Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736

User has agreed to stop, any further discussion has no chance of being productive (User notified using Template:ANI-notice.)

Over at

By my count, six editors have opposed his tagging[11] and nobody has supported it. I am open to a discussion where he tries to convince the six other editors that the tags belong and no consensus is required, but instead of discussing he simply adds more SPA tags.

I would also note that removing these tags is very difficult because of the large number of edits causing edit conflicts. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding these templates when there are so many SPA and unconfirmed users posting votes is also a pretty full on job. However many users oppose the tagging of SPA votes in such an important vote I an in my right to tag them as is normal in such discussions. Youreallycan 02:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC) can 02:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a normal situation as we have a big banner visible to all readers asking for their input on this matter. There is nothing in that banner or in the introductory memo from Philippe Beaudette of the Wikimedia Foundation that indicates that only experienced editors are welcome to support or oppose an option regarding how we respond to SOPA. SPA tagging in this specific context is a form of biting newcomers, in my opinion, and I urge Youreallycan to stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the SPA tags- I agree entirely with Cullen328. Reyk _YO! 02:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A question for YRC. Is it your intention to tag all new accounts that appear not to have edited elsewhere on Wikipedia and all unconfirmed users taking part in the debate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the general test of a SPA apply: "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." The way I read that is a user with a very brief editing history (unconfirmed, for example) is automatically a SPA. I don't see the "banner" Cullen refers to as changing the test, and even more limited discussions, like AfDs, are "visible" to everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It says to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, etc. Youreallycan is assuming without evidence that this is true of all non-autoconfirmed users. He is also wasting his time; the votes will be evaluated by Wikimedia Foundation staff, who are perfectly capable of how many edits each voter has made without Youreallycan's help. Finally, his stated reasons for tagging are pure POV pushing. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SPA accounts and unconfirmed users voting on such an important can be templated and its totally usual to do it. It needs doing actually - drive by created accounts an IP addresses with no edits have no weight in such decisions - There are so many that it is difficult - I am just tagging the ones I see - the closing administrators are obliged to assess and reject such users votes anyway - but it is beneficial and helpful to highlight them prior to closure. I have heard it all from the activists tonight - "readers get a vote" - no they don't. Youreallycan 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Our policies refer to editors not readers. Readers of WP creating an account for the sole purpose of voting in the SOPA poll clearly fall under

Surturz (talk

) 02:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion that an unconfirmed user is automatically a SPA is contrary to established Wikipedia precedent - and demonstrably false. There are contributors who have been editing for years as IPs. Frankly though, given the way the discussion re SOPA is going at the moment, I think that this is all rather unnecessary, and looks close to breaching

WP:POINT - these 'SPAs', if that is what they are, are unlikely to make the slightest difference to the outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno about the precedent part, but it is not "demonstrably false" based on the language of the essay that everyone is quoting as if it's policy. A SPA is clearly defined as one of two things (it's stated in the disjunctive), one of which is a "user who appears to have a very brief editing history". Thus, if an IP has only one edit (a !vote), they are by definition a SPA. If that editor has been editing with different IP addresses "for years", there's no way to tell that on the face of it. If this automatic labeling of an IP a SPA is wrong, perhaps the essay should be changed. Do we have anything to guide us other than this essay, or is it just "precedent"? I will confess that, before now, I never thought of an IP with one edit as a SPA. I also thought of SPAs as editors (registered or IP) who make many edits, but only to one article or to related articles. At the same time, in general, I'm uncomfortable giving much weight to the !vote of an editor who has virtually no history, regardless of whether they are an IP or a registered user.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think YRC has done anything wrong here, but I also think the that the tagging should be ignored by closing admins. It is not a vote on content, and readers are entitled to vote and have their votes counted, since the vote may be of concern to them. I think it would be gracious if YRC stopped with the tagging. --FormerIP (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am well within my rights to tag SPA in such a vote - I have been quite conservative in my tagging. I will also be (whats the word) appealing to the three closing administrators to pay attention to and to rejects the size of the SPA votes. Youreallycan 03:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- am I the only one who finds it funny that we are arguing about who is and who is not allowed to express a view on internet censorship? Reyk _YO! 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agree wholeheartedly that the tagging is inappropriate. We're directly inviting our readers to comment via a banner. No sense whatsoever in tagging them as SPAs when they do comment. Swarm ^X 03:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Any passer by can opine about such , however - any passer by does not get to vote to close down en wikipedia - passer bys can comment but they don't get counted. Youreallycan 03:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Another question for YRC. Have you tagged any 'oppose' !votes? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not know - I have been recently blindly tagging any SPA from this page quite a conservative position and with no idea which section they had commented in. There are so many, some get missed and edit conflicts happen Youreallycan 03:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"passer bys can comment but they don't get counted" - Seriously? Where is that written? When we put up banners, we address all. Not just our active editors, but our readers as well. Swarm ^X 03:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats a standard position in regard to important issues here. Banners were not discussed - "readers" do not get to vote to close the project down. Youreallycan 03:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We make no distinction between readers and editors when it comes to providing opinions on policy. Yes, if they registered in the last few days and the only edit is to talk on that page, there's a chance its an SPA, but it could also be a long-time reader that wants to comment on the action. Since we can't make the distinction, we can't call anyone out as an SPA for this purpose, nor is it proper to do so. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not, YRC? Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the benefit of readers, not editors. I'd strongly suggest that for your own benefit, you stop this tagging, YRC. You are perfectly entitled to draw the attention of closing admins to a possible problem with SPAs, but given your clearly-partisan position in the issue, it is difficult to see how you can be a neutral judge over who is and who isn't a SPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that I've contacted Philippe for clarification as to whether such a restriction is in effect for this discussion. "It's standard practice" is simply not true. Swarm ^X 03:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Swarm - Philippe isn't in charge here, and has no rights to override usual policy and guidelines. Youreallycan 03:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Masem - This is nothing to do with policy. Even a long term reader is a SPA with few edits apart from this - this is just the historic way it is, no one is calling the contributor out, just aiding the closing admins as to how much weight to give their vote. Youreallycan 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Andy - my tagging has been as I said, pretty conservative. I will tag SPA from a neutral position as I see fit. Youreallycan 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Philippe is a WMF staff member involved in this, and I've asked them for clarification. But that aside, I just noticed that you have indeed voted against the proposal. In this case, you're not doing this from a neutral position and this is wholly inappropriate and needs to stop immediately. Swarm ^X 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if this isn't a policy-related discussion or not. We still don't make said distinctions. Readers have just as much say if WP should black out in protest as editors. Calling anyone out as an SPA without proof in that conversation is very improper. (The only time I've seen SPA called out is when there is firm knowledge of external pressure to have editors jump into a conversation like AFD or RFA; unless you have evidence an external page is directing people to comment on this, it's outside of these cases. ) --MASEM (t) 03:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Swarm - I am tagging SPA from a blind neutral position. Drive by created accounts do not get to vote to close down wikipedia. Youreallycan 03:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Alas - we have editors stating clearly that CANVASSing has been done on the non-English Wikipedias regarding this, and it appears that some of the "limited edit history" editors may have arrived as a result of that. SPA or not is not important - if they arrived as a result of CANVASS their presence is not valid for determining

User:Swarm is asserting that equal weight is given to any vote in this issue - according to User:Swarm anyone from the internet, anyone at all, gets an equal vote to close wikipedia down. Youreallycan 03:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, could you please explain why it is that you ignored both of my requests to talk this over on the article talk page and instead pushed ahead with the SPA tagging? You could easily have discussed it and then done your tagging before the deadline - nobody at the Wikimedia Foundation will be counting votes until after the deadline has passed. It really looks like your goal is discouraging people from voting, not helping the vote-counter. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And could you please explain why you have continued the tagging[12] even after reading the multiple negative comments here? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that has been said here has affected the reasons to SPA tag. I will continue to SPA template as I see fit as is usual in such important discussions. Youreallycan 04:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to reply that I will then delete any SPA templates you add as I see fit and cite your refusal to discuss on the talk page and the overwhelming consensus here if anyone brought up 3RR, but when I looked at the page I could only find one SPA tag to nuke. It appears that other editors are deleting them as fast as you are inserting them. Stop edit warring now or you will be blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors work on creating content for readers, who are our customers. Customers don't get to decide whether the workers go on strike. If the goal of the strike is to spread awareness by inconveniencing our readers, it makes no logical sense whatsoever for the readers to vote on the strike action. YRC should not be vilified for correctly tagging SPA's --

Surturz (talk

) 04:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The question for me is whether the SPA tagging is being done indiscriminately, or with YRC's POV in mind. If it's the former, then stop edit warring the lot of you and leave the damn tags there (assuming good faith and no sockpuppetry at all, it is actually interesting to know the proportion of voters that are newbies). If it's the latter, YRC should be given an indefinite block pending a resolution. —WFC— 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been tagging, as I have said, indiscriminately from a conservative point of view - I don't know about Guy Macons comments but there are currently about fifty SPA templates on the page and there are imo at least fifty more that need templating, probably more. Youreallycan 04:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Youreallycan, you might as well stop tagging the SPAs; those of us who are going to close are already pretty aware of these issues, and it seems your actions, which I have no doubt were initiated in good faith, have wound up annoying some people needlessly without adding much to the discussion. Perhaps you could figure out how to get SineBot or its equivalent adding signatures to any unsigned opinions - that would be really useful from the closer's perspective. Risker (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will stop tagging, at least its on the radar. SPA and drive by accounts do not get to vote to close wikipedia down. Yes, sine bot is not bothering there which is creating more problems. Youreallycan 04:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I still encourage you to discuss your concerns on the talk page - perhaps in a new section so that the SPA tagging issue doesn't cloud the discussion? You have a legitimate concern and even though I disagree I would very much like to see you make your case as effectively as possible. The folks taking the vote will certainly read the talk page, and they may very well agree with you and only count autoconfirmed users. I know that if it were me I would count it both ways to see if the autoconfirmed users have a different opinion than the non-autoconfirmed users. Come to think of it, once the deadline passes you or anyone else can count it any way you choose and post your results along with the assumptions used when counting. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"SPA and drive by accounts do not get to vote to close wikipedia down." According to the WMF, they do. Still, thank you for being reasonable in your actions, at least. Swarm ^X 07:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The user E.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used several sockpupets, and has been blocked both here and on svwp earlier. After a checkuser verified a number of users active on svwp I would like to get the same users blocked here on enwp as well. Some of them have been used here in the same manner as earlier, trying to influence consensus. The identified sockpupets that have a SUL account and thus have edited here, or may do so in the future, are:

• Bianessås (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Glytt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paved with good intentions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Voice (SWE) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Formion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dark Claimant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last time I asked for a block on E.G.'s sockpupets a local checkuser did a check to verify, if such a check is done this time I would appreciate it if any other accounts that are found get banned as well. GameOn (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ingen Alls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) couldn't be checked on svwp since no edits have been done there nor any login, the user shows several traits similar to the other sockpupets. GameOn (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ingen Alls is  Stale. The following accounts have been indeffed, and  Confirmed by checkuser:

• Paved with good intentions (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Formion (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Glytt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bianessås (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Voice (SWE) (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dark Claimant (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also, underlying

[•]

13:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am requesting a block on User:209.56.73.2 (his/her talk page can be found here). It (let's refer to him/her as it, since we do not know the gender) has made many unconstructive edits, and has been blocked for two years. However, it still makes very many vandalizing edits. Please help. Agent 78787 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For ease of lookup, 209.56.73.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 2 years. Please feel free to use

WP:AIV in future for such reports - they will handle schoolblocks as well as dynamic IPs. --Elen of the Roads (talk

) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• User: Gizgalasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Articles: Especially, Azerbaijan International, also
  • talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
  • Lev Nussimbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Kurban Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Ali and Nino – Literary Robbery! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gizgalasi has admitted to being a member of the research team for

I removed the links to 4 websites and 4 Twitter pages from the body of the article

WP:PROMO and a warning not to reinsert them, but other editors should keep on eye on the article. There is a link to the magazine's website in the External Links section of the article, and presumably that site has links to the other websites (if it doesn't, that's not our problem). This single link is sufficient, the addition of 4 other links and the Twitter pages definitely crosses the line into being promotional, especially considering they were posted by an editor with an admitted COI. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 05:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Add the

talk

) 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So....am I just totally off the mark here? Is this user reformable? Or is this simply uninteresting? I've refrained from reverting any recent edits or responding to recent comments until I can get a better read from this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks like someone going too far in regards to

WP:COS. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. I'd say this can be considered excessive, especially since there's an effort to exclusively promote the POV of AI. -- Atama頭

21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Priyabhar blocked indef by Elen. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Priyabhar (talk · contribs)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

Priyabhar created this article which contains massive copyvio from https://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~gr224/PAPERS/Mobile_Financial_India.pdf http://www.mobeyforum.org/content/download/16699/175936/file/Mobile%2520payments%25202012_Innopay_v1.0.pdf http://www.ncc.org.in/download.php?f=NCC2011/1569367349.pdf. Duplication Detector reports for 3 biggest chunks: [14], [15], [16]. It was blanked with {{Copyvio}} and reported at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 January 9. According to the OTRS clerk, the OTRS received did not establish a credible claim to ownership of any of the above sources. The copyvio template has now been removed 4 times, the first two by an IP and now twice today by this user, despite a clear warning on his/her talk page [17]. I've now reverted twice today and can't revert again. Eyes please. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User notified. Voceditenore (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... seems to be another case of a well known cultural dichotomy. He doesn't appear to have responded to any messages and the many warnings (5 uw plus all the deletion notices) and perhaps cannot read sufficient English to understand what he's doing wrong. Nevertheless, if he reverts the current COPYVIO notice, we should block for a very short time or until the copyvio/OTRS has been resolved, to prevent further disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC) PS: and perhaps PP the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to expunge the copyright? I tried to look through it but didn't have time to do a full sweep. If that can be done then do it and let me know (so I can do some RevDel). At the moment my feeling is that the article is un-rescuable and it's probably easier just to scrap it and start afresh. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No comment right now on the copyvio, but communication is vital, and an editor that won't or can't communicate really doesn't belong here. I've told the editor that.

talk

) 10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who blanked it with {{copyvio}} and listed it at Copyright problems. The topic is potentially suitable, but the current article is unrescueable in my view and needs a complete rewrite da capo. I only listed the three sources that account for the vast majority of the copyvio (and the article), but I suspect that virtually all of it consists of individual sentences copied from other sources. Given the editor's level of written English (e.g. [18]) virtually every sentence in the article written in grammatically correct, idiomatic English is highly likely to have been lifted from somewhere. Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; that was my feeling too. Now you have confirmed it I just went ahead and deleted the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the article existed before Priyabhar became involved. I nominated a couple of images that had been in use for deletion because they were aparrently copyvios / contained invalid licenses, but after the first was deleted an earlier editor showed up asking why the file was deleted. I was aparrently in error when nominating the second and I withdrew the nomination; I can no longer recheck the first. See the discussion at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#File_.28Image.29_deleted. So I should draw your attention to the fact that:

• It is possible that there exists an earlier version of the article that could be restored
• The discussion linked above was never responded to, so it's also possible that the deleted image could also be restored.

talk

) 15:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was an oversight on my part (sorry). I have undeleted an older version of the page before this editor came on board :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through his deleted contributions. He's done an awful lot of uploading with no license, and when that's deleted, uploading copyvios and claiming he owns them. I have blocked him indefinitely - there is a risk to the project to allowing a serial copyright violator to remain uploading copyvios. If at some stage he communicates and demonstrates an understanding of copyright, an unblock could be considered. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – blocked by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs)

All of the edits of

_berate

13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Where this report would probably be declined as No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs), apparently. -- Luk ^talk 14:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

At least he had the Steelers part pretty much right :-P (

BWilkins ←track

) 18:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not while the Vikings are still in the league. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Or the Browns. Close call, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@Bwilkins .. that will be about enough of that. :/ —

 ? 

00:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

    19:35 	Marina Weisband‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:34 	Highways in the United Kingdom‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:34 	Compulsory purchase in England and Wales‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:34 	Marie-Laure Augry‎ (diff | hist) . . (+64) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tags to article (Twinkle))
    19:34 	Christa Goetsch‎ (diff | hist) . . (+36) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
BLP unsourced
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:33 	Lida Gustava Heymann‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{unreferenced}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:32 	Suzanne Lacore‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{unreferenced}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:32 	Mélanie Fazi‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:31 	Brigitte Fouré‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:31 	Geneviève Fraisse‎ (diff | hist) . . (+69) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tags to article (Twinkle))
    19:31 	Marie-France Stirbois‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:30 	Françoise de Veyrinas‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:30 	Peter Flötner‎ (diff | hist) . . (+37) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
more footnotes
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:30 	Erna Scheffler‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:29 	Elisabeth Selbert‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:29 	Geneviève Gaillard‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:29 	Anne-Marie Comparini‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:28 	Johanna Wanka‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:28 	Helene Weber‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:28 	Alice Salomon‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
more footnotes
}} tags to article (Twinkle))
    19:28 	Maria Probst‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:27 	Danielle Casanova‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{
ref improve
}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:27 	Esther von Kirchbach‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:27 	Christine Teusch‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle))

I can see this going either way, and we don't seem to have a mentoring program page per se, so I figured I'd put it here and let some sort of consensus prevail.

I came across User:Brandon Banks (a new account), because he vanity vandalized a page on my watchlist. Checking his contribs, I noted that just about every single edit he has made so far has been reverted for one reason or another (vandalism, grammar, simple MOS violation, and so on). He sent an obvious joke article to AFC, where it was declined and speedied. He then asked for it to be userfied and has edited nothing but that draft since, which he has userspace draft templated as if it is going to be a serious article. Now, I don't see a useful contributor to the encyclopedia in this instance as of yet, but it's not so bad that I see an immediate indef block being necessary at this point in time. Thoughts? MSJapan (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks to be a young editor just "sandboxing" in his user space at the moment; as long as he's just practicing with the editing interface there, no harm done. At some point he'll likely get bored with that and either stop editing entirely or resume editing mainspace articles. I'd be inclined to leave him alone unless/until he resumes editing outside his sandbox. Not sure mentoring would do much. 28bytes (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• notified —
   ? 
  00:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)