Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive664

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

Noticeboard archives


State (polity)[edit]

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.


Something strange seems to have happened to this article and in particular its new lede.[1] In addition the user who made the changes is currently replacing all links to Sovereign state with links to this article. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why was your first response to bring this to ANI? You could have just asked me on the article talk page or my personal talk page. The only thing "strange" that has happened with the article State (polity) is that I've removed an enormous amount of unsourced original research and begun replacing it with mainstream political theory backed by scholarly sources (the article still sucks and needs much more improvement, but I was working with a complete mess and it's much better now).
As far as changing links from Sovereign state to State (polity), I've done so wherever State (polity) was meant rather than Sovereign state. The latter is a term specifically related to international relations and sovereignity, while the former is the general political concept of a centralized political community under a government within a bounded territory. There is nothing "strange" about what I'm doing. What was strange was how many articles incorrectly linked to Sovereign state that had nothing to do with sovereign states, and were actually talking about the concept of "the State" in general.
It's completely false that I'm changing all links to sovereign state to State (polity). In fact, the vast majority of links I've come across in the "What Links Here" for Sovereign state, I've left as is. That is most of the links to sovereign state, I'm not changing. I've only changed those (generally ends up being about 1/10 links) that need to be changed. Anyhow, as I said, this isn't an ANI issue, and would have been better resolved on an article talk page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The replacements seem to be part of a disruptive editing spree. Jrtayloriv has made a huge number of edits in a short space of time. On some of the articles he has come across, where he cannot have had a chance to examine the articles and their sourcing, he has placed speedy delete tags. This is not the way wikipedia is edited. Even to those that do not edit in the area, the current difference between the anodyne and neutral Sovereign state and State (polity) is hard to explain. This is a concern for administrators because there is something clearly wrong regardless of content. Mathsci (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It is correct that this should have been attempted to be solved first through personal interaction. There can be no administrative action without that important first step - and administrators have no particular interest in simple editing disputes such as this - especially when they have not even been attempted to be resolved. Please assume good faith, discuss and interact - and if that faisl follow the dispute resolution process. Also looking at the history it seems clear that Jrtayloriv's edits have overall been an improveent to the article - nothing disruptive in rewriting and improving an article and disambiguating two senses of a word - that is called improving the encyclopedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I was just getting enormously pissed at this response to all the work I've put into improving the article and replacing hundreds of broken links, and I appreciate the acknowledgement. I realize that the article is incomplete, poorly written, and lacking important perspectives on many issues but it's certainly a major improvement from where it was before. Anyhow, I think this thread should be closed, and this discussion moved to the talk page, if there are still any perceived problems. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you read my response at all? I have made a huge number of edits in a short amount of time, because it takes about 20 seconds to read a sentence to determine which sense of the word "state" the article is using, copy/paste "[[State (polity)|state]]" if they are using that sense, and then move on to the next article. I've been doing this for hours today. There is not "a concern" for anyone, other than myself because of how tedious it is. If anything, I should be thanked for fixing a large-scale problem that cannot be fixed by a bot, but which is incredibly time-consuming and dull.
As far as articles for deletion, yes I've placed some of them, like the article Public (per WP:NOT a dictionary) up for deletion as I've come across them. There is nothing wrong with this either. If you don't agree with my deletion nominations, then vote against or if it's a PROD, remove the template. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a major mismatch between Jrtayloriv's lede and what can be read in the Encyclopedia Britannica under "state"; or even on the disambiguation page for state here on WP. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as the lead, that's Max Weber's definition of state, and is easily the most common definition of "state" used in modern political science. Again, I could have explained this to you, if you'd simply asked me about it on the talk page. Which is where you should take content discussions about that article, instead of ANI. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
These are content issues, take them to the talkpage please.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a clear content dispute; which should not have been brought here. Mathsci could well do with familiarisation with the domain of knowledge in question, in particular, the non-controversial hegemony of the Weberian concept in terms of states-as-polities, and, the concept's general commensurability with its chief interlocutor, the Marxist conception of the state as the organised armed force of one class against all others. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I couldn't possibly comment. This book, published by Routledge, by the political scientist Jan-Erik Lane starts from what the author lists as the wikipedia definitions of "polity" :) That article was listed for deletion this morning. My main concern was that changes were possibly happening too rapidly, that is all. Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) As far as the State (polity) article, I do value your opinion if you've got any suggestions. I'm always open to people improving my work through criticism. All that I was upset about is the way that you immediately came to ANI rather than trying to discuss it with me. As far as nominating the polity article for deletion, I can see that this might have been a mistake on my part. I do see how (after reading the source you just shared), one could write an article on the concept that wouldn't be essentially a dictionary article (which was my original concern). I'll note that in the AFD discussion. Anyhow, in the future, please just talk to me (or anyone else you're in a similar situation with) about content issues, before coming to ANI. Take care. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Beforethis one saying "you're on ANI," was there an edit to Jrtayloriv's talk page I missed? Because that's where this should have gone first, is all we're I'm saying. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This has been resolved satisfactorily with Jrt. I agree that red flags should probably have been raised on his talk page instead of here. On the other hand there are more eyes here and, as a result, the net effect has been positive. In particular Jrt has been extremely cooperative and receptive, after what seems to have been a very long (and tiring!) session of editing. Mathsci (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Proposal to community ban User:Vintagekits[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
withdrawn - No administrator intervention required Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In view of his being indef blocked and making three unsuccesful appplication to unblock, assuring the community he is not socking, while socking (sleepers likely). User_talk:Beeblebrox#Must_say_.... Kittybrewster 11:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support With sockpuppetry and personal attacks and repeated attempts to unblock, it is clearly obvious that this user cannot control his behaviour or patience. Minimac (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Kittybrewster, please strike this proposal. If a ban is to be made, it cannot have any credibility if it has been proposed by someone who VK regards as his main protagonist; this proposal coming from KB can only inflame tensions. I had my own run-ins with VK, so I will remain neutral on any substantive discussion (though I may ask questions, as at his unblock discussion), but I am appalled that someone who VK has identified as nemesis could possibly see anything productive coming from him being the source of a ban proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As you wish. Kittybrewster 14:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to community ban User:Kittybrewster[edit]

In view of Kittybrewster continuing his sectarian campaign against editors with whom he has personal differences, which is contrary to the communal and collegiate ethos of Wikipedia editing, and for which he had very recently been unblocked, I propose that he be banned per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Harassment - where he and Vintagekits are named parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What sectarian campaign? What editors? What recent unblock? Kittybrewster 12:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAICS, Kittybewster was last blocked in May 2009, for 72 hours, but the block was lifted after 13 hours. Is that recent? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Was he not unblocked, or something, at around the time of the ArbCom elections? I try and avoid these issues, but I am pretty sure that something happened at around that time - and am aware of the animosity (and the likely reasons for it) between Kb and Vk. This battleground mentality needs to be removed from WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
No he wasn't. Kittybrewster 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Since Kb has withdrawn his proposal, I shall do likewise. Vk remains indef blocked, and may only appeal his ban via ArbCom - no need for further community input. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring at Death panel[edit]

Would appreciate if an uninvolved could take a look at the actions of Hauskalainen (talk · contribs) at Death panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is under the scope of the Palin community probation. The editor has been reverting the edits of others on the page (disclosure, I made a single edit which was reverted). The user has been informed of the probation previously and I reminded them again today on their talk page, but the reverting has continued. Kelly hi! 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, I think you need to be more precise because as I have told you, ALL my edits are made because the article as it has been written has been pressing a POV in some very subtle ways. As an example I give the edit that I have just made that has now been reversed twice by other editors (or maybe a single editor, I am not sure, but it matters not very much). Some editor recently added a section to the article called RATIONING and has now added to subsections that section called NICE and IPAB which gives the impression that these two bodies are rationing bodies. Now it is true that we have some very opinionated people like Sarah Palin and David Gratzer who are prepared to claim that this is what they are. But this is just opinion. The IPAB has not even been appointed yet and NICE has been operating for years but it is most definitely not a rationing body. It is a body that for the most part makes clinical judgments. It also on occasion does make the same decisions as every insurance company does, as to whether some drug or other can be justified to appear in the NHS formulary. Every health insurer, public or private, has exactly the same process. There is a huge difference between "Rationing" (restricting for example food as in war-time Europe with coupons) because demand is higher than supply and normal purchasing decisions (weighing value for money benefits received against cost). The former is a way of ensuring fair shares and the second is just normal commercial decision making. You may not like it that your insurer (NHS or for example a commercial insurer such as UnitedHealth) has not included a drug you or your doctor thinks you want is not on the forumulary associated with your insurance policy, but that is NOT rationing. If you can add NICE to that list then you can just about add every insurance company in the world. Now I changed the heading from "NICE" to "Is NICE a rationing body?" so that I could add to the section some text which would refute the claim of Sarah Palin. I was similarly going to do the same with IPAB. That section already contains a refutation but I was going to add more. The simple fact is that listing NICE and IPAB under a section labelled rationing is POV. This is just one example of a case where I have tried to correct a POV position in the text only to have it thwarted.
I am not very happy that the Death Panels article was even created (Admins should check the log) as it is implicitly non neutral, but I am even less happy that this very unusual "Article Probation" has been slapped on a subject that is highly political, prone to POV pushing, and not particularly affected by BLP. Palin is politician and all politicians have to face up to the disinfection of daylight exposure. My SOLE intention at that article is to edit neutrally and create balance where it may not exist. It takes more than one person to edit war and I would argue that the other editors are also guilty of warring and that I should not be treated harshly if all my edits have been good faith ones.
I welcome any examination of my edits and especially those at the talk page for the article and those of other editors which I have used quite extensively and in a positive manner.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Hauskalainen is having some difficulty understanding WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. He is prepared to make a case at some length that the cited sources he is deleting have an incorrect view of the controversy. Other editors have tried to explain that it is not for us to judge whether the views presented are correct or incorrect, but only whether they have been published by a reliable source. Beyond that, the article is about a political controversy, so it is incumbent upon us to include both sides of the debate (provided that the sources are reliable,) and not only the side that an editor believes is the correct one. Delia Peabody (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, Hauskalainen feels that they know the truth about death panels and is determined that the article reflect that. Kelly hi! 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hauskalainen, I think your posting suffers from WP:TLDR. On the other hand, I think it is questionable to use op-ed material (possibly borderline in terms of RS anyway) to source asserted facts or to support phasing of the type "x has been referred to as y", and Hauskalainen is right to object to this. I don't see any evidence of anything disruptive (diffs please). --FormerIP (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
@FormerIP. Maybe. I am not known for brevity. I think the fundamental issue is that this article could, and perhaps should, be very short. (1) Palin made the "death panels" statement, (2) Nobody could find anything resembling the death panel she spoke about in the bill, (3) Palin accepts as much and then says she had assumed that as everyone (sic) was going to get health care there would have to be rationing (as if health care is not rationed in the US already). Some people think that if there is a free market in health care there is no rationing. This is nonsense of course, because rationing by price is a form of rationing. The issue used to be well covered in the article Health care rationing in the United States - I've not checked it lately, but there is more than enough evidence that many people in the US want to get away from rationing based on affordability to rationing based on something more humane. In any health care system there is always unsatisfied demand. Where I have got active lately in this article is the accusation it makes that there is rationing in England for example and no rationing in the US though it might be coming. That is using Wikipedia for politiking and it needs to stop. This politicking began with the rationing section and its new subsections, which seek to consolidate the (IMHO) ridiculous notion that rationing only happens in places like England. The idea that a limited fund has to have rules about how it is spent is the same in the NHS as it is in every insurance company in the US. Without some estimate of value for money all the money could be spent in the wink of an eye on some hair brain idea with little or no payback. Most of us do not call this "rationing" but setting a "value for money" judgment just as every homekeeper has a budget for the evening meal, going over or under, but keeping to an average that is right for that family. ´Most of us do NOT call it rationing, but some economists like Peter Singer and Uwe Reinhardt are bold faced enough to do so to force the issue. See for example this. All I know is that the people who are opposing my edits want to keep people thinking that health care "rationing" is something that only happens in England. Whether you call it rationing or something else, health care spending is restricted. The only issue is how it is done. And yeah, sorry, I didn't find a shorter way to say it. But I am NOT a disruptive editor.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The above is an example of the problem. It's an article about a subjective political polemicism and a variety of RS's have a variety of interpretations. But this editor feels that he knows which interpretation is "true" and repeatedly discards viewpoints that don't agree with that viewpoint, despite repeated requests for discussion. Kelly hi! 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that Hauskalainen has had previous issues with editors and if his/her edits don't start being constructive, then a community discussion will need to take place to place editing restrictions on topics. Hauskalainen, PLEASE read WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because you feel a certain way about something doesn't mean that you can take action on it within an article. This is a community, we Collaborate. If you want something changed, and you change it, you're pushing your point of view, and that's not netural. We are an Encyclopedia, therefore we must remain neutral and present the facts as they are. Take discussions to the talk page for consensus, and if it can't be reached, bring it here to this noticeboard or ask for a third opinion. Don't take action yourself, or you will be blocked for edit warring or violating 3RR. If you want help, I am currently adopting, but realize I will make sure you are blocked if you don't stop this nonsense. I'm here to help, as are everyone else. But attacking people will not get things changedDusti*poke* 20:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want to draw attention to this too: [2]. [stwalkerster|talk] 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can everybody involved here please separate themselves from each other and the topic for a while? I think a whole bunch of people are getting caught up in launching accusations at each other, and we cannot have that. –MuZemike 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2010[edit]

Resolved: Deleted by MuZemike (talk · contribs). Thanks! GiantSnowman 20:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin please have a look at this category, it's been nominated for Speedy deletion for over 2 days now! Thanks, GiantSnowman 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


User:Mts16talk is repeatedly making improperly sourced allegations in an attempt to right a perceived wrong, that a musician has been cheated in some way - please see Special:Contributions/Mts16talk. Has only sourced it to Facebook, YouTube and blogspot, and is not listening to those reverting the changes - has been doing this for a couple of weeks now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning for this user. If they edit again, please report them to WP:AIV for vandalism after a final warning. Dusti*poke* 20:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks - I hadn't thought it ready for AIV yet with only a couple of warnings, and it was more soap-boxing than vandalism, but I'll do that if they continue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats on Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano (businessman)[edit]

Legal threats from an IP editor. [3] The IP is still happily posting away with more within the last hour, I suggest someone blocks it. (Although I'm sure it'll come back with a new IP.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for six months as it seems to have been used by the same person since February. Anyone may unblock, of course, if the threat is retracted and he promises to cooperate in constructive discussion, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Incident prior to discussion: relates to appeal and request for further attention[edit]

Have reverted the deletion of the 'will any editor look at this' item twice (see history of this page). User doesn't appear a random vandal (?though may be a troll?) unclear why the block, previous users willing to see further discussion despite WP:RBI. User seems ?overly-? frustrated by one user in particular, but why the block? Has the content been looked at? If user has been blocked then would any attempt to appeal block fail under WP:RBI? Can we leave it around for at least a few more minutes so other users can at least see this? Deletions of point being made without reason in edit reason field. Sorry, pretty new to ANI in particular, so, but thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK QUACK The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, let's AGF here before we start launching sock allegations at others. –MuZemike 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
redacted for now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
@User:BrekekekexKoaxKoax, see User talk:Wm5200 its quite enlightening. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Think, from User talk:Wm5200, most apposite points are (1) user not helping himself (2) user may possibly have at least some grounds for feeling wronged (3) content under discussion (death of Hitler). BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, MuzeMike has taken the opportunity to examine if this is another sock or not. If he hasn't, MuzeMike should take this as a formal request that he run a checkuser to determine if this is a sock.
As for the issue at hand, it doesn't matter whether the IP has been wronged. It doesn't matter if his material was worth looking at. He was evading a block. If he wants unblocked, there are procedures to request an unblock by mail. Until he succeeds at that, all of his edits will be reverted.—Kww(talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We have ourselves a veritable WikiManning - simply passing the relevant information through the wrong channels... Guess the user was told about appeal process at time of block? Thanks for the policy pointers, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the "QUACK" comments and the question of if that's a helpful way to progress discussion... There are some interesting and alarming accusations that may be found via the deleted comments.

  • I am trusting that bringing this up here is not considered further facilitating that outting, seeing as how they are admin only. If anyone disagrees, please blank this comment and/or delete this revision.
  • Having gone to the external site, I'm unable now to progress examining the accusations due to low-bandwidth right now, but...
  • Can someone else have a look and comment on if they think there is material there sufficient and appropiate for a check-user request?

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lakandula, Rajah of Tondo as an ancestor[edit]

Resolved: WP:BOOMERANG, article protected from both users for three days. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed that false statement (several times now) from José Rizal's article, done by IP address, because Austin Craig (or anyone else) EVER mentions Lakandula, Rajah of Tondo as an ancestor.

I have posted the reasons for doing so both at the Talk page of the article (Talk:José_Rizal and the Talk page of the user (User talk:, asking that if he had any references that prove that he actually mentioned Lakandula as an ancestor, to please include them in the article.

The user does not reply, but keeps changing the page and inserting that false statement, so I believe this user should be blocked.

Thank you --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You may want to request page protection or pursue dispute resolution before looking for a block. Unless you would like to be blocked as well since the two of you are clearly edit warring. There is no right in an edit war, all participants are wrong by definition. I've fully protected the article for a few days to stop the edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't start this so-called war. All I'm doing is protecting legitimate edits against anonymous edits that are inserting false (and proven false) claims into the article. In any case, I guess that the user behind that IP address, will be discouraged from further vandalizing attempts, so that's good enough for me, thank you. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats while edit-warring.[edit]

Resolved: User blocked. Brandon (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not one to run to AN/I or WQA every time somebody hurls an insult in a discussion or an edit summary. I have a pretty thick skin for such things. But I have zero tolerance for legal threats simply because they're toxic to the atmosphere here. Please see the following by Ebw343 (talkcontribs).

Thanks, --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you asked for an explanation, this reads like it might have been a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Ebw343 has just been blocked by John (talk · contribs)...GiantSnowman 20:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: I don't think Prodego was in any way attempting to force the issue, so there is no harm in holding the discussion without undoing his actions. I have added the WP:RM discussion to the talk page to start the process. Brandon (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Resolved: JHunterJ has reverted the move. It should be noted that Prodego's original move broke the talk page archives, having the effect of hiding previous debates. DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

An admin unilaterally moved Ubuntu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) today (or yesterday) to make the operating system the primary target, citing pageview stats. However, this has been discussed many times in the past, and consensus seems to be that the pages should be arranged the way they have been. Could an uninvolved admin take a look and see if the pages should be restored to status quo before a RM discussion, or if the RM discussion is required to restore the status quo? Since I've participated in the discussions before, I can't properly evaluate the question. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png Note: Discussion on this matter is currently ongoing at Talk:Ubuntu#Link_away_from_disambiguation. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I had moved the page, I was unaware that the question of the title had been debated before as it seemed so obvious based on the pageview stats (which is how I ended up looking at the page to begin with), that the OS was the primary definition the reader was looking for on Wikipedia. I have absolutely no objection to moving the page back, I just thought it would be easier to have the discussion first at this point, regardless of if the title might be the wrong title, since it would involve moving 3 pages and updating several double redirects. No reason to go through that twice (or three times) if we don't have to. Prodego talk 05:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you both have a point. There probably should have been a discussion, but Prodego has indicated they were unaware of the previous controversy, so we can chalk that up to a simple misunderstanding on that point. The last conversation from October had been collapsed so it was an easy thing to miss. Now that it is done, it's just as well to discuss it again before taking further action. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have linked to this discussion and the one on the Ubuntu talk page from Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Ubuntu. We do have a disambiguation wikiproject, and it would be good to get the opinions of editors with a lot of experience in the area. May I take this opportunity to remind admins that it won't kill them to seek out help before going ahead and making the universe perfect. DuncanHill (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
And for what it's worth - my opinion as a mere prole who has dabbed many thousands of links and in the process fixed numerous incorrect links to undabbed titles - the pages should be moved back first and an RM discussion held afterwards. DuncanHill (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content violations[edit]

I have nuked a section of Canadian Forces Land Force Command (removing all non-free content) for violation the non-free content policy specifically #3, #8, and WP:NFLISTS. Can someone please assist in giving the users in question who are insisting to violate policy a review of said policies? ΔT The only constant 14:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing content clearly contrary to our NFCC (as this is...) is explicitly exempt from the 3RR. Telling editors to play nice is all well and good, and assuming good faith is all well and good, but the point is that this content is contrary to policy, no matter who is edit warring over it. I get that enforcing the NFCC isn't particularly cool or exciting at the moment, but imagine if they were edit warring over negative, unsourced material about a living person? Would there be the same "play nice, shut up" attitude then? J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The exception applies only to "content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy", my emphasis. Since there is at least a fair use rationale on the images for this article, and I imagine that there are plausible arguments for the position that the use of rank insignia images in an article about the ranks of the Canadian Army is a valid use of non-free material, this exception does not apply. Whether these images may be used in this context or not (or whether very simple geometric constructions like File:Army sleeve LCol.png are even original enough to be copyrightable) is something that must be settled through discussion, not edit-warring. So, yes, "play nice, shut up" and blocking the edit warriors is the correct administrative approach. And in view of [4] the reimposition of the conditionally lifted community ban of Δ (previously Betacommand) may need to be considered.  Sandstein  19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Er, no. The images are already used in the main article on Canadian army insignia (which is a whacking great NFCC violation in itself). Have you seen how many non-free images there were on that article? One of the most obvious NFCC violations I've ever seen - a complete violation of NFCC#3a. Whether they've got rationales or not is irrelevant. If Beta is sanctioned for upholding a core Wikipedia policy we might as well all give up and go home now. Ridiculous. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This could be better handled by "Revert once and escalate to WP:MCQ" which is where ALL discussions regarding issues of this type should be handled. In general, you would be right, but in this one specific instance, Betacommand/Delta has shown to have lost the community's patience with regard to interacting with other users over this specific issue. It's only a specific problem with Betacommand/Delta and he could avoid problems merely by escalating or enlisting the help of others. Yes, NFCC is a thankless area to be working in, however there are avenues to getting help, and Betacommand could do well in enlisting the help of others rather than taking the "lone ranger" stance in this issue. Yes, his position on this appears to be in line with policy, but his tactics have, in the past, left much to be desired. --Jayron32 19:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
And I'll say it again. If he was removing obvious BLP violations, rather than obvious NFCC violations, would we even be having this conversation? Or would we be having it if it was me, J Milburn, Hammersoft or one of the other active NFCC enforcement editors? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Jayron, you say Beta/Delta should be "enlisting the help of others"- in posting here and elsewhere, that's exactly what he was doing. And he was told to "shut up and play nice". J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Sort of. He came here after multiple reverts and a warning template about breaking the 3RR rule. When faced with threatened sanctions, he begrudgingly escaleted to this (which is note, is the wrong board to deal with these issues, the right one is WP:MCQ.) I still note that a) Betacommand's position is substantively correct regarding the use of the gallery in that article and b) that Betacommand's behavior is in error in light of his prior sanctions and troubles in this area. One can be correct in opinion and wrong in behavior, it happens all the time around here. And I should note that, if a user WERE specifically sanctioned to avoid using multiple reverts to enforce the BLP policy, then yes, it would be handled the same way. Betacommand is not the average user in this case, he's a specific user with a specific history which includes specific prior sanctions. This isn't a general situation. Other users would probably not be questioned regarding multiple reverts in enforcement of NFCC. Betacommand is not "other users". The analogy to BLP is faulty in that it ignores the specific history regarding Betacommand's involvement in this area. --Jayron32 21:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
What, precisely, is this board for if not to request help in enforcing policy? (And I am not sure I agree with you that we should have different rules for different users, but there you go...) J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
We have sanctions and editing restrictions on editors all the time. It's pretty common when we have good and productive editors that just can't behave well in one context or another. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Except in this case they're behaving perfectly. They're removing part of an article that completely fails one of our core policies (to such an extent that there's even a 3RR exemption on it), and when they're reverted they ask for help from other editors experienced in the area. There may well be editors that need to be sanctioned here, but they definitely don't include Beta. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me explain this again. Beta's position on the removal of images was correct. Beta's coming to this noticeboard to ask for help is correct. Beta's edit-warring prior to coming here was in error, even if every other user is allowed to do so, because he has specific, community-consensus-derived sanctions which say that he (not anyone else, just he) cannot edit war about this. The 3RR exemption was removed specificly for Betacommand persuant to sanctions enacted. If we want to start a discussion to remove that restriction, fine. But until we do, it is in place. Furthermore, and I will make this as clear as I can, Betacommand is not going to be blocked, or anything else, right now. Telling him "Be careful of your already enacted sanctions, and take care in the future not to run astray of them, as it looks like you have here" does not amount to a block. It's just a reminder to pay heed. Insofar as he does, he can go about his business. No one has called for him to be blocked, or anything else. We're just reminding him (and apparently you) of his restrictions. That doesn't mean we think the images should remain in the article. That doesn't mean we don't appreciate him coming to ANI with this (though he should have done it sooner). It just means we want him to avoid running into the problems that got him banned before. --Jayron32 03:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a procedural note, those restrictions expired. ΔT The only constant 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
So it was. I misread the date. I stand corrected. Still, it would be best if the conditions that led to those restrictions in the first place did not repeat themselves. As I said, I fully support your position on the images and I thank you for escalating the issue to an appropriate venue. You're a good man, but it would be a shame to return to the "unpleasantness" of several years ago, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 03:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Aside - WP:NFCC and WP:BLP are not equivalent. WP:BLP is one of our very few 'brightline' policies. In the very unlikely event that an action under WP:NFCC lead to a WP:BLP violation, WP:BLP would take precedence. Our policies are not created equal. Exxolon (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Having looked over things, this is a NFCC problem, and Δ was probably right to remove them bearing that removing images that violate NFCC is not edit warring perhaps Pdfpdf was in the wrong here, however concerning Δ's reputation here this is a problem aswell, the only course of action being summed up is to let it be and for Delta to be a little more careful next time and go to the correct venue sooner--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I been hacking at making SVG files of the images, the ones for the navy are up at Canadian Forces ranks and insignia. A lot of the army insignia is the same kind as the navy, except a different color. I also avoided the text because we all know it belongs to Canada by virtue of the file and of the article title. I know that a lot of military insignia articles are hotbeds for NFCC issues, but many of the images are simple enough where copyright protection might not be possible. Just another angle to look at (and another solution). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thanks zscout but the pictures on that article are NFCC violations as well acording to black kite, they can not stay--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I been told that simple basic chevrons and basic shapes are PD. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion for ANI. Better off if you take it to NFCC or BLP talk pages, or even the Village Pump. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Interesting concept. I'd like to see exactly why that might be the case, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I remember being sent case law about simple designs and PD some time ago, right about the time the college logos were having another go around. I also remember about the PD-shape when dealing with military insignia from a particiular website at the Commons a year or so ago. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
      • No, I was referring to the above claim that BLP is somehow more important than NFC, which is clearly laughable. Some of the images on the relevant article may well be PD (not sure myself, I don't think they're simple enough) but that isn't the point - whilst they're tagged as non-free, they must be removed whilst they fail NFCC. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • NFC is as critical to the project as BLP. The Foundation's resolution has specific rules for dealing with inappropriate NFC (including removing inappropriate NFC in a timely manner). --MASEM (t) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Of course, for better or for worse, those enforcing the NFCC seem to be seen as the other at the moment, while all the good guys are out enforcing BLP. J Milburn (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The reason BLP is more important than NFCC is simple. NFCC violations have the potential only to hurt Wikipedia ITSELF. BLP violations can lead to lasting consequences for innocent 3rd parties. Hence BLP will ALWAYS be more important than NFCC. Exxolon (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
        • NFC violations can also harm external parties, financially at least, which is the reason for those rules. However, those are just objects, whereas BLP violations can cause real harm. Hence, they are both important, but BLP is more important. As for Beta/Delta, he apparently sees the expiration of his ban as license to go ahead and resume his old behavior. Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
          • We can argue about the relative value of our policies all we like. The point is that the NFCC are an important policy which could have legal ramifications, and are tied directly to our explicit goal of being a free encyclopedia. Whatever, they're still policy, it'd be nice if people could get some fricking help enforcing them, and not just abuse. Baseball Bugs, if by "resuming his old behaviour", you mean "enforcing the non-free content criteria", yes, he has- perhaps you'd like to congratulate him? Or help him? Or something useful? J Milburn (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
            • There are no legal ramifications. Wikipedia's rules are much stricter than fair use laws. Beta was put on probation for a reason. If he hasn't learned from that, then he'll eventually be put on probation again. Something useful, like become a deletionist? Ha. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Yes, our NFCC are deliberately stricter than fair use laws, but to claim that our use of content that belongs to others could not possibly have legal ramifications goes beyond the hilarious "what the hell?" into the tragic "who am I dealing with here?". I do not self-identity as deletionist (and who are you to sit there labelling me?) but if having some respect for the NFCC makes someone a deletionist, then we should be blocking "inclusionists". As for "useful", I was going to recommend writing or reviewing an article, but if you're terrified of our NFCC, perhaps the most useful thing you can do is go away. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
                • I'm not terrified of anything, let alone the deletionists here. I stopped uploading anything resembling fair use a long time ago. I just find it interesting that a guy gets put on probation for a year and learns nothing from it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I support Jayron's stance in this. While it's true that US Military work is considered PD-GOV (or something like that), I'm not sure if Canadian Miltary images follow the same proceedure. Certainly, they're not reproduceable and therefore * MIGHT * be able to be in the article, but for the moment, I support Jayron's suggestion of discussion. KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 13:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, are you suggesting Beta should have learnt to ignore the NFCC? I'm suggesting you're terrified of enforcing the NFCC; it's funny that you resort to namecalling with regards to anyone who actually has any respect for it. And KoshVorlon, these images are non-free, and their use is almost the epitome of NFC overuse. There's not much to discuss... J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You obviously are unaware of Beta's years-long battle over this subject which put him on the ban-list for a year; hence, you're right, there's not much to discuss. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple 'Empty Trend' User accounts[edit]

Many accounts of the form "Empty Trend nn" have been created, up to "15:08, 9 January 2011 Empty Trend 31". Not sure if it's a problem, but Empty Trend 1 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that all have been blocked as socks of Jacob Hnri 6 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
No. 31 Before I even had a chance to mention it too! Speedy Admins! :) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He is up to 37 of these accounts in less than 12 hours. I think he's using a bot of some sort, just as he uses bots to engage in vandalism. –MuZemike 19:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I will also say that this is the most prolific vandal and sockpuppeteer I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Within the past month, he has abused about 50 accounts, and 7 IP ranges have been blocked, so far. It's obvious that he is using bots to engage in vandalism and create additional abusive accounts. I don't know what else to do anymore. –MuZemike 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See ban proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_ban_proposal_for_Jacob_Hnri_6. - Burpelson AFB 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Eyes Please at Richard Winters[edit]

Resolved: Page temporarily semi-protected; hidden tags added suggesting references from reliable sources be added verifying his death

A report at This chat room says that he died last week, but there are no Reliable sources to back this up, dispite an internet search. This may take steam, and just wanted to give some heads up. We don't want a repeat of yesterdays Gabrielle Giffords problem with sources.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Added to Watchlist The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I would have seen it someone online if he did pass away (having read both the Band of Brothers book and Beyond Band of Brothers: The War Memoirs of Major Dick Winters). –MuZemike 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Damn it will some one Please Semi-Protect the page! the request as been sitting at WP:RFPP for an hour The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, he died "earlier this week after a long illness", though admittedly a blog isn't exactly an "official" source. I'll see if I can find something more official. HalfShadow 22:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, a couple of the accounts who are trying to add (unsourced) information about his death are autoconfirmed users. If anything, it should be full-protected until we know for sure. –MuZemike 22:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Did a quick search via Google News and no other news sources are showing that Major Winters has passed away. I will continue to look, but I agree with MuZemike, it should be full-protected until then. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Same here; just that one blog. HalfShadow 22:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
HS thats the same Chat room post we mentioned above The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's pretty much it for sources, then. I doubt they'd lie about it (it's a site honoring the guy, after all), but we have nothing official, which is what we need. HalfShadow 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added an edit notice and some hidden comments within the text where one might add the info. Hopefully that will help. I should have thought of it yesterday, but I guess one lives and learns!! Slp1 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The few references I've seen on Google all seem to point to a site called ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So in case some one wants to know what happened.... Major Winters passed on the Jan 2nd, he had requested a private and dignified death so his family could grieve. They managed to stave off the media frenzy and announced it late last night. The post in the chatroom was legitimate but was 7 hours ahead of any local sources reporting his death. This is probably a good case study for how well our system of Works. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Kidman Wheeler and ongoing disruptive editing[edit]

Single-purpose account Kidman Wheeler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) began editing the Maclean's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article on 23 December, inserting content regarding various "controversies" with unreliable sources and clearly non-neutral phrasing. Other editors and I began working to try to improve and pare the content to meet wp:rs, wp:npov, and wp:undue, almost all attempts of which were, at first, overwritten by User:Kidman Wheeler (unintentionally during editconflicts, I believe, as they made dozens of "live" sequential edits). The account later began reverting any and all revisions made by other editors, compounded by impressively pointy edits,[a], [b], [c], [d] resulting in a block for disruptive editing on 25 December, which they evaded. They were blocked again shortly after their initial block expired, on 28 December. They have since proceeded to reinsert their preferred content on three separate occasions, with their only posts to the article talk page being random diatribes accusing any editor that disagrees with them of being part of a conspiracy (among other gross, and ridiculous, assumptions of bad faith), culminating in this from a few minutes ago. User:SpikeToronto and I have both[a], [b] tried to persuade, cajole, and bribe User:Kidman Wheeler to familiarize themselves with our policies and assume good faith to no avail. Two blocks later, this person still is absolutely unwilling to collaborate with editors who he views as orchestrating a vast conspiracy against the truth. I don't know what to do at this point, especially in light of comments like this. jæs (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  At first, based on what I read at my talk page, I couldn’t understand why this report was filed. But, now that I have read User:Kidman Wheeler’s latest comments on the Maclean’s talk page, I understand completely. It includes reputation-damaging, unfounded accusations and indicates that he still does not read any policy to which he is referred (e.g., WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:AGF, etc., etc.). As I have pointed out to him on more than one occasion, his cries of conspiracy and an understanding of why certain actions have been taken regarding his edits would all be answered if he would just take an editing break and read the various policies to which he has been directed.

In addition to the WP:AN3 reports referred to above by Jæs, I would also recommend looking at, in no particular order:

I hope this helps. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I was the first to block Kidman Wheeler for 31 hours for disruption and edit warring. Even after Magog's subsequent 72-hour block, the user clearly doesn't get it. He's only here to push his own agenda and has made no edits outside the Maclean's area since his first few hours of editing. If he thinks Spike's rewrite is shameful, we either aren't getting through or he doesn't want to. KrakatoaKatie 04:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Those few edits were actually related to Maclean's, as well. He was trying to make hay of the fact that Maclean's employs Barbara Amiel (who happens to be the wife of Conrad Black, which is the only mainspace article, other than Maclean's, that User:Kidman Wheeler has edited). jæs (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I have unarchived this incident to allow for User:Kidman Wheeler's response (below), which he manually added to the archives, to be preserved and discussed. jæs (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the "editors" are accusing me of disruptive editing when in fact they are the disruptive ones. This is why I refer to it as a conspiracy to protect Maclean's. Yes, I attempted to edit the page on Conrad Black and I was prevented from doing so. Interestingly your own Wikipedia article says that Black renounced his Canadian citizenship yet at the beginning of the entry, it says that Black is a Canadian. He took up British nationality. Shouldn't that make him a citizen of the United Kingdom only? I really don't know whether you are ignorant or just trying to confuse others. Am I supposed to lie and write here that you're all so wonderful? The truth is you're not. You write what is not true and you want to keep it that way. I believe it's important to draw readers' attention to your control of information and to make known your real motives. You are the ones who are disruptive, not me. And you are the ones who are "ongoing". Kidman Wheeler (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for the length of this.  Lest this matter become muddled and confused, this is not a content dispute. The crux of the matter is about adhering to Wikipedia’s core policies, namely the following:
For the most part, Kidman’s edits to the Maclean’s article, and its talk page, failed all of these policies/guidelines at one time or other.

Initially, this editor’s edits provided only primary sources as verifiable reference(s)/citation(s), contrary to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (shortcut → WP:PRIMARY). The text entered in the wikiarticle essentially, then, interpreted and analyzed those primary sources contrary to WP:NOR. He was informed that he had to use published, reliable, verifiable secondary sources whose anaylsis and interpretation he could then insert into the article, not his own. After arguing the point for some time, and accusing us of being on Maclean’s payroll (contrary to WP:AGF and WP:NPA), the editor finally came up with some very good secondary sources from which he pulled some interpretation and anaylsis.

However, the editor cherry picked from those sources only that information that served to support his agenda. These edits failed WP:NPOV. When informed, the editor again argued the point, again accused us of being in the hire of the magazine or at least infinitely biased in its favour. At this point, I took it upon myself to rewrite the section in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In so doing, I discovered that the secondary sources provided by Kidman included more balanced information than that which had made its way into the wikiarticle. I thought that the rewrite could serve as an object lesson in how one edits neutrally, no matter one’s personal feelings on the subject. I thought this might work since, otherwise, the editor writes well and footnotes almost perfectly (the latter being an extreme rarity here at Wikipedia).

I purposely hadn’t responded to his diatribe on the article talk page because I thought it would be like poking the bear. However, his postings there and here indicated that he simply didn’t get it. Moreover, it was both insulting and reputation-damaging to both myself and Jæes. In my own case, he commented, “Spike writes a bunch of things defending Maclean’s assertion that Quebec is a corrupt province.” Well, no, I did not. What I did was review the two secondary sources he had provided and added more of the information contained therein to the Maclean’s wikiarticle. What I did not do was cherry pick only those things from those articles that supported my thesis. Which meant, for example, adding to the article that La Presse, the province’s largest circulation, French-language daily, agreed with Maclean’s, while the Montreal Gazette, the province’s largest circulation, English-language daily, disagreed with Maclean’s. To do otherwise — to fact pick — is not to bring the article into compliance with the policy at WP:NPOV. Thus, while not responding to him on the talk page meant not poking the bear, not responding here at ANI could leave the impression that he’s right.

Let’s sum up: we have an editor who, essentially, only edits one wikiarticle. He has shown that he will not adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. His edits consistently violate WP:NPOV, which is itself disruptive and tendentious, and only serve to further an agenda. He will not assume good faith and resorts to personal attacks when informed of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and given suggestions on how to bring his edits inline with those policies and guidelines. All summed up, we have an agenda account (a type of single purpose account) that edits only one wikiarticle in order to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to further a personal agenda.

Would either a topic ban or an indefinite block be appropriate? Or, should we wait to see if the behaviour continues? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S.  I did not include many diffs because Jæes has provided most of them above. — SpikeToronto 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]


As I am on my mobile phone, I can't deal with this, but (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made a clear legal threat against Wikipedia at WP:HD#IP address posting / abuse.. Could an someone please block the IP address? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 03:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Already done, thanks fetchcomms! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 03:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Already got it after a report on IRC. The IP is likely Grace Saunders. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've left them a note to email ArbCom if they have privacy issues. - Burpelson AFB 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Just an addendum, this is clearly the same person who was disrupting the Grace Saunders sockpuppet page some months ago. Besides their obviously faulty grasp of internet law (privacy policy of the Internet? Is there such a law?) they have been told every time to contact the arbcom mailing list to request an unblock, and to contact the legal mailing list with legal issues. That they have refused to do so, and instead persist in making threats of a patently rediculous nature shows that they aren't really interested in getting help or that they even have any legal standing, else they would have done what we have already dold them to do. They are just a troll. --Jayron32 16:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, generally not a good idea to try to argue with people about the validity or not of their legal threats, just direct them to the legal email (it's actually not a mailing list, but an OTRS address). SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Which I have done, directly, every time I have encountered this person. And indeed, what everyone should do everytime anyone ever makes a legal threat. Block them immediately, tell them to contact the foundation directly at this page and make no further attempts to deal with the person. It should be noted that actual lawyers wouldn't ever try to resolve legal issues on Wikipedia, they would themselves contact the Foundation and their lawyers directly, so people who make grandiose claims about having a lawyer and intending to sue Wikipedia are always talking out of their own asses. --Jayron32 21:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So, in conclusion, whenever someone starts screaming about lawyers, just pretend you're hearing this HalfShadow 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of AWB?[edit]

Resolved: No need to remove, but "warning" (or rather, advice) given. See my closing comment below - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Although perhaps it was WP:Good faith, GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been using WP:AWB to mass add Wikiproject Reggae's tag talkpages. My main concern is that he/she has added the tag to pages where there is no evidence or obvious link to the project. E.g. with a song like Rude Boy (Rihanna song) the song is described as "ragga" which is a varient of reggae hence its appropriate but GOP has tagged every single Rihanna song under project reggae. It appears that he/she views any song which features an artist from the Carribean or West Indies as an automatic member of the Reggae project. You could make the argument that the artist pages for Rihanna and Shontelle fall under the reggae project but to argue that every song they release falls under the project is absurd. I believe AWB, in this case, has aided this abuse/error. Can AWB be removed from the user? And can he/she be warned about this kind of editing? I have left a note on his/her page but I'm concerned about the scale of the issue. -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 15:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

First I am a male D:. Second I tagged all songs with this template that are in the category Category:Reggae songs, recursive. It's not my fault if someone put this categories into this songs and I really hope you won't remove the permission to use AWB for me. I am sure I won't do that again; if you want I can detag them. Thank you. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't explain how and why you tagged songs like Fergie's "Big Girls Don't Cry" ([5]) or Gwen Stefani's "Rich Girl" ft. Eve ([6]). Neither Fergie nor Stefani have ever sung anything remotely reggae, and the only explanation I can think of is that the word "reggae" appears once in both of those articles, which still doesn't explain the classification under the WP. Yves (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Equally according to Category:Reggae Songs that is completely untrue because the categories Beyoncé Knowles Songs, Jay Sean songs, Shontelle songs etc. are not listed as subcategories of Reggae songs yet songs by all of these artists were tagged as reggae songs. Heck not even Rihanna songs is listed in Reggae Songs. If anything there are only 57 songs in the category yet the amount you've tagged probably exceeds that despite hardly any of them being classified as reggae. -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 15:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it does explain it. Big Girls Don't Cry is in Category:Sean Kingston songs which is in the reggae category. I suspect other cases are similar (hence GreatOrangePumpkin's note above that the inclusions are "recursive").
Given that this is an easily-explained situation that doesn't appear to be linked to bad faith or any other sort of improper behavior (categorization of these songs and artists should be taken up elsewhere), I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok I removed the tag for "Big Girls Don't Cry", but the other songs are tagged as "ragga", which "is a sub-genre of dancehall music or reggae,", a subgenre, that's why I see no issues to add this tag. Again, if you want I can detag the "pop" bands or artists, that are tagged as ragga, dancehall or something else. But please don't remove the permission to use AWB.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
We're discusses the use of AWB to bluntly and inappropriate tag articles. E.g. "Big Girls Don't Cry" incorrectly uses the Sean Kingston category. A non-notable remix of a song does not mean that song should be classified in the category of the remix artist. Equally articles like "Raining Men (song)" had no mention of dancehall etc. yet they were tagged as project Reggae. Equally even if the above example of the Fergie song was to be pardoned it still doesn't require the song to be tagged as project Reggae because reggae is not a sourced genre of the song. Adding such a project tag is WP:OR. -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Why don't you put the stick down and step back and help GOP identify what articles need detagging. Adding wikiproject tags is an appropriate use of AWB. Its clear a good faith mistake has been made and that the user gets what the issue is and has undertaken to fix the problem. I'm sure they will be much more careful about their use of AWB in future. The fault really lays with miscatagoriation of the subcats to place songs that aren't Ragga into the Ragga Catagory. Please tone it down and stop looking for your pound of flesh... Its not edifying and seems rather redundant Spartaz Humbug! 16:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please. Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't look like this was discussed with anyone before coming straight to ANI. ElKevbo (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm very seriously considering removing your permission. If you looked a little bit further into semi-automated/automated WikiProject tagging, you should know full well not to use recursive unless you have checked every subcategory. To quickly explain recursive category filling, it means every subcategory (to a certain depth) will be included. So for example Category:Dancehall songs was included because it's a subcategory of Category:Reggae songs (which is why Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) was tagged). See the last paragraph of the intro to Wikipedia:Bot requests for why recursive is slightly dangerous (bot and semi-automated are slightly different, but this still applies). Other things you've done wrong here: using "cleanup" as your edit summary. And apparently not taking responsibility for your own actions: "It's not my fault if someone put this categories into this songs". - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I think GOP understands that now. Spartaz Humbug! 16:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on his message above, I don't think that he (or you for that matter) do understand. The problem was not in the "miscatagoriation" of subcategories. The fault was purely GreatOrangePumpkin's for not checking the categories he was using. If you hang around with bots where we do a lot of WikiProject tagging, you would realise that we only use recursive where users (in general a whole WikiProject) have worked at filtering out the inappropriate categories. The same thing applies even when not using AWB in bot mode. Please see the last paragraph of the intro to WP:BOTR. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Like I said the point of the report was due to the large scale of the error made. Genres are already proving contentious across WP:SONGS. The last thing the project needs is the incorrect tagging of talk pages. And like KingPin has pointed out, with the greatest of respect to GOP, the recursive category filling function of AWB can be dangerous. If Spartaz and ElKelvo looked properly, they'd see that I already started de-tagging some of the articles but then after reading the page on AWB I decided to post her because I believe GOP doesn't quite understand the nature of genres and/or AWB. I'm not out to get anyone as one or two people have rudely suggested. I have merely asked if AWB should be removed from the user and if they could be given a formal warning. I never said he needs scolding and we must remove AWB from him. Please take things in context. -- Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 16:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Then let him or her know that he or she made a mistake and maybe provide some guidance on how to correct it and avoid it in the future. Maybe I'm missing a previous history of carelessness or incompetence but I simply don't see the need for a public castigation. ElKevbo (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've let them know that they made a mistake, and I've let them know how to avoid it in future (filter out inappropriate categories). Since they don't seem very receptive to this advice, and appear to be more eager to blame others than work for self-improvement, I'm less confident they will not make similar mistakes in the future (by being to eager to get something done with AWB, and failing to properly investigate the ins and outs of the task first) - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have removed the tags from the categories Category:Rihanna songs and Category:Shontelle songs. I also removed other tags. Are you still going to remove the permission?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed one or two more that didn't seem appropriate, and re-added one that was. I applaud GOP for their intention in tagging these article, even if it resulted in a few more being tagged than was appropriate. It seems to me like an honest mistake that GOP will no doubt learn from - I'm not sure it was really necessary to throw around accusations of abuse and raise it here, but it looks to me as though there isn't an issue any more (other than a load of articles that need rating, but that's fine).--Michig (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
How does the attitude of "it's not my fault, it's their fault" demonstrate that GOP has learnt anything from this? - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't "I am sure I won't do that again" followed by offers of undoing the mis-tagging (which by the looks of it they've already done) sufficient? The explanation of how using AWB resulted in the mis-tagging came after GOP suggested others were at fault for mis-categorization of articles. If there had been a denial of making a mistake after the explanation I think it would be a different matter.--Michig (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Closing comment: I've marked as resolved and will leave a notice on GOP's talk page. While I don't entirely agree with you, it seems that there is a general feeling that there is no need to remove AWB access, and GOP deserves a second chance. This incident will hopefully encourage him to be more careful in future. Especially taking into consideration Koavf's message on GOP's talkpage, I believe he acted in good faith, and is willing to learn from this. However, I'm not saying that GOP was in the right here, and this fiasco may be taken into consideration if a similar event happens again. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible attempted outing at User:Kittybrewster/Thoughts_on_Giano,_vk_et_al[edit]

Resolved: page blanked by User:Kittybrewster, then deleted by SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC) - JoeSperrazza JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This page: User:Kittybrewster/Thoughts_on_Giano,_vk_et_al belonging to User:Kittybrewster contains private thoughts on some users. My initial concern with it was what I consider to be a personal attack on GoodDay, and I have raised that with the user on their talk page. However, on further thought, a number of the comments appear to contain personal information that could amount to an attempted outing. Can anyone assist here? The situation is muddied slightly by the fact that the user who's real-life job is listed doesn't actually appear to exist anyway, but at least one of the two Isabela's does exist.--KorruskiTalk 17:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

KB has kindly responded promptly to my message, and blanked the page. However, might a revdel still be needed for the possible outings?--KorruskiTalk 17:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the page as WP:CSD#G7 -- if anyone feels this was inappropriate, feel free to revert without checking with me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Was that page created by Kitty Brewster? If so, maybe the admin who called for the banishment of that user was too hasty in retracting his request. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was. I'm not familiar with the user's history, though.--KorruskiTalk 18:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a personal attack on me. I just wasn't sure if the page was allowable on the 'pedia, as other editors were mentioned in it. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • A page like that is not ok and did not belong on Wikipedia. Deletion strongly endorsed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    I also endorse deletion. The only situation in which something like that is permitted is in preparing material for an RFC or arbcom, and that wasn't the case here. It also went well beyond the scope of what would be acceptable for such usages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User: Superpolochile[edit]

I'm not quite sure if this is the appropiate place to air my concerns, but this user has been blanking sections, changing pictures and removing references from Leonardo Farkas. He has been warned several times to stop but refuses to do so. If you look at his contributions Special:Contributions/Superpolochile you will see that this is the only article he's editing. I don't know if a semi-protection of the page or a blocking of that user will solve the problem, but something needs to be done because he is not listening (reading the warnings). Likeminas (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just report the user to WP:AIV if they do it again. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The contribution look more like a COI Type editing. I think Blocking as promotional account may be in order The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't think of any Chilean trademark called Super Polo :-s (except Marco Polo, that makes potato chips). Polo is a pretty common name in Chile, too. What exactly have they been doin'? Diego Grez (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
(Edit) I'd say that it is someone related to Farkas, POV pushing. Diego Grez (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
All of his edits looks very promotional, the Spanish version of this article is a blatant promotional page, but that's another story.
IMO, A block or a page protection might prevent future disruptions.Likeminas (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I am Working at Commons to look at his contributions there as couple of the images are clearly Copyright violations. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thread missing from archives[edit]

Not really sure where to post this, but, there's this thread that shows up here in this page's history but not in the recent archives. Any reason?NotARealWord (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot error? Was removed in this edit [7] by User:MiszaBot II and supposedly archived in 662 or 663. Exxolon (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled across this problem also. There are 3 threads that were dropped by the archive bot in this occurrence. I have added details to the talk entry at User_talk:Misza13#Bot_malfunction.3F. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The owner of the bot hasn't edited since November - are they still active? Exxolon (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Some problems[edit]

I do feel that I am deliberately stopped from changing or doing any edit by certain people on certain pages in the name of consensus. Proper discussion with valid links and detailed explanation are taken at face value and then pushed aside because there is no consensus (none is reached and very illogical arguments are provided and repeated in those discussions). Even the recent change of a a very lower pixel with a decent image was reverted in the name of not reaching a consensus. What's happening? Am I blocked deliberately from making any edits in the name of consensus, because someone has some preconceived notions? Admins please help to sort this out.Bcs09 (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

you'll need to give us some more detail, what article/s is the problem involved, who else involved and have you notifyed them of this board? Finally this looks like a request for comment problem not ANI--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It's probably about the discussions on Talk:Blue-water_navy --Errant (chat!) 14:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You see, after reading for some time, not just one article, I came to the conclusion that the power of Britain as a naval power has diminished and I had tried to explain those things. Also I have seen sources that state the Great power status of britain being lost. These changes need to be made. But it's not allowed. Now even small changes that I make like replacing an image with an appropriate one is being stopped, stating that there is no consensus in that, thereby totally blocking me from making edits. This happened in the Helicopter carrier page. This has made me to think there is something serious rather than I thought. It happened with the Blue water Navy page, with Great power page and now with the Helicopter carrier page. Especially anything associated with Britain is being blocked. Like they cannot digest anything bad about Britain. Ain't it bad. Breaking the basic rules of Wikipedia? Bcs09 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Just read that lot... if Blue-water navy is the issue, it looks like editors there have invested considerable time and effort in consensus-building, including involving medcab. Bcs09 may not like the outcome but they need to take on board WP:CONSENSUS (no pun intended); this involves not edit warring and adding POV tags to the article. My sincere advice to you, Bcs09, is to drop the stick and move on with as much grace as possible before your campaign gets labelled as disruptive and you bring sanctions on yourself. EyeSerenetalk 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are you jumping the gun, are you one amoung them? Four people talking nonsense and bullshit is not considered consensus. Just because I was just one person putting things straight and trying to explain things and others were just accusing me will not make them correct. What's your problem if I am telling my problem? It's not just one article, it's happening with many pages starting including Great power, Blue water Navy and finally the Helicopter carrier article. Are you the one giving cover to these people because you have administrative right? Bcs09 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Consider reading WP:NOTTHEM and WP:TRUTH. Ultimately if you are facing resistance to content additions on multiple articles from a variety of other editors it is worth considering that perhaps you are the one that is incorrect. --Errant (chat!) 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the OP has been engaged in "original synthesis" on that page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't accuse me now. I did not do any original research nor interested to do any. Whatever I posted there is with proper valide sources (So it's wrong to say that it's any way related to original research) whereas those who are supposed to rebut those articles just make accusations that i am doing original research and posting my POV thereby themselves indulging in POV pushing. Just because they are greater in number, they win hands down since there cannot be any consensus as they say it cannot be agree. Now how to deal with such matter is the one that i am asking?Bcs09 (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Your core argument seems to be, "A does C; B does C; therefore, A = B". That's "original synthesis". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No no. That can also be done, but check the links whatever has been quoted has been straight from those articles.Bcs09 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
[8] Even if i post that link and claim that an aircraft carrier capability is necessary to become a blue water navy. Then i got accused of doing original research, then if i point out that it's not me and the Chinese General saying that, some lame excuse is given like the Chinese General is not the one who determine it etc. and everyone just says I am doing original research and then deliberately scuttles the discussion with accusations and makes it a bad discussion. Finally everyone agrees that I am wrong and they are correct. Why is this happening. I don't get it.Bcs09 (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It also would be a logical fallacy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the point again missed what I said was that Helicopter carrier page got reverted back, because someone did not like some outdated and very low pixel image being replaced with a Dokdo image. Now when we start discussing things different, where is the logic in that?Bcs09 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Precisely the point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
On who's part?Bcs09 (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Schulz. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm one of the users being criticised by Bcs09. As any editor on the Blue Water navy talk page can see, the reasons Bcs09's proposals weren't accepted have been discussed on the page and explained very well to the user which has sadly resulted in what we're saying as being labelled by the user as "POV pushing". "Four people talking nonsense and bullshit is not considered consensus" is a terribly insulting and counter productive thing to say about what I honestly think are good reasons for removing a section comprised of synthesis, especially when backed by a MedCab response. As far as I'm concerned the user is biased and bitter for whatever reason but that is only my opinion and I fully accept it may not be the case and I am possibly wrong. I also notice that Bcs09 did not follow "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion", I don't understand why not. Simply put, the user seems not to understand the policy on synthesis and would save himself time by looking at it. G.R. Allison(talk) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Also I have to point out "No no. That can also be done, but check the links whatever has been quoted has been straight from those articles" is absolute nonsense and the sources and their purpose were shown to be synthesis as it did not directly claim what the section was about (this can be seen clearly on the talk page), this is why I think the user has not read the policy on synthesis. G.R. Allison (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I find "Four people talking nonsense and bullshit" an utterly unacceptable way to characterise the considerable lengths the article editors have gone to in good faith in resolving this dispute, and don't much appreciate being accused of abusing my admin position to cover for some imaginary misbehaviour. Because Bcs09 has already been warned about attacking other editors I've given them a 24-hour block (review welcome). I'd strongly suggest they find something else to work on when the block expires; their claiming not to understand what's going on after so many explanations about WP:OR, WP:SYNTH etc smacks of WP:IDHT at worst; WP:COMPETENCE at best. If Bcs09 can take a step back and perhaps edit articles they don't feel strongly about, I hope they can find a way of working within our policies. If not I anticipate longer blocks in the future. EyeSerenetalk 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Jimbo" usernames[edit]

Resolved: Request withdrawn. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check and block the users on Special:ListUsers/Jimbo except for Jimbo Wales and Jimbo online, and a few others. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 17:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Or not. Far too general a request --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what prohibits them from having "Jimbo" in their usernames? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Same here why all these users need to get blocked. Jimbo is a common nickname Ibluffsocall (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I never heard that. Never mind. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The ones that are blantantly trying to immitate The Jimbo all appear blocked. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Just checked, ListUsers says that most of the offnseive usernamess are bloced. Ugh. My spelling's going bad. Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Because quite a few of them are impersonating Jimbo, which is not appropriate per WP:UN. "You must not use a username that could easily be confused with that of an active contributor"; and "Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution." As well as "There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed: Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people,..." Not all of them are a problem, mind you, but surely you can see the problem with User:Jimbo Donal Wales, User:Jimbo D Wales User:Jimbo D. Wales, and at least a half dozen other accounts on that list. Come on guys, not even 5 seconds of research would have shown you that. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget User:Wimbo Jales. That one made me laugh. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Jumbo Whales is my favorite. 28bytes (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
[9]. (There used to be tons more, but a lot of them have been oversighted. The Thing T/C 03:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you've seen this gem. 28bytes (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
All three of those have been blocked since 2005. 28bytes (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Swatjester, I think you missed the underlying point of my question. The point of the question was to make Perseus reexamine the accounts he was obviously alluding to (so that he can discover that several of the accounts were indeed blocked already - thereby making this request unnecessary). Perhaps I framed it poorly; I don't know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is User:Thebooze a spam account?[edit]

Resolved: Themfromspace will communicate with Thebooze (talk · contribs) - JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

All of Thebooze (talk · contribs)'s contributions have been to add links to Exclaim! magazine articles. Now, it may be that they're actually considering their actions improvements, but I'd hate to think they're spamming. Corvus cornixtalk 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too early to tell, really. If he is here for promotion work, at least he's not doing it blatantly. You should have tried communicating on his talk page to give him a chance to reply before escalating the situation here. ThemFromSpace 23:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. There shouldn't be a report here until administrative action is required. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Spam isn't the concern of admins? Corvus cornixtalk 00:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Did I say that? I said admin action was not yet warranted. The reason being that discussing the matter directly with the user was not attempted before reporting here. We also have dedicated forums at WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and you can report at WP:AIV if they have been repeatedly warned and continue spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
How would you have worded it? "Hi, I see that every one of your edits has been a link to Exclaim! magazine. Are you shilling for them? Corvus cornixtalk 00:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes adding the COI template to their talk page can start a dialogue. Something like:
{{subst:Uw-coi|Exclaim!|I've noticed you're concentrating your contributions to adding links to articles in [[Exclaim!]] magazine. Please be aware of our [[WP:COI|Conflict of Interest]] guidelines, in the event they apply to you. Thanks!}} ~~~~
(Pardon me if I didn't get that exactly right.) Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Or, exactly what Corvus said. I would prefer a personal and direct message to the impersonal template form. Just ask him directly, and show him the proper policy pages. There's no need to involve admins until after the more direct approach (called by the fancy jargon "Talking to them") has been tried. --Jayron32 01:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The reference to "shilling" was a tad off-putting, but I agree that one's own words often are more friendly than the templates. But they're a good start, if looking for text and links to guidelines. JoeSperrazza (talk) 0