Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

SPA Tagging at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action[edit]

User has agreed to stop, any further discussion has no chance of being productive (User notified using Template:ANI-notice.)

Over at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action (which is very high visibility at the moment because of the banner on every page) user Youreallycan has been SPA tagging users. I see no evidence that he is following the WP:SPA guideline "In communal decision-making, single-purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added after their name" and "Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason". Rather he is doing so because he feels that only autoconfirmed users should be allowed to participate.[1][2] I removed the tags and asked him to discuss this on the talk page and seek consensus[3] to which he replied that he does not need to follow consensus[4], reverted one of my removals[5] and tagged several more. [6][7][8] I again encouraged him to discuss this rather than edit warring, and warned him that I would bring this up at ANI if he kept edit warring[9] and his only reply was "I just added another one - more should be added."[10]

By my count, six editors have opposed his tagging[11] and nobody has supported it. I am open to a discussion where he tries to convince the six other editors that the tags belong and no consensus is required, but instead of discussing he simply adds more SPA tags.

I would also note that removing these tags is very difficult because of the large number of edits causing edit conflicts. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding these templates when there are so many SPA and unconfirmed users posting votes is also a pretty full on job. However many users oppose the tagging of SPA votes in such an important vote I an in my right to tag them as is normal in such discussions. Youreallycan 02:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC) can 02:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not a normal situation as we have a big banner visible to all readers asking for their input on this matter. There is nothing in that banner or in the introductory memo from Philippe Beaudette of the Wikimedia Foundation that indicates that only experienced editors are welcome to support or oppose an option regarding how we respond to SOPA. SPA tagging in this specific context is a form of biting newcomers, in my opinion, and I urge Youreallycan to stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the SPA tags- I agree entirely with Cullen328. Reyk YO! 02:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A question for YRC. Is it your intention to tag all new accounts that appear not to have edited elsewhere on Wikipedia and all unconfirmed users taking part in the debate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Why wouldn't the general test of a SPA apply: "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." The way I read that is a user with a very brief editing history (unconfirmed, for example) is automatically a SPA. I don't see the "banner" Cullen refers to as changing the test, and even more limited discussions, like AfDs, are "visible" to everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It says to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, etc. Youreallycan is assuming without evidence that this is true of all non-autoconfirmed users. He is also wasting his time; the votes will be evaluated by Wikimedia Foundation staff, who are perfectly capable of how many edits each voter has made without Youreallycan's help. Finally, his stated reasons for tagging are pure POV pushing. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
SPA accounts and unconfirmed users voting on such an important can be templated and its totally usual to do it. It needs doing actually - drive by created accounts an IP addresses with no edits have no weight in such decisions - There are so many that it is difficult - I am just tagging the ones I see - the closing administrators are obliged to assess and reject such users votes anyway - but it is beneficial and helpful to highlight them prior to closure. I have heard it all from the activists tonight - "readers get a vote" - no they don't. Youreallycan 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Our policies refer to editors not readers. Readers of WP creating an account for the sole purpose of voting in the SOPA poll clearly fall under WP:SPA and may be tagged as such. Only editors are part of the WP community. --Surturz (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The suggestion that an unconfirmed user is automatically a SPA is contrary to established Wikipedia precedent - and demonstrably false. There are contributors who have been editing for years as IPs. Frankly though, given the way the discussion re SOPA is going at the moment, I think that this is all rather unnecessary, and looks close to breaching WP:POINT - these 'SPAs', if that is what they are, are unlikely to make the slightest difference to the outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I dunno about the precedent part, but it is not "demonstrably false" based on the language of the essay that everyone is quoting as if it's policy. A SPA is clearly defined as one of two things (it's stated in the disjunctive), one of which is a "user who appears to have a very brief editing history". Thus, if an IP has only one edit (a !vote), they are by definition a SPA. If that editor has been editing with different IP addresses "for years", there's no way to tell that on the face of it. If this automatic labeling of an IP a SPA is wrong, perhaps the essay should be changed. Do we have anything to guide us other than this essay, or is it just "precedent"? I will confess that, before now, I never thought of an IP with one edit as a SPA. I also thought of SPAs as editors (registered or IP) who make many edits, but only to one article or to related articles. At the same time, in general, I'm uncomfortable giving much weight to the !vote of an editor who has virtually no history, regardless of whether they are an IP or a registered user.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think YRC has done anything wrong here, but I also think the that the tagging should be ignored by closing admins. It is not a vote on content, and readers are entitled to vote and have their votes counted, since the vote may be of concern to them. I think it would be gracious if YRC stopped with the tagging. --FormerIP (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I am well within my rights to tag SPA in such a vote - I have been quite conservative in my tagging. I will also be (whats the word) appealing to the three closing administrators to pay attention to and to rejects the size of the SPA votes. Youreallycan 03:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- am I the only one who finds it funny that we are arguing about who is and who is not allowed to express a view on internet censorship? Reyk YO! 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree wholeheartedly that the tagging is inappropriate. We're directly inviting our readers to comment via a banner. No sense whatsoever in tagging them as SPAs when they do comment. Swarm X 03:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Any passer by can opine about such , however - any passer by does not get to vote to close down en wikipedia - passer bys can comment but they don't get counted. Youreallycan 03:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Another question for YRC. Have you tagged any 'oppose' !votes? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not know - I have been recently blindly tagging any SPA from this page quite a conservative position and with no idea which section they had commented in. There are so many, some get missed and edit conflicts happen Youreallycan 03:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
"passer bys can comment but they don't get counted" - Seriously? Where is that written? When we put up banners, we address all. Not just our active editors, but our readers as well. Swarm X 03:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats a standard position in regard to important issues here. Banners were not discussed - "readers" do not get to vote to close the project down. Youreallycan 03:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
We make no distinction between readers and editors when it comes to providing opinions on policy. Yes, if they registered in the last few days and the only edit is to talk on that page, there's a chance its an SPA, but it could also be a long-time reader that wants to comment on the action. Since we can't make the distinction, we can't call anyone out as an SPA for this purpose, nor is it proper to do so. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not, YRC? Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the benefit of readers, not editors. I'd strongly suggest that for your own benefit, you stop this tagging, YRC. You are perfectly entitled to draw the attention of closing admins to a possible problem with SPAs, but given your clearly-partisan position in the issue, it is difficult to see how you can be a neutral judge over who is and who isn't a SPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that I've contacted Philippe for clarification as to whether such a restriction is in effect for this discussion. "It's standard practice" is simply not true. Swarm X 03:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
@Swarm - Philippe isn't in charge here, and has no rights to override usual policy and guidelines. Youreallycan 03:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
@Masem - This is nothing to do with policy. Even a long term reader is a SPA with few edits apart from this - this is just the historic way it is, no one is calling the contributor out, just aiding the closing admins as to how much weight to give their vote. Youreallycan 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
@Andy - my tagging has been as I said, pretty conservative. I will tag SPA from a neutral position as I see fit. Youreallycan 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Philippe is a WMF staff member involved in this, and I've asked them for clarification. But that aside, I just noticed that you have indeed voted against the proposal. In this case, you're not doing this from a neutral position and this is wholly inappropriate and needs to stop immediately. Swarm X 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if this isn't a policy-related discussion or not. We still don't make said distinctions. Readers have just as much say if WP should black out in protest as editors. Calling anyone out as an SPA without proof in that conversation is very improper. (The only time I've seen SPA called out is when there is firm knowledge of external pressure to have editors jump into a conversation like AFD or RFA; unless you have evidence an external page is directing people to comment on this, it's outside of these cases. ) --MASEM (t) 03:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
@Swarm - I am tagging SPA from a blind neutral position. Drive by created accounts do not get to vote to close down wikipedia. Youreallycan 03:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Alas - we have editors stating clearly that CANVASSing has been done on the non-English Wikipedias regarding this, and it appears that some of the "limited edit history" editors may have arrived as a result of that. SPA or not is not important - if they arrived as a result of CANVASS their presence is not valid for determining WP:CONSENSUS on the issue. The bit about readers being able to comment is true if, and only if, their presence is not due to violating CANVASS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Swarm is asserting that equal weight is given to any vote in this issue - according to User:Swarm anyone from the internet, anyone at all, gets an equal vote to close wikipedia down. Youreallycan 03:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Youreallycan, could you please explain why it is that you ignored both of my requests to talk this over on the article talk page and instead pushed ahead with the SPA tagging? You could easily have discussed it and then done your tagging before the deadline - nobody at the Wikimedia Foundation will be counting votes until after the deadline has passed. It really looks like your goal is discouraging people from voting, not helping the vote-counter. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And could you please explain why you have continued the tagging[12] even after reading the multiple negative comments here? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing that has been said here has affected the reasons to SPA tag. I will continue to SPA template as I see fit as is usual in such important discussions. Youreallycan 04:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I was going to reply that I will then delete any SPA templates you add as I see fit and cite your refusal to discuss on the talk page and the overwhelming consensus here if anyone brought up 3RR, but when I looked at the page I could only find one SPA tag to nuke. It appears that other editors are deleting them as fast as you are inserting them. Stop edit warring now or you will be blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Editors work on creating content for readers, who are our customers. Customers don't get to decide whether the workers go on strike. If the goal of the strike is to spread awareness by inconveniencing our readers, it makes no logical sense whatsoever for the readers to vote on the strike action. YRC should not be vilified for correctly tagging SPA's --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The question for me is whether the SPA tagging is being done indiscriminately, or with YRC's POV in mind. If it's the former, then stop edit warring the lot of you and leave the damn tags there (assuming good faith and no sockpuppetry at all, it is actually interesting to know the proportion of voters that are newbies). If it's the latter, YRC should be given an indefinite block pending a resolution. —WFC— 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been tagging, as I have said, indiscriminately from a conservative point of view - I don't know about Guy Macons comments but there are currently about fifty SPA templates on the page and there are imo at least fifty more that need templating, probably more. Youreallycan 04:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Youreallycan, you might as well stop tagging the SPAs; those of us who are going to close are already pretty aware of these issues, and it seems your actions, which I have no doubt were initiated in good faith, have wound up annoying some people needlessly without adding much to the discussion. Perhaps you could figure out how to get SineBot or its equivalent adding signatures to any unsigned opinions - that would be really useful from the closer's perspective. Risker (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I will stop tagging, at least its on the radar. SPA and drive by accounts do not get to vote to close wikipedia down. Yes, sine bot is not bothering there which is creating more problems. Youreallycan 04:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I still encourage you to discuss your concerns on the talk page - perhaps in a new section so that the SPA tagging issue doesn't cloud the discussion? You have a legitimate concern and even though I disagree I would very much like to see you make your case as effectively as possible. The folks taking the vote will certainly read the talk page, and they may very well agree with you and only count autoconfirmed users. I know that if it were me I would count it both ways to see if the autoconfirmed users have a different opinion than the non-autoconfirmed users. Come to think of it, once the deadline passes you or anyone else can count it any way you choose and post your results along with the assumptions used when counting. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
"SPA and drive by accounts do not get to vote to close wikipedia down." According to the WMF, they do. Still, thank you for being reasonable in your actions, at least. Swarm X 07:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


Block sockpuppets[edit]

The user E.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has used several sockpupets, and has been blocked both here and on svwp earlier. After a checkuser verified a number of users active on svwp I would like to get the same users blocked here on enwp as well. Some of them have been used here in the same manner as earlier, trying to influence consensus. The identified sockpupets that have a SUL account and thus have edited here, or may do so in the future, are:

Last time I asked for a block on E.G.'s sockpupets a local checkuser did a check to verify, if such a check is done this time I would appreciate it if any other accounts that are found get banned as well. GameOn (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ingen Alls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) couldn't be checked on svwp since no edits have been done there nor any login, the user shows several traits similar to the other sockpupets. GameOn (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Ingen Alls is  Stale. The following accounts have been indeffed, and  Confirmed by checkuser:
Also, underlying  IP blocked. AGK [•] 13:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for block[edit]

Hello. I am requesting a block on User:209.56.73.2 (his/her talk page can be found here). It (let's refer to him/her as it, since we do not know the gender) has made many unconstructive edits, and has been blocked for two years. However, it still makes very many vandalizing edits. Please help. Agent 78787 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For ease of lookup, 209.56.73.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Blocked 2 years. Please feel free to use WP:AIV in future for such reports - they will handle schoolblocks as well as dynamic IPs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest---block requested[edit]

Gizgalasi has admitted to being a member of the research team for Azerbaijan International's series of special articles on Ali and Nino: A Love Story (see User Talk:Gizgalasi#Ali and Nino and associated pages). I've been trying to work with the user for the past week or two (see talk page discussions), but the user just isn't getting it. I think the user has almost understood the idea that the AI article is not "theirs", but continues to add promotional links, excessive details, etc., all designed to enhance this article, and, in particular, the special issues xe worked on. As a good example, look at the last sequence of 72 edits on the AI article: [13]. I'm happy to work with a COI editor if they show an understanding of what they can and cannot do; this user does not. Unless someone else wants to step in to mentor/advise, I see no solution other than a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the links to 4 websites and 4 Twitter pages from the body of the article Azerbaijan International, but User:Gizgalasi reinserted them. I removed them again with a note on the editor's talk page citing WP:PROMO and a warning not to reinsert them, but other editors should keep on eye on the article. There is a link to the magazine's website in the External Links section of the article, and presumably that site has links to the other websites (if it doesn't, that's not our problem). This single link is sufficient, the addition of 4 other links and the Twitter pages definitely crosses the line into being promotional, especially considering they were posted by an editor with an admitted COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Add the Baron Omar Rolf von Ehrenfels article to the COI editing this User is doing. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
So....am I just totally off the mark here? Is this user reformable? Or is this simply uninteresting? I've refrained from reverting any recent edits or responding to recent comments until I can get a better read from this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talkcontribs) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This looks like someone going too far in regards to WP:COS. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. I'd say this can be considered excessive, especially since there's an effort to exclusively promote the POV of AI. -- Atama 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Priyabhar repeatedly removing Template:Copyvio[edit]

Resolved: Priyabhar blocked indef by Elen. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Priyabhar created this article which contains massive copyvio from https://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~gr224/PAPERS/Mobile_Financial_India.pdf http://www.mobeyforum.org/content/download/16699/175936/file/Mobile%2520payments%25202012_Innopay_v1.0.pdf http://www.ncc.org.in/download.php?f=NCC2011/1569367349.pdf. Duplication Detector reports for 3 biggest chunks: [14], [15], [16]. It was blanked with {{Copyvio}} and reported at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 January 9. According to the OTRS clerk, the OTRS received did not establish a credible claim to ownership of any of the above sources. The copyvio template has now been removed 4 times, the first two by an IP and now twice today by this user, despite a clear warning on his/her talk page [17]. I've now reverted twice today and can't revert again. Eyes please. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User notified. Voceditenore (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... seems to be another case of a well known cultural dichotomy. He doesn't appear to have responded to any messages and the many warnings (5 uw plus all the deletion notices) and perhaps cannot read sufficient English to understand what he's doing wrong. Nevertheless, if he reverts the current COPYVIO notice, we should block for a very short time or until the copyvio/OTRS has been resolved, to prevent further disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC) PS: and perhaps PP the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to expunge the copyright? I tried to look through it but didn't have time to do a full sweep. If that can be done then do it and let me know (so I can do some RevDel). At the moment my feeling is that the article is un-rescuable and it's probably easier just to scrap it and start afresh. --Errant (chat!) 10:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
No comment right now on the copyvio, but communication is vital, and an editor that won't or can't communicate really doesn't belong here. I've told the editor that. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I was the one who blanked it with {{copyvio}} and listed it at Copyright problems. The topic is potentially suitable, but the current article is unrescueable in my view and needs a complete rewrite da capo. I only listed the three sources that account for the vast majority of the copyvio (and the article), but I suspect that virtually all of it consists of individual sentences copied from other sources. Given the editor's level of written English (e.g. [18]) virtually every sentence in the article written in grammatically correct, idiomatic English is highly likely to have been lifted from somewhere. Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; that was my feeling too. Now you have confirmed it I just went ahead and deleted the article. --Errant (chat!) 11:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that the article existed before Priyabhar became involved. I nominated a couple of images that had been in use for deletion because they were aparrently copyvios / contained invalid licenses, but after the first was deleted an earlier editor showed up asking why the file was deleted. I was aparrently in error when nominating the second and I withdrew the nomination; I can no longer recheck the first. See the discussion at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#File_.28Image.29_deleted. So I should draw your attention to the fact that:
  • It is possible that there exists an earlier version of the article that could be restored
  • The discussion linked above was never responded to, so it's also possible that the deleted image could also be restored.
RichardOSmith (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was an oversight on my part (sorry). I have undeleted an older version of the page before this editor came on board :) --Errant (chat!) 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through his deleted contributions. He's done an awful lot of uploading with no license, and when that's deleted, uploading copyvios and claiming he owns them. I have blocked him indefinitely - there is a risk to the project to allowing a serial copyright violator to remain uploading copyvios. If at some stage he communicates and demonstrates an understanding of copyright, an unblock could be considered. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Death threat[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.
A request has been filed with the developers to implement an e-mail screening feature. It's in their hands now. 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted)--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked with no talkpage or e-mail access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This is yet another case of an account using a Mailinator address with a clearly unacceptable name to harass other editors. I've previously raised this several times, only to meet the general response that it is my problem, which can be resolved by disabling my email -- as I know some editors already have done. But it's not my problem, nor theirs, it is a serious problem affecting the working of Wikipedia. If it remains ignored then we are likely to find that the Wikipedia email facility becomes discredited and very many editors will disable it, thus rendering it useless. This problem really must be addressed, not treated to a shrug of the shoulders. RolandR (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
How do you suggest the problem be addressed? -- Finlay McWalterTalk 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nobody has said, "It is just your problem." However, there is absolutely nothing we can do except block them without email access as they show up. As I mentioned before, you needed to file a feature request at bugzilla.wikimedia.org before the developers will implement it, which I have done at bug #33761. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The dismissive response above yours is indicative of my complaint. I have no idea how to file a bugzilla request, but the only response I've received is that I should do so or disable my email. I am being told that it is a personal problem, to which I should find my own solution. If I knew how to solve this, I wouldn't be asking here, and it's simply not good enough to continually return the question to me. RolandR (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal is not being dismissive. He filed the Bugzilla report himself. The developers are aware of the issue and it's being discussed there how to proceed. Just click the link he gave you and you can read all about it. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to ReaperEternal, but to "the comment above" his. RolandR (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I misread your comment. Regardless, RE's got the bugzilla ball rolling on this, hopefully we'll be able to see some progress there. 28bytes (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added my support for this feature request at bugzilla; as RE says, that's really all any admin can do until the developers implement this. 28bytes (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Did Twinkle just die?[edit]

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

Can't access any twinkle commands, not even showing up on screen. Dead? Maintenance? Conspiracy? Noformation Talk 21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was able to get an MfD for this page started, but I cancelled.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's working OK for me. 28bytes (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not working OK for me. There's a similar thread on a more fitting forum, WP:VPT. →Στc. 21:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Gadgets not working, all of a sudden -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Weird that it would work for some but not others. Anyway, thanks for the redirect, I'll read the VP thread. Noformation Talk 21:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistent Deletion of POV Dispute Tag[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.
This board is not for content disputes, and there is no need for administrative action. -- Atama 02:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This request for administrative intervention is basic. in order to facilitate resolution of what I perceive to be a clear WP:NPOV policy issue, I today elevated my prior Talk:Swiftboating inquiry to formal "Dispute" status with the placement of an associated "POV Section Dispute" tag. Despite my explanation in talk as to the specifics of elevating my objection to formal dispute status, my tag placement was twice reverted by User:Snowded, first with an edit summary "No dispute documented on talk page with sources. Just variants of I Don't like it" and second, with an edit summary "Tagging an article when you are not providing any properly sourced proposals on the talk page is disruptive editing". This is, IMHO, both a specious and contrived misrepresentation of the pertinent WP:NPOV guidance (as I attempted to demonstrate in my talk comments) and, furthermore, a contentious, highly disruptive, wiki-lawyered misrepresentation of WP guidance on the placement of dispute tags and the legitimate exercise of an individual editor's unilateral right to arbitrarily remove another editor's tag prior to consensus resolution of the issue.

Pending administrative review, I am seeking both administrative reinstatement of my POV Section Dispute tag and some determination as to the WP propriety of User:Snowded's editorial conduct. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See comments on talk page. No attempt is being made to provide a properly sourced justification for the PoV tag. The tag has been removed by several editors on those grounds. This article gets periodic attempts by people who think the Swiftboat veterans position should be represented as valid, when the sources say otherwise. We are in one of those periods, so some more experienced editors would be welcome. Mind you, I hadn't realised just how strongly JakeinJoisey feels about this issue. --Snowded TALK 17:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The tag has been removed by several editors on those grounds.
That is erroneous. The tag in question is, contrary to your misrepresentation, a POV Section Dispute tag twice inserted by me and twice deleted by you as opposed to the general POV Article tag placed by another editor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said "PoV tags" not "The tag". You still haven't made any case not the talk page supported by sources for any PoV tag. Just changing from the whole article to a section makes no difference to that. Tagging, without properly raising the issue on the talk page (which doesn't mean just saying that you don't like it, or that you think the Kerry campaign would) is disruptive editing. Better to make a proper case and raise a RfC if you feel you are not being listened to. --Snowded TALK 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said "PoV tags" not "The tag".
That's a minor concession evading the heart of your misrepresentation. You stated that there were "several editors" who had removed my tag. There were not...just you.
You still haven't made any case not the talk page supported by sources for any PoV tag.
Your apparent inability to understand that "sourcing" is irrelevant to the aspect of WP:NPOV guidance at issue here will, hopefully, be rectified at the completion of this exercise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
POV tags were removed by Johnuniq and Xenophrenic. They have been placed there by yourself and Gunbirddriver, my references are to those tags collectively. --Snowded TALK 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
POV tags were removed by Johnuniq and Xenophrenic. They have been placed there by yourself and Gunbirddriver,...'
False! I had no part in the placement/removal of the "Article" POV tag and, hence, it has zippo to do with your singular removals of MY legitimately placed Section tag...the subject of this ANI petition. I'll defer any further comments pending the requested administrative determination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It is true that Jake's tags were removed by involved editors. I agree with the removals because Jake's wishes for the article are opposed by too many other involved editors. His wish is to remove the absolute nature of the term "swiftboating" being a "smear", a fact which is established by multiple scholarly sources. Jake would rather the article say "swiftboating has been described by critics as a smear campaign". The supposed critics are dispassionate and neutral scholars examining the issue thoroughly. If Jake's dispute tag is honored for the duration of Jake's wish to change the article, it will stay up there for-freaking-ever. I think Jake's tag cannot remain there as a badge of shame, and I do not think Jake will ever be satisfied with the scholarly tone of the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that Jake's tags were removed by involved editors.
No, it is NOT true. My tag (singular) was twice removed by User:Snowded. The legitimacy of those removals is the sole purpose for this ANI petition for administrative determination...not an administrative determination as to the merit of my WP:NPOV objection. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, NPOV is absolutely about sources. "Neutral" on Wikipedia does not mean "fair" or "balanced" in the sense that a journalist tries to present all sides of the story. Neutral on WP means that we represent what is published in reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. We don't, for example, pretend that intelligent design has merit just because conservative Christians think it does, and we don't seek to "balance" our article on evolution to account for those views. Noformation Talk 22:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There are special rules for giving some degree of preference to the scientific point of view on scientific and medical questions. This does not apply as readily to politics.
My view in general is that if any good faith editor thinks the POV tag justified, it remains until the issue is settled. It's more sensible to argue about the meirts of the article, than about the tag. I don't seeany contradcction between an article and section tag; the meaning I assume is that someone thinks the article as a whole is non-neutral, and one section is in particular, or perhaps in the opposite direction. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The article states that swiftboating is a smear because that is what all reliable sources say—the talk page contains nothing to indicate otherwise. There has not even been an attempt to argue that a source passing the sniff test claims that swiftboating was ever anything other than a smear. A tag cannot remain on an article without justification, and given the overwhelming sources stating the obvious ("swiftboating" is a smear) there would need to be more than a couple of dissenters to warrant a permanent badge of shame on the article: such a tag backed by no reliable sources would be an NPOV violation as the article would then be stating that there is significant doubt about the article content (but there is no such doubt). Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
My view in general is that if any good faith editor thinks the POV tag justified, it remains until the issue is settled.
Thank you for your consideration and determination. So as to be explicitly clear, it is my understanding of your determination that any further removal of my POV dispute tag prior to resolution of the specific issue addressed is improper per WP:POLICY. Based upon that understanding, I am restoring my POV Dispute Section Tag and will return to the discussion on resolution of the issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
No tag is warranted until there is at least one reliable source showing some doubt about specified text in the article. An alternative, if further time wasting is wanted, would be to hold an RFC on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Please note the in general . The interpretation of policy is in the hands of the community. The thing to do is to answer the matter on the talk p., not here, and get consensus. If it's just one person with a isolated position, the discussion can be very simple. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "determination" is a bit worrying JakeinJoisey DGG is contributing to the discussion not deciding the issue. You have to contribute sourced material to support your position on the talk page, or the tag will be deleted. At the moment tagging seems to be the back up strategy of you and one other editor having failed to make the case for any change on the talk page. POV tags are meant to indicate that is a real dispute, not that one side of the dispute has no evidence but is unhappy--Snowded TALK 05:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
DGG is contributing to the discussion not deciding the issue.
The "issue" addressed in this ANI petition is the WP:POLICY propriety of your editorial conduct in the removal of a legitimately placed and talk-supported POV Section tag, not the merits of my POV objection...and the "determination" in this instance has, I believe, been made.
Any purported rationale that, per WP:POLICY, traditional WP:RS "sources", external to WP:NPOV policy, must be provided to legitimately support the placement of ANY POV tag is patently specious and suggests that neither you, nor others objecting on this basis, have yet to come to terms with the substance of my POV objection. The pertinent and controlling "source" is the specific WP:NPOV policy language I cited and should be evident to anyone reading the text of my POV objection. Your rationale is, therefore, unsupportable in fact.
That being said, as you have suggested some lack of clarity as to the exact nature of the specific determination in this ANI, I will refrain from re-tagging the pertinent section pending further clarification from DGG. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You are missing the point, and appear to be repeating the wiki-lawyering that followed your previous block. You are conveniently ignoring comments that suggest you address the source issue. Also DGG says (and I agree with him) that a POV tag placed in good faith should be left until the issue is resolved. If you had provided just one reliable source to back up your political position I would not have removed the tag. However it is not acting in good faith to simply make your own political statements on the talk page and then use POV tags as a substitute for proper sourcing. Remember also that no editor can "determine" content issues, that has to be resolved by sourced material --Snowded TALK 22:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@DCG The distinction between science and other topics is not as large as it appears. If ID were published in reliable sources then we would of course include the ID POV, and that's the main thing. So even in this situation, unless this editor can provide reliable sources that demonstrate that the article is one sided, the tag isn't justified. I imagine the fact that we're having this conversation (not you and I but ANI) is because the user is unable to provide substantiation for his claim; if he did then there'd be a legitimate reason to keep the tag up. Noformation Talk 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are certain tags, like POV or COI, that require an accompanying explanation on the article talk page to justify their inclusion in the article. It's not difficult to figure out which ones they are, any tag that says "Please see the discussion on the talk page" absolutely requires such a discussion. Otherwise it's meaningless. Keep in mind that those tags aren't saying that there is any actual violation of NPOV. All the tag says is that the neutrality is being disputed. That's all. So it shouldn't be necessary to defend the tag by convincing others of the legitimacy of your complaint, the tag simply points out that the complaint exists.
Since the tag shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved, the natural question should be, "When is the dispute resolved?" That's not so easy to answer, WP:DR covers that particular question and obviously it's not an easy answer. But all too often, those tags are seen as black marks that warn people that the article needs to be fixed and they really shouldn't be seen as such. The only reason we caution people about their use is to dissuade someone from seeing an article that they think has such a problem, placing a tag, and moving on as if that meant anything. The tag is meant to draw attention to a dispute, that and nothing more. -- Atama 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course what you say is correct in general. However, in the case we are discussing, there is no dispute because there is no evidence on the article talk page to suggest there is an NPOV problem. When you look at the situation the text "swiftboating is a smear" is not contentious because all reliable sources state that swiftboating is a smear. There is no reliable source that suggests there is any NPOV problem, so a couple of editors should not have their personal views permanently recorded by a tag on the article. Let them find just one reliable source to support their case, and we can hold an RfC. Until that happens, tagging should not be permitted as a weapon. Inserting something like "critics say that swiftboating is a smear" would be a violaton of NPOV because it suggests there is a sustainable argument to the contrary—according to reliable sources that is not correct. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing this participation here is almost as good as placing the tag itself. What this horribly POV biased article needed was exposure...and it's at least getting that now. While I had no intent to argue the merit of my POV objection here, those in opposition are apparently intent on doing so. Sooooo...as to the opposition premise being offered here, that any POV tag somehow mandates "sourcing" (as in WP:RS), it is wikilawyering bunk. What they cannot recognize (or simply refuse to acknowledge) is that my suggested NPOV improvement is an almost a verbatim replication (with a simple subject matter replacement) of the NPOV example given in the WP:NPOV POLICY guidance. This suggested edit doesn't change the content AT ALL, save for its PRESENTATION in the NPOV style mandated by WP:NPOV. This will be a necessary NPOV improvement that will not set well with those who have this Swiftboating article on their watch list, but it's high time that principles of WP:NPOV be brought to bear on this article. While those in opposition may hold the Swiftboat Veterans in less esteem than "genocide", even "genocide" gets presented per WP:NPOV guidance. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen any engagement with the explanations provided. Instead, all I see is repetition of the claim that an article should not say "X is a smear" because that fails NPOV. In general, that would be correct. In this case it's not, because all reliable sources state that swiftboating is a smear—there is no doubt (according to sources) whatsoever. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
"What this horribly POV biased article needed was exposure...and it's at least getting that now." No. And I'm closing this thread because of it. This is not the place to bring attention to, or discuss content complaints or disputes. The way you do that is through WP:RFC or other, similar requests for an outside view. I see that nobody, yourself included, has bothered to even begin the proper process at WP:DR. That is not the purpose of this noticeboard. -- Atama 02:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Ban or block User:Zachy580 - her/his edits have all been acts of vandalism[edit]

Resolved: blocked by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs)

All of the edits of User:Zachy580 have been acts of vandalism, including editing Liberalism and replacing the word "liberalism" with "the retarded liberal's" [19]; on the article H. G. Wells he/she replaced the word "an outspoken" with "homosexual" [20]; has edited the New York Police Department by replacing the word "largest" to "most corrupted" [21]; on the Pittsburgh article added "THE STEELERS ARE THE WORST TEAM IN THE NFL!" [22]. Everyone of this users edits have been reverted for being acts of vandalism. This user has nothing positive to contribute to the Wikipedia Project and is only here to cause a nuisance and to damage the Project, I support a prompt ban of this user - this user is not here for any positive purpose and is only here to repeatedly vandalize Wikipedia articles.--R-41 (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the correct avenue for this. Basalisk inspect damageberate 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Where this report would probably be declined as Pictogram voting wait red.svg No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Blocked by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs), apparently. -- Luk talk 14:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
At least he had the Steelers part pretty much right :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Not while the Vikings are still in the league. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Or the Browns. Close call, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
@Bwilkins .. that will be about enough of that. :/ — Ched :  ?  00:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation, please[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.
Retaliatory tagging (or the appearance thereof) is strongly discouraged; editors should not engage in behavior likely to escalate conflicts, regardless of whether individual tags may be merited. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I seem to have sparked off a conflict with User:Armbrust when I challenged his NAC close of this AfD on his talk page (here). We were not able to resolve that amicably and I have raised a deletion review. When I notified Armbrust of this, he began to tag almost every single article with which I've ever been associated using twinkle.

This is a partial sample from my watchlist
    19:35 	Marina Weisband‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:34 	Highways in the United Kingdom‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:34 	Compulsory purchase in England and Wales‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:34 	Marie-Laure Augry‎ (diff | hist) . . (+64) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{linkrot}} and {{ref improve}} tags to article (Twinkle))
    19:34 	Christa Goetsch‎ (diff | hist) . . (+36) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP unsourced}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:33 	Lida Gustava Heymann‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{unreferenced}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:32 	Suzanne Lacore‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{unreferenced}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:32 	Mélanie Fazi‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:31 	Brigitte Fouré‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:31 	Geneviève Fraisse‎ (diff | hist) . . (+69) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} and {{ref improve}} tags to article (Twinkle))
    19:31 	Marie-France Stirbois‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:30 	Françoise de Veyrinas‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:30 	Peter Flötner‎ (diff | hist) . . (+37) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{more footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:30 	Erna Scheffler‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:29 	Elisabeth Selbert‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:29 	Geneviève Gaillard‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:29 	Anne-Marie Comparini‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:28 	Johanna Wanka‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:28 	Helene Weber‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:28 	Alice Salomon‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{linkrot}} and {{more footnotes}} tags to article (Twinkle))
    19:28 	Maria Probst‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:27 	Danielle Casanova‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:27 	Esther von Kirchbach‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle))
    19:27 	Christine Teusch‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle))

I then began to go through reversing all this tagging, using the edit summary: "WP:POINT violation. User is going through tagging all articles associated with me". He responded by restoring all his tags with the edit summary: "Removal of valid tags without addressing the problem." I'm now ceasing to interact with Armbrust for the time being, and please would uninvolved users review the situation and take whatever action they think is necessary? Thanks—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added these tags, because everyone is valid for the article on which it's applied. If you don't want them to be on the article, than address the tags. Removal of them isn't the solution. (There was even one which I could BLPPROD, but only added BLP unsourced, because the German article contains references.) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, for starters, S Marshall, I'd suggest not calling his actions "defective" if you want good results. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair point, I accept that. I didn't claim to be innocent.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
And really, they seem to be reasonable tags. I'd suggest fixing the ones you can, and if there are some you can't fix right now, leave the tags so someone else can take care of them. If Armbrust is done tagging for now, I don't see that any further action is needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting quandary. On one hand, it does appear to be obviously retaliatory. On the other, several of the taggings I looked at are reasonable if considered outside the context. There are a few iffy ones, to be sure: this one seems unnecessary given that there are already plenty of footnotes in the article. I once got a batch of retaliatory "citation needed"s on some articles of mine for doing something that someone didn't like, and my solution to that was to go put in the requested citations before removing the tags. A time-consuming solution, of course, and a little bit irritating to have to take time out from the task I was working on, but probably the best solution, all things considered. Now, if there are some obviously spurious tags added, I am sure Armbrust will have the good sense not to reinstate them once they're removed. 28bytes (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, that addition would seem to be unnecessary, but there are a few fairly important statements towards the end that are missing footnoted refs, like the assertion of a revival of interest around 1900. So, I'd call that not-obviously-spurious. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • So we're saying retaliatory mass tagging is acceptable as long as the tags are valid? Cos two can play that game...—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that might be a sub-optimal strategy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? Either retaliatory mass-tagging is okay, or it isn't. What's not okay is to have one rule for Armbrust and another rule for me.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say retaliatory tagging is "acceptable", exactly, but we should consider what the best way to deal with it is. What are your thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it's as plain as your nose that the mass-tagging is vexatious in character. Its purpose is not to improve the encyclopaedia but to annoy me. I think this constitutes WP:WIKIHOUNDING and Armbrust should be asked to withdraw his tags. No prejudice against someone uninvolved re-adding them, although I'd take it as a courtesy if that person would please add them at a rate I could reasonably deal with while still having a job and a family life...—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's usually only a problem if they're invalid. I think what SoV meant in one of their statements was that "cos two can play that game" suggests you were going to do the same thing, which would of course lead to a block for pre-meditated disruption (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That seems very unsatisfactory to me, BWilkins. How could my hypothetical retaliatory tagging be pre-meditated disruption when Armbrust's actual retaliatory tagging is somehow not?—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You did, of course, read the wikilinked document, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I've read it many times, because I've been on Wikipedia far too long. Question stands.—S Marshall T/C 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Did Armbrust unnecessarily escalate the dispute with retaliatory tagging? Yes, I think so. Will anyone here say "yes" if you ask them if they think it's a good idea if you likewise escalate the dispute with more retaliatory tagging? No, I don't think anyone will. I can understand why you think this is an unsatisfactory double standard, and you're right, it is. But my suggested solution (just grumble and resolve the issues brought up in the tags at your convenience) has the nice side effect that once that's done and the tags are obsolete, no one can use this tactic against you again. Yes, maintenance tags are irritating, but they can certainly be left in place until you have the time and inclination to deal with them. 28bytes (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
However, I will add this. Armbrust: consider that retaliatory mass tagging is not a helpful approach to take with your fellow editors, even if the individual tags are reasonable. I hope you will, as a good faith gesture, consider either withdrawing the tags, or helping resolve them yourself by fixing bare URLs and other issues you've flagged. Karma does exist. Just because something isn't a blockable offense doesn't mean other editors won't remember whether you unnecessarily escalate disputes or help de-escalate them with good-faith gestures that are not technically required by our rules. 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

() Oy. The encyclopedia comes first, and the seven diffs I checked seemed ligit. Since there is no deadline, can properly attributed sources be added? I hope so. If not, then there is an inadequate sourcing problem. I think the hounding issue should be separate from the tagging issue; therefore, maybe you should drop the tagging issue entirely, and instead focus on the hounding issue on its own. Armbrust might at least be admonished and/or warned on that issue, as it is rather undesirable. Rgrds. --64.85.220.38 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, apparently Armbrust can do this to me and I can't respond in kind. That's frankly pathetic and shoddy, and I'm bitterly disappointed that the vexatious edits will stand. I'm cynical about the prospects of getting any help in cleaning up the mess he's created. I see AN/I's failure to address this kind of behaviour as a disincentive to writing content because content-writing makes you vulnerable to retaliatory edits in a dispute. I suppose I'll get a certain amount of satisfaction from bringing certain diffs up at Armbrust's third RFA, though.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You're attributing a motive to his actions. It may or may not be correct. If it is, he's being a WP:GIANTDICK. IIRC, you haven't specifically done anything that requires someone to closely monitor your edits, which would often be permitted. You're also personalizing the issue by saying it's being done against "you" - wrong idea. It appears that the tags are, in many cases, correct in their application. By all means, use it in their RFA, but take the high road. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
"May or may not be correct?" Oh, please. It's as obvious as a coal pile in a ballroom.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Mentor or block?[edit]

I can see this going either way, and we don't seem to have a mentoring program page per se, so I figured I'd put it here and let some sort of consensus prevail.

I came across User:Brandon Banks (a new account), because he vanity vandalized a page on my watchlist. Checking his contribs, I noted that just about every single edit he has made so far has been reverted for one reason or another (vandalism, grammar, simple MOS violation, and so on). He sent an obvious joke article to AFC, where it was declined and speedied. He then asked for it to be userfied and has edited nothing but that draft since, which he has userspace draft templated as if it is going to be a serious article. Now, I don't see a useful contributor to the encyclopedia in this instance as of yet, but it's not so bad that I see an immediate indef block being necessary at this point in time. Thoughts? MSJapan (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks to be a young editor just "sandboxing" in his user space at the moment; as long as he's just practicing with the editing interface there, no harm done. At some point he'll likely get bored with that and either stop editing entirely or resume editing mainspace articles. I'd be inclined to leave him alone unless/until he resumes editing outside his sandbox. Not sure mentoring would do much. 28bytes (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Central notice grammar and spelling[edit]

  • "fewer than" not "less then".
  • fragments of sentences after a colon do not start with a capitalised letter. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked editor apparently back and IP-hopping[edit]

A couple of years ago Mofb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked for making legal threats and disruptive editing on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's come to my attention that the same person appears to be back and doing much the same thing on the same article, primarily from 86.145.70.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The IP has already been warned for edit-warring and 3RR, but note in particular the comment on its talk page: "If this IP address is blocked, we shall move to another IP address." It's probable that the IP editor is the subject of the article; the style of writing (using the majestic plural etc) is very much his, as is the apparent feud with the writer George Monbiot (false information about the latter has previously added to the article [23]). On his previous IPs/accounts he has been advised about WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:V and all the rest but has ignored all such advice. This has now been going on for some weeks. At the very least, the article needs to be semi-protected and some (careful) intervention is needed with the IP editor. Prioryman (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Having undone IP edits which added badly sourced material and wording contradicted by the cited source, or removed well sourced information, fully agree that the article needs to be semi-protected. . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess this is the 21st century version of a strongly-worded letter to The Times. --NellieBly (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Given the IPs apparent threat to start removing sources from the article as he sees fit, in response essentially to not getting his way, I think urgent semi-protection is an essential first step. Is there any chance of a check user on the old account to investigate the possibility of a rangeblock? Basalisk inspect damageberate 12:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The protection log on that article is quite lengthy. I've semi-protected indefinitely. However, I wouldn't know a Viscount from a Visigoth, so what state the actual article should be in is up to other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I very much doubt that a rangeblock would be practicable. Looking at the editing history, it seems clear that the IP is a dynamically assigned one from a major UK ISP (BT) and the collateral damage of a rangeblock would be enormous and would far outweigh any benefits.Qwyrxian's indefinite semi-protection should be sufficient, I think. Prioryman (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Prioryman, your statement that it is 'probably Monckton' is definitely libellous unless you have some form of proof. See WP:BLP. Please remove your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.198.134 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Gee, another legal threat The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that Mofb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) specifically claimed to be the selfsame Monckton (who styles himself Monckton of Brenchley), and that the new IPs are editing to the same purpose as Mofb with very similar style, so Prioryman's statement isn't exactly a huge leap here. --GenericBob (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you are topic-banned from climate change articles as a result of WP:ARBCC. And you have the largest number of edits on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (by quite a wide margin). Without disregarding the activities of the IP editor, I find more than a little bit questionable that you are violating WP:OUTING here in relation to that specific BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no question of Prioryman's having outed Mofb, since Mofb enthusiastically identified himself as CM three years ago. If associating an apparent IP sock with a self-identified account is enough to constitute prohibited outing, then that has unpleasant implications - it offers a handy way for editors to make themselves virtually immune to ban evasion/sockpuppetry investigations. --GenericBob (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It says London, which certainly narrows it down. Regardless of who a user claims to be, you can't assume he's telling the truth. It could just be a troll who's latched onto this particular subject for no apparent reason (as trolls often do). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This is of course possible, but as against that the IP editor seems to be very well aware of obscure details of Monckton's travels and activities that have not, as far as I know, been the subject of press coverage (see [24]). The style of discussion on the IP's talk page - using the "royal we" throughout - is very distinctive. If it's a troll, it's a remarkably well-informed one who's capable of perfectly imitating Monckton's style and concerns. Personally I think the duck test is quite sufficient in this instance. Prioryman (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Whether it's actually the subject of the article or not, the probability seems strong that it's the same guy. And if so, as far as any "outing", he did that to himself when he chose to edit via IP's instead of logging on. Given that it's a BLP, editing has to be cautious and conservative, regardless of whether the editor is the subject or not. But a subject can't "own" his page, any more than anyone can "own" any given page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Very true. I will add though that there are wider concerns - specifically that this BLP has previously been anonymously (ab)used to post false information about others, as noted in my initial comment above. As past incidents have shown, that's a real threat to Wikipedia's integrity and reputation, to say nothing of the damage it causes to innocent third parties. Qwyrxian has rightly semi-protected it indefinitely and I strongly recommend that it should be remain so for the foreseeable future. Prioryman (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Indefinite semi is the way to go, yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Is Monckton in London, though? I heard he was "somewhere close to Glasgow (or shall we say Rannoch?)"... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that relates to a different ISP from the most recent IP editor on that article. Geolocation is exceedingly complicated when it comes to British IP addresses. Sometimes the IP address does correspond roughly to the physical location of the user, within a few dozen miles at least, but it often doesn't in my experience, and geolocation software gives conflicting information. When I checked the IP address you mentioned (95.145.99.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) it geolocated for me to Glasgow, someone else geolocated it to Skipton in North Yorkshire and now it seems to geolocate to London. The fact that it geolocates to London is quite possibly due to the presence there of Telehouse Europe, which is effectively the main hub of the UK in Britain. It's not a big country and the ISP infrastructure is a lot more centralised than in some other countries. Prioryman (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

MarcRey[edit]

Despite having an "editing history on Wikipedia stretching 7 years" [25] (through his previous accounts Ancient Land of Bosoni and Bosoni and IPs [26]) user MarcRey (talk · contribs) continually inserts tags that do not apply on the Bosnian language article in order to prove a point [27][28][29][30][31] and exhibits an extremely hostile attitude towards other editors and carries a xenophobic attitude in general. He refers to editors as "you and your likes" [32] and makes statements such as:

  • "I presume you to be part of the neo-Serbo-Croatian movement on Wikipedia. Maybe you could help me answer the following rumor: Serb editors on Wikipedia are on a pay check from the government (or individual municipalities) in Serbia to protect "the interests of the Serbian nation"? Would explain a great deal." [33]
  • "a fraction of Serb (possibly Croat) editors have had the comfort of editing undisturbed for a long while." [34]
  • "an undefined number of Serb editors have succeeded with this by semi-hidden maneuvers over the last few months." [35][36]
  • "At times like these editing on Wikipedia is really pinpointed by the phrase "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded"." [37]
  • "I award Tiavo this star for his incessant attempts to reintroduce a defunct linguistic classification the whole world renounced 20 years ago just "beacsue there is no better", for his attempts to smear other users, and lastly but not least for his attempts to dodge all input to the discussion." [38]

-- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone should inform him of the WP:Discretionary sanctions status of articles related to Eastern Europe outlined here. He could find himself blocked in a hurry. Basalisk inspect damageberate 00:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
None of these so-called pseudo-incidents are to be considered as violations of any sort but rather substantiated opinions which I am entitled to posses and share at will, or is PRODUCER claiming that Wikipedia is isolated from the basic foundation of democratic values underlining the Western World? Freedom of speech is the key-word for you sir. This is an obvious counterattack staged to neutralize, under false pretenses, an editor (I) with views contesting the biased ones of Serb users PRODUCER, Taivo and Biblbrooks. If anyone feels like maintaining that the ethnic background of these editors is irrelevant I will strongly have to disagree. Their background may be of little relevance when it comes to articles on the Cosmos or the Gila monster, but more so relevant on articles related to the territory of former Yugoslavia considering the still-ongoing blood-feud between Serbs and their neighbors. It is generally known, and by no means any violation to express the democratically justified opinion, that Serb editors have been abusing Wikipedia for a long while. Too see PRODUCER with administrative privileges is highly disturbing as he is bound to support other Serb users simply because of their ethnic background. I shall in the following weeks investigate the legal extent of Wikipedia's right to contend controversial inaccuracies in articles simply because one ethnic group (in this case Serbs) is in majority and choose to capitalize on bully-tactics for the disqualification of individual users with opposing views. Has it not ever stricken you that Serb users are constantly editing Bosnia-related articles whereas Bosniaks and Croats seldom edit Serbia-related articles? This is a phenomenon requiring closer scrutiny. Basalisk, if you do not revise your comment which you apparently wrote without being familiar with the issue at hand I will have to consider you as biased. The current "report" by PRODUCER is plain abuse of the Wikipedia administration and I will soon counter-file own reports discussing these issues. In the meantime, despite not confessing to any actual violation, I may admit that my emotions got the best of me and that some sentences may have been formulated differently, but this has to be put in perspective to the complete disregard of objective discussion by, among others, Taivo who is pushing for the totalitarian and controversial revival of "Serbo-Croatian", part of which Taivo and other users are deliberately distorting interpretations of sources in reality discussing Serbo-Croatian from a historical point of view. Any accounts I may or may not have had several years prior is of even less importance and yet another illicit attempt to discredit me. The whole issue is extremely deplorable and will be handled legally if required. Portraying highly controversial and inaccurate information as valid in a supposedly encyclopedic context is considered to be a significant abuse of legal rights at least in my current country of residence, Sweden. If nothing else, I will insist that domestic Internet service providers post warning messages on certain articles on Wikipedia related to Ex-Yugoslavia, most recently the Ex-Yugoslavian language articles which are currently suffering a large "Serb" offensive trying to reintroduce Serbo-Croatian, a defunct linguistic classification of no contemporary substance. This issue of controversial original research will also be addressed by me through WP:DR. But as to everyones attention, PRODUCER is currently underway of neutralizing any actions from reaching that point. By his ignorant appeal, Basalisk is indirectly aiding this illicit process. I am deeply saddened. MarcRey (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Fascinating baseless rant from MarcRey. I'll have to tell all my Irish and Scottish ancestors, who emigrated to the US in the 17th and 18th centuries, that they're really Serbians because MarcRey says they are. --Taivo (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
"Fascinating baseless rant from MarcRey", may this be noted as evidence of Taivo's subjective outlook pervading much of his chauvinistic behavior on Wikipedia. Previous discussions between the two of us are riddled with the similar sort of impudence, and will be presented accordingly in the report I am currently writing up on "Scottish" Taivo and his kinsmen (bullies) in opinion, Taivo and PRODUCER. MarcRey (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this useful information, which was completely new to me. I might have to re-evaluate my rhetorics irregardless of how absurd these news were to me. What is important, however, is the highly inappropriate use by PRODUCER of this "report" as a diversion of my and your attention from the POV-changes caused to the articles on the language standards of what is former Yugoslavia. I will not allow myself to become a victim of their conspiracy and therefore I promise to tone down my rhetorics. The issue with "Serbo-Croatian" shall proceed in a composed manner. In addition, as I am sure you do not know, there is a special form of lawyer (Ombudsman) in Sweden working on behalf of the government and offering consultancy free of cost to the general citizen for certain matters, of which one is "political discrimination", hence if I were you I wouldn't mock my previous statement, as I have used these services previously for related matters Taivo. MarcRey (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Use of language such as "Serb users PRODUCER, Taivo and Biblbrooks", "kinsmen", etc. as a means to discredit users by their ethnicity is absolutely inappropriate. I mention your previous accounts because they also contain evidence of such contentious editing and you have apparently created this new account as a means of avoiding scrutiny. Your actions and indeed the very terms you use ("a large "Serb" offensive") show that you view Wikipedia as a battleground. "The whole issue is extremely deplorable and will be handled legally if required": Using legal threats as attempts to force editors to succumb to your nonsense is forbidden. "I will insist that domestic Internet service providers post warning messages" Again, a laughable threat revealing how you regard Wikipedia and its editors. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Producer please do not disturb the chronological order of the posts. I wish to discredit no one's ethnicity, in addition "kinsmen" does not pertain to ethnicity whatsoever. I am puzzled to see that you can mind-read the reasons behind my creation of this account, which in turn is completely unrelated to any prior accounts I may or may not have had years ago. You are gravely abusing your administrative rights and shall be reported for it. In addition, you are continuously attempting to bestow your comments with some sort of fictional authority by excessively citing guidelines; another example of your distortion. I view Wikipedia as no battleground, this view does rather seem to part of a group of closely associated editors supporting each other throughout every edit determined to revive the pseudo-language "Serbo-Croatian". Coincidentally, all these editors seem to have the same national background and have set their mind on conducting original research on highly inflamed issues certain to agitate a large number of people coincidentally belonging to other closely related national backgrounds. Not to mention that the revisions are plain wrong and inaccurate. What is more, Taivo is breaching the very guidelines PRODUCER is accusing me to breach: "if I don't accede to your Bosnian POV and ignore reliable linguistic sources in Wikipedia?". I am part French, and part Bosnian if you are curious. I have clarified the legal paragraph a short while ago, and excused myself, but PRODUCER is relentlessly continuing to fuel the heat. Taivo and PRODUCER are obviously on a personal crusade/witch hunt here technically claiming "We know who you are, your explanation is of no use. You cannot repent. It's over". I am not threatening anyone, nor will I ever, any prior rhetorics hinting at is will not be repeated. However, do not taunt my intelligence, I realize that the Swedish ombudsman has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia or its editors (a heterogeneous group) as I in fact meant to highlight that any opinions by Ombudsman as orchestrated through the national ISP providers (Wikipedia is frequently used in the Swedish elementary school) may be used as reference of your fallacy. Your witch-hunt and deliberately false representation of other users' posts will not be accepted. For my part, I see no possibility to continue this discussion without the supervision of an unbiased outsider. MarcRey (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
My report is not a "diversion". Please stop this ridiculous view that all editors who oppose you as being in a "conspiracy". Furthermore, your legal threats will not be tolerated. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 19:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I will certainly do everything in my power to foremost settle the current issues through Wikipedia rather than resorting to external law. If the latter ever becomes topical I shall immediately discontinue all of my editing on Wikipedia and inform you accordingly. Hence, I do not wish to threaten anyone but instead I hope we shall be able to confine this issue were it belongs; on Wikipedia. Hence, my sincerest apologies if anyone misinterpreted my previous post. In addition, I hereby vow that my future use of language on Wikipedia will be absent of arrogance and hostility. MarcRey (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There were no "misinterpretations". You were clear in your language and you are accountable for your statements. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight, MarcRey, you're threatening me with legal action in Sweden if I don't accede to your Bosnian POV and ignore reliable linguistic sources in Wikipedia? I guess I should worry about traveling to Sweden, then. Perhaps there's a special jail cell at the Stockholm airport for Wikipedia editors that disagree with a Swede. I also notice on your user page that your profession is biomedicine. Perhaps you should leave linguistics to the linguists if you find it so frustrating that you resort to incivility, toothless legal threats, and other actions that are in violation of Wikipedia community standards. --Taivo (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Taivo insists on continuing the resentment with no regard to the resolution and reformation which I have agreed upon. Taivo will account for this in my the report I am preparing. Please note Taivo's incessantly discrediting attitude towards my knowledge and appropriateness: "I also notice on your user page that your profession is biomedicine. Perhaps you should leave linguistics". Taivo is relentless and continues to be highly uncivil, he offers no resolution and healthy continuation. I rest my case. MarcRey (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
MarcReey, should I be worried since I asked about "some info on when are those checks due to arrive?" Could this be treated as a genocidal act towards Bosnian language? Eek! --biblbroks (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Another violation of the same character I am ironically being solely tried for: "Could this be treated as a genocidal act (referring to Srebrenica) towards Bosnian (referring to Bosniaks) language? Eek!" MarcRey (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me summarize the situation in brief. 1) A long time ago, based on reliable linguistic sources and the nature of the linguistic relationship between Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin, several linguists agreed that "a variety of Serbo-Croatian" was the most accurate statement to be used in the description of all these speech varieties that have recently been called "languages" (even though, as MarcRey himself admits, they are all perfectly mutually intelligible). 2) MarcRey (who may or may not be a sock puppet, a new editor, or a previous editor with a new name who refuses to identify his former incarnations), shows up and begins a rather heated attack on the previous consensus, claiming that all who disagree with him are on Serbia's payroll. 3) Refusing to accept the sources or the validity of the previous consensus, refusing to bring reliable sources of his own, and refusing to moderate the rhetoric, he has failed to convince anyone of his point of view. 4) He was brought here by PRODUCER because of his incivility, where he has continued the personal attacks and now threatened legal action against Wikipedia and the editors he has failed to persuade with his acerbic rhetoric. --Taivo (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I never in my wildest dreams wanted to refer to Srebrenica genocide. Please accept my most honest apologies. I will back down from this discussion since I clearly crossed the line. --biblbroks (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
In response to Taivo. Preposterous. 1) The Bosnian language became the official language of Bosnia-Herzegovina as early as in the 1880s, but was abolished in 1907 and replaced by "Serbo-Croatian" as part of the imposed politics of Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, what happened then is of very little relevance 85 years later as the linguistic umbrella term "Serbo-Croatian" is declared defunct by every official authority and further use considered archaic. The attempt to "scientifically" present Serbo-Croatian as a proper linguistic classification in 2012 is original research and POV. Arguments given by, for example, Taivo are of the sort that "there is no better option" and "who cares about the political dissolution of Ex-Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian is still scientifically correct". On the talk page of the Bosnian language I clearly demonstrate by a simple Goggle search that Serbo-Croatian is vastly less common than Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, but this thorn-to-eye was excused by Taivo by hardly serious references to "commas versus slashes". I invite all the administrators to pay the talk page a visit, and in advance I excuse for any former inappropriate rhetorics. 2) Smearing. 3) On the discussion page I make sure to underline that I am underway of collecting sources and that a POV-tag is appropriate until the issue is settled, since there is obviously a dispute as well as a notable number of previous editors, also on the Croatian language page, who have raised the issue before me but succumbed to the persistence and coherency of Taivo and other users. The sources currently invoked by Taivo et. al. are in reality contradicting the agenda of Taivo et. al. but are suitably taken out of the very historical context they discuss Serbo-Croatian by Taivo et. al. to support the original research they wage. Also, note that the revival of the Serbo-Croat classification on Wikipedia is largely the result of work over the last few months; this is by other words only an addition of newer date. 4) Fueling the heat in the wake of the witch-hunt. I see no possibility for further discussion without the supervision of unbiased and knowledgeable moderators. Biblbroks, as you can see we all make mistakes but should they be held against us? No, one can reform. MarcRey (