresh log because they tend to attract more comments that way. I'm not the only one who does it this way either, Aitias and Juliancolton also tend to relist a lot of AFDs early and quickly.

Once again, I'm sorry for all the drama I've caused. In the future, I'll look at the discussions a little bit more closely before relisting. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ron, I regret any distress. Using a script to relist isn't a problem, in itself, but a relisting is a form of close (see

talk

) 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One more point, now that the AfD has been closed as No Consensus by MBisanz. If the original AfD had been left, it would probably have closed with a total of five editors commenting, as Keep or possibly as No Consensus, perhaps depending on whether the closer noticed the sock puppet vote. Most would have. There was more participation than the usual standard for

talk

) 03:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And here's another point of view for Ron and Abd to consider. I do a fair amount of work at AfD, both in categorizing and closing debates. I've seen a lot of debates that Ron has relisted, and I've agreed with 99% of them. Frankly, when there are only 1 or 2 opinions in a debate, it doesn't take a huge amount of time to decide that consensus isn't there. With a script, all it takes is one mouse click after that decision is reached. It certainly doesn't take 5 minutes per AfD to decide to relist. Keep vs. delete, perhaps, but not relist. Yes, care is important, but the track record has been good here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Fabrictramp. I'm quite ready to believe that. Note that Ron has apologized (and this really helps me to abandon any lingering doubts about his work). What this has raised for me is the issue of script-assisted relistings; as I pointed out, yesterday Ron relisted 10 AfDs in 5 minutes. I am not claiming that these were "incorrect." A relisting, however, should take almost as much work as a full close, and relisting is a close. If it isn't,

WP:RELIST

should be rewritten! The subject AfD wasn't "1 or 2 opinions," it was four or five, and some 1 or 2 opinion AfDs should be fully closed. I'd argue that, for example, a nominated AfD with no comment, unless the closer agrees that the AfD is solidly based, should be closed as No Consensus. If the closer agrees with the delete, then the closer could relist and then comment, paving the way for the next step in the process. If script assist is going to be used to close AfDs, quickly, there should be very specific guidelines, a list of things that should be checked before relisting.

Under some circumstances, relisting could take less than 5 minutes. I really doubt that a sound judgment can be made in many AfDs in thirty seconds, in many cases, but perhaps I'm wrong. We need standards. The subject AfD, here, shows that.

I'm a big fan of

ignore all rules

but when it comes to what we do with automated tools, which encourage snap judgments, we've lost the value of IAR, which is to support and encourage active and individual judgment.

Snap judgment here is to just look at the !votes instead of weighing the arguments and checking the evidence. That is what I infer from 2 relistings per minute. I would suggest that a relister should always then comment (and, of course, shouldn't be one who has commented previously). If one is going to check the AfD out enough to have an opinion that it should be relisted, then why waste the valuable insight by not commenting? A relisting should represent an opinion that Delete is reasonable, not that No Consensus has been found. It is an action predicated on an opinion that the nominated deletion should be discussed further. It would be, in effect, an opinion that the article should be deleted, but that no consensus has been found. Otherwise, I'd say, let someone who will express an opinion make the decision. --

talk

) 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, when I first started doing this, the number of relists I had to do concerned me as well. Therefore I made this proposal. There was some support for it but unfortunately not enough. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not ironic, actually. Ron, you aren't in "hot water" as you mentioned elsewhere. You are clearly working for the benefit of the project. The discussion on the Pump was like a lot of Wikipedia discussions, it went nowhere, because nobody closed it with a conclusion. The conclusion there might have been No Consensus, which would meant that the topic could reasonably be brought up again. Personally, I think that discussion was incomplete, and that's why there was No Consensus, the full range of issues were not considered and addressed in detail. Now, as to the issue, I'm coming to think that automatic relisting decisions, which is more or less what Ron is doing, when there is no consensus for Delete, and a closer doesn't look at it and at the evidence and conclude the article should be deleted, are a waste of time. They don't save any significant work. Someone will eventually have to close anyway. The question asked at the Pump was a little different: can a closer close as Delete if there has been a nomination and no support for delete (and also no keep)? Ron was arguing that it was like an expired Prod, which is reasonable. But the decision about what to do cannot be based on !votes. It must be an independent judgment by a closer who is uninvolved, and who reviews the arguments and evidence, including such evidence as who nominated it -- SPA vandal? A closer could possibly close as Delete with no other support than the Closer's independently formed opinion, and a non-admin closer could then Prod the article. We tend to forget the closer, as if a closer was just a robot which analyzes the !votes. For an AfD to close with a deletion, there must be at least two editors who concur with Delete: the nominator and the closer. Now, for various reasons, we may want there to be at least three: nominator, a delete !voter, and the closer. We should always remember that article creation, not to mention participation in improving it, represents a virtual Keep !vote, and we value consensus, and that's why we might want three to delete, minimum, instead of just two.

I've been discussing this with Ron, and I've suggested that one should never close as Delete unless one is personally convinced that the article should be deleted, based on a review of the evidence and policy. It's very important that a closing admin (or non-admin closer) be responsible for the decision, because the least disruptive way to get an article undeleted is to go to the closer and ask for it. With a good closer and a polite request, accompanied by sufficient evidence and cogent argument, it should be easy. If the closer says, "It wasn't my decision, it was the community's decision," it's like a brick wall; it's expensive (wastes project labor) to ask the community (WP:DRV simply involves more fuss), and Wikipedia structure is generally based on closes that are the individual responsibility of the closer, an independent decision, informed by the community, but not as a rubber stamp for some imagined community voice. You really want to know what the community thinks, you put in in a banner that all readers see. We don't do that often, for very good reason. And even then, it's only advice from the community. Somebody makes the decision.

I'm not suggesting that an admin seeing a snowing AfD can't just close it that way, and I won't deal with that circumstance here. We are really discussing AfDs with small participation, as little as none but the nominator. Standard deliberative practice, worked out over centuries, is that a motion without a second fails, no further discussion. I'm recommending that the standard AfD period be extended to 7 days from 5, because of better fit with editor schedules. If no concurrent opinion appears within 7 days, the assumption should be no support for it, it's a rebuttable assumption. If a closer looks at that, investigates the solitary nomination, and concludes that the article should be deleted, the closer could recuse from closing and !vote delete, providing the evidence (if it wasn't already there) or confirming the evidence and arguments. Leave it for someone else to decide. With the system of personal responsibility that I imagine we have, this, then, would require three editors to agree on a deletion before it would happen: the nominator, the original investigator who might have closed as Keep based on lack of a confirmation, but who decided after investigation that Delete was appropriate, -- or any other independent editor -- and then the final closer, who would also have done the same. I do not see any efficiency at all in relisting, and no reasonable expectation of improvement in outcomes. If my article is deleted, and I don't like it, I can ask the closer to reverse the decision. Some have. And if they don't, I still have

WP:DRV

or sometimes I can just get the article userfied and fix it, and sometimes get that back into user space with very little fuss, having satisfied the objections in the original AfD. Basic Wikipedia principle: do it in the least disruptive way possible, which generally means involving only the minimum number of necessary editors.

And, in case you are wondering, my favorite topic was deleted. My comments are coming from a recognition that Wikipedia must become more efficient, and recognizing the value of the system of distributed responsibility that we have is essential in maintaining what efficiency we have. There are other inefficiencies that will probably take new structure and procedures, or else we will continue to burn out editors and administrators. --

talk

) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal stuff and deletion

Could someone please take a look at this for me, User talk:Jac16888#Thank you for your deletion of "Kalju Kahn" last night?. Sounds important, but I really don't have the time, energy or motivation to look into this. Thanks--Jac16888^Talk 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I dare say the IP address of the account that created the article might be useful to the polict department investigating, but since they've already got the fake email it would probably add little to their knowledge. Other than that, I don't see anything we can do. Black Kite 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What the police need is a checkuser on Ucsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but it sounds like something for the foundation's legal department to handle. Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of alerting the foundation. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In an instance such as this, Mr. Kahn needs to contact us himself to inquire how to get information relating to the accounts that created that article. Bastique ^demandez 19:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Serial redundant article creation without discussion, unsourced file uploading

Güngören Belediyespor), without discussion. This has resulted in several pairs of nearly identical articles for Turkish sports clubs. In addition, the user has today been uploading a large quantity of the sports clubs' logos with no copyright information. The user is continuing to do both without discussion or explanation, even after multiple warnings, so I bring the issue here. -kotra (talk

) 19:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has apparentll ignored requests to communicate with him for days. I have placed a 48 hour block on his account to get him to at least explain this problematic editing. He looks like a Newbie and he may be trying to do something valid, however we cannot know that, nor can we help him do it right, if he just insists on ignoring requests from others to stop and discuss. I would recommend to Kotra or other involved editors to go through his duplicate articles and redirect them to the main articles; I do not know enough about these teams to do it well myself, and it looks like you might, and redirecting may get him in the future to edit the "right" article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Wubbabubba as a sock of an unknown other user by User:YellowMonkey

Resolved

 – Checkuser confirmed all are accounts of a single user; YellowMonkey sent to room without dinner for not tagging them

User Wubbabubba has been around for at least two years plus in wikipedia. see details. The account was blocked as a sock of an unknown editor. We have no evidence of any request for check user, the account voting in using its alleged multiple accounts, any mal practice. I just don’t know how Wikipedia blocking policies work anymore. What is the process, where is the transparency? The user account does not reflect that it is being blocked for sock puppetry with the appropriate tags. It does not lead us to the check user results. Taprobanus (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

See YellowMonkey's logs:

1. 04:56, 4 March 2009 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) blocked Cookie90 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppetry) (unblock | change block)
2. 04:56, 4 March 2009 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) blocked ShimShem (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppetry) (unblock | change block)
3. 04:56, 4 March 2009 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) blocked DriveDelta (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppetry) (unblock | change block)
4. 04:56, 4 March 2009 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) blocked Furrycoater (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppetry) (unblock | change block)
5. 04:56, 4 March 2009 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) blocked Roomiebroom (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppetry) (unblock | change block)
6. 04:56, 4 March 2009 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) blocked Clubover (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppetry) (unblock | change block)
7. 04:56, 4 March 2009 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) blocked Wubbabubba (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppetry) (unblock | change block)

From the CU, I have  Confirmed that all accounts were being operated on the same IP addresses with the same user agent, editing the same articles broadly speaking. It does appear quite suspicious that this user operated multiple accounts to edit a limited group of articles for a seemingly unknown reason. I've posed this question on Clubover's user talk page. Another thing: instead of coming to AN/I, why don't you just ask YellowMonkey on his talk page? This circuitous block review isn't going to resolve matters faster. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Checked some of them, they all seem to be interested in similar things such as

WP:SOCK guidelines of tagging the account with the approriate sock tag. Thanks Taprobanus (talk

) 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Secthayrabe & User:Secthaycaan

User:Secthayrabe repeatedly recreated Nabil Rastini until it was salted, at which point he started doing variants such as Nabil' Rastini & Nabil A Rastini. I gave him an only warning for inappropriate pages. The extremely similarly named account, User:Secthaycaan, has recreated Nabil' Rastani. (I initially considered this a vandalism issue, but AIV told me to come here.) Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Secthayrabe's talk page says he has retired; but he still has User:Secthayrabe/Nabil Rastani in his user space. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, both users' pages say retired, yet they continue to edit. Their recent contribs are almost entirely related to Nabil Rastini. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 20:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Travis_(chimpanzee).jpg

Can someone please review this image (and its listing at

WP:IUP and continues to insert it in articles, which I fear puts the project at legal risk. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk

12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear the chimp is threatening to sue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new. Primates tend to sue far more than the forgiving canine. Felines, on the other hand, tend to not sue, but just ""remove" the problem. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let him sue. Bananas and old tires are cheap. PhGustaf (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya can "spank the monkey," but is "stabbing the chimp" comparable? Edison (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

School closed due to wiki threat.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Foundation is aware of it, the Communications Committee is aware of it, and they're the only two sets of people who should concern themselves with this. No need to create a song-and-dance which just encourages silliness. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Apperently today a school was closed due to a threat made on a Wikipedia page today. I didn't see this mentioned anywhere yet, so i figured that it might be useful if a few more people knew about it, in case the press might dive into it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. Has the Foundation been notified? I assume they most likely know but just in case?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

They know about it. Daniel (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CorenSearchBot

Resolved

 – ..ish - Discussion continuing at

WP:BON

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No immediate administrator intervention required. Discussion regarding bot

SLAs continues at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Good communication. –xeno (talk

) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

---

This appears to be running but the operator is not responding to messages on either his talk [36] or the bot's talk [37] - I was under the impression that bots should not be run if the operator is not available to respond to queries in a timely fashion. Can someone block the bot please. Exxolon (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just one false positive? Comon now. I'd be more worried if it was a pile-on, but it isn't. I'm sorry that Coren isn't available at his desk 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We do have lives, you know. seicer | talk | contribs 23:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what Wikipedia:Bot policy (which is an official policy) says - "Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately." (Emphasis mine). Exxolon (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess that really depends on your definition of prompt. Prompt response in this (fairly low priority) case I would say is 48 hours. –xeno (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You won't find an administrator that will block a bot for one false positive because the operator won't reply in a matter of an hour. seicer | talk | contribs 23:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

By its very nature CorenSearchBot will occasionally pick up false positives from scraper sites that it doesn't know about. If that's causing a major issue then the bot can be easily blocked; the odd one isn't going to waste many people's time. Black Kite 23:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is not acceptable. "Prompt" and "promptly" do not mean "whenever the bot owner deigns to respond" or "48 hours". Proposal to change the policy to include strict time limits made at

Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Cross_posted_from_Bot_Policy_Noticeboard. Exxolon (talk

) 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Strict time limits? You do realize this is a volunteer project, yes? In any case, I would suggest we close the discussion and continue it at

WP:BON. –xeno (talk

) 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahead of you - already posted. Exxolon (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good grief... this is now leaning towards a

bad faith submission, because your relentless push to have Coren and/or his bot blocked because he didn't reply to your message in an hour? Perhaps Coren has a life, or is asleep, or is doing something important. One false positive out of many is not a big deal. As you clearly stated, you dislike any bot, so perhaps your objectivity is in question here. Drop it and move on to matters more important. seicer | talk | contribs

23:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Hah! I'm still waiting for a response to a message I left on the bot's talk page on 23rd January. DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I normally do not reply to simple notices about false positives. In cases where the false positive is actually caused by a problem with the bot rather than a side effect of its natural function, I'll respond and/or tweak the bot, but there is rarely a need to otherwise acknowledge such messages when the instructions left in both templates, and in the edit notice of my talk page are very clear. Taking/keeping this to the right forum where a more appropriate thread is already started. — Coren ^(talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This kind of non response to 'routine queries' seems to be an accepted standard of communication among bot operators. I seem to remember having the same doubt over a message I left your bot a long time ago, and it also seems to apply to smackbot judging by the non response to a recent message I left him, and it was also the modus operandi of another famously bad bot operator. It is simple arrogance for you to assume you have crafted a template well enough to satisfy what you think are routine queries, leaving other users wasting their time checking your talk pages for a reply that will never come. MickMacNee (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Because people can't read a talk page guideline that's clearly posted at the top? Lazyness. seicer | talk | contribs 12:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Which people, and which guideline? MickMacNee (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the basic flaw in assuming you know what is in the poster's mind when leaving a message, looking at

User talk:CorenSearchBot, I see no explicit instruction that a message is likely to be ignored if it appears to Coren to be a routine issue. MickMacNee (talk

) 12:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that some sly reference to betacommand? Protonk (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Problem bot (CSDWarnBot)

This was moved from here over to the bot owners page for discussion. That discussion now seems to have reached the point where an admin is needed, as the bot's owner is utterly unwilling to even consider the possibility that there is a problem, and has suggested that if there is a problem someone else should fix it.

talk

) 19:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Golly, I've never seen a bot-creator display that sort of attitude before. *COUGH*

BETACOMMAND*COUGH* HalfShadow

03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:TehFreezer and stealing barnstars

talk to me 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 – user blocked, barnstars sent back home, and no horses were whipped.--Fabrictramp

Back last November TehFreezer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was vandalizing pages, in the process of checking I had noticed that it seemed a little out of apparent character as the user had a whole raft of barnstars on their user and talk pages. Further checking revealed that these had all been added at once by the user themselves, copied from other places. The user was reported [38] and consequently blocked for the vandalism and counter community actions. Their pages were blanked of the stars. The user came back on in the last few days and reverted their pages to restore the barnstars. I wiped them again this morning and posted the user a customised warning message [39] about how their actions following a block to reinstate the stars they did not earn were not a demonstration of good faith and was completely counter to the spirit of the community etc. The user posted me a warning on blanking. Anyhow, I was about to block the user for 3 months to give them some further time to reflect on their actions but since they threatened an ANI report I thought I'd call their bluff and also get a second opinion before I do it. Mfield (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2nd opinion as requested: Do it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

in the old days they'd take you out and horsewhip ya for stealing barnstars . . . untwirl(talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. He done it agin; I done blocked him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them again- seems to be a sound block. Abusing the barnstar process is annoying at best, but clear unwillingness to have any respect for Wikipedia customs and users (as well as clear edit warring) is definitely a bad thing. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, and Mfield left a lovely notice in addition to my terse message. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Barn stars" seem like silly vanity and mutual patting on the back in any event. Edison (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • They might be more impressive if they weren't corroded. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Quite true. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Winnipeg Folk Festival vandal

There's a serial vandal who has been targeting several pages to do with the Winnipeg Folk Festival. The vandal's MO is to add a long, first-person story about their experience at the 2005 WFF. They've been IP hopping and targeting a number of articles and talk pages, so whack-a-mole blocks and page protection have not solved the problem yet.

Diffs

• Winnipeg Folk Festival: 1, 2, 3, etc...
• Talk:Winnipeg Folk Festival: 1, 2, 3, etc...
• Festival: 1, 2, etc...
• Folk festival: 1, 2
  , etc...
• Talk:Folk festival: 1
• Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players: 1, 2, etc...
• Birds Hill Provincial Park: 1, 2, 3, etc...
• Talk:Birds Hill Provincial Park: 1, 2, 3, etc...
• User talk:Astronaut: 1, 2, 3, etc...

As you can see, a number of editors and admins have been fending off this guy, but I'm not sure any of them realized the scope of his activity. I have placed a one month rangeblock on 216.26.208.0/20, which should take care of roughly half of the IPs used. The other half would require blocking 216.211.0.0/17, which is a pretty wide range. I've made a preliminary check into the possible collateral damage of a /17 block, and it appears minimal, although a CU would certainly get better results than me.

I'd like some people to keep an eye on the articles listed above to monitor for further vandalism whenever possible.

One final thing, this edit may indicate that this is a banned user or some other former editor with an axe to grind. It certainly demonstrates good knowledge of WP policies. Cheers, caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 06:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks to be Swamilive. See also:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_activity
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_rampage
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive168#Yet_another_Swamilive_sockpuppet
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#User:Swamilive_-_Sockpuppeteer_and_harasser_wrapped_up_and_ready_to_go

The first time that I had seen this added was to my user page on Feb. 11, (see history) until Oxymoron83 got enough IPs to do a range block. Previously, he had targeted James Bay, Southern James Bay, A-frame, among others. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spam acct?

User:Joannaguy(I think this is the same person, similar edits user:206.136.32.222) has been adding a link to this

• National Geographic World Music: Cajun Music and similar nat geo links to myriad music pages, always in the references and see also link lists, never in the external links list. I went and moved a few to the proper place. But they have made quit a few such additions. Is what this user done considered spam? It seems to be a single purpose acct, the only thing in contribs list is edits similar to this, always concerning the nat geo music thingy. I contemplated fixing all of their edits, but after looking at the list, got a littl daunted. Could an admin or more experienced person than I look at and tell me what they think? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ive looked at their contribs and I have to agree with you.... ( mebbe an admin could kindly delete the edits and give a warn/ban (I suggest a level 3 or 4im for the warn) )  rdunnPLIB  12:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There now seems to be another acct, User:NatGeoMusicIntern, adding the same spam links to multiple music pages. I'm not sure all 3 accts(counting the IPuser) are the same person, but they seem to make only one edit, the adding of the Nat Geo music thing to music pages. All 3 accts have been warned about spamming, but their actions are continuing. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think an check user should be run or and admin look into them.  rdunnPLIB  10:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• worldmusic.nationalgeographic.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Joannaguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• NatGeoMusicIntern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 206.136.32.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Link is mainly used by these accounts, although there are also some regulars adding the link. I'll add it to XLinkBot for now to keep the floodgates closed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Myriad of overlapping lists-what to do?

So after starting to merge articles following

List of Sony Ericsson models page and merge it into the products page afterward. However, I then discovered there are sub-lists in the products list, which also contain links to the base articles that were to be merged. Each successive article down the chain just provides slightly more information, yet the articles at the bottom of the chain fails Notability, and the lists in the middle aren't noticeably more detailed than the main products list which brings into the question of their notability. How exactly should this merger proceed now? Should I bring up another AfD (as suggested by closing admin if there is any problems), go to DRV, or just be bold, do what I was intending to do, and mark the in between lists for deletion? Sorry if this is the wrong board. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers

07:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My head just exploded. I think you are in the wrong place but I am not sure where to tell you to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of what to make of the problem either which is why I asked here (the editing notice does say everything else goes here), there's also the issue of redirecting around 40 of the base proved not notable (via AfD) articles to whatever final list there is, or deleting them outright(which would require a AfD or asking a admin)...there should be a guideline on what to do when attempting to clean up mass article bloat on wikipedia. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how many people voted in the AfD, I would probably send them all a quick message letting them know what you intend, and asking them to comment on your talk page, or the article talk page or wherever. You'll probably get a quicker consensus that way. I wouldn't have thought that deleting them all would be sensible (but then i didn't vote in that discussion), it would seem more sensible to redirect to another list article than contains all the relevant info. --GedUK  10:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Xn4

Resolved

 – Blocked.

History see:

• User talk:Fowler&fowler#Sockpuppets
• User:Fowler&fowler/Xn4-Strawless-Editing-Histories
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xn4/Archive
• User talk:Xn4#Archives
• User talk:Xn4#Topic ban on British India and other similar articles 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See the contributions for a new account called user:UmarZ specifically edits 15:34, 2 March 2009 and 15:43, 2 March 2009.

I asked user:YellowMonkey for advise here is a copy of the exchange from user talk:YellowMonkey#Sockpuppets?:

I do not have a lot of experience with sockpuppets, so I would appreciate your advise on what if anything should be done about

talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[40]

It's him again. It needs a block. you can do something with Xn4 if you feel necessary, or ask someone else. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[41]

Given that I have already imposed a topic ban for three months followed by a one month 1RR on

talk

) 10:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If Xn4 was confirmed to be socking shouldnt he have been blocked?  rdunnPLIB  11:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have indeffed both the sock and the sockmaster on the basis of YellowMonkey's statement Fritzpoll (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackal4

 Being discussed on user's talk page.

Jackal4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We're seeing a growing amount of contentiousness and civility problems with that user. A lot of it is over minutia, like whether to say "RBIs" vs. "RBI". Yesterday, thanks to edit-warring with 3 users (me included), he got a 24 hour block over the use of the comma. When another user restored a lengthy explanation of his behavior to his talk page, he dismissed it with an F-bomb. [42] Basically, he does what he wants and won't listen to anyone else. He's not a newbie, he's been on here like 3 years. I don't know what to do with this guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to notify him on his talk page, where he might or might not choose to respond to any inquiries here until his block ends in 14 hours or so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

40 lashes, Joe Taliban, etc.

40 lashes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joe Taliban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seem to be connected with the following, as discussed at: [43]

Melienas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above are the latest (at this writing) of users created for the sole purpose of posting spurious warnings. This has been referenced in several places in ANI already. Can something be done to choke off any attempted new ones for awhile? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• The behavior by the users above was essentially identical to that of Blind man Martin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tin Whistle Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who were banned last night, it would not surprise me if there were other accounts out there as well that I haven't seen. Camw (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Another is Long curly hair (talk · contribs) who was blocked for vandalism, also Mick Fitz"Gillian"gibbons (talk · contribs) who has no edits but the username suggests it is another sock. It looks like several other accounts were created but most have been blocked. —Snigbrook 12:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sensitive man (talk · contribs)... semi-protected the talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 12:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that the newly banned accounts are socks of the user detailed here Camw (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Napalm Death album (talk · contribs) is another sock. —Snigbrook 12:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• • These are all User:Hamish Ross (except User:Melienas, which doesn't seem to fit the pattern). Any admin, please block on sight anything matching these patterns. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • PS -- check the user creation date -- a date in Nov. 2007 is a dead giveaway. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some newer ones, though. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I connect 40 lashes with Melienas because 40 lashes marked the AN section about Melienas as "resolved" for no apparent reason [44] although he could have just been randomly messing around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Hamish Ross may be taking credit for actions he didn't do. He wants to seem like he can't be beaten regardless of how many socks we block, so he pretends to be other vandals, andthen when the later accounts are discovered to be him - the earlier ones will also be associated with him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Isn't there a way to stop him creating new socks? Like a range-block on his IP address or something? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem isn't creating new socks. He has hundreds of already discovered socks, a lot of them created in November 2007. We can hardblock IP addresses, (in fact, we have - I know through information not from the checkusers that this is him) but there's not much more we can do.

Maybe a range block? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

1. For all I know, checkusers blocked some ranges.
2. There are 10 IP addresses I suspect he used anonymously; of these, 2 are in the 86.131.48/20 range (86.131.48.0-86.131.63.255), while the 10 IP addresses occupy 9 different /16 ranges (first 2 numbers). I don't think range blocks could reasonably cover this issue.
3. Hard blocks are not always an option. Some times, there may be too much collateral damage.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few of the recent IP edits have been from 91.108.192.0/18 (which has been hardblocked before) and 79.79.0.0/17, although I don't know if they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets. —Snigbrook 16:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"collateral damage"? Well, it comes down to the question, how much time does anyone want to spend, constantly swatting these mosquitoes, vs. taking some practical action to put a stop to it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there will be a great deal of collateral damage if we hardblock his IPs. There are a few hundred editors on his massively shared BT IP, including a number of established editors and administrators. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Me, for a start. Well, I needed a wikibreak anyway ;) Black Kite 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, admins inherently get

WP:IPBE, but it's still not a great decision to have to make. Anyway, I've posted a new RFCU based on 40 lashes / Joe Taliban; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Possum Pint. Mangojuice^talk

23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>If there's only a few innocent users on a range, then a rangeblock+IPBE is a better solution. If there's more like "a few hundred editors", then that's not really an option. Among other things, the more innocent users there are now, the more likely a user with an existing account will move into the range. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dericate rittre frower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the latest in the line. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 11:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And prior to it surfacing today, there was probably no way to distinguish it from the other hundreds of accounts created in November 2007 which have no edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gavin.collins canvassing?

As can be seen in the diffs posted at [45],

WP:FICT to "discourage topics which are only the subject of in universe plot summary, trivia and cruft." I asked him in the above edit if he would also contact inclusionists (if it was an effort to contact pretty much everyone who has been participating in those discussions okay, but it is focused only on obviously sympathetic editors; imagine if I did the same and only contacted DGG, Pixelface, Ikip, et al). Anyway, he replied with this, which I don't see how a general RfC is somehow comparable and nor do I see how that is an effort to "destroy Wikipedia inclusion criteria" when I suggested that we rename "notability" as "inclusion criteria"... I am all for some kind of inclusion criteria, just not one called "notability." I am also a little disappointed to see my good faith effort to be nice by giving him a smile when I mass gave editors smiles a short time back received with this. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk}

19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unless there are some unexplained mitigating circumstances, targeting a large body of partisan editors with a biased or partisan message is specifically considered as
  WP:CANVAS. The text of the mailing itself has a partisan taint to it, and has been addressed to editors the sender feels will be suppportive of his views. If it walks like a duck. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
  21:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm one of those allegedly canvassed so I thought I'd comment. While I may have been targeted for some perceived biased leanings that I'm not aware of, having not had any dealings with the issue I was asked to comment on, I actually found the message wording itself to be rather balanced, and not biased or partisan. I really had no idea what kind of response Gavin was hoping to get from me. Nevertheless, it is always risky to go posting messages requesting participation for select individuals, since it could very easily be perceived as attempting to solicit a specific desired response, whether or not that's the actual intent. For that reason it's generally a better idea to post such notices in open forums instead, like village pumps pages.

• That having been said, this ANI posting, if I had to guess, is more than anything a mere spillover of hostilities taking place elsewhere, rather than a serious matter that demands time be put into solving. If Gavin were smart he'd make the gesture of removing the notices from the user pages he posted it to, and post it instead at
  WP:VPP. And following that, if everyone else were smart, they would not waste any further time discussing who was fault. Equazcion •✗/C •
  22:00, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Well said, those last two sentences. //roux   22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I must point out the irony here as these editors accusing Gavin of canvassing (which he probably is) were vocal supporters of Ikip when I pointed out his (opposite) partisan canvassing the other week on this same notice board (see here). Themfromspace (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the same situation at all; Ikip was recruiting people for a wikiproject, Gavin is attempting to influence a proposed guideline. Jtrainor (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument is the same. A Nobody said up above that Gavin was "copying and pasting a message only to those who are more of the deletionist leaning". Change "deletionist" to "inclusionist" and the exact same was said about Ikip. It's not what they are aiming at that matters, it's how they are going about it, ie: their behaviour is what's in question. Both of their behaviour is the same. Just as Ikip needed to stop before, Gavin needs to stop what he's doing now. Themfromspace (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think the notices were probably inappropriate canvassing due to the selection of editors – based on the usernames I recognize readily, anyway. I could be persuaded otherwise if the set could be shown as all productive FICT contributors no longer active there. The wording is close enough to neutral for AGF to apply. However, the behavior is not ongoing: Gavin left notes for 12 editors, then stopped and responded to A Nobody's note on his talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory, posting on the talk pages of 13 editors could be viewed as canvassing, especially if those in question were members of an electoral college who were in the process of casting a vote about a specific proposition. In this instance, there is no electoral college, nor a vote about to take place, nor a specific proposal being tabled, nor a clear course of action to be taken to bring all of these things about. Therefore I think the arguement that canvassing has taken place, or is in progress and needs to stop, is a somewhat stretching the facts to fit the crime.
I doubt there is an Evil Inclusionist/Deletionist Cabal^® in existence which might give rise to the theory that "obviously sympathetic editors" are conspiring to take control of Wikipedia, but if there is, it is probabaly too late for me to influence the outcome of any future discussions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced by this complaint. I'm involved, but I can't see an incident which demands administrative action. Protonk (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I see the people canvassed, not unsrurprisingly, think the canvassing was proper. I do not. Thirteen, most of whom are strong supporters of his position, seems totally unnecessary and inappropriate. The message , e.g. [46] is not just calling attention to the discussion, but advocating his position. If this doesnt fall within the definition of canvassing, I dont; know what does. Shall I post the inclusionists with a notice of this discussion,saying "There seems to be some recent activity with respect to the fiction guideline. Most of the arguments for a permissive guideline seem have been opposed, and people are arguing towards a considerably tight applciation of
    WP:V for fiction that should discourage many topics with material Wikipedia normally includes, by calling it mere plot summary, trivia and cruft. Can you provide some cool and clear support towards drafting a compromise that is actually compliant with existing Wikipedia practice?" I'll send it also to one or two moderates also so it doesnt look too closely targeted. That Gavin stopped after A nobody reminded him must show that he realises how wrong it was, because he usually does not pay much attention to that editor's strictures. The only admin action necessary now is a careful watch for resumed canvsasing. DGG (talk
    ) 09:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with his position, BTW. I'm not saying that it was neutral, but it certainly wasn't widespread and it wasn't far out of what I would expect from Gavin. Also, if we are going to get into back and forth accusations over who is allowed to call something canvassing, I should note that conversation didn't get anywhere in the ARS debate. I'm shocked, shocked that "inclusionists" think this is canvassing and "deletionists" do not. Would I prefer that Gavin didn't do this? Sure. Is there an incident which demands immediate administrator attention? No. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Bratz angel14 changing image sizes

I don't know if this is a problem or not, but Bratz angel14 (talk · contribs) is going around to several articles and randomly changing the image sizes of the images in the infoboxes. They were told not to do this a couple of weeks ago, but they persist. When their edits are commented on on their Talk page, they blank the page and continue on. If this is no big deal, then, okay, no big deal. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. This user ignores warnings, they ignore being reverted, they ignore links to policy and guidelines when pointed out on their Talk page. They don't discuss anything, anywhere. They just carry on making their preferred edits. I hope that this doesn't continue after the block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Amolz block review

I gave

List of television stations in India. I suspect that Amolz is connected to User:117.98.7.160, User:64.255.180.70 and the others that have been reported here, here

, and here. The entire article is still without a source which is a problem but the creation of various OR categories for all the television stations (and constant movement around without discussion) is an annoyance. I did give a small warning but as an involved admin, I'd like outside review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Was it wise to block in an article you're involved in? There's no implied criticism there, I'm just trying to figure out what's up.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There's been a roaming IP address reverting that article for months. I've watched it before but never edited until recently. A new login and it stays the same. I don't know, maybe I just wanted him to at least respond to something. I started numerous discussions at

Talk:List of television stations in India, asked him to respond in some manner, and just continue to get reverts back. When does that become vandalism? -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I've unblocked, and reverted the article. I'm guessing that version should stay as consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

At least for appearance's sake, suggest calling in uninvolved admin next time this is an issue. Not judging the propriety of your action, I really didn't dig into it very deeply.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarist caught red-handed and refusing to cooperate

I have a problem with Lantonov (talk · contribs), a user I caught plagiarising the other day. Having found at least one substantial piece of plagiarism (Bulgarian dialects), and with several other articles under strong suspicion, I warned him and asked him to cooperate in the necessary cleanup, by coming clean about all remaining articles that may be affected and naming the sources he used ([47]) My request went unanswered, and today he unceremoniously removed my warning from his page (through an IP, which is known to be his [48]), with the laconic commentary of "no, it is not" (meaning, presumably, "no, cleaning up my plagiarism is not my priority".)

At this point, I'd really like to indef-block him, for continued refusal to clean up his own mess, and as a clear statement that he isn't welcome to edit further as long as he hasn't shown he has learned how to edit properly. Unfortunately I've recently been in some content disputes with him (partly related to the same articles), so on second thought I gathered I maybe ought not to be doing this myself. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(WQA Mediator Comment) - I completely agree with FuturePerf's recusing himself from admin action in this case. (I think it speaks well of him!) I also opine that, if indeed the editor in question is not willing to clear up his apparent plagiarism, a block may be in order, the duration of which depending greatly on any previous actions of this type. IMHO.Edit Centric (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As for "previous actions", I probabably ought to clarify: I basically suspect that his entire output is plagiarised. He has two main fields of editing, Bulgarian history/linguistics, and theoretical physics/mathematics. There are about ten or so articles to which he has made massive contributions of large quantities of text. I cannot judge in the physics/mathematics cases, but the history cases are all of the same style. Not the kind of stuff a Wikipedian would write. All written in the tone of an old-fashioned magisterial history don. For one or two cases I can prove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what is "WQA Moderator Comments" supposed to mean, and why the different font colour? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I thought that it might be a different way to present an outside opinion. As for the WQA mediator line, I do most of my work over at WQA (where I "hang my hat"). Here in ANI, I'll occasionally comment on a situation, especially if it has Wikiquette aspects to it. Edit Centric (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, in this forum here, I found it a bit irritating, because it could be understood as trying to assume some special bureaucratic role and status for yourself, giving your voice more of an assumed weight than it would have otherwise. We don't have moderators here, as you obviously know, and nobody's voice is special. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with FutPerf here. If I were a newb, I'd see something like that as meaning you have some sort of special status. Would probably be a good idea to stop. //roux   23:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i find the self-identification by Edit Centric as playing a certain role, putting on a hat to clarify he/she is playing that role, to be helpful for me reading the discussions. EC is clearly not asserting to be a moderator of this forum. doncram (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe FutPerf and Roux are right, this peon will take his humble self back over to WQA now. I apologise if I offended. Edit Centric (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at his physics contributions. My impression is that Lantonov has demonstrated sufficient subject-matter expertise that they could be legitimate. However, the style is idiosyncratic compared to the way most wiki writing is prepared, suggesting he may be using some reference work(s) to guide his contributions (which if used loosely would be fine). If he is plagarizing the physics though, I can't find any evidence of that from Google. His sentence constructions appear to be unique to him, at least from the point of view of English language Google-able sources. Without a smoking gun it is impossible for me to draw a definitive conclusion beyond that. Dragons flight (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The good thing is that he often actually names the sources he copies from (meaning he was probably not aware that what he was doing was wrong.) In the Bulgaria articles, he often did it in the edit summaries. He also often works by directly translating from Bulgarian or other language sources. In one of his physics articles, Synchronous frame, he names a Russian-language edition of a standard textbook as his source. If he translated from that, the result would probably look just slightly different enough from its English print editions not to be immediately recognisable, though still structurally dependent if you looked closer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user that he is the subject of an ANI discussion.[49]. I would like to see him explain his actions and the edit summary. I can't read Bulgarian and so cannot verify if the text is being translated directly from a Bulgarian source. If that is the case, however, and if he refuses to a) stop the behavior and b) help clean up the mess, then I agree that a block is in order. Karanacs (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, the term would be plagiarist. Durova^Charge! 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I might have need of that for further reference more often than I'd like to :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, and sharing the sentiment. ;) Durova^Charge! 21:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're suggesting a copyright violation, the place is

WP:COPYVIO; if not, why not just shut up and stop wasting people's time. Wikipedia has plagiarised right from the very beginning, and is widely plagiarised itself. We are not writing a term paper here, but an encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk)

22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bloody nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Plagiarism (among other things), brings Wikipedia into disrepute. That it takes place is no excuse for saying it should be ignored.

talk

) 22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at his mathematics contributions. What I've checked has been fine, but I've only been able to check the minor edits. Certainly it is not accurate to say "his entire output is plagiarised" (so hopefully the suspicion can be shrunk to just "there is a big problem"); he has a ton of basic mopping up, and some useful small contributions that cannot be copyvio or plagiarism.

WikiProject Math is still checking

the articles where he made major contributions. Assuming his major contributions in math check out, I don't think an indef block is needed.

Perhaps he just uses sources too heavily to help with the English? In math, you can quote much more heavily without using quotation marks or citations than in other scholarly areas. He might be applying those principles (incorrectly) to his history/culture/Bulgarian contributions.

Student plagiarism is often caused (link to some recent paper except it is dinner time) by the student not understanding the value of their work. A student will turn in a photocopy, because they feel their job is to go find the answer that the teacher already knows. They do not understand they are being asked to contribute their own unique perspective, creative energy, and intelligence to move the frontiers of human knowledge forward (albeit by a very small step). Getting that across to one's own students is hard enough. It might be that Lantonov neither understands the problem nor the solution simply due to a language barrier. A short block to prevent further plagiarism and to send a clear message ("we want your unique creative energy here, not simply translations of copyrighted material") might still be warranted of course. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The physics looks legit although too technical for Wikipedia in my opinion. Antonov claims a Ph.D. in physics on his user page and that seems plausible. Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused here. Some messages into this thread it is said that this editor is giving the sources in the article. Am I misunderstanding something here? If he is crediting the sources, what is the plagiarism problem.--BirgitteSB 03:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is in a number of forms, Birgitte. One, saying in the edit summary is not the same as citation following the section, which is the proper form; the alternative is akin to saying ONCE that you took something from another author, then allowing people not there for the announcement to think it's your own work. That's plagiarism. Also, he doesn't quote the work, instead integrating it into the larger work, representing it as written for the article. That's two of the major hallmarks of plagiarism. Any plagiarist caught and unrepentant should be blocked until they commit to wholly undoing the transgressions. ThuranX, 04:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying does not make sense to me. Either this editor is not a serious (indef blockable) problem or you are doing a very poor job of describing the problem. (Or else I am really failing to understand this thread) Giving the source only once and integrating the new material into the article != passing the material off as your own scholarship. And the former alone is not even outside the bounds of normal practice on Wikipedia. If integrating new material into articles and giving no source at all is not blockable, how is doing that while giving a source in the edit summary an issue? There is not a clear-cut copyright violation on the translations. Some amount of re-wording is inherent in translation. Showing that there was not enough new formulation in the English from the exact phrases in the other language will likely be more work than simply re-wording them a little yourself to fix any possible problems. If he is coping word for word with English sources that would be a clear-cut copyright problem where showing some difs could gain the agreement to block him. --BirgitteSB 05:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. What he did (in some cases, not in all) was he named the source in an edit summary. It was thus not visible to the normal reader of the article. So, to the outside reader he was indeed passing it off as his/our own. In other cases, he didn't name it at all. The claim that the wording difference inherent in translating could be sufficient to make it not a problem, or that you could heal the problem by just "re-wording them a little" is plain wrong. Every translation is, by definition, a derivative work, and hence not copyright-free. And plagiarism remains plagiarism as long as the sequence of ideas is the same. You can't remove it by superficial changes in the wording. – Moreover, plagiarism with these kinds of texts also includes a content problem, in addition to the copyright problem. These texts are academic papers that contain extensive argumentative passages, where authors express their own judgments and opinions. Built into a Wikipedia article, that's automatically also an NPOV violation, plus a problem of intellectual ethics. Because you are in effect passing off not just the wording as your own, but the idea expressed by it. This can only be healed by erasing the whole passage and rewriting it from scratch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your objections make no sense to me. You say Lantonov is naming his sources in the edit summaries. Your complaint seems to me that he is not placing sufficient citations in the articles; so place them yourself, since they are available from the edit summaries. I have never had a problem with working with Lantonov on his mathematical physics articles -- he sticks closely to the sources (as we should) but also shows considerable expertise in this field and can't be called a plagiarist by any stretch of the imagination. I have also found him quite open to debate and correction. If you have a problem with him I suggest it is your overly abrasive style (which we see evidence of here) which is the source of the problem. I also suspect there is some personal agenda going on here. --

talk

07:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"stick closely to the sources (as we should)"? No, we should not. Not where sources express POVs and personal arguments of their authors. And obviously not where the closeness and amount of paraphrase amounts to a "derivative work" and hence a copyright violation (which, it bears repeating, is a problem that is not alleviated by adding footnotes, no matter how many.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to understand

talk

07:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't "report" a POV by just copying the text that expresses it. If you can't see the difference, you have a problem. Certainly when working on humanities topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So rephrase it, if it is such a beg deal (although I don't see why it is). --

talk

07:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, indeed, evidently you don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have some sort of side-by-side comparisons between text you see as problematic and the source material. Dragons flight (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Here's some examples of the kinds of problems we face. Both from Battle of Pliska:

"The following objections can be raised against the opinion that [...] Without doubt, however, the best evidence can be found in [...] All this shows that [...] It is hard to say which one; however, if we take into account that [...], it is more probable that [...]"

This passage, with spans several long paragraphs, is in fact a literal translation from a Bulgarian work, which is given once in a footnote. But since the footnote isn't helping to disintangle fact from opinion, there is no way this could be made not plagiarism, and not an NPOV violation.

At another point, (a whole section copied in toto from yet another source), we can read:

"Men did not like to leave the homes to which they were attached, to sell their property, and say farewell to the tombs of their fathers. The poor cling far more to places than the rich and educated, and it was to the poor agriculturists that this measure exclusively applied".

So, whose opinion is it that "the poor cling far more to places than the rich and educated"? Is this ground-breaking achievement of human psychology the opinion of Wikipedia's collective authorship? – Incidentally, in this case the source happens to be public domain, so there is formally no copyright problem. There is, however, a serious problem of NPOV and encyclopedicity.

I still maintain that a person who systematically works like this, and obviously has no intention of stopping and no understanding of why he ought to stop, must be blocked (indefinitely, not infinitely), until he shows a willingness to improve. The block should also serve to force him to actively help in the cleanup. There's a massive amount of work he has caused others here, and massive danger of damage to articles if passages will have to be excised without anybody to actually rewrite them. He can't just ignore this damage and keep contributing elsewhere as if nothing had happened. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can a translation be an example of plagiarism? This seems to me to be a content issue, not a plagiarism issue. Deal with it. The other example you admit is not a plagiarism issue, so stop wasting our time here. --

talk

07:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a translation is an example of both plagiarism and copyright violation, because it constitutes a copyright-infringing derivative work. And plagiarism from a public domain source, while not being a copyright violation, still continues to be plagiarism, because it has the same problems of intellectual ethics (and, as I said, of Wikipedia-appropriate encyclopedicity.) I'm shocked that otherwise serious contributors are so naive and clueless about such issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, plagiarism is where an author passes off someone else's work as their own. This is not happening here. Not even remotely. End of story. --

talk

07:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess, the proposed guideline/policy should also be mentioned here:

talk

) 11:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and note the opening sentence:

Plagiarism is the taking of someone else's work and passing it off as one's own, whether verbatim or with only minimal changes. The copyright status of the work is irrelevant; directly copying a public-domain work is still plagiarism unless the original work is noted.

Since the original work is being cited, then there is no case to answer. --

talk

11:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I find your opinion on the subject troubling, given the finality you present your answers with. Would it be plagarism if I got one of my history books, copied a section literally, inserted it into an article without quotes? I'll leave that question as rhetorical, because I hope the answer is yes. Does it then cease to be plagiarism if I put a footnote at the bottom of that section? Please consider this carefully, because a footnote is different from quotations. All a footnotes says is, here is where I summarized material from. If you feel that simply placing the footnote causes the work to cease to be plagiarism, I implore you to review plagiarism as educators and editors understand it. If, having reviewed that, you still feel that it ceases to be plagiarism when the source is simply identified, please tell us why. I submit that it ceases to be plagiarism when quotations are placed around the copied text, indicating to the reader and to other editors that the material is not original. In that case we have the editorial problem of removing bulk quotations from articles, but there wouldn't be a conduct issue. Protonk (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1 (plagiarism issue)

For the record, I've now dealt with the following cases:

• Vasil Zlatarski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – cleaned up a year ago, was previously a huge [50] POV mess self-admittedly copied from modern sources [51], with no attribution.
• Bulgarian dialects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – stubbed back. Massive amounts of text [52] were verbatim translated from a modern copyrighted source in Bulgarian, with no attribution.
• Battle of Pliska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – reverted to an old (mid-2007) version. Large parts of the article were verbatim copied from various sources, partly copyrighted, some public domain. Most copied passages had a footnote mentioningthe sources, but nothing marking them as being literally copied. Extensive personal opinions and whole sequences of arguments of various authors were taken over without any reporting distance.
• Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – some POV and peacock language cleaned up that had been introduced through uncritical copying of EB1911 material.
• Siege of Tarnovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – some cleanup; serious POV problems because of uncritical verbatim copying of a highly POV 19th-century source. Source was mentioned in ref section, but not marked as the source of verbatim incorporated material.
• Odrysian kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – removed one suspicious passage, can't check how close it was to its source.
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) – stubbed back. Whole text was near-verbatim translated from a modern copyrighted source. Source was named as such on talk page, and mentioned in one footnote, but not marked explicitly as the source of substantial incorporated text. Curiously, the editor himself mentioned on the talk page that "This material is subject to author's rights so it may not be incorporated verbatim" – but that is nevertheless exactly what he then did.
• Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) – highly POV material, haven't checked the sources in detail, but redirected the page for independent reasons.
• Solun dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – probably a similar situation as Bulgarian dialects
  , but haven't checked in detail. Redirected for independent reasons, as a POV fork.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Translations are a derivative work, and the right to prepare derivative works is expressly reserved by US law to the copyright holder. Sec. 101, definitions: "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." Sec. 105, "Exclusive rights in copyrighted works": "[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following...to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work." Note that condensations and abridgments are also derivative works. Paraphrases, if too close, may fail the "substantial similarity" test even given limited literal duplication (see McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property, enough of which is visible here to give a good overview.) Getting to the core of the matter, if this contributor is systematically violating
  WP:C by placing direct translations of copyrighted text and shows no interest in stopping, then, like User:Karanacs, I support a block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
  12:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Plagiarism is the direct copying of someone else's work. If this is done with a copyrighted work, it's also a copyright violation (even if it is translated, because translations are derivative works and the same rules apply). Small quotations are admissible, copying entire sections of text isn't EVER unless the source is explicitly given a free license which clearly doesn't apply to all the edits here) Have any Bulgarian Wikipedians taken a look? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We could ask User:TodorBozhinov to confirm how close the translations are. But in fact, I can decipher Bulgarian just well enough, with the help of a little bit of Google translation, to work out if two passages are substantially identical. In the cases above, I'm positively certain they qualify as direct translations, to a very large extent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope Michael Pierce and Birgitte are reading the link to the policy page on Plagiarism; it seems neither is grasping certain fundamentals of the idea. If you take others' work, without credit, it's Plagiarism. If you take big chunks of work, Credit or not, it's plagiarism. Copyright's quite clear on this stuff. If you turn in 19 pages of quoted material for a research or term paper, you've failed for plagiarism. If you 'borrow' even one phrase without citation, not just an 'i got it from author X', it's plagiarism. Regrettably, many people don't get paste the ' cut'n'paste is wrong' lesson learned in grade school about Plagiarism. It's a fairly complex idea, and even rewriting a sentence to use synonyms for those used by an author is still plagiarism. This editor is a plagiarist, and since that violates core policies, he needs to be blocked until he fixes it all. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear ThuranX, I agree the policy definition makes it clear that larger portions of text must be rephrased, as well as being cited. Since Lantonov is translating the cited text, he satisfies both criteria. So still no problem. --

talk

13:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael C. Price, did you by any chance read the linked US law? Direct translation (eta, for clarity: without permission) is a violation of US copyright law, which is a big problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

13:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First I want to clarify that my position is not there is no copyright violation going, but rather that is not clear that there is any copyright violation. And this may be rather hard to show in a bordline case like this. To translate a creative work would be a dervative work and a copyright violation. But when one translates a reference work the issue becomes less clear. Ideas themselves are not copyrightable. Neither are simple facts. Merely that that his transaltion is based on a copyrighted work is not evidence of a copyright violation. You must show that his translation copies the creative expression of the various ideas and facts into English. That is why I said earlier that it will probably be less work to rephrase the section that concern you than it would be to extablish that there is a copyright violation here.--BirgitteSB 14:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference works may not be not creative in the sense that creativity is commonly used, but they generally are creative in the legal sense as concerns copyright. In

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, the United States Supreme Court noted that factual compilations of information may be protected with respect to "selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity," as "[t]he compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers"; the Court also indicated that "originality is not a stringent standard; it does not require that facts be presented in an innovative or surprising way" and that "[t]he vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be."[53] (My own notes from Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand copyright and I wasn't saying anything that disagrees with the above. I am saying that you cannot label information about mathematics as a copyrighted derivative as automatically as you can label a translation of the plot of

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. If someone had translated the story Huck Finn, no close examination would be necessary. No further discussion, no diffs, nor examples needed; but with reference works the copyrightability of the material is not all or nothing. It depends on what exactly what information was translated and how it was translated. In this thread people seemed to be labeling this material as copyrighted rather automatically without diffs or examples (and remember people want an indef block over this). In addition, I was suggesting that close examination of the these translations to properly judge the paraphrasing was likely to be more work than simply rewording the English. But since that work has been done below that point is moot.--Birgitte

SB 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I apologize for mistaking you. But the comparative amount of work of cleaning up versus verifying infringement may not be the point; if this contributor has been infringing copyright, the work seems worthwhile simply to ensure that he does not continue, either because he learns better or he is stopped. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you insist to check just how close it is, here's a detail comparison of one article,

Battle of Kalimantsi

. I've only given a few representative excerpts; as far as I can see the whole text is like this.

Extended content

Bulgarian original Google translation Wikipedia text През драматичните дни и седмици на юли 1913 г. България е обкръжена отвсякъде от врагове. Срещу 700-хилядната уморена българска армия, изнесла основната тежест на войната срещу Турция, застават отпочиналите и попълнени със свежи сили войски - общо над 1 милион души - на пет балкански държави - Сърбия, Гърция, Черна гора, Румъния и Турция. В последвалите решителни сражения българският войник плаща с кръвта си грешките и недалновидността на държавното ръководство и спасява страната от пълен погром. На десетия ден от започването на войната гръцката армия е осъществила дълбоко проникване по долината на р. Струма, достигайки близо до гр. Горна Джумая (Благоевград). В Македония сръбската армия настъпва от района на гр. Кочани. Общата цел на сръбското и гръцкото командване е достигането на линията Кюстендил - Дупница - Горна Джумая и предприемане на общо настъпление към София, където да се диктуват условията на мира. During the dramatic days and weeks of July 1913 Bulgaria is surrounded by enemies everywhere. For 700-thousand tired Bulgarian army exported main burden of the war against Turkey, and rested stand filled with fresh forces troops - over 1 million people - five Balkan countries - Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, Romania and Turkey. In the subsequent decisive srazheniya Bulgarian soldier paid with their blood nedalnovidnostta errors and state leadership and save the country from a complete rout. On the tenth day of the start of the war the Greek army has carried out deep penetration in the valley of the Struma river, reaching near Gorna Dzhumaya (Blagoevgrad). In Macedonia, the Serbian army in the region occurred in the town book. The overall objective of the Serbian and Greek command line is reaching Kustendil - Dupnitza - Upper Dzhumaya and take total offense to Sofia, where to dictate terms of peace. During the Second Balkan War, in the dramatic days and weeks of July, 1913, Bulgaria was surrounded by its enemies from all sides. Against the 500,000 Bulgarian army, worn-out by taking the main burden of the two Balkan wars, fighting against the Turks, and then against its allies, stood refreshed and reinforced troops of 5 Balkan countries: Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, Romania, and Turkey, numbering more than 1,000,000. In the decisive battles of this month: Battle of Kalimantsi and Battle of Kresna Gorge, the Bulgarian soldiers paid with their blood the errors of the Bulgarian government and saved Bulgaria from a complete defeat. At day 10 from the beginning of the Second Balkan War, the Greek army had achieved a deep invasion through the Struma Valley, reaching close to the town of Gorna Djumaya (Blagoevgrad). In Macedonia (region), the Serbian army advanced from the town of Kochani. The joint aim of the Serbian and the Greek commanders, as agreed to in a secret pact between the two countries, was to reach the line Kyustendil-Dupnitsa-Gorna Djumaya and undertake a common advance against Sofia where to dictate their conditions for a peace agreement. Заплашено е самото независимо съществуване на българската държава Has threatened the very existence of the independent Bulgarian state At the stake was the very existence of Bulgaria. Особено решаващ за това се оказва изходът на сраженията, разиграли се в района на отбраната на 4-а армия при село Калиманци, намиращо се на югозапад от Царево село (днес Делчево в Република Македония). Сръбското настъпление започва на 4 юли 1913 г. Срещу три непълни български дивизии (7-а, 8-а и 2-а) и частите на Македоно-Одринското опълчение сръбското командване хвърля пет пехотни дивизии. Най-напрегнати са боевете на 5, 6 и 10 юли 1913 г. В боя на 5 юли 1913 г. срещу 31-и пехотен варненски полк настъпва цялата черногорска дивизия. Срещу тях тръгва в контраатака 31-ви полк, подкрепен от две дружини от 8-и приморски и 21-и средногорски полк. Particularly critical to this outcome appears to be fighting, razigrali in the area of defense of the 4-forces in a village Kalimanci located southwest of the village of Tsarevo (Delchevo today in the Republic of Macedonia). Serbian advance began on July 4, 1913 against three English divisions incomplete (7-a, 8-and 2-a) and parts of the Macedonian-Serbian militia Odrinskoto command throws five infantry divisions. The most tense battles are 5, 6 and July 10, 1913 in the battle of July 5, 1913 against 31 and Varna Infantry Regiment occur throughout the Montenegrin division. Goes against them in reaction 31st Regiment, supported by two bands of 8 and 21 and the sea and Srednogorska Col. The decisive battle took place in the region defended by the 4th Bulgarian Army near the village of Kalimantsi, located southwest of Republic of Macedonia). The Serbian advance began on July 4, 1913. The Serbian command threw 5 infantry divisions against 3 incomplete Bulgarian divisions (7th, 8th, and 2nd) and detachments of the Macedono-Odrin Volunteer Corps. The 4th Bulgarian Army, retreating, decimated the Serbian detachments with a series of counter-attacks, and on July 4 it occupied an unsurmountable position on the Kalimantsi Plateau, a high strategic field between Osogovo Mountain and Bregalnitsa River in the direction of Vardar. The Serbian army attacked the Bulgarian positions for 17 consecutive days and each time they were forced to withdraw under the pressure of the thinned Bulgarian defenders. The most intensive fighting took place on July 5, 6, and 10. In the battle of July 5 , the whole Montenegrin division advanced against the Bulgarian 31st Varna infantry regiment. This regiment undertook a counter-attack, supported by two battalions of 8th Seaside and 21st Middle Mountain regiments. [...] Командирът на дружина подполковник Сапунов, който е награждаван със сабя със златен ефес за отлична стрелба, с точни изстрели поваля един след друг настъпващите вражески войници. Командирът на рота поручик Георги Тановски, бъдещ генерал и виден деец на Военния съюз, стреля заедно с войниците си и ги окуражава, пеейки на висок глас патриотични песни. Когато на един участък от отбраната войниците от една рота не издържат и започват да се отдръпват, командирът на полка, бъдещият генерал и министър на войната Сава Савов заповядва полковата музика да излезе на предните позиции. Скоро сред ехтежа на битката се разнася "Шуми Марица". Lieutenant commander of the company Sapunov, which is awarded with a gold sword hilt on excellent shooting with accurate shots to lie one after another occurring enemy soldiers. Captain lieutenant George Tanovski, future general and a prominent figure of the military alliance, with soldiers shooting and encouraging them, peeyki loud patriotic songs. When a section of soldiers' defense does not hold a company and start back, colonel, general and future Minister of War Sava Savov commandeth music bands to come out of the front positions. Soon among ehtezha of the battle spread "Shumi Maritsa". Battalion Commander Lieutenant-Colonel Sapunov, who previously was granted with the Order Golden Sword for precise shooting, fought in the trenches together with his soldiers. Company Leader Lieutenant Georgi Tanovski, who subsequently became a general and outstanding functionary of the Military Union, shot together with his soldiers and encouraged them by singing loudly patriotic songs. The soldiers of a company, occupying an important position of the Bulgarian defence were not able to stand the attack, and started to retreat. Then the Regiment Commander, Colonel Sava Savov ordered the regiment band to go to the front positions. Soon after this, the Bulgarian national anthem Shumi Maritsa sounded above the rumble of the battle.

Incidentally, these passages also illustrate the kind of national POV lyrics this editor is fond of. There is no way of making this not a copyvio, short of erasing the whole thing and rewriting it from scratch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Another reply to BrigitteSB: the idea that a pure "reference work" might be less sensitive to copyvio because there's less of creative content in it and you might end up just restating simple facts, even if you do a direct translation, is hardly ever applicable to content in the humanities. A history text is always, almost by definition, creative content spoken in the individual narrative voice of its author. Your suggestion might be applicable to a mathematics text or a zoological compendium. I can hardly imagine a situation where it would become applicable with history topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Having seen Future Perfect's table box above, I am convinced that this is indeed plagiarism and probable copyvio. When translating a copyrighted text, it is important to do the following:

• Provide full citation in a standard format.
• Quote short sections only, using quote boxes or quotation marks.
• For extended use of any sort, rewrite the ideas in one's own words: merely conveying another author's words in grammatical English is not sufficient. Encyclopedic editing means reprioritizing and reordering concepts and incorporating ideas and citations from other sources according to the needs of the article.

If consensus doesn't form here at this thread, then recommend a user conduct RFC. Durova^Charge! 17:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that consensus is with Fut. Perf. on this. He certainly has my support on this one, and has provided extensive background, which has also been backed up by several other editors. The few people against Fut. Perf.'s view of things appear largely combative for the sake of being combative. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut. Perf, you've seen many plagiarists of uploading copyrighted images or inserting contents, but you have not "indef.blocked all of them except persistent vandals. I'm wondering as to why you think you could not give a chance to the mentioned user? For example, PHG has a big problem with sourcing, but overall his edits are good-faith intented so would the questioned user do. If the questioned user inserts "According to Who at University of X" or "Who claims that..." and rewording the inserted contents, isn't that still intolerable?--Caspian blue 18:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is slightly different, Caspian blue. PHG sometimes quoted out of context, etc. but at least he provided citations in a standard format. Other editors could tell what text was cited and where it was cited to, and thus had the means to check whether it was cited correctly. I'm more reminded of another user who was very productive but plagiarized habitually, and who refused to acknowledge the problem or assist the cleanup effort. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent example. The amount of time and effort that can go into fixing these types of situations far outweighs the benefits that such editors bring. Simply telling others to clean it up is not workable, and far different than simply cleaning up messy, but otherwise original and correctly sourced content. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If my memory is correct, the community had given her many "final" opportunities. Besides she came to ANI to defend herself, but the questioned editor has not. Besides, there is no indication that he has got a final warning (except the first warning) and somebody said he has done good edits, so indef.blocking is too premature--Caspian blue 23:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I believe that he has not edited since this thread began. I would otherwise simply summarily block him as causing harm to the encyclopedia through his plagiarism and causing strife due to his refusal to acknowledge and repair the damage - this is tantamount to vandalism. I'd prefer to let him speak, however, before taking the action. I will support whole-heartedly anyone who feels enough chances and time have been given and choose to err on the side of protecting Wikipedia from further harm. We can, after all, always unblock if it seems appropriate. One puppy's opinion. 18:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some analysis of Latonov's contributions to the example: Lantonov first makes a direct translation begins finishes note the full reference is added to the article Then he makes some edits to make the translation be less biased. [54] [55] [56]. This is a a copyright violation and an inappropriate tone for Wikipedia. It is not plagiarism, and frankly that continued charge against him baffles me. Such editing cannot be allowed to continue. That said, this example is from August of 2007. Has he continued this type of editing since he was alerted to the problem with copyright? A lot of people just don't understand copyright until it explained to them. Also it is reported that his editing to math and physics is good. Is that true? If both his math edits are good and he refuses to stop adding copyvios in history articles, can we not topic ban him from history before considering an indef block?--BirgitteSB 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you point out who said his contributions to math and physics are good? Saw people saying they were unqualified to evaluate that material, which is a bit different. Perhaps I overlooked a post? Durova^Charge! 19:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Dragons flight JackSchmidt Looie496 Those all the posts on math/physics. I will leave to everyone judge for themselves rather than paraphrasing, although I didn't mean to imply all of his edits to math have been verified as good. Do you have anything to support the idea that his edits in math/physics have been found to problematic? --BirgitteSB 19:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • None are ringing endorsements, and Looie's remarks bring back déjà vu. Is this a chance we want to take? I'm unsure. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
        • His maths/physics edits have also been favourably commented upon by JRSpriggs here. I am also a frequent maths/physics contributor (which was how I saw this discussion) and I agree with JRSpriggs that there are no problems with his edits. --
          talk
          23:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Can I ask, what did you in fact do to check them? Did you compare them against their likely sources, to see how close they are? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Checked against sources. Then discussed and agreed. No problem. --
              talk
              02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I read a substantial portion of his math edits last night, as reported at
          Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace.) Ozob (talk
          ) 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
        • (ec)What chance am I asking you to take? I asked whether it was true if the math stuff was good and then asked that if it was good why not topic ban. You all are talking about indefinitely blocking this guy. I can't see any sign that he has been talked to about this issue before this week. I looked through the history of his talkpage for heading and edit summary that mentioned copyright and didn't find anything. What the hell happened to communicating and educating people around here? And you haven't struck your "finding" of plagiarism from the table given in this thread despite the diff I showed where he used {{cite web}} to list the source. Why are you supporting the exaggeration of his behavior and blocking him indefinitely, when such basic questions like the quality of his edits in math and the extent (if any) his behavior has altered after previous attempts to educate him have not been answered?--BirgitteSB 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Once plagiarism/copyvio is confirmed on one topic, and the editor is uncooperative, it's taking a chance to trust superficial reviews and leave the person to edit freely at another topic. Ozob's post above persuades me: if the editor were known to making good contributions at math and physics then I'd consider a topic ban, but since most of the edits are either trivial or wrong and required reversion I don't see a reason to burden the editors of that subject. Also leaves me more suspicious about that claim of a doctoral degree Durova^Charge! 20:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Where is plagiarism confirmed? Has he continued adding copyvios since he was alerted to the problem with copyright? A lot of people just don't understand copyright until it is explained to them. I don't know this editor at all. I only paid attention to this because I follow copyright issues. Copyright is difficult, anti-intuitive, and sometimes contradictory. People need help with it. It is interesting that you have no problem continuing to label someone a plagiarist and a liar and imply he deceiving people ala Essjay on simply your own suspicions, but I'm from Missouri. --BirgitteSB 20:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
              • Inadequate citation is plagiarism. As I suggested, if consensus doesn't form would you support a conduct RfC? Durova^Charge! 20:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
                • You said "Having seen Future Perfect's table box above, I am convinced that this is indeed plagiarism" That material as I clearly noted in my analysis and even later called to your attention included {{cite web | url = http://standartnews.com/archive/2003/07/18/history/index.htm | author = Borislav Dichev | title = Kalimantsi is our Golgotha in 1913 | publisher = Standard News, July 18, 2003 | language = Bulgarian | accessdate = 2007-08-14 }} So how in the world are you convinced the edit is plagiarism?--BirgitteSB 20:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • He added a note mentioning the source, as a source, not more. That means he acknowledged he got some factual information from there. He did nothing to acknowledge that he got the the choice of material, the wording, the order of ideas, the narrative plot, the value judgments, the lines of argument, the structuring of backgrounded and foregrounded information, the POV, the rhetorical devices, in short: the whole thing, from somewhere. A footnote just doesn't cover these aspects. I'm not saying he did that with a deliberate intention to deceive, but that's beside the point. (And, honestly, if he claims he has a doctoral degree in RL, he can't very well plead ignorance.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down. This is getting much too heated. At no time have I called this person a liar. Please withdraw that misattributed assertion, Birgitte. And above I also posted a clear summary of the requirements for non-plagiaristic use of translated material. Durova^Charge! 20:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please explain how plagiarism was committed in regards to

Battle of Kalimantsi (historical version) as you state you are convinced of above. Because I just can not reconcile that at all.--Birgitte

SB 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The concepts ought to have been reordered, restated and worked in with other sources according to the structure and needs of the encyclopedia article. Short passages might have been quoted directly in quotation marks and/or a quote box. The example in question was a bit long for a quote box, but proper attribution for a translation with this degree of fidelity would have placed it in one. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That explains how to fix the copyright issue but has nothing to do with plagiarism. He credits the author who is responsible for the scholarship in the Reference section and does not claim the material as his own work in any way that I can see. Maybe you are confused over the difference between the two issues but not all copyright violations can qualify as plagiarism. And I think it is significant what someone is accused between these issues. Everyone makes copyright mistakes, but passing someone else's work off as your own is regarded as so highly unethical because it is impossible to "mistakenly" claim credit for the work. So an accusation of plagiarism sticking to someone will effect the way people judge their character far more than any misunderstanding over copyright.--BirgitteSB 22:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be of the opinion that plagiarism cannot exist where a source is cited. (Please excuse me if I am misunderstanding you again.) Perhaps Durova feels as I do and as Neill A. Levy, Esq., the author of this, who indicates that "Even with attribution, plagiarism can exist if the writer paraphrases excessively or quotes without using quotation marks." (Using a less loaded term, author Robin Levin Penslar at 148 of Research Ethics: Cases & Materials, refers to "extended borrowing even with attribution" as "misuse".) At Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism, I've already discovered that for those who define plagiarism as a matter of intent, an accusation of plagiarism may be viewed as to all intents and purposes an accusation of intentional dishonesty, or lying. But not all definitions of plagiarism require intent; some allow for "inadvertent" or "accidental" plagiarism, and others even permit "unconscious plagiarism." (There are citations to various books and websites at that talk page.) For those who do not regard plagiarism as necessarily the outcome of intentional wrongdoing, the term is not intended as an accusation of bad faith. Perhaps part of the problem in this conversation stems from a difference of definition? Unlike copyright, which is codified in law, "plagiarism" is a more malleable term. (For me, though, the issue of plagiarism is incidental here in comparison to the problem of copyright infringement.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that is the heart of the problem. Although I have never seen anyone accused of plagiarism except for as the intent to claim credit for another's work, I can see now where everyone else is coming from. It would be nice if people who choose to use a different definition would be explicit when they mean "inadvertent plagiarism". Because any accusations being understood as the other kind of plagiarism could do serious harm to someone's reputation. Frankly I wouldn't hazard to ever use the wider definition in regards to another person since anything with such "extended borrowing" will qualify as a copyright problem any way so the issue can be dealt without any danger of "inadvertent character assignation". --BirgitteSB 22:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User RFC?

Durova suggested that this should go to RFC if there not consensus to block here. However it is still unclear to me whether this editor's behavior has ever altered since the copyright issue was first brought to attention (or even if it ever was before now). Has anyone ever attempted to resolve this issue with Latonov before Future Perfect at Sunrise posted the message on his talk page about plagiarism? Is there any other attempts to communicate with him on similar issues that might satisfy the RFC requirements?--BirgitteSB 21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There was the article Talk:Vasil Zlatarski, which I discussed with him about a year ago. The topic of plagiarism wasn't very explicitly addressed at the time, but it was clear that he finally was forced to remove a whole lot of material that he had copied – a fact for which he apparently still bears me some grudge [57]. He also watched as Nostradamus1 (talk · contribs) got banned, a couple of months ago, for very similar reasons. Nostradamus had been a perennial POV opponent of his over nationalist Bulgaria-related issues, and he finally got banned because he, too, was a plagiarist. I'm pretty certain Lantonov followed that, so he was warned. His latest large-scale piece of plagiarism was Bulgarian dialects, to which he was adding text until ten days ago [58]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You only complained of POV problems and that the article was unreferenced there. So it can't be said that he has continued adding copyright violations after being alerted to the issue based on that. And there should be two separate people who failed to resolve the dispute in order to file a RFC. Since no one else has come forward here, I think a RFC is likely unnecessary at this point. He isn't editing right now, maybe he will no longer be a problem after receiving all this attention. It is possible that he didn't understand that his edits were copyright violations and that he misunderstood you as I misunderstood Durova in regard to plagiarism (which was the terminology you used most often in regards to his edits). If someone had accused me of plagiarism for my creation of

Pignut Hickory (which I believe would fit the looser definition you have been using), I wouldn't have taken it well and probably not regarded you seriously at all. If you had blanked/stubbed that article with an edit summary of "removing plagiarism", I would have restored it in a second. And I follow 0RR as a general rule, I just simply wouldn't have understood that as a sincere edit. So I can't hold that his poor response to your initial actions over this issue is any sort of evidence that he plans to continue adding copyright violations. But if he does continue to add copyright violations after all this has been presented to him, I won't object to blocking him. I left a note on his talk page earlier, and I would be happy to go over copyright issues with him if he is still confused--Birgitte

SB 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• A user RfC seems more appropriate than this forum unless the plagiarism is ongoing. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I think Brigitta is right that the formal conditions of an RFC aren't fulfilled, at this point, and if he really continues to be completely silent the issue of a block is, in a way, moot. And if he comes back and starts editing in the same way, he can be dealt with directly at admin level. I trust that the consensus here sets a strong enough signal that he would be blocked in such a case without renewed big discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Any editor who persists in violating copyright after being advised of our policies should be blocked for the legal protection of Wikipedia. I hope he will respond positively to Birgitte's question at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

There was another instance last summer somewhat similar to this one. That case had more urgency: the user participated in the admin board discussion, actively rejected complaints about her copyvio/plagiarism, and busily created more citation problems while RFC was ongoing. RFC was probably the wrong route in that case, except it was necessary to form community consensus that the problem was serious and could only be solved by indefinite blocking. Here the most recent problem occurred nearly two weeks ago and the editor hasn't responded to this thread. So suggesting this solution:

• Wait another day or two, and if the editor doesn't respond mark this thread as resolved (for now).
• If the editor resumes editing and there are no new problems, then breathe a sigh of relief.
• If new sourcing problems arise, open a conduct RFC.
• If the editor continues creating new sourcing problems while the RFC is ongoing, take it back to this board.

That would give both the editor and the community a fair chance, per AGF, while containing any more damage to small amounts. Durova^Charge! 16:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an RfC would be supposed to be good for. The need to protect the encyclopedia from copyvios is not something that "community consensus" needs to be consulted over. It's a classical, straightforward case of policy enforcement that can be handled even by a single admin at any time. Why would we want to spend days and weeks again listening to the opinions of those like Michael C. P. above? Whatever needed clarification of consensus was sufficiently discussed here. But I quite agree we can close this issue for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC might convince the editor to change his or her approach. If so, then good. If not, then it will clarify matters for the rest of the community to take preventive action. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut perf, I do see your point. I argue that RfCs for general conduct may be preferable to discussions on AN simply because the format is more fair to all participants (for a number of reasons). IMO, this should only be the case if the plagiarism continues but we aren't sure if what is being plagiarized is strictly a copyvio (See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for where this may fall under). Where it is obviously a copyvio or the rate of edits are such that normal editing can't deal with them (even then...), then I agree that an admin should be able to step in and attempt to resolve the situation using the tools. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fresh Admin Eyes

I was subject of a topic ban (expires May) which I was told could be reviewed. The admin reviewing the ban has accused me of bad faith and when I asked his reasons he did not give them and withdrew from the discussion. [59] The logic of my argument is this.

1. The ban was placed after my "bad" block log was cited by those favouring a ban (I was not able to contribute to the discussion).
2. Admin Scientizzle was the first admin to examine the block log (other admins refused) and concluded it wasn't as bad as presented.
3. Therefore the arguments presented for the ban, since they were fundamentally grounded in the "bad" block log, and people quoting it as their reason, fail.
4. The ban can be lifted. It can quickly be replaced if my behaviour so warrants.
5. My contributions in the last few months show this ban should be lifted. I have been complimented numerous times for good and collegiate editing and I have created new articles and reverted vandals via Recent Changes patrol.
6. I have consistently apologised for the original behaviour.

I hope an admin looking at this with fresh eyes will agree apropos point 4. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A little disingenuous I think - User:VirtualSteve gave 4 reason why he felt the ban should remain in place, and only withdrew when you failed to accept that. There have been reviews on Dec 11 2008, Dec 20 2008, 13 Jan 2009, and the latest at User_talk:VirtualSteve. Unless there has been some dramatic change in the circumstances, why should the ban be lifted? Kevin (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave my reasons Kevin. The dramatic change is that no one has addressed the whatif. Whatif those in favour of the ban had been told that the block log was exaggerated and from my recollection less than half (I could be wrong) of the blocks were unwarranted. I'd be grateful if you'd address that? BTW are you an admin?

Thanks Kevin McCready

Yes Kevin is an admin.--VS ^talk 20:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• As Kevin details above, McCready has recently come to my talk page to discuss his topic ban. A lengthy discussion lasting a couple of weeks (with another's input) ensued. That discussion has been archived but is linked here in full. At the conclusion of that discussion I decided not to remove McReady's topic ban. I note that topic ban only has about 30 more days to run at this time.--VS ^talk 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My reading of this is that the acupuncture/chiropractic topic ban is indefinite, and the general pseudoscience restriction is what expires in May. Kevin (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed.--VS ^talk 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a sensible decision to me. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Official" warning

Resolved

 – RBI'd. — 

neuro^(talk)

14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeez. Has anyone seen [60]? The effect is spoiled a bit by being signed by a user with a redlink talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Blocked. Ignored. That's quite enough of that. This is plainly not a new user, and I don't think that level of disruption even merits a warning. Now, can someone also look into this account: [61] which appears to be working in conjunction with him to be disruptive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, I'm limiting myself to reporting this. Hometown Kid and I have had content disputes, and I don't think he would thank me even if it was helping him out.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole "adding music charts from random countries all over the world" is an MO of a known problematic sockmaster, but I just can't place him. Perhaps someone else can?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish someone would. I patrol five or six band articles and I tend to revert any doubtful chart info. Of course, what is in there already is almost certainly crap, but what can you do?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see any real evidence of some sort of collusion between

WP:AIV). If it carries on after that, well then it can be taken from there. --GedUK 

09:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please delete

WP:CSD#G5 page created by banned user? --Enric Naval (talk

) 06:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, wasn't created in violation of the ban.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

---

(After discussion was resolved):

I don't see where anyone has notified AtlanticDeep (talk · contribs) that they were dealing with a troll, nor that there is no blacklist. If we are assuming good faith on AtlanticDeep, they should be notified. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I will put a note on his talk page, referring him to this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Liberty ships: G-Je

This was originally List of Liberty ships: G-L. A recent split and move has resulted in this list being identical to

WT:SHIPS but there has been no response. Could an admin please restore the correct ships to this list and warn the editor who created this mess if that is felt to be appropriate. Mjroots (talk)

09:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See

WP:VPT#Large article won't load for what led to the split. I distinctly remember the content being correctly split at the time, but there was someone else performing moves there too. And the text is so long, and in sortable tables no less, that the astronomical loading times make it very difficult to deal with this. I just used a past revision to correct the content of G-Je, hopefully. If there are any further problems let me know. Equazcion •✗/C •

11:01, 5 Mar 2009 (UTC)

This issue should not have been brought to ANI. Please use other venues for resolving issues first. ANI is a venue of last resort for dealing with completely uncooperative users. I don't even see anything in your contributions history that indicates you tried to communicate with the user who made these changes — it looks like you came here first. --Cyde Weys 15:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"I did post on

WT:SHIPS but there has been no response.",so this was not the first venue they posted at. "I can't get differences to show..." would indicate to me that Mjroots may not have been able to see who had made the move. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage

18:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if this had been posted in the wrong place. I tried my best to fix the problem but was unable to. As I said in the original post, warning to be issued if it was appropriate to do so, which in this case it clearly was not. Main thing is that the issue has been resolved. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems like this should probably go to the Village Pump. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits to own page

Ahmadbatebi (talk · contribs) has been editing his own Wikipedia page in a rather puzzling manner. He persistently removes verified facts about his life and replaces them with original research content that has no source or verification of any kind. In addition, he links to his own personal website. I find this problematic on several levels, most significantly because editing one's own page in such a biased manner demonstrates a conflict of interest and is selfserving. --Manime87 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Ahmad Batebi Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Without exploring the wider ramifications of his edits, there is no issue with him adding an external link to his own website. It shouldn't be used as a reference for anything controversial, but a simple link in the external links section (such as what currently appears) is not problematic. Horologium (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User warned. User had been advised of proper way to handle perceived inaccuracies, but has continued to edit. Any further editing to own page will lead to a block. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

the abuse of another editor must be removed, but the link to his web site can & should be be restored. DGG (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:HalfShadow and edit-summary incivility

Resolved

 – user blocked for 48hrs. Ironholds (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit summary is grossly incivil (suggesting a user kill themselves). This user was warned previously about incivility by me here, was blocked for personal attacks by

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive46#User:HalfShadow. Hipocrite (talk

) 18:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

48 hr block imposed for the rude comment about Betacommand on ANI [62] and talk page edit summary [63]. He will hopefully get the message and reform this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been noticing a lot in the way of unnecessary and provocative comments left by this user recently, hopefully the 48h block will give them time to think about reform. — 

neuro^(talk)

20:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

G@@p cleanup

Resolved

Someone want to take care of this? Block and undoing of page moves needed. Deor (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

J.delanoy got him. Deor (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Aviator

Resolved

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Ndsblws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for making legal threats by Rodhullandemu. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Lingx91

Resolved

 – SPI report filed, closed. Four socks blocked

Another in my list of "how on earth is this guy still around?" editors, I present to you Lingx91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Series of nasty warnings, and, so far as I can tell, an unblemished record: every edit he has made has been reverted, and every article he has created has been a hoax. Is there really any reason to wait longer before the indef he will inevitably receive?—Kww(talk) 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Review welcome, but with a couple months of hoax articles and vandalism kicking around, I think this was the right approach. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a nagging feeling we've seen this editor before. I brought an issue here about an editor adding numerous future films and albums to numerous articles through numerous IPs. The issue was kicked back and forth from here to SPI, back here and back to SPI. There was never a meaningful resolution. Were the deleted articles mentioned in

talk

) 21:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Both were created by Kielz86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also created, surprise surprise, Sher'Quan Johnson (among a half-dozen others). Boi91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another in this little hosiery drawer. It's obviously a sockfest. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lingx91 has been created to sweep for related accounts.—Kww(talk) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Manhattan Samurai socks

Resolved

 – indef block Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Crepe King (

talk

) 22:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way → :-) Tiptoety ^talk

23:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No need for SPI. These are obvious socks of a banned user. One has been blocked, but the other (Crepe King) has been not. There is no need to waste time on SPI with banned users that are this ducky.

talk

) 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tippy is right, but it's obvious enough for me to block Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Frehley 0

Resolved

 – Frehley 0 has been frehlled. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone just apply

WP:DUCK to this account being a User:Big Boss 0 sock/meatpuppet already and block it. User has done nothing but troll Wikipedia with his urls of youtube videos and message me on my talk page. — Moe ε

00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Xristina Prete

Doesn't rise to the "simple, obvious" vandalism standard of AIV. Xristina Prete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account devoted to adding references to a cancelled Lindsay Lohan album, "Spirit in the Dark". She was given final vandalism warnings by several editors. I noticed that no one had ever explained to her exactly why her edits were being considered vandalism, so, when she did it again after a final vandalism warning, I dropped a note explaining why. Her response was to deface the redirect page (which I silently reverted), and today, she's back adding that album into everything again. [65][66][67][68].—Kww(talk) 15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Although not an admin myself I suggest a block per final warnings....  rdunnPLIB  11:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur, it would seem ample warning has been given.

Valentine

04:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Activity by User:Scripturalreasoning

I'm reporting disruptive activity on the talk page of the article scriptural reasoning by user:scripturalreasoning. This user has speculated openly about my identity and place of work in an attempt at harrassment. I would be grateful for adminship. Thelongview (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a hint of legal threat over on

WP:COIN. Verbal chat

16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting FALSE and personally harassing statements made by user Thelongview who has repeatedly made allegations of my fabricating statements which have been made by the Trustees of an organisation and, and uploading material to websites of which I am NOT the IT officer. See here I have repeatedly asked him to withdraw these false and untrue statements for which he has no evidence, but rather there is evidence to the contrary. He has refused to withdraw these FALSE personal statements and accusations about me:

"I have not removed any material which is reliably referenced. The website scripturalreasoning.org.uk now has a page in which the views of Scripturalreasoning are faithfully reproduced. References to 'trustees' (whose names or affiliations nowhere appear on that website) are spurious: the website material was clearly mounted online by Scripturalreasoning. The website scripturalreasoning.org.uk, whose material is mounted by Scripturalreasonining, is not a reliable source. Thelongview (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Scriptural Reasoning Society is not a registered charity. Thelongview (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)" [69]

I have responded to some other FALSE statements by user Thelongview at COI

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already instructed user Thelongview to desist from making false statements exactly one month ago.

*I do not own and am not "responsible" as the IT person in charge of the website http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ This is registered in the name of, hosted and primarily managed by another colleague - I contribute certain SR study materials. Those "responsible" for its content are the Trustees. Please stop making false statements. Thank you. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [70]

"SR Study materials" are translations and sacred texts from the Bible, Quran and commentaries on these sacred materials, contributed to the Scriptural Reasoning work of the Society alongside the contributions of various other colleagues -- as may be seen. He has continued to make false allegations despite my requesting him to stop.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Copied from

WP:COI/N

:

WP:U violation reported for review by relevant admins. -- samj _in^out

17:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The

WP:OUTING above ("Thelongview WHO IS EMPLOYED as a X of Y, and a lead member of Z") even after User:Thelongview recently explained that "I am concerned to preserve my anonymity on Wikipedia, and as things stand it is looking as though I might have to abandon work on the article on 'Scriptural Reasoning' in order to achieve that" is also rather problematic. -- samj _in^out

17:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the

WP:COI related violations of various policies it seems intervention is required. -- samj _in^out

17:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Scripturalreasoning may fit the description of an account that's "considered disruptive and may be

blocked". The question is whether it exists for the sole or primary purpose of promoting the Scriptural Reasoning Society. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to figure out what is going on here because there are lots of undercurrents. As far as I can tell, the Scriptural Reasoning Society is a British entity that may consist of a single person; I haven't actually seen even one name associated with it, except the copyright holder for the web site. It should be contrasted with the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, an American entity that has identifiable members and is notable in various ways. Looie496 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I am also very unhappy about how close this editor has sailed to the wind in regards to our policy on outing. I think he has gone too far. I am glad to see that he has agreed to change his/her username.

talk

) 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the fundamental issue is that there are two groups claiming rights to this name, and they each consider the other illegitimate. Obviously, we're not going to judge that. We may need an article for each of the organizations. DGG (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The position is not complicated. The Scriptural Reasoning Society is a registered charitable project of the Interfaith Alliance UK which references it. The nine Trustees of the latter organisation are listed on the Charity Commission website. It consists of four groups, including the SR Oxford which is sponsored by the Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies whose head leads that group, SR Camden and SR Westminster all sponsored by the Camden Faith Communities Partnership (a Christian minister of which is a convener of the SR Camden), Liberal Jewish Synagogue (a rabbi of which is also a Trustee and leads the Westminster Group), Liberal Judaism (the Society's registered address, and a rabbi of which is a Trustee and lead of the Camden group), St John's Church (another convener of the SR Westminster). It has meetings every month in various places of worship, which dozens of people come to, and has a membership of over 200 --- contrast that with the tiny number of 37 who are members of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group. The SR Society has a Board of Trustees which are the same as the Interfaith Alliance UK, it has a Coordinator, an IT officer and local coordinators. NONE of these people are ME. The FALSE statements made or implied by user Thelongview are particularly galling, since his colleagues and boss have actually met with the SR Society's coordinating body, and I have met this chap as well. These facts are therefore all PUBLICLY KNOWN. The false statements which have been repeated by user Thelongview despite my repeatedly requesting him to desist from making, constitute clear harassment -- are outrageous and Administrators must act on the false statements being made. Why has this not happened?

My own position is clear. I have said before in an earlier edit that:

"Also, for the record, I have no "loyalty" at all for the Scriptural Reasoning Society as an institution/structure, despite my having contributed a lot of work to it. My loyalty and commitment is to certain values of parity, equality, truth and non-exploitation in the practice of Scriptural Reasoning as a whole (whichever group does it). The SRS can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned, if there is any hint of its Trustees and officers abandoning those ethical principles to which I am passionately committed"

If you read the Discussion Page for the article, you will see clearly that my position is consistently that the WP article

Scriptural Reasoning has been used by user Thelongview and others to advertise and promote the practice of Scriptural Reasoning, make exaggerated claims for its size and innovative nature, and one particular group in particular. My position is that that Scriptural Reasoning is nothing particularly novel, there are many other organisations (JCM Conference, Limmud, Lambeth Palace Building Bridges Seminars) which have done virtually identical types of interfaith text study work, and the great majority of references to the article are from exactly the same tiny group of 37 people who are all involved in the active promotion of Scriptural Reasoning. All criticism of the practice of Scriptural Reasoning has now been suppressed by Thelongview --- Therefore, it is the CRITICISM of Scriptural Reasoning (NOT ITS PROMOTION) to which I am committed, so that hardly constitutes promotion of any Scriptural Reasoning organisation (SR Society or otherwise). Wikipedia NPOV requires an article to contain a balance of viewpoints -- including critique -- and I am astonished that Administrators would allow such promotional and advertising bias to go unchallenged. I am INDIFFERENT to the listing of the Scriptural Reasoning Society and its various activities --- it is FAIR CRITICISM of Scriptural Reasoning, NOT PROMOTION to which I am committed. As Administrators, you surely cannot allow the article to become a promotional brochure for the practice of Scriptural Reasoning by those whose very job involves promotion of SR. --Carpathy2009 (talk

) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not complicated indeed, and also completely beside the point, which is user misconduct. I have indefinitely blocked

WP:TRUTH, coupled with substantial user conduct concerns as outlined by others above. I'm fine with review and, if need be, any change to or lifting of the block should other admins assess the situation differently.  Sandstein 

21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Unfortunate that they didn't heed the multiple complaints, warnings, and requests to reform. They may get the message now - hopefully they can reform into a positive contributor - but for the time being, this was appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

History of quaternions

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary

Spartaz ^Humbug!

06:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_quaternions&action=history Several people have stated the consensus was clearly keep, and not to simply delete everything and put a redirect there. Several edits and reverts have taken place. Attempts to discuss it on the talk page, have failed to get either side to agree. I was told to take the issue here. During the AFD discussion, after overwhelming majority of people thus far had said Keep, User:C S stated: Comment on future redirect: It doesn't matter if this article is deleted or not. If it ain't deleted, I'm just going to replace the whole thing with a redirect to quaternion. Maybe there's something legitimate here that isn't already there (as indicated by G-Guy), but I don't see it. I'll take a look before deleting the whole thing though. --C S (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I asked about this, and got a response: [71] Is that going against consensus? Dream Focus 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC) yes  rdunnPLIB  18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC) The article is a mass of unsourced garbage, and the "Keep" is the standard Wikipedia reaction that it is better to tell people things that are false than not to tell them anything. I advocate not being too hard on C S here. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC) There was consensus for a rewrite. So do it. You're the expert, and can probably do it best. If you think you can make an argument for the redirect instead of a rewrite get consensus for it. DGG (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC) There's also some brief discussion at WT:WPM#AfD for "History of quaternions" repeating the assertion that "the article is a mass of unsourced garbage". Passing an AfD is not a mandate to avoid cleaning up problems with an article. —David Eppstein (talk ) 19:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Of course it is not, but it is a clear statement that the community wants the article to exist as an actual article, not as a redirect. If users think the article is a mass of garbage, they should clean it up or gain consensus to delete/merge/redirect it. That consensus is not present as evidenced by the AFD, so the only option is to clean up the article, not continue to redirect it while ignoring the AFD outcome. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Three points were agreed on at the AFD: This is a subject on which we should have an article (I agree) We should therefore not delete the existing article (one respondent added "even if it needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt") The article, as it was put up for AfD, does need to be burnt to the ground. Dream Focus can't tell the difference between deletion, decided by AfD, and normal editing, which includes merger and redirection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Pmanderson, take note of the words "The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." on the AFD page. While one should not bring a page to AFD with the intention of making it into a redirect, it can be closed as such, and consensus was not to close it as redirect, it was to simply keep it. FunPika 20:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Read the opinions. Nobody, except the main author, liked the article as nominated; there was no consensus to keep that text. Indeed, one Keep !vote replied to But can this be improved? Take out the partisanship and the irrelevancies, and what is left? with "a redirect". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC) A lot of problems could be avoided and time saved if people would simply WP:BOLDly redirect bad or redundant pages instead of bringing them to AFD. THF (talk ) 22:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I'm surprised Dream Focus didn't wave the Akane-chan Overdrive and Hate to Love You. He/she has a history of contesting merges and redirects he/she doesn't like. His/her activities, especially at AFD, should be scrutinized along with his/her userpage, which has become a lengthy attack page on "deletionists". --Farix (Talk ) 23:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I have complained before when people vote Keep, only to have nothing kept at all, or when the vote is merge, and not one bit of information is merged, nor is there the intention of anything actually being merged, it ending up all being deleted. If I see an injustice, I will protest. Now then, the vote here was an overwhelming keep. And yet, once again, I see a redirect there. Can someone lock the article until a decisions is made? Dream Focus 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC) While I agree (oh Lord do I agree) with the sentiment that an article described as "a mass of unsourced garbage" should not be kept, the AFD consensus was clearly to keep the article as an article and hope that someone makes it better. People participating in AFD discussion are free to say that they think it should be a redirect, and by and large they didn't. That being said, since everyone does appear to agree that the article is crap: is it possible to just take the text at the redirect target, Quaternions#History, and make THAT the article (and then expand and improve on it as necessary)? Then you'd have an existing article with text that the redirect advocates can apparently live with. Just a thought in case that hasn't already been suggested. Propaniac (talk ) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I think what several contributors to this thread fail to recognize is that it is often possible to see that an article contains misinformation without knowing enough to fix it. When that happens, as it frequently does, the article tends to just sit there indefinitely with false information. In my opinion, the fact that a topic is important enough to deserve an article ought not to mean that an article containing misinformation needs to be kept intact until an expert comes along to repair it. Looie496 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Then you tag it with a citation needed, and if no one finds one, then you erase whatever you believe is false. Dream Focus 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC) People not interested in discussing or involving themselves in the normal editorial process of editing an article should not be policing an article such as Dream Focus is doing. Other editors such as Pmanderson, Crowsnest, Jheald, etc. are actually discussing the content, making modifications and working on content. What's going on here is that Dream Focus "voted" to keep, is annoyed that people aren't abiding by this decision (even though they are interested in improving the situation), and s/he wants to enforce the decision no matter what, even if the decision in the end of all interested Wikipedians is to redirect. Is this the kind of behavior we want to encourage? I think Dream Focus has a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works. Perhaps I was too honest in my comments in the AFD. I could have lied, but I chose to explain the real situation as it is. What I described is the normal Wikipedia process. If Dream Focus doesn't like that the eventual result of what happens is not governed by the AFD, too bad. --C S (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC) If we do things your way, then the AFD mean absolutely nothing. Wikipedia rules have not been followed. That is the only issue here. Why bother having an AFD at all, if the results are ignored? If an article is deleted by consensus at AFD, and someone keeps trying to recreate it, they are stopped. But if an article is voted Keep by consensus at AFD, and someone tries to erase all the information there, then some find no problems with that at all. I would imagine most people would be bothered by this. And you don't improve an article by deleting it. Dream Focus 02:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC) A "keep" AFD does not preclude redirecting the article, nor removing information that editors find dubious for which sufficient references have not been provided. The only thing that a "keep" AFD precludes is literally deleting the article. The discussion about whether to redirect or edit the article belongs on the article's talk page, not here, unless the article literally has been deleted. — Carl ( CBM · talk ) 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC) For the near future it does, until a different consensus is established, and i can see no reason why a new afd would return any different result, keep and not redirect is the current consensus. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, please respect it. --neon white talk 04:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC) The consensus right now amongst people actually working on the article is to keep the redirect in place. Thanks, by the way, for stopping by to tell us that we need to "drop this" and get to work on the article, especially when all this controversy was stirred up by Dream Focus. I'm sure once Dream Focus loses interest, we will indeed be able to get to work on the article. --C S (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC) No, the AFD doesn't mean "absolutely nothing". It lets people have an idea of the consensus of what should be done with the article. In this case, people were more or less unanimous in that most (if not all) of the article should be nuked and a better one written. That is what is being done right now. And you are interfering with your clownish antics here. There's no reason at all that the article should not be redirected to a well-written history section while discussion is underway on creating this "better article" alluded to by AFD participants. Nobody that is advocating the redirect really has any personal grudge against the topic "history of quaternions", as you seem to imagine. If there is a good "history of quaternion" article written, it will undoubtedly stay, and indeed, the people you've been edit-warring with are working on such an aritlce right now. And what have you been doing to help this? Nothing. --C S (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC) This isn't the first time Dream Focus has pulled this stunt, and probably won't be the last until an admin starts handing out blocks. Of course the most ironic thing is that he insists we WP:IAR during AFD discussions but then that we follow all keep/no consensus results to the letter. --Farix (Talk ) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Blast from the past: likely block evasion by User:Jacksbernstein

• Richard Rossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jacksbernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 207.233.48.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article, which has a long history of socking by a banned editor trying to sanitize it in 2007 (see [72][73][74]), now has a SPA IP edit-warring to add

WP:DUCK -- either through page semi-protection or blocking the IP -- would be appreciated. THF (talk

) 06:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Build the web again

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

continued from ANI#Build the web

Please can someone with time to look at the issue in some detail come and sort this out (

WP:Build the web). It is ridiculous that a group of determined cynics, even including an admin, are allowed to continue this campaign of edit-warring against consensus and reason.--Kotniski (talk

) 09:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again Kotniski is telling his version of the events. What is ridiculous is that a couple of users can claim a "consensus" between them to dismantle a seven-year-old guideline, and keep maintaining this claim despite numerous parties disagreeing with them, clearly demonstrating that there is no consensus. If anything, his continual reversions of the article are what bear investigating. —

(❝?!❞)

09:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once agin, Hex is simply lying, I don't know how else to describe it. It is not a "couple of users" and it is not "dismantling" a guideline, it was merged with others to make a much better one. Hex and the others are simply craeting noise to distract people's attention from the fact that consensus was reached, and recently confirmed, in detailed and reasoned discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. To quote an edit summary, "you can't just get rid of a seven year old guideline after 40 hours of discussion on an unrelated talk page with no community notification". You proposed the merge on January 9th, and did it on January 11th. That's not enough time to qualify as "detailed and reasoned discussion" on a guideline of this age. And now a number of editors have found out about your merger after the fact, and are unhappy. That is not "creating noise". The "couple of users" are you and Tony1, who can be seen in the edit history of BTW repeatedly demoting it despite having it pointed out to you numerous times that until a dispute over a guideline is resolved, it retains its status with the addition of a "disputed" tag. —

(❝?!❞)

09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The merge was done after many weeks/months of discussion, and everyone was very happy about it until someone decided that it would suit his immediate purposes (no doubt from somewhere in the Kafka-esque workings of the ArbCom date linking case) to undo part of what had been universally agreed. And to say it's just me and Tony is simply untrue and you know it - you were part of the discussion where the decision to merge the pages was confirmed, and you know that there were far more than just two people, and you might also have the integrity to admit that our arguments were far stronger (instead of just leaving the discussion when you can't answer them, only to return later with nothing new to say). Really, I've never seen anything like this before from experienced editors and admins - when something's been decided, we accept it and move on. OK you can try to develop a new consensus based on rational argument, but it's totally disruptive to simply deny all knowledge about the consensus that has been reached. This is the same attitude, as far as I can tell, that has led to the date linking issue still not being settled. Whatever people decide, just refuse to accept the consensus. Make noise; admins won't look at the details, they'll just assume each side is being as bad as each other and you stand a good chance of getting what you want. This isn't how WP should be working. --Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a thought: you two stop sniping at each other and start providing diffs. //roux   16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• What diffs would you like? That there was unanimous support for the merger can be seen from the discussion at
  WP:BTW. That they are not even attempting to discuss or provide counter-arguments any more (except the traditional "no consensus" nonsense) can be seen by the absence of such. It's not a case of one or two diffs. If you want to sort it out, you'll need to spend a bit of time investigating and discussing.--Kotniski (talk
  ) 16:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please provide specific links to those discussions. A past revision of the page would be fine as opposed to just a diff--something that shows the discussion specifically. What you're saying is like saying "There was a discussion on ANI, go spend some time investigating." To put it more bluntly: support your position with specifics or walk away. Thanks. //roux   16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• See link to the discussion from October in my comment below. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• There was "unanimous" support because many believed you (myself included) when you said a poll had already been conducted on the merger itself. What you failed to mention was that the
  WT:BTW (meaning people who watchlisted that page weren't even aware of the straw poll!). That's not consensus, that's a hijacking. —Locke Cole • t • c
  16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. One is that many of the disputants here are the same folks involved in a current ArbCom case. (And yes, so am I, although I haven't heard of this dispute until now.) It does seem that this flame war is growing into a forest fire. Second, at the top of the Talk page of this policy are links to the user pages of a number of Wikipedians who stated that they endorse this policy: I'm one of them, & I haven't heard of this "consensus" until now, probably because no one involved bothered to drop a note to ask me to participate in the discussion. I wonder how many of the other Wikipedians in this list were asked to participate; had this been done it would support an assumption that a Good Faith effort had been made to find a consensus based in the larger community, & not just in one faction of an ongoing, er, feud. -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus brought together both factions of the feud; it's just that one faction has suddenly decided the status quo doesn't suit them. And the question is not whether anyone endorses this policy; it was merged, not demoted. The question is whether there should be two or three separate guidelines on the same topic, telling different sides of the story, or just one comprehensive one with all the information. If you want to argue for separation, please do at the appropriate place. But here is the evidence asked for:

1. That consensus for the merge properly formed after long, detailed discussion:
   WT:Linking
   (all threads down to - and don't be misled by this title, it was about a temporary problem that was soon settled - "Please reverse the merger")
2. That the merge proposal was advertised at BTW for months: this sample diff (note merge pointer at top of page), and the actual merge was announced there: WT:Build the web#Specific merge proposal, and attracted no opposition from anyone at that page (this redirecting edit remained stable for over a month)
3. That the recent discussion on the topic (advertised at
   Template:Cent and well known to all involved parties) confirmed, or certainly by no stretch of the imagination tended to overturn, the previous consensus: [78]
   (the thread "Resurrect this guideline?") - this was substantially how it was when the edits referred to below were made
4. That several editors, being aware of the above consensus (since they had participated in the discussion), continued to edit the page against that consensus by restoring the very {{guideline}} tag that the discussion had concluded was inappropriate: [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] (I admit my previous edit may have been wrong there, but still no justification is given for restoring the guideline tag as well as the disputed tag), [85], [86], [87], [88].

Restoring from the archive (trimming some off-topic and own comments). Please can someone either deal with this or tell me why action is not appropriate.--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose it might help if I said what action I was asking for. The admin will make up their own mind, of course, but I would have thought a firm note left on the talk page stating that the page was merged by consensus, that the text was restored for discussion purposes, but that it should not carry any tag as to its status (e.g. as a guideline) until consensus is reached to add such a tag.--Kotniski (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that no admins did anything should be your answer here. This really has hit the point of

WP:FORUMSHOP; you're continually reposting this dispute until you get the answer you want. Move to re-archive this discussion forthwith. //roux  

17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what other forums I'm alleged to have posted this in. (I raised a general question at one other place, that's all.) If admins have looked at this and decided that action is inappropriate, then I presume they would say why. Since they haven't, I presume they haven't looked into it yet, so no-one is in a position to say whether it's appropriate to archive it or not. I spent my time getting together the evidence when asked - the least the admin community could do is respond to the substance of the report.--Kotniski (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The general, and reasonable, assumption is that admins have looked at it and decided a) no action necessary, and b) commenting just creates more drama. If only 25% of active admins have ANI on their watchlists, at least two hundred pairs of admin eyeballs have seen this. //roux   07:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Seen, yes; but looked at, probably not. In cases where no action is necessary, it is normal to say so and say why, suerly?--Kotniski (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that more absue has broken out on this page

WP:Build the web (see today's history). Now we're seeing date links being added to the guideline (totally without consensus as should be well-known to everyone), and still all attempts to remove the guideline tag or restore the consensus redirect are being resisted. The text of the page was specifically restored for discussion purposes only; it should never have been re-marked as a guideline, even a disputed one - this is totally against consensus and principles of good faith. (More trouble is at Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines and Template:Guideline list - I've attempted a compromise there, maybe it will stick.)--Kotniski (talk

) 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we all sit down, relax, and realise that we're arguing over whether or not we link dates in an encyclopedia on the internet? Seriously, the tensions here are not justified by the stakes. — Werdna • talk 09:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we're not talking about that (date linking isn't even the main issue here). We're talking about whether a consensus decision can be made to be respected without our having to resort to canvassing all the people who came to that decision and asking them to come and join in an edit war. If consensus means nothing, and only willingness to fight is allowed to count in determining the content of our encyclopedia or its guidelines, then we create a battlefield. People like me, who genuinely work towards consensus time and again, and act on it when it is achieved for the betterment of WP, will not stick around. I hate this fighting and the fact that I've been drawn into it, and I also hate the implication that I'm "on my own" because I haven't tried to draw other representatives of the consensus view into the quagmire. I genuinely expected some support from admins over this, and hope that when someone has the time to look into it in detail you will see why I am very concerned and upset about this. --Kotniski (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's not about date linking, can you explain your edit here, where you remove something from BTW related to date linking?

As to consensus, two admins have already tried to explain that there was not enough discussion for there to be consensus to merge BTW with MOSLINK and CONTEXT. Yet you persist here trying to force your "consensus" (which was decided in 28 hours, on an unrelated talk page, involving mostly MOS regulars) instead of attempting something involving wider community involvement (or simply dropping the matter entirely, to be addressed again at some later date if you feel passionately about it). You also seem bent on edit warring over this (I won't lie; I've edit warred with you over this, but you seem to have been more active on

WP:BTW in trying to keep it at a version you prefer). Please drop this and move on to something productive. —Locke Cole • t • c

10:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which two admins you are talking about, or when this happened, or why you say that it was decided in 28 hours when it happened over months as the link I have provided shows, or why you ignore the fact that the decision was confirmed when wider community involvement was sought as the second link I have provided shows, or why you think you have the right to keep a guideline tag there by force (albeit with a disputed tag, but the combination of these two tags normally implies something quite different) when there is not anything even approaching a sign of consensus that it should be there. If you think it's not important, then you might consider dropping it yourself. (But if we are going to do a

WP:SPIDER act, then there couldn't be a more aptly named page, I suppose... )--Kotniski (talk

) 10:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The two admins could quite posibly be

User:Hex and User:Werdna coz' if you look carefully they both have said to slow down and check.  rdunnPLIB 

11:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, a single uninvolved admin has opined on

back away and come back to this again in a few months time when the dust has settled. —Locke Cole • t • c

11:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No time to discuss further in detail now, but Hex is not a neutral admin, Werdna didn't say anything about consensus, and the link clearly shows discussion over months not hours.--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As no-one can agree on whether a concensus had been reached or not, shall we just start again rather than letting this just drag on....  rdunnPLIB  15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have just fallen for the spiralling consensus trap. This is exactly the result "they" want. If consensus is against them, they just dispute the consensus. Since consensus cannot be precisely defined, no-one can prove it exists without applying a bit of judgement, so it's always possible to keep the argument going if you want. If no-one with authority is prepared to step in and say stop, I judge that there is sufficient consensus here to do this and we will now do it, then effectively we are not ruled by consensus, we are ruled by the law of the edit warriors' jungle. In most cases it comes down to the same thing, but in this case we can clearly see that it hasn't (the page has been protected with a tag on it that consensus would never have placed there), and we should correct that. To fail to do so is to treat cooperative members of the community with contempt, and ensure that we gain more and more edit warriors.--Kotniski (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For example, I judge there is sufficient consensus to block the warring parties. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed  rdunnPLIB  17:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

a few things (all to Kotniski)

• a) who is "they"?
• b) If consensus is against them, they just dispute the consensus. Since consensus cannot be precisely defined, no-one can prove it exists without applying a bit of judgement, so it's always possible to keep the argument going if you want from an outsiders view (ie mine) it seems like the argument is going in circles.
• c) the concensus as you say is clear and others not therefore cancleing each other out (hence my above suggestion)
• d) If no-one with authority is prepared to step in and say stop
  • Werdna did say "Can we all sit down, relax,"
• e) we are ruled by the law of the edit warriors' jungle. the law is to do it with a CLEAR consensus (which it hasnt happened(see point c))
• f) (no deliberate offence intended) and ensure that we gain more and more edit warriors to the untrained eye it seems you (indirectly) include yourself may i point out  rdunnPLIB  17:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, we still don't quite understand each other, but the page has been protected now anyway, so further discussion is continuing there. Closing this report.--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

German machine guns & submachine guns: 8 queryable move requests

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — 

neuro^(talk)

06:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• User:Koalorka to move 8 articles about German machine guns & submachine guns to a form with a space in. These requests are in the form e.g. "MG42 → MG 42 — WP:Firearms concensus, space provided. — Koalorka (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)". But where is this concensus? Special:PrefixIndex finds no relevant pages with names starting "WP:Fire" or "Wikipedia:Fire". When these guns were made, it seems to have been official German military usage to leave the space out. See User talk:Koalorka for warnings and a blocking against him. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 10:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bencherlite^Talk

10:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that ANI is not the appropriate venue of first resort when dealing with non-vandalism move disputes. Take it to the relevant WikiProject first, ask the mover questions on his talk page, discuss it on the articles' talk pages, etc. The point of WP:ANI is to deal with incidents that need administrator intervention, and this one certainly does not. --Cyde Weys 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of site protectioning

user:YellowMonkey protected the site A. R. Rahman indefinitely diff. The reason he has given is Protected A. R. Rahman: one anon defying consensus ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

The discussion on the issue can be found here: Talk:A._R._Rahman#91.130.91.92 It is all about the inclusion of a regional award ceremony called Filmfare Awards in the lead section as well as in the table of discography. The dispute is about the notability of Filmfare Awards.

Why I report this: The long time consensus for this page was only to include National, State Awards and International Awards which are truly serious and hence worthy to be mentioned at the A. R. Rahman article. So the summary explanation of this protection had nothing substantial in this regard. It's not me who was defying consensus, but Bollywood soldiers like Sh* and Jagged85, who still insist to take these controversial Awards into the lead section by degrading official State Awards. The long time consensus was stable until these two Warriors arrived with Filmfares in their luggage. If you look in YellowMonkey's talk page, you can easily find a connection between Monkey and Sh**. You will easily come to the conclusion, that Monkey intentionally did a "small favor" to his old comrade. This is the way, the article looked all the time until A. R. Rahman won his two Oscars with very minor differences to previous versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._R._Rahman&diff=273654746&oldid=273653684 Filmfare Awards were mentioned only in the Award section, not in the lead or in the big table. And here is the "consensus" YellowMonkey is talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._R._Rahman Filmfare is in the lead in the first place. The table is spammed up with these Filmfare magazine Awards.

--91.130.91.92 (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Protection looks appropriate to me. Consensus may change, but you won't be able to force it through edit warring. Keep working on productive discussion on the talk page. You shouldn't need to edit the article while the discussion is ongoing, because
  there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department}
  01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• What I find funny is that this anon reverted things repeatedly by everyone who broke his POV. He claims that one film award function must be removed while it is the most prominent and veteran in India (because of personal biasness which I won't explain here), and although other editors assumed good faith, proved the importance of the ceremony, he kept continuously reverting the edits of anyone who dared to re-add it. And this "long time consensus" this anon is talking about is just his invention, no such consensus exists and is not likely to exist. Apart from this, the state awards are not notable at all, and this is something he does not try to disprove. I consider his repeated reversals (which contradict consensus and basic facts) plain vandalism, so YellowMonkey was extremely kind. Apart from this, the article was heavily vandalised since his Oscar win. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Magalona

Someone needs to take a look at this page, reports that person has died, edit warring, vandalism, etc etc Marek.69 ^talk 05:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted, though being totally unfamiliar with the subject, help will be limited. Given the huge number of sources, it appears the death is true. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse?

Resolved

 – Blocked. — 

neuro^(talk)

13:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where this belongs, but some newly-registered 'user' wants to harass me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious malicious impersonator, blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 12:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Functional Decomposition Methodology

Resolved

 – Speedy deleted as copyvio, redirect from proper capitalization created. -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is

Functional decomposition methodology (proper capitalisation) to Functional decomposition. The AfD debate makes the background clear. JohnCD (talk

) 16:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible unauthorised bot?

Resolved

 – I should assume good faith. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Creating five or six pages per minute, a short while ago. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think their contribs are fast enough to be a bot. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The articles seem like the kind we want, why not do the normal thing and go ask him or her about it?--Jac16888^Talk 17:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the bot policy is not that unauthorised scripts are fine if they're doing good work. It says that unauthorised scripts are... erm, unauthorised! I am not an expert, and wanted further input - talking to the user ("the normal thing"!!!) isn't likely to produce a useful answer = they'll never admit to using a bot even if they are...

Sorry to bother you all, though! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened to

assuming good faith? -Djsasso (talk

) 17:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're concerned about someone's behaviour, you're always going to be told to talk to them first. But a glance at their contribs doesn't look like a bot. Probably preparing articles offline or in a sandbox. WilyD 17:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I found it difficult to understand how someone could create ~6 decent articles per minute over a sustained period of time. Assuming good faith is great fun, yes, but to deny the very possibility of bad faith is rather foolish IMO. I still have no clue how this user is managing to do it, but I have clearly stated several times that I am not clear about whether it is a script or not, and that I am not an expert. If you think I've behaved badly, I unreservedly apologise, and am now marking the issue resolved before anything anything else happens. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant assume good faith in messaging him and not assuming he will deny it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the articles consist of basically the same content, so using a simple copy/paste, one could easily create 5 or 6 stubs per minute.

talk

) 17:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith of TreasuryTag ;-) If I saw that, I'd probably be suspicious too. Absolutely nothing wrong with being cautious. Don't jump on his back (referring to no one in particular) just because the guy came here for some guidance :-)

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall initiated against MBisanz

talk

) 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)