Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688

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

Noticeboard archives


An odd request for my death[edit]

Imslimshady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has an unexplained desire to put Jimmy Hoffa's age, if alive in the infobox on his article. [1][2][3]. Since that's not how things are usually handled in an infobox, I've been deleting it. Now please take a look at the edit summary of that last diff. I hope someone can, uh, help him to understand that this is not how we do things here. The block button might get that through to him. It really asks too much of the grownups to have to put up with someone who behaves like a truculent adolescent. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The third diff should have been.[4] Mathsci (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, oops, thank you for the correction. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've indeffed. The "go and die" edit summary is unacceptable by itself, and an overall review does not reflect a user with an interest in serious editing. To any reviewing administrator, please check the deleted contributions as well as the others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I love his declaration on his talkpage - "As i am new here i am vying to become an admin, i hope to use not abuse my power as an administrator, thank you, I will do my best to be constructive, thank you" - absolutely incredible. GiantSnowman 00:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I've revoked Talk page access for continuing abuse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Get ready for some socking... GiantSnowman 01:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Seriously though, points for creativity. I mean "go die in a hole masterbating to a fuzzy caterpiller", aside from the spelling errors, is one of the funniest 'threats' I've ever seen. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It pales next to this:[5]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm partial to [6], myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Howard Da Silva made a good Ben Franklin, didn't he? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC))
I do have to give him credit for a certain panache. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This is one of those cases where a bizarre, out-of-left-field word-picture tells us more than we probably want or need to know about the guy's own private life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I am astonished that this person, as the very first edit that he ever did applied for adminship. So what is his other user name? Because I do not believe that anyone does that as their first edit.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IP user issues[edit]

I waited to do this, but I would like to report an IP user. First, let me admit that I did engage in an edit war with this person at Charlie Dent's page. However, I realize this is counter-productive, so I requested a page protect to end the war. I then sought third party mediation for the issue. The issue is over a section of the article in which the IP user has attempted to add very long information attacking the Paul Ryan budget plan (The Path to Prosperity). I attempted to inject balance into the summary (as this is an encyclopedic article and not a blog), and the user kept adding citations from editorial pages and such attacking the plan. I attempted to explain that the article is about Rep. Dent and not the bill, and I was adding the wikilink to the bill's page so that users could see more about the debate there, but the IP user has continued to engage in a partisan-fueled discourse.

The third-party mediator confirmed what I had thought. However, the IP user has refused to concede any such points. I belive the tone of the user's diatribe on the articles talk page speaks for itself--this is clearly someone who does not like the bill, nor the subject of the article. What finally pushed me to turn to administrators was the user's attempt to add the controversial language to Lou Barletta's page. I accept that the edit warring was wrong, and that is why I have followed proper channels. However, I believe it is clear that this user has no interest in maintaining neutrality and encyclopedic tone. Also, it should be noted that the user is now using multiple IP addresses to engage in heavyhanded editing for which a consensus does not exist.

Here are the IP's in question: here and here and here.

I would appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Thank you. EATC (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Interesting note...all three IPs are from the same ISP, and all three geolocate to the same area, two to the same city. Do I hear some quacking in the distance? In any case, I've taken the liberty of posting the requisite ANI notice on each of the IP's talk pages. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding requisite notices to the talk pages, Alan. That slipped my mind. Also, I believe those cities are in Rep. Dent's district (maybe Lou Barletta's), furthering my belief that this is an angry constituent venting frustrations. I'm all for democratic involvement, but not by adding weasel words and editorializing language to what should be a neutral, encyclopedic source. EATC (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated on the Talk page for Dent, I think it has been EATC who is engaging in aggressive editorializing. The tendency of his edits has been to blunt or obscure what is most remarkable about a political position taken by Dent. They clearly are partisan POV.

In fact, I document how EATC has inserted several specific Republican talking points into his edits, whose purpose when created and circulated by the GOP was to soften or deflect criticism of what is obviously a highly controversial and consequential plan to terminate Medicare. They are rhetorical, in other words, rather than factual.

My own edits have presented the relevant facts - the controversy - and as much as possible avoided the Dem vs Rep rhetorical wars. Such argumentation as I included (under pressure from EATC's insistence on inserting talking points), I have marked as argument as distinct from fact (or factual findings by CBO). EATC complains that I kept upping the ante. What I was actually doing was trying to nail down the specifics that he was working hard to obscure and palliate. My original edit to the Dent page was fairly brief. It was EATC's editorial war that gradually inflated it.

There's no point in including a mention of this vote on any congressman's page unless the discussion makes clear what is controversial or noteworthy about the plan. That is what I did.

Don't understand the reference to quacking, nor why it matters who I am and what my alleged motives are. I've provided relevant factual info that users would wish to consult. Not my problem that Republican partisans would prefer not to have this info brought forward.

If my IP addresses differ, it would be due to my internet provider. I'm using the very same computer and internet connection for these edits. This is bizarre conspiracy stuff EATC.

Fwiw, I am indeed a resident of Dent's district (with friends in Barletta's). I don't work for their opponents nor for the Dems. And I'm highly amused by EATC's repeated bloviating about "both sides", as if the only "sides" that exist are GOP and Dem talking points. For me, there are facts and then there are partisan as well as various other kinds of assertions...not just 2 sides. Thus EATC's complaints boil down to wounded partisanship. I note that he/she might have added facts about the bill or about Medicare, to help justify the GOP plan or just provide further context, but EATC preferred to insert (disputed) Republican arguments.

I think the version I put up at Barletta's page (he does claim he's proud of this vote as "courageous", so what the heck is EATC complaining about?) is somewhat better than what I posted at Dent's. Why is the second post an issue, anyway? Both men took a controversial position that users will want to know about.

I'm frankly amazed that anybody would maintain that a vote to terminate Medicare, of all things, is something so trivial that to discuss it in any detail in this encyclopedia requires special justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, EATC: Here's a measure of your blindness to your own partisanship. I didn't include a single editorial citation (despite your repeated insistence to the contrary). My cites all come from major news outlets: NPR, Bloomberg, LA Times, US News & World Report. For "balance", you cited the famously partisan Weekly Standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, much of this just makes my point for me. An unhappy constituent has decided to take to an online wiki-encyclopedia to vent frustrations by writing very one-sided diatribes. Apart from the dubious impartiality of NPR and the fact that the LA Times piece in question is an op-ed (my quote from the weekly standard was from Ryan himself, not an op-ed, that was one source of many that quotes him), the point remains that this article is about Charlie Dent. By including the wiki link to the article, any user can go to the article written exclusively about the legislation to learn about the debate. I assert that the IP user is providing undue weight to one of many controversial votes cast in the career of any member of Congress, and is attempting to stuff the summary with weasel-words and other attempts to reframe the debate, which is seen commonly on this site. At least, apperantly unlike the IP user, I will admit that edit warring (I have no idea what the referenced "editorial war" refers to) was unproductive, though, of course, it takes two to Tango. I will, however, await and will accept whatever admins prescribe. Any charges of "wounded partisanship" are, of course, unfounded. I have edited this site for over four years; I did not simply show up one day and start writing unbalanced content about my representative because they cast a vote I did not like. Nonetheless, I am happy to leave the discussion here. The IP user or users (never heard of IP addresses jumping around like that, but whatever) is/are certainly entitled to his/her/their opinion(s). I believe this content is biased, Coatracking, Undue Weight; he/she/they disagree. I'm happy to see what admins have to say about the issue. EATC (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks to me like the outside opinion nailed it...WP:COATRACKing and giving WP:UNDUE weight to a non-neutral position. If there's more detailed discussion to be had on the Ryan Plan, direct the reader to the Ryan Plan article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I invite EATC to identify any factually inaccurate statements in my edits, rhetorical flourishes, or for that matter the claimed "weasel words". So far EATC has failed to point to anything specific that is objectionable.

And if EATC can identify balance that is lacking, why not add factual statements that provide balance - rather than deleting my factual statements and substituting his own talking points?

EATC doesn't seem to understand the difference between a columnist and an op-ed writer. Columnists typically are held the same factual standard that govern news stories.

I do have to wonder why EATC, after initially larding up Dent's page with GOP talking points, now instead is so determined to have the minimum possible info visible there. Certainly is amusing to see that his own obviously partisan motives are quite simply beyond reproach, whereas my alleged venting of frustrations as some kind of miserable constituent utterly disqualifies me from adding content (at least such content as EATC would prefer to exclude).

As for undue weight, huh? Seriously, huh? This was a vote to abolish Medicare for crying out loud. Dent positions himself as a moderate centrist who generally bucks his party on extremist positions. His page makes a huge deal of his supposed centrism. The Medicare vote is a significant counter-example. Silly to pretend otherwise...or maybe EATC doesn't actually understand much about Dent's public image.

Anyway, my original edit was only about 3 sentences long. Then EATC came lumbering in with his talking points and editorial warring, inflated the section repeatedly...and voila, ends up complaining that it's too lengthy. Ridiculous partisanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the decision of the editor brought in for mediation. Here's the Cliffs Notes(tm) version: that material does NOT belong in the article. Put in a link to The Path to Prosperity if someone wants to show what the vote was on. Beyond that, it's unencyclopedic, WP:COATRACKing, and gives undue WP:WEIGHT to one side of the equation. Keep it factual and verifiable, or don't keep it. 'Nuff said. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Shame, an obviously foolish decision. No more space to be devoted to a vote to abolish Medicare, than to Dent's vote on the utterly trivial Terri Schiavo affair? Shows why wikipedia pages on politicians are generally such propagandistic drivel. I don't think you know what coatracking really is. As for your sneers, Alan, bet you can't back them up. What in my edit was either non-factual or non-verifiable? Yeah, don't knock yourself out looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise extreme caution here. You're on the ragged edge of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with your "sneers" comment above. Between that and your clear non-neutral approach to editing the article, you may be getting a bit more attention than you'd like. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What is it?[edit]

What is it?

Monopoly of Germans? Demand to be taken into account and these of views: See. Пуанкаре (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Text of articles at the English-language Wikipedia is expected to conform to the standards of the English-language Wikipedia. We have no control over the Russian-language wikipedia, and the standards for articles THERE have no bearing on the content of articles HERE. Other than that, I am not sure what you are asking administrators to do here; we have no control over what goes on at ru.wikipedia, nor does what goes on over there have any bearing on article content here. I have no idea what you want administrators to do here. --Jayron32 04:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is not neutral. Noticed that different members. I put the template {{POV}}. But clean. What should do? Take into account the need not, and arguments, theories listed there. Пуанкаре (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What you should do is start a discussion at the article's talk page. This isn't the place to have the discussion. You need to be detailed in your objections to the article. So far, near as I can tell, you've only left us with a diff of someone removing the POV template, and a link to a bad machine translation of the same article at ru.wikipedia. No one has any idea what your objection to the article is. Instead of coming here to complain, what you should be doing is leaving details at the article talk page about what exactly is the problem with the article. So far, no one knows why you think the article isn't neutral. If you need an outside opinion on the situation, you could also ask for help at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. But there is nothing here for administrators to do. You're going to have to work it out on the article talk page through civil discussion. --Jayron32 05:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Off-subject a bit, the Russian user's page is all in Russian, which I'm not sure is kosher on the English wikipedia. Also, his name transliterates as Poincare, should one care. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP says nothing about the language in which you write on your userpage. Anyway, the source page (Отрицание_теории_относительности) is a Mediawiki website, but it's obviously not the same as Note that is on our blacklist for some reason. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IP edit warring and with personal attacks[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor ( (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)) was blocked yesterday for edit warring on Antenna TV. After the block expired today, user added speculative, unsourced info on WXIA-TV. Currently, the IP is at 3 reverts, so still technically on the "right" side of the bright line, but after being informed of the importance of sourcing, made a lovely personal attack against me on xyr talk page [7]. After being warned by me against both edit-warring and WP:NPA, the user added a second personal attack, [8]. The diff also indicates that the editor is unwilling to edit collaboratively. Could we perchance give the user some more time off to reconsider if Wikipedia is the right place for xem? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have given them a week off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet unblock review[edit]

On 8 March, I blocked Mjs2010 for incompetence, copyright violation, and personal attacks. Sandstein declined and unblock request later that day. On 13 March, the account B.Davis2003 was created, and edited until 15 April, when MuZemike blocked it as a confirmed sockpuppet of Mjs2010 (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjs2010) Later that day, JamesBWatson declined an unblock request. Today there was another unblock request, that at best, only superficially addressed the reasons for the original block, and failed to discuss at all the copyright violations. Nick-D (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) granted this unblock request without consulting any of the four previously involved admins, and when asked about this unblock, and asked to reverse his unblock for discussion, has declined. I'd like to see this unblock reviewed by other parties. Courcelles 03:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Despite the fact that I had declined an earlier unblock request, I do see that there is an arguable case for unblocking. However, I do not see that there is a case for unilateral unblocking without consultation or discussion. In fact I think that the blocking administrator should almost always be informed of an unblock, and in most cases consulted in advance, rather than just informed. There is no way that this unblock could be seen as clear cut and uncontroversial, and for one admin to take unilateral action against the clear consensus of several other admins without even an attempt to discuss it was not appropriate in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If any of this person's accounts were to be unblocked it would only be the original one: Mjs2010. That said, the English composition and comprehension skills of the editor are not at encyclopedia level. There is no compelling reason to bring this editor back after socking. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Courcelles for notifying me of this (though I would add to his or her chronology of events that I also declined an unblock request from this editor yesterday, explaining the conditions they needed to meet to be unblocked). As I stated on my talk page, when reviewing this editor's actions (in both accounts) I came to the view that the problems with their editing were being driven by youth and inexperience rather than outright malice. As they had nominated the account they wished to use and given a reasonably detailed commitment to stick to the rules I couldn't see any grounds to continue the block. When agreeing to the unblock I told the editor that they would probably be re-blocked without warning if they broke their commitment, however, and watchlisted their talk page so that I could respond to any further complaints the editor received. As such, I think that the unblock is justified on the grounds that the editor deserves a final chance, though I wouldn't be at all bothered if other admins come to a different conclusion. I'm also happy to take a trout for not discussing this with Courcelles first as well. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this getting all so confusing, if you want me to use my old account and then appeal for an unblock on that account, I will, I just need to find my password for the old account, as I have misplaced it. Courcelles, I repeat, I have noted and expressed my remorse now for the issues surrounding both my accounts on my copyright warnings and personal attacks, and have complied with everything i've been told since. Please admin, if you could tell me what would be preferred, and If you could please, take time look at my contributes to wikipedia on my new account, and know that I have supplied sources and remained calm in edit wars. B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Unarchived, as someone moved this from AN without retimestamping two hours ago. Courcelles 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is as follows: Unilaterally undoing an administrator action, without prior discussion with (and, normally, consent of) the blocking administrator is not only impolite and uncollegial, but also a misuse of administrator tools, because it arbitrarily substitutes one's own judgment for that of the blocking administrator, disrupts administrative processes and (in the case of unblocks) may enable continued disruption of Wikipedia. We need to recognize that our own judgment is just as likely to be wrong as that of our colleagues. Administrators should therefore respect the decisions of other administrators, even if they themselves would have made a different decision. They should only undo the admin actions of others with their consent, or after a community discussion that resulted in consensus to overturn the action. Administrators who unilateraterally undo admin actions for no compelling reason, as Nick-D did here, should be desysopped for disruption if they do so repeatedly. Conversely, and for the same reasons, administrators should not normally take unilateral administrator actions after a colleague has already reviewed the matter and come to the conclusion that no action is necessary.  Sandstein  11:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Despite the fact that I have already criticised the unblock, I actually think that Sandstein is being too harsh. Nick-D did not simply arbitrarily undo another administrator's action, as the situation had changed. The issue had been discussed on B.Davis2003's talk page, and B.Davis2003 had made undertakings not to do the same again. Consequently Nick-D was not retrying the same case as Courcelles had already judged, but assessing a different question from the question that Courcelles had already assessed, and even from the ones that I and Nick-D himself had assessed in considering previous unblock requests. Consequently I see "arbitrarily substitutes one's own judgment for that of the blocking administrator" as an unfair description, as it was one's own judgement of a different question than the blocking administrator had judged. I do think that, in a case where several admins had supported a block (on one or other of the user's accounts) it is usually a mistake to unilaterally make the decision that the situation has changed enough to justify a change in judgement, but I cannot agree with the very strong terms in which Sandstein has condemned it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Concur with JamesBWatson. If nobody is able to act on an unblock except with the blocking admin's permission, why even have unblock requests that go into a queue at all? I am certainly no soft heart when it comes to reviewing unblock requests, and at the same time I trust the rest of you to unblock people that I have blocked. I am not infallible. Syrthiss (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly, all administrators are able to unblock users. The question is under which circumstances they should do so. The reason we have an unblock request system is that it allows uninvolved users to voice their opinion on the block, and if they come to a consensus conclusion that the block is wrong, the blocking admin (or if need be another admin) will lift the block. There are also some circumstances where unilateral unblocks are unproblematic, such as when the blocker is no longer active or if there has been a very obvious error. But where unblocking is a matter of judgment, the unblocker's judgment is just as likely to be wrong as the blocker's. For this reason, and also out of simple collegiality, other admins should defer to the judgment of the first admin who has examined a case, unless consensus tells us that this judgment is wrong.  Sandstein  15:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I think than if the situation changes, and it arguably did in this case, then there is no need to wait on the unblock. I don't think this unblock was a case of the unblocking admin disagreeing with your call (in fact his first unblock decline says he agreed with it). I think waiting for the blocking admin could, in many cases, delay an unblock where unblocking is clearly acceptable. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Sandstein's comments are rather over the top. I agree with James' summation and Syrthiss' comments. As I've said above, if other admins disagree with my judgement to unblock here I've got no problems at all with it being overturned - I welcome scrutiny of my blocks and unblocks (and, from memory, I've had one block overturned and this is my first unblock which might be overturned in three and a bit years as a reasonably active admin, which I think is a pretty good record and hardly warrants the kind of comments Sandstein has posted here). Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) To be fair to Sandstein he is currently involved in a case where an issue of this nature is being evaluated. I do not know what the norms are here for admins and blocking but I'm usually impressed with Sandstein's judgment and hope all parties can reduce this event to a non-issue. Lambanog (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Sandstein's view here is thankfully not in accordance with current practice or policy. Admins do not require consensus to revert an admin action, wheel-warring is considered to begin when a revert is reverted without discussion. We have to allow some degree of flexibility in these matters. Fences&Windows 02:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

  • On the "abuse of admin tools" issue: Sandstein's take on this seems far more aggressive than current practice. It would cause a certain amount of paralysis if gaining consensus or permission from the blocking admin were required in order to avoid threats of desysopping. I realize Sandstein qualified this with "...if they do so repeatedly", but since there's no reason to think it is a recurring pattern, mentioning this seems about as collegial as, well, unblocking without discussion.
  • On not checking with the blocking admin or previous admins who declined to unblock: That probably would have been wise, if for no other reason than to avoid causing others to feel slighted, and also because they might have more knowledge that the unblocking admin doesn't know about. Borderline trout-worthy, but since Nick offered to self-trout, that seems a reasonable response.
  • On unilaterally unblocking after previous unblocks are declined (in general): I think this can be OK, but depends on the particular circumstances. If circumstances change, or conditions are set and agreed to, it seems reasonable not to require agreement, even if it is recommended. If the user is unblocked and there is consensus to reblock, that can be determined here. Reblocks are easy.
  • On this particular unblock: Seems OK. Nick-D engaged with the editor, set some conditions, and will watch the editor for any further trouble. If he'd checked with Courcelles first, I imagine Nick might have mentioned the copyright issue too, but it's been made clear to the editor now. Reblocks are easy.

I suggest allowing the user to remain unblocked, on whichever account they prefer, making it clear this is a last chance.--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement with Floquenbeam, though I would personally go for "trout-worthy" rather than "borderline trout-worthy". Since Nick-D has accepted the troutworthiness of the incident, and since there seems to be a general consensus that consultation would have been a good idea, but no support for Sandstein's more uncompromising position, I suggest we consider the incident closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we can compromise, and say that it was on the borderline between borderline trout-worthy and trout-worthy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Ooh, I'm not sure whether it quite reaches that borderline. I think it may be only borderline for doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Self Promotion by Spurkait[edit]

Hi, I would like to bring into notice the Additions and Contributions by the User Spurkait (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Please check all the Contributions by the User [9]. All are Aimed at promoting a company called Nettech.

1) The Page of this Company Nettech [10] looks like a Marketing brochure thanks to all his his contributions to the page [11].

2) Many general keyword based Pages are being redirected to this company's page, thanks to the user. Example: Summer Training [12], Winter Training [13], Certificate in Network Management [14]

3) He has modified the Pages of Premiere Educational Colleges/Universities of India and made references to the company. Example: [15], [16], [17], [18]

Kindly look into the matter.

Sonakshi87 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried to communicate with Spurkait, give warnings, etc? I see nothing on their Talk page since 2007. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
No I did not. Considering he was blocked previously for Advertisement and he is doing it again. -- Sonakshi87 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
And a closer look shows that Spurkait hasn't edited since January, and the changes to the Nettech article seem reasonable. The redirects, redirecting unspecific English phrases (eg "Winter training" and "Summer training") were promotional, so I've removed hose - alll you needed to done here was tag the redirects for speedy deletion, rather than report them here. You are free to remove the material that you consider to be promotional from the colleges/education articles yourself (which were added as long ago as 2009) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Most of the Information added on the Page is added by Spurkait. I am quite sure he is an employee/owner of the company [Refer to all the images uploaded. Different locations and time, mentioned as own work]. Wouldn't this be a problem against Wikipedia's NPOV Policy? I understand I can modify most of the stuff. The reason why I am reporting it is to see if the user can be blocked since he has been editing other articles and promoted his company multiple times. Check some of the articles I have linked above, his additions have been removed a few times and he adds them again. [19] -- Sonakshi87 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, seeing as he hasn't edited since January, a preventative block would be pretty hard to justify now, 3 months on. And the additions to those educational articles are from as long ago as October 2009. I'd think the best approach now is to revert his additions, and then keep an eye on him - and we can take further action if he comes back and does it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I've cleaned up and shortened Nettech some. But the entire timeline and photo gallery should probably go too, really, and most of the references. There is still some promotional bloat. At least there isn't a "we" telling the story now... Bishonen | talk 23:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC).
Thanks you Bishonen & Boing! said Zebedee! - Sonakshi87 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:CORP anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple non-English essay articles on same topic—I smell a class assignment[edit]

I've stumbled across these two articles this morning, created by separate new accounts, both written in Tagalog. Running the text through Google Translate, they both appear to be essays on the topic of gender identity.

My hunch is that there's a class assignment (possibly at Southern Miss, based on this version of the first article), and essays are getting posted to Wikipedia. I think the creators of these two pages are acting in good faith but just posting to the wrong place. I hope the instructor hasn't told the class to post the essays here (though I can't rule that out).

My hunch is also that there will be more of these today. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you find the teacher out and contact him? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 06:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've left messages on the two article creators' talk pages (plus a Google Translation to Tagalog of the message) but haven't gotten a reply. —C.Fred (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The version of Wikitagalog ([20]) pointed out by C.Fred is specifically a translation of . -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the remainder of the situation, I deleted it as copyvio. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edits[edit]

An IP-hopping editor has been making what seem to be problematic edits involving voice-cast credits for animated films and TV programs. The edits may or may not rise to the level of vandalism, but any one of them that I've looked into I've been unable to verify using standard sources such as IMDB. I've left messages on the talk pages of several of the IPs, but either because they don't see the messages (because of the dynamic IP address) or because they are ignoring them, there's been no response. Articles involved include Pat Buttram, Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series), Shining Time Station, Thomas and Friends and the articles of other actors involved, and they have been reverted by numerous editors, including myself.

I'm not sure how to proceed. I turn to the admin corps for assistance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All the above IPs notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have also left notices for other editors who have interacted (or attempted to interact) with the above IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start on dealing with this problem, but much more remains to be done. I have semiprotected Shining Time Station, Pat Buttram and Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series) for three weeks. I am reluctant to do the same to Thomas and Friends because there is a huge amount of IP editing to that article, and I would not like the amount of collateral damage. That is assuming that there is not a large proportion of vandalism in the IP editing. If that is so then the article should be semiprotected. I have not checked for lack of time, so someone else may like to look at it. There are numerous other articles affected, but I have not checked them all to see how much of a problem there is on each one (again because of lack of time), so perhaps someone else would like to do that too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Given this edit, brought to my attention by Doc9871, I've added to the list above, and The Little Engine That Could (2011 film) and Firebreather (film) should also be added to the list of articles affected which should be semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Added another IP based on the diff above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Notified the two new IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Other articles: Adventures from the Book of Virtues, Michael Dorn Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Given edits such as this, it's now clear to me that this editor's contributions are essentially creative vandalism. They should probably be reverted on sight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I wiped out the "Additional Cast" lists from AFTBOV as completely unsourced. It is vandalism, it's certainly "creative" and it causes massive headaches when they "cross-reference" these fake roles onto living actor's filmographies (as well as onto actors' who have been dead far longer than even possible for them to have lent their voices). Aside from you, me and a few others who have helped: this looks like a cricket-chirper of a thread. Annoying and childish behavior from a budding young troll/trolls. Doc talk 09:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added various related articles to my watch list, as I'm sure others have, so hopefully we'll see the next attack as it happens and be able to revert the edits before they get too embedded in the articles. Thanks much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you James and BMK! MarnetteD (talk · contribs) also helped ferret out some of the bad edits from the earlier incident, and I see that BMK has made them aware of this thread. Several others have helped a lot as well, and it's good to know there's a handle on this. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Duck of someone banned/blocked?[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Iridescent for abusing multiple accounts

Temporaire1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Uncivil rollbacker[edit]

Fieldday-sunday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Fieldday-sunday has been very uncivil. He blatantly attacked User talk: In addition he has made some very uncivil edit summerys such as [21][22] and [23]. Looking at his talk page it seems that others have had issues with him. I have given him a only warning for the personal attack, what should we do about his other uncivil behavior though? Peter.C • talk • contribs 02:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Uhhh ... talk it over with him instead of a template warning? Vandalism, especially some that targets a specific group, is quite frustrating and he probably just was overexcited for a bit. No action needed currently, IMO. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • (editconflict) I'm sorry, I disagree. This is a totally uncalled for and uncivil attack that to be honest I'm a bit surprised he wasn't blocked for when the edit was deleted. The attack is WAY overboard (not just a bit overboard)and even the vandalism itself is questionable. The edit he removed from this ip was this which while you I can totally understand why the rent boy part would appear to be vandalism I'm not actually sure it is given that the same ip made 4 subsequent edits right after ( here ) which all appear to be relatively good and good faith. Given that it's a possibility it was just a nick name done either as a joke or in good faith. Even if it WAS vandalism the edit was done in MAY 2010 and the IP has not edited since November 2010. An only warning is not only called for I'd seriously consider blocking (I'd take rollback away but it doesn't really appear he uses it much.. so of little use). His vulgar edit comments just make it worse. James of UR (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think you might misunderstand. The last edit made by that IP was in November 2010; there is no recent vandalism. Even if Fieldday-sunday was frustrated, such vitriol isn't acceptable on any page, certainly not on an IP talk page, and absolutely not for an edit made months ago. In fact, it is a blockworthy action in almost all cases. Risker (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC) (Note: Admin-only link to the edit referred to in this report[24])
      • (edit conflict) Hm, I did indeed somehow miss the tirade on the IP for an edit made a long time ago. Fortunately, however, it seems he's stopped now, and I don't know what effect a block would have other than to anger him any more. Some discussing the issue wouldn't hurt, I think, but if he attacks someone again, a block is definitely in order. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
        Have you looked at his other edits (and edit summaries)? This doesn't seem to be someone who got upset once—it's a persistent pattern. "Who cares, you narcissistic shithead?" is never a reasonable edit summary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The contents of the deleted revision (linked by Risker, above, a small portion of which includes "What kind of a fucking shiteared twatwanking spastic retarded cretinous mong spastic cunt are you?") and an ongoing pattern of needless unpleasantness for unpleasantness' sake are worrying, to say the least. His most recent edit here includes the gem "...Sadly, it would appear that university rugby lads live up to their reputation for thickness and homophobia, and so there is a good chance they will keep coming back with their metaphorical crate of cheap lager until they eventually get banned....". This is part of a comment on a rugby article's talk page where he is proudly announcing that he has removed vandalism–and is declaring (with a complete lack of self-awareness) that we need to take action against immature and obnoxious behavior more promptly in the future. This isn't a bit of garden-variety frustration with vandals; he's waaaay over the line of acceptable conduct. A block would certainly not be out of place here for the egregious personal attacks and battleground approach. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What a tirade. But he forgot to say, "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"Smelt". Smelt of elderberries. Get the accent right, will ya? Sheesh... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
But how do you get a bad French accent right? -- llywrch (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I know he said "smelt". I was translating from a British English parody of a French accent to an American English parody of a French accent. Besides, if you say "the smelt smelt fishy", that sounds fishy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Wee wee. -- llywrch (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that deleted revision was way over the top, as was his most recent tirade noted by TOAT. I am presently blocking him for one week for gross personal attacks. He's been warned before about this behavior. This is simply over the top. As always, I assume that any action I take is always wrong, so feel free to unblock him if anyone feels that his comments were appropriate for making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. --Jayron32 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, now that you put it that way ... heh. Definitely not making WP any nicer, and I still and trying to figure out how I missed the diffs with the egregious attacks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, the abuse is all over the place - here's another gem -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, more F's than my average report card. Is he still editing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • On further inspection of his Talk page, this editor appears to have a history of misusing Rollback - I propose the removal of Rollback -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This won't move the encyclopaedia forward. Can someone analyse the editor's abuse and see if it is topic constrained? If the editor has a particular topic based problem, then a community topic ban may prevent the core problem without being punitive. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He's editing on all sorts of topics. It looks more like general Recent Changes and Vandalism patrol to me rather than anything specific -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sheesh. Yes, most vandals are miserable so-&-sos who need to get a life. But handling both Recent Changes & Vandalism requires a certain minimal level of tact & social skill, which this individual has failed to demonstrate. (A well-known fact is that vandals enjoy the vulgar diatribes this Fieldday-sunday has been shovelling out, while it drives away the well-meaning newbies who simply make a mistake.) Anyone object to BsZ's suggestion of removing the Rollback bit from his account? -- llywrch (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I support removal of rollback, given the circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This user doesn't appear to have had rollback since 2009 - maybe it's WP:TWINKLE? --Rschen7754 20:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see what he has to say before jumping in and removing privileges.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He's not a rollbacker, he had that tool removed almost a year and a half ago for, um, "repeated hasty usage of the rollback tool when reverting good-faith edits". We can't remove a tool he doesn't have. What we can do is scrupulously watch his behavior from now on, and be prepared to enact further measures to insure that this behavior stops. Including stopping the behavior ourselves if he decides that is better than stopping it himself. --Jayron32 20:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe that it is possible to forcefully remove Twinkle from a user's account. --Rschen7754 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, he is using Twinkle - my mistake, sorry. But yes, Twinkle can be forcibly removed - there is a blacklist that prevents listed users using it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Twinkle. Never touched the stuff myself. Have to let someone who knows how to fix that problem, fix that problem. --Jayron32 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Added to the blacklist. --Rschen7754 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Works for me. Man, my statement above is the second time today I've managed to come across as half-cocked. I blame it on rushing to click on the "Save page" button before a certain three-year-old runs up to me & announces it's "rough-house time". (Yeah, I have obstacles to contributing that few of the rest of you face. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
As the father of a 2 and a 5 year old, I feel your pain... --Jayron32 23:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Jasper Deng and COI[edit]

It seems fairly clear that this is not headed towards blocking or any other admin action for the moment, so I think the ANI thread is best closed, and discussion continued on Jasper's talk page (or, it might be helpful if he set up an Editor review). As an independent reviewer of the thread, I'll summarize it: Jasper needs to recognize the number of different people all suggesting there are multiple, serious problems with his editing, and needs to be more open than he seems to be right now to the idea that things need to change very soon. Mentorship is strongly encouraged, as a way of heading off a potential future block if things don't change. That would be a shame, as it doesn't appear anyone is questioning his dedication. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jasper Deng apparently misunderstands WP:COI, and in trying to explain to him the policy, he keeps reverting my messages to his talk page with comments in his edit summaries that illustrate a lack of regard for the policy.

Here's the background: Vrsti (talk · contribs) joins Wikipedia as a new user. Vrsti inquires about the "systematic" removal of hundreds of links to a website s/he is associated with on Wikipedian2's talk page here. Jasper Deng leaves a message on Vrsti's talk page about Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest (here), which is per policy, but then leaves a, IMO, bite-y message on Wikipedian2's talk page under Vrsti's comment, "This user has a conflict of interest and should refrain from editing Wikipedia." Vrsti leaves a civil message on Jasper's talk page regarding the COI notification left on his/her talk page, [25], to which Jasper replies, "You still have a conflict of interest regardless of whether you've edited or not." User:Buttercrumbs commented on Jasper's talk page that he believed Jasper bit the new user and clarified WP:COI(here), and Jasper responded with an undo of this message and "Still COI" in the edit summary. Clearly Jasper still misunderstands COI.

Feeling that Jasper still does not understand that he is the wrong, I left a "don't bite the newbies" message on his talk page (here). He removed my message, and in the edit summary, responded with res. @Eagles247: Did not intend to bite. Please AGF before doing something like this again. I tried again by leaving him a message explaining that he is hypocritical to ask that I assume good faith, when he himself did not assume good faith with Vrsti. Jasper undid my message with an edit summary of ... I did AGF. Since it appeared he did not want the messages to stay on his talk page, I tried again to get through to him, this time via edit summary: "Telling an editor to "refrain from editing Wikipedia" completely is NOT acting in good faith". He responded with "Was per COI - do not want to continue this discussion." Obviously this was not per COI, but yet Jasper still refuses to discuss this. Finally, I made one last attempt to make him understand (here). In this diff I fully explained how Wikipedia treats users with conflicts of interest, and a word of advice for him regarding his behavior (admit you are wrong and re-read COI). Jasper removed my message with the edit summary "If I delete your comment it means I acknowledge it. If you continue, you will be reported at ANI for harassment."

Lastly, User:28bytes attempted to make known to Jasper that his behavior is not very efficient and that discussions should be kept on talk pages (here). To which, Jasper responded "I acknowledge them by deleting the comments." (here).

As a last resort, I have come to ANI to maybe ask someone to get through the Jasper on everything he did wrong in this situation and the ensuing aftermath. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Frankly, I've seen nothing but a track record of unhelpful, unclueful, and incompetent edits by Jasper Deng since he first joined. I support a one month competence block and mentorship. Because if he doesn't clue up fast, the next block will be indef. I don't have tolerance for editors that act like children. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • This isn't a full view of my edits. Other users would not agree. I seriously ask you to reconsider or refactor that comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Here's a thread that may interest some commenters here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. The "This user acts like he/she is an administrator on the English Wikipedia but really isn't" box pretty much sums it up. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Jasper is correct that he is permitted to delete comments from his own talk page, and such deletion indicates that he acknowledges having read them. If he's now finished biting newbies, it's not ongoing disruption. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he is correct to remove messages per WP:BLANKING, but his failure to acknowledge his blatant misunderstanding of policy is what troubles me. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
(ecx2) Right, but the priority is not making sure that any editor that "still does not understand that he is wrong" is made to understand that he is wrong. Lots of people are wrong on the internet all the time. If they're not disrupting the encyclopedia, then "making sure they know they were wrong" is irrelevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I do it by accident all the time, and I meant to include "related to that user." I was being frustrated by Eagles247 trying to tell me of something I know, and he could've refactored my comment instead. But repeatedly telling me about this is something that frustrates me and led to those edit summary. It does not warrant a block though.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It was simple frustration. If I delete a comment, try not to talk to me about it until much later. I thought I could do this because of what Ohnoitsjamie did regardng an SPA content dispute comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
"try not to talk to me about it until much later" - what? Why would other editors need these special instructions for how they must deal with you on your talk page? "what Ohnoitsjamie did" - have you informed them that you've just mentioned them here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
No. This is in relation to an old WQA thread. I learn from what other users do. I did not notify because he is not involved in this. That habit I wrote seems to be the norm here.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
If someone is not involved in an issue here, then it's much easier just not to mention them here. As for whatever habit you consider to be the norm, it's not clear what you mean. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
"try not to talk to me about it until much later"Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs that should clarify my above comment: "Wikipedia may remove at its discretion anything on its site and you cannot have a say in that." to a new user who obviously did not understand the inclusion guidelines, misunderstanding of CSD#A7, "strong oppose because MediaWiki's edit conflict handling is shit???? WTF???, refusal to discuss calmly; terse attitude, calling "lmfao" a personal attack, and updating edit count almost every day. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

lmfao is a personal attack if you expand it. I would also like you to see WP:Civility out of you. If a user thinks we have no right to delete something, I give them the same thing, especially for repeat offenders. In no way do these diffs constitute a full review of my edits.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
One, this thread is about you, not me. Not sure why I'm now being discussed. Two, lmfao means, "Laughing My Fucking Ass Off". There is no personal attack in there. It's my ass and I'm laughing. It's not that hard to understand. In addition, your comment perplexes me: "If a user thinks we have no right to delete something, I give them the same thing, especially for repeat offenders" – please clarify; they are new users who do not understand our policies, why the hell aren't you explaining it nicely to them? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The subject of the lmfao was me. Sometimes users have bad faith. As I was told in an earlier incident, judging faith is hard, and, I normally feel a template message is fine for new users. And Boing! Said Zebedee (the commenter below), is right.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
How on earth does that even make sense? The subject of the lmfao is me. I am laughing my fucking ass off. My ass! And not at you, either—at your hilarious comment. And re template messages ... oh heavens. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
You are doing the action, because you seem to be amused at me. You are the one doing the action, but I'm the one you are doing the action at.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, did you even read my last post? I said I was laughing at your edit, not you. You're not funny, but your edits sure can be! ;) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoever the subject is, it's aimed at me. I want you to stop making fun of me.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not making fun of you. You, however, are covering your eyes up and pretending not to have read my last two posts. I was not laughing at you—therefore, it was not aimed at you. For the last time, I was laughing at what you wrote. It was funny, OK? No one is making fun of you. (Btw, the sense of humor store is thataway.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Is anyone actually asking for any admin action here? (I see perhaps some weaknesses in communication, and perhaps a few misunderstandings and a little over-sensitivity, but I don't see any call for any admin actions) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A block may potentially be necessary. I thought that this thread might wake Jasper up, but he is still stubborn to believe he was wrong. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I called for a block above. But if we let this thread go on, I might get a few extra laughs out of it :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
@Eagles247:By deleting your comments I acknowledged them, and do not dispute them, but, you repeatedly adding them to my talk page frustrated me, causing those edit summaries.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't excuse the edit summaries. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does. If I remove his comment, I acknowledge it, and him readding them frustrates me, and I had to tell him to stop.
Jasper, I kept sending you messages because in your edit summary replies (such as [26]), it appeared you still did not understand what COI meant and you failed to acknowledge your mistakes. That's fine if you merely acknowledge them, but when you include in the edit summary something that makes no sense, I had to continue the discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I acknowledged I was wrong by the 2nd-to-last deletion of your comment, but was not in a mood to say it out.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
...and that makes it alright? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Let me explain:I refused to believe you for the first few edits, explaining the first few deletions' summaries, and then, when I agreed with your comment, you kept adding it back, explaining the summaries of the last two.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask for clarification here, Jasper? Re COI: If I have a COI, I am not allowed to edit at all. True or false, and why? That was the original issue raised here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Depends. If the user represents a publicity company, then yes. If the user is like that behind MyWikiBiz, then yes, but otherwise, no. In the end, this was a simple accident, and, I am not used to being talked to like this for an accident on WP.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, at the risk of making your head explode (and that is a risk I'm perfectly willing to take), allow me to point you to Alex Konanykhin, former Russian *cough* "oligarch" *cough* and now owner of a company formerly called WikipediaExperts (and now called something else). User:Eclipsed works for him, as do several other editors. You should note that your interpretation of WP:COI does not reflect either what it says or current policy. WP:COI is a "behavioural guideline", not a policy. It does not prohibit paid editing, it simply suggests that it is "discouraged". There is no policy which prevents paid editing. The owner of MyWikiBiz is banned for reasons other than paid editing. Perhaps you should read the guideline over again, slowly... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Jasper, what Eagles and others are saying here is that even if an editor has a conflict of interest regarding a particular article, that doesn't mean we can't be friendly and helpful as we inform them of our policies. For example, in this false positive report, the editor in question (someone associated with a museum) gave a well-written explanation of what they were trying to do, and you just brushed them off with a "You have a conflict of interest" statement. Maybe they do, but that's not a super-helpful response to an apparently good-faith edit attempt from a new user. When they were then (correctly) blocked for a username violation, they apologized and offered to change their username, and you offered another fairly terse, if not hostile, statement on their talk page. That's what Eagles and Fetchcomms are talking about when they are asking you to assume good faith and not bite newbies. This is a new user, and all you seem to want to do with them is inform them they're breaking policy, without actually trying to help them. 28bytes (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. You're being much more helpful than them. It just shows that I ABF more than usual.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jasper. I appreciate that you're trying to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia from spammers; that's a very good thing to do! But as you say, you do ABF quite a bit; but recognizing that is a great start towards fixing it. Showing less ABF and more AGF to new users will make things go a lot smoother for both you and them. 28bytes (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Will do.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Not to pester, but do you think mentoring would be a good idea? I'm sure 28bytes here would be glad to help out. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, my door is always open. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not know of mentoring. Explain please (perhaps move to my own talk page as we've solved the original issue but not my overall behavior).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:MENTOR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Meh, just posting here for the sake of keeping a conversation together: Wikipedia:Mentorship. Basically, another user would review your edits regularly, and work with you to improve any instances where he/she thinks you were ABFing instead of AGFing. When he/she thinks you're improved sufficiently, then the mentoring is over. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not fully ready to agree to that though. I'm stuck.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
OK ... how do you plan to ABF less and AGF more, then? (I realize you've acknowledged the issue already—great!—but how will you go about fixing it? etc.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I was told, if in doubt, do not act.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I am concerned about this user's ability to AGF. About a month ago (I don't remember the exact diffs/article), somebody posted something about the theology of Jeremiah Wright that was technically correct, but the user was ranting against Obama. Rather than remind the user that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Jasper Deng called the user's posts "racist" (they dealt with the issue of race but persented factual content), and the user got riled up and continued ranting until they got blocked. I remember discussing this with Jasper, who simply insisted they were racist. Maybe the user was racist, maybe they weren't, but jumping to that conclusion violates AGF. I bring this up here not to pile on or "get him into trouble", but as an examlpe of the type of thing that might be discussed should this user eventually agree to mentorship (which I highly encourage). Kansan (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Referring to this? Jasper has his faults, but I don't fault anyone for how they handled yet another old and tired "I know the truth about Obama and it must go into the article!" type of POV-pusher in that discussion. AGF is straight out the window with that type of person. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I think saying "AGF is straight out the window" is not the message we want to be sending given the past AGF concerns. Yes, this particular case probably was inevitably heading for an indef, but what of the more borderline cases? My concern isn't with this particular editor, who no doubt had a major axe to grind, but with how he handles new editors in general. My main concern in this case was that Jasper said the specific "racist" comment was "but a kind of black identity religion, based on the collective guilt of the white race and the destruction of America as the tool of the white oppressor, which according to the doctrine will bring on the millennial Utopia" about Jeremiah Wright. I really do think that could have been a good faith (but misguided) effort to try to describe Wright's theology, and dismissing it as "racist" isn't the way to go about it. Kansan (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • "collective guilt of the white race"-there has to be something wrong with that.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
          • You're right, it wasn't a correct edit. However, that isn't my point. This was an incredibly racially charged issue and many people did mischaracterize Wright as having beliefs like that, so it was not correct to jump to calling somebody a racist. Even if you think somebody is a racist, it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt after one edit if there's any doubt. (i.e. if somebody is posting racial slurs, or saying "____ people are bad/smell/etc.", yes, you can call that racist.) This cuts to the core of AGF. Assume good faith even if you're not sure it's worth it. Kansan (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • How about this then? In too much of a rush to revert (without evaluating the content of an edit), Jasper edit-warred to keep BLP violations in an article. When the situation was explained to him, he responded with a frivolous SPI case and well dug-in heels. While the now-departed Lar (talk · contribs) could have been more straightforward to start with, he did nothing wrong and Jasper's non-apology that closed out the SPI and admission that he hadn't even considered AGF in that whole saga seem to be examples of a mindset within Jasper Deng at odds with Wikipedia policies and community norms requiring significant shifting. The case presented here suggests that the twelve days since this last example hasn't brought that adjustment. Mentorship is reasonable, and should occur posthaste. — Scientizzle 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I have gotten over this, and at the time, was a rather new editor in the sense that I did not know of BLP. I will not post the link per WP:DENY, but, I now immediately remove BLP violations, which I usually ABF on if the info is negative.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
No, there's a distinction between bad faith BLP violations and good faith, unintended BLP violations (they don't know the RS or BLP policies, for example). Unless the edit is like "[X] raped his children multiple times and then murdered them" when it's unsourced, then we need to take some time to explain WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. to them—and not just by tossing them links, but by carefully explaining. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, to add to Fetchcomms' comment: if you have trouble explaining a policy to someone (for example, you've told them they have a conflict of interest and they disagree or don't seem to understand what you mean by it), a good idea is to ask another editor to help explain it. For example, a few days ago an editor was adding poorly sourced contentious statements to an article I was watching, but she seemed to be doing it in good faith. I was having difficulty getting her to understand why the sourcing wasn't sufficient for the addition she wanted to make, so I asked the other editors at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to help. After all, there's never any shame in saying "I'm not explaining this policy well, maybe these other experienced editors can help." 28bytes (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Yes indeed, it is vital to always start with an assumption of good faith. Bad faith must never be assumed - it always needs to be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. For BLP, there are plenty of valid reasons why people can add unsourced negative material in good faith - for example, they might simply be unfamiliar with our sourcing rules - and the material might actually be true! We absolutely must not assume all newcomers are fully conversant with all our rules, and we should always give them friendly and helpful assistance unless bad faith becomes incontrovertible. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think, at this point in time, there is probably no need for immediate administrator intervention, but the above conversation would be good to continue with a mentor. Jasper is a good editor who seems open to changing his editing styles to better match up with the community guidelines, and I think mentorship would go a long way toward helping him. Kansan (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, this really only seems to be an issue of understanding and communication - I don't think there was ever any justification for admin action at this stage -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

──── Comment: Things seem to be coming to a close since Jasper looks to be seeing how his actions were not the best. Perhaps the remainder of the discussion re mentoring and other things be taken to his talk page rather than on a high visibility board. --Blackmane (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

He would first need to agree to mentorship, of course - he earlier stated he was reluctant to do so (but several of us have urged him to change his mind, as it wouldn't have to be a permanent thing at all and would only be about helping him.) Kansan (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Still, it would be better to discuss on my own talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Oversighter needed[edit]

I have just emailed the oversighter list about a problematic userpage. Anyone on duty tonight?

The matter is quite pressing, I don't wish to disclose anymore on-Wiki. Pol430 talk to me 22:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Without giving specifics, let's just say an e-mail to the Oversight address makes a lot more noise in the right ears than an ANI posting. If you've emailed the address on WP:RFO an ANI thread is quite unlikely to make things any faster. Courcelles 23:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've emailed you with some further info Pol430 talk to me 23:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The fastest way is supposed to be "Wikipedia's quick form", see [27] Bishonen | talk 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Check your email. My experience has been that Oversight emails sent using the quick form get a response within 15-20 minutes, and I've sent more than a few. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing Archived RFC[edit]

A recent RFC on the village pump was archived by a bot without being closed. Are bus routes Encyclopaedic? I'm not sure what policy is on how to go about closing something like this do we Unarchive close then leave to rearchive or just close in situ? I was hoping an admin here can sort it out - the situation is complicated by another editor commenting on the RFC today whilst archived; this may require some sort of history merge to preserve their contribution and it may require to remain open to allow comment on their contribution. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

At User talk:Vugar 1981, has been waiting for two days now and the editor seems to be getting a little impatient - anyone able to help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Note the block occured because the user showed up 4 months from absence [28] to simply make reverts on Azerbaijani people (check history) without any discussion to the version by Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs). He appears after 4 months absent after the day a call went out for meatpuppeting in the Azerbaijan wikipedia: [29] by Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs) (an SPA account which simply added unreliable numbers to demographics which he claims to belong to in the talkpage) for blind reverts on the particular article Azerbaijani people. Both users failed to discuss any of their edits (where a discussion was opened on the talkpage about the random authorless self-published websites) and the reliability of their sources (which they actually manipulated by attributing false numbers to it). Given that there have been two Azeri-Armenian arbcomms in the area, I think admin took the correct action. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, you're an administrator. What prevents you from reviewing the request? On the merits, I believe that the editor should explain why he suddenly made these unexplained reverts before we decide to believe his claim that he is not a meatpuppet.  Sandstein  18:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been an admin long and I don't feel experienced enough to deal with this one - I'm really just observing unblock requests as an educational exercise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ditto here. My work is mostly in "deletion" and I have little experience playing "wikicop" so I'll just give my opinion. A true "meatpuppet" is someone who creates an account for the sole purpose of participating in an edit war, AFD discussion etc and has no editing history prior to that. The user in question here has previous edits. I didn't examine them in detail but most of them look gnomish. It's possible that his only mistake was answering a "call for help" at the Azerbaijan Wikipedia and he might not have even realized he was doing anything wrong. (I'm not sure how close the rules about canvassing/EW/3RR etc. over there match the ones here) He received no warnings about his reverts, as a matter of fact his talk page wasn't even created until he requested an unblock. Unless someone provides evedence that he's a problem editor on his home wiki, I would support an unblock or a shortening of his block duration here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
sulutil:Vugar 1981 rather makes the meatpuppet claim questionable. T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Declined. See my reasoning there. T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins[edit]

For the record; just three minutes after this personal attack was posted on Talk:Jim Hawkins, from a BBC IP address, BBC presenter Jim Hawkins said on Twitter "I must not tease the Wikipedians. It's not their fault". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably down to you insisting against the advice of WP:DOB for many months that we must include his d.o.b. You should drop the stick and stop antagonising the subject of an article. Fences&Windows 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
"Grow up and get a life, Mabbett" is not much of an insult anyway, certainly not without the smell of elderberries. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, Jim Hawkins does not want an article to exist at all. The article has been to AfD twice and consensus is that he is notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia - basically, it's a control issue. Jim Hawkins has a Wikipedia account (Jimhawkins64 (talk · contribs)) so the use of the BBC IP to post an insult may be straying into sockpuppet territory. Personal attacks on Wikipedia are not acceptable per WP:CIVIL, although this is at the lower end of the scale. Off-Wiki attacks are not acceptable either, but these need to be addressed off-Wiki. In response to Fences and Windows, Andy Mabbet has not edited the article since December 2010, and that was only to update Hawkins' Twitter address. Consensus is that his Twitter posts are not to be used to reference his birthday, and that consensus has been accepted by those editors who disagree with it (including myself). Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
"Can we now drop the pretence that his birthday isn't known publicly, known at his instigation and discussed by him? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 7:29 pm, 19 March 2011, Saturday (1 month, 1 day ago) (UTC+0)". That post on the talk page was what prompted Hawkins' reaction. So he hasn't let it go. I get the impression that Andy is enjoying sparring with Hawkins too much and should leave that BLP well alone. Fences&Windows 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion of issues on the talk page is what the talk page is for. The question was asked, and it remained unanswered for a month. The information was not added to the article (which would be "not letting it go") against the prevailing consensus that a WP:RS must be provided for this, which a Twitter post is not. I am aware that Andy also has a Twitter account. Should it be found that he has been taunting JH via Twitter re the Wikipedia article, then I would not look upon it favourably. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica Drama[edit]

Encylopedia Dramatica dropped its role as home of the /B/tards and is now "Oh Internet" which more akin to Know Your Meme than the old NSFW stuff. So We have a slow motion edit war between various "just auto-confirmed"/new accounts/trolls and Genuine Wikipedians over including A fork of ED. Genuine Wikipedians have removed it at least 5 times since I started watching this afternoon. However genunine content contribution is high enough so Page protection would be silly and harm the Wikipedia's coverage.... So can we black list "" or create an "edit filter" or what? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I requested semi protection the other day. LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
On not I think I am found one good faith Genuine Wikipedian who has added it in. Also ED was considered a WP:ATTACKSITE The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thankfully Wikipedia:Attack sites no longer has consensus. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thats actually totally unrelated here. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED and WP:NPA#Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the NPA policy page refers to links which are disruptive or problematic while the failed policy "attack sites" refers to sites which where characterized as inherently naughty. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm very hesitant to make a broad distinction between editors and "real" wikipedians. But if the article needs to be protected in order for this dispute to be settled on the talk page I'll protect it. Protonk (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, consensus is against them. LiteralKa (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thats fine. My question is simple. Is this something liable to be solved by normal discussion and would that discussion be moved along by a page protection? Protonk (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I hate to use that distinction but the reality is these largely our drive by hits by people who are upset OhInternet has replaced ED. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Since is on the blacklist already, shouldn't websites that duplicate its content be added to it too? I've mentioned it at, so I haven't received a response yet. Blacklisting the website is preferable to continually having to lock the article from any revisions, including improvements. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
ED being on the blacklist is a tangential topic. You can feel free to add ED mirrors to the blacklist but that doesn't really have anything to do w/ this dispute. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I dont know what else to do here but bring it here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I've already taken the .ch domain to the local spam-blacklist's TP after a user spammed MONGO's talk page with it. While it was there, another user reported two more forks of the same material, but I'm not sure if they're actively being used as of yet. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Surely ED is a caricature of Wikipedia, not an attack-site? It doesn't call for violent action to be taken against Wikipedia, it only makes fun of Wikipedia and its editors. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
We had a whole Arbcom case over it actually which is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
take note of the age of that case. At the time of the case the article was "permanently deleted" and no one envisioned that a real article would ever be created. Its bearing 5 years hence on any discussion which doesn't involve spamming someone's talk page w/ links to ED is minimal. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The remedy stands just the same that why its been black listed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and an arbitration decision made clear that the recreation of the article about ED was no longer completely ruled out, but did not change the ruling regarding its status as an attack site. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
And still the arb case has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct or content issue before us, nor does the blacklist. This is the same as any other site which is forked. We have difficulty determining whether the article should describe a particular fork, the old site, or all of them. See WoWWiki for a similar dispute (with no blacklist or arb case involved). Protonk (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC) – I wouldn't say the WoWWiki article was significantly disrupted or spammed, and there was more discussing than reverting. I don't see the two events as comparable. Wowpedia also has sources. At the moment, proponents are basing their arguments solely on their ideology rather than Wikipedia policy, precedents, practices, or sources. At the moment, proponents are using come-and-go accounts to revert because they have the ability to revert without participating in the discussion. Their goal is to keep reverting until their opposition grows tired. They could afford having cheap throwaway accounts tarnished in image or banned. They could always call upon a friend to replace them. By adding to the blacklist, they'll realize that they must obtain consensus before being permitted to add the link to the article. proponents are going to avoid the negotiating table as long as it's as easy as clicking the "Save page" button to add the link back in. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "it exists, so we must include it." WP:NOTLINK. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
ok? The article is currently protected. I have absolutely no objection to putting any ED mirrors on the blacklist. And I have no objection to keeping the article at the status quo until one of the mirrors garners some attention from some reliable sources. My point in this whole thread is to point out that the nature of the article subject itself has no bearing on the conduct of people pushing for one site over another. Nor does a 5 year old arbcom case. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To broach a content question, how likely is it that the ED page will ever be updated with a link to a fork should that fork remain consistent (and be mentioned in some sources)? Protonk (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

doubtful We can white list a single edit if It become prominent in RS to warrant as such. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I found it likely. The media loves Internet drama; they feel that it makes them sound trendy. Unfortunately, I can't predict the future, so it's wait and see for me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In a related question, someone ought to take "Oh Internet" to RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you please clarify? isn't a reliable source. It's an user-generated wiki that's only a few month old and has less than a thousand articles. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any here trying to push as a reliable source, and I don't see a point in a pre-emptive RS/N discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I was under the impression by the 90 seconds I spent looking at it when the drama llama came to town, that Oh Internet had an editorial and fact checking process prior to publication of content. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
        • And I was wrong they just canned the severe NSFW/legal stuff rather than instituting an editorial process. Oh well, that just leaves the relatively pathetic KYM until the internet culture studies people start grinding journal articles to get positions in New Media Studies or the latest name for the discipline. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration cases are binding unless there is a subsequent case that "overthrows" it...least that is what I had always thought was policy here.--MONGO 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  • But the case doesn't have any bearing on the topic of discussion!!! Protonk (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
IN other words, you don't think there is anything disruptive or problematic?--MONGO 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Uh. No? This is a pretty simple naming dispute. Naming and Necessity gets at the core of our problem. The article on ED semantically pointed to an object in the real world that no longer exists. Now there is a dispute over whether or not it should point to a copy of that object. Obviously we have obnoxious people trying to insert the link to the mirror or beseiging the talk page. But none of that has anything to so w/ ED in itself. So whatever fervor has been whipped up in this thread over your eponymous arbcom case or some subsection of NPA is kinda beside the point. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Linking to a mirror is the same as linking to the original website.   Will Beback  talk  02:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes and no. My point in wikilinking naming and necessity was to hint at the reasons why site revamps are problematic for a living encyclopedia. We had a link to ED in the article but ED as it was when the article was (mostly) written no longer exists as a distinct object. Someone has forked it and put a mirror up so linking to that mirror is not the same as linking to the original because the original has changed in a fundamental way. Again, this is largely a content issue (the semantic dispute). Protonk (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
So one group of morons is arguing with another...not surprising.--MONGO 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
No, not really. is founded by the ED audience, so it believes in the myth of ED, including its supposed invincibility and lack of accountability. They've restored articles deleted by DMCA and legal requests (eg. the "Madeleine McCann" article), and they have fewer qualms about including personal information. is run by those who believe in the legend of ED – ED as the unflinching hate machine. The original ED sysops didn't believe in the myths and legends; we were more pragmatic and realistic, but the new site is run by the ideological. is going to end up being fundamentally different from the original ED. Since is editable, I wouldn't call it a mirror image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Either way, thats some bored screwed up people that participate in that mess.--MONGO 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's keep EB as a source and prior Wikipedia / ED conflicts out of this. If ED is changing or forked then normal content policy, including edit warring prohibitions etc, applies to the article(s) on it (or its forks). Period. If we need to warn, block, or protect, we should do so to end the edit warring. Talk pages are for talk and consensus building, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like they don't yet know which ED will be the real ED...oh the drama.--MONGO 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, .. our drama's daddy can beat up their drama's daddy any day of the week. — Ched :  ?  08:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement analysis again [Moved from WP:FTN][edit]

COI linkspammer Fugitivehunter (talk · contribs) making some rather sweeping POV changes there, including a legal claim in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

UH I am posting to Ani since its including legal threats The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone should inform him that Revocation of our licensing is not permitted, which it looks like he may be doing by placing that Trademark sign on the article. If he persists, then block for WP:NLT, as continued attempts to revoke licensing is an implicit challenge to our content licenses, which is in effect a legal threat. –MuZemike 01:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Eh, I don't see any legal threats, I do see he's put a "Trademark" symbol next to "System Analysis", the gentleman's website says the same (I didn't check it for reliability), but that's about it. NO legal threats, no revolking our license, nor is there any prohibition against using the trademark symbol. Just my .02 KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 11:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of Raintheone towards the G.I. Joe WikiProject articles[edit]

Withdrawn, being taken to RfC/U
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per discussion below, this AN/I has been withdrawn and taken to WP:RfC/U instead. Just waiting for 24 hours of inactivity to pass for the bot to auto-archive this thread. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


The purpose of this Incident notice, is to report the disruptive behaviours of Raintheone vis-à-vis articles falling under the purview of the G.I. Joe WikiProject. At some point Raintheone became the WikiProject's self-appointed content supervisor, and his actions have quickly escalated from simply providing comments on the WikiProject and various article talk pages, to an active campaign of harassment including an Article for Deletion nomination (result: keep) on one of the most notable characters in the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero franchise, and culminating in a Good article reassessment on one of our two GA-rated articles. I don't know what the source is of his enmity, and although I must assume that he was acting in good faith at the outset, it has become readily apparent that he's moved well beyond that. I also won't be addressing the specific points of the content dispute, as that has been discussed at length elsewhere, but will instead focus solely on Raintheone's conduct in this matter. I'm hoping that by bringing this to AN/I (as was suggested by an admin in the course of discussing the GAR) that we can resolve this situation and be allowed to edit the articles to the standard they deserve, rather than having to expend time and effort on administrative matters.

AfD and Merge requests

AFAIK, the earliest appearance of Raintheone in the "G.I. Joe space" was 24 February 2011. On that date in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters/Archive 1#Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe Concern thread, he posted "can anyone do a mass AFD on the non notable characters" and displayed an utter lack of courtesy by doing so with actually discussing it with the G.I. Joe editors first. Although it is not strictly required, the AfD guideline does recommend the notification of supporting WikiProjects and substantial contributors. This is a pattern he repeated with the Zartan AFD, and again with the G.I. Joe: A Real American hero (Marvel Comics) GAR, where both went up without any notification to interested parties.

At one point, Raintheone made a post [30] where he suggested that "I think it may be best if you merge many character articles into a list of characters because they are not properley [sic] sourced. Some are fine, most are not. You also need to assess them on your own WP quality sclae [sic] and WP Fictional Character's". I would note that since then:

  1. over a period of about a week in mid-late March, one of our editors did in fact perform a quality assessment on every article in the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero space, and
  2. a significant amount of merging of the G.I. Joe articles has in fact occurred, as can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and here [31]. And while his attention may initially have been focused on the character articles it has since drifted onto the non-character articles (which in no way impacts the Fictional Characters WikiProject).
Lack of Manpower

Despite the fact that the G.I. Joe WikiProject has at most three active editors - including myself (who only became a regular/active Wikipedia editor since early March 2011, having posted perhaps 3-dozen edits maximum in the preceding two years) and another editor Cerebellum (who has been inactive for almost a month now, due to RL commitments) - we've still managed to accomplish much in a very short time frame (less than a month), including the aforementioned merges (kudos to