Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240

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

Noticeboard archives


Upadting Non-free license templates[edit]


I've updated some templates, but the major ones are protected, needing administrator intervention,

An example of the proposed change is posted here : Template_talk:Non-free_biog-pic amongst others.

The change is straightforward to do, and shouldn't take that long to do :)

Thanks in advance. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In relation to this on a different template:

Polandball bounces back - what to do?[edit]

Polandball was an article about a nationalist cartoon meme created by a currently banned user with a history of problematic editing in nationalist areas. It was deleted in April following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball. It reappeared on my watchlist today. User:Babelia created a new Polnadball article, which was cut and pasted from Know Your Meme. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, but the tag was removed within 5 minutes by User:Rave with the edit summary of "rewritten". Except it wasn't rewritten at all, it was replaced by the text that User:Russavia has copied onto nearly every language Wikipedia (eg here) in an effort to spread this meme. I would prefer not to start another AfD which will give people a platform to spout their nationalist views - can someone deal with this in a more expedient manner? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Solved easily enough with a G4 tag, for a recreation of a deleted article. If this user chooses to edit-war over that, then I hope a block comes swiftly. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't just removed tag. The article was really rewritten with new text, so G2-tag was unnecesarry. --Rave (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The G4 deletion was correct, but to clarify for Rave: You replaced one copyright violation with another; you can't take someone else's text and add it as your own without attribution. That was a copyright violation too. Since I can't imagine this article being recreated in a way that wouldn't still violate Sandstein's deletion rationale, I'm going to salt it. Any admin is welcome to unsalt if they think this is out of line, without my prior OK or comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Please keep an eye on this user's contributions: User:Johnmylove He is recently trying to delete 10.800+ bytes of sourced information from the Religion in Russia article. He seems to have a history of edit-wars and conflicts with other users.-- (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious history of edit wars (certainly no blocks). It appears that Johnmylove restored the article back to September 23, after a great many edits by different IP addresses (a couple of exceptions, edits by registered accounts), all of which geolocate to Bergamo, Italy, including the OP. Beyond that, it's all content-related, and I have no idea as to whether Johnmylove's restore is justifiable.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I should add, in all fairness to the OP, that a review of Johnmylove's talk page does show a problematic history, including warnings of edit-warring, breaches of BLP, uploading non-free images, and creating articles that were speedily deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I looked at it too and saw what you did Bbb23 with one exception. It looks like Johmylove took out the Bergamo IP(s) edits. To my eyes it looks like the IPs added a batch of info only some of which is sourced. Both the IP and J labelled each others edits as vandalism which does not seem to be the case. Perhaps the aid of someone who is acquainted with the subject could take a look at all of the additions and decide whether they help the article or not. Hopefully this will be of some help to those who look at this, but it may not be an admin matter at this point. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
These apparent content disputes where editors toss around the word vandalism are always more difficult to assess when one (like me) doesn't know enough about the subject matter to know whether it's purely a content dispute or the editing is actually disruptive. It doesn't look to me like administrative intervention is required at this point but may be needed if the battle continues. J hasn't edited the article since the IP restored all the material, nor has he edited anything else, so he may be off-wiki, which might explain why he hasn't commented here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I have thoroughly noticed that article is being corrupted by a particular person using different Ip addresses who neither understands the Russian language and neither he is related to the russian ethnicity, since he is interested in Russia History, the person has created different Ids on Wikipedia including the one with the name User:Anandks007, and have edited the article without any reliable source. The source seems to be photo edited out of something and is being credited as proof to claim the information. I need to inform that there is pure corruption and destruction of the article by User: and his other duplicate addresses User:, User:, User: etc. Hence I kindly request you to look into the matter and take necessary action against this unregistered IP addresses that have been continously changing the accuracy of this article for their own personal interests and according to their own objectives. I have noticed similar actions being displayed by this notorius editor on other Russian related pages. --Johnmylove (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The article was normal till September 23, and since then different IP addresses has been editing the article on the same topic and I found it suspicious and have restored it back to its original script as it was. --Johnmylove (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Your claims are delirious. I am not User:Anandks007 or the others who have modified the page while I was updating it to the 2012 figures, and the administrators can verify. I am quite well skilled in Russian culture and religion. The sources used are a 2012 sociological survey published by Russian press, and the only reliable one to date (previous estimates were based on religious websites or membership estimates of the churches). You seem to be a Christian fundamentalist trying to enforce your personal agenda in Wikipedia, as you did in the Anders Behring Breivik controversy and other times. -- (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
PS: my IP address is dynamic, so it doesn't depend on me if it changes. -- (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • John, if you believe there is sockpuppetry going on, you should file a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Well I seem User: is hindu fundamentalist who is necessary involving his hindu agenda, so stop giving your foolish edits, I am not going to consider your edit. Whatsoever there is no information regarding whether the cropped photo is published by russian press and hence unless the official date exists, I shall not allow this article to be disrupted by certain elements such as this. The page looks vulgar filled with unnecessary information being forced to viewed by the general public and the information looks to be hoax. I doubt that even after blocking the Ip addreses, the person's Ip addresses seems to be dynamic, as he notoriously claims would not stop him from making more deliberate attempt to continue his agenda. --Johnmylove (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I am not user Anandks and it will be verified, and I am not a "Hindu fundamentalist" since I'm not Indian. The page is not "vulgar" or filled with unnecessary informations. The survey is discussed in these press articles used in the text: Olga Filina (Ogonek Magazine). Mapping Russia's Religious Landscape. Russia and India Report. Retrieved 24-09-2012. and Верю — не верю. "Ogonek", № 34 (5243), 27/08/2012. Retrieved 24-09-2012. Please stop reverting valid contributions made by other users just because you don't like them. -- (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Also, it seems that you have used a "sockpuppet" IP to bypass the 3RR rule.-- (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The edit-warring content dispute continues, so I have locked the article for 3 days. John filed an SPI report but has failed to produce any evidence of sockpuppetry. I also note that John has not discussed the dispute on the article's talk page. I repeat here what I just said on the article talk page: you must discuss the content dispute and seek dispute resolution if you cannot resolve it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD backlog[edit]

There is quite a backlog at WP:AFD at the moment, which needs a few admins to go through and close them. I've gone through most of them that need to be closed today, and might get a few more done, but there's still quite a lot there to be done. Thanks. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 15:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Just knocked down a good chunk of them, but I gotta go and there are still about twenty five items at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; I've got a bit more spare time now; I'll see if I can get through a few more. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Now down to one item, which I can't close because I am the nominator. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Mass nominations of Church articles for deletion[edit]

Lieutenant Ramathorn (talk · contribs) has been massively nominating church articles for deletion via PROD. They are all contentious and I am planning on undoing them. I am starting this discussion to see if standard rollback would be appropriate here based on the statement that rollback is appropriate "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". In a similar manner, to save time and energy, could an administrator use mass rollback. Can an administrator also check his deleted contribs and see if he PRODed any before today that were deleted because I plan to request undeletion of those articles. Forgive me if this shouldn't be at WP:AN, I felt it was more appropriate than ANI because I am requesting administrator action; however, am requesting no action to be taken against the user in question. Ryan Vesey 21:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the list of 81 articles he nominated for deletion so far. Ryan Vesey 21:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Massive deletion campaigns are never a good sign. Seriously, to anyone that has been around Wikipedia longer than a year or two: has similar behavior ever gone well? The answer is no, it never has. It always makes the nominator look bad, even if they don't have ill intentions, it smells funny to anyone who has seen this go on so many times before. This is always a bad idea. For the record, as you are rolling him back, nothing has been deleted. I checked. You can safely roll back all of his PRODs. And I would still advise him of this discussion, he needs to be involved, if for no other reason than to hear why this is a bad idea. --Jayron32 22:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Looks like Floquenbeam and I have reverted most of them, though at least one PROD was contested already by a third party. - jc37 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • (e/c) All PROD's removed by jc37 and me (and maybe others, his is the only other name I saw right away. I'll let you do the explaining on his talkpage part. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks to the lot of you, I'll leave a note. I only caught it because an NRHP article was nominated. Ryan Vesey 22:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (ec)As is often the problem with mass nominations, there are several distinct classifications you could put the nominated articles into. First there are the articles that are both sourced and talk about the history of a pretty old church, it seems unlikely that they will ever get a delete consensus. Then there are pure stubs, that provide no substantive information, other then locations and an infobox that describes the church its a part of, those articles might conceivably be deleted on a lack of notability grounds, though I expect a decent argument could be made that churches are almost certainly notable by nature. Finally you have really problematic articles that are borderline G11, and we may actually want to delete. But as its a mass nomination, non of the nuance is explained and its unlikely anything will get deleted as a result. Monty845 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Well see, that's the problem. Perhaps some of these really needed to be deleted. But they won't be, because the mass nomination shows that no care was taken, since some obviously good articles were prodded along with the crap. So now we have to undo them all, because we can't trust anything done by this user. It's why this is always a bad idea. Work in small batches, check your work, and be darned sure it is all on the up-and-up. Failure to take proper precaution leads to exactly as you note: we don't end up deleting anything (even if a few deserve it) because of the spurious nature in which they were all nominated. --Jayron32 22:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In case anybody wants to add the church articles to their watchlist, I have a list of them that you can paste into your raw watchlist. Ryan Vesey 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a fairly new user, this year, 122 edits (most of them are those bad PRODs), and he has never used the talk page for an article, wikipedia space or any user talk page. That alone is often problematic, but it forces us to assume a little good faith as he probably didn't understand how disruptive that is. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • They are all churches not of any note. None are historically significant architecturally and they are just places that are a dime a dozen. If it wasn't landmarked it didn't go on the list. I saw one then noticed there are a rash of these things. Churches aren't more notable than a dry cleaner or candy store unless the building is landmarked. Churches are businesses and many seem to think they can get away with advertising their business because they are a church. Some of these were pure ads. Some of these didn't establish any noteworthyness. Just because they are a church doesn't mean they are noteworthy. --Lieutenant Ramathorn (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Some of the churches you tagged may not be notable. For example, I just nominated Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church for deletion; however, many of them were. Some of them were even listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Ryan Vesey 02:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • [edit conflict with Ryan] I have to disagree with the mass reversions. I agree that this mass tagging was a problem — but why a mass revert? Many of these articles are clearly without any evidence of notability; for example, see Brethren Reformed Church and Ardmore Presbyterian Church, and see what I did at Church of the Annunciation, Cincinnati. This isn't a situation with many hundreds of bad edits, where you have to do a mass rollback due to the sheer number of problems; you can easily go through just 81 edits one-by-one. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I took a look at Brethren Reformed Church. The church was founded in May 2007, the article appeared in June 2007. Most of the article is doctrinal stuff about the denomination and very little is specific to that particular church. Just like the dry cleaners (to continue with that analogy) across the street who could gas on and on about how clean they will get your trousers. Neither of teses (opinion) belongs in wikipedia, at least the dry cleaners didn't try. I am against mass pretty much anything but one-by-one a lot of these should go. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Whoops. Is this spot just for Admins?
No: everyone should feel free to comment in good faith. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The safest thing to do when a suspect mass deletion has been attempted is to return to the status quo ante and start from scratch. That ay each article can be dealt with individually and not as part of a pack. It's quite easy to do as Lt. Ramathorn apparently did, and page through a bunch of articles saying "Not a landmark, therefore delete", "Not a landmark, therefore delete"..., but there are other criteria to be considered other than landmark status and architectural significance, such as historical importance and a church's place in ther community. Besides, not all important churches have been landmarked, nor have all architecturallyt significant churches. My understanding is that there's no particular hurry to "finish" the encyclopedia, so there's nothing lost in taking the time to deal with each article on its own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
"Place in the community" is a veeery, very relative thing. I'm sure that for the members of any congregation, no matter the size, the church holds a place of great significance in the community. Whether or not it is notable, however, is a different thing.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This is why we don't use our opinions, and instead rely on the reliable sources. If the church is listed as a historical building, or has received significant coverage in paper, or has some other documented reason to set it apart from the average church, then we assume it is notable enough for inclusion. If we aren't sure, we err on the conservative side since it already exists and work a little harder to find sources, or just tag it with a notability tag and allow a little time to pass, and for others to help out. We don't have to clear them all out in a day. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Just wanted to point put that mass-reverting the PRODs shows the same lack of care as mass-adding them in the first place. Some of them may be perfect candidates for PROD as obviously non-notable run-of-the-mill churches, but now they will have to go through AFD to be deleted. Sort of a "two wrongs don't make a right" scenario if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

They'll only get deleted if no one about today gives a damn about them, but one could summon up notability around here for a duckpond and a kiddies slide. John lilburne (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I disagree. The reverting wasn't another "wrong". The amount of time it would take to figure out which weren't PROD candidates would be a waste of resources. In addition, I feel that a majority of those that could be deleted should go through AFD anyways. Ryan Vesey 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Blanket reverting is only permissible in cases of ban or block evasion. another user's carelessness is not a license to be just as careless yourself. You say you believe a majority of them should go through AFD, but since it is clear nobody really evaluated the nominations that position holds no water, and now they have to go through AFD since PRODS can't be re-added even if they are removed for no reason at all. So instead of "wasting your time" being thoughtful in your reversions, you waste everybody else's with a pile of AFDs, some of which are not necessary because of the obvious non-notability of the churches. Your own reply has convinced me further that my assessment was accurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not true at all. As I commented earlier, revert can be used for reverting widespread edits by a misguided editor. That's what this was. In addition, I am asserting that all of the deletion nominations were controversial and therefore should go through AFD. Ryan Vesey 20:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak for Jc37, but my mass reversion was based on the inappropriate use of PROD; anyone should feel free to rePROD any of the articles I dePRODed if they've actually looked at the article and feel a PROD is appropriate, and not worry too much about the "can't rePROD an article" rule. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you know.... there is spam in DYK on the main page?[edit]

I would have boldly removed the Gibralter-related spam link in today's DYK on the main page, but it is fully protected. Would some administrator take that down, please, so this ongoing scandal doesn't spread further? Carrite (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no spam there; it's only a neutral article about synagogues. I don't see anything in the citations that is being used improperly, and the "Map of Gibraltar with locations of the four synagogues indicated" is definitely not spam. Nyttend (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm puzzled too. What spam link? Fut.Perf. 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Related to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gibraltarpedia and the concept of Gibraltarpedia. GiantSnowman 16:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
What does the article on DYK have to do with Gibraltarpedia? Fut.Perf. 16:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read Gibraltarpedia#Controversy. GiantSnowman 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh lovely. Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
So what's the deal? It's a legitimate article, it was nominated for DYK in the usual way, it was reviewed and promoted by editors in good standing and beyond any suspicion of a COI with respect to Gibraltar topics, so it now got onto DYK according to our normal procedures. If Gibraltar editors are spouting out a lot of new articles, they'll have a lot of DYK entries in the next months. They'll soon run out of new topics; it's such a small place. So, what's the issue? Fut.Perf. 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with FP. Jheald (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to admit that I'm not really seeing the COI issue either. It may well have other problems - don't have the time to look at the sourcing right now - but DYK articles are not exactly selected based on their quality. T. Canens (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Furthermore, I can't believe that this was approved for the Main Page. What makes refs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 16 reliable sources? Furthermore, the whole article doesn't sound neutral, but that is only to be expected when sourcing to advocacy groups. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

← It's probably a good time to have a serious, centralized discussion about our standards on paid editing and conflicts of interest. Actually, the time for that was last December, but back then everyone was mostly focused on using the issue to get WillBeback perma-banned. I'm not saying that every single dispute on Wikipedia boils down to petty personality politics... but it's interesting to see some of the people who attacked Will suddenly manning the barricades against paid editing and COIs. It reminds me that one can never be too cynical about this place. Anyhow, whenever the serious discussion starts, please let me know. MastCell Talk 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that this instance does not concern paid editing. Nobody is being paid a penny to edit any articles in this topic area. Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
These are volunteers, writing articles for free, some of whom are being taught how to edit by a paid consultant. There's no need to undermine their efforts. However, it is pertinent to note that they are being incentivised to do so, but this is a very, very different issue. People have run competitions many times before, though this is a very scaled up version of older models. DYK people have already decided this is ok. If the community doesn't feel so, there are better places than ANI to discuss this issue. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think Fut.Perf. and Prioryman are speaking sense. The article is new, well-written and was nominated following the usual procedures. Are we seriously going to penalise those who are dedicating so many hours of their lives to create articles about a certain topic/place? Surely these kinds of contributions are only in Wikipedia's best interests... So what if people are being encouraged to nominate articles for DYK? They're only being encouraged to create articles of a certain quality (i.e. will meet the DYK criteria) rather than having hundreds of poorly ref'd stubs. As for "paid editing" there has been no evidence of this. People need to chill out and concentrate on the facts(!) --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused. I am a strictly volunteer contributor to Wikipedia, who just started writing and editing for Wikipedia and DYK this year. I am a physician and mom who does this in my spare time. What is a paid editor? And what is wrong with my article on synagogues in Gibraltar? I am a Catholic who lives in Chicago who thought it would be fun to learn a little something about Judaism in my research for this article. What is going on? I just received a notice a short while ago that something was up. Years ago, the Catholic Church did not treat Jews very well. We're long past that. Why does this seem to be a problem on Wikipedia? How can my article possibly be considered spam? Anne (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
(EC) I will shout this to the rooftops if necessary: no one editing is being paid - The question is about where we AGF. Do we AGF of the editor, though they may have ulterior motives? (Without investigation the default answer is yes) Do we AGF of the person who assigned the points for the articles? (7 for DYK and then 8 for GA is a little skewif IMO) Without investigation the answer is yes. Do we AGF of the people (in this case the Gibraltan government) who put up the substantial reward for making so many articles? Well, that question is quite closely linked to the second but the default answer is still yes. It might be a good idea to discuss this further in a more appropriate environment. There's a few inconsistencies that make assuming good faith harder than it ought to be.
It's also about whether people particularly care about motives if the content is good. Community consensus seems to be the community doesn't. Can't deny we're getting a lot of new content out of it. Seriously though, not on ANI.
To ACP2011 - I think the articles you've been writing are of a wonderful quality and thank you for adding that information to Wikipedia. This issue is a lot bigger than you, though you are a part of it. GibraltarPedia is encouraging people like yourself (are you aware?) to write DYKs and other articles in order to win points to get a free trip to Gibraltar. This is causing quite a stir but it would be wonderful to hear your opinion. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know anything about a free trip to Gibraltar. I did get a notice about a T-shirt a couple of months ago for MonmouthpediA, but I haven't sent my address yet. I've always enjoyed competition; but since I was a kid, it's been more about competition with myself than anything else. I just assumed the "reward" was a "barnstar" or T-shirt. A month or two after I started contributing to Wikipedia earlier this year, it was recommended by some of the other editors that I start submitting articles to DYK and/or GA. I've only done DYK so far. I like it because it forces me to be fastidious about sourcing and it has also taught me to be more aware of close paraphrasing. I just read some of the comments above and clicked on the links. I had no idea that anything was going on with Victuallers (Roger). I have found him to be tremendously supportive and helpful as I've written articles for Wikipedia this year. Anne (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That really helps clear some things up. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, the way the GibraltarpediA competition works is that you get 4 or 5 points for a new short article, and if your article appears on the DYK main page, you get an additional 2 or 3 points, for a total of 7 points. Anne (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What Gibraltarpedia really is and why DYK is important[edit]

Let me see if I can break this down so that people understand the problem here. What is the government of Gibraltar paying for? Advertising. Little plaques with QR codes are a very minor part of the equation. The real value (i.e. monetary value) in this project is the free publicity generated by the project. All of those feel-good "World's first Wikipedia city" stories. This is why Roger Bamkin states that "QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered > £2m paybeack on £50K investment". The payback he refers to was the value of the free, international media coverage. As a result of all of that press coverage, Monmouth fully expects to get actual return on its investment through increased tourism. This is the model that is being followed with Gibraltarpedia. DYKs on the front page of one of the world's most-visited sites are worth money because they get people thinking about Gibraltar. And people who think about Gibraltar might visit those attractions they are reading about. And people who visit spend money. This is the substance of Gibraltarpedia, not QR codes and plaques. The people who are volunteering their time to do the grunt work are doing so with the best of intentions, but in some ways they are also unwitting dupes. Is it necessary that all of Wikipedia be co-opted to advance the tourism goals of Gibraltar as well? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion if Wikipedia decides to do further competitions. Consider competition about a theme that doesn't benefit a particular person, country, or other entity. Perhaps biographies, monuments, etc. Also, the reward should be nominal. There have to be other people like me who just enjoy the fun of competition. Anne (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have competitions. See Wikipedia:WikiCup. This one was not instigated within Wikipedia, but outside of it. I agree there are a number of issues worth discussing, but AN is not the right venue for in-depth discussion. (Arguably, it is useful to let admins know this is going on, but that purpose is completed.) There are threads on Jimbo's page, which is a natural place for such a discussion to start, and then maybe some RfC's are needed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If there is to be a discussion of the DYK issue here, people should at least understand that this is not simple "paid editing". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If someone does start an organized discussion, this would be a good place to announce the location, and it would be helpful to include relevant facts there, but this isn't the right place to hash it out. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not hashing, I'm explaining. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly:
  • We want articles on notable stuff in and around Gibraltar.
  • They want articles on notable stuff in and around Gibraltar.
Where's the conflict of interest here? We all want the same things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
What is it that Victuallers Ltd. wants? Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
A good question. The easiest way to find out would be to see Victualles Ltd. contracts and financial arrangements with the government of Gibraltar (or any other entity that's contracted with a government to edit Wikipedia). Absent that we're left with lots of uncomfortable speculation.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The conflict is that this is reported as a project for "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon" [1][2], and Wikipedia wants to be seen as a neutral educational site; or as Slate put it, Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it’s no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It’s just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products. If the “Did You Know?” page was suddenly dominated by trivia about Gap or Mars Bars, many readers would quickly smell a rat, but there are numerous PR professionals who represent subtler brands and causes. JN466 03:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What if I offer to donate one million dollars for polio eradication if somebody writes a good article about my company. Is that a good or bad thing? I think that any arrangements for rewards or compensation should be disclosed transparently for the community of editors to discuss and approve or object. The problem with the Gibraltar DYKs is that money changed hands without disclosure, and our DYKs became unbalanced, to say the least. Jehochman Talk 03:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • By the way, editing for rewards, such as free travel to Gibraltar, as offered here, does constitute paid editing. That, however, isn't the problem here. The problem here is that members or former members of WMUK were using their association with WMUK for a profit-making enteprise, with WMUK's approval. WMUK is a charity and can't be involved in such activities. Also, the DYK regulars have decided that they do not agree with the use of DYK to support a commercial venture in this way. It is their right to make that decision. The editors not associated with WMUK who are editing Gibraltar-related articles in the hope of winning a prize are not, in my opinion, doing anything wrong, even if the prize was cash. They should be aware, however, that their efforts are potentially being used and manipulated to make money for other people. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The main discussion is on Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know under Potential abuse of DYK, and other threads. The issue is that a trustee of the UK chapter is a paid consultant setting up these projects on behalf of tourist agencies. He's incentivised the volunteers to get the maximum coverage - ie the front page and DYK. There's another issue in that Victuallers has financial relationships with several leading figures in the UK chapter, some of which have been defending him wherever this debate appears. Secretlondon (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There's an assertion in the heading of this section that DYK is important, but the post underneath the heading just ignores that claim. I've never understood why DYK is important and I've felt for a while that it should be eliminated, because of abuse like this. If DC is claiming DYK is important, some evidence would be useful. (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind paid editing, what about our independence and the NPOV?[edit]

I'm sure this GibraltarPedia project is being done with the best of intentions, but I think it is extremely dangerous to Wikipedia and, if it is too late to stop this one, there should certainly be no more projects like this. The danger is exactly the same as the danger of accepting advertising: the perception, by our associate (the "client") and by the world at large, that our content will be slanted favourably to the client. From the Gibraltar Chronicle's story "A New Way to Market the Rock":

"As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; “The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds."

The Gibraltar Tourist Board is evidently expecting, not just more coverage but favourable coverage, and the ability to suppress anything unfavourable. Bang goes Wikipedia's independence and the neutral point of view. Even if, in practice, Gibraltar articles are not "taken over" by the GibraltarPedia project, bang goes the outside world's perception of our independence and neutrality. If we allow this sort of thing, we might just as well take ads. JohnCD (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • We shouldn't have negative or untrue articles. We should have neutral and true articles. I would assure anyone that if articles are negative and/or untrue that's it's very easy to go back to an earlier version, because that's what should be done. If someone's pushing favourable coverage, then blocks can be handed out, articles locked down, whatever. If someone's pushing fair coverage - well, good for them. Barnstars can be handed out, backs can be slapped, whatever. WilyD 09:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not as simple as that. What is fair and neutral is a matter of judgement, and not everyone may agree with the Gibraltar Tourist Board's view. That's why we have WP:COI rules. Would we "guarantee" to the representatives of a commercial company that they can revert anything they think "nasty"? Wikipedia should not have this sort of relationship with any subject of our articles. JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It is as simple as that. The COI guideline says what I'm saying. And yes, I think we can "guarantee that Wikipedia has an element of self-regulation" - it does. Everyone can (and many people do) edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. Or at the behest of someone who does. What matters is whether or not they're doing so in an appropriate way. And we already have lots of remedies if they're not. What you're looking for simply isn't there. WilyD 10:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't like this whole situation, but I can't say precisely why. It just leaves me feeling off. Maybe it's the idea of a certain topic getting undue weight in DYK - I noticed it with Monmouth when that was happening but had no idea there was an actual effort to promote it. Maybe it's somebody (potentially) abusing their position at Wikimedia for financial gain. Maybe it's people viewing Wikipedia as free advertising advertising. GiantSnowman 10:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Could we please just start an RFC already? I would do it myself but I can't figure out how to work the system. There are so many discussions about this in different places, covering different issues. Getting every issue in the same place just seems like the logical thing to do. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • @WilyD: you say " What you're looking for simply isn't there." What I'm seeing, which certainly is there, is a project for "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia." Wikipedia is absolutely not for marketing anything. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What you're asserting that says it also doesn't say. We don't host ads, but we can't help that articles do provide exposure for tourism (indeed, the location of my first date with my wife was chosen from the Wikipedia article, which was a perfectly suitable article). If someone's writing ads - we can delete the ads, block them, whatever. (If you know of any, I can do either of those, and am perfectly happy to). If people are writing good articles, because they want exposure - well, good articles are good artices, and that's all there is. We can't (nor should we) police intent. Only practice. WilyD 11:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a delicate balance. We want to partner with organisations, locations, etc. to help improve related content (it being the main aim, after all). But at the same time advertising can take many forms; if a tourism board is offering a real life prize for the most related content added to the wiki, which includes extra points for promotion on the main page, that is verging on the line. As you say; any article could be an advert for something, and so long as it's neutral (note; above you suggest it should be neutral rather than negative - that's fallacious as we record negative things in a neutral way perfectly well. There is nothing wrong with negative info); that isn't an issue. The problem comes from other forms of promotion; if a neutral article is created and promoted to the main page that is normally not an issue - if lots of articles are created & promoted to the main page, on related subjects, with a prize being offered by the subject... that is an issue unresolved. --Errant (chat!) 12:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You're asserting that it's in contradiction to what WP:SOAP says, and it's not. Neutral, encyclopaedic articles can nonetheless promote a tourist destination. Cancun makes it seem like a nice vacation spot - because it is. Doesn't mean we should delete Cancun (we should not). WilyD 13:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it is overly simplistic to equate marketing with promotion and NPOV violations. Some large corporations that are proud of their history have a dedicated historian or librarian that is part of marketing. Many "neutral" articles can be quite promotional, if the company has a positive reputation in reliable sources. Whether it's for the media, Twitter or a product data-sheet, marketing is just a matter of providing content the reader wants.
So long as we openly allow PR to directly edit, PR will follow our nature to push the envelope and "use" Wikipedia for advertising/promotion. When we establish a permission-based approach (ie WP:BRIGHTLINE), then we establish a means to simply accept content that serves the reader and decline contributions that do not, leaving all final content decisions in the hands of an impartial editor. For every controversy like this, there's also a dozen companies with serious problems on their articles, but they're too afraid to do anything about it, because of the controversy.
I am a marketing professional and a frequent COI contributor. Corporate Minion 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What about Gibraltar's competitors for tourism dollars, for example other municipalities who are interested in doing what Gibraltar did? They are now faced with the perception that they either have to kick up big bucks to Roger Bamkin or be left out in the cold.
  • Are there no volunteers willing or able to to this work? Is Victuallers Ltd. displacing willing volunteers? Will we now see more and more Wikipedia insiders and those with connections trading volunteer work for paid consulting, while making money of the back of unsuspecting volunteers?
--KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments further down indicate Wikipedians will write featured articles for a sandwich. Frankly, I'd do it for a hardroll filled with ketchup. Plenty of people make money off our work, through clones and mirrors, or printing it off as a book and selling it, or whatever else. Such is our fate. WilyD 16:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If their work suddenly becomes directed by paid consultants, capitalizing on their insider connections, that might change. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Taking (clearly identified) ads is less bad than taking advertorials. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, but we don't even take ads, and one important reason is the fear that our editorial integrity would be compromised, or perceived to be compromised, by a wish to please the advertisers, or not to offend them. That same fear is the reason for concern about a project presented as a joint venture between Wikipedia, or at least Wikimedia UK, and an organization whose stated intent is "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia". JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Cultural partnerships"[edit]

Isn't this sort of thing just marketing under another name? "A Backstage Pass tour is an event aimed at sharing the expertise of real-world cultural institutions with our wiki-expertise. Principally this involves an organisation or interest group hosting a private tour for the benefit of local Wikimedians and in reciprocation we help improve the content on Wikipedia that is relevant to that organisation and its collection." The thing includes a free lunch. The reason an "organisation or interest group" participates in such a scheme is pure self-interest, and the prospect of free exposure in Wikipedia. It's a view of Wikipedia as a marketing instrument. Once that view takes hold, Wikipedia's credibility (such as it is) is lost forever. JN466 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's defensible if what is being marketed is a cultural institution of that kind; but it's the start of a slippery slope, and when the "partner" or "client" is a tourist board we are definitely too far down the slope. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I've said this elsewhere but I'll repeat for the benefit of those who haven't read it yet. When Clive Finlayson commented on the removal of anything "nasty" in reply to a question from the press, he was referring to vandalism, which of course will be reverted, but somehow this has been construed to meaning the sanitation of articles of anything that may show Gibraltar in a bad light... Somebody over at Talk:Gibraltarpedia was asking why there was nothing on crime rates in Gibraltar for example, well that's because no one has got round to it yet but look, it's on the to-do list and I hope that someone writes about that soon as it's just as notable. We do however, already have an article that reports on how a man died following an explosion next to the cruise terminal and another reports on the government's controversial decision to demolish a site of historical importance to make way for affordable housing... This is hardly "favourable coverage" [sic] of Gibraltar now is it? But that's what happened and that's how Wikipedia shows it, as is. As for DYK, in no way has Gibraltar been getting "undue weight in DYK" [sic]. If a Gibraltar-related article has appeared on the main page it's because it's new/expanded and has met the DYK criteria after following the usual nomination process. There's a good number of quality articles been written by some very dedicated and hard working contributors so there'll be a good number of DYK noms. Blame the DYK rules not the editors who are dedicating so many hours to Wikipedia's cause with their fantastic contributions! --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 12:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

{EC} I don't think the two are comparable. I can't figure out exactly why, but one seems like promotion of a place, and the other of culturally significant works of art. Being incentivised by a free lunch and access to things which would be significant even outside the auspices of the institutions which hold them, is very different to focussing on a specific location with an incentive so large as a free trip. Also, Backstage Pass events rarely offer rewards, although if they do, it's usually a book token or some other trivial prize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panyd (talkcontribs) 12:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I mediated a content dispute on Gibraltar once, where Spanish and British views clashed, and it was quite as contentious as Northern Ireland. To be honest, that was the first thing I remembered when I read that statement. As for the frequency of Gibraltar hooks on the main page, the media clearly do not see it this way. They feel we are plugging Gibraltar, as El País put it. And from what I have read over the past few days here, we have someone paid to recruit volunteers to write articles that can be linked to via QR codes, the production of which he also provides consultancy for. JN466 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear: It is one thing if someone from an institution like that creates an article, editing with a COI. This is a situation we know; while it causes problems, these are usually pretty obvious problems. But what is Wikimedia UK doing promoting this sort of thing, and getting Wikipedians to accept a free lunch in return for editing services? There is something off here.

I'd like to quote the Slate piece again:

Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it’s no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It’s just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products. If the “Did You Know?” page was suddenly dominated by trivia about Gap or Mars Bars, many readers would quickly smell a rat, but there are numerous PR professionals who represent subtler brands and causes.

Wikipedia goes down this road at its peril. JN466 12:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibmetal77, one article every 2 days incentivised by a points system with the ultimate reward of a free trip is clearly undue weight. The contributors don't appear to be doing anything maliciously, or at least don't see anything wrong with this, and that's a good thing, we should definitely AGF of them; and yes, we're getting a lot of good content. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be explaining the issue to the editors, especially the newer ones. It saddens me to see so many people sacrificing what I believe are core principles for the sake of articles. I am sure these editors would happily volunteer to write for the sake of it, that's what we all do here, because we love the project. The issue isn't them, it's the whole affair and it's relationship to a tourism board. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That's it in a nutshell. --JN466 12:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is over two years since I raised the GLAM program on the conflicts of interest noticeboard. The response we received then is worth rereading now. My experience as a participant in several of these events is that articles such as the Hoxne Hoard and Tipu's Tiger have benefited from the involvement of museum curators (declaration - I've had free lunches in the British museum canteen, and there are some train fares that I'm entitled to claim from the UK chapter). The important thing is to keep the focus on the collection and not the institution, and to make sure that the dialogue is with the museum curators not the marketing department. Wikipedia benefits from involving experts in this way. Where I suspect that the GLAM program needs a reminder is only to offer non-trivial intangible, academic or trivial prizes, and to be strict about keeping the focus on the collection and access to the experts and not to drift into promoting the institution. We shouldn't be having a problem about this, at least in London the limiting factor is Wikipedians who want to get involved in GLAM activities, not museums who are prepared to work with us. But I would dispute Jayen466's point "The reason an "organisation or interest group" participates in such a scheme is pure self-interest, and the prospect of free exposure in Wikipedia". My experience of the curators that I've met is that they take very seriously their professional duty to make their collection available to the world. Of course we need to steer clear of the museum marketing departments, but the professional aims of the best curators are fully compatible with ours. ϢereSpielChequers 13:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Writing articles about the content parallels the complaint here. If I know a museum has a lot of good artifacts, I'm more likely to want to go there (British Museums are generally free, but I usually donate a couple quid). By having neutral, well written articles on the collection, you're still promoting the Museum. The question is whether that intrinsic promotion is a bad thing. I'll suggest it's not, and since it's unavoidable anyways, it's not worth losing sleep over. But clearly not everyone agrees. WilyD 13:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to those old discussions (I also read the one about the Hoxne hoard on Iridescent's talk page, and rather liked Iridescent's argumentation). FWIW, I agree with much of what you said then, and are saying now; and the distinction between the collection and the institution, and curators and marketing departments, is key. Question though: what do you mean when you say the GLAM programme should only offer non-trivial prizes? JN466 16:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for striking that; it makes more sense now. I agree that prizes should be symbolic rather than monetary. The key problem is that Wikimedia UK, or some people within WMUK, have been marketing Wikipedia as a marketing tool, as per the presentation posted on Jimbo's talk. Hence the articles that appeared in the Gibraltarian press, about a new way to market the Rock, and marketing Gibraltar as a tourism product through Wikipedia, etc. It's not wise to do that: not to governments, not to museums. JN466 17:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not wild about paid consultancy gigs for Wikipedians or anything like that and have found some of the issues raised recently quite concerning. But let me explain how the GLAM thing has worked for me. Recently, I went to the British Library on a Monday afternoon (what can I say, working from home has some flexibility). In return for a cup of coffee (I don't drink coffee) and a tour around an exhibition I would probably have gone to view anyway, I created three minor stubs: National Reports Collection, Luis López Domínguez and Eric Millar. A scholar on illuminated manuscripts, an Argentine political writer and an institutional collection of corporate reports. I'm now obviously a soiled whore, a paid lackey of Big Libraries; no better than an industry-funded lobbyist. Next I'll be telling you that smoking doesn't really cause cancer. People working with GLAM institutions are trying to find a way to actually improve Wikipedia: increase the quality and depth of content, fight against systemic bias and generally "make the Internet suck less". That we've reached a state where we're getting very close to conflating the odd free sandwich or train fare subsidy given to good faith community members by non-profit or state-owned cultural institutions with letting the doors open for marketing men to take over the 'pedia shows that our community is completely unprepared to have reasonable and sane conversations about what actually counts as COI.

Certainly with a body like the British Library or the Smithsonian or the National Archives, there's a pretty admirable overlap in our missions. We need to make sure we don't jump into ill-advised collaborations, but I don't see any particular reason why chapters or individuals shouldn't be working with cultural institutions in a mutually beneficial way to support the kind of grand mission we're all supposed to be here for: sharing knowledge. When Wikipedia doesn't work with traditional sources of knowledge, we're just a bunch of unreliable, often anonymous Randy in Boise types; when we do, we suddenly morph into evil paid lackeys of... museums? Sorry – not buying it. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is certainly nothing wrong with that, and suggesting the editors and institutions involved might be purely self-serving is unfair. The content improvements are great to see. What would be worth doing is exploring a "best practices" guide for editors and institutions entering into this sort of situation; things to do (or not), sensible aims and so on. --Errant (chat!) 13:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:GLAM getting started. Zzzzzzz! Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I went to some of Backstage Pass tours of museums in New York and DC. I do not recall any free lunches but I confess that I sample their free chocolate and I grab some free National Archive tattoos for my kids. Those extravagant gifts did not sway my decisions of scanning few dozen NARA prints and adding them to articles like Daniel N. Morgan, etc. I also have to confess of helping with the upload of 18 thousand images donated by Walters Art Museum. I did not receive my lunch yet, but a secret cabal with surely sinister "cultural partnerships" agenda added the images to 1632 articles on few dozens wikipedias. I apologize for my inexcusable behavior, and hope that it will not cause "Wikipedia's credibility (such as it is)" to be "lost forever". --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
@Errant. If you think there should be a best practices guide for GLAM then you might want to check out the "Best Practices" tab at GLAM on the Outreach wiki. Last time I looked it wasn't too far from the COI advice we got in 2010 that I referenced earlier in this thread. But if you have any concerns, that would be the place to raise them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow are we getting off-topic. This entire section is rather off-topic. Also, could we please all remain civil? Getting your hackles raised up (everyone, me included) is not really promoting open dialogue. Which would be nice. Even if the open dialogue consists of: "I think you're wrong, this is a good thing. Please let me know why you think otherwise. Like here, only in a more appropriate setting if multiple people want to discuss the issue. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't be daft, Tom. No one is suggesting you are a whore and a lackey for writing those stubs. That's good stuff. JN466 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
No, but you seem to be saying that if someone wants to get "points" for writing Crime in Gibraltar, Corruption in Gibraltar, Racism in Gibraltar, or other "promotional" subjects about Gibraltar—or maybe expanding articles about the many historically important buildings, battles, or people—then they would be just lackeys of the state, because Gibraltar officially supports the idea of people writing whatever they want about the city in Wikipedia, which makes us a thoroughly compromised advertising venue.
I think the Slate writer is being deliberately provocative (saying that the sky's going to fall sells well) and that you're over-reacting. If we could get a hundred cities to inspire new editors with as little cost to us as them sending out a few T-shirts or a meal, then we should do it ASAP. The only restrictions that we need to worry about are making sure that they're not deliberately and overtly pushing a POV. If they accept "Ethnic strife in ____" on the same terms that they accept "Environmental protection in ____", then that's really all we need to worry about.
Do you know what's missing from this long discussion? Any actual diffs of someone whitewashing an article. I assume that this absence means that it's not happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I notice that all the three in your top line are redlinks, and I doubt if any of GibraltarPedia's new recruits will be hurrying to write them or to nominate them for DYK. You can get bias (of the WP:UNDUE kind) without whitewashing, e.g. by setting up a joint project with a marketing organization like a tourist board to recruit new contributors specifically to write about tourist attractions. It's a fuzzy area: if the tourist board did that off their own bat it would be hard to object, though there would be COI concerns. It's when it is presented as a joint venture with Wikipedia that it becomes worrying - the outside world doesn't distinguish between Wikipedia, the WMF, and WMF-UK. "Here's a way to do cheap marketing: pay some money in the right place and Wikipedia will come and help boost your tourism!" is the unfortunate message that seems to be getting out. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
If the tourist board did all this themselves, we'd have people pitching a fit over at WP:COIN because the tourist board's employees are getting paid to promote the city.
We don't require a neutral encyclopedia. We require individual, separate articles to be neutral. You can write all the articles you want on either "positive" or "negative topics, so long as those individual articles themselves are NPOV.
I agree that it is undesirable for anyone to believe that this is an official English-Wikipedia-sponsored project, but I've got no problem with it being an official City-of-Gibraltar-sponsored project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with JohnCD. This is not about whitewashing articles, but about providing exposure. I am sure you are familiar with the concept of product placement. Brands pay money just to have their brand shown on the screen, or to have their name in the news. This is what we are doing for Gibraltar. Hell, just because you demanded diffs of whitewashing – which is not actually what the substance of the complaint is about, but which would make things even worse – I've been looking at the Gibraltar DYKs this morning, found a statement that was not in the cited source, did an hour's research, and now know that there are interesting Neanderthal caves in Gibraltar, and that Neanderthals lasted longer in Gibraltar than any other known place in the world ... it's working. :) There are probably just as interesting archaeological and palaeontological digs, or other features of interest, 100 miles up or down the Spanish coast, but the Gibraltarian ones are the ones I now know about. And an image caption in the article has a helpful link to Gibraltarpedia. It's all about exposure. JN466 12:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with editors getting free nick-nacks in exchange for creating or improving articles, what I have a problem with are the efforts to flood DKY and to promote themselves ahead of others.\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think most Wikipedians eat lunch every day, and very few reveal who paid for it. As long as it is allowed to edit anonymously, we can't blame those who are honest enough to declare openly that they are paid editors. The only result would be to drive them into anonymity.
If an article cites a book or a museum as a reference, that is a promotion of it as a source for more information, which is a good thing. It helps the curious to find the information they are looking for.
It is also important that we have good articles about books, journals, news media, and cultural institutions, so readers can evaluate the cited references. --LA2 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Museums are about sharing knowledge, so is wikipedia. It makes sense that we collaborate, and if one or the other buys someone a sandwich, I can live with that; it is self evidently not a conflict of interest if you are writing about some of the subjects of the museum. It's a completely separate issue from paid editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The average PR agency budget is about $7-$20k a month. The PR professional on the corporate side is paid an annual salary of $60-$100k a year. When their boss or client has a Wikipedia problem they want fixed, this can lead to an entire corporate bureaucracy leaning down on someone to figure out a solution to the negative content on their page. I think when we start talking about COI from a free lunch or chocolate, we've missed the boat when you put things in perspective. Am I wrong? Corporate Minion 01:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK has always been a spam fest. Some do it because they like obscure flora or fauna. Others do it to promote reams of nationalist books. (Yes, WP:BK is lame enough that one can have an article on almost any book.) It's now done to promote tourist attractions in a certain country. The only thing unusual about this event was the timing. Funny exchange:[3]

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just found this amusing DYK from Jan 2011 "... that Saudi Arabian officials detained a vulture (example pictured) and accused it of spying for Israel?" No spam there. Extremely neutral and aiming to improve the sump of all human knowledge. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for a pre-approval process for joint projects like this[edit]

See WP:VPR#Pre-approval of collaborations. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why two projects[edit]

Why do we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar and Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA? It makes a page like Talk:Flat Bastion Road look rather bizarre, and it seems pointless to have two projects for the exact same group of articles. Fram (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe one is for editors who know how to monetize their edits and the other one is for the dummies who contribute freely? The better question is: why are so many pages on Wikipedia advertising a domain name not owned by WMF but by a for-profit consultancy [4]? There is intellectual property and monetary value in domain names, you know... Tijfo098 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Gibmetal77, one of the driving forces behind Gibraltarpedia, was recently adding DYKs to the wikiproject page, so they were certainly aware of its existence. According to this edit by Victuallers, Wikiproject Gibraltar is included in the scope of Gibraltarpedia. This seems similar to the use of separate Monmouthpedia pages rather than using the existing Wales wikiproject. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
But the scope of Monmouthpedia and the Wales Wikiproject are not exactly the same. There is no difference in scope in this case though. Fram (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
That's completely incorrect. Have you read Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA? It clearly states, "The area of interest includes the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Spanish municipalities along the coast of the Bay of Gibraltar, the northernmost coast of Morocco and Ceuta." That is far wider than WikiProject Gibraltar, with which I've been involved for a long time. Gibraltarpedia incorporates content from at least three different WikiProjects (Gibraltar, Morocco and Spain). Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, given the recent negative press coverage, any Gibraltarpedia templates on talk pages should be replaced by the more standard Wikiproject Gibraltar template (or removed if there is already a Wikiproject Gibraltar template present)? I am bothered by the large external URL on the template and I am sure that I am not alone in that feeling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I would support this. Fram (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted a prominent notice at WikiPoject Gibraltar that was obviously intended to funnel the contributors to the "right" WikiProject [5]. I've also taken the spammy template to TfD. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need to do that. The two are not the same. And it's not an external URL, it's merely a redirect to Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA. It's deeply misleading to describe it as "an external URL" since it's not going to any external destination. Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Prioryman, your revert and edit summary seems awfully close to exerting page ownership. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
WikiProjects are one a the few types of Wikipedia pages that are effectively WP:OWNED by their participants, so don't necessarily object to that. But I object to the indiscriminate spamming of article talk pages. Look at Talk:Cylindrophyllum comptonii. According to the article, that grows in South Africa. But then someone decided that somehow covers the whole planet and they can spam any article with their branding and advertisement campaign. That is not okay with me. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Nobody owns any page, period. Prioryman explicitly explained his revert through edit summary that it's made because Tijfo098 is not a project participant, then Prioryman is reinforcing the fact that project participants own the page. Since this is an open project which anyone can join or leave at any time, it's even more bizarre that Prioryman could exhibit such a clear approach to exert claims that an non-project participant cannot edit the page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
WikiProjects are groups of people, not pages or subject areas. It's pretty much nonsensical for one group of people to say that the other group of people is "within their scope". It is perfectly acceptable for all the articles that are within Group #1's scope to also be within Group #2's scope (e.g., all of the articles supported by the folks at WikiProject Alaska could also be supported by the folks at WikiProject United States), but the groups of people themselves (the WikiProjects) shouldn't be within anyone's scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA has now been started. The input of previously uninvolved editors could help to get a detached and more objective viewpoint here, but everyone is of course welcome to give their opinion. Fram (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What to do with an obvious sockpuppet but unknown puppetmaster?[edit]

I've come across a very obvious sockpuppet which I believe is very likely to be that of a banned user; however, I don't know which specific banned user it is. What is the best way to proceed? Prioryman (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

do nothing. you can't just throw accusations around. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd send it to SPI. Sure, you don't know the puppetmaster, but the clerks can sort it out once the checkusers act. Not commenting on the merits of the sockpuppet theory here as no evidence has been presented. --Rschen7754 08:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
CUs will tell you that CUs aren't for fishing expeditions. Volunteer Marek  08:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, then yeah, it's a really obvious sockpuppet. And if it's a sockpuppet of who I think it is, all the links are gonna be stale even if you had actual provable suspicions it was them. Though I would say have a CU make sure they're not running through a proxy. Because that would be an immediate reason to ban them, sockpuppet or not. Might get lucky. SilverserenC 08:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. If the IP geolocates to California, this would be entirely consistent with previous locations. Ankh.Morpork 11:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, what exactly has this devious scoundrel done to earn your ire? --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And here's the sockpuppet himself - I invite others to review his contibutions (KlickitatGlacier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) which show that he is clearly (1) not a new user and (2) clearly involved with Wikipediocracy (note in particular this edit here at the start of the Gibraltarpedia controversy). I believe this is likely to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Vigilant. KlickitatGlacier has not at any point denied that he is a sockpuppet, though I've challenged him repeatedly. Prioryman (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it's an undisclosed clean start? Cla68 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I note that this Vigilant sockpuppet also demonstrated involvement with Wikipediocracy. Ankh.Morpork 11:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Such accusations belong at WP:SPI, not here. —Kerfuffler  scratch
11:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Prioryman, I'm not User:Vigilant. You're clearly on a fishing expedition. You want me banned because I'm asking inconvenient questions about the yet another WMUK embarrassment. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, "(1) not a new user and (2) clearly involved with Wikipediocracy" is probably a not a small set of editors (only because Wikipediocracy gets thrown around so often around here, I don't have an account there to check myself). You don't say why you think he "is likely to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Vigilant" in particular. You'll have to disclose this information at WP:SPI and/or show that KlickitatGlacier is disruptive. The latter would probably allow a block regardless of whether sockpuppetry can be proved. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Policy and long-standing precedent explicitly forbid the use of alternate accounts in projectspace. This is obviously an alternate account. Can someone explain why this account should be permitted to contribute to project-level discussions in violation of policy? MastCell Talk 17:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • How can we tell the difference between an "alternative account" and a "clean start" account (mentioned above)? And the project space policy is not absolute "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections." The only potential violation I found is [6], which indeed might give a hint that he could be trolling. (But note that Newyorkbrad was being sarcastic too!) Other than that he edited the GLAM wikiproject and WP:AN (duh), neither of which is even discouraged from doing with an alt account. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas or disputes, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny" (emphasis mine).

        So bottom line, if KlickitatGlacier continues editing projectspace, they likely will be blocked by myself or others. NW (Talk) 18:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, NW, what good does blocking me do? --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you insinuating that you'll just create a new account or were you just referring to your edit history? SilverserenC 20:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at his GLAM edits more closely, it appears KlickitatGlacier went [7] there to stir trouble. I would support topic banning him from anything WMF-UK related anywhere on Wikipedia. By the way, based on his edits before this controversy, KlickitatGlacier has a bit of expertise in rocket engines. Does that ring a bell to those familiar with various banned editors? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. He wasn't site-banned but was topic-banned. He left in a huff surrounding community sanctions in late August 2010 as "Retired". He received a specific AN sanction that forbids him from using any undisclosed accounts after he exhausted the community's patience. Diff with sanctions ==> User:Wolfkeeper.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • When he last visited ANI, this editor attempted to have Indeffed an English user on the basis of his Obvious-Sock-Is-Obvious observations about a poster in a Wikipediocracy thread. It was subsequently demonstrated through circumstantial evidence that the guy he wanted banned off was a Joe Job that used American English. No apology from the purge instigator, User:Prioryman. Now he's back with more Obvious-Sock-Is-Obvious dramamongering. Time to topic-ban this partisan from ANI. Carrite (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper re-opened. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, if it's a sockpuppet of Wolfkeeper/Rememberway, then it is not only violating the community restriction but plainly evading and indef block because Rememberway was unblocked after a discussion and then reblocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. [8] Tijfo098 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow! First I'm Vigilant, then I go backpacking to two days and now I'm Wolfkeeper? Jeeze people, get a grip. I'm not Wolfkeeper, nor Vigilant, and this is a fishing expedition. All I did was ask some questions about WMUK. Apparently they were 'uncomfortable' questions, and now Prioryman wants me banned. He should be ashamed of himself. With all these news stories coming out around the world maybe some of you honest admins might want to ask a few questions too. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Every time you comment, you sound more and more like the sock of someone. There is absolutely no doubt that you're someone's sock and not a new user. SilverserenC 00:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Blocked indef. NW (Talk) 00:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
KlickitatGlacier, we hardly knew ye. You lived your wikilife like a falling star, blazing a bright path across the Wikipedia firmament, then suddenly extinguished, leaving us all in darkness. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It's his own fault for revisiting old disputes. At least Prioryman has followed the rules and engaged in a seemingly endless series of all-new disputes... Franamax (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
So the moral of this story is that its ok to be a douchebag as long as one is a douchebag in an entirely new direction, unrelated to any and all prior douchebaggery. We need to write down all these unwritten rules. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
And add "douche bag" to the growing list of incivilities that one can get away with using because they aren't, apparently, uncivil enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Tarc, all editors are equal. Some are just more equal than others. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Four legs good, two legs not so bad? Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, now it's written down. :-) Baseball complained at AIV that someone called him a douchebag in an edit summary. Two admins (I and one other before me) said that wasn't vandalism - not that there's no remedy for it, just essentially that it didn't belong at AIV. Fortunately for BB, a third admin said they'd block the editor if they did it again (the editor had been warned after the comment). BB said we'd be hearing from him if the editor made another personal attack. So, perhaps someone should enhance the current essay and address all these salient points. If you do, make sure you sort out whether it's "douchebag" or "douche bag". In our article, we spell it as two words, but in the essay it's spelled as one (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notification[edit]

Template_talk:Non-free_Crown_copyright#Request_to_reword_template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2[edit]

By a vote of 9-0, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 21:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Is this now considered acceptable from an administrator?[edit]

Bring it to ArbCom? Why? Been there, done that -- wasn't particularly useful. Nobody Ent 02:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Because here is certainly no better and if you bring the case there you can amuse yourself by making arbs take a stand on a contentious issue with an election coming up.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

do all agree that user Demiurge1000 is "scum", "sleaze boy" and "pathetic, anonymous worm"?[edit]

Everyone needs to tone down the language, the accusations, and the general vitriol - I'm not averse to blocking everyone in an argument when it degenerates to this extent. If Bali ultimate hadnt knocked off at 1.30 I'd have started with him, and I still will if he returns in the same style. Or if anyone else wants to be first.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:58, 30 September 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.

[9] If not, why the user who attacked Demiurge1000 is not blocked yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Considering this, the above, and virtually every other post at any of these noticeboards, perhaps it is time to have a serious discussion about making WP:NPA a zero-tolerance issue, exempt from the preventative not punitive mandate. (To a logical extent, no blocks for issues 3 weeks old) Ryan Vesey 00:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could adopt a rule that if someone is found to have made public attacks or incivil comments, they have to adopt the use of parliamentary language for a specified period of time, and if they fail to adhere to that standard, they get a 1 week block. Just offering an idea. -- Avanu (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not all, but I'm sure some do? :)
Insults like "sleaze boy" are something I've never ever seen or heard outside of The A-Team. Thus it is very hard for me to take such an insult seriously, or be offended by it.
It may offend others; it may contribute to lowering the tone of the discussion in question, and of Jimbo's talk page in general. But, the discussion wasn't exactly achieving a stellar level of constructiveness (some might think the entire thread served no purpose right from its start), and indeed Jimbo's talk page does see such threads quite often.
Another thing that makes it hard to take such insults seriously is that I predicted that the editor concerned would start calling me names, and he duly did so. His inability to answer the questions that I put to him, meant his collapse into ad hominem was pretty much inevitable. Hence I think the name-calling, pathetic though it was, was a result of frustration on the part of that editor, and probably not a matter for immediate action if it hasn't been an ongoing pattern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Sleaze boy suggested a named person was interested in slitting people's throats because someone else made a highly inappropriate comment at a website the named person frequents. I called sleaze boy on it. Sleaze boy then suggested I (also a named person) was interested in slitting people's throats because I also post on the website that the inappropriate comment was made. "Demiurge1000" (aka "sleaze-boy," I'm trying to be kind) has accused me of being a would be murderer based on the fact that I use the internet. And now this pathetic worm wants me "blocked" for refusing to treat that as acceptable. Have fun sorting the ethics of this out. Let's start by knowing his full name. That seems like a fair starting point. Dan Murphy (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
You are aware that this thread was not started by Demiurge1000. I see no evidence that he was calling for you to be blocked. AutomaticStrikeout 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it was started by some anon IP. And Demiurge held off for awhile with calling for a block, and only came back a bit later with the whole faux-sorrow routine of "I wasn't going to ask for a block but now I unfortunetly see it's part of a pattern so it pains me, it really really pains me, to ask for a block". He's been around, but so have I and I have seen this kind of back handed hypocritical "I'm gonna pretend it really hurts me to do it" block shopping too often too count. Volunteer Marek  01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I've never suggested a "named person" was interested in slitting people's throats, nor have I suggested that you were likely to do so either. Nor have I suggested that you should have been blocked for your puerile comments that were obviously made in frustration - in fact I suggested the opposite (read my comment above a little more carefully).
However, now that I look more closely, I see that you're also busy accusing other editors of being liars, today, and that you follow up your ridiculous behaviour with more of the same in this thread, and that you also have a block log for similar behaviour in the past. So yes, there does indeed seem to be an ongoing pattern here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Demiurge1000, your comments were, let's say "purposefully inaccurate", "intentionally untrue", "not accidentally false", "deliberately misleading", "calculatedly erroneous". You basically implied that someone made a nasty threat when such a person did no such thing. When Dan called you on it, you began insinuating similar odious things about him.
I dunno. Maybe that's not "sleazy". Maybe it's not a "lie". But one thing it clearly is is a very passive aggressive way of pissing others off and provoking them, seemingly on purpose. And then trying to weasel out a sanction out of that successful provocation in a venue like this. Volunteer Marek  01:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I "basically implied" no such thing. If you're going to accuse me of lying (as Bali ultimate, now signing as "Dan Murphy", seems delighted to do to other editors right now), then you're going to have to back that up. Further, as for "trying to weasel out a sanction out of that", I didn't start this thread; and my first reaction to this thread (before seeing Bali ultimate's similar behaviour today towards other editors, and his block log for the same behaviour in the past), was to suggest that a block was not necessary. Trying to twist things to pretend otherwise, does you little credit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Some guy emailed me to point out that the "sleaze boy" and "anonymous coward" taunts towards me, and the calling another editor a liar (diff above), are all part of a pattern of similar stuff by Bali ultimate over the last few days, including "You're just another anonymous shit-heel using Wikipedia (since it ranks high in google searches) to spread hate.". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
You want me to back it up? Sure no problem. You said: "The Saruman comparison might be a little over-dramatic, but then again, "Peter Damian" and friends are prone to being excessively dramatic themselves. "It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats" isn't the sort of thing I've ever seen anyone in authority on Wikipedia get away with saying. The throats in question are those of certain Wikipedia editors."
Now, of course you damn well knew when you wrote that "Peter Damian" did not write the sentence you included right after mentioning him. Sure, you didn't explicitly state "Peter Damian said that he wanted to slit people's throats" - it'd be too easy to disprove that - but the way you structured your claim, first by mentioning Peter Damian, then by stating he is "excessively dramatic" and THEN quoting a statement he did NOT make, very clearly insinuates that the person you are discussing made that sentence. Which he did not.
Like I said, yes, it wasn't a 100% lie. Those are easy to disprove. But it was a ... "deliberate inaccuracy".
Maybe this kind of behavior isn't "sleazy". Maybe it isn't a "lie". But it sure as hey isn't decent. Volunteer Marek  01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, you are not editing under your real name, which means that "You're just another anonymous shit-heel" and "anonymous worm" was said about you too. Peter Damian used socks to edit Wikipedia, which means that " You're also probably a "sock-puppet" though I don't give a shit about that kind of stuff (though I have no respect for the asshats that do it to avoid scrutiny)" was said about him too. And now this edit summary: "run along sleaze and accuse some other victim of being a murderer behind your veil of "anonymity"". Dan Murphy is an enormous net negative to the project.
  • This is exactly why I recently removed Jimbo's talk page from my watchlist and stopped commenting on anything there. And don't see this thread going anywhere either. It's Saturday night, shut off the computer, go have a drink, and forget about it. That's what I will be doing right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is an obviously-logged-out and/or blocked user being allowed to troll WP:AN? There is nothing productive coming from this IP at all. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And, yes, Beeblebrox and Tarc, according to Dan Murphy you are "anonymous shit-heels" and "anonymous worms" too.
  • I do not agree that Demiurge1000 is a "scum", "sleaze boy" nor a "pathetic, anonymous worm". Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    As we all did. Thread should be closed and Murphy should be indeffed, along with any sockpuppets. Rcsprinter (gas) @ 09:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Other personal attacks by Dan Murphy[edit]

See here, here, here. It really doesn't matter who he's saying such things to, active editor, blocked editor, sockpuppet, ect. It's all inappropriate. SilverserenC 05:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Gimme a break. Volunteer Marek  14:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)