Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Kimo Williams[edit]

Can we get some eyes here? The subject, or someone editing under his name (Kimowilliams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)), has made some massive changes. Probably accurate, but he clearly needs some guidance in style, etc. by someone who has some time. I know there's a famous person warning, but I don't know where it is, and I think it might be overkill. Also haven't notified him as I think a "Hi, you're being discussed with admins" might be a little bitey for someone's first edits. I know there are some folks here who have handled such situations helpfully. I'd love to help, but I have less than zero wiki time these days other than minor clean up. Thanks StarM 04:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO, AND WP:SELFPROMOTE are the three that I can think of. Would those be of any help? — Ched :  ?  04:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I dropped the obligatory welcome msg, and included a brief note including the above links. A quick look indicates good faith editing from the user without too much "self-promo" style of writing, but I did not read in depth. The issue here is that none of it is sourced, and that can be problematic in a BLP (in fact, the edits appear to have actually removed a half dozen of the source links that were previously there. I'll assume it was not intentional, but rather a byproduct of the rewrite). As the hour is late here, and I have no wish to "bite" a new-comer, I'll leave further article review to others at the moment. I'd rather see an attempt at sourcing the information than a wholesale reversion, and if time permits I'll take a look at helping out in that respect tomorrow evening. Cheers and best to all (and thanks for the heads-up StarM. — Ched :  ?  04:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this concern up here. I have reverted their edits as a blatant copyright violation from http://www.wix.com/omikmusic/kimosite#!about. I also gave the editor a strict warning to avoid posting further copyvios. Minima© (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Good catch Minimac. Hmmmm ... I'd like to be able to use some of that to improve the article, but to be honest - I'm not even sure it would qualify as a WP:RS. — Ched :  ?  13:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The editor has placed a Help request on the page. I directed them to the OTRS email, but if anyone else has better advice than I had... --NellieBly (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that OTRS is the way to go here. OTRS represents the WMF, not the en.Wiki editing community. Not infrequently, when someone sends an email to us about an article they're trying to edit, they get sent a boilerplate saying that the WMF is not a central authority on article content and suggesting the customer edit the article themselves. causa sui (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then if you think there's a more appropriate way to do it could you let the editor know as well? --NellieBly (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I posted a note at MRG's talk in hopes that one of her (talk page stalker) might have some good suggestions on how to proceed. — Ched :  ?  17:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. I learned a lot for future situations when I run across something similar. I think the template I remembered (which may no longer exist or be deprecated) was a user warning basically saying you're using a celeb name. We want to be sure you are who you say you are... StarM 04:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for indefinite editing block school IP[edit]

Hi, I am a systems administrator at a school. Our outgoing internet traffic originates at 213.126.244.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is a fixed address. Because I can not guarantee the good behaviour of our students (you know what bored teenagers can be like, I'm sure), I would suggest preventatively blocking the afore mentioned IP address indefinitely. A number of temporary bans have already been executed on the address, and I do not expect any less problems in the future. 213.126.244.200 (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, but we tend not to block preventatively, and even less so when it is an IP address that multiple editors might be using. That's not to say this won't eventually end up being blocked - that could happen quickly if abuse originated from the IP - but for the moment, there's no action to take.  Frank  |  talk  13:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought. I know that policy discourages preventative blocks, but could this be considered a special case? Using common sense, the poster clearly has a valid point. Are there good, practical reasons to decline the request? Basalisk inspect damageberate 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the policy that would allow this, and indeed it is against long-standing interpretation of policy. In addition, there have been exactly six edits originating at the IP this year, and one warning.  Frank  |  talk  14:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Not overly true: if the "owner" proves it's them, and requests that we stop anonymous editing, it's been done many times in the past (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Possibly so, but I still don't see where that's covered in policy. My assertion that it is against long-standing interpretation of policy may be a small reach, but...I'm confident it is well within long-standing consensus on the matter - even if, as you say, exceptions are made. Nevertheless - I don't see a reason to do so here.  Frank  |  talk  15:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If a network administrator requests that we restrict editing access from their network, we should comply as a matter of courtesy. The above request is not sufficient to establish that the IP is a network administrator. They could be one of those silly teenagers having a little fun. Jehochman Talk 15:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
We've required e-mails from officials listed on the school's website in the past, could we do so now? A request like the one above, coming from a named administrator with an official school e-mail that we can verify? I'd have no problem granting that request, with the caveat that they should let us know if their outbound IP changes for some reason. If they're willing to work with us, great - I wish more schools were proactive about this sort of thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how restricting editing from a private network is in the spirit of this project being an encyclopedia almost anyone can edit. I do not think that the resources of Wikipedia's administrators and/or technical staff should substitute for a network administrator's own responsibility to monitor (and, if necessary, restrict) activities within his or her own network.
Furthermore, the opinion that "we should comply as a matter of courtesy" is not a matter for this noticeboard but rather for a policy discussion elsewhere.
In addition, I have refrained, thus far, from making any comment on the veracity of the request itself, because I don't think it's especially relevant, but even if we assume the request is within policy, we still do have to evaluate whether it is credible and ultimately actionable. Given that the IP in question has made exactly 8 edits on 3 dates in the entire year of 2011, and the requestor's only edit is to request the block and the publicly available information on the two IPs does not especially support that either is related to a school or even that they are closely related to each other...I'm really inclined to just close this for now.  Frank  |  talk  17:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Um, WHOIS says that both the OP's IP and the IP he wants blocked belong to CSG Willem van Oranje, which is definitely a school. Deor (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough; I've struck that part. Thanks.  Frank  |  talk  18:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • monitor contribs and proceed as normal? — Ched :  ?  17:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
usually at a school, the administrator can determine who is using the system at what times, and can deal with the matter internally. If your system is such that you cannot track such edits internally, or your policy is that you do not do so, and there is grave disruption and violation of BLP policy in particular, we will block, but it is usually unnecessary. Students will do such things, and the wisest course is sometimes to ignore them. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a facility that prohibits anonymous editing, but would allow users from that IP to create and sign-in to accounts? Is that possible? Is it a good compromise? Just a random thought... VanIsaacWScontribs 09:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that's the standard {{schoolblock}} process. They can't create an account from that IP, but can request to do so, or create one on a different IP and use it.—SpacemanSpiff 09:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reedy Bot[edit]

I've tried to stop this from making any more edits, but the big red button is only accesible by admin. The bot is tagging for AFT v5, but is also moving stub tags from the bottom of the article to above the categories. See Reedy's talkpage for the ones I've spotted. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh the drama. For some reason, it's Pywikipediabot making those edits and moving it. I noticed AWB was doing similar things at the start, so I made that stop and go away. Let's see Reedy (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh the drama indeed. Now go and fix it. Lugnuts (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Still happening. Someone block this fool and quick. Lugnuts (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't expect it to have fixed itself. Strange that, huh? Reedy (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Bot blocked, as it was still doing it - oddly, though, not every time, but only when there is a {{DEFAULTSORT}} tag, it appears. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
That's overkill, there is no policy reason for this, it's just based on a MOS list of the sequence we put things and appears to be for no more reason than to keep it separate. Before, after, why do we care. I was in the middle of researching this and had already concluded no block was required. The bot handler is a trusted user and developer and is aware of the issue. I support immediate unblocking.--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Ref: WP:IDEALSTUB and WP:FOOTERS--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It's 2 different bots to get the job done quicker. One is AWB, which is working from the bottom of the list, the other is Pywikipedia bot that is working from the top. What I can't fathom, is why the bot has been blocked due to what is a stylistic complaint, it is not, in any way breaking articles, making them display differently. Unfortunately, it's not my fault that I'm having to do this in such a rush (it's for a WMF project with a deadline), so not so tested code has to be used. The problem itself is presumably when pywiki is grabbing the base data, it's stripping it all down, adding the category, and rebuilding in the wrong order. Reedy (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Either way it shouldn't be doing it. The code should always be fully tested regardless although there isn't much harm here bots can do a lot of damage if not tested fully. The WMF should know this as much as anyone. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Running untested code against a live project? That's pretty shoddy software engineering. Gerardw (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Pywikipediabots category.py is very well tested code, but seemingly, per The Bushranger, we've got an edge case "but only when there is a {{DEFAULTSORT}} tag, it appears." Reedy (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Another issue, see here - the {{link GA}} which belongs after the stubs and before the interlanguage links is being moved in between the DEFAULTSORT and the categories. I have also noticed that in some cases a blank line is being inserted between DEFAULTSORT and the categories, as here. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, not that's not in the MOS, there is no reference to where these belong. Redrose64, where does that placement come from? But it suggests that the bot is simply ordering all templates above all cats. Since AWB and PWB were both do it, and they are entirely different frameworks, this appears to be a problem coming from outside the bots.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The {{link GA}}/{{link FA}} is rarely added manually, but is typically added by one or another of the many bots which maintain the interlanguage links. Bots usually place them immediately before the ILLs, with no gap, as described at H:ILL#Syntax, I guess because it makes them easier for such bots to find at a later date when update is required (e.g. changing {{link GA}} into {{link FA}}). Since Reedy Bot is moving these and stubs to just after the DEFAULTSORT, that tells me not only that is it not aware that certain templates have special rules, but that it also believes {{DEFAULTSORT:}} to be a template. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This does not seem consistent with the instructions at {{link FA}} but then I couldn't quite figure out what the documentation intended. In any case, there is apparently a related bug known since 2008 on this issue: SourceForge Pywikipediabot Bug Tracker. Only related as it is using interwiki.py and we're talking about category.py.--Doug.(talk contribs) 12:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The reference to the instructions in the documentation was to {{link GA}} I have not reviewed the documentation for {{link FA}}, which seems much more detailed.--Doug.(talk contribs) 12:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've not got the time to test/debug/fix Pywikipedia. I can however more vouch for AWB's functionality and operations - As it has been starting at the bottom, the edits are separate. I've got just under 4,200 titles left to tag for this run. If I just run AWB to finish the job, could I have the bot unblocked please? Some cleanup might be needed to fix some of the changes, but as it's more style, it's hardly something that needs doing with major priority. Thanks Reedy (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"I've not got the time to test/debug/fix Pywikipedia." Then you shouldn't be trusted to run a bot fullstop. Lugnuts (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 Administrator note: - The blocking admin has been inactive since posting the block over 1.5 hours ago (20:40:39).--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Reedy has said he'll run only the AWB one that's has none of the problems that have been raised here. I have hence unblocked. Cheers, Snowolf How can I help? 22:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Urgent RfC regarding SOPA arising out of a talk page discussion, may require a complex "closure"[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The RfC has been closed, so nothing to do here. We now have WP:SOPA initiative, so WT:SOPA initiative seems the best venue for further discussion.  Chzz  ►  13:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrators may wish to know about the village pump proposal to Turn wikipedia off for 24 hours from the next 00:01 PST, ie, Thursday, ie, Tomorrow (for some users). In particular administrator assistance may be required in closing this, and (if the closure is that consensus was in favour) in implementing it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt made the excellent point in relation to this RfC and proper closing practice: "It's past midnight in the UK. Generally, in societies where people's rights are valued, sneaking things through in the middle of the night is disfavored. While their access, of course, would not be blocked, for certain they might have something to say about the politicization of this website. As might those Americans and Canadians who only edit during the day." I can only second Wehwalt's suggestion regarding too early closure of an RfC of this kind. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I will add of my own accord that if this happens, there will be recriminations from the part of the community which is disenfranchised by this. Consensus is not about votes, it is about argument. Many people are likely to be upset that such a momentous decision was taken and they had no part in it. And yet no reason for urgency has been shown.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Exceedingly poorly thought out RfC has been closed. Swarm X 02:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Instead of leaving it open until those European users wake up and can get to it? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Trouble with that is it is always midnight someplace. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope earnestly that this kind of world timezone based procedural temperance is displayed more often in future on this board. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a project page for determining consensus on who/what/where/when/why/how if we ever get to that point. (Which incidentally has the opinions of WMF legal counsel regarding this bill). Maybe DON'T PANIC would be a better click through soft blank... Crazynas t 10:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and that seems the best place to carry on any further discussion, so I'm closing this ANI thread.  Chzz  ►  13:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Potential temporary blocking of User:Katastrophic[edit]

In the process of reviewing the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Handmade Reviews, I noticed that almost all of User:Katastrophic's edits have been to create this article and to add links to said review blog onto various pages. While I am trying to assume good faith, the edits seem to have been done more in the tone of self promotion than because the edits added to the page. Many of her edits were reverted by other uses as spam and I've removed the other edits that were self-promotional in nature. I also want to note that the user is also the creator and webmistress of the blog.[1] There is a clear case of a conflict of interest going on here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

  • We don't typically block for having WP:COI. If they're being disruptively so, then yes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The previous edits were months ago. I don't think any action at all is appropriate, right now; a warning regarding spamming now, for things added in September, isn't a good idea. The user is using AFC, so that's fine. IF the user adds spam-links in the future, it would be appropriate to use {{uw-spam1}}, 2, 3, 4 and/or block. But right now, I cannot see any action that is appropriate.  Chzz  ►  13:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish and Sheodred[edit]

Well they went off on one in this thread... so probably best to move proper discussion to the block review of Sheodred below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

OK, I'm tired and going to bed. But this probably needs looking at with some degree of urgency (I have a work deadline tomorrow so won't be about much). Over the last few days I've been keeping an eye on a pretty nasty showdown between MarcusBritish and Sheodred. It started at WT:IMOS, with a thread about the use of Anglo-Irish in the lead of articles.

There is now a fairly hefty argument on WP:ECCN where the two are bickering about POV etc. What concerns me is that MarcusBritish seems determined to force Sheodred from WP by whatever means is necessary. He opened and SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheodred) where the supposed socks were only vaguely relevant (one was editing when logged out mistake, and two dubiosuly connected) and has since tagged three more socks seemingly randomly (see my talk page for details; I'm struggling to see any reasonable excuse for tagging the pages).

As an editor I believe Sheodred may have some issues with editing and have a strong viewpoint that needs careful consideration. But at this stage it looks worryingly like Marcus is trying to hound Sheodred from WP using any means possible (i.e. the threat of arbcom).

I'm at something of a loss what to do other than propose an interaction ban, these two just simply do not seem to get along. And frankly, I don't have time to handle it :) so anyone else interested in taking a look? :) --Errant (chat!) 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish's Evidence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Articles:

  • Boudica: [2] — removed "British".
  • Iceni: [3] — removed "British".
  • Muiredach Tirech: [4] — changed "Northern Ireland" ro "Ireland". (Note: pre-1922)
  • Patrick Kavanagh: [5] changed "Republic of Ireland" to Ireland.
  • John Tyndall: [6] — challenges use of "Anglo-Irish" and "British", changes to "Irish", uses unsanctioned MOS discussions as policy, war-edits/reverts, never provides a reliable source.
  • Ernerst Shackleton: [7] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish", war-edits/reverts, accuses editors of violating MOS policy, ignores consensus, no provision of sources.
  • Laurence Sterne: [8] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" and references to "Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Ireland" with "Irish" or "England". No sources provided. Claims MOS "dictates" that he is right in edit summary.
  • Wolfe Tone: [9] — added "Irish" to lead, despite removal of "British" or "Anglo" identities in other articles, under MOS pretenses.
  • Henry Grattan: [10] — added "Irish" to lead.
  • George Berkley [11] — swapped "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", used "see MOS" as edit summary, no provision of source.
  • Lewis (surname) (disambiguation): [12] replaced "British" with "Irish", no sourcing, used "born and raised in Ireland, moved to England to study" as edit summary, despite that birthplace was Belfast, capital of Northern Ireland, part of the UK. No sources provided to show otherwise.
  • Shackleton: [13] — swapped "British" to "Irish", no sources provided.
  • Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany: [14] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided.
  • George Salmon: [15] — "Anglican" removed, edit summary claims "religion does not belong here" despite fact the biog is about a Reverend.
  • Thomas Andrews: [16] — "Irish" added to lead.
  • John Thomas Romney Robinson: [17] — "Irish" added to lead.
  • George Johnstone Stoney: [18] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided.
  • Hugh Gough, 1st Viscount Gough: [19] — added "Irish".
  • Charles Villiers Stanford: [20] — replaced "eminent English-domiciled (though Irish-born)" with "Irish", no sources provided.
  • James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde: [21] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided - note: article states "born in London".
  • Cecil Day-Lewis: [22] — replaced "a British poet from Ireland" with "Irish" - note: article reads "Day-Lewis continued to regard himself as Anglo-Irish for the remainder of his life, though after the declaration of the Republic of Ireland in 1948 he chose British rather than Irish citizenship", although this claim is uncited, no source provided to support change to "Irish" either.
  • Oliver Goldsmith: [23] — changed references to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Goldsmith was born in 1780 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". "Great Britian" changed to "England". "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", no sources provided.
  • Jonathan Swift: [24] — changed reference to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Swift was born in 1667 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". Replaced "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish" including changing citation to this which only reads "Irish author" in the search results article link, the article itself, however, says "Anglo-Irish author". "Anglo-Irish" reference moved against father, along with citation.
  • Peter O'Toole [25] — war editing in conjunction with User:Mo ainm over sources and attacking other editors contribs as disruptive or vandalism.
  • Jocelyn Bell Burnell: [26] — removed "UK" from birth place.
  • Packie Bonner: [27] — added "Irish" to lead.
  • Bananarama: [28] — brief war editing, between "British" and "English" usage because of Irish members.
  • Siobhan Fahey: [29] — added "Irish".

Discussions:

  • Mary Shelley (page talk): [30] — attacking use of "English".
  • PatGallacher (user talk): [31] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".
  • Cuchullain (user talk): [32] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".
  • British people (page talk): [33] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".
  • Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (page talk): [34] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", does not provide sources to support argument, edited article.
  • W. B. Yeats (page talk): [35] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", uses incomplete MOS discussion as support, but no sources.
  • Oliver Goldsmith (page talk): [36] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", uses incomplete MOS discussion as support, but no sources.
  • GoodDay (user talk): [37] — issued "unconstructive" template for war edit that he himself was engaged in. GoodDay removed message without response.
  • GoodDay (user talk): [38] — series of personal and uncivil attacks regarding "British/Irish" nationality.
  • Phil Coulter (page talk): [39] — personal attacks on User:GoodDay, "you are just on wikipedia to disrupt and troll".
  • Nadine Coyle (page talk): [40] — uncivil remarks, also highlights personal national sentiments towards disputing "British" identity.
  • Cillian Murphy (page talk): [41] — British editors told to "fcuk off and get a life" (sic).
  • Liam Neeson (talk page): [42] — British editors told to "now please just fuck off".
  • George Washington (talk page): [43] — claims "English and British unionist editors" are "trying to push their own agendas for claiming other countries achievements".
  • Long-term abuse (page talk): [44] — series of personal attacks on User:GoodDay.

PAs:

  • WP:WQA: [45] — "dick" at me.
  • WP:ECCN: [46] — "jerk" at me.
  • WP:Ireland; [47] – "get a life" at Richard Harvey.
  • WP:ECCN: [48] – "you more than likely have IAD and possibly are very frustrated ... get a life" at me.

Canvassing:

AN misuse:

Sheodred is a major WP:Griefing and an incompetent editor. None of the above "edits" include referencing, many caused war-edits, many were non-POV, WP:5P violated in many cases. Highly disruptive nature, reverts legit tagging, copyvio tags, closures, etc but adds his own. These double-standards, as well as canvassing for support, and not Wiki. Please review his cocky edit summaries over last few days. I will gladly accept a 6 or even 12 month interaction ban with him, but a Topic Ban needs considering here for his huge history of unconstructive edits. Not using sources, ever, is bad procedure. Many of his contribs are pro-Irish/anti-British themed of an OR nature.

That is all I need to say, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 00:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to MarcusBritish.....here we go again.......[edit]

Sheodred's Responses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Boudica: [55] — removed "British", and added "Briton" instead because I thought it was the proper historic term for the ancient Celtic people before the Anglo-Saxon invasions, British did not really become a term for people born in Britain until the Act of Union 1707 which integrated Scotland into the Kingdom of England and became the Kingdom of Britain.
  • Iceni: [56] — removed "British", same reason as above.
  • Muiredach Tirech: [57] — changed "Northern Ireland" to "Ireland" because Northern Ireland did not exist until the partition of Ireland in the twentieth century, which was over a thousand years after.
  • Patrick Kavanagh: [58] changed "Republic of Ireland" because Ireland is the official name of the state, ROI is only a description of the state and the name of the football team.
  • John Tyndall: [59] — challenges use of "Anglo-Irish" and "British", changes to "Irish". An admin became involved in the article, and it was Sean1111111 not me who recently , disobeyed the admin's decision, and deleted any mention of Irish which can be interpreted as a POV edit.
  • Ernerst Shackleton: [60] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish". Shackleton identified himself as Irish, his family and descendants assert that also, it is backed up by sources which were removed by an admin who was involved in the article, protected the page, blocked me and then had to unblock me as it was highly unbecoming of an admin.
  • Laurence Sterne: [61] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" and references to "Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Ireland" with "Irish" or "England". Anglo-Irish does not belong in the lede, that was my issue there. He was born and raise in Ireland, and now I have noticed an ANON Ip has decided that he is English despite everything (this is the problem myself and the editors on Wikiproject Ireland have with POV editors, who are overrunning Irish articles and bios)
  • Wolfe Tone: [62] — added "Irish" to lead, despite removal of "British" or "Anglo" identities in other articles. Wolfe Tone was an Irish revolutionary who opposed British rule, and can be considered the father of Irish republicanism, why is it wrong to call him Irish?
  • Henry Grattan: [63] — added "Irish" to lead. He is Irish, he was a politician who opposed the Act of Union.
  • George Berkley [64] — swapped "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", because he is Irish, yes..he is of the Anglo-Irish class.
  • Lewis (surname) (disambiguation): [65] replaced "British" with "Irish", no sourcing, used "born and raised in Ireland, moved to England to study" as edit summary, despite that birthplace was Belfast, capital of Northern Ireland, part of the UK. No sources provided to show otherwise. CS Lewis was born in Ireland before partition, he also self-identified as Irish, which was provided in the sources.
  • Shackleton: [66] — swapped "British" to "Irish", no sources provided. He was British in the context that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time, he was still Irish.
  • Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany: [67] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish". Anglo-Irish is a social class.
  • George Salmon: [68] — "Anglican" removed, religion does not really have a place in the lede, only in certain exceptions. Salmon was a theologian according to the article, a theologian does not equate to being a Reverend.
  • Thomas Andrews: [69] — "Irish" added to lead because he is.
  • John Thomas Romney Robinson: [70] — "Irish" added to lead. Same
  • George Johnstone Stoney: [71] — See my other comments above
  • Hugh Gough, 1st Viscount Gough: [72] — added "Irish".
  • Charles Villiers Stanford: [73] — replaced "eminent English-domiciled (though Irish-born)" with "Irish", no sources provided.
  • James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde: [74] — Same
  • Cecil Day-Lewis: [75] — replaced "a British poet from Ireland". If he is from Ireland why cannot he be listed as Irish, if he self-identified?
  • Oliver Goldsmith: [76] — changed references to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland". IMOS guidelines
  • Jonathan Swift: [77] — changed reference to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Swift was born in 1667 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". Replaced "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish" including changing citation to this which only reads "Irish author" in the search results article link, the article itself, however, says "Anglo-Irish author". "Anglo-Irish" reference moved against father, along with citation. Jonathan Swift is widely regarded as Irish in mainstream literature, not Anglo-Irish, because it is not a nationality....
  • Peter O'Toole [78] — Peter O'Toole states that he is Irish,and he was born in Connemarra......
  • Jocelyn Bell Burnell: [79] — removed "UK" from birth place because she was born in Northern Ireland which everyone knows is in the UK, so that was unneccesssary.
  • Packie Bonner: [80] — added "Irish" to lead. He is Irish, he was born in County Donegal!
  • Bananarama: [81] — brief war editing, between "British" and "English" usage because of Irish members. I did not remove any mention of those, I merely added Irish in, but it was correctly removed because the Irish member was no longer in the group.
  • Siobhan Fahey: [82] — added "Irish". Because she is?

All this was really pointless in my opinion Marcus.......

Discussions
  • Mary Shelley (page talk): [83] — attacking use of "English". Was not attacking it, I was SUPPORTING IT.
  • PatGallacher (user talk): [84] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people.
  • Cuchullain (user talk): [85] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people.
  • British people (page talk): [86] — challenges "Britons" vs "British". Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people.
  • Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (page talk): [87] — He is Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage.
  • W. B. Yeats (page talk): [88] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish". He is internationally recognised as Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage.
  • Oliver Goldsmith (page talk): [89] — He is Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage.
  • GoodDay (user talk): [90] — issued "unconstructive" template for war edit that he himself was engaged in. GoodDay removed message without response. I apologised to him, and he forgave me, whats the issue here?
  • GoodDay (user talk): [91] — series of personal and uncivil attacks regarding "British/Irish" nationality. I don't understand this.
  • Phil Coulter (page talk): [92] — personal attacks on User:GoodDay, "you are just on wikipedia to disrupt and troll". GoodDay is now being mentored at the moment because of a successful RFC, so my point at the time was valid.
  • Nadine Coyle (page talk): [93] — uncivil remarks, also highlights personal national sentiments towards disputing "British" identity. Did not dispute it, I was disputing the omission of Irish as an identity for people of Northern Ireland who self-identified as Irish, see Good Friday Agreement
  • Boudica: [94] — removed "British", and added "Briton" instead because I thought it was the proper historic term for the ancient Celtic people before the Anglo-Saxon invasions, British did not really become a term for people born in Britain until the Act of Union 1707 which integrated Scotland into the Kingdom of England and became the Kingdom of Britain.
  • Iceni: [95] — removed "British", same reason as above.
  • Muiredach Tirech: [96] — changed "Northern Ireland" to "Ireland" because Northern Ireland did not exist until the partition of Ireland in the twentieth century, which was over a thousand years after.
  • Patrick Kavanagh: [97] changed "Republic of Ireland" because Ireland is the official name of the state, ROI is only a description of the state and the name of the football team.
  • John Tyndall: [98] — challenges use of "Anglo-Irish" and "British", changes to "Irish". An admin became involved in the article, and it was Sean1111111 not me who recently , disobeyed the admin's decision, and deleted any mention of Irish which can be interpreted as a POV edit.
  • Ernerst Shackleton: [99] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish". Shackleton identified himself as Irish, his family and descendants assert that also, it is backed up by sources which were removed by an admin who was involved in the article, protected the page, blocked me and then had to unblock me as it was highly unbecoming of an admin.
  • Laurence Sterne: [100] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" and references to "Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Ireland" with "Irish" or "England". Anglo-Irish does not belong in the lede, that was my issue there. He was born and raise in Ireland, and now I have noticed an ANON Ip has decided that he is English despite everything (this is the problem myself and the editors on Wikiproject Ireland have with POV editors, who are overrunning Irish articles and bios)
  • Wolfe Tone: [101] — added "Irish" to lead, despite removal of "British" or "Anglo" identities in other articles. Wolfe Tone was an Irish revolutionary who opposed British rule, and can be considered the father of Irish republicanism, why is it wrong to call him Irish?
  • Henry Grattan: [102] — added "Irish" to lead. He is Irish, he was a politician who opposed the Act of Union.
  • George Berkley [103] — swapped "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", because he is Irish, yes..he is of the Anglo-Irish class.
  • Lewis (surname) (disambiguation): [104] replaced "British" with "Irish", no sourcing, used "born and raised in Ireland, moved to England to study" as edit summary, despite that birthplace was Belfast, capital of Northern Ireland, part of the UK. No sources provided to show otherwise. CS Lewis was born in Ireland before partition, he also self-identified as Irish, which was provided in the sources.
  • Shackleton: [105] — swapped "British" to "Irish", no sources provided. He was British in the context that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time, he was still Irish.
  • Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany: [106] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish". Anglo-Irish is a social class.
  • George Salmon: [107] — "Anglican" removed, religion does not really have a place in the lede, only in certain exceptions. Salmon was a theologian according to the article, a theologian does not equate to being a Reverend.
  • Thomas Andrews: [108] — "Irish" added to lead because he is.
  • John Thomas Romney Robinson: [109] — "Irish" added to lead. Same
  • George Johnstone Stoney: [110] — See my other comments above
  • Hugh Gough, 1st Viscount Gough: [111] — added "Irish".
  • Charles Villiers Stanford: [112] — replaced "eminent English-domiciled (though Irish-born)" with "Irish", no sources provided.
  • James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde: [113] — Same
  • Cecil Day-Lewis: [114] — replaced "a British poet from Ireland". If he is from Ireland why cannot he be listed as Irish, if he self-identified?
  • Oliver Goldsmith: [115] — changed references to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland". IMOS guidelines
  • Jonathan Swift: [116] — changed reference to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Swift was born in 1667 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". Replaced "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish" including changing citation to this which only reads "Irish author" in the search results article link, the article itself, however, says "Anglo-Irish author". "Anglo-Irish" reference moved against father, along with citation. Jonathan Swift is widely regarded as Irish in mainstream literature, not Anglo-Irish, because it is not a nationality....
  • Peter O'Toole [117] — Peter O'Toole states that he is Irish,and he was born in Connemara......
  • Jocelyn Bell Burnell: [118] — removed "UK" from birth place because she was born in Northern Ireland which everyone knows is in the UK, so that was unneccesssary.
  • Packie Bonner: [119] — added "Irish" to lead. He is Irish, he was born in County Donegal!
  • Bananarama: [120] — brief war editing, between "British" and "English" usage because of Irish members. I did not remove any mention of those, I merely added Irish in, but it was correctly removed because the Irish member was no longer in the group.
  • Siobhan Fahey: [121] — added "Irish". Because she is?

All this was really pointless in my opinion Marcus, one can interpret an editor who has a problem with these edits as one who has a POV problem. Sheodred (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussions
  • Mary Shelley (page talk): [122] — attacking use of "English". Was not attacking it, I was SUPPORTING IT.
  • PatGallacher (user talk): [123] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people.
  • Cuchullain (user talk): [124] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people.
  • British people (page talk): [125] — challenges "Britons" vs "British". Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people.
  • Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (page talk): [126] — He is Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage.
  • W. B. Yeats (page talk): [127] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish". He is internationally recognised as Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage.
  • Oliver Goldsmith (page talk): [128] — He is Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage.
  • GoodDay (user talk): [129] — issued "unconstructive" template for war edit that he himself was engaged in. GoodDay removed message without response. I apologised to him, and he forgave me, whats the issue here?
  • GoodDay (user talk): [130] — series of personal and uncivil attacks regarding "British/Irish" nationality. I don't understand this.
  • Phil Coulter (page talk): [131] — personal attacks on User:GoodDay, "you are just on wikipedia to disrupt and troll". GoodDay is now being mentored at the moment because of a successful RFC, so my point at the time was valid.
  • Nadine Coyle (page talk): [132] — uncivil remarks, also highlights personal national sentiments towards disputing "British" identity. Did not dispute it, I was disputing the omission of Irish as an identity for people of Northern Ireland who self-identified as Irish, see Good Friday Agreement

One of MarcusBritish's comments was "you have always changed Anglo-Irish to Irish, but always fail to reenter it into the main body. Further lack of neutrality. Double-standards." My edit here [133] and his false accusation of enforcing my POV and removing any mention of Anglo-Irish from the article contradicts his accusation, [101].

The edits changed:
  • "...was an Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer (first for the Whigs, then for the Tories) and member of the Anglo-Irish class, poet and cleric..." to
  • "...was an Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer (first for the Whigs, then for the Tories), poet and cleric"
  • "...born at No. 7, Hoey's Court, Dublin, the city residence of his uncle and benefactor Godwin Swift..." to
  • "...born at No. 7, Hoey's Court, Dublin to an Anglo-Irish faimly..."
Fact is, you changed the context when you moved things around to lessen the Anglo-Irish reference. You reduced his "member of the Anglo-Irish class" status down to "born to.. an Anglo-Irish family", and by removing the heritage from the lead the POV tips from neutral to favouring "Irish nationality". Anyone just reading the lead for a quick understanding will not benefit from a NPOV. Anyone reading it all won't get the right impression, because his Anglo-Irish status is now only implied rather than attributed. But thank you, that is a perfect example of that I meant by incompetent and disruptive editing. A neutral lead uses both nationality and heritage. That is neither "British POV pushing" nor "Union nationalist" as you have claimed. It is neutral history. Which ALL my edits stand for. But given your 2 year history of these types of changes, war-edits, proposing unneutral MOS changes and launching attacks on opposing editors, and griefing to admins for support, it's no wonder you feel threatened by a Topic Ban. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF]

I have nothing more to add, the OP has posted what I would have said, Can someone please end Marcus's spectacles...........Sheodred (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The list means nothing. Most of these changes were not supported with references. Many of them were against consensus in talk pages. You war-edited, reverted and harassed other editors in order to maintain many of these edits. That is not NPOV, not verifiable citing. It is nationalistic, pro-Irish, agenda based, disruptive behaviour on a large in encyclopedia scale, which has been commented on by many editors, but you run to so many pages that you water down the opposition and single out those who you consider "British POV-pushers". Your entire campaign to rewrite Anglo-Irish history is a betrayal of Wiki practices. Period. Any reasonable editor will see the lack of sourcing in many of these edits, the same "Irish in, British out" theme. You're virtually an SPA. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You need help my friend, everything you are doing and saying indicates that you are obsessed. Sheodred (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
And that is was the type of IP I've been flagging which Errant opposes. SPA IP's that pop up in numerous talk pages to support Sheodred within minutes of him commenting, recently, especially on the Anglo-Irish matter where he feels out-matched by "British POV pushers". Always from a mobile IP. I suspect he's doing it himself, and if there is a different PC/handset then of course no CU will find any match. And no, I don't offer AGF in this suspicion, it's too damned convenient. As are his excuses!

(edit conflict) Notice how he now changed IP to username - how can he suddenly logout.. cookies don't disappear that fast! Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Motions[edit]

Okay let's boldly fast track this to resolution, before someone dies... of boredom.

Based on the evidence above: My edits list and Sheodred's "views" (due to lack of citing changes) on why he changed so many:

Interaction ban between MarcusBritish and Sheodred[edit]

Support – he irritates me, harasses my talk page and posts cocky edit summaries. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Support - Ironic that MarcusBritish would propose this vote, since he is the one Wikihounding, not vice versa. I tried to reconciliate with him through a proposal where each of us would self-impose an interaction-ban and making steps towards closing this discussion instead of wasting the community's time with this nonsense, but all I got as usual from Marcus were snide remarks and accusations of bad-faith. Sheodred (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely not?:
  • 00:48, 15 December 2011 (diff | hist) User:93.107.209.165 ‎ (Violated the rules of an SPI tagging me here before result is reached, SPI has been closed (ha ha)) (top) [rollback]
  • 00:48, 15 December 2011 (diff | hist) User:93.107.86.244 ‎ (Violated the rules of an SPI tagging me here before result is reached, SPI has been closed (ha ha)) (top) [rollback]
  • 00:47, 15 December 2011 (diff | hist) User:143.239.70.75 ‎ (Violated the rules of an SPI tagging me here before result is reached, SPI has been closed (ha ha)) (top) [rollback]
  • 00:46, 15 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:93.107.194.109 ‎ (violated the rules of an SPI tagging me here before result is reached, never listed IP to be investigated, SPI closed as well, (ha ha)) (top) [rollback]
  • 00:45, 15 December 2011 (diff | hist) User:143.239.102.198 ‎ (violated the rules of an SPI tagging me here before result is reached, never listed IP to be investigated, SPI closed as well, (ha ha))
Those edit summaries of yours are so not hounding, eh? Or the 4 AN/Is, WQA and ECCN you opened against me and other "British POV pushers" all in a row. Touché? Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 06:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban or Extended Restriction for Sheodred[edit]

See this link for details of current restriction, and review edits list above from Oct–Dec 2011.

This link (contribs) will give you a filtered list of every single one of Sheodred's Mainspace contribs, all on one page, no Wikitalk, etc. Article names and edit summaries support evidence of "single purpose" intentions with no room for uncertainty. (And mine (contribs) for unbiased comparison, to remove any doubts of COI, POV, nationalism, Unionism, Anglocenralism or anything else which I have been accused of, in several retorts.)

Support – evidence is clear, nationalistic agenda obvious too. Restriction has clearly been skirted in bad faith, moving from pro-Irish to anti-British edits. Again, all unsupported with sources, and leading to war-editing with other editors. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. I support a topic ban of long duration for Sheodred that bans him from changing the nationality or ethnic identity of any person born in the British Isles in any historical era. That's the subject matter that was documented in Marcus's evidence (and I added to few more of the same kind at ECCN). Such ban would leave Sheodred free to contribute to other subject matters of Irish or British interest. As an aside, Sheodred in his multiple edits to Celtic Nations was solely concerned to get the Irish Republic flag to be displayed to represent the Irish Celtic Nation. Other editors put instead an old, politically neutral flag, or the flags of Irish Republic and Northern Ireland together, or no flag. Sheodred went back several times to display the Irish Republic flag only (example1, example2, example3) while making no other contributions to the article. I don't approve, but I think the narrowly defined ban on the topic of characterizing personal identity is enough. Seanwal111111 (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Abstain - Sean11111111 is taking all that out of context to suit his agenda, the flags in the article were suitable and beneficial for the tone of the article, as usual the Irish flag and no other fell victim to the protests of a few and to an edit war, who claimed that the use of the word Ireland was inappropiate in conjunction with the flag even though Ireland is the name of the state, an uninvolved admin supported my stance on the matter, and the issue was then resolved, plus those edits were made over a year ago, it would suit Sean1111111 down to the ground if I got a topic ban, this whole witch-hunt needs to be shut down...... Sheodred (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible violation of self-imposed restriction?[edit]

Sheodred agreed to a self-imposed restriction on editing articles involving Irish nationality [[134]]; however two of the very few mainspace edits they made involved an Irish surname[135] and Irish clergyman [136]. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying Sheodred breached his restriction. I'm saying he paused making changes to the term "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", instead he moved to editing articles and challenging the use of "British". To me that is a bad faith breach of the restriction, because "Anglo" is closely related to "British", and he has frequently replaced "British" with "English". The edits are not dissimilar, and as usual they are uncited, or provoked arguments on multiple talk pages, because he has a habit of opening the same discussion on several pages, then using the one he has the upper hand in as leverage to edit further articles. As was the case with his using "IMOS" and MOS discussions in various edit summaries, despite those changes not actually being sanctioned by the community or consensus. Again, disruptive behaviour all in the area of shunning Anglo/British usage. I can't understand why no one recognises the clear pattern in his edit history though, it is constant. Of the 1,050 or so edits he has, only about 300 are to articles, and about 50 of those are changing Anglo/Irish/British details somehow. There other 600 are his disputes with editors in talk pages and his attention craving at AN/I whenever anyone opposes his edits. See unbiased edit count. I don't need to make this up, lie or exaggerate anything. The proof is in his contribs, and I have have not edited any of those articles listed, so I have no COI for wanting him "out", as seems to have been implied by OP. I don't read/edit biogs very often, my contribs prove that. If Wiki is going to have this open-access to editor histories, it would help if people used them to gather facts instead of making accusations based on one or two examples they have seen. I mean, it's not hard! Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I did mean did not mean to imply MarcusBritish was saying anything; it's just something I noted while reviewing the situation, and provided the diffs for admin evaluation and resolution. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Sheodred's current topic restriction is: "cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles". It expires at the end of December. The writer Laurence Sterne was born in Ireland in 1713 and lived in Ireland until about 11 years old, and lived in England from then on. Sheodred has breached his restriction with this edit yesterday, 14 Dec 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurence_Sterne&diff=prev&oldid=465842604 which is clearly a violation of the spirit and intent of the restriction. I say one month's restriction on Sheodred on the topic of the nationality label of Irish-born subjects is not enough. One year would be much to be preferred. Permanent would be best. Then Sheodred can devote himself to useful editing on any other subject, and stop creating the fuss he's been creating with his Irish-flag-waving agenda. Sheodred's agenda is that any biographical subject born in Ireland before 1921 must be labelled an Irish national in the infobox and lede. The primary problem with Sheodred's behaviour is that his agenda is unjustified and meritless, and contrary to many high-quality biographical citation references. He's got a WP:conflict of interest and also he's not collaborative. His edit history at Wikipedia shows he essentially does no work on Wikipedia articles other than edit nationality labels. That's bad. I encourage the administrators to force him to look for something else to do at Wikipedia. I send my thanks to MarcusBritish for agreeing with me in spades. Seanwal111111 (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not breach, I said nothing about Irish nationality, I reverted an edit an ANON Ip made, the relevant IP has made conflicting edits in a number of articles, it will reasonable to suggest the IP is a sock of an editor who frequents those articles. For the record, all one has to do is look through my contributions/discussions to know I do "devote himself to useful editing on any other subjects". However, obviously given the current circumstances it is difficult to do so at the present time due to all this Wikihounding. Sheodred (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheodred's dispute resolution proposal[edit]

I will turn the other cheek Marcus in this particular situation (despite everything), you have made no attempt to resolve the dispute between ourselves on each other's talk pages or privately and you skip to procedures where you hope I will be subjected to punitive measures, what begun as a disagreement about Wikipedia:IMOS you transformed into some sort of vendetta, however I will extend the hand of reconciliation and request that you self-impose an interaction ban, indefinite or non-indefinite I don't care, I will do the same...but that is only if you accept my proposal. Sheodred (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't made any proposal that hasn't already been made by me. You've simply attempted to foot the blame on me and slip silently away so that you don't get anymore undue attention. You have not accepted any responsibility for your own actions. You have accused me further of a vendetta, though you are simply using Errant's words there rather than voicing your own. As for the interaction ban, I already proposed it and support it. If you do the same, that's good, start now and leave me the fuck alone! But that doesn't mean a topic ban isn't worth considering based on your lack of competent edits, denial of having engaged in only one form of editing, and numerous assaults on other editors. Regardless of if they apologised or forgave you, that does not excuse your behaviour. And given the one-sided proposal here, i.e. interaction ban and you try to get away with blue murder by appearing civil, then I say no... let the community review your edits and make the decision. A couple of days ago you considered me unworthy of closing a heated debate on MOS and reverted the closure twice, plus numerous other reverts and cocky edit summaries today. No reason why you should expect me to assume good faith and want to close this one and trust you to go about your business with a mind to being more neutral. Thanks, but no thanks. You trusted in Errant to do the right thing. He opened this AN/I thread. Now I'll trust in the outcome of it. There is no "only if you accept" ultimatum crap when the community supports it. :) Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 05:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
So I try to resolve the issue between us and you throw it up back in my face, on top of that you make accusations of bad faith on the proposal I made? I should have expected that to happen, how naive of me to think otherwise, it is clear that I am talking to a wall here, keep on digging a hole for yourself, I have nothing more to say. Sheodred (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
3 headings up... Vote "support" interaction ban. That is the same goal we have, is it not? I didn't throw anything in your face. I wouldn't know which face to choose. Your resolve is only out of self-interest. So glad you have nothing more to say. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 06:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


How much longer is this to be left to continue?[edit]

It is obvious this is going nowhere, it will not conclude until an admin closes this, which is unlikely as they are ignoring this since it is so toxic, can we please wrap this up. Sheodred (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: Self Imposed Interaction ban in effect as of now. Sheodred (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, actually you're indef banned from now for putting "attack" remarks on your talk page. I told you it was a stupid move... Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:46.174.24.10 problematic editing[edit]

Resolved

First of all, this user needs their talk page access revoked, but also they used some rather racist edit summaries along the way prior to being blocked. Calabe1992 14:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Their only edit to their talkpage post-block was to remove the block notice/warnings, which you reverted. They've not abused the unblock process, nor indeed anything that appears to require removing access to their talkpage. Yes, they made racist comments - that's why their blocked, n'est ce pas? What else needs to be done? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Reaper removed the edit summaries and blocked the talk page access. They re-added the comment to their talk page that they had been using in the edit summaries. All removed, so we're done. Calabe1992 15:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:MindstorM[edit]

MindStorM (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly making unsourced POV edits to a few articles, often with an air of ownership. In some cases, this has got close to edit warring too.[137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147] The user has been warned a number of times - for edit warring, vandalism, removing sourced content, and POV pushing, yet has continued. [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159]. MindstorM has generally not engaged in any discussion; when he has, he has not seemed to take any notice of the advice and warnings given by others, accusing Wikipedia of being leftist/Marxist and refused to co-operate with other editors at all.[160], [161]. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 21:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised they haven't already been blocked given the consistency of the edit-warring and POV pushing. I'd support at the very least a temporary block, followed by an indef if they come back with the same agenda. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The continued problems suggest that these problems are likely to continue. I would support a temporary block to prevent him from causing any more trouble; hopefully that will also improve his behaviour; if he returns and continues to cause a problem, then I would support an indef block, as you say. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 22:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
After reviewing this, I'm blocking for 48 hours; if problems continue afterward, an indef is more than warranted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I shall keep watching events; hopefully, this should help improve the situation. If not, I'll bring the problem here again. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 20:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential / actual edit warring on WP:V[edit]

It is wholly unacceptable for editors to be changing / reverting a core WP:5P policy page. As can be seen here WP:Verifiability&curid=3961892&action=history editors are effectively edit warring over both content of the lead sentence and associated tags following the recent decision of no consensus to change the WP:V. I would be grateful for admins. to consider the most appropriate way to ensure that our core policy pages, upon which we reply when dealing with content issues with new editors (and old), are not subject to minute to minute change. Leaky Caldron 13:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the wording change was an attempt at a masterstroke compromise to resolve the mess and save another year of grief. I reverted it back in once saying "Before we instantly revert it, Crazynas 's compromise version could save us another year of discussion. A quick masterstroke to resolve this?". I'm guessing that there won't be further actions to resolve it by editing the sentence. The "Under discussion tag" is another matter. This sentence has been and is under intense discussion. The recent large RFC was merely one particular proposal to resolve the matter. Some folks keep trying to take off the "under discussion" tag. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with Crazynas' compromise being a quick master stroke, but is there any reason you reverted it's removal against WP:BRD? I can see you're not happy with the result of the RfC, but neither edit warring nor a knee-jerk RfC (clearly designed to prove a point and ignoring years of implied consensus) are ways that you shouldn't progress. I suggest you take a break from V North8000, come back in a week or so. WormTT · (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The page has been protected for 3 days [162] (after I requested it on RPP). That seems an appropriate action, at this time. So... can we avoid the discussion spilling out here again, and just close this thread?  Chzz  ►  15:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding the reversion, I saw the initial immediate reversion as kneejerk and wanted to at least get the possibility considered as a possible quick solution without it itself getting plunged into a lengthy debate. That was my thinking. It was one revert of a revert, with the above edit summary which said "at least consider the possibility of leaving it in" Not exactly following BRD, (or my normal way) but, all things considered, not way out of line either. Regarding the tag, continuing trying to remove the "under discussion tag" for something that is clearly under discussion (to put it mildly) IS clearly edit warring. Regarding the new RFC, there is a lot of thought in that RFC, explained at the wp:v talk page (which I won't repeat here) but it is not as you describe. In short, viewed as an essential next step to then allow a discussion after that which would truly resolve it. On your last note, I've been thinking that trying to help in this area has gotten pretty deep into the "not fun" area for me. Its a matter of duty (with respect to the PROCESS, NOT the result) vs. the comfortable route of dialing back on this topic. I'm thinking of choosing the comfortable route. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Why has VnT not been returned to the lead as mandated by the closing admins' ruling that Blueboar's proposal does not have consensus? Fully protecting the page at the current point, where VnT has been removed yet again, against the ruling of the closing admins, IMHO can be seen to be a deliberate act of extreme bad faith by one or more "sore losers". Roger (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. It needs to be changed, asap. Leaky Caldron 16:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The level of butthurt displayed by the victorious 33% who've now temporarily been scotched is, of course, hilarious, but I must admit that I've made a mistake there. When I reverted using the edit summary "last stable version", that was what I meant to do, but now I see that I accidentally restored a version that certainly is not the last stable one. That does need to be fixed.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Either way, the "under discussion" tag is certainly in the last stable version.North8000 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the huge amount of work you put into the whole process North8000, if the "under discussion" tag must stay in, WTF was the point of the whole Closure process? Roger (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
To determine whether or not to implement that proposal, and that proposal was an attempt to resolve the discussion. North8000 (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Some clarification is in order here... some people seem to think that the RFC was about whether any change should take place at the policy... that is not the case. The RFC was intended to see if a specific compromise proposal (one that had been worked out on a sub-page by editors with a wide range of opinions on the underlying issues) had broad community consensus. The answer to that is "no, it didn't" (although it came close). That is OK. It does not mean we stop discussion of the issues... it means we all go back to the beginning and try to work out a different compromise (one that will gain a clear consensus). If you read the closers' comments, it is clear that some form of change is called for... just not the specific change that was proposed. We all need to step back, accept that the concerns that are raised on both sides are legitimate (and stop ignoring what those on the "other side" say because we disagree with it). Editors on both sides of this debate need to be willing to step back from entrenched positions, and work towards achieving compromise and consensus rather than having their view "win". Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have placed an edit request to restore it to the old revision . If there is a time to set aside the WP:WRONGVERSION argument, this is it IMO. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(nice EC, Tarc...'coz I was writing...)

Good grief. All these highly-experienced editors, and some still fail to understand the need to protect m:The Wrong Version, and the need for calm, collegiate discussion and consensus. And still persist in spreading discussions over many fora. Come on, folks; let's have a nice chat, in the appropriate place, and try and agree what we should do. Please. Thank you. With cherries on top.  Chzz  ►  17:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Restored last known consensus version[edit]

I have restored the last known consensus version of WP:V, as per WP:PREFER and the three admins' closure of the RFC. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Woofy FM[edit]

--GraemeL (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Obvious hoax. Amateur nonsense. In place since 2009. Well done, folks. ColouredSpots (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

...and deleted within 3 minutes of your post. There are lots and lots of articles, and we don't always notice problem ones. Thanks for pointing this one out. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I must say, the article kinda admitted it was a hoax; I'm not sure why it took so long to pick up on, but it's gone now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Improper warning by administrator Slakr[edit]

Block review: Sheodred[edit]

I indef'd Sheodred (talk · contribs) and revoked talk page access for posting a defamatory, abusive rant directed toward MarcusBritish (talk · contribs) on his (Sheodred's) talk page, which I've rev-deleted. Revoking talk page access was a draconian step to take because it makes it more difficult for him to appeal my block or come to any kind of agreement or reconciliation. I'm also unhappy that I did this because it likely only makes his aggravation worse. At the same time, if this did not justify revoking talk page access, I don't know what would.

I would prefer that this block did not stand indefinitely, and would appreciate it if another admin feels that I went too far or that other more diplomatic options are available. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to shorten or remove it. Please review the block. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading the rant. It looks like nothing much worse than the two have been slinging at each other (calling each other racists, nationalists, fools, etc.) for the last couple of days. I think Marcus' actions here still need review - he's equally to blame for the escalation through a fairly nasty battleground approach to raising issues with Sheodred. They've been goading and hounding each other in fairly equal measure for the last couple of days so I suppose it was always whoever was going to break first. --Errant (chat!) 17:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the only reason I got involved was because Marcus tagged Sheodred's talk page as an attack page after he posted the rant, and checking that category is the first thing I do every time I log in. So while I don't think you took it this way, I'll say that this is in no way an endorsement of anything Marcus has done; my impression of the situation basically agrees with yours. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeh totally :) I meant my above comment to fill you in on the rather idiotic background story. *sigh* I think Marcus needs a bit of a helping hand with his dispute resolution approach; I've tried a couple of times but am, frankly, fed up of being talked down to. Fancy having a go? (I'm probably AFK for most of the next two days as it is anyway). --Errant (chat!) 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone considered the possibility that Sheodred is a sock - look at user page ("Here we go again...") and the fact that he was blocked within 2 weeks of registering, and indeffed within a month. GiantSnowman 17:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I actually bothered to read through the above argument between these two editors a few hours ago, and one thing caught my eye — they both support an interaction ban between each other. I came within inches of saving a comment under their proposal, but I backed out at the last second. My sentiments would have been as follows: "If neither of you want any interaction with each other, then don't interact with each other." Frankly, this is pure silliness. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI he managed to go 7 hours after "supporting" that interaction ban before returning to stalking my legit contribs and complaining about them on talk pages under sections I created. I don't even have him on my watch list, nor have I ever for hat matter. Nearly every action I took the past few days was read and commented on, usually with a detrimental attempt to belittle me or wiki-lawyer a "motive" into his reason for commenting. How the hell do you maintain a self-imposed interaction ban when he can't even refrain from following my every move for 1 daylight day? Don't put all the eggs in one basket here. This is just a case of me having to wipe my feet after getting involved in his mess. Nothing else can be done that isn't punitive. You can't call the Allies bad just because they crossed paths with the Axis. Each side has it's reasons in a conflict, and I would like to see someone prove without shadow of a doubt that mine were not for a good cause, or that I has COI issues. I'm usually the first to admit when I'm at fault. In this case, I wouldn't dirty my keyboard by accepting the blame. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 18:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sheodred was involved in what I consider to be nationalist edit warring on Irish versus British. I'm more aware of this issue than I would like to because I helped to negotiate Sheodred's original voluntary restriction: 'cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month.' He should have stopped adding 'Irish' to BLPs on December 1 per that agreement. See also the closure of the AN3 report on December 1. I haven't studied the exact reason for the continued uproar since then. MarcusBritish presented some evidence at Wikipedia:Ani#MarcusBritish and Sheodred but someone would have to check to see which diffs were later than December 1. Also MarcusBritish is not the most neutral source on this matter. If someone were to restore Sheodred's talk page access on 15 January I wouldn't object, provided he is not unblocked without a more sweeping restriction. I'd propose that he agree not to edit anywhere on Wikipedia on the subject of Irish or British nationality, even on talk pages. Any resumption of that editing pattern would lead to restoring the indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I posted the following yesterday (it's in the hatted section above):

Sheodred agreed to a self-imposed restriction on editing articles involving Irish nationality [[163]]; however two of the very few mainspace edits they made involved an Irish surname[164] and Irish clergyman [165]. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Sounds to me like the Topic Ban I proposed earlier which everyone ignored or argued with me over. No matter, I think he should be blanket banned from "nationality/ethnicity/heritage" entirely. He went from Irish edits to British edits during his last no-Irish-edits restriction. He could easily go to English or Scottish, any other nationality, and claim it's "not British" again. No loopholes, no leverage. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 18:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • From what I can see, MarcusBritish needs to calm down a bit. Neither party's actions have been admirable in any sense of the word --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Any review of the material shows that there was massive provocation by MarcusBritish, posting laundry lists without any real review of the material and also reversing an admin's note of a warning on the Troubles page. Sheodred has agreed a voluntary restriction which s/eh has respected so it seems to me that this block is excessive, draconian and one sided. A simple request to delete the comments on the talk page would have been a better starting point.--Snowded TALK 21:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You haven't reviewed the situation correctly if you think it started as some simple "comments on a talk page", because even I don't know what you're referring to there. So what exactly constitutes as a "real review" on Wiki, when that list took me several hours to compile discriminatingly; you only have to look at one page [166] and click a few of the diffs to verify its accuracy, before bringing it into false disrepute. The restriction was not respected, it was circumvented and not unheld in spirit of its intent – several other editors have identified that.
  • And again, for the last time, I have never in my entire wiki history (or life) intently read or edited any articles or biog relating to The Troubles: it does not interest me one iota. My name on that list was defamatory and I exercised WP:Libel to remove it and to save time getting it suppressed. It's common sense and normal reasoning that we don't identify/ban someone as a sex offender without proof, and you just as equally don't list them, on a public website, where I am not anonymous, as being involved in highly contentious (and potentially incriminating) topics, which people might take literally and use against them (even life threatening). The admin was wrong in his suppositions, the underlying comparison was wrong, the warning does not apply to me. Might as well try to warn me not to war-edit in 9/11-theory, holocaust-denial or far-right political party discussions: the fact that I never have or do prevails over such notices, as does upholding AGF in acknowledging that I don't. The admin was advised of my removing the entry, and has not taken the matter any further, and neither should anyone else – let sleeping dogs lie, and no one will have excuses to cast spurious remarks. My article contribs are in good standing; in developing mainspace Wiki, that's all that counts. Now: stick. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 22:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Your "list" just picked any edit that involved insertion of Irish or removal of British without any assessment as to whether the insertion or removal was supported by sources. Your contribution above more than illustrates the issue of provocative behaviour. You were advised of the restrictions on Troubles related issues and went OTT in respect of that advise, casting it as a libel. A very similar overreaction to the ones that provicted Sheodred. banning both of you for a period to calm the pair of you down would have made a lot of sense. Allowing you to rant, but banning the other party does not. --Snowded TALK 23:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I "just" did nothing of the sort and that is a facetious accusation. The list includes every edit I could find from all of 2011. It was not selective, I think I only excluded one edit because I did not follow how he'd done it. Anyone who cross-refs the list with his contribs can collaborate this, so do shut up. And I didn't cast it as libel, it was defamatory and it is my right to say so, not yours to maintain victimisation. Seems you have a bone to pick. Take it elsewhere, because you too are becoming abrasive with your personal opinions. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 00:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sheodred and I have been exchanging emails. Per our private conversation, I've shortened his block to 1 week and restored talk page access, pending further negotiation. causa sui (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

New Canadian education project[edit]

Apologies if this is the wrong venue, please feel free to migrate this somewhere more appropriate if necessary, or tell me to do so.

Two article which have come up for AfD today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Liaison between Facebook and Newspapers‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Journalists Deserve Low Pay‎) are creations of the students of Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/The Newspaper in Canadian Society (Michael Valpy). Both are well sourced, but hopelessly OR and unencyclopedic, and clearly show a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Before this turns into another India Education Program, it might be a good idea for an admin to swoop in and ensure that the project doesn't damage the encyclopedia with a glut of essays; advising the course director would be a start, although I don't know what username he edits under. Yunshui  11:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Three articles. PaintedCarpet (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Some of the other articles/essays are also suspicious.Zlqchn (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's another: Young Canadian Voter Turnouts and Canadian Newspapers, currently PRODded. Yunshui  11:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Also up for deletion are: A Quick Look at the Daily, News Corporation and Postmedia and its Digital Reinvention. The list of articles here is almost exclusively populated with unencyclopedic undergraduate essays, almost all of which will come up for deletion (and almost certainly be deleted) in the next few days. Yunshui  11:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Adding that Comedic journalism was just prodded. I deprodded noting the existence of this discussion, could be userified.--Milowenthasspoken 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Notified the five users listed on that course page, and emailed User:Ldavis (WMF).  Chzz  ►  12:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a positive note: while reviewing CSD's earlier today, I found Comedic journalism, also part of the project. While it, too, had OR, it wasn't hopelessly flawed, and I was able to save it by just removing some relevant portions. I left a message on the student's page as well as the TA's page (who had contested the deletion). It may not be all bad, but the one's mentioned above certainly seem to be. It's hard to fault them, though, because papers of that type are not only acceptable, but, in fact, required at the college level. While I definitely agree that WAP articles deserve no special treatment (i.e., AfD/Prod as needed, trimming aggressively otherwise), I do think it can be worth trying to explain to the students and teachers how the definition of an "academic research paper" is almost certain to fall under Wikipedia's definition of original research. See, for example, the note I left to the student here. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It does raise a question though. Since this is part of a proper Wikimedia project (as opposed to people just randomly getting together), why were they (apparantly) not informed about the difference between Wikipedia and Academic Research? Who's supposed to co-ordinate Wikipedia and these institutions? As far as I can tell, most if not all of these articles are created with the clear goal of doing a academic paper, not adding to an encyclopedia. As I said in one of the Afds, I suspect there may be a communication error somewhere in this. Having said that, I do agree with Qwyrxian, within this pile of original research, there is actually a lot of salvagable content (since academic research normally requires reliable sources too). Zlqchn (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. We're rapidly approaching the end of term here, so the students have decided to mainspace all their articles - ready or not. I would suggest, where possible, that the essay-like articles be (re)userfied rather than outright deleted, and that the students be informed what exactly is happening and why. Beyond that, treat them as usual. If any of them do end up being deleted outright, please let me know; I'll try to run interference in the meantime, but they've left things a bit late in the game to solve all their problems now, and I suspect many won't be very active on-wiki over the next few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

*grin* I see marking like this: Stayed in article space 10 marks. Was userfied: 5 marks. Was outright deleted: 0 marks. Followed WP:FIRSTARTICLE: 10 marks. Didn't follow it: 1-5 marks... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay, an update: I've gone through the list of articles and userfied, moved, organized, or otherwise edited where needed to make them somewhat appropriate. The only ones I haven't touched are those currently at AfD. I propose closing all AfDs of class articles as "userfy", and moving the essays back to user sandboxes for the remainder of the course, then deleting if the users go inactive (as many student-users do). There are also one or two MfDs open on student sandboxes; those should likely be kept, at least for now. Thoughts on this? If there are no objections, I plan to implement this in a few hours. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a valid concept, as long as the articles are not violating any additional policies (such as WP:BLP - just an example, because I know they're not). I understand your challenge - this is an academic exercise, and when I studied post-grad journalism, we learned to "write for your target audience". We have doctors, researchers, and students who have a challenge making the change from academia to Wikipedia. I assumed that your students are being marked on their ability to make this change overall. It would of course be difficult for students to be marked on a deleted contribution :-) Of course, having a live article actually improved by a completely unknown editor would be a good thing/something to be happy about! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Use AFC. Simple. All WIHE articles should be submitted via AFC. That would have avoided a massive proportion of the problems we've had (with PP, with India, and now with Canada). 'Coz the articles would have been politely 'declined' and they'd have been told why.  Chzz  ►  15:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Good idea for next time, but wouldn't AFC get a bit backlogged? This is actually one of the smaller classes; another U of T class (not one I'm assigned to, lucky for me) had over 1000 students. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd still like to know whether this is a systematic issue (e.g. they were simply not told what to do) or just individual behaiviour (e.g. this particular group just ignored it). (Because AFAIK this won't be the last group of students from this project)Zlqchn (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Answered on one of the Afds. And yes, I'd support userfying the articles instead of deleting them outright.Zlqchn (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This is always the problem with conscript editors, their need to get their mark means that they will do what they need to do to get their mark and fuck wikipedia in the process. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone involved in this course perhaps i can shed some light on the process. First of all, thank you for your comments. I have found, as a first time user of wikipedia, all of this very enlightening. Some of you have been very helpful and i am amazed that people take the time to track down our students to explain the particularities of non-academic standards of writing. Others of you have not been as welcoming (and to be clear, most of our students are not determined to 'fuck wikipedia in the process' as one of you so helpfully put it). That said, some students face other (academic) pressures and will indeed choose not to engage with the larger wikipedia community. The character and rapidity of the response to our students' essays suggests many more who were interested but uncertain will not return. This is unfortunate because our course was a pilot project designed to highlight the possible benefits of linking academic coursework to the wikipedia community. We didn't have a lot of formal guidance - the course was not a course on wikipedia per se - and so let me apologize to those who are burdened with having to apply wiki-standards to our undergraduates' first attempts at writing here. Many of these standards (OR for example) are entirely new to us (indeed 'the academy' has traditionally taught undergraduates not to use wikipedia in their research at all) so our first attempts to 'userfy' were certainly well intentioned and not deserving of some of the flippant commentary that i have encountered so far. More useful than trigger-finger deletion of writing that doesn't meet your community standards would be a broader articulation of just what the differences are between academic writing and wikipedian writing. Given the wide range of commentary i have already encountered, even these formal standards remain contested, but if there is somewhere we could direct our students to look, i'd be very appreciative. I gather our course is not the first to provoke the ire of more established wikipedia users, but our involvement in this pilot project suggests a more formal and more technically explicit engagement would be helpful in future.James.p.McKee (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that getting the academic circle to contribute to Wikipedia would be immensely helpful. As for the 'somewhere' you are looking for, have a look at WP:FIRST for general starter information. I suppose the big obstacles are the important but different (to academic writing) rules of Wikipedia, the most important one being no original research. Also, as Chzz suggested, if you or anyone else are ever in doubt, put it through the article for creation process to get other editors to review your article before creating it. For general Wikipedia help (wikimarkup, policy, etc), you can always ask at the help desk.Zlqchn (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that I think there is something fairly systematic with this particular class (perhaps the professor, or the classroom ambassador etc). For example, another ambassador project did not have nearly the type of problems this one did with article selection etc. Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Courses/BrunellFeministThought Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...interesting. Maybe the organisers of this class should have a look at this. Zlqchn (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia content is not "non-academic" writing, ideally. But Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. You wouldn't open Encyclopedia Brittanica, for example, and find an article articulating a historical theory or hypothesis not covered by prior research. Instead, the encyclopedia reports on the current state of research and knowledge. E.g., I wrote an article on the lost sport of Plunge for distance based on existing historical sources; I did not include personal theories as to why the sport declined in popularity. Someone certainly could use that article and its cited sources to do just that, but that's original research that should be published in an appropriate source before it would be included in a tertiary source such as an encyclopedia.--Milowenthasspoken 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It's pretty clear from some of the Afd comments that the professors setting these assignments are learning about Wikipedia along with their students. You wouldn't expect a professor of surgery to be learning about surgery along with their students, so why should these professors be any different? Don't teach the subject if you don't understand it. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

GIven the course wasn't about using wikipedia, your comment isn't helpful to the discussion. The issue here is whether or not the material (in keeping with the pedanticism of your comment below - i won't use the term 'student essay') of the course is suited (or not) to Wikipedia. The hope of this pilot project was that it would be; we will be asking our students to do their very best to conform to your specific practices and policies here. However, your aggressive tone will go a long way to ensuring that new wikipedians such as myself will be much more reluctant to engage in future.James.p.McKee (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
(Ignoring the personal jibes) The course involved using Wikipedia as the relevant medium, so my comments are relevant. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Greetings, I introduced myself to the discussion here... I'm one of the coordinators of the Canadian initiative. I recognize that there is frustration with the information dump and the fact that some of the new editors haven't been following some of the policies. I would like to echo the comments of User:James.p.McKee, the TA from the class in question, and call attention to the fact that the community has really come down hard on this class, and rather quickly. We are all concerned about the integrity of the encyclopedia. What seems unclear at this point is the extent to which the community is interested in welcoming new editors, and doing what needs to be done to ensure that new editors feel welcome. While I haven't seen it yet, I think some of the language is moving towards issues with WP:WP DNB. As I've said in my other post, to expect that new editors are going to join the team and not make mistakes is unrealistic and unfair. At this stage, the majority of the comments are constructive (and it should be clear at all times that I am very, very appreciative of your time and effort reviewing and commenting on the articles), and yes, if students are not returning to respond and fix their mistakes, we will all be frustrated. Hopefully students will return. I have warned the professor that if his students do not return, then they are leaving the decision to the community, which may decide to delete everything. We will see what happens. Anyhow, I thought that I would check in here to let you know that the folks coordinating the Canadian initiative are aware of the concerns and are trying to figure out how best to proceed. As User:James.p.McKee said above, this is an experiment. There will be more classes next semester, and hopefully we will have learned from our mistakes. Thank you again for your help and your understanding. Jaobar (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You still do not seem to be grasping the basic point here. Wikipedia is not the place for your "students' essays" (to quote User:James.p.McKee above). "Fixing" essays may not be possible, and most of them that I have seen, should be deleted as original research. For example, I don't see how an article entitled "Why Journalists Deserve Low Pay" would ever be appropriate for Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you mus-charactarize these articles as "mistakes". Poor citation format, a handful of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH statements. Those are mistakes. Wholesale misunderstanding as to the purpose of wikipedia, and the type of content to be added indicates a major failure - especially when this is not an individual student, but more than a few articles. Now, I do not blame the students. They likely did what they were told. There are plenty of possiblities. The information given to the class by wikipedia could have been unclear (although if this was the case,we would see the problem across other classes more). The information could have not been presented well (by the professors, or the in school ambassador), lack of oversight by the online ambassadors, etc. The main purpose of this discussion is not to bite the newcomers, but to find the problem, so that we don't go through this with every class. Going through that process may in fact bite the newcomers, but frankly the long term viability of the ambassador program, and the wiki itself outweigh that imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, all of the XfDs have been closed as userfied except for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Postmedia_and_its_Digital_Reinvention, which has been tagged for rescue (by someone else), so I wasn't sure how to proceed. I'll keep an eye on it, and may yet userfy it at a later date. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

While I think a class project like this has a lot of potential to benefit Wikipedia, the obvious downfall in this case was the very poor choice o