Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive672

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Rcsprinter123[edit]

Many of Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs)'s edits are related to list of bus routes in Derbyshire. On 29 December he created (at the time it was in article space) "important bus routes in Derbyshire"; it was taken to AfD the same day, and withdrawn after seven and a half hours because the article had been moved into user space. During the AfD, Rcsprinter followed the nominator, Aiken drum (talk · contribs), around and disruptively added tags to articles AD had created: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Two days later, the article was recreated and demanded full protection to make sure no one deleted it. The AfD was not complete as it was withdrawn, however I believe the emerging consensus was trending towards deleting the article or turning it into a redirect. As a result, I turned the newly created article into a redirect and explained why to Rcsprinter.

On 3 January the Skyline 199 article was deleted as the result of a completed AfD (albeit with minimal participation). He recreated the article and again tried to abuse WP:RPP to prevent anyone from deleting the article. I explained this went against the AfD and wasn't appropriate and it was subsequently speedily deleted.

On 10 January Rcsprinter created "key bus routes in Derbyshire", essentially the same as "important bus routes in Derbyshire" and gaming the system by trying to same content under a new title. It was quickly turned into a redirect, but on 10 February Rcsprinter restored the article without discussion.

There are more diffs available, with Rcsprinter edit warring, and simply not understanding policies. In a nutshell, it's clear that Rcsprinter123 is treating Wikipedia like a game and is not abiding by the rules, despite repeated warnings. I think a block on the grounds of Wikipedia:Competence is required may be in order, but am seeking wider input. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Endorse this summary completely. Rcsprinter appears to act in good faith on many occassions, and has a fair number of constructive edits (Template:Meat product navbox and Talk:Burger King/GA2 spring to mind), but also shows a serious lack of judgement on a variety of issues. In addition to the above, there's also the creation and subsequent speedy deletion of User:Sf07 and Template:Do not edit, edit warring on List of bus routes in Tyne and Wear, the odd totally weird edit, a recent block for copyright violations, creation of User:RcsprinterBot... certainly enough to show a lack of competence. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I can hear you all talking about me, you know.
Well, thanks for the constructive edits thing, but you don't have to be so rude! For a start my name is Rcsprinter123 not Rcsprinter, and then, it's very unfair when everybody just keeps deleting the stuff I made! Skyline 199 etc would have made great articles if they had been on there a bit and the community would have edited and expanded it. And it is notable, as it serves as a staple to nearly half of Derbyshire; I mean every single London bus route has its own page, even if it is minor!
I am not edit warring on List of bus routes in Tyne and Wear, just keeping the key.
The bot is still in progress, so there's no need to delete that either. It will update transport pages.
I also think there should be an important bus routes in derbyshire page, to set them apart from the others.
I also can't think why anybody never created a meat navbox before...
Yours slightly-angrily, RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't doubt you want to help, I notice you've nominated several articles at WP:GAC presumably with the intention of improving them. However, you have consistently shown that you are not interested in abiding by the consensus of AfDs, recreating deleted articles multiple times, and don't seem to understand policies such as Wikipedia:Notability or why the AfDs have been closed in the way they have. I was unaware of the block for copyright violations, and frankly it's not filling me with confidence. I'm afraid I just don't think you are sufficiently competent, regardless of your intentions. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. I am sure Rcsprinter123 thinks what he is doing is completely acceptable, but the antisocial attitude of ignoring community discussion and restoring articles inappropriately is not something we want on Wikipedia. He may think it's unfair if his work is deleted, but if he creates non-notable entries then that's to be expected. London bus routes are sometimes notable, sometimes not. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument here. AD 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 identifies on his userpage as being 11 years old. While there have been young editors who have contributed to Wikipedia constructively, I can't help feeling that in this case Rcsprinter123's immaturity is showing through in the form of harassing AikenDrum back in December and failing to see the points of view of others. Nev1 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As per what everyone else has said, we don't doubt you're trying to help, but you've done some things that are unwise and some which are just plain wrong. You don't seem to have quite grasped some of the ways Wikipedia works, for example today's nomination for featured list of a list that's really not good enough yet. (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bus routes in Derbyshire/archive1). Arriva436talk/contribs 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As the 'creator' of the Tyne & Wear Bus Routes page, I've been asked by Arriva436 to provide my input into the discussion. As I stated on the talk page relating to the page, I created this page after a couple of weeks of experimentation in order to achieve what I believe to be the 'optimum' column widths neccessary to show the required information. My objections to the 'amendments' were four-fold:
1) All the columns were left-aligned, with the only information in Bold relating to Route Names; therefore, having the Route Numbers amended to Centered and Bold creates a visual imbalance (IMHO);
2) The page refers, as the name implies, to Bus Routes IN Tyne & Wear, but also covers those routes that are 'cross-border' HOWEVER I made a conscious decision not to make note of any individual (extra) journeys that are completely outside the 'county' as they would be picked up by that relevant Bus Route page (assuming there is one);
3) The Bus Routes are shown in blocks of 100 for ease of viewing - some of the groupings have been clumped into seemingly random multi-100 blocks, which makes the whole thing look terribly unbalanced - I would have less of a problem if the Route Numbers had a meaning, such as "700-899 are School Routes", but not if it's seemingly arbitary;
4) And the icing on the cake - all the entries relating to Metrocentre Interchange were amended by the inclusion of a symbol indicating it is "at or close to a Tyne & Wear Metro Station": the nearest station is at Gateshead, a 15-minute bus ride away!

Compare this with what Arriva436 did to one of other pages; he has made quite a few amendments, but they were done within the design parameters laid down when I created that page (even using a different colour for a specific note relating to a multi-Route diversion).

I think the overall point that needs to be made is: if you are going to make an amendment, make the amendment but DON'T change the layout - fair? --Geordiewomble 17:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle abuse by User:Srobak[edit]

I started a discussion with User:Srobak after I saw he considered this vandalism worth an immediate lvl 4 "only" warning, but didn't actually bother to revert the vandalism itself (warning was 4 minutes before somebody else reverted the vandalism according to my timestamps). After looking at the users history and talkpage I noticed that the user likes to give out lvl 4 "only" warnings like candy. See for example this reversion of an [obvious good faith edit] and the following lvl 4 "only" warning. There are many, many more examples of this behavior in the users edit history and almost his entire talkpage consists of messages telling him to stop templating the regulars and go easy on the warnings as far back as two years ago. Discussion on the user talkpage was not productive as I was told "1st - you need to check your watch and then apologize. 2nd - if you think that un-referenced, DFE edit was in "good faith" - then you seriously need to review your criteria. Good day." [6]. Faced with such a serious wp:BITE and WP:AGF violations I had no choice but to report the user and request he is added to the Twinkle blacklist to prevent him doing further damage. My apologies if this is supposed to go on some other page, I couldn't think of any other place which might appropriate. Yoenit (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that this sort of thing seems to vbe croping up quite a bit do we need a twinkle noticeboard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Just as a note; the revert seems to have been at 00:49 and the warning given at 01:45 :) Agree the rest is an issue though --Errant (chat!) 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
As you quoted me above - you do indeed need to check your watch before making mis-informed, libelous accusations. The warning was issued 56 minutes after the revert, not 4 minutes before! Now, you get apologize here for all to see. Neither incident were biting in nature on my part. Both were deliberate acts of vandalism and/or mis-information on the anonip's parts. After years of extensive vandalism and DFE being endlessly contributed to both of those pages (you should review the page history of both to see the endless counts of "eats babies" and "died 2010" and other stuff), it is clear that shooting them with a squirtgun has absolutely no effect. Time to use the firehose. Now - as you seem to think that this is a TW abuse case, it further goes to illustrate that you need to seriously review your criteria. You will do a lot more good by helping to combat the rampant vandalism here at WP instead of undermining the efforts of those who are. The time for placating to that kind of nonsense has long since passed and you now taking deliberate measures to actually enable them will only make the problem much worse. Srobak (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Oh, apologies for that. I compared the date sign on the talkpage with the time of the vandalism diff, never realizing there is an hour difference between the two due to my timezone setting. Yoenit (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Reading the post I edit conflicted with I want to clarify I apologize only for messing up the time difference on that warning. I strongly disagree with your attitude towards vandalism fighting and think your behaviour makes you a danger to the project. Yoenit (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that. As it was a significant foundation for your complaint, it does negate it a bit. That being said - I strongly disagree with your attitude towards not fighting vandalism - actually placating to it - a behaviour which has a very demonstrated track record of being a "danger" to the project - but to each their own. Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You gave a level4im warning to an IP who provided the information that Phil Collins was dating Dana Tyler, which is supported by this interview, among other coverage, with a note to "cut the crap". Since it clearly wasn't crap, though the IP didn't provide a citation, I think that you should take the advice you've been given here to dial it down a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, please don't accuse other editors of "libelous misinformation" for accidentally misreading a timestamp. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Sarek - please decide where you would like to have this conversation - I don't have time to respond to fragmented discussions with you at multiple pages. As I said in your other thread - no cite was provided, and your are not citing a WP:RS. On top of that - citing it here does not help the issue. Perhaps you should contribute it to the article. As for the timestamp - as it was a very pointed factor for even starting this ANI to begin with - yes I am well within my right to demand accuracy in said complaint. Had Yoenit bothered to correct it in the first place and continue the discussion on my TP before over-reacting and starting an ANI, I am sure we could have found a mutually agreeable conclusion. Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A), level 4 'Only' warnings are almost never appropriate as a first warning, B) your tone here is entirely too harsh. Tauntingly demanding he publicly apologize for libel because he misread a timestamp? Correct him and move on. The rest of his report is valid. --King Öomie 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
They are more than appropriate for obvious, blatant vandalism. The rest of your comment is addressed in my response to Sarek as you are both saying the same thing.Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not vandalism if there isn't a clear intent to harm the encylopedia. Adding unsourced but non-controversial information (rumors) doesn't fit the bill. That's a bad edit, not vandalism. --King Öomie 17:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I would view it as controversial, but I can see where opinions may differ on that. However - I also view mis-information being contributed to an article as slightly more harmful than being categorized as a "bad edit" - a term usually reserved for something more trivial as poor formatting, incorrect/accidental content deletion, contributing to the wrong section, etc. But if indeed the admins view mis-info as bad editing - then there are some templates and guidelines that are going to require an overhaul. Srobak (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
If the editor could conceivably have been trying to make the article more informative, but was doing so incorrectly or in a non-constructive way, you aren't looking at vandalism. The key issue here is intent. Dropping a 4i warning on someone for a single non-vandalism edit is pure mastication. --King Öomie 20:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Duly noted. Srobak (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd also like to see an explanation of what in this article he thought deserved a "close paraphrasing" tag. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Already addressed in the article talk page. You can refer to and follow up with it there. The tag has also (incorrectly) been removed, and I have not reverted it (yet). In addition - that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Srobak (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it was not addressed. You said "it's close paraphrasing of the source", someone asked "what's close paraphrasing of the source", and you said "I already answered your question."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I cited the source from which the close paraphrasing originated. A quick perusal of the source will identify where. However - as I have already indicated above - the tag has been dropped and I have not pursued it further, the issue is unrelated to the one at hand in this discussion and can be continued on the article talk page if you really think it is a pressing issue. Srobak (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In other words, you have no intention of working collaboratively. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No, there are no other words. Take what I say AS what I say and at face value. Do not tell me what I mean in what I say. That is not up to you, and without doing a mind meld you are not able to read minds. If you would like to work collaboratively on that issue, then there is a place for that... and it's not in this thread. Srobak (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You know, it would have taken less time to answer my question than to complain about me. What in that article was paraphrased so closely that it deserved a huge honking banner at the top of the page?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Honest to God... 1st> I am not and have not complained about you. 2nd> You are beating a dead horse. The issue was dropped some time ago. Why you are hell-bent on turning it into a federal case is mystery, and is not helping matters or WP. 3rd> I provided ample information in the article talk page (the correct place for the discussion) regarding the paraphrasing so that if someone were to take it upon themselves to even glance it over, it would be evident. I am not in the business of spoon-feeding things to people, and I am not about to start now - even for a WP admin. If I really thought it was THAT important after the OA reverted and posted their reasons why - I would have pursued it further. 4th This is not the place for the execution of what you are pursuing. Are we done yet? Srobak (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Please either A) link to the point where you previously explain what the issue is (source and our text) or reexplain here. It's a reasonable request. People often are asked to link to previous discussions to show that they did or didn't do something. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Another misuse of vandalism warnings: last week this edit received an "only" warning from Srobak for being inconsequential.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to take a look at the warning and edit history of that ip. It is not the first time it had been issued a lvl4, and honestly should have been blocked long ago. Srobak (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That particular edit wasn't vandalism. For a little optimism, you should see vandals NOT vandalizing as a glimmer of hope, and instead gently link them to policy pages. --King Öomie 20:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Also noted and understood Srobak (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Now from this vantage point, seeing that you've had a different working definition of vandalism than is laid out in WP:VAND (which I don't really fault you for, seems like there's a lot of it going around), you can understand our reaction to your warnings, right? --King Öomie 20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see that. I will try to use better discretion in my patrolling, and issue vand warns only for genuine vandalism, while being more support/informative to the others. It just gets old having to constantly fix the same pages multiple times a day while genuine vandals get pass after pass. Wears on my patience a bit, and I over-reacted towards those who were not necessarily deserving of it. Srobak (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That pretty much settles that, unless someone feels the need to open another thread. I really don't think any kind of sanction is in order, and the content issues are better settled at the pages themselves or at DR. Absent further activity here, I suggest listing this as Resolved. --King Öomie 21:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hold on...he is insisting that he is going to template the regulars and using Twinkle to do it. Clearly it is disruptive, just look at his talk page. If he insists on templating the regulars then I'm all for taking the tools from him. I'd like to know he isn't going to do that again.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Please let's not drive helpful folk away from the project for minor transgressions. To prevent a snowballing which will occur, sadly, if this editor is looked at too closely, I endorse oomie's idea to close this. Egg Centric (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"He's a great editor, just don't look at his contributions?"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Shame I have to say this, but... yeah! Group dynamics are such that if pretty much anyone with his sort of edit count is looked at and presented harshly enough a case could be made for a long block at the least, an indefinite ban at the worst. In an ideal world, you would be right (ironically, in an ideal world, so would Srobak as he would be perceived literally) but we have to look at reality.Egg Centric (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
So Berean - you are actually endorsing bad edits/vandalism/whatever by people just because they have an account? If that is genuinely the administrative consensus then you all can do whatever you want. Registered users/regulars should be held to an even more strict adherence to the guidelines and policies than the anonip users - just like what you are doing to me here. If you are going to allow excessive latitude to users who obviously should know better - then you have far bigger issues and problems to worry about than me, and I will be happy to take my leave of this place as there is no longer a point in fighting a losing battle. Berean - you really ought to consider not putting the cart before the horse in this, and actually look at what the root cause of the issue in such a circumstance really is. Srobak (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
So, Can I take that as a "yes, I'm still going to template the regulars"?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you always answer a question with another question? There are times when a template is warranted by a user. The fact that they are an anonip or a registered user is inconsequential. Just because a user creates an account does not ensure they undergo some sort of metamorphoses. As stated above - if anything a regular user should be far more aware of and accountable to policy and guideline adherence. Yes, I know your response will be to cite Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars - which is an essay - not a WP policy or guideline, to which I will respond with the equally valid essay of WP:Do_template_the_regulars. Please keep in mind I did not write either essay, and they both make very valid points - regardless of your personal feelings. Again - if the administrative consensus is going to actually endorse this lunacy - I'll be happy to just walk away now, and you can pull up the slack, saving you the witch hunt. Srobak (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hang on guys, he's been big enough to accept the original problem. Is it necessary to now scrutinise everything he's ever done? WP:DTTR isn't a guideline, even if it's annoying. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Nah, it's fine Physics... I see where this is going - and it is truly unfortunate. Let'em get it out of their system. Srobak (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── His judgment is the thing I'm questioning. He presumes a lot and using poor judgment with Twinkle is a bad recipe. He's quick to say that established users ought to know better...but here we are, with him having acknowledged that his judgment concerning vandalism wasn't right...why should we presume that his judgment is right about shoving templates in peoples' faces. I've seen a number of folks telling him not to and no one backing him up on that point...that is a running consensus. I'm simply asking him not to...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually mentioned earlier on about us being "here", and I'm far from perfect. To be honest - rather than all this - I'd have rather gotten templated. That being said... "You have 537 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." Shall I leave c&p from the raw watchlist on your talk page, or would you rather I email it to you? Srobak (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about your watchlist. I've asked you to not template the regulars and you threw back a strawman argument above. I asked again for assurance that you won't do it..and you insist that you are right and show nothing towards cooperation but instead state its a "witchhunt". I've suggested that the tools should be removed from you if you don't refrain and that turns into "I'm leaving". What is this? Templating a bot? ...and since when is redlinking verboten?
I suggest letting him do things manually a while and work his way back to the tools. Cramming templates at a few admins and regulars is a bad idea and he hasn't listened to anyone. You need to work with folks.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of interest, do you accept that had he phrased things entirely differently you would have no trouble with him? Egg Centric (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Egads, Srobak, I brought you a painless out on a silver platter. You seem insistent on vindication via argumentation, though, so carry on, I suppose. --King Öomie 23:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Nothing to do with vindication, and that is nothing I am interested in - a question was asked, and I answered. What's wrong with even spirited discussion? I appreciate your efforts, and it is unfortunate others opted to turn it into something else. That makes no less than 3 different directions this thread has gone.Srobak (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright y'all - I'm done carrying on with this. Do as you will. Areas of concern have been identified and I understand them (1) and (2) - and that I would address them. If that isn't sufficient without having to further pigeon-hole me with non-policy/guideline issues just because someone has a different viewpoint on it, then there isn't much more I can do. I have worked tirelessly for years to try and keep the quality of articles on WP at their best and keep the vandalism and bs to a minimum. That is not always an easy task - and it is certainly a thankless task (not that I am asking for any). One thing it can be is frustrating when you see rampant vandalism and outright fallacies in articles day after day, followed up by other users who want to run you through the ringer for every edit or revert I might do. I know I am far from the hardest working editor putting forth these efforts - I know some who do in a day what I do in a week or more, but I'd like to think I am making a positive difference. If the consensus of the admins is that this is not the case, due to a couple of isolated incidents of warning policies and the few times that some registered users thought they shouldn't be held to the same if not an even higher standard than anonip users out of the thousands of "QA" type edits and monitorings I have conducted - and that sanctions are warranted... then so be it. I'll take my lumps for it, and as I said - take my leave of WP. I leave my fate in the hands of the admins at this point, and will not respond to any further circular discussion. I've recognized the things brought to my attention and have indicated to make better efforts on them, and said my bit and perspective on non-policy matters. That is all the more I have to contribute to this situation. I await the decisions of the admins. Thanks Srobak (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't recognized and said you'd do better on them because you have just tried to dodge what was brought before you. You don't have the right judgment to template the regulars. You don't seem to hear what has been asked.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus concerning Twinkle[edit]

Both of you would benefit from reading an excellent book called Getting to YES. You would both be able to sort this out ambicably, I really think. The most troubling this is you are both right. Berean is essentially after greater compliance (and it has to be explicitaly stated) with policy and greater civility. Srobak is essentially after being allowed to edit towards the good of the encyclopedia, and the right to call a spade a spade.
THESE GOALS ARE COMPATIBLE. Perhaps we could have another go, gentlemen? Ber could re-enable twinkle, srobak could promise not to warn anyone for a couple of days? Egg Centric (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Twinkle hasn't been removed..instead, I'm starting a consensus format. It isn't the time period of not warning...a couple of days won't make up for errors in judgment. I think your summary is probably right <and also appreciate your efforts here>. I see him as being too recalcitrant, don't like how he responds to other editors (longtime editors that I respect a good deal) and looking for him to play nice in the sandbox. Collegiality seems to be pitched out the window with him.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I have been templated after this discussion began for removing a warning template from the good faith IP mentioned in my original post [7]. I have little faith that the editor is really gonna change his behaviour. Yoenit (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Really Yoenit? You were L1 templated because you violated WP:TPO! This is a perfect, textbook example as to why WP:TR exists and should be enforced. The original complaint from you was regarding [[8]], was reverted by an admin (Sarek) after being identified as an improper warn [[9]], replaced by the correct template [[10]], which you then removed as a third party, violating WP:TPO [[11]]. Thank you for making my case for me. Srobak (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, I am off to bed before I make any comments I am gonna regret. Suffice it to say I think further discussion with you is futile. Yoenit (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Short Comment by uninvolved editor[edit]

Srobak, I'm glad you're doing this work. You may not be aware, but you're coming off exceptionally aggressively/confrontationally here (heck, even your user page!) and I've no doubt that it's accidental, a feature of text based communication perhaps. Perhaps you may want to look at that - maybe be a little less direct, a little bit more flowery? Egg Centric (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Egg, I appreciate your feedback... but I will be honest: Flowery isn't me. I know I am direct... I don't pull any punches and I do not beat around the bush. For better or worse - it is who I am, and not just my "online persona". While some folks in this thread may see that as being potentially "problematic" for WP - the more realistic and open minded sort will also be able to identify the strengths and how they could be of far more benefit to WP vs. harm. Srobak (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Quite right, I am the same myself. Nevertheless there is some value in understanding how you come across to others and realising that even if one is in the right objectively, people will agree and disagree with you for all kinds of subjective reasons and taking care of that is wise. Furthermore, when it comes to the biting issue, this perceived aggressiveness (although we see it as straight talking) is a hindrance. Egg Centric (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Kerp in mind, too, that what you may regard as "honest plain speaking" may give the opposite impression: that you're being aggressive specifically because you have something to hide. I'm not saying that you lie; I'm saying that aggressive language often leaves the impression that the speaker is lying. People who pride themselves on aggressive plain speaking rarely realize this on their own, which is why I point it out. --174.5.67.203 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Another short comment by outside editor[edit]

Srobak, we have escalating warning levels for a reason. We try the softly softly approach before the big stick. Unless the edit in question is a serious BLP violation or otherwise egreriously violates our policies you should step through the warning templates in order. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's posted a mea culpa above (after this post). In general, I skip warning steps only when the vandal acts again in a short time (for example, directly reverting my revert of their vandalism). --King Öomie 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One more[edit]

Srobak, this isn't about "talking straight" this is about following process and rules. We have a rather strict policy about what is an isn't vandalism and about assuming good faith - not to mention civilty which I guess you just don't agree with. But a level 4 warning means something particular, and so does vandalism - by using it in the wrong context you are making it meaningless.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Still another[edit]

I couldn't help but be struck by Srobak's tone in this thread: he sounds like an old-timer who has grown embittered over the years, badly needs to take a long WikiBreak,& is tolerated because he has done valuable work in the past. However a look at Srobak's statistics show a far different person: a Wikipedian for less than two & ahalf year, having made less than 2,000 edits in that time. And there's no clear basis for bitterness on his side: yes, Srobak's been blocked, but that was years ago & for 3RR; a glance at Srobak's talk page before this WP:AN/I thread shows a lot of questions & mild warnings about he handles vandals.

In short, I don't know where this bull dog mentality comes from. My advice to Srobak here is this: dial back on the 'tude, Dude. Not all vandals are vicious little scumbags; some are just bored juveniles. And people generally respond better to personal messages than to templates. If you can't understand this, & try to play nice with others, your experience contributing to Wikipedia will only become less pleasant. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at school articles[edit]

Adolescent vandals teeing off on their schoolmates, who are private persons, at least one particularly nasty case. Very recent IP/new user edits, sometimes multiple edits to the articles. Edits reverted, but need to be removed from public view.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Think I got them, but I left a couple that didn't seem revdelable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Are comments made about a real person, made on a BLP of another person eligable for Revdel? As I mailed a revision to the Oversight list, but it was deemed not eligible for oversight nor for revdel as it was seen as simple vandalism. Jarkeld (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably. The oversighters are much more conservative (as it should be) about using their tool than admins. If you post the diff, I can clean it up. --Jayron32 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This one. Jarkeld (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done, and an earlier one by the same IP as well. --Jayron32 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder, anything particularly nasty about possibly living persons, that needs consideration of RevDel or oversight, should be either sent privately to an admin happy to handle RevDel requests, or sent privately to the oversight team as per WP:OVERSIGHT. Mentioning it here risks attracting additional attention (although I imagine it made little difference in this case.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The user DID contact oversight, and they refused to handle it. This seemed like a logical next step. --Jayron32 16:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but privately approaching someone in CAT:REVDEL might have been slightly better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I tried to find someone on that list who was online at the time, but the people I looked at hadn't been online for a while so my next step was to mail the oversight team. Jarkeld (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Poofledawgirl Vandalism only acct.[edit]

Resolved

This user Poofledawgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is copying the shibi inu page and duplicating it all over wiki using different topic names as from her talk page she has been consistently using her acct. for pure vandalism. Avatar 06349 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted all pages, Sarek's blocked the user. In future this can go to WP:AIV where it's likely to be addressed quickly. —SpacemanSpiff 19:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Onetonycousins more personal attacks[edit]

This user has a number of blocks for personal attacks but still continues [12] Gnevin (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind Gnevin but i adjusted your link to show the edit summary which is the source of the personal attack, it just showed the article and that it was an old version edited by Onetonycousins. Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as "Useless propaganda". Hows its propaganda is another question. User despite two previous blocks appears to still think demeaning edit summaries are permissable on Wikipedia. Mabuska (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't mind at all, thanks for correcting my error Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as Useless propaganda. Hows its propaganda is another question." A stalker and a genius. Believe it or not, "Hows its propaganda" is the question. Maybe ask the IP who thought it was "pointless". Onetonycousins (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not my fault that this page is in my watch list and your name appears once again for personal attacks and the like. Though you should know the answer to your question seeing as it was you who said it was propaganda. Mabuska (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack while reporting a ANI case. [13] Gnevin (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

IP 24.185.84.37 Use of User name JeffJonez[edit]

In reviewing edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Mitchell (government official) I noticed that 24.185.84.37 signed a comment in the AfD using the username JeffJonez. See [14] I have looked at the edits by both users and see a difference in the type of edits both create. 24.185.84.37 has removed maintenance tags and the AfD. The edits exhibit vandalism while JeffJones' edits are standard well thought out edits. Should something be done about the Anom's apparent spoofing of JeffJones' address? ttonyb (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP didn't take kindly to this point being raised: [15]. Coming on top of several warnings, that one earned them a short stay in the sin bin. Favonian (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
His actions go a long way to the validation of the assumption. ttonyb (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I've struck the fake signature in the AfD and replaced it with the real one. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Should I be flattered? I suppose my name is generic enough that this astroturfer thought it was cover enough. How odd! - JeffJonez (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Have you come into conflict with this IP recently? Or any other, in case he's hopping? GiantSnowman 19:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted my share of vandalism, but haven't had any challenging conversations in almost a year here. Who knows. - JeffJonez (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
My guess is it was not vandalism directed toward JeffJonez, but rather an attempt to add credibility to the AfD comment. ttonyb (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah I see now. The article was for a Homeland Security official, and I've previously made edits in several DHS-related articles. This is probably how anon came to choose my account -- as Ttonyb1 said -- to add credibility to their position. - JeffJonez (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Dorothyy11 and article about non-notable band "Dorothyy"[edit]

Resolved

This editor have three times now created the article Dorothyy, a non-notable band from Rhode Island. Three times it's been deleted, but he keeps coming back and recreating it. Then he made this diff to the Dorothy disambiguation page, after he had been reverted from adding that information to the disambig page before. To quote the edit summary in his diff, "im going to make a billion wiki pages and flood this site if this is taken down....." Recommend blocking of this editor, and salting of Dorothyy. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Behavior by User: Mad Doggin 7 / 65.254.165.214[edit]

The user Mad Doggin 7 (also posts under the IP address 65.254.165.214, which is clearly the same person) has repeatedly disrupted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters. Over several months he has unilaterally reverted several community members' edits countless times to place his unsourced, extremely poor quality information (his story has also changed to very different but equally poor information despite him claiming the same source). This information is in direct contradiction to community concensus and provided official sources. When asked to provide links or verification regarding his sources or evidence, he has repeatedly explicitly refused to do so, stating that he is above the need to provide verification.

Not only this, but he has repeatedly threatened other users on the article's Talk Page who disagree with him with bans/blocks that he has no authority over. He has even explicitly lied about the administrator privileges of another user in an attempt to intimidate other users. This is explicitly prohibited as noted under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TPNO#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

I laid out a well formulated argument on the talk page (which he frequents): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters, in which I cited and provided links to many official sources (including the media's creator which he supposedly cites) and addressed his claims. I also warned him of his disruptive behavior and Wikipedia policy violations, with direct links to the policy pages. He has chosen to ignore this, and instead continued his reverts under his alternate IP address/account 65.254.165.214 (a quick look at the address' history reveals that this is obviously the same person) without bothering to respond or provide any sources as he has consistently done so in the past.

I recommend immediate action be taken to prevent further disruption by this user. As demonstrated over the last several months, he has no intention of stopping or providing any evidence, despite being warned to do so. Investigation into the IP address reveals a history of disrupting other articles as well. CannikinX (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Still awaiting administrator feedback). It has now been more than 24 48 hours since this thread was started with no comment or action. I am posting just to make sure this does not get prematurely archived. Though this article may be of "low priority", it would be greatly appreciated if there were some acknowledgement that this situation has at least been reviewed by a member of the administrative staff. Further investigation into this user's history reveals that it was deemed necessary by administrators to block him for his behavior in the past. CannikinX (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If he does this again and you catch it when its still "recent" you can report it at WP:ANV and probably get him blocked. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources[edit]

Issue[edit]

On Amrish Puri, Winston786 added information without adding a WP:Reliable Source after final warning. User has recently come back from a one week block over this issue. He has had warnings over several articles from me and other users over adding WP:Reliable Source, here, here, here, here, and finally he has made changes to here again without adding references. Thanks--SH 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)--SH 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Ranbir Kapoor page is great example of what has happened. See the Talk page here, fascinating. Thanks --SH 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a list of where this user does not post WP:Reliable Sources, and on many occaisions goes against the source:
  1. here
  2. here which contradicts this
  3. here
  4. here
  5. here he undid a reliable source.
  6. here he seems to have an objection to Urdu.
  7. here he contradicts the reliable source.
  8. here he seems to have a strange objection against reliable sources.
  9. here he deletes what the reliable source says "When Hindus crack this joke, they are oblivious to the fact that had the Sikhs not intervened, their womenfolk would have been dishonoured and taken into exile.". This looks like WP:Censorship too.
  10. here, he removes content that I have typed on the Administrators notice board.
  11. Note the WP:Competence and WP:Reliable Source raised by an Administrator here
  12. He has had a another block this time for 2 weeks for breaking the WP:3RR rule here
Thanks --SH 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Any interested parties might like to read the discussion on my talk page. --Diannaa (Talk) 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Response[edit]

I didn't add it(on Amrish Puri page), I RE-added it, it was taken off by IP 115.188.244.146 on 12th January 2011, it was there earlier. User:Sikh-history, who is consistently stalking only my edits didn't check it and reverted it blindly. I have added sources(and provided better ones, when asked for) in all the disputed pages.

  • This case was settled as I immediately provided the reliable source.
  • This I have already mentioned.
  • This ended up with other user tagging what I added, which was a "fact".Winston786 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history himself have been adding unsourced data on pages. His edit history will let you know his obsession with me and is consistent stalking of my edits. Thank You. Winston786 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


My explaination

  1. This is a fact
  2. This is a fact
  3. here User:Sikh-history seems to have extra love for Urdu.
  4. here I did not do it.
  5. This explained above
  6. here not contradicting, infact adding
  7. This I did not, wrote EXACTLY whats written in the source
  8. here User:Sikh-history seems to have extra love for Punjab.
  9. here User:Sikh-history adding his POV unlike whats written "where they killed 1.5 lakh people, both Hindus and Muslims. He headed homewards almost immediately, taking back incredible loot gold, jewelry, elephants, horses, camels, skilled labourers and, as is usual in war, women" Winston786 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Further Comments[edit]

User:Sikh-history seems to have a pro Punjab and pro Sikh bias and a little anti Hindu bias in his editions, also the user seems to be madly obsessed with me, most of his/her recent edits are the one which follow my edits on a particular page, there are too many such incidents to call it a co-incidence. He/She started editing those pages only after I edited them, so them being on his/her watchlist doesn't really hold too much ground Thank You.Winston786 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am a Hindu convert to Sikhism originally from Haryana, and have lived in Punjab, not that it is relevant, but then again you must remember to WP:Assume Good Faith. Thanks--SH 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The user seems to have a religious history which could be a reason for his supposed bias. Winston786 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That is bordering on racism my friend, it is like saying because I am black, I have a chip on my shoulder, or because I am a Jew I hate Muslims. Accusations like that are not cool man.--SH 09:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

violation of 3RR[edit]

User Roger Pearse has violated 3RR on Mithraic mysteries‎‎. He has made four reverts in close succession and at least one was after being warned to refrain from edit warring. He has also reverted one of my comments from the talk page.-Civilizededucationtalk 02:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there are better noticeboards for that, but in the meantime (since the situation was obviously headed downhill) I have asked the mediation cabal to assist in reaching a resolution, listing you and Roger Pearse and one other editor - you may (or may not) wish to indicate your acceptance of mediation on that page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
(In addition, the page in question is full protected, and the user in question said he's not going to be online today, so things seem under control) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User Impersonation - Mad Doggin 7 Making False Claims Using my Signatures/Claiming to be Moderator[edit]

The user User: Mad Doggin 7 has been impersonating me, making claims on the Talk:List of Black Rock Shooter characters and linking my user name at the end as a signature as if I had made the claim myself. Prior to clarifying that I am being impersonated, I have not made any contributions to that page since September 24, 2010 as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=386769826&oldid=386560984.

The edit(s) in question in which the identified culprit has made are the following:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=410621620&oldid=410254409 : Mad Doggin 7 uses my name at the end to back his own personal argument about sources and naming in the article
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=411390510&oldid=411390089 : In this edit he claims for himself that I am a moderator to give weight to the last statement he made as me(noted in the above edit). I have never once alluded to being, cited myself as being, falsified my self as being or claimed myself to being a moderator

My account has not been compromised and a quick check through My Contributions shows edits that correlates with ones that I myself am aware that I made. To summarize, the user in question, User: Mad Doggin 7 has been editing in my name to their arguments in order to gain some absurd advantage over other editors. They have also made false statements and impressions that I am a moderator, of which I myself have never expressed, in order to gain an upper hand in their personal desire to ensure their edits to the List of Black Rock Shooter characters article are not removed or changed. Fox816 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking into it. Is it possible you wrote that in the past and he copy-pasted it? That's the only innocent explanation I can think of. N419BH 06:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have never made any such claims and a refresher check through my history shows no such writings. I read through it all...and to be blunt, their methodology and the fact they claimed it to be mine is an insult to me as an editor and a person. I clearly state in earlier posts that "I myself am not sure as to what the accurate names are for the characters aside the main four in the OVA so I can't comment on naming issues" - edit on September 17. I also clearly state that reliable sources must be provided and should be linked. Fox816 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that's kinda what I thought. Looks like someone who doesn't realize the history shows which account actually made the edit. Looks intentional too; they seem to have created the comment signed to you in order to provide a second opinion to back them up, then they mistakenly assumed that everyone who's been around for a couple years is a "moderator" (no idea what that is) and used that to proxy-threaten the opposition with blocks. A STERN warning here seems more than appropriate, and a block is perhaps in order, though I don't have the tools to do that. N419BH 06:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing this up Fox816. I had my suspicions that something was up because the recent behavior under your name was distinctly inconsistent with past behavior, and I had a feeling that Mad Doggin 7 was somehow involved.
Please note, any administrators investigating this, that I have also started a thread with addressing several other grievances involved with Mad Doggin 7 (and his associated IP address 65.254.165.214) which is located higher up on this page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_Behavior_by_User:_Mad_Doggin_7_.2F_65.254.165.214. It has information related to this investigation, and as of yet has not received administrator attention (as far as I can tell). CannikinX (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have struck out Fox's "signature" in the post in question and placed a note regarding who actually wrote the post and directed users to the page's history for the evidence. Investigating the socking claim now. N419BH 07:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. I went through the warning templates checking for one that fits "impersonation" but can't seem to find one, unless I happened to skip over it in my rage. If it is in my right to suggest, I believe a block is appropriate since the said user has shown a tendency for intimidation, subjugation and a general disrespect for other editors. As well, impersonation itself is a severe grievance that should not go unpunished. Will an administrator come along and deal judgment or do I have to parallel this case somewhere else? Fox816 (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This template can be used once he is blocked, Template:Blockedimpersonator. Here is a warning template for his talk page, User:Chrisch/Templates/Impersonation. There is also one to use when actually blocking, Template:Uw-uhblock-double. I don't see one for warning users of impersonation however. Hope this helps! WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Just leave it here for now. It's pretty common around this time (late night in the United States, early morning in Europe) for the boards to go pretty silent and few people to be online, with even fewer admins around. Someone will read through it once they've had some coffee and deal with it as appropriate. A stern warning is appropriate here, and I will provide a customized one in a moment. As for blocking the user, blocks are preventative, not punitive. We don't use them to punish people, we use them to prevent damage. In my opinion, a stern warning is appropriate here, but a block is not unless the user continues their disruptive behavior. N419BH 07:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
...I guess I went ahead of myself there. I opened up a can of angry birds, now I need to cool down a bit. Thank you everyone for assisting :D Fox816 (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Final Warning given. We'll see what his response is. N419BH 07:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not too optimistic, and a look at this talk page history shows why, but we'll see. Kansan (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Campaign of Deletion" against the Transformers Wiki Project by NotARealWord and TFWiki.net[edit]

The Transformers wikipedia project has recently suffered from a glut of sock puppet attacks and deletion nominations. I recently came across posts by user NotARealWord on a fan wiki (he posts as Item42 there, but since he publically admits to that, I think it's okay for me to say so here). In it he talks about the current "Campaign of deletion" he has going here. I also noticed several of the people who talk to him are also voting for deletion nominations, and some even admit to having sock puppets on Wikipedia. He did this after I told him how anti-Wikipedia sentiments on the tfwiki are. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive47#Some_Wikipedia_user The tf wiki even brags about how few Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Wikipedia I was wondering if this amounts to canvasing or even instigating some of the sock puppet attacks. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly some of the participants are dicks and violating policy, but multiple established editors have also initiated and participated in these AfDs, merges, redirects, etc. None of these happen without multiple people chiming in, and final evaluation of the merits of arguments about the articles are rendered by established administrators. Perhaps this calls for closer scrutiny of new(ish)-user initiation and participation in AfDs (which I think has already happened), but nothing more. --EEMIV (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Individual cases of possible sockpuppetry can be investigated, but my experience of the Transformers AfDs have generally been that in spite of some occasional questionable nominations and/or !votes, the right decision is usually reached, as genuine editors weigh in and sockpuppets/SPIs are exposed and disregarded by the closing admin. I can't claim to have any understanding of what happens on tfwiki but I'm disinclined to try and understand who is who and who has done what on which wiki, as I don't really see the relevence.--KorruskiTalk 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The question about whether the deletions were done correctly isn't the issue. It's about NotARealWord's tactics in seemingly canvasing from anti-Wikipedia groups about his nominations. He even brags on how many Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia. He would seem to be abusing the nomination process. Since he joined NotARealWord has been about article deletions. Maybe he should take a break and do something else with his edits for a change? (Note: This is Mathewignash at a terminal at my work.) 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not seeing evidence of canvasing per se. Can you point to a specific divdif? You might interpret his statements as bragging, and I agree that referring to it as a 'campaign' is a little unfortunate, but I don't see it as particularly inappropriate. If you found me talking on another wiki about my 'campaign to improve citations in BLPs on Wikipedia', I don't think anyone would be complaining. And yes, in the end, the question about whether the deletions were done correctly is the issue. If no damage has been caused, then any further discussion is really just drama for no good reason.--KorruskiTalk 15:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Failing to see an issue here, particularly with activities at TFWiki; whose members seem perfectly happy and content and quite accepting of our policies (it is, after all, what TFWiki exists for....). This just comes across as an attempt to get some action against NotARealWord. Mathewignash doesn't seem squeaky clean in all this; WP:BOOMERANG --Errant (chat!) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • From Wikipedia:Canvassing "Stealth canvassing - Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages." People there had already said they were wikipedia editors when he started telling them about his "Campaign of Deletion". He did it off site with the clear intent of gaining support. He provided a link to his talk page which has a link to his nominations for deletion. He clearly attempted Stealth Canvassing to gain support for his nominations. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Please provide a link or two to a diff of him asking folks to chime in at AfDs, or pointing folks toward a specific AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
      • As said in my comment above, which you have not responded to, difs would be useful as currently I see no evidence of the 'clear intent of gaining support' that you are claiming. Incidentally, I have informed NotARealWord of this discussion, as you seem not to have done so yet.--KorruskiTalk 16:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Merely notifying those who are clearly on one side of an issue is is canvasing. It would be no different from me notifying only those who voted with me in a previous deletion cases that there is another deletion nomination. Doing it off site is stealth. He provides a link to his talk page on Wikipedia, and tells them about the nominations. I don't know of a requirement that he provides a link to the nominations in his posting, he does link to Wikipedia and tells people who are admitted members. They know to look in the Transformers Wiki project for current nominations. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
          • You might have been within spitting distance of a point if NotARealWord actually solicited anyone to come participate in an AfD, and if any of the TFwiki users were considered some sort of hotbed of Transformers deletionists. But he didn't say anything like that at all, and the TFWikipeople seem largely ambivalent/dismissive about Transformers articles on the Wikipedia, preferring their own content and methodology. I read through a few articles, and it is much more of a fan-oriented and humorous approach to the subject matter. If Mathewignash has a bee in his bonnet about how people talk about him off-site, there's really not much to be done about that. Similar complaints pop up time time time regarding the Wikipedia Review, where the response is (appropriately) "tough cookies". Tarc (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
            • The fact that the TFwiki's page about Wikipedia makes a joke about how it now has fewer Transformers articles is proof of it's deletionist tendencies. We don't need proof he asked them one way or another, he informed those he clearly knew off site to be of one opionion about deletion nominations. That's stealth canvassing. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Guys, stop asking for diffs. They don't exist. Mathewignash is making things up. Ego sum a atrum militis (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
                • I'm confused. How can he? canvass people after the !vote? Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
                • (ec)It is not "stealth canvassing" if nothing is actually being, y'know, canvassed. Again, at WR there are regular discussions about problematic articles, but there is no sort of bloc response that results, now is one expected. Same for the TFWiki place. They are dismissive of TF Wiki articles in general. Dismissive != deletionist. And I really don't put much stock in the point of view from single-purpose anon IPs anyways, so this will be the last of this side tangent. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • Tarc, you haven't read the discussion so far before joining in. 198.51.174.5 stated three edits above who xe is. And even without that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathewignash makes this point clear. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • Ahh, so I missed one line of one post of Mathewignashs'. My mistake, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of the commentary. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The long and short of the issue is that there's only a problem if pages were inappropriately deleted, which does not seem to be the case. The spirit of Wikipedia:Canvassing is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia: No damage means that this is a non-issue. Besides per Mathewignash's own link(very bottom) at the top of this page, the stated purpose of this "campaign" is to improve the encyclopedia. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think there's much cause to worry. Administrators are not, in general, members of the ranks of the terminally stupid; they will not simply delete nominated articles that have evidently been vote-stacked despite the appropriateness of the nomination. In fact, people can nominate articles for deletion until they are blue in the face, but articles won't get deleted solely because they are nominated -- the nomination must also have merit, and the votes must be reasonable plus representative of a consensus. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to this, please note that my "campaigning" was already addressed by Dream Focus (see here) a few months ago. And no, the fact that TFWiki "brags about how few Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia" has nothing to do with me. The bit that says "Wikipedia is also a real website. It has many articles on Transformers—though not nearly as many as it used to", has been around long before I started making AfDs. I started around August 28. Also, I don't think TF Wiki is actually involved in this deletion very much, I only noticed like, 2 people from there commtning on my AfDs. One of them was already blocked as a sockpuppet. NotARealWord (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In an interestign turn of events, a message board thread run by the tfwiki is monitoring this thread, a thread where NotARealWord has posted as well, and one member, Blackout, admits to "wasting" one of his sock puppets to post against me here. Meanwhile I see blocked editor "Editor XXV" has attacked this thread. Blackout is Editor XXV, a known mass sockpuppeteer, and Blackout is a major contributor to the tfwiki. So basically we know for sure one of the many sock puppeteers is a major TFwiki member. Mathewignash (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Your point? -Blackout-/Editor XXV/whatever's acounts have been blocked. I'm pretty sure only the Divebomb account was created as a result of this. And, that was a "good hand" account which has already been blocked. Also, that thread is not really "run by the tf wiki" NotARealWord (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Ignash, this feels like a rehash of a previous thread you started last year.

This is far from being a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" versus all the poor put-upon editors who are being surprised at suddenly have a lot of work to do. This is you having over two year's notice that there were problems here, including from some of the editors who have now made deletion nominations, not doing pretty much anything about it, and then complaining when the rest of the world runs out of patience waiting. You shouldn't be surprised that you're in the pickle that you're in now. You had at least a year, after you knew without question that there was a problem looming, where you could at leisure have rectified this situation and prevented this from happening. That you are now pressured into working hard to cite sources at a time that you find personally inconvenient is a bed of your own making.

NotARealWord (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

...and looking back at that incident, it ended with us discovering that one of the editors making massive deletion nominations was a sock puppet nominator. So that complaint was VALID! Mathewignash (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
That one was helpful, this one isn't. Not really sure if it was "valid" though, since you weren't actually complainin that you suspected sockpuppetry at first, you were just complaining about AfDs and the sockpuppets popped up. NotARealWord (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a regular on TFWiki (under the name JW), I am not aware of any anti-Wikipedia sentiment more organized than, "It would be nice if their rules were more like ours, and it would be nice if they had more Transformers articles, but [shrug] whatever." TFWiki's article about Wikipedia is not much more than an idle grumble (and mostly just about Wikipedia getting mentioned in a Transformers magazine, anyway). I believe this basically boils down to a disagreement between Mathewignash and NotARealWorld. 38.111.35.2 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it odd that anyone thinks there's a TFWiki campaign to delete TF Wikipedia articles, when I got the impression that a significant reason some TFWiki people are disgruntled with Wikipedia is because they found it annoying that articles and info they put effort into kept getting deleted or changed around due to Wikipedia rules. As such, making a campaign of encouraging said deletion would be... rather contradictory. --67.252.49.31 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Plus there is the minor detail that at least one tfwiki regular member, user:Blackout, is an active sock puppeteer disrupter on Wikipedia (user:Editor XXV). Something he told NotARealWord just before NotARealWord told him about the current "Campaign of Deletion" he was running on Wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In full disclosure, there are currently two SPI cases about this: one where Mathewignash accused NotARealWord of being a sockpuppet, and one where NotARealWord accused Mathewignash of using an IP. What a mess. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a blooming clue of what's going on here. We don't even have a list of which TF article are being AfD'd or any diff for the accusation of canvassing to get the un-indentified TF articles deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • That's probably because they don't exist. As EEMIV pointed out above, and as I pointed out the last time (hyperlinked-to above), there are in reality several distinct groups of people here. Alas, one group comprises malicious pot-stirrers, who have observed Mathewignash's reactions to other people nominating articles for deletion and set out to deliberately get a rise out of Mathewignash. But those are not even the majority of the people involved, let alone the entirety. There are, for example, people such as BlackKite (whom I pointed to last time as someone trying to get Mathewignash to cite sources and address multi-subject articles over a period of years) who most definitely do not fall into that category. There are also, as EEMIV points out, ordinary good-faith editors who have come along and expressed their concern at articles that AFD has drawn to their attention. There isn't some giant imagined "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" here. There are a lot of different people, with different motivations. Quite a few of them, it appears, are people acting in good faith to get some articles fixed that they'd like to see fixed. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As one of thiose who has, occasionaly, been involved in a tranformers AFD I would like to say that I am far more concerned bt the Transformers inclusionism. It seems that every character, planet, ship or shirt that appears in an incarnation has an articel. This is part of that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a big tangent from the initial concern Mathewignash raised, and that kind of content issue isn't relevant at ANI. Consensus seems to be that Mathewignash's concern isn't really shared by anyone. Let's stop editing this section so the bot can clear it out. --EEMIV (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No here to contribute + Sock puppetry[edit]

is a trans-wiki spammer of original research. Also with the same logins in the french wikipedia. See here Thank you. --Epsilon0 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All  Confirmed except the first one, which is stale, but I think that's also an obvious sock. –MuZemike 19:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Anybody to block him and to blacklist his three sites grammar-and-logic.com 1], [erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr 2] [knol.google.com/k/cestas/knol-000-pr%C3%A9sentation-des-trois/39y3khftrdkhq/62# ? 3] ? --Epsilon0 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged. The blacklist is something I'd rather not touch, though. Courcelles 23:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Added grammar-and-logic.com and erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr to the blacklist - not sure how to add the knol link without blacklisting the entire knol.google.com site though (which presumably we don't really want to do!) EyeSerenetalk 12:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I blacklisted the stuff on meta, will remove here again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much to all of you. --Epsilon0 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-opening Weiterbewegung, Maurice J. Halton and revocation of licensing for posted text[edit]

This was raised at the end of December WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#Weiterbewegung.2C_Maurice_J._Halton_and_revocation_of_licensing_for_posted_text but was auto-archived without any resolution - or any response by the user involved. (Please read if you're not already familiar.)

Today has now brought the same problem back, on three four five more articles:

As previously, this editor (who is generally assumed to be Maurice J. Halton) has helpfully posted large parts of his theses, but now flagged these same additions as copyvios. As before, that's an attempt to revoke an irrevocable license of this text, as clearly explained on our edit pages. The alternative (they're not the author) would be that their contributions represent a serious bulk copyvio.

Action is needed here. Obviously the project is harmed by this sort of addition and reversion. Several editors have already wasted time on dealing with this and, more seriously, it's difficult to justify working on these articles in the future if they're to be under perpetual threat of deletion / major content removal in the future.

This is made worse by the editor's refusal to engage in any discussion of their actions. Their carping at anyone and everyone else is irritating, but no worse than the usual trolls that we have to suffer.

What is our action from this point? Rollback of all of this editor's additions? An indef block and ban to prevent it happening again? Doing nothing, as last week, doesn't seem to be a viable option. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest that Weiterbewegung is asked to suggest a solution, as treating experts with respect and trying to understand their Weltanschauung is often more productive than to assume conflict. He may be in a position to get Maurice Halton to give a OTRS statement of consent for his work to be used in this way: thus satisfying WP conditions so he in all conscience could then remove the copyvio tags he 'rightfully' placed, and we would all be in a more secure position. I am very keen to have this resolved as I have a to do list of other Manchester machine tool companies that need to be written up, and I am hoping that the eminent scholar has copious reams of notes on these companies that he may be proud to share.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
His theses are copyrighted. They are copyrighted the moment he published them. He cannot just paste them here, because we don't know if it's really him. There are two possible courses of action here: either we remove those contributions as copyvios, or he provides permission to use his theses through the OTRS system. If he does the latter, we can keep the text. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Andy Walsh, I think that the issue is wider than the original premise. However, to address your comment: it seems to make the assumption that the user in question is in fact Maurice J Halton & can therefore grant permission. To be honest, and based on other events not directly related to the copyvios, my suspicion is tending more towards trolling. Of course, I cannot prove this and, which is worse, I'm too green to know how to demonstrate it using diffs (I can see them but not use them!) etc. Take a look at my own talk page and that of the Churchill Machine Tool Company (+ history of that article). If he is not MJH then he has in legal terms himself breached copyright, and arguably also "passed off", and is in as much hot water as WP as an organisation; if he is MJH then by putting the stuff up here in the first place he has granted rights to use it. All I can add to this is that (a) I have been subjected to his general attitude and find it combative and reductionist at almost all times; (b) he does not seem to be learning even though other people much more experienced than me have tried very hard to deal with that attitude and accepted on good faith that as a noob he will not be entirely familiar with how things operate; and (c) his last resort seems always to quote WP:AGF, to the point where he is actually working *against* AGF by repeatedly using it as, for all intents and purposes, a defence. I for one am on the verge of walking away. I've fettled in quite a big way a couple of what are now big-ish entries here and have spurred those entries on to better things than I could hope for because they gained attention from people better than me (and massively so on the issue of polishing things up). In theory I could keep doing that quite easily. But "am I bovvered" when faced with someone who seems to me at times to be more difficult to deal with than a WP vandal ? I am genuinely sorry about this and feel bad as I type it, but I had to sound off. I also freely admit my limitations and ineptitude with regard to certain aspects of WP. It is not my intent to cause trouble or to seek attention. I've got a heap of stuff on the backburner for Farmer, Norton Ltd, which should exist as an article, but frankly am reaching the point of not caring less with regard to WP. And now I have probably breached all etiquette, but forgive me please because I've not been involved in this sort of thing before. Sitush (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sitush, thanks for posting. I'm afraid you misunderstand the essence of the issue here. Whether he really is MJH is irrelevant—he cannot grant permission to use copyrighted work just by posting here, precisely because we cannot verify who he is. If he really is MJH or has access to him, he must grant permission through the OTRS system. That's really all there is to say about the copyright issue. His behavior and whether or not it constitutes trolling should be treated as a separate matter. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
OK Andy. My apologies for misunderstanding & thanks for clarifying. I'm afraid that my frustration is getting the better of me. Sitush (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Having looked at the postings which are alleged to be copyvio, some, which were added by Weiterbewegung, give references to other works so it might be that rather than a copyvio it's more a copy paste requiring rewrite. Also what is the copyright status of the doctoral thesis? It is available online here http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/his_theses/1/ and if the whole document is downloaded please see the statement at the bottom of page 1 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the History at UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History: Theses by an authorized administrator of UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact ubir@bolton.ac.uk. There is also the policy statement relating to the repository here - http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/bolton_policy_template.pdf which suggests to me that the copyright status of the thesis is not as clear cut as it might first appear. As an email address is available I would suggest that contact is made with the university to discuss this. NtheP (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess the next question is, how much of the thesis has been used? If it's a straight copy-paste, then their rules against commercial re-use would seem to apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not really the issue here. The boilerplate there is (not surprisingly) quite restrictive, and the use that was made went far in excess of that. However the claim here was different: that the content was specifically licensed to WP (under the general GFDL requirement) by the act of posting it. Provided that the editor was entitled to license it in that way (and generally the author of a thesis would still hold rights to do this), that is why WP might have rights to do so, not from some general boilerplate for all artefacts held in a repository. In this case it seems impossibvle to prove that it was correctly licensed (even though I still believe it would have been), because the editor is now refusing to confirm that they're the author. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
@ClemRutter - good idea. What's his view of a future direction?
@AndyWalsh - you're right of course. It seems unlikely that an OTRS solution would work (even though that would be the best result), whether that's because the thesis wasn't his to give, or because he's since changed his mind.
My main concern is what happens in the future. I just don't want anything about engineering history to be under this indefinite shadow of getting slapped with a future copyvio claim. We must get to a point where there is no more of this editor's work still extant without a clear grant of rights behind it - whether that's by clarifying the rights (which their edits do after all claim to have granted to the project), or by rolling back all of their work forthwith. Of the nine(?) articles involved so far, one has already been deleted entirely. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is a special case here—we treat it as any other copyvio. If he makes contributions and we can make a reasonable assumption that he is writing new text from sources (even if it's his own thesis), there is no problem there. If his text is demonstrably a copy/paste from his paper or any other source, we revert it to a clean version. If there is no clean version, we delete it outright (as was the case with at least one of his articles). --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In that case, treating the editor as a serial copyright violator, we'd usually block. That's a bit harsh in this case, as no-one seriously believes that they were.
My real concern is with the editor's ongoing behaviour. They refuse to engage in any real discussion, they continually attack other editors and they also drop these bombshell copyvio claims onto fairly important articles like Ferranti. It was their action that caused it - they should be at least a little contrite, not swinging around the black template o'death as if they were an aggrieved rights holder. If they openly discussed that the theses used had to go, then editors could clean up as needed without such drama. John Musgrave & Sons is now being cleaned up in much this way.
As they're an editor who has run right off the end of AGF, I'm unhappy to see them left with editing access without at least an acceptance of what has happened - I would support an indef block (NB indef isn't infinite) or at least some form of restrictive edit ban, just to ensure it doesn't happen again. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed all of his contributions yet, but has he actually marked something as a copyvio yet that's not really a copyvio? The answer to that question will go a long way toward deciding if he's actually being disruptive. I normally block only as a last resort. Even if he's ramping up to WP:POINT, I'm not sure the best solution is to block. I'm going to try to engage him on his talk page and see if we can sort it out. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The content they've marked is AFAIK correctly scoped as being that from Maurice Halton's theses, content which they've added. However we shouldn't regard this as a copyvio against the uploader, because the likelihood is that they're the rights holder to it. We can't prove this to keep it, but nor can we disprove it to treat them as a copyright violator. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
We err on the side of removing it if we can't prove ownership. It can always be restored if an OTRS ticket is received. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
@Andy Dingley: I will ask then.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
@Weiterbewegung: Sehr geehrte Herr Doktor, können Sie uns erklaren, was, in Seine Meinung werde dem besten Weiterbewegung. (oops wp:en not commons so in translation)- how do we progress?) Interesting issues of plagiarism, copyright, legal identity have been raised- but the Christmas tree has been taken down, and the mince pies finished- to the plus side Churchills is now a nice piece of work. With you we have two extra editors working on industrial history. So an opinion sir! --ClemRutter (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
@Any German speaker: corrections to my talk page. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(/edit conflict)
This seems to be the only response so far, to a similar question I asked on his talk page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well if anyone wants to try a dialogue after that, all I can say is good luck. Meanwhile we still need to determine if the copyvios are indeed copyvios. I see that Kim D-B has taken a brief look at L. Gardner and Sons and doesn't think that the whole article is a violation. Does the same exercxie need to be undertaken with the rest of the articles mentioned? NtheP (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately they're a fairly recent editor, and their edits (that I've seen) are mostly large expansions of a few articles. It isn't too difficult to roll everything in this list (a dozen?) back to before they edited, then to carefully hand-reapply any other editors' relevant changes since. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
@Kim, that seems like a pretty fair analysis, and does gives us a lot of insight into Maurices Weltanshauung- and also gives us a fairly large tick lisk for areas that need to be improved. As one integrates into the Wikpediacommunity, one tends to brush off the irritations and develop strategies to attain your goals. Maurice, has set out quite clearly why he attempted to join and with that in mind, we can see how minor changes to the system could have prevented alot of the reason-free obstacles. ( Yes, I have issues with the mindless deletion on Fair Use images, 60 or 70 years old when it obvious the copyright owner was a company that is now defunct- by wiki-dalek who has no body of work to their name- and no experience in the world of cast iron and steel. ) It is an undesirable characteristic of WP, that discussion decends to argument and then to personalising. Most of those comments would be best left unsaid. I also think that Maurice is used to the world of peer review and objective argument, and we are behoven to debate at the same level. It would help if his comments were seriously considered, and his expertise was harnessed to achieve one of his identified aims: that of improving the quality, and indeed putting onto the internet for the first time the historical significance of these engineering firms. His comments about triangulation is very relevant. However, we need to stop patronising Weiterbewegung by impying he is a newbie- no way, he has been round the block a few times- consequently we can expect him to read WP:BITE and ask him to stop savaging timeserved Wikipedian who for reason of anno domini or lack of opportunity are less familiar with academic ways (the senior common room!). Weiterbewegung can obviously be asked to point out potential copyvios on each article and sugggest legitimate work arounds. And for the sake of sanity- can we slow this down a little so folk have time to formulate a reply before posting it- and get out to work as well.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
ClemRutter, I must disagree, except regarding the issue of images and bots regarding which my bet is there are thousands who get frustrated (incuding myself). The Wikipedia community *is* a community, just as is the academic (MA/PhD etc) community or the local pub or works canteen. There are rules of conduct and expectations of standards, but the expectations and standards differ. That is life, and we must all interact with many communities with different levels or else perhaps choose to become become hermits. No offence to hermits intended. He *is* a newbie, to WP at least and that is where we are. And he seems not to understand the rationale nor be willing to take it on board however much his critical faculties might disagree with it - that's the compromise we all have to make in any community of which we wish to be a member: to challenge but not to destroy. The one WP rationalise he does understand is AGF, but he appears to use it as a bludgeon, a panacea for all he does & thinks is right & thus actually abuses it. One thing I regret very much about WP is the problems associated with verifiability and NPOV. As an example, I have recently added a verifiable/primary source point to the Churchill Machine Tool Co entry which I nonetheless would like to expand on but it would not meet standards: yes, the company did advertise 4 addresses in 1899 but this doesn't mean that it was at that point a notable business: accommodation addresses, agents etc were as much the norm then as now but I cannot easily verify this without copious examples, which would swamp the page and therefore cannot say it, which might lead some to the wrong conclusion. "Maurice" took me to task on an even more academic point which effectively related to triangulation. In a very high level academic environment (think Maurice Cowling, with whom I studied and who produced not a lot of actual output in his life) he would be correct but I am afraid that it is an extremely niche area and not conducive to the dissemination of knowledge. Rather like dissing as useless every car except a Ferrari (or whatever). You will not read many books on historical subjects that rely entirely on seeing the original sources and never quote the work of someone else with suitable footnotes etc, the works of Marc Bloch and Cowling aside. The key is whether the someone else who is quoted is reliable, but without this "standing on the shoulders of giants" little will progress anywhere because we (the world, the species) will be continually chasing the tails that we no longer have. I have queried the reliability of a source Rolt regarding a specific point on the Talk page of the Churchill article I have been working on: that is the correct place to do it, I feel. Anyone who believes everything they read (even on WP) is silly. The key is to understand the limitations of that which you are reading. WP is imperfect but that does not mean adopting a destructive stance, which certainly is my experience of "Maurice". I was also surprised to see his statement of absolute truth: any trained historian knows that there is no such thing and that interpretation always gets in the way even of how a primary source is formed; any trained scientist knows that truth is but a hypothesis. Those that know neither, please try to find the time to read Thomas Kuhn <g>. I have read that which he contributed elsewhere than the Churchill article but I suspect people are overemphasising the value of someone who seems unwilling to collaborate and is often obtuse when his opinion differs. The copyvio issue really is NOT the important issue here, I feel. We can get round that if only by starting over. I promise you, if one person can do it then someone else can do it, and life is a marathon etc... I've done it on one article to a reasonable standard: it wouldn't be what I would write for a thesis but it fulfils the community expectations and provisos, and most importantly it adds to knowledge in a selfless way. In particular, my recent contributions lack style and do resemble merely a list of (verifiable!) facts, but that is the compromise you make both while digging around for information/building an entry and also later when you realise that the constraints of NPOV etc actually prevent elucidation/interpretation of history. You are placing far too much emphasis on what is now appearing to be a single source (the copyvio thesis, splashed around in bits over many entries and my bet is including a lot that is actually subjective opinion, because that is the point of original thought) and a person whose attitude seems generally to be negative. I have no reason to believe that he is anything other than a really nice person in "real life" but there have been a lot of people giving to him and very little taken by him in this entire farrago, and so perhaps he is just not suited to the environment. Nothing wrong with fish, nothing wrong with air, but fish and air do not work. His constant quoting of AGF only goes so far. I don't want to see him go because there is little doubt that he knows a lot about, well, something but even if he stays the copyvio is an issue and I doubt that it will go away unless he comes round to understanding the community, which looks to me to be extremely unlikely. It was an issue from the start and those who seem to think it is the only issue are really missing the point: it is in fact a symptom rather than the cause. The cause is the person. Although one good thing to come out of all this is that the Churchill AfD resulted in a "keep" as a direct consequence of "Maurice" desiring to see it gone because it was incapable of being expanded. Perhaps he is the perfect WP Devil's Advocate? Tramadol kicking in, off to bed, end of far too long essay. Apologies to all, including "Maurice". Sitush (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Nev1 has already rolled back L. Gardner & Son to thee point before Weiterbewegung made any edits, which leaves the rest of us unable to see the contributions made by others sicne then and to establish if the copyvio is as widespread as claimed or what other material should be re-added. Is this the best way of doing it? My feeling is that it isn't. I fully accept that material that is a copyvio needs to be removed but isn't it better to examine before deleting all those revisions? NtheP (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't just roll back, I also deleted the content of the revisions which copied (with some changes) from this source. I can unhide the content of the revisions if people think this requires further investigation? Nev1 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a problem with the process. Only admins can remove the copyvio banner, which excludes most of the people familiar with the article. It's probably useful if people who are more familiar can read through beforehand and comment on talk: as to whether it can all just go, or if there are particular diffs that ought to be re-applied. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) John Musgrave & Sons has also been rolled-back, after discussion between several of the contributors here.
With regard to the level of copyvio / the text affected, I was editing (I think) the Musgrave's article and looked up the thesis when the matter of copyvio was raised. As far as I can remember, whole paragraphs were copied directly from the thesis text. I had been doing my usual wikignoming and adjusted a few things. My first experience of Weiterbewegung's attitude was that he seemed to resent the thought that I should have the nerve to edit his contributions! I found him utterly uncooperative and, to be frank, down-right rude -- not the sort of behaviour I would have expected from an intelligent WP newbie.
I think it is a fairly safe bet, in most cases, to simply roll-back the articles to the state they were in before W. applied the disputed text, but Andy D is correct in suggesting that each article's talk page is the best place to assess the correct course of action.
-- EdJogg (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that on Dobson & Barlow Maurice is now claiming indirect plagiarism going back to before his own edits (via a site that no longer exists and isn't to be found in any of the web archives I've checked). Having looked at the content he's complaining of, I'd actually dispute this one - our use of it appears to be quite minor and reasonable, not plagiarism. After all, even if the claimed intermediary site was wholesale plagiarism, the wiki edit by an experienced editor doesn't appear to be a crude copy & paste (this is hard to tell without seeing the intermediary though). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello again Mr EdJogg, still at it I see. Lest play ‘Spot the Fake’ shall we?
One of the oldest engineering companies in the world, Dobson and Barlow, was founded in 1790 by Isaac Dobson (1767 to 1833) for the production textile machinery. The partnership of Isaac Dobson and Peter Rothwell built mules in Blackhorse Street, and by 1850 the firm had opened a larger factory in Kay Street which produced a much wider range of textile machinery. By 1860 the firm employed 1,600 workers and by the late 1880s they were producing between 600 and 650 looms a year. In 1892 Dobson and Barlow became a limited liability company and, after building a second production facility at Bradley Fold in 1906, it was re-floated as a public limited concern with members of the Dobson family holding key directorships. In 1913, the company employed 4,000 workers.
Isaac Dobson (1767 to 1833) started producing textile machinery in 1790. The partnership of Isaac Dobson and Peter Rothwell built mules in Blackhorse Street and by 1850 the firm had opened a larger factory in Kay Street, Bolton. This produced a much wider range of equipment. By 1860 the firm employed 1,600 workers and by the late 1880s they were producing between 600 and 650 power looms a year as well. In 1892 the firm became a limited liability company. It built another works at Bradley Fold in 1906, and was re-floated as a public limited concern with members of the Dobson family holding key directorships. The company employed 4,000 workers in 1913 but by then Bolton's oldest engineering company was too specialised and locked into a market which was becoming more competitive both at home and abroad. During World War I, it switched to producing munitions, and then reverting, it benefited from the French and Belgian need to re-equip their mills.
Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I am with Weiterbewegung here, this appears on the face of it to be to be excessively close paraphrasing. This conversation is going on in three places now, but the comparison is this edit by User:ClemRutter versus the text on p9 of Halton's 2001 dissertation (avaiable here). I will drop a not on ClemRutter's talk. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and as explained on the Dobson & Barlow talkpage have already reverted the article to version free of copyvios. Thank you to Weiterbewegung for bringing this to our attention. I see that you have identified copyright concerns about several articles, and we will be working through them. If you have any further to add to the list, please do so, either now or in the future. Slp1 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── ref name=stmarks>http://www.stmarks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wpdobsonbarlow.htm Dobson amd Barlow history</ref was the intermediate source. And as pointed out elsewhere this has been pulled which makes forensics a bit hard. Doing a google now Graces Guide uses the same text, and is covered I assume by a reference ↑ The Engineer of 10th August 1894 p121. Fortuitously I have checked the copyright statement on the Graces Guide page. Copyright © 2007 Grace's Guide. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation Licence, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the licence is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation Licence". Also on this page is a back reference to us. Google suggests that the page was cached 18 Nov 2008. I missed Maurices 2001 thesis back in 2009. I welcome Weiterbewegung addition to this article, and the OTRS crew could be brought on board to see how much we can include. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That Grace's Guide page was created in October 2007[16] well after Halton's thesis was written in 2001. It appears that they have been hosting copyright infringing material, and we cannot and will not use them as a copyright laundering service. The answer is quite simple. The material needs to be rewritten in one's own words. It isn't even very long. --Slp1 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Licence aside there remains the distinct possibility that the Graces Guide content is also a copyvio of Halton's dissertation and a good faith copyvio is still a copyvio. Call it a need to triangulate sources (as per Weiterbewegung) or ensuring that we follow WP:RS (they're the same thing) this is an example of, what I suspect all of us have done, in looking for sources on fairly obscure topics and going with what we can find. With the limitations of no original research to contend with it can, as Sitush mentions above, be very frustrating but something we have to live with. NtheP (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
That part of Graces guide used Halton's pages at Bolton, see here. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]