Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Resuming AuthorityTam ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#AuthorityTam Nobody Ent 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As anticipated, AuthorityTam waited for the dust to settle on this ANI, and has now resumed similar conduct.[1] (The addition in the section "RfC: Reinstatement in lead section" dishonestly quotes me; my response is here.) Now that he has resumed editing, AuthorityTam should provide a more appropriate response regarding his conduct, and the previous suggested courses of action should be further considered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This has shown a clear and on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in editing, especially in regards to several editors (Jeffro and BlackCab). As I predicted in the last, interminably long, but never-solved ANI incident, that the same case would be brought back again and again, once a month, until some sanctions are imposed. I have been involved in neither dispute, except for the ANI recaps. I therefore propose a one week block from editing Wikipedia for AuthorityTam, or a topic ban of a minimum 30 days' length from all articles even tangentially related to the Jehovah Witness religion for the same. Each incident in itself may not warrant a block, but, pursuant to "civil POV pushing" (an essay somewhere on here), all the shit together more than justifies one, as it establishes a pattern which the editor does knot seem to acknowledge is disruptive (that it is, is evidenced by being dragged to ANI ad nauseam). (Edit: this fits the very definition of a "preventative block", as it seems that this behaviour continues like the Energizer Bunny.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can not see the deal here. It is making a big case out of something that isn't. He quoted Jeffro, and wanted to use Jeffro's statement as a reason for editing the article. It could be stoped by reverting the edit, and make a ordinary discussion in the talk page, not reopening this case. I suggest to at least shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it. I am sure it will be more discussions regarded and including AutTam, but as I've stated before, the article need opinionholders challenging some of the existing one at the talk page, as it appears very few of the contributers can keep a completely neutral tone when it comes to the topic (even though, some of the users at least try). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no consensus on the last ANI and little contribution from the community at large -- just lots of squabbling amongst three editors (all of whom could improve the collegiality and civility of their interaction style). Block all 3, ban all 3, or block or ban none. Refer to WP:DR. Nobody Ent 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have previously tried simply reverting his irrelevant tendentious comments about other editors (namely, me) from user Talk. He restores them, and then complains even more. This behaviour was also mentioned at the previous ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, this is no closer to a resolution than when it started. I understand everyone has the right of reply, but you guys are just going in circles here, and making it extremely difficult for anyone outside the dispute to determine exactly what the "problem" is and what you want done about it. The admin action needed here at this point is for someone uninvolved to step in, hat most of the above, and try to keep the discussion focused. Or, even better, just close it as I don't see where any action is likely to be taken at this point. Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaand about 90% of the circular discussion has been archived, so thanks to whoever did that. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[non admin yawn] Again? - I don't watch the page, or any of those pages, but it has spilled over into non-JW topic areas before. As the last time it seems that the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors are as bad or worse than the one apparently pro-JW editor, as illustrated by the disproportionate amount of noise from the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors on the last attempt to get the pro-JW editor banned at ANI. This latest one simply has the pro-JW editor noting they tried to get him banned at ANI, and the anti-JW saying "Another lie" (¿En serio? Is that a WP:BOOMERANG I see?) If it's anything admin action shouldn't be one sided, it should be for all 3, e.g. JW-topic blocks for 1 month and warmly invite contributions to the wealth of non-JW articles on WP needing attention... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an "anti-JW" editor. I'm a "non-JW" editor; I don't consider their beliefs any more irrational than the beliefs of other religions. Aside from that, he did lie. When I said that no one had tried to have him banned, that was in fact the case. 3 days later, I did conditionally agree with a suggestion by another editor that if AuthorityTam is unable to modify his behaviour, a topic ban may be in order. AuthorityTam selectively quoted part of that statement, ignoring the order of events, to make it appear that I was 'trying to have him banned' and that I had previously lied about it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

With all the bad blood swirling around between a small group of editors, I don't see any hope for a resolution/reconciliation in that regard. The ultimate goal is the overall improvement of the JW articles, not the appeasement of certain editor's hurt egos. So I think the unfortunate result is that if you all want to continue editing the JW articles, then you're going to have to deal with each other, like it or not...or everyone is going to be looking at a topic ban in the future. Perhaps being able to provide evidence from this point forward that you did not further personalize the dispute may prevent that from happening if/when this is brought up at ANI again. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Within half an hour of AuthorityTam resuming editing (after an absence that coincided with the ANI while closer attention might be paid to his editing behaviour), he returned to the same petty retributive (and dishonest) behaviour as before. He's clearly not interested in 'playing nicely', and he simply ignored input from other editors at the previous ANI who confirmed that his behaviour is inappropriate.

It is not the case that only three editors complained in the previous ANI. Several editors agreed there are problems with AuthorityTam's behaviour, and an independent editor made several suggestions.

It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages. Other editors suggested that a topic ban may be in order, and I agree that may be suitable if he is otherwise unable to acknowledge his inappropriate behaviour and cease it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

[Jeffro77 notified me]As I have mentioned previously I couldn't still find what is so wrong with AuthorityTam's editing, other than shouting and crying for crucify him. In fact when I compared some edit history of all these three involved editors, ironically I found that AuthorityTam never used any of those type of harsh/debasing words that the other two editors used. So it seems to me that the main problem here is a long time discomfort towards AuthorityTam by the other two editors, because he have won/Wikipedia have won many of the debates involving the other two editors in those related talk pages. Also whenever these other editors express their discomfort in talk pages, AuthorityTam gives evidence of their own same mistake by posting back talk pages and then goes own silent. This may screw up the other two editors but in fact it gives the point that the accusing editors should try to improve first before accusing other. As some other editor suggested we need to shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it.--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'd be interested to see the diffs of the supposedly "harsh/debasing words" Fazilfazil (a pro-JW editor defending another pro-JW editor) is accusing me of. There is no particular 'discomfort' about AuthorityTam 'winning debates' about article content; no track record is kept of how many 'debates' AuthorityTam has 'won', but even if his views are accepted more frequently than those of others (though I'm not aware that's the case), it has nothing to do with the complaints raised here. I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs (this factor of bias is in fact the determining criteria for AuthorityTam's expressions of contempt). (Even at the previous ANI AuthorityTam again presented his specious 'evidence' [a claim based on an ambiguous edit from 7 years ago] that I'm a former member though he's been explicitly told I have no status with the organisation.) It is not the case that AuthorityTam merely defends himself at Talk rather than starting problems, such as he did with his oblique disingenuous claim that BlackCab's removal of content that violated WP:FORUM was in some way 'interesting'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to waste the time with digging out those words, I have posted some in the previous discussion. First of all although you frequently claim that you are not a former JWs, your style of editing appears to be those typical among self-claiming former Witnesses. Not only me, many other editors have expressed this implication. For one reason, it is very difficult for a common person to understand the deep teachings of JWs unless he have studied the basic Bible teachings with them. So my intuition is that you mostly use Watchtower library (for others sake: which contains all JWs publications in digital format) and come up either as a support to user:BlackCab's interpretations or being silent when he have an irrelevant point. It is not typical among an atheist to be only attacking on a particular religion. Since you and BlackCab are the frequent opposers towards AuthorityTam (in many cases I can see his arguments finally proves to be correct) it is of no wonder that he show other editors about former witness bias. Another thing is sometime you take silly things and explicitly claim that other editor lied (I believe even once towards me though I ignored it) but they might was never intended a lie. I don't want to involve in this discussion much since I feel its a waste of time and irritating. I would advice you to calm down and raise this issue if AuthorityTam showed obvious incivility towards you with a specific clear evidence. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I have relatives in the religion and am closely familiar with it. However, I do not owe any editor any such explanation. The claim that I simply try to support BlackCab is ridiculous because I've edited Wikipedia for several years longer than him. I have already provided evidence of AuthorityTam's improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside from Fazilfazil reply, who seems also quite frustrated, I would like to encourage both of you to assume good faith WP:AGF. I expressed my viewpoint of the situation on AuthorityTam' Talk page. User_talk:AuthorityTam#You.27re_maybe_not_aware_of..._.2B. However, Jeffro77 immediately started to reply on my personal message to AT, which I felt unwelcome. AuthorityTam do not answer so far on my post, although I assume that he perhaps read it. Originally, I wanted only notice him about some pages and summarize my viewpoint on the subject. But when Jeffro77 arrived, I tried to serve there as mediator and suggested solution. Jeffro77 felt the situation otherwise. --FaktneviM (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF doesn't apply when the editor has all but proclaimed that they are working in bad faith with a certain section of the Wikipedia community. Although, as I point out, my own interactions with AT have been nothing but cordial (in fact, receiving support from him) because I (1) don't work often in the area, and (2) haven't proposed anything that pissed him off or that got me on his "shit list", so to speak, based on the previous AN/I, he won't respond until this AN/I is over and has blown over, and he'll be back up to antagonizing Jeff and BlackCab (aka LtSally!) and this case will be back to AN/I (as, during the last AN/I, he ceased editing according to the same pattern). I have a spidey-sense that this will eventually be attempted to be escalated to arbitration. Fazil: stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. This is not about winning debates or scoring points or editors' possible former religious affiliations or "WP:TRUTH", it is about building an encyclopedia. I find it incredibly hard to WP:AGF when faced with a series of posts that so clearly demonstrate the battleground mentality.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

JohnChrysostom: I don't know AuthorityTam much as we met rarely. In most situations I felt it similar like you. His conduct is focused on content and he is cordial. I do not expect it, but if he would like to persistently continue with this non-responding and later attacking style, some temporary restriction of editing 'Talk pages' could be reasonable. But this resumed ANI is not the case. Single edit is not adequate for any action. Thus the ANI should be terminate. // Fazilfazil: I would like to see more co-operation within JWs articles. Hence continuous speculations if User:Jeffro77 is apostasy or not are not useful at all. He specifically wrote here “I never formally identified as a JW”, which I believe to be the exceptional truth. This express is common for those who leaved from the congregation during Bible Study with Witnesses or meanwhile in state of being Unbaptised publisher. That is similar if he raised in JW family and not identified himself with it. In every case that is not important. Some editors may decide practice shunning on Jeffro and BlackCab (like AuthorityTam' 3rd person comments), but generally "division" of editors to pro-JW group and ex-JW or anti-JW group (such division of editors is invention by the two mentioned above and cause unpleasant contact amongst articles' editors). Hence I suppose that another talking on this matter is not useful. Here is the irony that BlackCab since his start on Wikipedia openly said so and never hide it. I respect him more for that. I also believe that both of them are sincere with their motives on editing Wikipedia. It is said that BlackCab at least tried to solve common issues which I raised, while Jeffro often simply dismiss all as irrelevant. However, despite of that, it is unlikely that they edit this topic if they want to be evil only. So some mutual agreement is hardly to do, but it is 'must have'. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim that AuthorityTam's "conduct is focused on content and he is cordial." If that were the case, this ANI or the last one would not have been raised. Specific statements made by AuthorityTam at article Talk about other editors have already been cited at this and the last ANI, and it is that behaviour that I explicitly requested that he cease.

I have never summarily dismissed any specific editor's comments as irrelevant merely on the basis of who made them. Where there is any ambiguity, I have always provided a reason why something is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

* Comment {Jeffro77 notified me} After reviewing the edit in question, I cannot for the life of me figure out what is so appalling in the edit that it brings us here to yet another ANI. My only conclusion is that this must be some feeble attempt at character assassination or some ill advised smear campaign. Unless I am looking at the wrong edit, I find nothing offensive in AT's edit at all and do in fact find this ANI to be the more offensive occurrence. Here is the edit I think is being addressed, please let me know if I have the wrong one: :::"The article currently states, "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature." None of the cited references explicitly supports the claim that JWs are "cautioned against reading other religious literature", rather, the references show a "caution" against reading "books like this one" and "religious literature that promotes lies". I've edited the sentence to: "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications.". --AuthorityTam (talk)3:33 am, 29 April 2012, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)" I am completely at a loss for finding anything offensive in that edit, so, exactly why are we here if not just for the purpose of stirring the pot? Willietell (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Having found the edit in question, I see only an editor defending himself against an accusation of being a liar. Perhaps if the editor who raised the ANI doesn't wish for such evidence to be presented, them he should AGF and cease calling other editors dishonest, thus eliminating the need for a response that he may find offensive. In short, Play Nice, because your own offensive words(calling other editors a liar) may come back to haunt you when they present evidence to the contrary. Willietell (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

He was not 'defending himself against an accusation of being a liar'; the misleading selective quote itself constituted a lie, with no regard to the actual order of events or my actual conditional statement. I see no reason why I should put up with that, particularly when the statement was appended to 'discussion' that had ostensibly ended weeks ago. The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs. As noted by JohnChrysostom above, AuthorityTam's response so far has simply been to 'lay low' during and shortly after the ANI process, and then return to the previous behaviour; he did this at the last ANI, and also did the same thing a couple of years ago when an admin instructed him to strike false statements about me at several AfDs (which he failed to do).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Obviously, as User:Quinn1 post here, “this is no closer to a resolution than when it started.” and “but you guys are just going in circles here”. Is there anyone, (nonJWtopics' editor preferred), who can propose better solution than Quinn1 wrote here, simply “Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay?” [2] If AuthorityTam and all others involved in JWtopics will trying to assume good faith and not focus on persons, but on content, there will be fewer ANIs needed in future. Perhaps none. --FaktneviM (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If AuthorityTam ceases the behaviour, the matter will not need to return to ANI. What about the suggestions already made by User:JohnChrysostom (a "nonJWtopics' editor")?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Incivility from Hearfourmewesique

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone needs to inform User:Hearfourmewesique that edit summary comments like this violate WP:CIV. This comes on the heels of a number of similar comments that aren't exactly in the spirit of CIV, as when he reacted to my removal of material plagiarized from another website without compliance with that site's license by citing citing WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, and telling me that I should've paraphrased the material myself, even though I had already told him that I hadn't seen the episode. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much more concerned about the editor's understanding of copyright than I am about some prickly edit summaries. Nevertheless, that particular issue has been resolved (the material lifted from Wikia has been rewritten), so unless there's evidence that Hearfourmewesique makes a habit of this then this is basically just a case of two editors who don't get along (and, based on the ANI last week, are both partially to blame). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've simply had it with certain editors, some of whom are veteran and some of whom are even admins, that think that their job consists solely of sending other editors to "do their homework", forgetting that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I apologize for overstepping the WP:CIVIL boundaries, though.

• Side note: as noted on my talk page, I paraphrased the "lifted" text mainly by looking at it and using basic rewriting skills, something Nightscream could have done as well – the Wikia description is so detailed that it can suffice without having to watch the episode. Just more excuses, causing more frustration. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter whether Nightscream could have fixed it (and paraphrasing a huge chunk of someone else's text is not the easiest skill in the world, nor the most ethical in many cases). Editors should not be introducing text with permission / copyright problems in the first place, under any circumstances. While attracting and keeping contributors is vital, failing to respect copyright to the letter can kill the project and has to take precedence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So what is Wikipedia if not a collection of paraphrased chunks of other people's text? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris' point is that the text in question wasn't paraphrased.

Regarding the other matter, apology accepted; I hope we can continue to collaborate more positively from here on in. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncommunicative school project

For the last few weeks there has evidently been some kind of school or university project involving each student working on an article about an English village (identified as university coursework here: [3]; other articles include Stirchley, Shropshire, Clee St. Margaret, Waverton, Cumbria, Stanton upon Hine Heath, and many others). I haven't been able to find out what institution is doing this, but I have a guess it might be related to the geography department of Portsmouth University. This is certainly a great idea in general, and I'm very much of the opinion we should encourage and help this effort, but unfortunately many of the students involved have had problems with image uploads, some also with other copyright-related stuff. Many of them have been repeating the same errors: uploading non-free images of buildings or non-free chart graphics; re-uploading free images that already existed on Commons, and so on. Today, for the first time, I had to block one of them because he was re-uploading the same bad image multiple times.

What troubles me is that multiple members of this group have been curiously unresponsive to polite, friendly messages regarding the background of their project. I've been asking several of them to provide me with some contact address to get in touch with their supervisor, simply to get some advice about better image handling across to the group as a whole, but people keep simply ignoring my requests:

• HannahPeek (talk · contribs) [4]
• Christopher Edward John Ellis (talk · contribs) [5]
• Sophwelland (talk · contribs) [6]
• Andrew Poyntz-Roberts (talk · contribs) [7]

I'm really at a loss to understand what's going on. Have they decided among themselves that I'm their common enemy because they keep seeing my name in deletion messages? Could somebody else try to have a word with a few of them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

For any students from this class that are reading this notice. Our goal here is to work with you and your professor to provide you with the resources and training that will help you succeed in editing our encyclopedia. We have an educational program that is designed to work with university classes for this purpose. The Wikimedia UK Chapter runs the program in your country and you can learn more about their efforts at this website: [8]. If you don't feel comfortable letting us know what class you're in, please ask your professor to contact the Wikimedia UK chapter's education program using the information at the link provided. GabrielF (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, now you have an IP/possible sock that geolocates to University of Portsmouth, so at least that suspicion is confirmed. --64.85.220.145 (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

And one of the guys above who, instead of finally responding in some meaningful way, simply removes his name from the list above. Sigh. Are these university students? I sure hope the ones that I teach wouldn't react like that in such a situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, at least now I'm in a dialogue with one of them. Maybe we're getting somewhere after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• When you're done with that, please look at the history of Urbanism. Unless you have a day job, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Urbanism should either be rolled back to a much earlier version, or AfD'd. I don't think it's salvageable in the condition its in without a massive amount of work. As it stands it's a horror which reflects very poorly on the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What about rolling it back to its 2004 creation, a redirect to Urban Planning?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I was very tempted to do that, but "urbanism" is much more of a sociological concept, and not really the same as urban planning. What I really think needs to happen is for someone with knowledge of the subject to go through the article mercilessly, trim it down, clean it up and rescue it from the students who are currently writing it. Unfortunately, that person is not me.

If there's no one around who can take on the task, then stubbing it or AfD'ing it are better alternatives than leaving it in place as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No way I would take that to AfD. Whenever I've taken messy articles to AfD on subjects as broad as that, I'm accused of not following notability guidelines. Stubbing it is a possibility. I'll wait and see if anyone else bites.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Another user, James Marwood (talk · contribs), just contacted me on my talk page and complained about a speedy deletion tag. The user mentioned a university project and the file is used in an article about an English village, so it seems to fit with the other users. I'm writing a reply there now. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's certainly one of the Portsmouth guys too. They're getting a bit nervous, it seems, because they have their deadline tomorrow. (I've now got a communication channel with them, and I'd be available if anybody else needs advice.) I'm only glad the "urbanism" page discussed above must be a different project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I might have to add User:JoshuaEBarker to the list - I've just reverted a huge chunk of his work at Esh, County Durham, due to the fact that he had copy-pasted pretty much all of it directly from non-free sources. Has anyone emailed the professor yet? A number of these students are going to fail their course module due to his inadequate knowledge of Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion with a teacher at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Revised picture. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: notification of this discussion was left at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#University_of_Portsmouth_class. Dcoetzee 00:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Greyhood

Resolved

 – For now, user seems to have lost his cool. No admin action needed at the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

I am beginning to become concerned with user:Greyhood, user primarily edits on Russian articles, is a frequent and consistent editor who removes sources, in favor of non-notable sources in order to confuse other users and push an agenda.

Replaced Current Facts with disputable info from a non- notable database; in fact its appearance on wiki violates the terms of use of the source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=prev&oldid=487380845

User has removed references http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=489423788, a reference was inexplicably removed, this happened recently(apr.27)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhirinovsky%27s_ass This article was created by Greyhood and has sparked edit warring and unrest, because it is largely non encyclopedic, and reflects an overall agenda on Greyhood behalf.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive182 He has been the member of a dispute previously brought by user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malick78.

Was going to use subst:uw-nor, but instead ANI warningWrathofjames (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if I am not mistaken, the only interaction between you and Greyhood documented on his talk page is your notification of this ANI topic, which has a subtitle "Stop abusing Wikipedia". This is not exactly what the dispute resolution procedures advise you to do. I suggest that you follow the procedures first.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked over the offered differences briefly. I don't really see anything here that is blatantly controversial or tenacious. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Me neither, for the record. I often have differences in opinions with Greyhood, especially concerning contemporary Russian politics, but I have never seen him edit-warring or replacing reliable sources with junk sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've had only positive experiences with Greyhood at ITN. Boomerang might be spinning round… —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I looked at the diff you posted on Greyhood's talk page. I could not understand what you were objecting to. Perhaps if you explained to him on his/her talk page what it was that you objected to, it would give him/her the chance to explain. He/she does not bite. If you deal with him/her reasonably you will find that he/she is willing to compromise when he/she understands your objections (assuming your objections are reasonable and are backed by reliable sources). Sources need to be reliable sources. It is only the subjects of articles that need to be notable.

As for disputes about other articles, I did not see any edits by User:Wrathofjames to the article on Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video on the list of contributors. After discussion, the article has been stable since 9 April - the editors worked together to build a compromise. User:Wrathofjames's claims about User:Greyhood and that article assume bad faith. That is not OK. Other editors would not have spent their precious time working with Greyhood on that article if it had been as User:Wrathofjames said. I found Greyhood easy to deal with and willing to compromise.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Re: the link on oil production in Russia. There is no convention that in the Russia article we should prefer CIA over other sources (CIA is mostly a nice collection of country data, but too often outdated). International Energy Agency is in fact a better source, more relevant to the energy stuff and providing more up-to-date reports.
• With Zhirinovsky video, the issues in that article have been long fixed via discussion and collaboration with other users. In Putin, one reference was already present in the section below, and the second reference was excessive since the fact of the oil price rise is already supported by other references. GreyHood ^Talk 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Dale Chock

• Dale Chock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over at Russian phonology, user Dale Chock has been exhibiting a pattern of contentious and even disruptive edits for the last month. On April 6, he removed a paragraph describing a minority viewpoint. From his edit summary ("Delete a report of a maverick, mistake riddled proposal that was ignored by other specialists half a century ago"), it seemed that he mistakenly interpreted the paragraph to be about one source (Bidwell 1962) rather than multiple sources, as reflected in the citations. So I restored the paragraph with a POV-section tag and started a talk page discussion outlining my perspective. At first, Dale declined to contribute to this discussion and instead deleted the content again on April 19 and on April 22, which I restored[9][10] with edit summaries pointing him to the talk page. When he finally contributed to the discussion two weeks after the dispute began, his behavior was inflammatory and rude, saying, "'AE' is pretending he's discussing theory. He has no understanding of the theory of any article he edits on languages or linguistics."

Subsequent to this talk page post, Dale immediately focused his attention on a new round of contentious deletions, specifically of two tables[11][12], which I restored[13][14]. Again, his behavior in the talk page was problematic, not just because of unnecessary rudeness (such as saying "for AEsos to raise this objection only reaffirms his ignorance of even beginning Russian") but because his comments were aimed primarily at discrediting me rather than addressing my points. Focusing on content, not contributors, is a general problem of Dale's.

Even more disruptive, though, is Dale's practice of removing citation requests[15][16][17][18][19] (which I have continually had to restore[20][21][22][23]). Dale has also removed actual citations. In what seems like an attempt to discredit the above tables that he didn't like, he removed the citations that backed them up, citing an apparent error in the page range[24]. However, edits just prior to this show him fixing the same page range error for another claim from the same source[25][26] and even a talk page contribution[27] explicitly shows that he has access to the source and knew the correct page range. Since it's clear that he knew where the tables were, his given reason for removing citations was a blatant case of dishonesty.

I'm not sure what sort of action would be appropriate. I've had issues with him at diasystem and diaphoneme, where his behavior was similar in that he would attempt to delete content and participate with hostility in the discussion page. I had even hoped that a community response from Wikiquette assistance might steer him in the right direction. His response in that conflict was to abandon the articles and put forth a manifesto on his user page where he seems to imply that he views civility to be at odds with concern for article quality. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note restored from archive. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have had similar experiences which can be reviewed at the talkpages of talk:Nahuatl and talk:Otomi language.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Andy Dingley

Please may some attention be given to persistent harassment received from this user

Initial trouble in Wikimedia Commons where Andy Dingley kept reverting my edits instantly using Twinkle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eddaido#WP:3RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eddaido#Attacks_on_other_editors_in_edit_summaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2012_March#re_Samblob

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&diff=next&oldid=484140874

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eddaido#Repeated_attacks_on_other_editors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive117#General_hostility_from_User:Eddaido.2C_with_edit-warring_and_attacks

This is done in the hope it will lead to a full review of the circumstances. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still looking at the information you have provided, but for the sake of clarity, what is the result you are seeking here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this —just an end to their behaviours. Eddaido (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ahem. How is it, Eddaido, that you are not yet blocked for acting like a total jerk? Hounding other editors, being uncivil in edit summaries, removing others' talk page comments? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Heh, I'm trying to understand how any of the diffs Eddaido posted above support his contention or help him at all. Indeed, no doubt Drmies found support for his criticism of Eddaido from Eddaido's diffs. That's worse than WP:BOOMERANG - more like a dog (pun intended) chasing his own tail while looking in the mirror.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• You missed a few

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norah,_Lady_Docker&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mini_%28marque%29&diff=prev&oldid=483972348

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive179#User:Eddaido_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_declined.29

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies has a very valid point and echos my initial concerns. Andy has taken you to a couple of different venues where no action was taken. 3RR I understand why, Wikiquette, I don't. His threshold may be a bit too low, but his concerns are well founded. Eddaido, words mean things, and you seem to have a lack of concern about how your words affect others. Either you lack an understanding of, or willingness to comply with our standards of civility. This is why I asked for clarity, to see how delusional you were in this situation. Fortunately, your answer fills me with hope since you weren't asking for his head on a platter. The problem here is your behavior, not Andy's. It is simply unacceptable to talk down to people and rudely reply to them in this manner. More importantly, you seem like an intelligent person, so surely you know that it isn't effective to persuade others to see your point of view. If you need help to communicate better, ask for help. If you don't immediately change the way you communicate your differences, however, I don't see good things happening to you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention and your time. I am going to be more direct, this may take me some hours. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Over the past six months I have discovered Andy Dingley is very jealous of his accuracy (who isn't?) and doesn't care to recognize his mistakes, very sensitive on that. I fell foul of SamBlob more recently and discovered he was not amenable to rational discussion on talk pages so I stopped responding and watched him devoting himself to setting to work to tackle my edits and I let him run. When he tackled Bentley 8-litre I felt it was time to make the point that he is short on knowledge and equally short of sources. So I rejoiced in correcting his, no doubt good faith, bad edits to Bentley 8-litre and when I had made my points I put in my edit summary the description 'the dogging editor' using upper-case and starred it in case there should be the very smallest chance of it being overlooked - though it was apparently - by him and I saw this as a clear admission of guilt. Am I wrong? Thereafter I again let him run, all through the articles I had recently edited. I made occasional reverts in case he thought I was not looking. I too am mystified that Andy Dingley could do no more than his warnings (ignored) and finally a complaint on Etiquette. But you see there is a particular synchronicity between editors. SamBlob even sailed into the 16th and 18th centuries just for me.

So my complaint is long-running Wikihounding and contentious edits and notes of citations required made by SamBlob supported by Andy Dingley. Should I quote the diffs for the long blocks of SamBlob's edits concerned - their enthusiasm corresponds neatly with Andy Dingley's pronouncements etc.

Eddaido (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas and User:Anupam

Hello, I am writing here to inform the reviewing administrator of a threat made against me here by Viriditas (talk · contribs). This individual has followed me to several articles in the last few months where he has not been an editor, including Big Bang, as well as recently Effects of cannabis. In addition, this individual has unfairly placed warnings on my talk page, stating that I have "plagiarised" material (Exhibit One, Exhibit Two), despite the fact that I always provide a source for my additions. User:Viriditas has been warned by other editors that his accusations are incorrect, but he still persists. In addition, the individual in question stated that I improperly used the rollback feature, despite the fact that I reverted my use of rollback because I accidentally clicked the rollback button and could not stop the rollback in time (I was informed that rollback is to be only used for vandalism on 22 April). I understand that User:Viriditas might be a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, but I think it is in the best interest of both of us that an interaction ban be set between us. I have tried several times to discuss issues with this user nicely but he is always hostile to me in his comments and replies. Thank you for taking the time to read this message and consider my request. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that none of that is true, Anupam. I have not followed you anywhere; if anything, your recent edits to the cannabis topic was a form of baiting on your part, as I was active on the talk page right before you showed up to disrupt the article with the same plagiarism you were previously warned about in regards to the Big Bang related set of articles. In other words, you were hounding and baiting me with more of the same policy violating edits, and I think you deserve a long block for it. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be an attempt by Anupam to "head 'em off at the pass", as Viriditas notified Anupam that he would be filing an ANI report less than half an hour prior to Anupam's report: [28] aprock (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam mentions in his comment to which Viriditas replies that he was planning on seeking an interaction ban and I'm guessing that he just wanted to deal with the situation and so decided to escalate. I don't think he is the type of editor who thinks in terms of "heading them off at the pass." I've disagreed with Anupam a lot, actually I can't think of a time where I agreed, but one thing I can say about him is that he has always maintained civility and acted in good faith. I would be surprised if it was different here. Not commenting on the case in general, just wanted to throw this in. SÆdon^talk 04:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anupam pulled the exact same stunt against me: I notify: 06:28, 27 September 2011, he preemptively files 07:12, 27 September 2011. Given his history of disruptive editing, there is little reason to assume good faith here. aprock (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A review of Viriditas' edits shows that he has indeed been following Anupam around for months. And V has been warned. Does it rise to a level of WP:HOUND? Before Viriditas can be blocked, there would have to be a showing that Anupam's enjoyment of editing has been adversely affected. While it is obvious that V is following Anupam, Anupam has not shown "distress." If Anupam has evidence that he has been distressed, then V should be blocked. In the meantime we should move to put in place a I-ban.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"A review of Viriditas' edits shows that he has indeed been following Anupam around for months."'

• Hardly : Viriditas↔Anupam. 

"And V has been warned."

• By? Diff?

"Does it rise to a level of WP:HOUND? ... While it is obvious that V is following Anupam, Anupam has not shown "distress." If Anupam has evidence that he has been distressed, then V should be blocked."

• Try reading this part of WP:HOUND again "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." (i.e. just to be a dick.)

With all due respect Counselor, this sounds a lot like you jumping to Anupam's defense with little or no supporting policy or evidence (and not for the first time Anupam↔Lionelt). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how Anupam has managed to escape being blocked with their combative style of editing and their filing ANI grievances that never come to anything. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(I wanted to post this on Anupam's page rather than here, but he removed the thread there). I can't speak to the mutual charges of hounding (in particular, I've been unable to figure out what incident "I commented on the talk page and then you showed up to edit" was meant to refer to). About the plagiarism issue: first, I must note that in the cited instance of Gandalf61's objections against Viriditas' earlier warnings [29] I'm with Viriditas. Plagiarism applies not just to the appropriation of ideas and thoughts, but also to the appropriation of their expression. When somebody literally copies a substantial piece of text and then adds a footnote to the source, the footnote alone only tells the reader that the facts are taken from that source, but not that the literal expression is taken from it too. Thus, the use of the literal expression remains unattributed and hence may constitute plagiarism. Applying this to the "cannabis" edits at question here [30], we have a borderline case: taking over a literal passage without marking it as a quotation, adding a footnote, and then repeating the original literal text as an explicit quote inside the footnote, may be seen as narrowly escaping the plagiarism charge. It is, however, very poor academic writing. What's so difficult about writing a proper paraphrase instead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What is difficult about it, is that Anupam refuses to do it. He is a serial plagiarizer. Simply look at his most recent contributions to Conservapedia.[31] They are all copy and paste jobs taken directly from books, without any quotations or attributions.Here is a recent edit where he plagiarized p. 70 in Kinnear 2011. He continues to do this on Wikipedia after being asked to stop. I don't see this as "borderline", it is his primary editing style and he refuses to stop. How many contributions has he made to Wikipedia that consist of nothing but copy and paste jobs without quotes or attribution? Yes, he adds citations, but the content is not his own nor clearly marked as that of another author. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a previous incident with Anupam in mid-February, which led to the proposal of a topic ban at WP:AN (for Anupam and Lionelt, commenting above). That report does not seem to have been archived properly, so here is a historic link.[32] Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How has anupam avoided a block for their long-term civil pov-pushing? (And apparent sockpuppetry last year) bobrayner (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner, you have accused me of sockpuppetry two times for two different users (one being an SPA, and another being an administrator) and yet, despite me and administrator User:Master of Puppets encouraging you to pursue WP:SPI, you have never done so. I would highly appreciate if you could please stop making baseless accusations when you have not even pursued the proper venue for your claims. Once again, please do not try to frame me; if you have legitimate concerns, pursue them at the proper department. I will provide you with a quote that might help you understand why I feel so hurt when you speak this way of me: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” ~Warren Buffet I hope you understand my concerns. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we please deal with your accusations against me, first? You say I followed you to several articles, most recently effects of cannabis. Do you have any evidence? Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, viriditas, for distracting from the current problem. I agree that it should be dealt with. However, pre-emptive attack is nothing new here.

In response to anupam: I posted a very large collection of deeply suspicious diffs surrounding the Militant Atheism article. They were removed repeatedly. Other dissent with anupam's position was also shut down (although thankfully the community has now prevailed and the awful pov-pushing content has been removed). At that time, I was quite convinced that if I raised an SPI, that too would be shut down promptly; and I was very stressed due to the pov-pushing and the messages I was getting, so I didn't push the point any further. Would you like me to present the evidence again here? it seems like an appropriate venue. I'd be happy to offer a big stack of diffs for which sockpuppetry is the only sane explanation. Of course, if you could offer some alternative explanation, that would be welcome too. Calling them baseless accusations is just another lie; just another pre-emptive attack against somebody who has evidence of long-term problematic editing. bobrayner (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, have you looked closely at the diffs to see if the content was copied directly from cited sources without quotes or attribution? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree; there does seem to be very liberal copying of text. (Sorry for the derail; my main concern was about pov-pushing, and sock-puppetry and canvassing to further that pov-pushing rather than the plagiarism per se) bobrayner (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Another issue: even after the problem was pointed out to him earlier in March,[33] Anupam is continuing to import non-neutral, polemical Conservapedia content into Wikipedia in extremely sneaky ways. For example, on April 11, Anupam copied content from Conservapedia's Atheism and health article and added it to Wikipedia's article on Religion.[34] This content was plagiarized from the Mayo Clinic without any inline quotes or attribution. On the same day, he again copied content from Conservapedia's Atheism and health article, but this time rewrote it, and added it to the Wikipedia article on Suicide.[35] Along with the previously mentioned problems with copying and pasting unquoted and unattributed material, the problem of Anupam continuing to add Conservapedia content to Wikipedia has not yet been addressed. The pattern that I've observed over several months appears to be obvious. When Anupam copies over Conservapedia content to a single article on Wikipedia, it generally gets deleted and his edits are reverted. However, he has discovered a way around this problem. Instead of copying over the entire article, what he has been doing instead is copying over small sentences and paragraphs, and then distributing (merging) Conservapedia's content to multiple articles so as not to draw any attention. In this way, the content which would otherwise not be appropriate for Wikipedia on a single article or topic is preserved by placing it in many different articles and topics in smaller chunks so as not to attract attention, and amounts to a sneaky method of proselytizing. This is what he did when he added off-topic material about "atheism and the suppression of science" from Conservapedia to Wikipedia. It was deleted, but Anupam salvaged it when nobody was looking by adding it in small chunks to religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• More recent plagiarism in creation and evolution in public education in the United States.[36] Anupam writes: "Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory." The source (Discovery Institute) writes: "Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation protecting the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory."[37] Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There's compelling evidence in this thread that Anupam has problems with plagiarism/copyright violation and if this doesn't stop immediately he should be blocked. Because of his plagiarism, and because of the POV-pushing that Viriditas documents above, I find the charges of stalking unpersuasive—Anupam clearly needs to be monitored, and any problematic edits he made need to be ameliorated or eliminated. So if Viriditas has been checking regularly on Anupam's edits, that's a good thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that Anupam is either unaware of or unwilling to respect the differences in goals and standards between Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Much of his editing gives the impression of searching for increasingly roundabout ways to import Conservapedia content onto Wikipedia.

His use of sources also seems ideologically driven in the extreme; the content about suicide and atheism is a classic illustration. The cited source states that "atheist" countries are "the healthiest and wealthiest nations on Earth", and that a country's level of atheism is correlated with higher development, lower infant mortality, less poverty, fewer homicides, and greater gender equality. The only metric by which atheist countries fare worse than "religious" countries is suicide rate. The authors conclude:

In sum, with the exception of suicide, countries marked by high levels of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on Earth, while societies characterized by nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most unhealthy.

How does Anupam use that source? By going to suicide and prominently linking it to atheism. Note that while the source clearly correlates atheism with societal health, Anupam cherry-picks the one isolated factoid which correlates atheism with societal dysfunction and presents it in isolation. Note the cherry-picked quote in the footnote.

That's textbook: he's mining these sources to advance his personal viewpoint, rather than respecting the actual content and context of the source and presenting it appropriately. For another example of questionable use of sources, see this thread, where I presented my concerns in table form. Because Anupam is unfailingly civil, I doubt that his ideologically driven editing or questionable use of sources will ever result in sanctions. Certainly his civility has so far trumped all content-related concerns, as is typically the case here, but still. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• We need much better tools to combat this exact kind of intellectually dishonest but civil pov pushing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand quite well the difference between the standards in Conservapedia and Wikipedia, the former favouring a conservative point of view in its articles, and the latter favouring a neutral point of view. The sources I place in articles are academic sources and I always provide the original quotation upon which I base my writing. If one looks at the talk page on the Religion article, one can note that there are comments stating that the article seems to focus on the criticism of religion; adding a statement on the positive health benefits of religion, supported by a reference from the Mayo Clinic, is not POV pushing, it is adding valuable information to the article. Contrary to what User:Viriditas stated, I did attribute the quotation and even placed the quote parameter around the information I added (verify). Similarly, with the study on atheism, the source is from the The Cambridge Companion to Atheism and it states:

Concerning suicide rates, religious nations fare better than secular nations. According to the World Health Organization's report on international male suicide rates, of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. Of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

This is the information that I inserted in the article? I am not sure why that is POV pushing? User:MastCell, I understand that there were other conclusions about atheism in that reference but why are they relevant to an article on Suicide? I would appreciate if you pleased assumed good faith here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrator User:Akhilleus, thank your for your comments here. I see that you have written that you do see problems with plagiarism in my work at Wikipedia. I want to take the time to humbly apologize before you and others here, including User:Viriditas, for doing so. I stand corrected and am sorry for my actions. This was never my intention, as I only desired to make a summary of the references I used, in order to meet WP:V. I never realized that my work constituted plagiarism. I firmly commit to using my quotation parameters and paraphrasing the content more than I have before. In light of these events, I will be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while. I hope you all have a nice day. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In this edit Anupam clearly demonstrates an inability to see how his editing of the Suicide article represents cherry picking. While Anupam claims to understand that Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral source of information, his inability to recognize his own POV pushing is very problematic. While he may be editing in good faith in an attempt to edit neutrally, this clearly demonstrates that he is not capable of doing such. Given that he cannot even recognize his disruptive editing, apologies are not going to solve the problem. Given how long this disruptive editing has been going on, with no improvement despite dozens of apologies, I think it's time to reflect on this editors role in the project. aprock (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the apology is very polite, but fails to address the important issue of biased editing. Given that this user has been here since 2006 and has a history of problematic editing (as has been shown in this thread), I'm not optimistic that he's going to alter his ways now. Perhaps we should discuss a topic ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand. Every one of my edits uses a reliable source and contains verifiable information. If there is ever a content dispute, I discuss the issue on the talk page and open up an RfC to gain input from the community. I always accept the decision of the community no matter what. I was very sincere in my apology and I do not think this will be necessary. It would be very devastating to me to be banned from articles of my interest, especially when I have been polite and willing to discuss my contributions. I would appreciate if you could please reconsider your comment. I would highly appreciate it. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Using a reliable source is not enough when you use it to say the opposite of what is clearly the authors intention when read in context. Selectively quoting information in the way you have done is intellectually dishonest whether or not it is done on purpose. You must understand that if you wish to edit neutrally. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, boy. Having read through this thread and gone over all the diffs I see we have a real problem here. The plagiarism is obviously a major issue, but now that we know about it we can simply enforce Anupam's future avoidance of plagiarism with escalating blocks. The wider issue is the civil POV-pushing. I guess we could consider a topic-ban, but the major problem I see with this is selecting a topic. Religion? Science? Topics that would conventionally be of interest to someone who edits Conservapedia? I guess the latter, but good luck defining it. We could community ban, and I wouldn't be unhappy with such at outcome at all, but it seems a shade harsh right now and I don't think it would get consensus anyway ATM.

• Perhaps some kind of probation and custom-tailored editing restriction? I guess we could form some kind of collective mentorship agreement, whereby a group of sysops get together to monitor Anupam, have the authority to impose blocks/bans/further restrictions on him, and who he can come to for advice? I guess the question with this is whether we'll get enough out of it to be worth the time.

• The other problem is we're not quite sure whether or not he has been socking and generally editing in bad faith. If he has been then we should probably default to community ban right now. Perhaps bobrayner could post the diffs and we can have a look and try to put the pieces of the puzzle together, or send them off for checkuser. Best, Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Moreschi, I would be happy to have a group of administrators monitor me and let me know if I have problems with my edits. Once again, any time there has ever been a dispute, I take the time to discuss it with others, and start and RfC to gain wider input. I always accept community consensus on the issue. I would be glad to work with a group of sysops on articles. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• From recent experience on Atheism it is apparent he is a (mostly) civil POV pusher. He tried to insert a cherry picked single analysis (it wasn't actually a study) which suited his POV to try and offset a meta-analysis of no less than 43 studies, 39 of which favoured the opposite conclusion (on religion and intelligence correlations). (There are many more in the literature too) Promptly another editor reverted the addition, asking him to take it to the talk page. Anupam reverted this editor twice: [38] even though being asked to specifically gain consensus. Then user User:Justice007 jumped in to Anupam's rescue with two more reverts with the comment of "What is than WP:NPOV ??." [39] [40]. (I note that Justice007 made no constructive comments beyond being borderline incoherent: [41][42]). Even though it was obvious that a single study had no due weight beside a meta-analysis. Anupam tried to justify including an uncited paper by citing, amongst others, the daily mail and "Christian Post", I think it's clear to any wikipedia editor that these won't help give it due weight. Anupam also hid the daily mail behind a link naming it as "The Telegraph": [43]. Here is the discussion: Talk:Atheism#Study. After only 8 and a half hours after his first comment he started an RfC (aren't RfC's meant to be discussed before being started?); this seems extremely premature to me in any discussion. During the RfC Anupam appeared to have decided that a particular adminstrator would close the RfC although it seems he was not aware of this promise: User_talk:Kuru#RfC_at_Atheism. Anupam also appears to not have grasped basic guidelines and policies, when i quoted WP:N verbatim [44], he replied with "I respect your opinion, but disagree with it" [45]. I find it very hard to believe that an editor with 15 thousand edits confuses notability with due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have created numerous articles here on Wikipedia and have helped many editors out, in addition to improving the quality of several articles here. I do not appreciate the misrepresentation of my desire to discuss with other editors and conduct an RfC to gain input from the community. For example, stating that I intentionally labelled a Daily Mail article as an article from The Telegraph, despite the fact that I thanked User:IRWolfie for pointing out the error, is wrong and a clear attempt to defame me. I have been polite and respectful to everyone and am hurt by the lack of compassion and understanding here. If you or any of the others start a process to "topic ban" me, I would rather quit editing Wikipedia and retire instead. So please let me know if you follow through and I will be gone. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I said you were a civil POV pusher (the mostly was for the edit warring). Your thanks is fully consistent with being a civil POV pusher. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest moving toward starting up a topic ban discussion on AN. There seems to be some consensus that your editing has been disruptive and tendentious, both from this discussion and earlier ones. I have to concur, but think that it is no longer productive to discuss the matter here on ANI instead of discussing an actual topic ban on AN. In fact, the only thing holding me back is that there is no clear picture of what your topic ban should entail. I'm thinking an indefinite ban on all topics related to religion/atheism and controversial social and political issues, very broadly construed? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't think we can take Anupam's apology at face value. e.g. in the Kashmir article he had copy-pasted whole scale from sources and was informed of this issue on July 7 2011 when the content was removed (July 7). He did not respond to the warning, instead, he goes in adds it back to the article after a month (Aug 7). After a month, quite obviously copyvio cleaners aren't watching the article as they deal with way too many, so this one has now stood within the article until now. This is highly irresponsible behavior from someone and these sugar laced apologies do not justify it. —SpacemanSpiff 04:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Threats to quit aren't constructive either, and more importantly aren't binding. If a topic ban is to be initiated then that should happen regardless of whether Anupam sticks a {{retired}} up this week or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy collection of old diffs, just for background information about an earlier period of problematic editing

As requested by Moreschi. I compiled this list after other people raised concerns about sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. This is a complete biography of turnsalso's life as an SPA on Militant Atheism. There are other SPAs; we may discuss those later, if you wish. 21:00, 27 June Turnsalso account is created at a time when anupam really needs support; somebody else has proposed splitting up anupam's essay. 21:37, 27 June Turnsalso turns their userpage link from red to blue. 22:05, 27 June Turnsalso !votes "Keep; oppose split", just as Anupam had. It's their first ever talkspace edit, but nonetheless Turnsalso has a precocious understanding of wikipedia markup and policy. and does so in an edit only 5 minutes from an anupam edit. I wish I'd known how to do piped links to policy pages the first time I used a talkpage! 22:14, 27 June After that single edit, Anupam swiftly finds the new user and turns their red talkpage link blue, though they have not extedned that courtesy to any other users in the last year. In only an hour, Turnsalso has got bluelinks and looks like a bona fide editor! (When I was a newbie, it took far longer) The proposal was subsequently closed as "no consensus" by Fountainviewkid, whose pov-pushing on christian subjects earned a barnstar from lionel but warnings and blocks from the rest of the community. 01:35, 6 July Turnsalso starts their second talkpage session: Opposing reforms suggested by Dannyno / Liberal Classic. Anupam, coincidentally, holds the same opinion. This new editor confidently cites lots of policies - the same ones used by Anupam. It's not obvious because they don't edit in the same places, but anupam edits and turnsalso edits are typically about 2 minutes apart in this editing session. 03:22, 13 July Anupam adds the Burkeman ref. JimWae makes some changes. 08:07, 13 July Apparently dissatisfied with JimWae's changes, Anupam adds the Burkeman ref back in a second time. (There are now two refs in close proximity using the same long quote) 08:29, 13 July Anupam reverts the distinctive double Burkeman ref back into the article. 18:07, 13 July Turnsalso makes their first edit to the article itself; there have been a number of different changes in the meantime, but Turnsalso surprisingly reaches back into the article history to perform exactly the same revert that anupam did. 18:49, 13 July Turnsalso returns to the talkpage making a similar argument to Anupam. One minute after that, Anupam edits the article, then a few minutes later Anupam adds a comment below Turnsalso. 19:40, 13 July Anupam makes a controversial revert; adding swathes of disputed text back into the article - and removing an NPOV tag amid a controversy over NPOV. 20:03, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert. 20:16, 13 July Anupam repeats this controversial revert again, and is now on the 3RR threshold. 18:21, 14 July Anupam creates a separate section demanding that Man jess revert certain other edits. 18:29, 14 July Anupam's habit of reverting is causing some strife on the talkpage. With perfect timing, Turnsalso is here to help, saying that they will "revert until the issue is settled". 18:32 14 July Turnsalso comes to the rescue again! Their second edit to the article is a revert to anupam's preferred version - despite the fact that there have been several intervening edits. 18:36, 14 July Turnsalso now goes to the new separate section created by anupam, and seconds their proposal that man jess revert, a mere 15 minutes after it was made. Others are not so keen to support. Turnsalso's edit timestamps continue to coincide closely with anupam's timestamps. 14:14, 15 July Another editor raises concerns about sockpuppetry. 17:47, 15 July For turnsalso, reverting man jess' edits is more important than dealing with sockpuppetry concerns. 18:01, 15 July Turnsalso opposes reforms proposed by Peter S Strempel. 20:19, 15 July Turnsalso turns up to support Anupam on the Man Jess thing. Apologises for being late to arrive - less than an hour after anupam's comment (though anupam has been editing elsewhere in that interval). 03:25, 20 July Turnsalso is back on the talkpage, supporting anupam. There's a slightly larger gap here, with an hour and a half between anupam's and turnsalso's edits, which is very high by their standards but would be rather low if you'd compared two random unrelated editors. Abhishikt and peaceloveharmony propose a new lede without all the usual stuff that anupam wants. Needless to say, anupam opposes. Turnsalso dutifully opposes a little later. 20:49, 26 July: Anupam makes an alternate proposal for the lede which is basically the same thing that anupam has kept in their lede all along. Just to make the votes clear, they add an extra support of their own beneath it. Unfortunately, the votes don't go how anupam would like; [46] 15 minutes after the fourth oppose, turnsalso arrives to support anupam. 23:43, 18 August Turnsalso's directly support's anupam's quest to add in multiple refs, as though many trivial mentions make a grand concept. Just as with anupam, WP:V is used repeatedly; who cares about NPOV or synth? Anupam cites a contrived "consensus" and, supposedly, administrative support for keeping anupam's preferred wording All those people who disagree should keep quiet because anupam has The Consensus. A few minutes later, turnsalso arrives to provide unflinching support for the "consensus". As usual, anupam's and turnsalso's editing sessions overlap, and edits are separated by a few minutes. IRWolfie points out an obvious synth problem. An uninvolved editor agrees. Anupam defends their preferred wording. 16 minutes later, Turnsalso is there to support anupam. 19:33, 25 August After JimWae makes a series of suggestions, turnsalso disagrees with each point in turn, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution. Anupam then arrives, disagreeing with each of jimWae's points, apart from a trivial little concession on the name of the Cultural Revolution. Anupam makes another proposal for the lede, and again adds their own support vote. When support from others starts to waver, Turnsalso is on hand to help! Only half an hour after the first oppose, turnsalso supports. 21:04 25 August Caught out, turnsalso concedes that there might actually be different flavours of militant atheism which do different things, but insists that they're conceptually related; anupam would be proud. 23:27, 12 September Turnsalso defends anupam's article against yet another person's concerns of pov-pushing and synth. Also refers to administrative declarations on content (but only when they favour the status quo; other admins in the discussion are not mentioned), which is a rather quirky interpretation of policy shared only by anupam. 16:06, 16 September Two minutes after anupam's last edit, turnsalso supports anupam against concerns raised by JimWae. 18:01, 17 September Turnsalso's third edit to the article; removing an unsourced word. 02:25, 20 September 190.92.44.9 makes exactly the same revert that Anupam has made. The revert is repeated at 02:47 and 02:53. This IP address has never edited any other article but nonetheless helps anupam escape the clutches of 3RR. 05:46, 20 September: 190.53.90.122 makes exactly the same revert. Again, this IP has never edited any other article. Anupam is very lucky that anonymous editors have appeared from thin air to pretend anupam's preferred version of the article against the hordes of dissenters. Anupam repeatedly praises these editwarring IPs as two additional voices in anupam's support - always pretending that they are completely new people, rather than an existing editor who's logged out to avoid 3RR. 16:31, 20 September turnsalso supports Anupam's (and the IP address') reverts, for the same reason. 16:59, 20 September bobrayner creates a new section raising concerns about sockpuppetry. 40 minutes after turnsalso's last edit in their support, anupam appears to acknowledge the section about sockpuppetry, but then removes the heading, and bizarrely refactors other people's comments to bury the concerns in the middle of a busy thread on a different subject (although anupam's edit summary acknowledges it's a different subject) where the concerns would get much less attention. Needless to say, nobody else replies to this after it's been buried. 18:51, 20 September Turnsalso offers a "compromise" which is actually in line with anupam's previous position. Turnsalso's editing session coincides with that of anupam, who made an edit 1 minute earlier. 19:04, 20 September Anupam graciously accepts the compromise offered by turnsalso; it's only 5 minutes since turnsalso's last edit. 20:06, 21 September Turnsalso opposes the latest proposal, 18 minutes after anupam's lengthy opposition. As usual, editing sessions overlap. There are a handful other relevant diffs which I omitted for lack of time. For instance, the edits where turnsalso went to the talkpage of anupam's preferred administrator, to ask for their intervention, although turnsalso had never interacted with that admin before. To conclude: When anupam approached 3RR on the article, somebody else was always there to help - either turnsalso or a mysterious IP address steps in to make exactly the same revert. When anupam was in trouble on the talkpage, Turnsalso suddenly appeared to provide support votes when they're most needed. The editing times show a series of remarkable coincidences. Immediately after I raised concerns about sockpuppetry, Turnsalso stopped editing. The account has been abandoned; but it wasn't the first SPA which only edited in support of Anupam, and I doubt it'll be the last.

I shouldn't have to dig this up again, but claims that anupam made in this thread are totally incompatible with the available evidence. bobrayner (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, in your opinion, does this look like the work of a fanatical hobbyist with too much time on his hands, or a paid editor working on behalf of a special interest group? I ask, because when one talks about job losses and unemployment, the word "devastating" is used quite a bit. Up above, Anupum said, "It would be very devastating to me to be banned from articles of my interest..." I found that wording very unusual, as in normal discourse, the use of that word is associated with the loss of one's paid profession.[47] I also find much of Anupam's so-called civility to be more artificial than natural in tone. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to guess whether this kind of editing is driven by personal interest or pay. That's a whole new can of worms and - though I respect you as an editor - I think it could distract from the main problem; bad editing is bad editing, regardless of what motivates it. Civility of long-term problematic editors could be viewed simply as an evolutionary artefact; if an editor pov-pushes and is rude/abrasive, they are strongly selected against in our current ecosystem, whilst somebody who pov-pushes and says "please" and "thankyou" is much more likely to survive each AN/I thread unscathed. bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, let's not go down this road. Viriditas' speculation about things being "devastating" is less than convincing. Viriditas, please don't sideline the discussion with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I think speculating on whether or not an editor is paid is pointless. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a lot of coincidences. Well, I've been through the diffs Bob posted and I'm fairly well convinced that Turnalso is a sock/meatpuppet of Anupam, but what do others think on this one? Bob, you mentioned other SPA accounts - would you mind listing them here? Don't bother doing diff-by-diff analysis for these if you have better things to be doing, we can probably work through them ourselves. Moreschi (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Anupum has definitely been prone to plagiarism and at the very least of inadequate or misleading sourcing. I've pulled him up on it several times in the last couple of years (eg https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Militant_atheism/Archive_3#Quoted_material_not_in_quote_marks), so his claim here that he "didn't realise" is not credible. I can't speak to the other allegations. --143.52.87.123 (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have participated in some RfCs initiated by Anupam, and as far as I saw, he behaved the way he claims, contributing in a civil manner to discussions, and not contesting their outcome. There were obviously disagreements during these discussions, but this happens in most disputes requiring a RfC. While I do not deny that Anupam has done some obvious mistakes previously, I nonetheless think there has been too much bad faith assumed about his actions, and a permanent topic ban looks far too harsh in my opinion, especially for someone who contributed on many articles, as well as writting new ones. I think Moreschi's suggestion, to have Anupam monitored by a group of administrators, could be a more constructive solution. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Cody7777777, did somebody tell you to come here? Were you emailed or was there a message on another site somewhere? After all the concerns about canvassing, I'm surprised to see an editor come to this thread to defend anupam despite being semi-retired, with no talkpage notification, and having edited eight articles in the last six months. bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reached this discussion through Wikipedia_talk:Christianity_noticeboard#User_attrition (that page is on my watchlist), which led me to User_talk:Anupam#Notice (where I saw the link to this discussion). Since I have observed Anupam's behaviour durging these RfCs, I thought could comment here about them. I do not see anything wrong with that. And to be honest, I I would also have been curious to know how some other users (who support Anupam's banning) have reached this discussion. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been involved with Anumpam on a number of articles over the past year, and this sort of behavior comes up every time. He clearly has an ideological goal to motivate his editing here, and it is clearly disparate to the aims of wikipedia. He plagiarizes. He exhibits disruptive IDHT behavior. He cherry picks sources, claims sources say things they don't, and uses sources to support controversial statements which are entirely irrelevant. He lies about previous editors actions, consensus, article content, and sourcing in the presumed hope that editors unfamiliar with the history will take his word. Most infuriatingly, however, every time he gets stuck in a rut, there is a sudden influx of editors who rush in to support him. It's funny, because I was planning to mention Cody777, only to find he'd commented just before I hit edit. Check his contrib history - at least half of his edits in the past year have been to articles involving Anupam. All of them have been articles he wasn't involved with previously (Big Bang, Atheism, Militant Atheism, MOP's talk, here). Anupam has a posse of editors, like Cody, Lionel and Turnsalso, who pop in to support him in contentious issues, which includes disruptive POV pushing his conservative, religious agenda. There's 5 to 7 others, who I won't name.

A few of his group are great contributers elsewhere, which makes sock-puppetry unlikely. We could file an SPI, but I also don't think Anupam is careless enough to have used multiple accounts from one IP. I think this is a case of meatpuppetry; users are being recruited either through email, personal contact, or a private forum. This behavior is disruptive for numerous reasons, including the often unmentioned issue of editor retention. Anupam has driven me away from numerous areas of the project very directly, and decreased my editing and motiviation to continue editing anywhere. I'm sure I'm not alone. Allowing this behavior to continue drives away productive, actually collaborative editors. That he says "Hope that helps", apologizes without understanding the issues or changing his behavior, threatens to retire to avoid sanctions, or what-have-you, should in no way be taken into account when determining if sanctions should be imposed. I'd like to see this handled, finally... after all the ANI threads, drama and disruption, we need to deal with this and move on. Can someone post a formal request for sanctions (whatever those may be) here or at AN? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to assume any bad faith, but in my opinion this is beginning to look like some sort of witch hunt. Regardless, what you want to believe I have seen his RfCs at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy.

Regarding the "Militant Atheism" article, I had actually edited on that article's talk page as early as february 2010, before Anupam even started to edit on it.

Most of my interaction with Anupam began during the 2011 "Militant Atheism" debates, where we shared similar views (but as I already said, I was interested in that article from an earlier date). Regarding, the other two RfCs about Big Bang, and Atheism, I do not deny that I might had also been influenced by the fact that there were some people involved (on both sides) who also participated the previous "Militant Atheism" debates, but I have not entered those debates just to add more !votes, most the time I tried to search for sources related to these respective topics, to help their improvement. For example, you can check my comments from the Big Bang RfCs[48][49]. But regarding the RfC on "Atheism", I admit I was unable to do any serious contribution, despite my initial hopes.Cody7777777 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out to the administrators that many of the individuals here who wish to censure me participated in this RfC and took a position different than myself in the content dispute. There was a legitimate position who voted to keep the article intact, which is being underrepresented here. I would kindly ask the administrators to please look at this RfC and realize that some of the individuals at this ANI thread have taken a position in a content dispute, in which I took the opposite position. Yes, I did not use any sockpuppets and I have yet to see an actual checkuser performed to verify that I am not any of the SPAs (which participated in both sides of the content dispute). For example, Jkhwiki (talk · contribs), Obhave (talk · contribs), Runirokk (talk · contribs), Devilishlyhandsome (talk · contribs), et. al are single purpose accounts who took the same position as Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs), Mann jess (talk · contribs), and ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs). At the same time, there were SPAs that voted to keep the article, including Jacob800 (talk · contribs), Turnsalso (talk · contribs), Troisprenoms (talk · contribs), Jwaxman1 (talk · contribs), etc. User:Mann jess is quick to say that User:Cody7777777 appeared at the Big Bang RfC, which was listed at WP:XNB and the Religion and Philosophy RfC list, but denies the fact that his compatriots here, User:IRWolfie-, User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:ArtifexMayhem, along with himself (User:Mann jess) all magically showed up at the article, picking the exact same Draft, and yet, are the same users who are working together to censure me. Individuals, such as User:Dominus Vobisdu hope to remove me from editing articles so that they can censor information in articles to fit their interpretation, such as this recent edit. Once again, please consider this before making any decisions. It is very unfair that one group of editors target me and try to ban me for holding different views than them. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thankyou for remaining superficially civil. However, you have repeatedly lied, misrepresented sources, plagiarised, ballot-stuffed, and generally cheated - whatever it takes to push your message. You have got away with it for a long time but that kind of editing has no place on en.wikipedia. This crusade is a net negative to the encyclopædia. Essays like Militant Atheism may be welcome on conservapedia, but not here, because en.wikipedia requires truthfulness and neutrality. Some good editors have been driven away; others have wasted many hours trying to mitigate the pov-pushing. Since you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge or fix the problem - and instead have the chutzpah to pretend that there's a conspiracy against you - I think it's time to propose a topic ban. The last time this was tried, the thread was shut down 2 hours later; I hope that won't happen again. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

As a result of the long-term pov-pushing problem - including plagiarism, misuse of sources, deception, sockpuppetry, and so on - I propose that anupam is topic-banned from editing on atheism or religion, broadly construed. Alas, this seems to be the best solution to a long-term problem, because other attempts to help anupam edit honestly have failed.

• Support as proposer. bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Blanket removals of refs as "Not RS per RSN" (Moved from WP:RS/N)

I raised this yesterday as I see it as a broad issue for WP:RS cleanup and certainly not an issue with any particular editor. However it was closed there as an "Editor conduct issue" and a move to WP:ANI suggested.

User:Fladrif and blanket removal as "Not RS per RSN"

Fladrif (talk · contribs) is blanket removing sources from a large range of articles. thepeerage.com is one, spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk another.

Without any personal comment on Fladrif, I have a basic distrust of any crusade edits like this. Human editors are needed to be editors, exercising some sort of executive judgement. This blanket removal is the sort of change that could be carried out by a very small Perl script. If it's really required, then it's required - but that's only in the very worst cases, such as outright spam. In particular, this run of edits (based on the unrelated dimension of a host site) inevitably crosses many disciplines of content knowledge. Personally I just edit the stuff that I know about and I stay the hell away from anything else. Problems arise otherwise.

There is no attempt here to find other sourcing for a statement. As the end result of these is to turn a statement with a less than perfect source to one with no source at all, I'm finding it hard to see an overall benefit.

I also find this absolutely strict imposal of "Not RS per RSN, therefore immediate removal of the ref" to be simplistic.

One risk is that content that is entirely uncontroversial finds itself dereferenced (when in fact there are many, many sources for the same information) and then that information is in turn removed. Given the interminable WP problem of editors looking for adminishtrivia that can be done, rather than things that ought to be done, the likelihood is that we eventually lose content and articles for no good reason.

Is this an appropriate blanket edit to be performing? What are the set of sites that should be purged absolutely like this? Is that list visible and appropriate? Is this the best, or even an acceptable, editing action to be taking in this volume? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been extensive and definitive discussions about these sources. They are self-published sources written by amateurs who are not established experts, and have never been published by reputable, third party publications within the scope of the relevant subject matter. The clear and unequivocal consensus is that they are not reliable sources and should not be used as references; at most they can be listed as External Links. After that process is completed, one can hardly be heard to object to the removal of references to such sources; those that are interested in the subject matter will indeed need to find sources that do qualify as reliable sources lest, at some point in time, the material be deleted for lack of verifiable support. There are literally tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia, most of them written several years ago when it was not nearly as vigilant about sourcing, that rely heavily, if not exclusively, on online, self-published amateur websites specifically determined at WP:RSN not to be proper sources that are more convenient than actually going to a library for sources that actually qualify as reliable sources. If there are such sources, then find them and insert them as appropriate. Asserting that WP:RS and WP:V should be ignored in the meanwhile to permit sourcing to such sites notwithstanding determination at WP:RSN that they cannot be used as sources simply because "a poor source is better than no source" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise these policies are meaningless. Fladrif (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

100% agree that thepeerage.com is not a WP:RS and agree with actions to remove the cites to thepeerage.com from articles, especially from WP:BLP articles. There have indeed been several discussions about amateur self-published sites like thepeerage.com, please look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_114#thepeerage.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_103#Self-published_royalty_websites. These web sites do not meet WP:RS, plain and simple. These sites may be helpful in doing research, because they sometimes site a genuine WP:RS reliable source for their information, but then the Wikipedia article should cite the WP:RS and not thepeerage.com or other amateur sites like it. Zad68 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No-one is asserting that WP:RS or WP:V should be ignored (nice use of the straw man argument there, and I see that you've already snagged one).

However your actions here, particularly that of removing sources rather than improving them, are contra to WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. It would be better to replace these sources with better ones. It would be better to work so that others might do this, perhaps by tagging the references as unreliable and in need of improvement. Simply removing them blindly is more harmful to the overall encyclopedia than I believe is necessary. In particular (and this happens with every crusade like this) it overwhelms the editor subject or project groups that might work to improve these articles by the sheer rate at which they're removed. It's the wiki equivalent of seagull management - an editor that flies across a series of articles, breaks one aspect of them (if nothing else, it opens them to summary deletion for being unreferenced) and there is no intention of that editor ever fixing the real problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No content was removed, so there is no violation, in either letter or spirit to the subsections of WP:Editing policy cited, and a certain delicious irony to citing an unsourced article in support of this untenable position. Fladrif (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember: information not attributed to a reliable source shouldn't be here in the first place. When Fladrif removes a citation to one of these pages, he's not diminishing the quality of the page, as an unreliable source isn't any better than no source at all. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"information not attributed to a reliable source shouldn't be here in the first place."

Then if that's the strict interpretation, then the information should be removed too. Even if this blanks the article, even if causes prompt deletion of the article. We only rarely do this much, even for BLPs.

I'm not claiming that unsourced information should survive or that un-RS should be used to support it. However how do we get from where we are, to where we ought to be? I don't believe this route of expeditiously removing sources is an appropriate or the most effective way of achieving this. A smart editor would first try to find a way to manage this process so that the best result was achieved. A wiki editor instead favours finding something simple that can be done, doing lots of it, then hiding behind WP:ALLCAPS to justify what they've already done. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If our overriding aim, second only to immortality, is to have no information on Wikipedia that is not attributed to a reliable source, then, as we remove references to unreliable sources, we must at the same time remove any information that by our action becomes totally unsourced. Otherwise -- is Nyttend denying this? mistakenly, I think -- we are lowering the quality of Wikipedia and making our aim unachievable. We will, at the end of the process, have a slightly smaller encyclopedia and we will know even less than before about the source and reliability of the information we haven't yet deleted.

If, of course, we have some other aims as well, we might consider how those other aims are best served before cutting down this forest. I think I'm just saying in another way what Andy has said. Andrew Dalby 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We have two goals here:

The important one is to have RS sourcing on articles.

The secondary one is to remove non-RS sourcing from articles.

It is a mistake to mis-prioritise these, such that removing that non-RS takes over and we're left with nothing instead. My big problem with this bulk removal is that it does the second, but absolutely nothing to either attempt the first, or to encourage others to work on it. Tag these non-RS refs as "unreliable, please improve" by all means - but simply removing them and then halting the process does absolutely nothing to improve our overall situation, re the first and more important goal. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than considering one of your goals primary and one secondary, I consider them to exist concurrently, and I think an argument could be made that unreliable sourcing is worse than no sourcing at all and should be considered a higher priority...editors are less likely to look for RS for something that appears to already be properly sourced, and not all editors may realize when a source is not reliable. In any case, how is progress being halted? Nothing is stopping any editor who is so inclined from providing proper sourcing. Granted the information might be removed for lacking sourcing in the future, but I think most editors would be more inclined to tag it than delete it. Speaking of which, have you asked Fladrif whether they would be willing to tag the information when they remove unreliable sources? Doniago (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not "most editors" that are the problem, but a handful of the "most active editors". Normal editors, those interested in contributing content, just can't keep up. It's always quicker to delete than to add, so eventually WP reaches a dynamic equilibrium - take a look at Land speed record for possibly the worst example. Changing the ratios might push this equilibrium a bit higher, but to be honest my enthusiasm for playing Maxwell's daemon to the regular bunch of teenage admin wannabees is limited. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a facility here, that "all information must be sourced". WP:V's lead states this: It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.. Thus, if the information is non-contentious (read: obvious) but sourced to non-RS sources, the removal of the non-RS citation should not affect the retention of the information.

That said, I'm not seeing an ANI issue here. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We're missing something bigger. The implied policy used to justify the removal behavior does not exist. WP:ver, even strictly read and rigorously implemented is a sourcing requirement for material. There is no prohibition against the presence of references that do not meet wp:rs criteria, just a statement that they do not count towards the material meeting the verifiability requirement. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The notion that it is perfectly acceptable to populate an article with sources definitively determined at WP:RSN to violate the requirements of WP:RS is a non-starter. Such sources should be removed, and that is the routine outcome of most RSN discussions. In BLP's non-RS sources and SPS are mandated to be removed immediately and summarily per WP:BLPREMOVE. The unfortunate circumstance that some sources that should never have been permitted in the first place have been cited hundreds, or thousands of times (over 10,000 times in the case of findagrave.com - the worst example I have found so far), does not change the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V or excuse the use of such sources in violation of those policies.Fladrif (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No-one is "populating an article" with dubious sources. The situation is that we already have such sources, and we ought to decide what the best way is to improve this situation. Nor are these BLPs. Over-hasty removal does not appear to be the best way to proceed. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything "over-hasty" or improper about removing unreliable sources. I do it all the time if the source is, say, IMDb or a wiki. If you have a problem with removing them, do you have ideas for an alternate approach? Doniago (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As with many other "rules" in Wikipedia, the majority of sources in Wikipedia do not comply with a strict interpretation of Wp:RS. That is how Wikipedia works. When someone goes on a unlaterial harsh "enforcement" binge based on a rigorous interpretation of a rule, they are going contrary to that and being destructive. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the sources were previously established to be unreliable, and Fladrif consequently removed the source but left the information intact. I don't see how removing an unreliable source, whether on an indivdual basis or in bulk, qualifies as a 'harsh "enforcement" binge' or "destructive". I'd regard the matter differently if the information itself was being removed, and ideally it would be nice if Fladrif tagged the information, but I don't really understand your apparent view that Fladrif's behavior is disruptive. Doniago (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Genealogical editors have had quite some time to correct their referencing in relation to this matter. The suggestion that outstanding flaws in verification should be let stand after considerable time is an invitation to the creation of walled gardens. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

North8000 this, "There is no prohibition against the presence of references that do not meet wp:rs criteria" is a truly astounding comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As nobody's brought it up yet, might I suggest removing the unreliable source and tagging the information for needing a citation if an editor is unwilling or unable to provide a citation themselves? Doniago (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Who's "the editor" here? This blanket removal doesn't really have an editor, it's just mindless 'bot work, albeit being carried out by a human. That was my first comment - real "editing" involves a human editor prepared to make decisions and choices, including the addition of new sources. None of that is going on here. Nor is this process even moving articles towards the worklists of other editors so that they can fix them instead (although I recognise that I don't have worklists on WP anyway, nor can I hire & fire editors). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If Fladrif is the one removing the unreliable sources, then my approach would have been to gently ask that Fladrif place CN tags in place of the removed refs (while recognizing that Fladrif is not required to do so). Regardless of best or nicest practice, no editor is under any obligation to do research for sources, and IMO while it's reasonable to ask that an editor look for sources...frankly, there aren't many editors here who I would trust to phrase the request in a non-confrontational manner. In short, if you want information included in an article, you should be willing to assume the responsibility for finding sourcing and not get wound up over why another editor has not already done so. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

More informative edit summaries would help. Editor obviously has not considered WP:FIES in their mass removal of allegedly deprecated sources. Leaky Caldron 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I find these sort of edits confrontational, destructive and not particularly helpful. To most editors, I suspect the edit summary "Not RS per RSN" is completely meaningless; I for one detest the use of jargon and feel that editors should take steps to ensure that, even in an edit summary, expressions such as “RS” and “RSN” are wikilinked to the appropriate policy and/or discussion about the reliability of the disputed source.

Fladrif appears to be on a mission to rid Wikipedia of all references to sites such as "thepeerage.com". Once he's achieved his aim, what is to stop an editor when creating a new article to make use of this site as a source? Unless a source has been specifically blacklisted, editors are free to make use of them – is Fladrif going to immediately jump on them to remove the reference? Most of the information on "thepeerage.com" relates to family relationships; I cannot see that Wikipedia is improved by having this information, which is generally uncontentious, left unreferenced rather than referenced to a possibly unreliable source. Rather than replace such references with the {{cn}} tag, could not the {{self-published source}} tag be used instead? This would draw the reader's attention to the possibility that the source may not be reliable and "invite” the reader to use his own judgement. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition, by continuing on this track while the manner and style of their edits is being discussed, the editor is in clear breach of an arbcom ruling summarised in WP:FAIT. "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." Leaky Caldron 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The notification of which has been removed without response by the user on their talk page. Leaky Caldron 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Which undoubtedly means that they've read it and will consider it carefully. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Undoubtedly they do not believe that it applies to them since they have continued with "not RS per RSN" since removing the TP message. Would be polite to acknowledge it though. Leaky Caldron 21:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The remover is implying that there is some basis in policy or guidelines that dictates that sources not meeting wp:rs criteria should be removed. But IMHO such DOES NOT EXIST! It certainly is not in wp:ver or wp:nor. Can anybody point to where such a policy exists? North8000 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note, I have issued a 'cease and desist' order [50], because he does need to stop while the discussion is ongoing. There is no policy requiring the removal of these suboptimal sources if the information itself is not being challenged, equally I can see arguments to replace them with citation needed templates to encourage someone to find a better source. Either way, if Fladrif persists, a block may follow, as it is simply discourteous to plough on regardless rather than wait for consensus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not talking about "suboptimal sources". We are talking about sources that fail the bright-line test for meeting the bare minimum to qualify as a reliable source. These are sources that have been extensively discussed at RSN and definitive consensus reached that they do not qualify as sources to be used as references in Wikipedia articles. This is nothing like the best evidence rule; these self-published, amateur websites simply do not qualify as sources. Anyone who gets their panties in a twist over the removal of sources definitively determined to be unreliable has no understanding of what the underlying policies mean. "A crappy source is better than no source" may have been standard operating procedure for Wikipedia 5 or 6 years ago, but it won't fly now. I see not a single argument rooted in policy that would support retaining these sources as references in any article; what I see is a lot of "I don't like it". Tough. Deal with it. These sources may be convenient, and busy little beavers may have cited them thousands of times rather than going to a brick-and-mortar library to look for real sources, but they cannot be used here and must be removed. Period. Fladrif (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"thepeerage" hasn't been considered "sub-optimal" Elen. It has been pilloried. There is no capacity for thepeerage to reliably present any geneaological information. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why is Fladrif not blocked? This seems to me to be an example of drive-by vandalism, the removal of footnotes on topics about which the editor clearly has no clue. Here's one example of the stupidity: [51] Tell me how leaving information and removing the footnote on an erroneous pretext of unreliability improves the encyclopedia? Carrite (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's add Combat Mentality and refusal to edit cooperatively to the charges here: "what I see is a lot of "I don't like it". Tough. Deal with it. These sources may be convenient, and busy little beavers may have cited them thousands of times rather than going to a brick-and-mortar library to look for real sources, but they cannot be used here and must be removed. Period." Perusing the edit history of this self-proclaimed savior of Wikipedia, I see evidence of massive and chronic vandalism under the guise of "requiring" so-called "reliable sources." Pure drive-by footnote removal, not the least effort to ascertain whether the information is correct, not the least effort to remove erroneous information (only footnotes), not the least effort to engage other editors on talk pages. Massive vandalism. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Because that source is completely and utterly unreliable for labour history, and whomever added it conducted vandalism against V. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia Policy is absolutely clear:

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation" WP:CHALLENGE.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[2] Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[3]

--------

[2] It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}.

[3] Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." WP:UNSOURCED

Clearly, policy permits and encourages the removal of any material lacking inline citation to a RS, and actually requires it in the case of BLP's. It would have been perfectly proper to delete not only the references to sources definitively found not to be reliable, but the underlying text as well under clear policy. I considered that, but stopped short precisely to give editors who are interested in the subject matter the time and opportunity to add reliable sources where they exist. In many cases, that is precisely what has happened. Editors have gone back, found better sources, and added them - accomplishing precisely what Wikipedia policy intends.

It is seriously wrong-headed to consider any of this improper, out of bounds or, to crank up the hyperbole to 11, vandalism. If an editor came to RSN and asked "Is X a reliable source for Y text", and the answer comes back "No", the editor cannot then go to the article and add Y text anyway, using X as a source. It is a fundamental violation of policy to do so. That violation is not mitigated by adding Y text, using X as a source, and tagging the reference with a or or similar tag. A bad source is not better than no source, and tagging it as a bad source makes it no better. The fact that some editors added bad sources repeatedly (in some instances, quite literally spamming Wikipedia presumably to drive up traffic to their web sites, and in other cases out of ignorance of policy or in others laziness because it was just easier than finding actual reliable sources) should not be regarded as a fait accompli that cannot or should not be undone. If it shouldn't have been there in the first place, removing it is not the problem.

Now, once we set aside the "a bad source is better than no source" nonsense for what it is - nonsense directly at odds with policy - and ignoring the "I just don't like it" fits of apoplexy, we are left with two principal substantive objections.

• One seems to be that some editors don't like my edit summaries. Too cryptic apparently. Ellen's ham-fisted threat focused not on the edits, but on the edit summaries. Go figure. So how about this instead: This source has been specifically discussed at WP:RSN and is not a WP:RS See talk Then, on the talk page, I will post the following: (Insert name of source)) has been specifically discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (Insert link to specific RSN discussions) and determined that it is not a Reliable Source. Links to this source are being removed at this time, but not the underlying text. Better references need to be found and supplied to support the underlying text. Unreferenced text may be removed if it remains unsourced.
• The second seems to be that some editors would like a tag on the article page to alert innocent bystanders to the fact that text is no longer referenced. The policy cited above suggests that as an option, but does not require it. Would it make you happy if I added a tag in place of the removed reference on top of the edit summary and talk page notice? That is clearly overkill, but overkill has never deterred anybody around here as near as I can discern.Fladrif (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a patently incorrect statement. My experience viewing — and very, very infrequently using — spartacus.schoolnet material is that it is generally accurate no matter what a small clique of non-experts at the so-called "Reliable Sources" noticeboard may have decided on a Thursday afternoon. Links for that debate, please, let's see precisely who made that determination... Moreover, what we have here is not the removal of challenged less-than-fully-reliable information in a debate over facts in play. There is no dispute of the facts, they were actually RETAINED in the aftermath of the drive-by vandalism — what we have here is the wanton elimination of the footnotes providing for readers the source of that retained information. There is no guideline or policy which calls for the removal of footnotes in this manner. There is no serious effort being made to take articles from a lesser to a higher state, from a lesser to a higher level of sourcing — merely the systemic and massive removal of useful attribution information from a very great number of articles on some sort of twisted bureaucratic IDONTLIKEIT rationale. This should be an immediately blockable occurrence if it happens in the future and I insist that this investigation rule on this question before this thread is closed. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is not being used? As it stands the content in front of the deprecated source now sits there in articles with no attribution at all. There is nothing to alert editors in the future that the source has been removed - the current edit summary will soon be out of sight. I do not necessarily oppose the removal. I think that the method and the editor's approach is pretty hostile considering we attempt to assume good faith in our dealings here. Leaky Caldron 09:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it isn't a source it is cited to Blind raving Joe from the Street corner. This is like putting after citations to the alt. hierarchy of usenet. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Spartacus.schoolnet is good-to-excellent in factual accuracy. The only raving is this comment. Carrite (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Spartacus Schoolnet is a self-published source by an amateur historian who is not recognized as an expert in the field, and who has never been published by an independent, reputable third party publisher. It fails the bright-line test of WP:RS and WP:SPS no matter how accurate you or any other Wikipedia editor may consider it to be. It has been discussed repeatedly at WP:RSN and each discussion has come to the identical conclusion. It cannot be used as a reference for a Wikipedia article, though it may be listed in "External Links". Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif, what you are missing is that WP:V is about the level of challenge to the content, not about the quality of the source. WP:RS is not a policy - it is a set of guidelines about sources for when information is challenged. I could source "Julius Caesar was a Roman dude" to the Ladybird book of Children's History without any problem. Where the information is uncontentious, there is no mileage in removing a poor source - although encouraging editors to find a better source is always good. Where the information is challenged, and the source is poor, the whole lot needs removing or sourcing better. Can I source "the Earth goes round the sun" to spartacus.schoolnet - yes, because nobody but flat-earthers are going to challenge it. Can I source "Margaret Thatcher contemplated interning striking miners" to the same source - no, and if that's the only source, the content needs to come out as well. Just deleting the source is a wholly pointless exercise without examining the content it was sourcing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ellen, what you are missing is that, insofar as I know, none of the removed citations fall in the category of supporting a statement in the "every schoolboy knows" category. Moreover, what "every schoolboy knows" is invariably mistaken. The notion that for an "uncontroversial" claim it is perfectly OK to cite any source whatsoever without regard to reliability, provenance, policy or guideline is utterly preposterous. Fladrif (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You've missed my point entirely. If the information is controversial then it is not sufficient to remove the source, you have to remove the claim. If you are happy to leave the information, there is no value in removing the source. Going around removing the source without even looking at what it is sourcing is a complete waste of time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's my time to waste, but more to the point what is your basis for concluding that I am not bothering to look at what is being sourced? You're simply wrong about that. Are you saying that if I also remove the associated text, that would be preferable? And, have you bothered to look at my proposals above in an effort to resolve this? Would they not solve the alleged issues here?Fladrif (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My basis for concluding that you are not bothering to look at what is being sourced is that in reviewing your past year of edits, there are none discussing the content sourced from either spartacus or thepeerage. No edits to talk pages saying "The article says X but that isn't true because Y". No edits alerting relevant WikiProjects saying "This content is all wrong because you sourced it from here." It seems to me that there are two possible conclusions to draw: 1) you've been going around removing sources on the basis of reliable sourcing rules without reference to the content they support or 2) you've found a number of errors in content sourced to these websites, but are incapable of communicating any of this information to fellow editors. (Your occasional edits that refer to actual content, e.g., on transcendental meditation, don't pertain to the sources in question; you seem to have spent most of your time in mechanical application of sourcing rules.) I suggest you consider adopting the solution devised for the Rayment-sourced material, mentioned in my comment below. Choess (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the following list of edits:

15:23, 1 May 2012 : Andy opened a RS/N discussion about the issue, diff

15:25, 1 May 2012‎ : Andy notified Fladrif about the RS/N on Fladrif's Talk page, diff

15:46, 1 May 2012 : Fladrif responded at the RS/N discussion diff

Fladrif continued with his article edits, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fladrif&offset=&limit=500&target=Fladrif

10:57, 2 May 2012‎ : Andy opened AN/I case, diff

14:58, 2 May 2012 : Almost 4 hours later, Fladrif responded at the AN/I case, diff

Fladrif continued with his article edits

17:58, 2 May 2012 : Leaky Caldron notified Fladrif on his Talk page about concerns regarding WP:FAIT, diff

17:59, 2 May 2012 : Fladrif reverted the Talk page edit without comment diff

Fladrif continued with his article edits

22:25, 2 May 2012 : Elen gave Fladrif a stern warning to stop on his Talk page, diff

Fladrif stopped

My observations-- First, what the issue is not:

1. Most editors agree (I'm pretty sure) that the sources Fladrif has been removing indeed do not rise to the level of WP:RS. Most editors are not arguing that Fladrif is removing sourcing that passes WP:RS.
2. Fladrif is not committing vandalism, and I wish people would stop throwing around that word so casually. An accusasion of "vandalism" is a statement about an editor's intent. Fladrif is not intentionally trying to worsen Wikipedia. He is editing in good faith.

What the issue is:

1. Fladrif is engaging in disruptive editing. In particular, he was not engaging in consensus building, and was rejecting or ignoring community input during the period where he continued to remove cites from articles despite opposition from other editors, especially after the RS/N and AN/I cases opened. It took a sharply-worded notice from Elen to get him to stop.
2. Fladrif largely avoids communicating with his fellow editors at all. Most often when there is communication directed to him through edits to his Talk page, he simply reverts the edit without comment.
3. When Fladrif does communicate, in recent interactions with other editors, he exhibits a very combative tone. In particular:

• Anyone who gets their panties in a twist over the removal of sources definitively determined to be unreliable has no understanding of what the underlying policies mean. "A crappy source is better than no source" may have been standard operating procedure for Wikipedia 5 or 6 years ago, but it won't fly now. I see not a single argument rooted in policy that would support retaining these sources as references in any article; what I see is a lot of "I don't like it". Tough. Deal with it. These sources may be convenient, and busy little beavers may have cited them thousands of times rather than going to a brick-and-mortar library to look for real sources, but they cannot be used here and must be removed. Period. diff
• This edit to Elen's talk page in response to the events listed above.
• I took a look at Fladrif's earlier communications with other editors, and it appears to me that his tone has gotten more combative in recent communication than it used to be.
• Fladrif demonstrated extremely unwise judgement with this edit to the User page of an editor with Admin, Checkuser and Oversight

I am not an admin, but I think the following actions should happen:

1. Fladrif should get a warning about disruptive editing.
2. Fladrif should be encouraged to break his current habit of avoiding communication and consensus-building with other editors, and to start using a more collegial tone
3. Fladrif shoud consider taking a Wiki-break. It's clear he's frustrated at having to repeat himself so often about Wikipedia's policies regarding sourcing quality.

Zad68 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still reluctant to even call this "disruptive editing", merely that we ought to be able to find a better way to manage a bulk task. Bulk tasks on WP are hard to do neatly and without causing collateral damage. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I thought for a good long while and spent time reviewing the edit history and the Wikipedia definition of "disruptive editing" before coming to my determination, and I didn't make it lightly. There are two concerns here, 1) What the consensus is on the strategy going forward regarding mass removals of cites that don't pass WP:RS, and 2) Fladrif's interaction with other editors who were trying to get him to stop and discuss this. This is AN/I and it deals with editor behavior, and 2) is all I am really addressing here because it's AN/I. I'm not talking about 1) here. I'm actually undecided on that issue, I'm still mulling it over and reading responses. Regarding 2), Elen has been editing this thread since I posted my thing and hasn't found the need to engage on it, so maybe 2) isn't important to deal with right now because Fladrif has stopped his edits. Zad68 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Zad68 sums it up rather nicely. Thepeerage.com is a tertiary source complied by an amateur. It is extensively referenced to the secondary sources used. Some of those are reliable (e.g., The Complete Peerage and Burke's Peerage), others are not at all reliable (personal correspondence). The reason thepeerage.com is used so extensively is that the reliable sources are expensive reference materials which are not necessarily widely distributed, even in libraries.

A similar problem cropped up recently, with the use of Leigh Rayment's site, which is arguably somewhat more reliable but to which many of the same issues apply. (Leigh is also self-published, but his website has been used as a reference by the official project to digitize Hansard.) When that issue was raised at the relevant WikiProject, the solution reached was to tag the template for sourcing to Rayment's site with and . These are gradually being replaced by references to the Complete Baronetage and the History of Parliament Online, although the latter doesn't yet cover all of Rayment's site.

Tagging references to thepeerage.com in a similar fashion seems to me to be a reasonable way to address these sourcing concerns. Removing the references entirely makes it harder to find the reliable secondary sources that should be used, so it seems to me that Fladrif's current actions are, in fact, making it more difficult to achieve his ostensible goal of getting reliable sources into these articles. Furthermore, as I asked a number of years ago when the print references aforementioned were questioned as reliable sources, where are the errors? WP:CHALLENGE applies to the material, not to the source itself, and I haven't seen any challenge to the material or any likely challenge that isn't purely vexatious. The entire exercise appears to me to be disruptive editing to prove a WP:POINT about applying rules, rather than a constructive attempt to remove false or misleading information. Choess (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Article: Jack Abramoff, Talkpage; users: 199.209.144.218, 76.73.168.89, Eelnire

Hello everybody. Having edited in the Englisch Wikipedia for some time without ever having to deal with unpleasantness – contrary to the German Wikipedia where things are quite different – I don't know how to go about this without making it look as silly as it actually is. But not liking to have my edits reverted and being accused of “engaging in an editing war based on personal opinion”, “vandelizing” (sic!) and the like into the bargain, I'm beginning to get annoyed at the two above mentioned IPs who imo are most likely the same person, and the newly registered Eelnire who very likely is identical with the two IPs (see here) active in Jack Abramoff and, as far as their contributions show, nowhere else, at least not lately (Contributions 199.209.144.218, Contributions 76.73.168.89, Contributions Eelnire).
The ‘three’ users's only contribution to the Abramoff article, as far as I could make out, is the addition of “movie producer and writer” in the lead on 30 January 2012‎ to what formerly read “Jack Abramoff ... is an American former lobbyist and businessman” (Diff). When I first updated and edited the article shortly afterwards, (first and second edit) I left the “movie producer”, but replaced “writer” by adding “After his release from prison, he wrote the book Capitol Punishment ... which was published in 2011.” My explanation that Abramoff is not called a “writer” by any sources after it was reinserted by 199.209.144.218 did not prevent the IPs to revert (Summary: “Stop reverting this sourced item. He is a writer and you should not change something based on your personal opinion. I will contact an admin next time you change it”, Summary: “He has authored 2 books and wrote the script for the movie Red Scorpion. The source from IMDB also shows him as a writer and movie producer”, Summary: “Ajnem is rewriting this because he thinks IMDB is not a valid resource. Ajnem is also ignoring the fact that Abarmoff has authored a book” (ironically, all of what the article has to say about the book was added by me)), and eventually 199.209.144.218 changed “writer” to “screenwriter and author” (Summary: “Changed because of other user not liking reference to writer. Adding something more specific”.
Enter newly registered user Eelnire. And now, things are getting weird, as he, although imo most likely identical with 76.73.168.89 (and 199.209.144.218), changes “screenwriter and author” back to “writer”, leaving a post on the talk page first as 76.73.168.89 and then signing the post as Eelnire, giving me “last warning” once more “This is the last time Ajnem. We have discussed this enough. I have provided you with plenty of sources. At this point you are not making any sense and are injecting your personal bias. I WILL contact an admin if you change it again. Your waiting for time to pass and your coming back and vandalizing this article. An admin will be contacted if you change it again”, after which “writer” was reverted to “screenwriter and author” by an uninvolved user, leaving a note on Eelnire's talk page.
Not satisfied with ‘rebranding’ Abramoff as a former “screenwriter author/writer”, and seeing to it, that he is not called a “Republican lobbyist” (Diff) ‘they’ now systematically totalrevert my edits, including those that have nothing to do with the “writer”-issue, leaving unpleasent summaries (Summary: “Stop undoing this Ajnem. Next time I am getting an admin involved. You are vandelizing (sic!) at this point”, Summary: “This has been discussed in the Talk section. Ajnem is ignoring sources and engaging in an editing war based on personal opinion”) and posts on talk pages, including mine, in addition to it (“This is the last time ...”, “Ajnem is engaging in an editing war. I have reasoned with him by changing "writer" to "screenwriter & author", provided additional sources and he continues to delete edits based on his personal opinon. He is changing this information every 2 or 3 days so he can fly under the radar and not get flagged for vandelism (sic!), not to mention giving me last warnings and announcing to contact an administrator without of course doing so.
The first sentence of the article now reads: “Jack Abramoff (... born February 28, 1959) is an American former lobbyist, businessman, movie producer, screenwriter and author (with 4 references for the “screenwriter and author”, including two Wikipedia articles ("Jack Abramoff - IMDb", "Jack Abramoff - writer for the film, Red Scorpion - Wikipedia", "Jack Abramoff - author of the book, Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist - Wikipedia" , "Jack Abramoff - writer for the film, Red Scorpion - Rotten Tomatoes")) which imo is nonsense, or at least misleading. (Incidentally, the Infobox still has Abramoff's occupation as “businessman and lobbyist”.) Abramoff is called a few things in very reliable sources, but never a “writer” or ”author”. What sources call him most often is a “disgraced (corrupt) (Republican) lobbyist (and ex-con)”. Whether he also is a writer is of course a non-dispute I would not have bothered anybody with – who could take anybody seriously who thinks that publishing an account of his lobbying career turned Abramoff into a writer? – but the reverting of the two IPs and Eelnire has become disruptive if not vandalism, making it impossible to further edit the article sensibly.
→ To make this unpleasant futility short and apologising for its length: Maybe the ‘three of them’ will disappear, as ‘they’ don't seem to be interested in anything but the one issue, if it is made clear that mentioning in the lead that Abramoff has published a book after he was released from prison not only has the advantage of being sourced by reliable sources, but also gives quite enough and actually more weight to him as a “writer” than ‘branding’ him as a former screenwriter author/writer? Ajnem (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all when Ajnem repeatedly deleted edits without discussing the deletes that is vandelism. On top of that he did it in a way to fly under the radar by waiting 3 days or more to delete them again, doing this repeatedly for over a month. Jack Abramoff is mentioned as writers on multiple websites that are well sourced and crediable sites by experts in the field. The two IP's are me and I edited the two from work and home. The reason there are entries with Eelnire is because it was noted that to edit entries on here it is better to have an account. I dont have access to this created account at work and that is why I dont use it at work but only at home. Ajnem repeatedly was Rude to me and talked down to me like I was an idiot just because I wasnt using an account. This goes against Wikipedia code of conduct and is one reason why many people dont like to use Wikipedia because they have to deal with Rude people like Ajnem. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I repeatedly told Ajnem to stop blindly deleting edits or I was going to get an admin involved. Ajnem at first didnt like the term "writer" so he just continued to delete it without discussing it. Then after 3 or 4 deletes he decided to talk about it. That is when I compromised with him and changed it to "screenwriter and author". Then he decided this wasnt good enough so he deleted it while making reasons that had no logic behind them even though I provided multiple valid sources. On imDB and RottenTomatoes he is refered to as a writer because he wrote the script for the movie Red Scorpion. If he had a problem with these sources he should have asked for different sources, instead he continued to delete edits. Ajnem is being unreasonable at this point and acting like he can do whatever he wants on here just because he has been editing longer than me. This is a poor and arrogant attitude and is the reason why I dont like editing on this site. If you go to the Talk on Jack Aramoff I provided him excerpts from the Wikipedia article on what is considered a writer and they state that a person who writes scripts for a movie are considered writers. Ajnem is being Rude and unreasonable. Look at what he is saying above!! Is this the way Wikipedia treats new users?? 199.209.144.218 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ajnem quote, "To make this unpleasant futility short and apologising for its length: Maybe the ‘three of them’ will disappear". Ajnem? Who do you think you are, talking to me like that? You are rude and your attitude is condemned by Wikipedia's code of conduct. Eelnire (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ajnem quote, "But a very aggressive IP insists, that Abramoff is a writer and wants it mentioned in the lead. Would somebody be good enough and explain to this IP if need be, because I'm going to remove it from the lead, that the producer and coauthor of a film". Eelnire (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As current policy stands, unregistered users have exactly the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:IPs are human too Eelnire (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So to assume I am aggressive and beneath you because I use an IP to edit is Rude. Eelnire (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Karlovy Vary page name changed unilaterally

The article for Karlovy Vary was changed to Carlsbad, Bohemia by OttomanJackson unilaterally, against prior consensus, without discussion and using a single google search for justification. This should be reverted back, unless we want to rename Gdańsk to Danzig, etc. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of such a move doesn't need an administrator. Consensus on the talk page seemed clear, so I've reverted the move. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was unable to do it for some reason. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not exactly a first for OttomanJackson; almost all their edits for the last 6 months are like this. Xiamen →‎ Amoy, Helsingør →‎ Elsinore, Hagåtña, Guam →‎ Agana, Guam, A Coruña →‎ Corunna, &c. bobrayner (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I quote from OttomanJackson's talk page,

All diacritics will be removed from messages, according to my Anglicization policy.

That fails WP:TPO by a mile. Also he's not been informed of this discussion, I've done that. ~Crazytales (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Election year antics

Just a heads up for administrators here. A couple of AFDs related to the current US presidential election are apparently the target off-wiki campaigning from both sides of the political spectrum. A few extra sets of eyes on these articles might be helpful. Thanks. Peacock (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (Obama-Biden Campaign Slogan)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (generic name of socialist publications)

One of the most supported views, and least dissented views in the recent COI RFC was, er, mine, located at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI#View_by_Hipocrite. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You people better watch this like hawks

Tea Party provacateurs have filed and linked this AFD off of Drudge Report. Lots of people are coming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forward_%28Obama-Biden_Campaign_Slogan%29 Herp Derp (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean "fully protected," so only administrators can !vote? It looks more like it's "semi-protected." And the semi-protection is currently set to expire 18:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC), not in three days. Edison (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Two separate protections - the AFD is semi-protected for 7 days. The article itself is Full protected for three, since many of the shenanigans from the AFD were spilling over (or vice versa). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not the nicest of ways to speak to fellow editors. You people better watch this like hawks. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh. The title reference was neutral enough. The "provacateurs"[sic] might not have been, but seems to be in context when you consider the political leanings of the source of the links. It was a good call to bring it here as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I much prefer Antics, myself. But that's just me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by shootings about Li Xiannian all over WP

Between February and March 2012, User Koroknait (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of another user, came and laid droppings about Li Xiannian on all related articles, including Deng Xiaoping, Chinese economic reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_economic_reform&diff=prev&oldid=480654971), Cultural Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=480992671), Chen Yun (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chen_Yun&diff=prev&oldid=479302596), President of the PRC (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=479496599), etc. I've been identifying these edits for a while now and it is hard to scrub all of them. It seems like the user is merely trying to up the "link count" to Li Xiannian from a series of articles. Anyway, none of this is helpful or constructive. Is there a way that all of the user's edits can be reverted? Colipon+(Talk) 16:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I got most of it already back when the accounts weren't blocked.--Atlan (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

evidently not... see President of the People's Republic of China. I can't even undo the edits... Colipon+(Talk) 18:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I clearly missed that one. I have reverted their edits. Let me know if you find more.--Atlan (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Hasteur and User:Mtking versus User:Agent00f

Need IP blocked for repeated vandalism

96.250.41.58 is a vandalism only account. Appears to be same person as 96.250.18.251 who was blocked about a week ago for vandalizing the same article (George Harrison). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I blocked them 31h for edit warring. My first block, actually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have previously unblocked one person after a discussion with the blocking admin, so my net score is still 0 ;) If this warring happens again, we might consider semi-protection on that page since it seems to be IPs causing all the fuss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if semi-protection is necessary. I think it's just one person who's vandalizing the article. Both IPs trace back to the same ISP (Verizon Online LLC, Ashburn, VA, USA).96.250.41.58=96.250.18.251 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That is why I didn't enact it. If they come back later today with a shiny new IP, it may be warranted. I'm not sure how fast those IPs cycle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Should have been filed at WP:AVI really... MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 12:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is true, but it was obvious enough that I went and took care of it rather than be a slave to formality. But yes, normally that is where we want to take them and I likely should have indicated as much, even as I took care of the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

Resolved

 – 72 hour block by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

90.218.255.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

A couple of weeks ago I reported this IP editor here, who I suspected was deliberately adding false information or at best just guessing, and was advised to keep an eye on it. Since then the dubious additions have continued and all messages have been ignored (I tried asking them to just reply on their talk page to confirm if they'd read them and got no response), the only reaction to messages is that they stop or slow down for a day or so and then gradually pick up and continue exactly as before. This latest edit appears to be false (explained why in my revert). The persistent style errors have continued too, although these are less harmful they are also an indication that this editor is either wilfully ignoring or unable to understand the messages they are receiving.

This is a long-term problem, I think this person has been editing like this for over a year across various IPs (see here and here) but even taking just the current IP, they have over 1,000 edits since February. Even if I AGF that the errors were not deliberate, an editor who cannot understand or will not even acknowledge concerns about their edits is disruptive and I think at least a WP:COMPETENCE block is necessary. January (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am a proponent of blocks for incompetent editors who are highly incommunicative. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• I would agree with Drmies perspective, although I'm a failure at blocking. I've been in many ANIs this week and have yet to block anyone ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Go to AIV. Or ask Sitush for someone who needs to be blocked; I think he has a hit list. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not enough vandalistic edits to be considered a vandal. Plenty of legitimate edits. Doc talk 03:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how we can allow them a few vandalistic edits because they also make edits which look legitimate. As with the edit I highlighted above, it sometimes takes a bit of research to tell which is which and I'm concerned that some of the false edits are going unnoticed because they look innocuous at first sight. This, which I'm pretty sure is false (Ross King describes himself as "from Knightswood" in this interview stayed in the article for a week. January (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that edits like this are not good, as they introduce things into referenced material where the reference does not support it. Doc talk 06:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Disruption is still disruption. Once all possible good faith solutions have been exhausted, the block is the only tool we have left, and I like having it on the table at ANI rather than being acted upon unilaterally. I'm not convinced that adding one more template is going to have any more effect than the 15 or so recent and existing ones on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The user has continued editing in the same vein while this discussion has been going on. According to this edit Kate Garraway's hobbies include sleeping. They are also making dubious additions of notable residents to city/district articles (I tried sourcing a few and found nothing). January (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC)

I've just retrieved this thread from the archive as the problem has continued today. January (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's quite enough of that. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours, next one will be two weeks. You can roll back all the edits the IP has made as well as you see fit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange new users.

Resolved

For some reason, two new accounts was created today, both doing only one thing: Editing (vandalizing?) the user page of another user, who has been idle since June 2011.

The users in question are Hatmanone (talk · contribs · email) and Cellymob1 (talk · contribs · email).

I thought first this was somebody trying to be a puppetmaster but being bad at it, although now I think it might be vandalism. Something somewhere else prompted these people to try to make User:Adeikov look bad, or something.

Please advice. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Both indefblocked as vandalism-only accounts. Adeikov uses that name elsewhere on the internet commonly it seems. I'm guessing this is some forum dispute spilling over to here. Moreschi (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and lists

I'm starting this discussion here since Wikipedia:Media copyright questions seems to only deal with images.

A series of articles was created over the past several months, listing the Time 100 for each year:

• 2012 Time 100
• 2011 Time 100
• 2010 Time 100
• 2009 Time 100
• 2008 Time 100
• 2007 Time 100
• 2006 Time 100
• 2005 Time 100

My question really revolves around whether or not these articles should exist. Any material copied directly from another copyrighted source is obviously usually a copyright violation; however, we run into a grey area with lists. Wikipedia:Copyright in lists (an essay, not a guideline) says there's some ambiguity: A list that is compiled by factual criteria would be okay to copy verbatum, but a list that is based on subjective criteria is not okay. In this case, I think the lists are subjective enough that we can't copy them, and so I would have to think having these individual articles would then be useless.

My instinct is to redirect all of these to Time 100, but I wanted wider input first. Ready? Break! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above - these articles are mostly copyright violation. I do not feel that copying a list is all that different from copying some prose. The list includes the same set of names in the same order as the page published by Times. It may pe possible to rescure the articles by relying on reliable secondary coverage of the Time 100 lists. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Good question. In the past at AfDs I have seen arguments both ways regarding copyright status of lists. I've seen lists deleted as copyright violations and lists kept on the premises that the list isn't original enough to be a copyright violation. I'd like to see this clarified somehow. ThemFromSpace 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Feist v. Rural make this material uncopyrightable? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Themfromspace - that's the point of Moonriddengirl's essay, Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, to try to clarify the situation but at the end of the day it's always going to be a judgement call. Stefan2 - I suggest you read that essay but in short WMF counsel advice is that Feist v. Rural does not always apply and it comes down the amount of creativity that went into the list. Telephone numbers are not creative so are not copyrighted per Feist v. Rural, however a list like this likely contains significant creative input as to who makes the top 100 and in what order and so is likely to be copyrighted. Dpmuk (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We have had a reasonable discussion on this in the past with input from the Foundation legal counsel. Lists like these Time lists that are generated by creative process do qualify for copyright (eg, Feist v Rural can't apply here), and wholesale inclusion in WP is a copyvio. This doesn't mean we can't have articles on the lists if the lists are notable, or discuss an individual entry's position on the list, or even repeat a few entries if they are discussed in sources. But they are copyrightable.

There is one set of exceptions, that being the AFI lists which we have ORTS approval to include wholesale. This discussion is summarized by the last point of "Unacceptable uses / Test" at WP:NFC.

That said, as to merging the various years of TIme lists into article, it depends whether it's simply the fact that Time does top 100 lists each year (supporting the full merge) or if each year's list is of interest. If after the wholesale list inclusion is removed there's not much else, then merging might be right. But that specific decision is not appropriate for here. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have notice that some of the lists have been pruned to 10 or 25 members. I don't know what logic was used for which members, but I do understand now that these lists are copyvios. I do believe that there is annual media publicity surrounding each list. It is possible that each list could sustain an article, but I have not looked into this. I have since created lists where only 10 of the 100 listings are included on wikiipedia. I have no real argument for keeping the entire lists and am surprised it has taken this long for someone to come down on them. Do what you must. P.S., I don't think ANI is the right place for this decision to be made although there is consensus that seems to be heading toward a policy consistent resolution. I think there are COPYVIO boards for this type of discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's step back and think about it. Facts aren't copyrightable; only creative expressions are, whether fictional creations or methods of expressing facts. It is a fact that Time put Jeremy Lin at the top of its list of 100 most influential people (or whatever this list is), a fact that they put Novak Djokovic at fourteenth, a fact that they put U Thein Sein at sixty-seventh, etc. Does copyright prevent me from saying whom they announced for those three spots and for the other ninety-seven? No! From that point, listing them by the order of their influence (or whatever else it is) is a thoroughly unoriginal format and not copyrightable. I'm not going to comment on whether this is appropriate content for a page according to our content policies, but it's not inappropriate from a copyright standpoint. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After stepping back and thinking about it per your behest, it seems that it is not a fact that person A is more influential than person B. That is the opinion of Time, and somebody expended creative effort to arrive at that ordering. When Stephen King writes a book, he generates a series of 140000 words according to an ordering that he invented, and while it can be shown as a fact that those words are indeed in that order, nobody is disputing that copying that would be a copyvio. But I do prefer to let the pros handle this kind of thing, as it appears has already happened above. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the advice that we've received in the past from WMF counsel e.g. Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Hopefully Moonriddengirl will come in with a better history, and better links, of the advice we've received from counsel as I was only just getting started in copyright work when the copyright in lists issue started. However I'm confident that counsel said lists such as this could be copyrighted. Whether we agree with them or not I don't see how we can go against their advice. Dpmuk (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It's a bit late for me, but I wanted to stop by quickly. :) As I mention in my essay (other people have contributed, too; I'm calling it "my" essay to avoid it seeming like I'm claiming some other authority here, when I certainly am a major contributor there), to quote again from William F. Patry, copyright governs "compilations of things expressed as a value judgment"[53] - whether or not a person is influential is a value judgment. We could as easily argue that it is a fact that prices listed in a wholesale coin price guide are listed at that price, but in CDN Inc. v. Kapes the court determined that the list in question was copyrightable because the creators followed a process that used "their judgment to distill and extrapolate from factual data" and that "This process imbues the prices listed with sufficient creativity and originality to make them copyrightable." I can't imagine that the process Time uses to compile its list of most influential is less creative than that. I can try to give more background and explanation in the morning, but I did just want to drop this for now. I think this kind of content is clearly creative. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the copyright concerns, my thoughts are that the Time list itself should be considered WP:PRIMARY. We should be basing our edits on secondary sources. The Time list itself should not be a reference used to support the content in whole or in part. We should find reliable secondary sources to support statements about who is on the list and where they appear.WTucker (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, i've alphabetized 2012 Time 100. I don't know if that helps with any copyright issues or not. I'm also a quarter of the way through having every name on the list referenced with a secondary source. This can be done for all the other lists too, if someone takes the initiative. Silverseren^C 06:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that won't help; at best, it would create a derivative work. :/ Similar to your point below, we can't keep them just because we want to share the information - we can't supersede the value of the original. Creative lists are copyrighted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright questions aside, what value do we and our readers gain by having these articles? If they are articles about the lists - their creation, reception, influence, etc. - then they seem to be valuable and interesting. If, however, they're just copies of the lists then they don't seem very valuable at all. ElKevbo (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think they should definitely be expanded to include information beyond just the bare lists. There's more than enough sources available to do so. Though the lists themselves are also important for the mere fact that not everyone on them has a Wikipedia article. Therefore, listing them and having a reference attached that explains them is also very useful and important. Silverseren^C 08:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

..."the lists themselves are also important for the mere fact that not everyone on them has a Wikipedia article". That's an intriguing definition of "important". To the point at hand, the lists themselves are only notable for the impact they have on the American chattering classes: there is little chance of there being reliable critical commentary of the lists themselves as most people understand that they are simply compiled to generate revenue for Time in the form of purchases by members of said chattering class. I don't even want to look, but could someone more willing to wade into the swamp which is arguing with people over notability of nonsense like this please verify whether we have an article for every FHM World's Hottest Women top 100 yet or not? Arguably more widely-read than Time's, and with far less in the way of agenda. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've blanked most of them; the only one that I didn't blank is the one that was limited to 25, but even that is by no means safe based on the feedback we received from one of the WMF's attorneys.
  
  People occasionally refer to me as an expert on copyright; I refer to myself as experienced. Some of my experience predates Wikipedia and some does not; copyright in lists is something that I never really worked with before coming here, and my familiarity with the issues grew based on the advice of other editors, the advice of Mike Godwin and other counsel with the Foundation and with my own reading.
  
  Feist v. Rural is a landmark case here, but I wonder if some people are confused about what Feist affirmed. The judgment is here. The courts did affirm that non-creative lists are not copyrightable and also helped more firmly establish that the US does not protect sweat of the brow, but it didn't say that creative lists are uncopyrightable, and it emphasized that "the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be". Explaining why the telephone directory in question is copyrightable, the court elaborated that "Rural may have been the first to discover and report the names, towns, and telephone numbers of its subscribers, but this data does not "`ow[e] its origin'" to Rural. Burrow-Giles, 111 U.S., at 58 . Rather, these bits of information are uncopyrightable facts; they existed before Rural reported them, and would have continued to exist if Rural had never published a telephone directory."
  
  In the case of a creative list, we are not dealing with uncopyrightable fact; this list did not exist before Time reported it and would never have existed had Time not reported it. It is not a list of fact, but of opinion, which clears the threshold of originality. I don't believe that the originality question is even borderline here.
  
  There's a whole lot more reading, including some case law, some additional attorney opinion and some community opinions that dissent and support, at Wikipedia talk:Copyright in lists. There is also further reading in the archives of the copyright policy talk page and the copyright problems talk page. The community has been dealing with this since at least 2003. I don't want to overwhelm ANI, though, so I'm not going to draw in more just yet. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  And I've blanked the one remaining as I don't see how even a top 25 is compatible with advice we received with respect to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Dpmuk (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• So what can we do to make them usable? Would putting them into prose do it and organizing them in groups, like entertainers, political heads, ect? Silverseren^C 18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You can't duplicate the list in full in prose (eg even if mixed up/regrouped who was on there, in some different order). You can highlight that the list contains notable people from all walks of life, perhaps if others have noted specific people at specific positions, to highlight those specific individuals. Otherwise, from it seems to me, the idea of "The Time 100" listings are a notable concept, but not the individual callouts per year. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, i've done 27 so far (maybe 29). Of those, I think I couldn't find a proper descriptive source for 3, in that they were only mentioned in the source. For the rest, the sources discussed them a significant amount. So I would end up highlighting most of the list in prose. If that's okay, then i'll do that. Silverseren^C 18:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy

I would like to request the IP ban of 70.24.25.103 - who is associated with the film Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy. Warnings have been issued on the user's talk page, and IP traces to the location of the user "RobHeydon", who is directly involved with the film. Negative reviews of the film have been edited and replaced with positives. IMDB rating was falsified from 5.0 to 9.0. Rotten Tomatoes negative reviews were removed. And any critical review that the user doesn't agree with is changed. This is conflict of interest. With that said, after sufficient warnings, I would like to have the IP banned and "RobHeydon" should not be able to make adjustments to his own film's Wikipedia page, to avoid neutral point of view.Marty2Hotty (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I notified IP 70.24.25.103 for you [54]. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

- Thank you. Does this prevent the IP from editing? Thanks again. - Marty2Hotty (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it just lets him know about this discussion so he can come comment if he wants. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

- Thanks. Not sure he knows. He's still adding information that is not sourced. Marty2Hotty (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed this ANI in passing. FYI, IMDB ratings should not appear in articles anyway; IMDB is over-run by trolls voting, not to mention it's not a reliable source or a critics' rating. I've removed the sentence. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

- Thanks. But IMDb does have "weighted average" ratings that tries to filter out the trolls. The trolls tried to bump up the rating to 9.0 ("median") but IMDb has filters and tries to show the "variable average" rating. Thanks for clarifying on IMDb's removal. He will try and alter the negative critiques. I think there's too much conflict of interest, but we'll see. Marty2Hotty (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

IMDB cannot filter out the trolls. The weighted average is just that -- a weighted average. An IMDB rating should never ever appear in a Wiki article. As to the editor in question, he appears very very problematical, and has vandalized the article (and even its Talk page) repeatedly even after his previous block for doing so. I'd say another block is in order, and possibly an auto-protect for the article. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

- IMDb rating information duly noted. https://resume.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?votes Is an interesting page I read a few days ago about how IMDb filters out the ratings. The user noted a link to the "median" rating which was a 9.0, which IMDb filtered out and used their filters to have the best rating they can. But I can understand the exclusion of IMDb on Wikipedia articles. As for the editor, I agree. I think he shouldn't be able to edit that article due to conflict of interest. Thanks for everyone's assistance. Marty2Hotty (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is usually regarded as a reasonable source for basic info such as cast-and-crew, year of release, etc. Not so for opinions and trivia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a company removing controversial info about themselves.

Hi, I just stumbled across User:Actualjustice who according to their edits, is a representative of METROCON. They are removing info about their company that may be deemed as controversial. I am requesting an admin handle this matter due to the sensitivity of the situation. Thanks. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

COI or not, it looks like what he removed was a BLP violation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hghyux, please remember to follow the guideline at the top of this page. "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Also, as Ron Ritzman points out, the edit is a completely ethical and legitimate edit in line with BLP policy as well as our NPOV pillar. Please take a moment to talk to the editor in question. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Yeumuvayeuem only contribs are VANDALISM please Block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yeumuvayeuem only Contributions are Vandalism, Please block Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Migrating this report to WP:AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Bansky of bulgaria.jpg

Don't really know Commons' procedure, but...

Come on, it has (c) Reuters in the corner, and gives name different to the person claiming copyright for the CC license. 86.** IP (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion there. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Real Madrid/Barcelona

User:Suitcivil133 is constintly deleting real madrid information, I was reported and banned from wikipedia because I "vandalized" the FC Barcelona article when I removed information, this user deletes anything that shines on Real Madrid or has a negative impact on Barcelona, its not fair to see that if he or she is getting away with it, there was a picture of a 8-0 defeat on the page and Suitcivil133 removed it, today he removed a sentence that said "Real Madrid made history" and gave no reason for it, to me that is considerd vandalism, if I was banned for that why isnt he or she? 71.139.163.192 (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

They removed a claim that had been tagged with {{cn}} since January; the onus is not on them to provide references. You, however, left a talk page section titled "you a bitch" on their talk page, were promptly blocked for a week, upon your block expiring you followed up with this upstanding character assessment on their talk page. How you evaded being blocked for that PA I don't know. You need to log into your account and post either an {{unblock}} or {{adminhelp}} request on your talk page before someone blocks your IP account for trolling/harassing Suitcivil133 again. Also, you failed to notify Suitcivil133 of this frivolous complaint; I will do so for you. --64.85.221.47 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are lying again. I removed it because there was no reference and because it was wrong. Also extremely subjective as the rest of that particular section. Moroever you are saying that I remove RM information? That is also not truth. In fact I am a regular contributor and often update the "Real Madrid record and statistics" thread and Spanish football records. But I am not surprised that this banned sock poppet has a problem with me because he was banned and I found him to be sock puppet vandalizing several pages and writting untrue claims. Moreoever he is the same person who threatened me with death without any reason on my talk page. I pity this person.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked for a month this time. New sock User talk:MadridFG7 blocked indeff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Iamseba

Iamseba (talk · contribs) seems to creating duplicate pages about schools with various capitalizations, such as St lawrence higher secondary school Madathattuvilai and St Lawrence Higher Secondary School Madathattuvilai, and them immediately thereafter tagging them with {{db-g7}} or redirecting them, sometimes both in the same edit. In any case, the articles seem to be of pretty shoddy quality and could probably use a lot of cleanup. Canuck^{89 »–—►(click here!)◄–—«} 09:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Cameroonian IP editor adding hoax again...

• Military of Cameroon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Patrolling Admins, please take a look at the aforementioned article page and apply semi-protection (indef if possible!) as this IP hopping editor from Cameroon keeps returning to insert artificially inflated figures and hoax content. Note that this patent nonsense has gone on for quite some time now and frankly, any Admin's close monitoring of the situation is very much welcomed. Thank you~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I semi'd for another month. Request should really go to WP:RFPP next time.--v/r - TP 13:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, although this is just the tip of the iceberg as the IP has been adding false information on many other military related articles in the past few months.--McSly (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Simulated child porn, etc etc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Now that hopefully I have all of your attention from the section title, here's the diff, this is the user, and the image is on Commons. I have no idea what the relevant Wikipedia policy is regarding this, so I'll leave it to you guys. brb doing a Gutmann pass on my hard drive because of internet browser image cache, since I live in a dystopian country where loli is illegal, punishable by 10 years prison. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons uploader is probably same chap but not that user account - commons uploader is Sbardnafulator). Commons won't delete the file unless it's a copyvio - which of course it is. the game doesn't include images like these. I've blocked the wikipedia useraccount as vandalism only (anyone got a better category). Anyone got any brain bleach? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the image is under a free license, or that it is the uploader's own work as the file description claims. I can't verify my doubts though. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If the image is a copyvio, it will appear elsewhere on the internet. I'm too paranoid to do a Tineye or Google reverse image search for obvious reasons. Is anyone from Russia or some other Eastern European country willing to try it out? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm on a college campus, so I'm certainly not going to look at the image or search for copyvios online (nor would I in any event—I have no desire to see CP!); but assuming it is as bad as you say, it should be oversighted or server-level erased because that is illegal in the state of Florida. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The image is a 2D lolicon image of Cirno with a undeniably child body and... uhhh... underdeveloped vaginal opening being displayed towards the viewer. Cirno is a character from the game, however the game is non-pornographic and the image is definitely a fan artwork. I think if 2D simulated child porn is illegal in Florida, then the image in question certainly would be illegal. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

All other issues aside, unless the videogame is PD or compatibly licensed, it's a derivative work. There's a reason why Commons doesn't have pictures of Bart Simpson You can't draw your own fan art of visual, copyrighted characters. Flagged accordingly for admin attention on Commons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MRG. I have oversighted on wikipedia - reasonably certain it's illegal in Florida. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

NB - have corrected myself further up. For some reason I typed 'isn't' a copyvio instead of 'is'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, file blacklisted (pending deletion on commons). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political shenigans

re:"How is this an issue that requires administrator attention?" Perhaps it is a heads-up of subtle vandalism which often occurs during peak political seasons; as a suggestion to place an article on a watchlist should the need to take administrative action arise. Be that blocking in case of 3RR, or protection of the said article. Of course I can't speak for Drmies, but just to note that I've added the article to my watchlist. Thanks for the tip Drmies. Feel free to drop any further issues at my talk page should it become unacceptable to place further notices on the admin. related boards. And TY to SW for the table fix. — Ched :  ?  15:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ched. I actually just posted a similar message on SW's talk page (thanking him twice--he's not a peon anymore an admin now, so we have to treat him nicely). I did indeed plow through pages of history to see if it was a result of vandalism but found nothing. Note the talk page: there are suspicions of POV editing (quickly endangering the GA status), which will be very common this year, I'm afraid. We should have a user category like Category:Republican Wikipedians who are really neutral--read my lips, so we know who is trustworthy. What surprises me is a. how few politicians (and their tools) have discovered Wikipedia and b. how clumsy the ones operate that have discovered it. My fellow-check-to-Montessori-writing representative Joe Hubbard fit in the first, and one of his fans in the second category. The existence of Justin Bieber on Twitter is an easy way for us to double the number of articles on living, active politicians, by the way--and to double the POV and vandalism stuff. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Someone please have a look at Talk:Industrial_violence#Merger_proposal. It is over one year, and still not closed. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Rlendog (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are 15,074 articles with open merge proposals, some open for more than three years. Very very few need an administrator to close the move discussion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! It shows poor administration in Wikipedia. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, does an administrator have to do merge's or can any user complete a merge? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 15:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the type of merge; if it's a simple content merge, anyone can redirect the article to be merged and add whatever is supposed to be in the main article without assistance. If it requires a history merge, only admins can do that, and it's one of our more difficult tasks (I've been meaning to learn how to do it, because relatively few admins are willing to; one wrong move and you can create a horrible mess that takes a long time to fix). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec with Blade) No, anyone can close almost all merges. Controversial merge discussions, like other content controversies, need an uninvolved Wikipedian of some experience, good standing, and dermal fortitude to close (Help:Merging suggests, but does not require, that this be an administrator). Administrators are needed only for hist-merges, which are very rarely necessary. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis

I have ended up in a conflict with Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) about the vandalisme tagging of Seyitahmetmrk (talk · contribs). I have tagged two of the edits of Seyitahmetmrk as vandalism, and later reported him as vandalism-only account. Mr. Chipmunkdavis disagreed with that and requested the blocking admin Terriersfan to unblock him. So far, so good. It should have ended there. Unfortunately, after that mr. Chipmunkdavis demanded an explanation. By now it feels like he is trying to discredited and taint me, combined with some low level personal attacks. I repeatedly ([55], [56]) asked mr. Chipmunkdavis to stop harassing (conform Wikipedia:Harassment, particlular Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.) me, so I could go on with nicer things. His answer on my request Please stop harassing me, NOW. made his intentions loud and clear: I'm not, I simply want to know if you can back up the warnings you gave with any sort of policy or guideline. Can you?.

The full story can be read on:

1. User talk:Seyitahmetmrk, including two removals of the warning templates
2. User talk:TerriersFan#User:Seyitahmetmrk
3. User talk:Night of the Big Wind#User:Seyitahmetmrk

Due to his wish to go on with this, I request help. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not harassment, I see no personal attacks (low-level or otherwise), and an ANI report is premature and seems a bit silly. If you don't want to talk to CMD anymore, stop responding to him. Or say "I don't want to talk about this anymore". If you try to end it by saying "stop harassing me", it's unreasonable to expect him not to protest that he isn't harassing you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is providing a new source that shows the city as 150% bigger years ago vandalism? Inaccurate? Maybe. Vandalism? Absolutely not. And you got a guy blocked for it. Of course he is going to be peeved. Apologize and maybe you both can move on. Quit trying to get folks blocked again by running here to ANI.--v/r - TP 17:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source and original research at Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars

Insertion of original research by User:128.63.16.82, for example, this edit. As explained at length on the article talk page in the Need to review these conversions? section, the insertion is contrary to the contents of the cited source and, when the directions for provided with the table are followed, give wrong answers. I will provide a link to an image of this obscure source, in compliance with the crown copyright of the source, shortly. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Having read the Crown copyright article, it is my understanding that the Crown copyright on the source for the article in question expired in 2011, therefore I have reproduced the page in question here. This image downloads slowly. Even if my understanding of Crown copyright is faulty, I would consider this fair use as it is criticize of a work. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Community sanctions enforcement request: Delicious carbuncle

(Note: this was originally filed at WP:AE but I've moved it here at the request of User:Lothar von Richthofen, as a more appropriate forum.)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Prioryman (talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

• 00:04, 2 May 2012‎

This edit on a user talk page repeats exactly the same subject matter as the topic of the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard that led to the interaction ban between DC and myself. To summarise: DC has taken it upon himself to act as a self-appointed vigilante "policing" my edits. He has stalked me on and off-wiki for nearly two years, even going so far as to create a "monitoring" thread about me on Wikipedia Review. This has led to repeated clashes on-wiki. An interaction ban was proposed by User:28bytes and enacted by User:ErrantX to enforce a complete disengagement between us. Under the terms of the ban, we are prohibited from "discussing each other, or interacting" at any venue. A narrow exemption is given for appealing the ban on the user talk page of ErrantX or to the Arbcom: "Please do not comment on, or otherwise interact with him, at any venue. If you want to appeal the ban for any reason please do so on my talk page (which will be excluded from the ban), or to Arbcom." [57]

DC has blatantly flouted the IBAN by continuing his vigilante behaviour on a matter which is not remotely related to an appeal of the ban. This is especially egregious as (1) he has previously been blocked for breaching the ban [58] and (2) as noted here, "editors topic-banned under ARBCC or banned from interacting with me ... aren't allowed to comment on this request here or on any other page on Wikipedia", which arbitrator User:SirFozzie has endorsed and asked to be enforced. [59] After DC's previous block, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise told him: "I would want to come away from this with one unmistakable clarification: if ErrantX spoke of his page being "exempt" from the interaction ban, that does not mean his page is a place on which you are simply free to continue your fights. The consensus on AN was for a full interaction ban, not an interaction ban with loopholes." DC responded that he "never had any other understanding". [60]

It's obvious from this incident that despite what he told Future Perfect, DC has not ceased stalking my edits and taking it upon himself to act as a self-appointed vigilante. This is precisely the type of behaviour that necessitated the IBAN in the first place and is an absolutely unambiguous violation of a clearly worded interaction ban. With two violations in only six weeks, it's clear that he has no intention of stopping this obsessive behaviour and the only thing that is going to put an end to this once and for all is a substantial block for him. Total disengagement has to mean just that, otherwise this IBAN is meaningless. The admin who imposed the ban, ErrantX, has said that if another admin "want[s] to impost a block on DC for violating the IBAN that is fine by me."[61]

For the record, I have abided by my side of the ban and have refrained from interacting with DC, or commenting on or off-wiki on him or his interactions with others. I've said repeatedly that I want nothing to do with him and I've stood by that intention. This intervention by DC has come out of the blue with no provocation of any kind on my part. I'm deeply frustrated that despite my restraint and avoidance of trouble, this nonsense is still continuing despite the interaction ban which was supposed to end it. Please resolve this once and for all. Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreschi, how have I violated the interaction ban? Are you seriously suggesting that it's a violation of the interaction ban to ask for the interaction ban to be enforced? How am I supposed to deal with violations of the ban, then? I'd like to remind you that I am the victim of a violation here, not the perpetrator of one. I've been keeping my head down and out of trouble, and have done nothing to provoke DC into going after me yet again. I am not the one causing the problem. Prioryman (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are [the victim] which is what makes this rather tricky to handle. Had you not considered using email to request that ErrantX or someone else deal with DC's post, rather than creating more drama on-wiki? But I can see how you might not think of that. Hmm. Technically I think you're both in breach of your ban, but blocking people on technical grounds seems rather off. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately when I raised it with ErrantX he declined to enforce his own interaction ban - his words: "I've had my fill of "OMG DRAMAZ" (one reason I mostly ignored DC's comment) for the month, so I'll let some other admin inherit this headache." [62] This leaves me with no recourse whatsoever other than to ask "some other admin" to deal with it, which is what I'm doing here. I don't know who specifically to ask. I want nothing to do with DC and only want this person to leave me alone as he is supposed to be doing. I want to disengage from DC but he isn't disengaging from me despite the IBAN. Can someone please get this sorted out? Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

• Imposition of the interaction ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 19:02, 3 May 2012‎

Huh. Well, my initial reaction is to block Delicious Carbuncle (96h) for violating his interaction ban, and then block Prioryman (96h) for also violating the interaction ban. Having done my homework on this, however, I see there is a significantly controversial back-story here, so I'll wait for others to weigh in and see what they think. Moreschi (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the block of DC would be per Prioryman's reasoning, since the post on ErrantX's talkpage is clearly not appealing or discussing the interaction ban and surely constitutes more stalking and harassment in violation of the terms of the ban. Blocking Prioryman would be because DR processes were specifically included in the terms of the interaction ban, and the correct course of action, if he wanted anything done about DC's post, would be to email ErrantX or an uninvolved sysop, rather than create more on-wiki drama here, at AE, ErrantX's talk, and Future Perfect's talk. But my reasoning on blocking Prioryman might be off, so feedback would be appreciated. This is a tricky one to handle. Moreschi (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm now significantly less inclined to block Prioryman, as we don't usually do purely procedural blocks when there was no intent to violate the ban. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)