Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Atrocious treatment of April Fools celebrants[edit]

As everyone knows I like to keep a very, very low profile, so I'm sure my appearance here will come as a surprise to everyone. But I had to speak out. Just had to. I am a brand new member of the WP:Department of Fun and was really looking forward to our big annual event: April Fools. Being my first April Fools I wanted to celebrate with gusto. I "updated" Obama's picture on the Obama portal, and gave equal time to the right wingers by adding a caricature to the Timeline of modern American conservatism, and I created a really cool bot too. What did I get for my efforts? Barnstar? Awesome Wikipedian day? {{Filet-O-Fish}}? No, no and NO! Quick reverts and vandalism warnings on my talk page. Vandalism?!? That edit to the Obama portal was hilarious! What is the matter with you people? Can't you take the plugs out of your asses for just one day out of the year? My goodness another celebrant got blocked! We need to make some changes around here. April Fools is an important holiday and we can't abuse and screw over people who are trying to make things fun around here. – Lionel (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Awesome Wikipedian: to my knowledge the last one was awarded on 21 February 2011 by User:Neutralhomer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, sometimes too much is too much, as the other thread above pretty much proves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Fun is important, but even on April 1st, people need access to accurate information to get stuff done. We can have find ways to have fun without disrupting reliability, but it takes care. Dcoetzee 05:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Two observations:
  • Barack Obama is a living person.
  • Your other edits were made on 2 April. →Στc. 05:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This still needs to be merged into this and then deleted. We don't want to confuse the bots in 50 years' time. Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
To summarize:
  • You committed several acts of vandalism, which you believe were justified because of a date that already had passed (according to UTC, on which Wikipedia is based) by the time of your second edit.
  • Your vandalism was reverted and you were warned against perpetrating any more. You find this outrageous because you consider your vandalism "hilarious" and had fun committing it.
  • In addition to complaining (and demanding that the community embrace vandalism) here, you've proposed a method of delaying future vandalism's detection, thereby ensuring that it remains in place longer (instead of being quickly removed by "humorless bores" who believe that the encyclopedia shouldn't be vandalised).
Did I miss anything? —David Levy 10:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a standing gentleman's agreement that shenanigans will be accepted, so long as they do not disrupt the main space. This year much disruption of the main space was undertaken - to the extent that instead of ranging from "mildly amusing to peurile and idiotic" (seriously; the lack of creativity in the jokes was depressing to the extreme) they ranged from "idiotic to disruptive". I'd have blocked you on BLP grounds for re-inserting that image for a second time, so I suspect you were lucky. --Errant (chat!) 10:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Joke in the article mainspace, like this, is inappropriate. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 13:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest going to back to keeping a low profile. The treatment you got was deserved. —SW— yak 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all the above comments. Lionelt, you were lucky not to have gotten yourself blocked and if you try this shenanigans again you won't be so lucky a second time around. Raul654 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, abouut 95% of the April fools stuff discussed here and elsewhere has been just irritating and disruptive, with no real humor about it. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The April Fool's Day "celebrations" are disruptive, annoying and almost universally unfunny. I would rather see Wikipedia shut down for one day out of the year than deal with the days of unneeded cleanup that we suffer through every year. Even the "gentlemen's agreement" to keep the disruption out of the mainspace failed. This year, for example, someone created a fake deletion nomination for Rugby football. They never tagged the page, thinking that would make it okay, but ignored the fact that we have maintenance bots that spent all day trying to "fix" the omitted template. It's past time we outgrew this annual farce. We have enough trouble cleaning up the existing vandalism. We don't need to inflict even more on ourselves. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, to help you celebrate, I tagged all the articles in WP:Conservatism with the {{AfD}} April Fools Day template. I hope this helps cheer you up. Mojoworker (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I also gave him a Fillet-O-Fish. - Burpelson AFB 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the OP's past partisanship has partially spoiled his present pursuit of playfulness. El duderino (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing standards[edit]

Why the changing standards? We've always accepted this kind of fun — for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination) isn't mentioned anywhere in the nominator's relevant talk archive. When you do something that's been accepted in the past and are threatened for it, it's quite absurd. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm lazy, but did that involve a notice placed on Earth? Otherwise, it happened entirely out of article space, and thus is considered okay. The problem with the above is that he made the changes to mainspace articles on April 2, then complained when they were called out as vandalism. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
As I noted here this morning, I think we've evolved past the point where such things are feasible. The tent is too big. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Nyttend, having organized the 2006 and 2007 April Fool's activities, it's a shame that April Fools day was achieved with such negativity this year. Lionel actions was unacceptable as it disrupted a few namespace articles, but in good faith. Most April Fools jokes are in Wikipedia mainspace, in which only the most experienced editors usually participate and it supposed to be a good laugh for an hour or two, and removed with no harm, and almost every other major website participates as well. I'm beyond shocked. Secret account 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the posting above, comparing it from 2006 to 2012, April Fools went way beyond overboard this year, and kinda disruptive, over 40 XFD nominations!!, so I'm striking above. Back in 2006/2007 there was like two or three. Secret account 23:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This should be closed now There is already ongoing discussions over at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ban April Fools pranks and down from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination) was actually one of mine rather than Wolfkeeper's, (the threading got rather messed up in that one) and no of course I didn't template the article. Perhaps what we need to do for next year is to make sure that there are one or two non-mainspace jokes to set the example. I disagree with Tarc's big tent analogy - the community today is smaller than when we had User:Useight/Requests for signatureship. The problem is that it has started to drift back from humour in wiki space back to vandalism in mainspace, I gather that was the problem with April Fools six or seven years afo. But the solution to vandalism is to revert, block and ignore it. ϢereSpielChequers 09:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Death of Sian O'Callaghan vs WP:NOTCENSORED[edit]

At AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Sian O'Callaghan (2nd nomination), allegedly as "Law enforcement in the UK has requested deletion of this page in order to mitigate pre-trial publicity and ensure a fair trial for the defendant. The page can be restored later if the event remains notable.", per User:Fred Bauder

There is an obvious censorship issue here. Today an article about an alleged murder (and who could want to see a murderer escape justice?), but tomorrow do we see the UK government trying to cover up Jean Charles de Menezes? Also the obvious issue of UK jurisdiction over a US project.

Secondly there's an internal question of procedure. Consensus is clearly to keep this, yet Fred has blanked the article as a de facto censorship of it anyway. So if there's a legal requirement on WMF to do this anyway, why even bother having the AfD? This looks far too much as if AfD was given the opportunity to give the right answer, but when they failed to, they were over-ruled anyway.

On the whole, I'm surprised I haven't seen this here already - it's not just the usual run of AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you not know how to spell 'alleged'? Evidently not - I have taken the liberty of adding it where you clearly intended it to go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It is our encyclopedic content which is not censored, we do not, as a matter of policy, include news reports of criminal investigations, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators. We are a reference work not a news outlet. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
BLP of crime perpetrators can still be followed without the deletion or significant redaction of the article. All you have to do is remove the portions of the article that mention a perpetrator and leave the rest that has reliable sources. There's a reason the U.K.-based websites that were reporting on it disappeared in the references, because U.K. law enforcement can ask U.K. websites like The Guardian, BBC and the Daily Mail to take it down. Wikipedia is subject to U.S. law, not U.K., so it would be no different than the People's Republic of China requesting deletion of the article about their firewall. All they can do is request it be taken down, and that's what happened. There's really no reason to remove any content outside of the BLP perpetrators content (specifically naming a non-public individual who had not been convicted, it's entirely fine to say there was an arrest and if there is a trial, they are rightfully named). — Moe ε 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Neither the Russian nor the Chinese case is before us. They would represent difficult questions, although not in obviously political cases; in that case we can stiff them; the problem comes in alleged criminal cases which are actually political in a situation where we have no way of determining the matter and are forced to assume general corruption which is not in fact the case. I would like to be able to respond in good faith to requests from either country.
U.K. law enforcement can ask us too and we can respond responsibly. We can do the right thing because it is right, not because we are ordered to. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
"not because we are ordered to."
Would I be correct to read that as "In this case at least, we weren't ordered to"? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
From my perspective in the United States, yes. I'm not sure what our obligations are under English law. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Had this been (exactly) a year ago, I might agree, because that's when the event had a majority of it's press as it was unfolding. A year ago, the article was 15 times as long as it is now in its current state. While I think you redacting the article and the U.K. government are doing so in good faith, that doesn't necessarily mean that it ensures the defendant in this case that he receives a fair trial. In fact, having been a year removed from it being a highly notable event, you're not likely to receive an entirely fair trail whether the material stays or goes. Information such as details in the case and the defendant's name are still all over the internet that anyone with Google or an internet archive can find. All the U.K. government did is request the news articles we were linking to be removed hoping this article be removed. This is unquestionably notable so the AFD needs to be closed, because there is undeniably a support for keeping the article and keeping it hostage with a protection and AFD is inappropriate. My recommendation is semi-protection with a discussion to re-add specific content so that it doesn't interfere with the impending trial. The article needs a good amount of its content restored while respecting the defendant's character, because without it, censoring the content like you have gives a false pretense that it isn't notable when it is. As for doing the "right thing", the right thing isn't to give a false impression of the article not being notable or to aid or give any government the authority to dictate notability. Orders from any government authority should be taken with a grain of salt in determining their true intentions. With that being said, we don't know their intentions, good or bad, which leads me to believe that unless there is a lawsuit where an office action occurs we shouldn't be ordered or comply to do anything unless it violates a law. — Moe ε 18:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
News reports of a criminal investigation are not a reliable source for our purposes with or without a request. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Since that is a plainly false statement in view of standard practice per WP:RS, I can only imagine you intended it as a proposal for a policy change -- in which case it belongs at a relevant policy talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
That kind of goes against standards at WP:RS like Nomoskedasticity said. In addition to that, when a source is a news article and a government starts pulling them down from the internet censoring it, it alters its notability by Wikipedia's own standards. Notability is defined by how many reliable sources cover the topic, so you can see the problem when news agencies start having to censor their publications. I hope you can see the problem with a haphazard compliance with a government request to remove such things. — Moe ε 21:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be way too much conspirary theory stuff going on here. The removal of information and restrictions on publishing information in local sources on ongoing trials (sub judice) when that information, true or not, is consider likely to be unduly prejudicial, is a matter of routine in a number of commonwealth countries and is held to be important to ensure a fair trial not only by lawmakers and the police, but also by judges. This doesn't apply once all relevent trials are over and the information can be published barring restrictions for other reasons, but those aren't under consideration here. I haven't seen anyone suggesting we permanently remove information just because of requests by authorities, or remove information for reasons other then sub judice, so talking about government coverups of Jean Charles de Menezes or the Chinese firewall are missing the point. As I said elsewhere, and I'm pretty sure I've said before, I see no reason not to comply with a similar request from the Chinese, or anyone else. But the request has to be similar. Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I remember now there was the case of Peter Tobin, see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 20#Current legal cases & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177#Admin deletes article per Scottish police (probably more discussion in other areas) Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegations are not encyclopediac - and we should actually extend this to all such implicit violations of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We need beyond oversighting to community consensus on defamatory material of that nature. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
All I can say about this situation is. End the censoring of information on the article now.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As this was (apparently) a request from UK law enforcement agencies (and not a private individual asking for information to be removed from their article), it should have been handed to the WMF. The WMF have access to legal counsel, who can advise whether or not the request should be complied with. If it should be, the article should be deleted as an office action. I am going to close the AfD - as "the UK police asked us to delete it" is not a valid reason within Wikipedia policy to propose deletion of an article. I am going to refer it to the WMF. I am not going to unlock the article, but I will take over the protection from Fred. The reason I am not unlocking it is that I want to see what the legal advice from the WMF counsel is, and I do not think the world will end if the article remains a stub for the next 24 hours. I apologise for not picking up on this sooner, would probably have saved some hard words. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The need to lift full protection is not an emergency, so fine -- but if it is not deleted then it must be unprotected. What we've had here is an admin using admin powers to dictate content according to an idiosyncratic view of BLP policy -- ostensibly to remove information about a crime suspect but in fact removing a great deal of material that was not about the suspect. The issue here is not the article but rather the role of admins. (Since the ANI thread along these lines was closed, I'll pursue that issue here.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: there was a parallel discussion going on here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Improper use of full protection? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Motion to restore article in full[edit]

  1. As nom. (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No: this was an office action and thus isn't allowed to be undeleted by community consensus. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
That's absurd. (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
On what basis do you assert, Nyttend, that this was an office action? There is no office template on the page and there is no indication that User:Fred Bauder was acting, or was authorized to act, on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, or indeed anyone but himself. If I've overlooked some place where this was claimed to be an office action, please let me know. If this were indeed an office action, it should certainly have been noted as such in the edit summaries and on the appropriate talk pages, and marked by the appropriate templates. We're not expected to read minds. - Nunh-huh 04:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Fred Bauder did not act for WMF, but on an OTRS ticket he probably should have referred to the office. As I understand it, Elen of the Roads did refer the matter and said it would only be 24 hours however she's doesn't control WMF. Although an individual arb is entitled to no special deference, I'd be inclined to give the office time to work, though updates should be posted even if they are only "no news yet".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I put an update on the talkpage in the small hours, and had a discussion with whoever was about. I am about to cautiously unlock the article down to semi protection. For various reasons, I'm not prepared to fully unlock it yet, but the input from IP editors at the talkpage is welcome. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, OK, sorry, didn't look there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Seeing that the page was unilaterally deleted without qualifying under any criterion that normal admins are allowed to use, I figured that it was an office deletion; except of course for copyvios, I can't remember ever seeing an OTRS complaint being used to justify an immediate deletion without discussion and without fulfilling one of the CSD. For that reason, I figured that it was an appropriate office deletion, but now that I understand that it's not an office action, I am not at all pleased about this situation. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with the "I am not at all pleased about this situation." thought. This appears to be the action of an OTRS volunteer who is using their position to become an "activist". The only mitigating factor here is that the article appears to be receiving quite a bit of constructive attention now (even if I disagree with the idea that we (Wikipedia as a whole, rather than individual editors) should be concerned with the 'orders' of police in the UK (or anywhere else), it's hard to argue with the results in the article as of the last I saw it... other than the fact that I couldn't really have participated in crafting the article, even if I had wanted to.). As long as there's not going to be a repeat of this episode, I don't think that it's worth the "dramaz" to make anything more out of it, personally.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose If this is an office action, then the question is moot. If it isn't an office action, then we hide the article until it becomes clear it won't turn into one, and it returns a day or two later. That's reasonable compromise.
I'm not concerned here whether this article is blanked or deleted by an office action. I accept that some things are enforced by the WMF, for the best of reasons. If that's the case, then fine. I'm not screaming about government censorship - or at least not here at WP:AN, directed at the WMF.
What I am still concerned about though is two-fold. Firstly, why is this about deletion at all? Surely the existence of the case, and its notability is beyond doubt, and there can be no reasonable case for pretending the case isn't taking place - jurors will know this much at least. The real question, and the scope of an office action, is the extent of a sub judice blanking notice upon that page, stating that the case exists, is at trial, and that anything else is suppressed for the duration. If we have to act in that way because it's either a legal requirement by applicable law, or considered to be legally prudent to act so by WMF's counsel, then let's do that and be open about it.
Secondly, I'm still concerned over the AfD. If this was happening because of an office action, then an AfD is moot - so let's not pretend that there was ever anything up for the editor community to have any influence over! If this wasn't an office action, then the AfD was firstly unnecessary and secondly should not have been closed on the basis that it was.
I don't much like the WMF. Funny that, they've built this place - there's a lot to be grateful for. Yet of the few times I've encountered their actions (and WP:IEP still rankles), I find them to be needlessly secretive and worst of all, disrespectful of the editor community. Editors built this content, yet the WMF behave as if the editor community must not only be dictated to (perhaps it must, if that was counsel's advice here - I'm OK with that) but also the editors can't even be trusted with the information as to whether they're in control or being listened to. The worst sort of censorship is when it's no longer even permitted to discuss that censorship is taking place. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Andy, in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The original lock and proposal for deletion were not done at the behest of the WMF but by an OTRS volunteer. WMF are of the view that absent a legally binding order, the community should decide how to tackle this issue, given all the aspects. See more below and at the article talkpage.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely pitiful[edit]

It's sad that for all the claims of user-based governance and so forth, and for that matter, being hosted in a country where the UK's law enforcement has no authority, does nothing to prevent Wikipedia from hopping when some UK cop says frog. If the office folks have such a lack of spine, then perhaps they should be removed and replaced with someone more in tune with the community. Jtrainor (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what happened to the whole "we are not censored, even when governments don't like it" thingie? Or do we have the backbone of jello?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Final update[edit]

Matter is now resolved - article has not been deleted, is semi-protected. Please read the article talkpage, where discussion is even now taking place as to the best way to present content in line with Wikipedia policies - which are what matter here.

On the "what to do if this happens again" question, the advice given to OTRS volunteers probably wants reviewing. The Foundation is clear that it will only take down content on receipt of a notice from a court of competent jurisdiction (I think the phrase is), so OTRS volunteers should not be deleting articles or starting deletion discussions on the basis of a request of this kind. However, Wikipedia editors are expected to edit in line with policy for one thing, and for another, editors in the country where the trial is taking place may be subject to local laws relating to sub judice, and should be made aware of this. It is therefore reasonable to (for example) hat note the article, or put the English jurisdiction sub judice tempate on the talkpage, or edit the article to remove information sourced to less than impeccable WP:RS, preferably current ones. WMF are clear that it is the community's decision as to what it does in these situations. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the AFD be resumed? - Burpelson AFB 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No I closed it (if only to stop the bloody bot readding the template). "The rozzers asked us to delete it" was never a sound policy reason, so I kept it (although without prejudice to the person who started, who I honestly believe thought he was doing the right thing). If the community wants to start another one on Wikipedia policy grounds, that option is fully available. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

JMU student accounts[edit]

It looks like we have a batch new users with accounts starting with JMU*. I'm guessing that is "James Madison University" (based on some of the edits they've done). It would be nice if we could find whomever is heading up this group, determine what they are attempting to do & get proper welcomes distributed before we scare them all off ;-) . --Versageek 18:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Try {{welcome student}} and {{welcome teacher}} if you find the teacher. Usually assignments involve posting to the teacher's page at some point. Valfontis (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Link to usernames starting w/ JMU. (keep an eye on the create dates). Valfontis (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I see 16 accounts starting with JMU created on 2 April. According to the list of current USEP classes there's only one class at JMU and they're well past the new accounts stage. It seems strange to me because even for classroom assignments involving Wikipedia, it would be strange for students to all choose names starting with JMU. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Not all instructors make the community aware of their class projects. And I've seen at least one other project where all the students used a similar naming scheme. In that case the teacher ended up staying and making a bunch of valuable contributions, even some FAs. Valfontis (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC 146‎‎[edit]

Can an admin swing by and look at UFC 146 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), it has had 300+ ip edits today, most unconstuctive and has been listed at WP:RPP for over 12 hrs. Mtking (edits) 12:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done -- (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


I'm a little worried that the user's contributions are a little advertisingish at times. [1]

Consider Joseph Lani, David Jerome (author), Stone Bridge Homes NW, and others, possibly. 86.** IP (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Stonebridge Homes is pure puff/advert. Non-notable awards as a show of notability? 6th place in a non-notable "competition" is somehow notable? The President is non-notable by any means. I'd swear the person is being paid to write adverts on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I see your point. I'm familiar with the company through a friend's son, who is employed there. My friend knows I've written Wikipedia articles (a passion of mine, for no pay - I'm a retired school teacher) and asked me to consider writing one for this company. I probably tried a little too hard to make it fit Wikipedia's standard for notability. I will take this as a reminder to be more vigilant in the future. For that, I thank you. Expewikiwriter (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a little hard to separate out te threads in it, as it's covering two sides of the person, but a lot of it's sourced to his website, and it's not clear how notable some of the mentions are. Maybe I just don't understand what counts as notable for a humour writer, as notability is relative. Can someone else look? 86.** IP (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, 86. In the meantime, do you really think the article warrants a proposed deletion tag? Expewikiwriter (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Think you're right on that one. Could do with discussion first. However, note that just because you worked on an article doesn't mean you can't remove a tag, so, you know, do feel free. Also note that, if something is mistakenly deleted that way, the decision may be reversed simply by contesting the deletion. The procedure is meant as a sort of testing of the waters, to see if anyone has other views. 86.** IP (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was willing to give Expewikiwriter the benefit of the doubt until this happened. Not sure if this is trolling or socking or meatpuppeting, but it's weird. I'd be curious to hear an explanation for that edit. Valfontis (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Expewikiwriter also uploaded a logo that goes with this other user's draft. An SPI might be in order. Valfontis (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter. The choice of username is lighting up my spam radar in a big way. MER-C 02:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
How unfortunate. 86.** IP (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter - Looks like it's been confirmed. How incredibly unfortunate. 86.** IP (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked and tagged the socks but not the main account. I've got a list of over 40 articles that appear to have been created for promotion. What a mess. Regarding: "I'm familiar with the company through a friend's son, who is employed there. My friend knows I've written Wikipedia articles (a passion of mine, for no pay - I'm a retired school teacher)" it seems to me like a strange selection of articles for a retired teacher to write. I wonder how they got permission to use the photos. Valfontis (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked the main account. I have little doubt that this is a professional spammer, but in any case it is a user who has gone to some efforts to be deceptive, and has abused several accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The blocked socks are now asking for help, one, right after, another. Can someone more patient than me explain things to "them"(?)? Valfontis (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they understand perfectly well, and are just playing their game beyond to the end. it's not even worth blocking talk p. access, though I wouldn't oppose it. All we need do is watch for whatever new socks there will be. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, it's all about the future socks. It's interesting that the socks are claiming to be students and the puppetmaster is a former schoolteacher. Hm. tedder (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile, a NY-based IP has protested the deletion of 2tor, Inc. created by Expewikiwriter. It was nice of "them" to reveal their location. Valfontis (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it's not possible for you to know the intent of any author. TheExpewikiwriter account has been deemed in violation of one or more Wikipedia policies and has been cancelled as punishment. But the articles written by the account holders (several authors contributed Wikipedia articles through this one account) should be judged on their own merits (is the article spam? is the article objectively written? is the article sufficiently supported by legitimate secondary sources?). It appears that a few expewikiwriter articles have been indiscriminately deleted or tagged for the purpose of rendering punishment on the account holder(s). Consider the following:

  • Harold J. Morowitz - The subject is a leading, and internationally known, scientist. The author of this article is a published researcher and professional associate of a colleague of Dr. Morowitz. Judge for yourselves, but it would appear that the article meets all standards for a Wikipedia article on a living person, and should not be tagged.
  • 2tor, Inc. - Covered extensively in the national press, this company is one of the most important players in online education. No less than 4 experienced Wikipedia authors collaborated on this article. Because it had been posted and removed once before (please see the record), all due care was taken to make sure that this article would meet Wikipedia standards. In particular, care was taken to write it OBJECTIVELY and NEUTRALLY, and to support EVERY fact and detail with a legitimate reference source. Review and decide whether this article should have been summarily removed - and consider re-establishing it in Wikipedia.
  • Joseph Lani - After hearing Lani on national late night talk radio for the third or fourth time (he is a familiar radio guest to late night talk radio fans), the author of this article decided that Lani deserved a presence on Wikipedia. The author did research, found articles, and wrote the article.Whatsongisit4578 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
...You know, it's fairly obvious you're the same user. You aren't allowed to violate your block by creating a new account. 86.** IP (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Role accounts aren't allowed of course. Also please read WP:BOOMERANG, you just keep digging yourself in deeper, "Expewikiwriter". Valfontis (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I've asked for another sockpuppet check. Probably obvious, but keep getting new ones, so... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter 86.** IP (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, three new IPs have contested proposed deletions of four articles created by Expewikiwriter. (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Valfontis (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Other new users voicing an opinion on the works of Expewikiwriter include Phage434 (talk · contribs) Peace2012now (talk · contribs), Davidlomax (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Valfontis (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of pointless to delete prods while people are clearly paying attention? I mean, prods are at least reversible; AfDs aren't. 86.** IP (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the system worked the way it was supposed to, and people weren't !voting "delete" as a means of doling out punishment, at AfD at least an article has a chance of being kept if people actually !vote based on valid deletion criteria and look for sources before !voting. P.S. Here's a new IP also (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Note IP 209* is from clarkhuotcocoon and IP 38* is from budovideos. Valfontis (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Another one. Special:Contributions/TechnicsSL1200 (though he may have a point in that case) 86.** IP (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

One more SPA: Molly Staples (talk · contribs) ( Valfontis (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


Anarchangel (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this user's admission here: [2], specifically,

So I will break with my tradition of taking articles off-site without mention. It is transcribed to and should be reintroduced at a later time.

That's problematic, because Creative Commons requires the authors to be credited. If Anarchangel is taking articles offsite, claiming them as his or her own, then putting them back on Wikipedia later, without crediting the original authors, that's basically a massive copyfraud, and it needs dealt with. 86.** IP (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to complain to the relevant people at Wikia, then, who can actually deal with it. (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, he's apparently bringing them back here, after some time, but without the names of the people who made the original, it's copyvio. 86.** IP (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
In which case, any articles which he brings back should be examined by an admin to see if the article is a copyvio - if such is the case, the user should likely be barred from such acts. Collect (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
What part of the {{WPN}} template did you fail to understand?
If someone else wishes to reintroduce material that was previously on Wikipedia, on my recommendation, then that is their business. I certainly never have personally, and I have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. However, if there is a policy that restricts that, then I should like to know right now, because it would be wrong and I should like to have my say about it. Anarchangel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not just policy, it's a legal issue. If the article is deleted on Wikipedia, the history of edits is gone. By pating that work back into Wikipedia, you are re-introducing that material without the required attribution for all those edits. Thus, it violates the license. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see the rationale. However, this is also the same as reintroducing an article from Userpace, or reintroducing an article that was previously deleted. In both those cases, the edit history is available to administrators, yes? So since the edit history is still available, there is no licence violation, no? Anarchangel (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Bit late to reply, had family matters to take care of. In the case of an article moved to Userspace, or deleted on Wikipedia, if it is moved back to article space and/or undeleted, the page history is there for all to see. However, if you just copy & paste the contents to a new article, none of that history is attached and, therefore, it has no attributions. And that's a license violation.
If you really want to recreate a deleted/userfied article, ask an admin to move it or go through WP:DRV to have it undeleted. However, if you republish the article's contents anywhere else (including a different Wikipedia article or new version of the previous article) you must include attribution for all the edits with the republished article. Otherwise, it's a violation of the license. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have to say that the "What part of WPN" questions leads me to a serious concern that there may be a deep misunderstanding here. :/ "Wikipedia" does not own the copyright to that content; the individual contributors who contribute the material do. It is *they* who must be attributed. Providing a link to the article (not the AFD), so long as it is still alive, is regarded as sufficient attribution. If it is not still alive, you need a full list of authors. This is the reason why the content cannot be reintroduced to Wikipedia; without the history of the article, which includes the full list of authors, or a complete list using that content is a violation of the license granted by the contributors and hence of their copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
See my query, above. The edit history exists, somewhere, surely? Anarchangel (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, thank you for noting the distinction. If the answer is no, the edit history does not exist, then I will take care to note the names of the individual contributors, probably on the destination talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The edit history existing somewhere, only for administrators, doesn't help I'm afraid. :) Attribution must be accessible to comply with the license. When material is introduced form userspace, there's no licensing issue as long as the user who is introducing is the author - you retain rights over your own material and don't have to attribute it. Articles should not be reintroduced after prior deletion; their history is supposed to be restored at the same time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, if you've copied content from articles that have now been deleted, I'd be happy to help you get a list of authors that can be put on the talk pages of the Wikia page. That would satisfy attribution requirements just as well as the link. I'm afraid I'd just need a list and - if the list is long- time. :)

--Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of the 44 articles, all attributed as containing Wikipedia content, most have been redirected at AfD or kept, and thus have an edit history which not only exists, but is easily accessible. Some are originals. And then there are this seven, which were actually deleted after AfD. I gladly take you up on your kind offer of contributor lists. If you would prefer, just go ahead and ctrl-c; I'll do the parsing:
Wait a second, are you saying that it's illegal to copy content from Wikipedia?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
No, not at all. It is not only legal, but encouraged. :) However, the content has licensing requirements that must be met. wmf:Terms of Use explains these requirements; where possible, a hyperlink or URL to the article or a stable version of the article, with history, is sufficient attribution. Where this is not available, a list of all authors will do it. It may be illegal to copy content without meeting the terms of the license, considering all factors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess that this is about deleted content though (...right?), so... if content has been deleted from here, then how can there still be licensing issues at all?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Copyright doesn't disappear when content goes out of publication; if it did, there'd be a whole lot more material we could reproduce. : ) Under the US laws that govern Wikipedia, the term of copyright is 70 years after the death of the author or, where the author is unknown (as will often be the case with Wikipedia content), 95 years after publication/120 years after creation (on Wikipedia, it would be the 95, since this constitutes publication). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, agreed, but if the content has been deleted from here then how does anyone know who the author(s) was(were)? Does the WMF hold the copyright on the content of deleted articles, since it's not possible to determine who the contributors were? I somehow doubt that we're talking about content that is "out of publication" (how would that even be determined?), if it's been "destroyed".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted content never actually goes away - it and its history are still visible to admins, and if it is ever to be used again its whole history can be restored. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but how does that address the original issue here? As User:Moonriddengirl said above: "The edit history existing somewhere, only for administrators, doesn't help I'm afraid."
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have much idea where you're going with this. :) So I'll just try to explain the way this works. John creates an article on Wikipedia. He doesn't give it to the WMF or even to Wikipedia; he owns the copyright. He licenses it liberally for modification and reuse, provided the terms of the licenses are met. The licenses require, among other things, that John receive attribution. Anyone - whether another Wikipedia contributor or a book publisher or a website owner - is free to reuse John's content, so long as they honor the license agreement. If they do not honor the license agreement, they may be infringing John's copyright (a matter for a court to determine, based on weighing a number of factors). The fact that some contributor or contributors on Wikipedia delete the article in which John originally placed the content doesn't change anything; there's nothing in our Terms of Use terminating licensing requirements upon article deletion. (WMF does not hold copyright on the content of deleted articles; the original contributors do...and always will, until copyright expires under the terms of US law.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Except that there is no copyright on Wikipedia. When we release anything we've created on Wikipedia, it's released as Creative Commons which isn't copyright, we're allowing free use of the material , it says so at the bottom of the page,

so copyright doesn't even figure into this discussion.

Creative Commons , simply put means :
We are free to:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and to Remix—to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.) Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Further, we can't copyright our own work here, nor can we waive Creative Commons or revoke it. There's no copyright on Wikipedia, just creative commons, so the usual "life of the author...." doesn't apply. Just my two cents. @-Kosh► Talk to the VorlonsMoon Base Alpha-@ 19:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is, because American copyright law holds that copyright automatically exists when copyrightable material is created or published. Here that material has specifically not been released into the public domain, but has been licensed for use under the terms listed above, which does not change the status of the copyright -- which is, precisely, the right to determine how your material will be used. You can't license something if you don't own it, and each contributor owns the copyright on whatever they've created on Wikipedia, but has agreed to the licensing scheme by uploading it. The licensing terms exist only because the copyright exists, you can't have the one without the other. Once the copyright has run out, there's no longer anything to license, and the material falls into the public domain. (That will be interesting, 70 - 95 years from now, trying to unravel which words and punctuation date from when to determine which is p.d. and which is still copyrighted and licensed under CC.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, I agree with User:Beyond My Ken. So, I'll note, does Wikipedia:Copyrights: "The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses." Much if not most of the content on Wikipedia is under copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that there is a new issue surfacing; material that makes up a summary on one article cannot be the same text as the text of another article? I surely hope not; it seems to me absurd that one WP article could be a copyvio of another. However, User:Nyttend made the deletion of Libyan Ground Forces, bypassing the AfD process, with the summary : "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Unattributed copying of much of Libyan Army (1951–2011))" Is this browbeating, hoping for the chilling effect of copyright infringement accusation to push through a new operating standard, or just inept editing? Until there is a decision, WP:G12 cannot be and should not have been applied, as neither the original article nor the copied text was an "unambiguous" copyright violation. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reusing Wikipedia content[edit]

The relevant policy is WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. Reusing content at Wikia is particularly easy, as it has compatible CC-BY-SA licensing (for most of its wikis) and compatible MediaWiki software. Full page histories can be transferred using Special:Export/Special:Import. Histories of deleted articles can be requested at WP:Requests for undeletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer needed[edit]

To act as a single-issue mentor/advisor for DegenFarang (talk · contribs). I'm trying to work with this user to get them unblocked, they have agreed to a topic ban and have agreed that if/when they get into any sort of conflict they will consult with a third party for advice on how to proceed. That's the whole job, no elaborate mentoring program or anything, just the occasional bit of procedural advice on how to proceed in a disagreement since Degen has had repeated problems in that area. It would be best if it was an admin or other experienced user who has no previous dealings with this user. Any takers? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

C'mon people, it's an easy job and you'd be helping a user not to repeat their own mistakes. It's a feel good task that just needs one previously uninvolved admin to make an occasional recommendation, not a babysitting gig. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As long as DegenFarang does in fact adhere to the topic ban, I'd be happy to mentor him should he make occasional requests for a second opinion on my talk page. — madman 14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Need someone to close RfC: Template:Cleanup - Should the reason parameter be made mandatory?[edit]


Can someone please close the following RfC?[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No need for this. Consensus has been determined to make the reason parameter mandatory. The request to the fully protected page to remove the warning has already been made. Please discuss before making unilateral requests for administrative closures. Administrative closure is not required.Curb Chain (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If consensus has been determined, then the RfC should be closed. Why is it still open? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If the RfC has reached a consensus, and it has run for at least 30 days, why not close it? What purpose is served by leaving it open any longer? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Curb Chain is the only one wanting to keep this open. Someone please close it so we can move forward. AIRcorn (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand Curb Chain's comment; no requests to require the warning have been fulfilled, and the last time the template was edited was this pair of edits by Rich Farmbrough to tidy the code. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I want to preface this with the understanding that I have no clue about what's really going on with Curb Chain (I'm not trying to accuse, here). That being said, it appears that he's attempting to obstruct the process here for as long as possible. He makes no secret about his opposition to this or related changes (I'm including the last couple of deletion nominations here, in "related changes"), which should be apparent to most by looking at his statements in either the current discussion or in the most recent tfd discussions. I don't think that this is really an issue at this point, and likely won't be an issue as long as the RFC actually is closed and an edit is made to the template after we figure out exactly what changes should be made. It bears some watching of course, but... in my (admittedly limited) interactions with Curb Chain, he seems to be someone that can be worked with after it's obvious what the consensus actually is. He simply wants to ensure that his viewpoint is heard, as far as I can tell. If someone could close the discussion (which, Aircorn has already provided some significant work towards accomplishing), then I'm all but certain that things could move along here without further administrative assistance (outside of someone fulfilling an edit request eventually, of course).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

☑Y I closed the RfC.  Sandstein  15:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute with editor[edit]

I have a serious complaint about one of the editors: the user name is Srleffler which quite blatantly break the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia". Frankly, if abuse of this nature cannot be dealt with effectively the credibility of Wikipedia is in serious doubt.

I made an edit to the following page: This page contains the following comment, which is not backed up by any citation and which is contradicted by many hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals:

"For low-frequency radiation (radio waves to visible light) most if not all effects are thought to be due to radiation power alone, acting through the effect of simple heating when the radiation is absorbed by the cell."

I corrected this mistake and added references to peer-reviewed research. Mr Srleffler, who - according to his profile - has no training or expertise at all in this field - deleted my corrections. None of his explanations makes any sense: it is clear that he has not read or even accessed any of the research papers (nor would he have the expertise to understand them if he did). Either he works for a telecommunications company and has a vested interest in this research being suppressed or else he deleted my comments out of spite.

Biological effects of Electromagnetic radiation

Srleffler's comments:

Hi. I undid your changes to Electromagnetic radiation. The changes you made seem likely to be controversial. Wikipedia requires that information can be backed up by a citation to a "reliable source". It does not appear to me that the BioInitiative Report website qualifies as such, so I have reverted the article to its former state.--Srleffler (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

[The Biointiative Report I refer to is a collection of reviews of the literature. I have no idea why he thinks that this is not a "reliable source".]

I have a PhD in biophysics from the University of Cambridge and have a fairly detailed understanding of the literature. Whoever wrote the original text had apparently not read a single one of the many hundreds of papers covering the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.

You have no relevant background in this field, so it is not clear why you believe that you are in a position to judge research which you have not read and which is, in any case, far outside your field of expertise or training. I suggest that a little humility might be appropriate here.

In any case, since you have destroyed my previous comments I have re-written them in more detail: they now include references to specific research.

This time, please have the professional integrity to actually check these before passing judgment on them. You will notice that my analysis, unlike most of the rest of the page, is based on peer-reviewed research. In particular, the original comment that the health effects of EMF are somehow caused by "heating" - which I have removed - was a personal opinion which was not backed up by any citation and which was contradicted by the last twenty years of research in this field.

I will be more than happy to take this matter to arbitration if necessary. It is extraordinarily important for people to be aware of the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation. I strongly believe that Wikipedia - which I use constantly - should be a source of reliable, accurate information, rather than simply reflect the prejudices of a few editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 April 2012‎

Srleffler's comments:

Please see Electromagnetic radiation and health where the material you are adding would belong rather than on the general article. I've removed your addition as it was supported by two primary research articles and a rather dated 1979 article, please carefully read WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

[He has removed my comments because they were supported by peer-reviewed research - he removed my previous one because it was supported by a review of the literature. Something is wrong here.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talkcontribs) 15:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not a cause for administrative action. You've already posted at WP:DR: please confine the discussion to that, more appropriate venue, and please avoid attacks on other editors. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What we need here is WP:CIVIL discussion based on the pillars from all sides, not hyperbole about the credibility of the whole WP project or speaking from personal authority. I don't see any admin action required at this time--you have just started the WP:DR thread on this topic, which is the proper way to draw other editors into the discussion. It's quite possible the original content is problematic (either a mis-analysis or simply not up-to-date with more recent sources), but likewise it's possible that a website that collects reviews might have its own agenda or somehow else have selection bias in its content. All of those issues are easily in the scope of normal dispute resolution discussion processes rather than trying to trump all with administrative intervention yet. Fact is, your changes were controversial even if they wind up being correct after others have had a chance to hear more about it, and the previous content is cited even if you have additional information or evidence on the topic. DMacks (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection[edit]

Hi all - just to let you know, there's a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - if anyone has time to clear it, it would be most appreciated. Cheers, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Incompatible with building an encyclopedia?[edit]

Collect (talk · contribs) states here that "and most of [8000 articles mentioning abortion] have a far clearer connection to "abortion" than this article has". "This article" is Pro-life feminism. As its relation to abortion is inherent in the title/subject of the article, this statement seems to me to show a POV-pushing mentality that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Should administrative action be taken? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note the place where the comment is made, and the fact that it was in response to an editor asserting that any article which mentions abortion is under the abortion decision from arbcom. I have made zero edits asserting any personal position about abortion or evincing any personal interest in the topic at all. Also note that the actual statement I made is
I would also point out that "abortion" appears in on the order of 8,000 article spots (search raw count) on Wikipedia, and most of them have a far clearer connection to "abortion" than this article has.
Which is a verifiable statement of fact not connected in any way to any POV about abortion in any way whatsoever. In short, this complaint is ill-founded. Cheers. Now let's get on with actually writing the encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I would also suggest that statements made on an Arbitration Committee page should stand - if the Arbitrators find the statement distasteful, it is their venue, and this is a remarkably inapt venue to decry what they regard as an acceptable statement. Cheers. @DV -- the !vote was in accord with those of many others. Trying to raise your view of an AfD discussion here is, IMO, irrelevant. Collect (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
And note that while I asked Arbcom if the 1RR restriction was superseded, Collect has been throwing walls of text at the page trying to make the question "is this article related to abortion", which is not the question I asked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Responses to inapt "charges" is not "throwing walls of text" anywhere. Rather I note that you had started that discussion before ArbCom, and almost immediately also started this simultaneously running discussion - which is an interesting tactic at best. Lastly, I have repeatedly stated my position that my queries about procedure (and not about whether ArbCom had removed decisions, which was not the question I asked at all) were the reason I posted there. I think you are now getting a teensy bit "involved" at this point, especially with a ludicrous assertion that my queries represent in any way POV pushing. Now can we let this WP:DEADHORSE rest in peace now that Roscelese amended the article in line with the BLP/N disucssion? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"Almost immediately", huh? And what does WP:INVOLVED have to do with starting noticeboard discussions, pray tell?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I, too, was taken aback by Collect's argument, as it is "creative", to out it mildly. He also made a "creative" AfD vote today here: [[4]], in which he considers three separate unrelated articles on three sepearate unrelated events in the same newspaper is proof that a "single source" makes a meaningful connection between them. It's difficult not to see "creative" arguments like this as motivated by anything else than POV-pushing. I'm trying, but straining. His off-the-mark answer above is not encouraging, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The page in question is already a "judicial" location (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification), so why refer anything for action here? Sarek shows poor judgement in raising the matter in another forum. Surely speech has to be free in approaching ArbCom, at least. What next: thought police? I sometimes disagree with Collect's editing; but there is nothing that requires action in this situation.
NoeticaTea? 22:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The clarification I requested is whether the 1RR restriction the community placed was superseded by Arbcom's discretionary sanctions. Collect's edits are not in question at that page, so raising this issue here is not forumshopping.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The comment appeared to have been made in order to deflect a (justified) 1RR warning that Collect had been given, which is problematic, but as a comment, I don't really think it's actionable...? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  • What administrative action is being requested here? Night Ranger (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, when an administrator posts something like this on the administrator's noticeboard - instead of ANI where we go for immediate administrative action - they're usually looking for discussion amongst admins for the best way forward (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Bingo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The only problem is that nothing remotely approaching any infraction of any sort occurred, the edit basically sought by me was supported at BLP/N and made by Roscelese, and no "POV" was remotely connected to any of the edits or discussions engaged in by me. The aside by someone upset at the likely AfD outcome on an absolutely unrelated article is just that - totally unrelated and out of nowhere. The ArbCom page discussion, from my point of view, was strictly a series of queries about process, needlessly muddied by this aside here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
...and that's exactly why it's here. SoV was verifying with his colleagues that either no additional action was required, or at least bringing a concern to people's attention. That is, after all, what AN is supposed to be for - it's not ANI. God forbid admins restrict themselves to IRC for discussions like this, there would be lynchings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
An interesting concept, but the "incompatible" comment did appear from this vantage point to be a personal criticism of this editor, and one sans any rational foundation, and occurring during a discussion on an ArbCom board. But it is fine if it was entirely an intellectual exercuise on his part not designed in any way to discuss me, not to insinuate in any way any improper acts or position on my part, as your post appears to assert. Though I am curious as to why IRC is related to this - I would regard such "discussion" on IRC to be a splendid rationale to bar IRC discussions entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know. We'll alert him right away. (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing with old account after user name change?[edit]

Okay, I'm confused... I ran across a spam-only account, User:X179396828, doing the typical WoW gold spam thing. When I searched for additional links on the spammed domain, I found the same links on the user and talk page of Landfish7 (talk · contribs) in the typical spammer format. I deleted them and then realized I made a big mistake as Landfish7 is not the spammer account. (I restored everything and deservedly should get a thwap for deleting without looking.) The spammer account is really Anfish (talk · contribs). And here is where I'm confused. Back in 2009, Anfish was renamed to Landfish7. Yet the logs show that the account Anfish was created just a few days ago. Perhaps I just don't quite understand how the user name change works. I thought that the old account gets locked out, but apparently it does not and somebody can create a new account with the old name? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that when an account gets renamed, the old username gets "freed up" as though it didn't exist, and so anyone could come along to create it. Whether that is a bug or a feature is up to the beholder to decide, but AFAIK, that's how the system works. --Jayron32 05:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the way it works is that, if the old account has an SUL, then it cannot be recreated except by the SUL owner, so it's effective "locked out", but if it is not, then it's up for grabs. T. Canens (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Learned something new. Thanks. I blocked the Anfish account for spamming. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the way it works. I don't think we had $wgCentralAuthAutoNew for CentralAuth in use then.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  01:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Pigsonthewing[edit]

There appears to be no consensus here to do anything. I would suggest that everybody take a few days off from throwing things at each other, which is what this has degenerated into, and go make some useful edits. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

I propose that this editor be topic banned indefinitely from pages relating to Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). There was a similar proposal at AN which can be seen here but this was never agreed upon. Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) responded to the topic ban proposal by saying that "I have already indicated that I refrain from making contentious edits to the article, discussing them first, and as it is the community's wish, I am prepared to undertake not to mention the actual DoB at all. My other, undisputed, edits to the article have helped to improve the encyclopedia. "

On March 30th, Jimbo asked Andy not to further edit the article or interact on the talk page. Andy's reply on April 2nd was in the negative. Later on the same day Andy posted this addition to the article which appears to be true, verifiable, and well-sourced. Nevertheless it has provoked an unncessary, but entirely predictable, round of edit warring culminating in the article being fully protected for the duration of the current deletion review.

Andy has defended his article edits on the article's talk page and subsequent to the full protection has made an edit request to reinstate the removed material. to add further new material. (Assertion refactored after my mistake was pointed out. Apologies all round.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy asserts that he never makes contentious edits to the article, and I agree that from his own point of view they are entirely defensible; he can call on policy and precedent to do so. Nevertheless the fact that his edits are strictly correct does not mean they are not, in practice, disruptive to the activity of the encyclopaedia. I have asked Andy to consider a self-imposed withdrawal from the article and its talk page, but he is unwilling to do so and from his perspective cannot see that he has any responsibility for the disruption that has ensued. I don't think Andy is persuadable that he should leave this page alone. I reiterate that I make no criticism of the content of any recent edits he has made. It is the fact that he, Andy, has made them and the way he has done so that is disruptive and which the community now needs to put a stop to. I will inform him of this post now. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Why is this even still necessary? There already was consensus for this topic ban in the discussion the other day. I don't know why it slipped into the archive without being formally enacted. It clearly should have been. I blocked him the other day for continuing his activities on the article, and only unblocked him on the understanding that he would heed what was by then a clearly emergent consensus. I'm quite prepared to block him again. Fut.Perf. 22:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Andy needs to leave Jim Hawkins the hell alone. For him to continue editing Hawkins' bio after so many editors have raised concerns about him doing this (not to mention the fact that Hawkins himself feels harassed by Andy's continued focus on him) shows extremely poor judgment. It's disappointing he's chosen not to step away from this BLP on his own volition; I don't see any choice but to make it an official ban. 28bytes (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This cannot be allowed to continue, there is a certain amount of WP:GAME going on here, if it was not the date of birth or where he lives, it would be something else. Game over.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per 28bytes. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I refer my fellow editors to my full response to the previous suggestion, where contrary to above assertions there was no consensus for such a ban, and which is not quoted in full by Kim. I have not been involved in what Kim calls "unncessary, but entirely predictable, round of edit warring"; and Kim has said of the edits in question that "You have facts, precedent and logic on your side". Kim's allegation that I have tried "to reinstate the removed material" is untrue. FP withdrew his wholly unwarranted and out-of-process block after criticism of it from other editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say you had reinstated the material Andy, I said you had made an edit request. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You said "made an edit request to reinstate the removed material". That is a lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Andy, I'm not going to wikilawyer this one. I'll leave it to others to judge whether what I said was a fair representation of the situation. I realise that you believe you are in the right on this but I implore you to count the numbers of people supporting my proposal. Either we are all under a kind of mass hysteria, or you are the one who is isolated. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)#
I'm not asking you to "wikilawyer this one"; I'm pointing out that your claim is a lie. Unequivocally so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Since Kim has now admitted that the quoted claim was false, and since it was nonetheless supported by a number of editors, his explanation of "a kind of mass hysteria" presumably applies? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. The substance of this Kafkaesque proposal appears to be that I have breached a non-existent topic ban. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per everything that was said at the previous AN discussion. This looks to me like a deliberate attempt to cause trouble. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I always think it's a good idea that people take a step back from editing when they become to heavily involved or emotionally invested in this issue. But I think this topic ban should also be extended to at least half a dozen other editors on both sides of the issue and should not just single one person out. There's a lot of hysteria and everyone needs to calm the fuck down. Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I didn't comment during the last topic ban discussion, because I assumed Pigsonthewing would voluntarily withdraw. But it seems he's determined to continue -- to the point of making edit requests even after page protection, and even though the subject has said he feels harassed by him. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • "making edit requests even after page protection" - That's how things are supposed to work. Furthermore, the page was protected due to an edit war, in which I was not a participant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I'm sorry Andy, but even though I do not believe you intend it to be this way, your presence at this article is clearly disruptive. Since you won't voluntarily remove yourself from the topic area, it behooves us to force it. Resolute 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per everyone above. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 23:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose ...sorta. I basically agree with Gamaliel above. I've never seen this before just now, but this whole thing is weird (not least of all because I think that I actually agree with Malleus!). what I see is that some IP user has trolled a BLP article and several of the "usual suspects" on both "sides" have descended on the article to start sniping at each other with snarky comments. If Andy is "topic banned" here, then what about everyone else?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. V = IR may feel slightly uneasy about agreeing with me, but he points out an ineluctable truth. An IP who may or may not be Jim Hawkins has been trolling that subject's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose if IPs can talk here. I don't understand this: Pigsonthewing adds the place where the guy lives, ostensibly. What's the problem? Lots of articles have it. Whether it's necessary or not is another matter (but he does that radio show, so I think there is some relevance to it), and next you know everyone is at war. If Pigsonthewing is to be topic-banned for this little edit, then Silver seren and Malleus Fatuorum should be banned also. Bunch of trolls! But the funnest thing here is that Pigsonthewing makes an edit request, which is answered by Tarc--whose only response is "weren't you topic-banned?" Reminds me of a joke. Guy goes to a bakery. "Can I have a loaf of bread?" "Wheat or white?" "Yes." "Yes WHAT?" "Yes Mr. Baker." There was no reason given on the talk page. As for that edit war, I don't know what got up John lilburne's butt, but I think it needs forceful removal. And the reported harassment on the talk page, that's laughable. A radio jock feels stalked because someone puts his verified county of residence in the article? Come on. (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are allowed to talk here, IP. However, it appears that you are not making your decision on the full information, and that you are judging things on what you see on the talkpage. You'd have to look in the archives of the article, and click several of the links noted by Kim above to get a fuller picture, but suffice to say, for literally years, POTW has been poking the article's subject (by an adversarial approach, inflammatory talkpage headings[5], repeatedly trying to include information which has been determined inappropriate [6][7][8].) Other links to more recent edits that have since been deleted so you can't see them. Every single time, Hawkins has reacted and drama has ensued. Multiple, very experienced editors (including Jimbo[9], and Fae [10]who has supported POTW in the past, and others[11][12]) have asked POTW, for the good of the encyclopedia, to voluntarily agree to stop editing the article and the talkpage, and let other editors deal it. But he has refused. He is simply not helping the encyclopedia at this point and since he cannot apparently accept this at present, a topic ban is needed. --Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You need to open your eyes as well. This ban has been called for because the article included material published by the subject himself in a nationally available magazine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it is being called for because after been asked very nicely by several people to stop editing the article and talkpage because it is causing more disruption than it is worth, he has refused to do so. As Kim says above, this has nothing to do with the content of these particular edits. Slp1 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
That position is quite simply absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that if any other editor had added that publicly available information then it would have been retained? Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Slp, I am familiar with the history, including the last thread. It doesn't clarify anything, and Malleus's remark is quite pertinent. We're not talking about someone opening up a vault of family secrets. It's the county he inserted--not an address, not even the name of a town. Now how is that unacceptable? I conclude that it can only be because it came from Pigsonthewing. You gave some nice diffs--but they relate to this birthday issue, which isn't what was happening in the edit war that led to full protection. I can't disagree with Jimbo Wales asking Pigsonthewing to stop editing, but to enforce that goes too far. Not that I understand his fascination with the subject, mind you, which I think is a little OTT. (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It's impossible to know, yes, I suspect that if an uninvolved editor had added the info, it would not have been removed. To repeat, this is not about the content but about an editor who despite strong advice that it is best for this encyclopedia if he is not the one to add it. --Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me that it might be useful to review WP:Harassment here. Whenever Jim Hawkins pops up, a couple of editors also appear, making minor but irritating edits for no good reason. Jim Hawkins is a radio presenter with a wider off-wiki audience than almost anybody here, and pissing him off enough to start attacking Wikipedia publicly hurts the project a lot more than leaving out the information that a marginally notable person lives in the same county that he broadcasts from. --Pete (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"this is not about the content but about an editor" - the epitome of ad hominem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"...about an editor who despite strong advice that it is best for this encyclopedia if he is not the one to add it. " That's not ad hominem but a description of the problem with your tendentious editing of this article despite multiple requests that it would be better for all concerned if you withdrew. --Slp1 (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If he wouldn't leave voluntarily then a topic ban is the next step. -DJSasso (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nice narrow motion here. Collect (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This article's existence has caused a lot of grief to the subject, and if the article is still retained (though I hope common sense will prevail at the DRV), then that grief would be largely mitigated by the removal of Pigsonthewing from it. He has been a resounding net negative there over a long period of time, bordering on obsesive. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) The claim that the article's existence has caused any grief at all to the subject is unproven, and frankly unbelievable; the subject is clearly only concerned about the fact that his publicity is not exclusively under his own control. To label the inclusion of material published by the subject himself in a nationally available magazine as "stalking" is ludicrous, and to call for a topic ban on that basis is hypocritical, dishonest, and cowardly. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    "Well thank you Professor Fatuorum for that penetrating insight into the mind and motivations of those who find fault with how the Wikipedia treats their biographies. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of unverified BLP information... Malleus is a professor? (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"Mind and motivations"?? Another typical example of irresponsible reading and comment. Read it again. There's absolutely nothing said or even implied re "mind" or "motivation". Nothing. If a kid dropped his plate of potato salad and someone commented "Hmm ... you've made a mess on the floor", would that be an "insight into mind & motivation"?! Good grief - go back to school and learn to read. Hint: words have meaning. Not your ridiculous imagination. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I read it just fine, sport; Malleus thinks he knows better than the person himself about what his feelings on the article are. Pigsonthewing's actions on this page have been deplorable, and he needs to be removed promptly. Let me know if you need any more help figuring out what's going on here. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support POTW's edits have been disruptive on this article and to this encyclopedia, and since it appears that he can't accept the need to withdraw voluntarily, this needs to happen via a topic ban to the article and the talkpage.Slp1 (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Oppose. (vote changed after considering the comment by Tagishsimon, below) I think it would be a good thing if Andy were to step away from the article, but this has the feel of a show trial or a futile blood-sacrifice. At the end of the day, no-one has shown anything wrong with any of Andy's edits. It's just that the subject of the article wants him removed. In that circumstance it's fine to ask him to step away, but it's also OK for him not to do so, unless anyone knows of a policy that says otherwise. FormerIP (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    Checking your facts would be good. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Explaining what you mean by that would be excellent. FormerIP (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. When an editor is either unwilling or unable to disengage from an issue in which their presence - whether intentionally or through good faith actions gone wrong or misinterpreted - causes problems, then it's time for the community to step in and force the editor to disengage. To those suggesting Andy is not the only problem editor in this topic area: if other editors are felt to need time-outs also, please propose topic bans (and provide evidence) for them elsewhere (a sub-section, perhaps?), but piggybacking additional suggested editors onto this proposal is likely to just muddy the issue what to do about Pigsonthewing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Andy is there a need for you to be the one to edit this page? Because it looks like, it's become personal, and if it has, you should just agree not to do it. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Why does it matter, so long as the material can be attributed to reliable sources? Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Despite Hawkins' attempts to personalise the matter (with regular PAs both on- and off-wiki), I have resisted rising to such bait and have restricted myself to discussion of cited facts pertinent to his biography; and to raising his calls for vandalism on WP:ANI, as I have previously been advised to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It matters because there are many editors who can edit the article; its not going anywhere -- it's here to stay for the foreseeable future and if Andy is the issue than there is no reason for him to be so. On the other hand, if Mr. Hawkins' wants to encourage people to keep editing and taking about his article, it's going to be edited and talked about, with or without Andy. So, I'm leaning toward no formal bans at this point, until we find if it's Mr Hawkins or someone on his behalf that is involved. I still think Andy should refrain. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- why should we be topic banning Andy for adding information to the article that the subject himself supplied to a magazine for publication, including on the web? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment -- IMHO, the subject of the article, should have 'no say' over what should/shouldn't be in the article or who should or shouldn't be around it. To have such control would be a COI. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support two way ban There are two people involved here who have acted in an infantile manner that continues to disrupt the article. One is Andy, the other is Mr. Hawkins himself. I therefore would only support a restriction that removes both parties from the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sarek. Fighting censorship of reliably-sourced information is something that should evoke praise, not punishment. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Andy shouldn't be subject to any sanctions unless Hawkins is subject to at least the same. It's clear that the behaviour of Hawkins has been considerably worse than that of Andy therefore his editing and off Wikipedia conduct should be addressed either first or simultaneously at the very least. I would support a two way ban with that of Hawkins being the longer.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry? You are proposing to topic ban someone who'd rather not have an article about themselves on Wikipedia from posting on the talk page, because they are objecting to having an article about themselves on Wikipedia? Now, there's an interesting proposition... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. You're trying to ban someone who's enforcing site policy but opposing a ban of someone who's trying to censor something that he already put online himself. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Since when is it "enforcing site policy" to put whatever bit of information you can into a BLP as long as you can find a source for it? 28bytes (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. In addition, this is a piece of information that can only be found by manually trawling through 1000s of his tweets being into an WP article with a high googleranking. In any case, site policy is clearly and specifically against the inclusion of this info per WP:DOB, and thus POTW, who has year after year tried (and failed) to include the info has been doing the exact opposite of "enforcing site policy". --Slp1 (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
That's certainly not how I found it; nor how I found reference to it on Twitter. Why are you making things up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I was not referring to how you found it, but how somebody looking for info now would have search for it. But in any case this was not my main point.--Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
That is till not the case; Hawkins DoB is findable without reference to Twitter; he has referred to it on the BBC website. As for your main point; I refuted that in my response the last time a topic ban was proposed (link above) and found no consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per Jimbo's comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2#Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). PotW and MF need to be removed from this article, its talk page, and discussion of the article anywhere else on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, PotW appears to have demonstrated persistently vexatious behaviour and should have agreed to walk away from JH. A topic ban is now needed to speed up that process. Leaky Caldron 12:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • There is no evidence whatsoever to support your allegation of "vexatious behaviour". Indeed, even the poster of this asinine proposal says "I reiterate that I make no criticism of the content of any recent edits he has made". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Speaking as the one who made this asinine proposal, I concur that the content of Andy's comments appears unexceptional. It is the fact that he is the one who made them which I do, indeed, regard as being vexatious. It's a process issue, not a content issue. I'm sure Andy you won't like your edits being called vexatious, any more than I like mine being called asinine, but we must agree to differ on this and just see what our fellow editors think. If our criticism of one another becomes no harsher I can live with that! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Your criticism of me has already been much harsher; you're the author of this ridiculous topic ban proposal (having previously told me you would only do so if I discussed Hawkins' full date of birth). Asinine is a kind descripton. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, pretty much per Jimbo on the DRV. If the subject of a BLP does not want you to edit his article (whether rightly so or not) we should take that into consideration. And in this case I'd say it would be best for everyone if PotW would find other articles to edit. --Conti| 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose One of the best BLP-policy enforcers has edited within policy and worked to form consensus. Persons repeating bad arguments enough times are exhausting the patience of Wikipedia, and their broken-record advocacy has made weak-willed editors advocate unprincipled topic bans.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • support There's nothing about "carefully enforcing BLP policy" that requires one to continue poking the article's subject with a metaphorical stick. Walking away was an option that should have been taken. If AM won't take it himself, it's an appropriate time for a (pretty narrow and generally inconsequential) topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; Hawkins has a fundamental problem with Wikipedia, and is unhappy in general. However Andy's actions on the article have been part of the main provocation on this issue for a couple of years - a provocation now largely ended and underlined. Except Andy refuses to step away from the article in a mature fashion and indeed insists he has done nothing wrong; refusing to empathise with the subject or even view the possibility that his actions have not been through-and-through positive. Through this he has demonstrated a troublesome attitude to BLP's; his refusal to maturely back away from the issue, and a stated intention to further harass the subject via Wikipedia, mean he needs to be actively limited from doing this. I don't entirely understand Hawkin's feeling of harassment or attack by Andy; however it is clear he feels this way and, as a mature adult, Andy should have been able to empathise and walk away. Not to do so reflect badly on his attitude and aims. --Errant (chat!) 14:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    Withdrawn: I've made my point to Andy that I find his actions and attitude here highly objectionable, underhand and not in keeping with the high standard Wikipedians should hold - but he has rejected all of those comments. Nothing is served by persisting this debacle; I made my point, there is no need to now hound Andy. --Errant (chat!) 08:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
    Why are you making things up? Where has Andy said that he intends to "further harass the subject"? Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    You know; it's disappointing to see you making such a poor quality argument (i.e. inadequate claims of falsehood). He's consistently said he intends to continue editing the article. We can disagree over the term "harass", but in my book it counts - harassment takes many distinct forms (and I may be biased on this having suffered it myself). Hawkins claims the feeling of harassment from Andy (and others); even if we find it inexplicable (or reasonably consider it may be untruthful) there is a mature response; and that is to walk away. Otherwise we are persisting in harassment without any real obvious gain. --Errant (chat!) 15:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    Untrue. Andy has clearly stated he is restricting himself to discussing cited facts. There is nothing inexplicable about Hawkins trying to get Andy banned from the article. He wants to control every bit of information about himself that is exposed to public view. Well BLP doesn't work like that here. Just because he cries "harassment" doesn't make it so, and it is foolish to accept his word on it. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    It's harassment, in my view. Disagree if you wish, but kindly sod off with the high-horse accusations of falsehood (because if we are going that route, Andy has demonstrated a lot of falsehood in his handling of this). The long term story of this article is that it was started in a good intentioned way but, and this is as much as I can dig up, Hawkins had an internet troll who followed him round and around, part of which included attacking his biography. I'm sure (or at least hope) you can imagine that causing stress and discomfort; indeed I can actively empathise with him, having suffered at the hands of a similar (though much darker) campaign of harassment. Since that was ironed out, Hawkins obviously retains a low opinion of Wikipedia and does not want an article. Then we come to the latest ~2 year fall out involving the date of birth - Andy persistently raised the issue and gained the ire of Hawkins for doing so. Hawkins views Andy as harassing him over this - and any continued editing of the biography of any sort is exacerbating the issue. As there is no real need for Andy to keep editing it the mature response is simply to walk away and let others do the work. I've done this, at least twice. A subject contacted us via OTRS and I tried to help them remove problematic material and generally clean up their bios - but ultimately couldn't go as far as they wanted. Eventually I became persona non-grata, and they asked me to leave them alone. Which I did, leaving the issue largely resolved. Andy, however, has refused to do this - and is insisting on persisting the issue. There may be some element of attempting to control the article content; and we should limit this. But Andy is clearly a sticking point in any dialogue; and rather than shrug our shoulders and resign ourselves to alienation Andy should walk away and forget about the article. I object to the idea we shouldn't care what a non-editor thinks. --Errant (chat!) 16:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    Arguing that an editor is only adding a published date of birth or published location, and therefore it can't be harassment, is the online equivalent of someone being accused of real-life harassment, then deliberately walking past the target's house – while protesting "but I was only walking down the public highway!" Context is everything, and as anyone who has been harassed knows, senses are heightened by the experience, so the subject's perception has to be taken seriously, even if we don't share it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    Your walking away may have been fine, but it was a voluntary action. Your forcing Andy to walk away is another matter entirely.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    I don't agree; if Andy is unable to be mature over this issue then the community needs to take action. I don't want a witch hunt; I have my own personal, and strong, views on Andy's actions in this - and I've now made that point to him in the strongest way possible (there is no indication he noticed or cares), so that is fine. But I think he still needs to give the article space. Even if he had not gone near it for a few weeks this would have gone away and I wouldn't be supporting this - but he stepped back into that article knowing the context, knowing how Hawkins felt; the fallout here is at his feet. --Errant (chat!) 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    "Andy has demonstrated a lot of falsehood in his handling of this" - the only falsehood I have demonstrated has been that promulgated by others; like the lie in Kim's proposal, above, which a small, but nonetheless disappointing, number of editors unthinkingly endorse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    Andy, sorry to be a pain but I know I wasn't lying because that's the utterance of a deliberate, knowing falsehood. I may have made a mistake, or I may have phrased something in a way that's open to misunderstanding. Can you be clear what it is in my proposal which is a lie? Maybe I can clear up the misunderstanding, or acknowledge my mistake. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    I think he's referring to your characterization of the edit request. You say that he requested that the information that he lived in Shropshire be reinstated, but the edit request actually requests that information about his column for Shropshire Life be added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    I identified it clearly, above. You responded, but failed to remove it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    What you did Andy was to jump on me and call me a liar while remaining extremely vague about what was incorrect. Assuming Sarek's helpful explanation is the problem, then I wish you had been as clear to me yesterday. Please assume incompetence in me before you jump to conclusions of malevolence; I try to be neither but the latter is much more objectionable to me. I will go back to my proposal and reword it. My apologies to you for getting this wrong. It does not however change my view that it would be a net gain all round if you no longer edited this article. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    I did no such thing (indeed, I quoted the lie in full); your new comment is therefore a lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for your generous acceptance of my apology. Or not. This disputatious, confrontational method you have of interacting is the problem Andy. I know from your contributions that you are a splendid editor and article writer but you have all the people skills and diplomacy of a {insert amusing comparison here}. That was my last attempt at temporising with you, I'll leave this discussion to run its course now. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    Bull. You keep poking him in the ribcage with a stick Kim, and when he says "Stop it!", you accuse him of being the source of the trouble and of having a bad attitude. Good one. It so sucks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    You declaimed, loudly, that you had not added the DOB to the article since 2010; certainly technically accurate, but even when challenged you refused to acknowledge raising the issue twice in the intervening time on the talk page. You consistently made this statement; apparently misleading people in the discussion. If anything this is the main reason I find your position untenable. --Errant (chat!) 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    I have never denied doing so; indeed, I have recently discussed my reasons for, and others' part in, that discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    Errant's claim that I have "stated intention to further harass the subject via Wikipedia" is a bare-faced lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This proposal makes a complete mockery of "comment on the edit, not the editor" principle. Andy has stated above: "I ... have restricted myself to discussion of cited facts pertinent to his biography; and to raising his calls for vandalism on WP:ANI, as I have previously been advised to do", and while he maintains that self-imposed restriction, it is a complete over-reaction to attempt to silence him on this topic. None of those supporting would accept a proposal to topic ban them from an area where they were reasonably editing in the way that Andy has restricted himself to. If Andy were to breach his own restriction, then it would be time for this lynch mob to reconvene. In the meantime, there is no valid reason to ban Andy from "discussion of cited facts", unless we think it sensible to allow subjects of BLPs to dictate who can contribute to their articles. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Are we an objective information source or an MMORPG? The article subject can have no other reason for wanting to remove information about himself from a Wikipedia article other than for spite, or to prove he can do it, or to win some kind of battle/crusade. The information Andy wants to add to the article is available throughout the internet, including the subject's own official Twitter feed as well as the BBC. The deletion request is made in bad faith. - Burpelson AFB 18:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Beeblebrox's view, but in light of our inability to identify Mr. Hawkins, a ban on Pigsonthewing and his accompanying consistent disruption is needed. MBisanz talk 20:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • "…in light of our inability to identify Mr. Hawkins, a ban on Pigsonthewing… is needed" That beggars belief. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've spent a half hour trying to figure out what this is all about. We seem to have a wholly innocuous, uncontroversial and anodyne article, an editor adding normal cited info to an article (including info released by the subject); and an article subject showing signs of mental distress and asserting that the article is the cause. Sorry as I am for the subject's distress, if there's an issue to be dealt with here it doesn't seem appropriate to personalise it to a single or pair of editors. Editors who edit according to policy deserve support not condemnation. Wikipedians might want to discuss elsewhere what to do in a situation in which an innocuous, uncontroversial and anodyne article apparently causes mental distress to its subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Let's see if I understand this: a claque wants an editor in good standing to go away, he declines, so on that basis they declare him disruptive and seek a topic ban? (Oh, sorry, wait a moment, the subject of an article wants him gone too, because the subject feels hard done by over the article.) Seriously? I can drive editors I don't like away from areas in which I edit as long as I can wrangle up a few supporters to pile onto a bandwagon? The subject of an article gets veto power over who is allowed to edit it or not? This is a terrible, shameful precedent to set. Ravenswing 03:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a slightly unusual case here. The Wikipedia community wants the article kept, JH wants it deleted. Somwhere between the two we need to find a balance. Apart from post-2010 discussions on the talk page and elsewhere re JH's d.o.b., PotW's editing has been in accordance with policy. The topic ban, if enacted, should not be seen as something that has been done as a punishment, but something that has been done for the greater good of Wikipedia as a whole. Even though it means an individual editor making a sacrifice, and the subject of the article thinking that they have managed to achieve a little bit of control over the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure you expressed that well, topic banning some people for the "greater good" sounds like a formula for anyone to go on a campaign to eliminate minority points of view. If there is to be a topic ban here, then it must be argued based on the evidence of disruptive editing rather than perceptions or in response to external lobbying. Either evidence of disruptive editing, against policy, exists, or it does not. -- (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There is evidence of some editing against policy, and other editing that whilst it would be within policy normally, can be seen as being disruptive solely because of who made the edits. For these reasons, I'm supporting the proposed topic ban of PotW. As far as I can see, the only way the article is going to go is if it is done by an Office Action. Until then, the best we can do as Wikipedians is to keep the article fully compliant with BLP and do as little as we can to further antagonise the subject, event if that means some individual editors, such as myself and PotW, keeping off the article. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of JH having any control over the article any more than the rest of you. He doesn't, which is why the article is still here. Let him carry on with his off-Wiki crusade. By doing so, he isn't doing his cause any good at all. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Please reconsider your wording, we should never impose sanctions based on who you are, but on the actions we see you make. This feels like the thin edge of the wedge, the same argument could be made for someone thought to have a political agenda, someone who happens to have been in prison, or someone following a fringe religion. -- (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"solely because of who made the edits" - More ad hominem bullshit, totally contrary to Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Not "making a sacrifice"; but "being sacrificed". I'm not your sacrificial lamb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding SlimVirgin's comments above; I feel harassed. It's affecting my health and my ability to work. Can someone please ban her from discussing me or my edits? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If Idi Amin were alive I am sure he would start by editing his own page...he would then move onto lobbying Jimbo Wales...I'm sure he would eat some wikipedians...but I'm not convinced we would allow him to influence his wikipage by getting editors banned. Tom Pippens (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose if editors want to change BLP policy then the appropriate way is to seek consensus for a change of policy, not to bully or topic ban editors who follow a policy that you'd like to see changed. I've no strong opinions as to whether or not this particular BLP should be deleted, but if consensus is to keep it then those who lost that debate should back off and not try to restrict other editors from making edits that are within policy. ϢereSpielChequers 11:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We are dealing here with the atypical case of an article subject who has announced his distress because he cannot control the content of the Wikipedia article dealing with him. There is no sound reason to believe that the content of Andy's edits is what actually distresses Hawkins; instead, what disturbs him appears to be Andy's refusal to accept his direction. That is not a sufficient basis to limit Andy's editing of the article, absent specific evidence of misbehavior. To allow this carries the danger of deterring other editors from making accurate, well-sourced, useful edits against the wishes of article subjects, which is in important ways a conflict with the WMF's policies on BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (