Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

User:Jaguar

Live discussion moved from archive 732.

Before departing, retired User:Jaguar created many articles with malformed ledes and infoboxes, (as seen in a search for the diagnostic string "Jaguar/Sandbox/3" and this fix), presumably with a malformed script or bot. Over 100 (but under 250) exist. Those articles, and other, more recent examples without the aforesaid malformations, also include the text "(Chinese: ?)" as shown, including the question mark. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed forty, and there are 82 left to do. --Dianna (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed forty-eight, and can't find any more in mainspace. Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. I did 34 more this morning, so it looks like the problem is resolved. --Dianna (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I must apologise for my actions that I have done a couple of months ago. I'm afraid that I don't use Wikipedia anymore and I only will return for emergencies such as this one. By the way I didn't use a script or bot, I used to create articles manually. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help! Jaguar (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at many of the stubs that User:Jaguar created after this discussion, and many of the ones I looked at have multiple issues such as: reference urls's that don't point anywhere, malformed reference url's, reference url's that point to a website as oppossed to pointing to the page inside the website that talks about the subject, internal links that are wrong, reference titles that are wrong.

Also I don't know if the (Chinese: ?) thing is an issue or not, but they all have this.

In my opinion, there is no point in replacing a red link with a stub that doesn't say more than the title and contain things that are wrong. Let alone doing this 10,000 times. Azylber (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of articles where there is still a problem, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, please could get me an example so I can look at it and hopefully fix it? I've checked many of my new articles and references work just fine. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

An example? Let's go to List of township-level divisions of Heilongjiang and start from the very top: the Tongcheng Subdistrict link in Acheng District. It takes us to the page that reads, in its entirety: "Saiqi (Chinese: ?) is a township-level division situated in Ningde, Fujian, China". So is it Saiqi or Tongcheng, is it in Ningde or in Acheng (part of Harbin Prefecture), is the province Fujian or Heilongjiang? A few more items look "OK" (as in, "no useful info, but no absolutely misleading info either"), but then in the 3rd line we have Daling Township whose article has a link to the List of township-level divisions of Hainan in its "See also" section. Obviously I am not going to inspect more than a few stubs - I usually run into them when I need to do something useful - but a good round of quality control seems to be in order here, before more stubs are to be created. Again, I am not against the creation of a large number of township articles per se, but I'd like them to be generated at least at the minimal information level that one can see at zh.wiki. Over there, they had a a bot create them all, and the bot was doing it based on some kind of CSV file with quite a bit of basic information, such the correct county assignment (with the appropriate county-wide category), the list of villages within the township, geographic coordinates, and even the national identification number (zh:中华人民共和国行政区划代码 - something that each township apparently has). -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. I will do my best to address them later on in the week as I am busy for the next few days. I would like to point out that I simply start these stubs so that any user with the knowledge of that area of China can expand them and contribute to them. There has been a mass creation of red links and naturally red links cannot sit there forever, so I took up the task of making those red links blue. It's a feat that improves the encyclopedia, adding some base articles, as of all, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it. Many thanks Jaguar (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the first thing I'm going to say is: I'm going to list lots of errors here that affect thousands of articles, so I hope nobody takes this personally, ok? I'm just concerned about the quality of the encyclopedia. Please don't take this personally.

For example, look at this stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinsha_Subdistrict

Here are some of the errors present in this stub, which are also present in hundreds of other stubs Jaguar created:

• 1) URL references that are wrong. For the stub we're looking at, the URL for the reference is http://www.xzqh.org/html/gu/ which does not exist and as far as I know never existed.

This error exists in a large number of articles. Does this break the policy on creating lots of unreferenced stubs?

• 2) Internal links that are wrong. For example, in that same article, look at the link that says "township-level division". Instead of taking you to the list of township-level divisions of Guangdong province, it takes you to the list of township-level divisions of Fujian province.

This error exists in a large number of articles.

• 3) Cite titles that are wrong. For example, in that same article, the reference given (which by the way, takes you to a page that doesn't exist) also has the wrong title. It says "福建省", which means Fujian province, when it should say Guangdong province.

So again, introducing information that is wrong. This error exists in a huge number of articles, ranging from March to right now, for example this one created yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanfang_Subdistrict

• 4) The article says "(Chinese: ?)", which I don't know if it's against the policies or not, but some people have complained. In my opinion, a stub that says nothing more than the title doesn't say much. If you could at leave give us the Chinese name, you're adding something that's not on the title.

• 5) No interwiki to the Chinese wikipedia, even though the article exists in the Chinese wikipedia.

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%91%E7%A0%82%E8%A1%97%E9%81%93

• 6) He was told about some of these errors in December at WP:AN and numerous times since February on his talk page and he didn't fix them. Instead, he chose to go on to create thousands more stubs, with the same errors.

• 7) Errors like the ones pointed out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaguar#Jiangwan where he mentions a province and calls it a city, a county and calls it a district and so on. He blames these ones on errors that exist in other pages, but obviously when you create a new article you have to verify what you're writing, right?

• 8) He was asked on numerous ocasions by numerous users to slow down and check the errors in his existing stubs before creating thousands of new ones. I think it's important to listen to that advice.

I think I'm probably missing a few other errors in some batches that I haven't reviewed, but this should be enough to show what the situation is.

Whether or not creating thousands of stubs is a good idea or not has been debated many times and I don't want to enter that discussion, but I think a one line stub that contains errors is definitely a minus and not a plus, because it's misleading and also because it takes longer to fix it than to do it right at creation.

Finally, if you look at the notice at the top of Jaguar's talk page, it says that if you report these issues he will give you one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_%28gesture%29 I think this is not constructive.

Again, I hope nobody takes this personally. Azylber (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's OK don't worry! I didn't take any of that personally. Can I point out to you that there are actually fewer mistakes than you think:

• 1) These URLS are broke because the Chinese website went down at the time and that is entirely not my fault. I will find a new link and will correct them using AWB if you want.
• 2) Yes, those are plainly my mistakes that I have made when creating these articles and I knew that I have done them. I fixed a lot of links in the past when I had found out that I had made typos in User:Jaguar/Sandbox/3. A few more might exist, but not as much as you think! :)
• 3) Again, a typo. Like above I speedily corrected some of them when I found out that I had forgot to copy and paste in extra words.
• 4) That is there for a reason. The question mark is fine! If I were to look up every single one of those Chinese symbols it would take me half a century to start these articles!
• 5) I will add a interwiki soon.
• 6) That's misleading. I did fix any articles I found problems with in December, before I retired.
• 7) I just follow the lists on what I'm creating on. If there is a province, I put it in the article expecting if it is correct. I had no idea that they could be anything else like prefecture-level cities and so on!
• 8) I didn't create thousands more, I've stopped right now.
• 9) I've removed that from my talk page.

I will be busy for a few days, which means that I can't correct them just yet. I've just left school for the final time today and said my goodbyes to everyone, so I'll be busy at the moment. I can say that I feel guilty about all this. Please don't look at me like I'm selfish or not considering Wikipedia. I will do anything to put myself in ANI's good books, but I can't today. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did create a very large quantity of articles containing errors after you were told on numerous occasions. So please don't say you didn't know.

I'm glad that you have at least removed the "fuck you" gesture at the top of your talk page threatening anyone who reported these issues. Azylber (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It was intended to be a joke and not taken seriously. Please, I'm getting the impression that you're trying to get me into trouble. Jaguar (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said 3 times, this is not personal. I'm not trying to get you into trouble, I'm concerned with what you're doing, despite having been told many times by many people.Azylber (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good, perhaps we should continue at Jaguar's talk page? We can resolve this fairly easily I'm sure, there are a few more wrinkles that need smoothing out. Assistance from someone with strong Chinese reading skills might be an advantage. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

I'm not sure that continuing in his talk page is enough. Many have told him about these things for months, and what he's done is make up excuses, leave all the errors there, and create thousands more stubs with the same errors.

I think perhaps some policy could come out of all this, because all this mess will take a lot of work to fix.Azylber (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• WP:MASSCREATION? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Azylber, I am listening to all your concerns and I am taking in the comments. I am not ignoring them or making up excuses. There would be no need to go off creating new policies on stubs because there is already enough! If I'm creating stubs for a good cause and if they have at least one suitable reference, then there should be no problem. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it. Jaguar (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm more interested in fixing up issues than worrying about policy. If Jaguar is keen to do as much of that as he can (and I understand that motivation) then his talk page seems a good place to coordinate resolution. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Do you have any idea of the scale of the issues—is it as big as this, or this? I clicked on the "Jinsha Subdistrict" example above; the amount of pages Jaguar created in the following minute alone is eleven. That's a new one every 5.4 seconds. I have no idea if that was a particularly slow minute. The single reference on each is a googletranslate link. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting here a little late to the party apparently, since we have timestamps from 2011 up there... perhaps some formatting considerations (and a descriptive title) would be called for in future notices.

Anyway, I'm one of the editors that suggested jaguar slow down. He indicated on the talk page he's made over 10,000 of these stub-type pages... and the creation rate is astounding. I'm not doubting that copy-pasted into chrome and did it that way, but whether we wikilawyer over what semi-automated means or not, the Bot guidelines are very clear for large semi-automated article creations, and this is a textbook version of that. We have policies on hand. Let's please use them.

Massive stub creations in batch (and i mean massive) are not helpful, and they create way more work to our editors than they provide knowledge to our users. I don't think jaguar means ill in any of this, but it needs to be clear that there's no glory in making hundreds of pages generated out of a table.

What I would like to see is a consensus that this sort of mass creation, particularly when it's so full of errors (that thankfully people have caught... I shudder to think how many we don't catch), needs to be limited in the least, and that the BAG guidelines are followed, in Jaguar's case specifically, but also more generally. Shadowjams (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Shadowjams, I agree with everything you say, it's exactly my same opinion.

What I would like to know is who is going to fix all this mess. Thousands of articles without references (a URL that points nowhere or that points to the wrong place is not a valid reference), with internal links pointing to the division list for the wrong provinces, with cite titles that are wrong, without the interwiki link etc etc. It will take a very long time to fix all this, much longer than it took Jaguar to mass-create all these stubs. Are we going to spend the time it would take to fix all this? Is it worth it? We could simply mass-delete them. Or, we could leave them there, trashing the quality of wikipedia.

It's also worrying to think of how many we don't catch.

I also want to know what is going to be done to prevent other people doing this in the future.

Azylber (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well for systematic problems, like the ? in infoboxes, I can help Rich do those with AWB if he wants (because rich is under a bit of a restriction on that I think), but Rich has been very helpful in offering advice about fixing those. If Rich wants to contact me about some of those things I can run I'd be happy to. I have a high level of experience with regular expressions.

My bigger concern is accuracy related. I don't know anything about the subject of those articles, and I certainly can't dig deeply through those lists. But, if there's stuff that just needs a hammer to do in order to fix it, let me know on my talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in a similar situation about a year ago, though on a much smaller scale; an editor was attempting to provide similar information about localities in India (though in aggregate articles rather than individual ones), and they were similarly unsourced or undersourced. One of the ANI reports can be viewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive696#User Maheshkumaryadav creating a slew of poor articles. The end decision was to delete most of the articles he had made. The most relevant Afd is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villages in Haryana. The argument I made there, and would probably make here, is that these articles, if unsourced, are actually harmful, and not a part of the incremental step of building the encyclopedia. If we know that a reasonable number of them are wrong, and have no reason to believe that they rest are correct, then it's actually more work for an editor who wants to make these articles to edit these than it is to start from scratch. That's because first they have to look into the existing article, and get confused (wait, is this about a different village with the same name?); then they may have to backtrack to the list articles and fix those. I haven't researched the details above, but if this is a regular, wide-ranging problem, mass-deletion is actually probably a better fix than anything else, unless there is currently another editor who has an accurate almanac who is willing to commit to fixing them relatively shortly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion is not the answer. That is the most upsetting thing I've ever heard. That would mean hours of my work would be gone, all for nothing. Listen, I can fix most of those issues. Rich Farmborough is doing the right thing by making a list of solutions and I will use those solution! I would also like to point out that the whole issue everyone has made here is not as serious as you think. Everyone in this ANI discussion has just pointed out every single bad detail of my Wikipedia career, to be honest. Also, the number of Chinese townships I created is actually not 10,000. It's probably around 8,200+. 10,000 is the total number of articles I've created. And to be honest I know that it sounds a lot, but in truth it isn't. Other uses have created much more the 10,000. Say Dr. Blofeld has created 80,000!

Please don't take this discussion too far. I am going to do everything I can to fix these issues. I expect every single article to be kept as they are each notable enough for its existence - it's a Chinese town somewhere in the world! Jaguar (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Dr. Blofeld's stubs and your stubs is that yours are full of errors and therefore do more damage than good.

And let me remind you that this discussion wouldn't be taking place if you hadn't ignored the warnings that many people gave you for months on your talk page and welcomed us all with a fuck off gesture that you have removed now that this came to light.

If you're going to sit down and fix your 10,000 full of errors stubs then it's fine. Otherwise they should be mass deleted because like several people pointed out, they do more damage than good. And it doesn't matter how much work you put into it, what matters is Wikipedia. If you chose to continue working for hours making more stubs with errors after you were told many times, that is only your fault.

I think you should stop making all these excuses and start fixing. Azylber (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, someone revoke their autopatrolled rights. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) You say there's "no need to go off creating new policies on stubs because there is already enough", but it doesn't appear you've taken notice of the existing ones. You had Autopatrolled status revoked in late August for creating dozens of unreferenced stubs [1], then asked for it back 3 weeks later "I have mass created over 200 articles and each and every one of them has a suitable reference". If you've mass created 10k, that's 9,800 since last September; 90% of them on Chinese townships. You say you'd been authorised to do the mass creations, as is required, yet when asked for a link to the discussion you gave a link of you re-asking the admin for autopatrol. That isn't soliciting community input nor a proposal of any sort.

Your userpage has an ANI comment linked [2] where you say you created over 100 pages in six minutes. Faster than one every 3.6 seconds. It's directly above: "To do list: 1. Create every township in China, 2. Get to #10 on List of Wikipedians by articles created".
A current WP:BON discussion has highly experienced admins & members of the Bot Approvals Group (see WP:MEATBOT) saying even the simplest bot shouldn't exceed 1 edit every three seconds because sometimes bad edits are made and it can take some time to fix/check. And that's talking about approved bots doing a minor activity.

Problems with the substubs containing temp sandbox titles were raised in late November [3]; you continued creating en masse, the last one six days later - Hongxing Township, placing retired shortly afterwards. [4] [5] You unretired in the new year with the first edit summary "Nobody's gonna push me about", adding "I have returned - but only for a limited time. This time no crackpots at ANI [shortly after changed to nobody] are going to push me about, I'm gonna get this job done once and for all." Your very first edit outside userspace was to resume mass creating with Chengbei Subdistrict, Beijing—which still contains "ENTERHERE". Two in that same minute, fourteen in the following minute continuing that day, and the next and so on, into the several thousands.

The downplaying the issue as "not as serious as you think" (How can you know?) or pledge to do everything you "can to fix these issues" (Suddenly learn to read Chinese?) is what's troubling. Despite you saying [6] this morning "There are no more errors. That's the last of them.", the Chengbei article alone shows this is untrue. The rate at which they're made means mistakes, yet inability to understand the foreign-language source hoping on gtranslate of an Asian language seems the fundamental problem as Azylber and Vmenkov showed above. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Jaguar's autopatrolled (again). That is the bare minimum that is required here given what evidence suggests is an ongoing inability to trust that his stubs meet the bare minimum requirements for content level and correctness. That doesn't mean this should be closed quite yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Would anybody else like to point out anything bad about my Wikipedia career? How about taking this matter that didn't start off so serious much higher? I'm going to fix these myself since this situation can't get any worse. To be honest I think everyone's jealous that I can contribute to Wikipedia by expanding knowledge and not sticking around ANI all day bullying people into self pity. Jaguar (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to crucify you. You were creating hundreds of stubs that had errors. You have the view that creating hundreds of error-filled stubs and then leaving it to others to clean them up and expand them is not a problem. Consensus here disagreed with you and an admin removed your autopatrolled rights. Other editors are merely telling you to slow down and focus a bit more on quality rather than quantity. Chillllls (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That IP definitely was. I just don't like it when I try my best to solve issues but I'm being accused of "ignoring them" and "making up excuses" which is not true. I don't appreciate Azylber highlighting the words "fuck off" in bold which is trying to make it look like that I'm being uncivil, but I have never been uncivil around here. I am fixing some of the problems now. I estimate that around the 8,000 Chinese townships I created, only 30% or a little more have errors in them. Do people have the joy of running me down? Jaguar (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, people are not taking joy in "running [you] down." Think about this for a second: you estimate that 30% of 8,000 stubs have errors. Looking at it from another perspective, that's twenty-four-hundred errors that you've inserted into the encyclopedia. You're creating these stubs at roughly the same rate as a bot, and a bot with a 30% error rate would never ever be approved. You should realize that there are editors on this page who have said nothing about your civility but have a problem with your stubs. No one is calling for you to be blocked, so please stop playing the victim and fix your contribs. Chillllls (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That IP was not. Your talkpage includes comments from two users experienced in high-volume page creation, one of whom mass created the politican stubs highlighted above as AlbertHerring then four days after the bulk AfD closed renamed to Ser Amantio di Nicolao (not all he does & he's done a lot for the site), and Dr. Blofeld - who wrote he's also counseled you in email.

It pushes credibility imo, that they wouldn't be aware of the policy. It became policy not long after that incident. At worse, it can be argued the editor(s) knew or could reasonably be expected to know that you hadn't proposed it, perhaps considering policies don't have to be followed and/or it's better to ask forgiveness than permission, yet didn't bring it up to you in passive encouragement to avoid following policy. The reasons it mandates tasks must be approved are twofold: to help ensure projects that ought to go ahead go well and to ensure editors are not demoralised. You wrote above "Mass deletion is not the answer. That is the most upsetting thing I've ever heard". Had it been proposed help could've been given. Instead a result has been to make an editor, and a young editor at that, feel like crap. This is exactly why DGG said what he did in the community discussion linked from the policy. People are not taking joy in this at all. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you know so much about me!? And I guess I would have felt like more crap if the '10,000' of my articles got deleted. Jaguar (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry none of us here know anything personal about you. I was going by your upset comments above. Nobody here wants to make you feel crap, or crappier. I wrote young because you use the {{busyweekdays}} school template on your page. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, Jaguar has a "this user is a teenager" userbox. Quite frankly Jaguar, you've created an enormous workload on others now. All of your articles need to be checked for errors. Even if by yours reckoning 30% of your articles have errors, it makes no difference to the fact that someone is going to have to go through all of them to work out which ones have problems. In fact, I just sampled the last 29 stubs you edited and every single one used the same link as a reference, to the wrong page. All of them link to the Anhui province page except you created 29 stubs about township level divisions in Beijing. Honestly, I see some serious competence issues here. If you can't be bother to check your reference then you shouldn't be creating articles. I propose that Jaguar be banned from creating any more articles until they've sorted out the mess they've created. Blackmane (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since I've been mentioned: we have a great need to properly advise new editors, more carefully and consistently than we do, but even if we always did it properly, it can only work with those editors willing to listen to advice. When they do not listen to advice, the next step is enough of a warning that they realize. And then if they finally learn, mistakes at the beginning will in fact be forgiven. Creating mass articles is dangerous. It can be done right: a few very experienced and skillful and careful editors have done excellent jobs of it in both geography and biology and to a certain extent in biography also. But some pretty good editors in each of those fields have also gotten overconfident and let things go too quick to control, and have shown sometimes they did not realise all the potential problems. WP is a live & very visible database, and testing any automated process on a live database is dangerous. The way to do mass anything is to start slow and small, increase the numbers and speed gradually, test the output yourself at every stage, and pay attention to the results and the comments. And then decrease the speed if problems develop. New editors especially need to do this: the number of things that can go wrong with an article here is beyond what anyone can possibly realise at first. The difficult of fixing them, especially when there are few qualified experts except yourself because of language or subject, is very considerable. You cannot expect the people who have to do the work not to resent it. When you start again, and I suggest you wait a while before that, please go very slowly. I'd suggest 5 or 10 articles a day at most. I'be been here five years, and I never would even try to make articles any faster than 5 a day. I might write a great macro process, but i would fell obliged to check everything I did, and that cannot be done quickly. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more with what DGG has said. He and I have differed on views about notability, but I think one consistent theme is an emphasis on accuracy. The above is excellent advice. People have been talking to Jaguar about this for a while now, and I don't think he's getting the picture yet. As I said before, I don't have any belief Jaguar's acting with any mal intention, however I think there's a serious problem with some of these stub creations by their sheer volume alone. I don't have much to add I haven't already said, but I think Jaguar needs to understand that this is a serious issue. Shadowjams (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am a very young editor. I fear that if I ever revealed my real age people would be surprised at me. I can assure all of you that there are not as many errors in my articles as you might suspect; I will correct all the ones I can find soon. I too could not agree more with what DGG has said. I will of course take that advice and use it; firstly, instead of going through some of my articles and correcting them, I could rewrite them using User:Jaguar/Sandbox/3, just filling in all the appropriate details. Once I have corrected my errors and redeemed myself at ANI, I will start slowly creating the Chinese articles, doing at least 10 a day at the most. I am over halfway through creating every Chinese township in the world. I will correct them - I've got to do it since it's all my fault really.

By the way there would be no need to ban me from creating articles, I'm not exactly an evil vandal who can't be trusted. Jaguar (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not a vandal and we can all see your efforts to try to put things right. By the way Jaguar, in all the talkpage/email comments to you did Dr. Blofeld mention the mass creation policy that's been talked about? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we did not mention any mass creation policies or not that I can remember of anyway. How come you ask? Jaguar (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity. It's interesting to know more background sometimes. It would be good if Dr. Blofeld could come to this section, he might be able to help. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the creating of articles about Chinese townships, infact I started and encouraged the creation of the lists by province. I believe China geographically and in terms of population is the most sparsely covered country on the planet on wikipedia and I believe we should have articles on all of the townships in the long term. However, I too have frequently spotted errors in Jaguar's stubs and if you check his talk page history you'll see I contacted him numerous times. The concerning thing is that the ones already created were not corrected after I spotted them. Technically I really think these articles would be better started with a carefully planned bot and given a trial run to look for errors. It als would be good if they could be started with a population figure. I believe there is also a website which lists subdivisions and postcode etc. I think in the long term we'd be better off having a bot create them. The problem of course is few people are expanding them but I believe we should be covering them. But its finding the most efficient way to start them.. When I started stubs in the past I always double checked to see there were no errors and if I did spot errors I'd contact Rich or Ser Amantio to AWB correct them and sort out any mistakes. I think the most productive thing out of this would be to organize a bot to fix all errors. Some of the dead ref links with the wrong code could simply be fixed with a bot after finding what province is what, you just run a bot through the whole province fixing the ref link.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, thank you very much. You're right, it's apparent from the page history you've spoken to him more than once about errors in his stubs. One thing I wondered about, Jaguar said you hadn't talked about wp:masscreation policy. How come? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Because he's not a bot. They are generated manually. And I have no problem with mass stubbing provided they are accurate without errors and with a fact or two. but as I say in regards to Chinese townships i think a bot should be used.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an example of this. The policy's about mass page creation and the page says whether they're human‑generated manually or not is irrelevant. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well whoever amended MEATBOT is violating one of the most important principles of wikipedia, WP:AGF. "The disruption must be stopped" does not apply to every stub. It is possible to generate a lot of valuable sourced stubs manually without errors which are useful as a start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly User:Ganeshk has a process and instructions for creation using AWB if the relevant data is available in csv format, if there is a database to provide that, then it shouldn't be a problem. Most of the India village stubs created through this process are quite better than user generated stuff (primarily newbies who don't know the policies and guidelines). —SpacemanSpiff 13:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) The disruption's plain to see. The thread length and amount of editors trying to clear this up alone attest to that. As others observed it would be wikilawyering to keep to the letter but not the spirit of policies. However, in this case it is the letter. MEATBOT is policy and has been for over two years, Dr. Blofeld. Going back even earlier, principles on higher speed editing or assisted human editing have been established policy for at least four.
In any event I was asking about mass creation. Policy requires any large-scale creation task must be pre-approved and further strongly encourages (and may require) community input be solicited at WP:VP/PR. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How bad is this?

How many articles are we talking about, in total (ballpark figure)? And approximately how many of them have serious problems (like where they say they're in one province, but they're linked to from a totally different Province article)? Anyone have an estimate? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, I estimate that around the 8,200 Chinese townships I created, I say around 25% or 30% might have mistakes. It's not that bad to be honest. I could overwrite all the errors I can find. Jaguar (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I recently made 600+ beetle stub article, and every single one has MOS and Category errors. I fixed 'em all — 4 hours work. (account renamed – tomtomn00) Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 11:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good you fix up after yourself, TAP. That situation's probably a little different since they're all English-language though. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your estimated error rate makes me think we should rather delete them all and start over. Mass-creation with a more than 1% error rate just screams "nuke from orbit". Wrong info that isn't easily visible as such is worse than obvious vandalism IMHO. Also, in the substubs that do not even give the township's names in characters (making it hard to research and expand them), essentially nothing is lost by deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 12:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be counterproductive to delete them. Override them, maybe, if somebody can sort out a bot and finish off the rest.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, just imagine deleting 8,000 Chinese townships! I see no point - Like Dr. Blofeld has said, China is one of the most sparsely internet-covered nations on this planet, and having every Chinese township on Wikipedia has a huge potential of becoming a major article one day. China is the most populous nation, so it even has a bigger potential. These need to be kept. Jaguar (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The end (which is a long way off) does not justify the means (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopædia. If we can't be sure that something is accurate, it shouldn't be in article-space. I realise that rote editing and mass-creation of geographical stubs is very important to some people, but I would prioritise quality over quantity. bobrayner (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The only alternative to mass-deletion at 25% error I see is to topic-ban the creator so that they would not be able to create anything until the existing errors have been fixed.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

He's not presently creating any. Also, with the best will in the world it's still unclear if he'd be able to fix or even detect all problems due to the language barrier. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, the language barrier is not the problem (or our biggest concern anyway). The issues are the errors in the articles (simple broken links and links that take you to different places etc). And Ymblanter, please, just assuming that this is an ANI discussion concerning me doesn't mean I'm a criminal who needs to be banned! Jaguar (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not assume you are a criminal, it is just that 25% is way over the top, especially given the absolute numbers. The material is just not credible, and has to be either immediately corrected or mass-deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The only option is to correct the ones that need correcting. As of all, it's a Chinese town somewhere in the world. I have seen some of them expand since after a few days I have created them. Trouble is, China is a big place and nobody might have travelled that far. Jaguar (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a list of the 2000-3000 that need correcting or do we have to go through the 8000 to find out which ones do a disservice to our readers? And if you are going to correct this, how long is it going to take? —SpacemanSpiff 13:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Then please start correcting them, Jaguar. In your contribution in the last couple of days I do not see any edits in the article space. These are your mistakes, and this is you who is primary responsible for correcting them, not anybody else.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I will make a start correcting them tomorrow on in two days as I've got a mock exam tomorrow. I don't know how long it will take me until it's 100% clear that no more typos or errors exist but I should give it a week by myself, or longer if I get disrupted by another test. Jaguar (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

According to my calculations, 5.4 solid non-stop days of editing. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I see about 30mins before this comment you added a userbox saying [7] you're able to understand/communicate in Chinese at an advanced level—one step below near-native. I don't know why that talent'd be left out up to now while basic-ability German/French was highlighted on the userpage. Oh well it doesn't particularly matter. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bit confusing, eh? --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone is overlooking this issue too much. I am the only one here who knows what I'm talking about, since I've started these articles, I know that in reality I haven't created that many mistakes. When I did spot a mistake, I corrected the error immediately and corrected my previous articles I created. All the mistakes you see in my articles are probably the leftovers of all the mistakes I have tried to fix in the past but I missed out. I might have even overlooked how many mistakes there are, there might even be less than 25% of 8000. It shouldn't take too long to fix once I start tomorrow or in two days. Jaguar (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jaguar, I just had a look at some of your "fixes". They're nowhere near enough to be able to save the articles. You've directed the reference to the correct province page, but that's still way too lacking as a reference. It needs to direct to the actual township page. If this is all you can do, then I suggest you stop now and give it up as a lost cause. Blackmane (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A sample

Just so we're clear about what's under discussion, I looked for some examples. I pulled these five off the bottom of Jaguar's contribs list (feel free to provide other examples if these are not a representative sample)

• Xinghuaying
• Liangyuan Subdistrict
• Shuidao Township
• Beidaomen Subdistrict
• Beishudian Subdistrict

Each seems to be, well, a neat assembly of templates and links and stuff but based on a single datapoint; that some placename exists. I realise that in the past we've often turned a blind eye to the use of an unreliable listing to create masses of geographical microstubs which fall far short of the GNG, but if the entire article hinges on a single fact that "this place exists" and our only source is a Google translation of a Chinese forum... surely we have to draw a line somewhere? (Google Translate isn't working very well for me at the moment but I can't even find some of these placenames on the page supplied - are these real places?). Sadly it's not the first time I've seen an argument that it's OK to mass-produce this kind of crap because in principle somebody else might be able to fix it - which, in reality, causes maintenance headaches for everyone else further down the road. I have no ill wishes against the creator, and I hope they get past this episode and make a lot of good contributions in future, but I think these articles as they stand are a net negative for the encyclopædia - shouldn't they be deleted, or sandboxed, or incubated, or something? bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

They should all be kept, getting rid of them in any form is counter-productive, just like Dr. Blofeld has said. By the way those five examples you gave are 100% fine! Jaguar (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any {{lang-zh|?}}s' filled in, do I not? --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Dr Blofeld told you it's fine. However, other editors may take a different stance on the value of a huge pile of microstubs which appear to fall far short of the GNG. Surely, removing flawed content (some badly-sourced, some outright wrong) isn't counter-productive, it's improving the encyclopædia. Insisting that articles are 100% fine despite specific problems being pointed out is part of the problem, not part of the solution, and does not bode well for the possibility of fixes being made in article-space. If thousands of articles are left in article-space even though we can't trust their content, doesn't that undermine the encyclopædia? bobrayner (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to your statement Jaguar, they are not fine. The main problem here is that you have found a single source to reference your stubs. Normally, I wouldn't say that is a problem, but your obvious inability to read chinese means that you have no idea what to do with that source. Here's a list of what's wrong in just those ones you've sampled

1. Each of those townships is part of Kaifeng city in Henan province but his reference is labelled Fujian province (yes I can read chinese).

2. Clicking on that link takes you to the google translated main page of the source. The very least they could have done would have been to link to the city or even the province page, which given that it's been translated would have been a simple task

3. I pulled Liangyuan Subdistrict to see if I could find some info on it. I dug down into the reference page to see if I could find it. Jaguar wrote that it's in Kaifeng city and the List of township-level divisions of Henan also has it listed as part of Kaifeng. After 20min of poking around, I find that Liangyuan is part of Shangqiu, which a search in Google maps will tell you is 150km east of Kaifeng. Somewhat concerned, I had a look at the other 4 articles bobrayner linked to and those ones were at least placed in the right city. Taking this as a first order approximation, there is a possible 20% error of locating the place, with a 100% failure to properly reference the stub. Blackmane (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment I would think that goes with out saying that there are possibly 2000 stubs which aren't located properly and 10,000 or more that have to have their refs checked. Blackmane (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Past projects reliant on google translate have gone poorly. Quoting Eloquence: Engaging in large scale translation projects has its very own problems. See, for example, Sodabottle's scathing criticism of Google's translation efforts in Tamil Wikipedia. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

According to List of township-level divisions of Henan there's a Liangyuan (梁园) District in Shangqiu and a Liangyuan (梁苑) Subdistrict in Kaifeng. Google maps does know of a neighbourhood of that name in the right part of Kaifeng[8], so it could be right, though we can't be sure because unfortunately the township list is unreferenced too. Kanguole 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• As I said before, these pages should be deleted. I can also read Chinese, and the "references" given are not referencing the article. It is possible to find references on XZQH, e.g. this about Xinghuaying, but the substubs link elsewhere instead. However, before mass-importing data from a single source, we should check what kind of source this is (copyright questions aside). Start over from scratch and ask people who can read Chinese to help (e.g. at the relevant WikiProjects). —Kusma (t·c) 17:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  And certainly any mass creation done here should be interwikilinked to the Chinese Wikipedia, which seems to have at least Xinghuaying. —Kusma (t·c) 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why Jaguar repeatedly reports that he does not have the time to begin fixing the errors in the sub-stubs he created, but has the time to post multiple entries in this thread. Please, Jaguar, stop talking and start fixing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just fixed over 50 refs this morning. Will do more. Jaguar (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what you are doing is not nearly enough. If you go through the articles, you have to check them for accuracy. I just checked one of the things you "fixed", and Xingfeng appears to be to be a subdistrict (街道), not a township. I am led assume none of your articles is correct, so I guess deletion and starting from scratch is probably a faster way towards covering Chinese townships than expecting you to deliver on your promises. —Kusma (t·c) 10:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

At this rate that Jaguar is going at, it will take him around 97 days to complete these — not what I was looking for. Now, at the speed that I corrected my bad stubs: 3 days, 4 hours it would turn out as. I did 600 in 4h, Jaguar did 50 in 11h, 49m (BST UK). --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• If we can't be sure that something is accurate, it shouldn't be in article-space. We can't be sure that any of these stubs are accurate unless/until verified by a third party. So, they should not be in article-space. bobrayner (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that everyone is so keen on deleting my articles, but I have to say that I created them by using all the red links in List of township-level divisions of Henan etc. I copy and paste the header in the article as its province assuming it is correct. I would not know if it isn't correct, so it's probably the list's fault. Jaguar (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And there we are. If an unsourced wikipediapage is the source of thousands of articles, we risk to multiply our own errors. I appreciate the work done, but don't see how we can change this easily without deleting. Or is there a way to properly source(+interlang) all articles, while correcting the 500-2000 erroneous ones by bot? If the latter is possible, that seems the only non-deleting way forward to me... L.tak (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy with incubation or sandboxing as alternatives to deletion. Incubation was one of the more popular options in this case so there is some precedent, I think. bobrayner (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Over a year on every single one in the nom statement is either deleted, redirected, unsourced and/or untouched since. Similar suggestions of templating or just leaving them were made in the other two mass problem cases; both were deleted. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Three factual comments (in response to some comments above): (1) Province-wide pages such as List of township-level divisions of Fujian (and similar ones for other provinces) are actually pretty good. I don't know what the source for them was, but whenever I happen to work on a particular county, and look at that county's divisions' list in List of township-level divisions of Fujian (or another province's list), it checks out very well against high-quality printed atlases. Occasional discrepancies that I see sometimes are probably due to renamings/splits/merges that local governments carry out every now and then. (2) Most prefecture-level governments have web sites with at least a brief information page about every county, including the list of township-level units; this always can be used as a fairly reliable "official" source, if we can't find one at some kind of the national Census Bureau or some such. (3) On occasions, a unit called a "township" (乡 xiang) in one source may become a "town" (镇 zhen) in another source, or a subdistrict (街道, jiedao) in a third. This, per se, is not a reason to claim that a particular source is unreliable: it is very common for provincial authorities to convert a township to a town (as it becomes bigger and more urban in nature), or to a subdistrict (if it becomes more integrated into a city's main urban area; this is China's counterpart to the Municipal annexation in the United States, although the mechanism is quite different). -- Vmenkov (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't advocate the deletion of all these recently created township units; certainly, not those which have already been worked on by other editors since they have been created. But perhaps we can "Anglicize" and "upgrade" zh:User:Liangent-bot, which has been quite successful in creating thousands of township articles in zh.wiki, presumably based on some master CSV file. One can add to it some functionality that will look at if the township's article already exists and is completely trivial (we know what I am talking about), and if so, overwrite it with a more content-rich one. -- Vmenkov (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If that works, that would be a vastly more suitable solution. How would that work with incorrect references as is the case here? I'm probably going about this question the wrong way, but a more detailed description may prove the difference between wiping out all these articles and finding some way to salvage them somehow. Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

@Vmenkov, all of my new township content comes from translating (by hand) the ZH Wiki's counterpart articles.

@L.tak. Nope. At least three of the lists are sourced to the prefecture by XZQH, which sometimes has holes. Once I complete moves in accordance with the new township disambiguation guidelines at WP:NC-ZH, my priority, as Dr. Blofeld discussed with me ages ago, is to build these lists, and not to find a government source listing all township-level units, which is in itself a challenge because finding them is not a trivial task! Also, Vmenkov is right. The only real concern occurs when there are mergers or upgrades. Otherwise, apart from the very rare typo or usage of the wrong particular reading of a character, these lists check completely correct against atlases. GotR ^Talk 19:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So, do I understand correctly that the source is either zh.wikipedia.org or xzqh.org? L.tak (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of all these pages

Several people have suggested deletion of all these pages as the best solution to this. I don't think anyone suggests tagging them all for AfD would be really useful, so we can just as well have the discussion here and now. What do people feel about the proposed solution to delete all pages created by User:Jaguar from 26 October 2011 on? Note that this would eliminate the need to clean up e.g. the 111 articles[9] which start with the identical line "Saiqi (Chinese: ?) is a township-level division [...]", but that this doesn't mean that we shouldn't eventually have articles on some or all of these. Fram (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would support that proposal. If anybody wants to remove an article from the list which has been checked & fixed by a third party, I think that would be reasonable too. Alternatively, we could take them to a separate AfD page, like Dr Blofeld's geographic.org articles, but that would mean splitting discussion across different pages... bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• With regret (this could all have been avoided), yes it would seem deletion is necessary. It'd be on the basis of all the significant problems identified. I think a method used in such cases in the past is to use a single example and refer to the rest. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oh no you don't! You're not deleting my hours of hard work! I won't let you! Jaguar (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well now I'm curious, how would you stop us? --Golbez (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know but it's going to be really upsetting if somebody deletes them. I'll have to create more outside of China. Jaguar (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If you create additional content which is accurate and meets wikipedia standards, that's great. If you create more content which is inaccurate and fails wikipedia standards, it would probably get deleted. Your choice. bobrayner (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is implying that all 10,000 of my articles have errors. That is by far not true. I estimated that around 20% of the 8,000 Chinese townships have errors, maybe under 1,000 articles. It's not that much and it is fixable by a bot or manual users. Jaguar (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Point is: NONE of them have a reliable source according to WP:RS, so that needs to be changed. If you have a proposal how to do that (and improve all errors), then be my/our guest. However, I am afraid that this takes a lot of time (I myself have 5000 edits in total or so, so the mere suggestion to find and correct 1000 errors without a clear bot/plan sounds very ambitious). L.tak (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A User:JaguarBot might be in the question. Jaguar (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh Jaguar. :-( You do not understand Chinese. A bot won't either. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess so, but a bot can at least correct the errors! Jaguar (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)\

Great! Please make an action plan on User:Jaguar/ChineseTowns of what the bot should do. By which mechanism it would find wrong names, what would be the basis for interlangs and which reliable source it would be based on. If that is credible, I am willing to reconsider... L.tak (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jaguar, read my support below. We're not saying all of your 10,000 articles have errors. It's the fact that we don't know which of the 10,000 articles have errors and regardless of whether some do or don't all of the articles would have to be checked. Blackmane (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but also support sandboxing or the like for a limited time period (let's say: 1 year, which means 30 articles per day) if someone is willing to "adopt" them L.tak (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support; while we should have articles on all of these places, these are not even useful stepping stones in that direction. —Kusma (t·c) 14:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support owing to the terrible state these are in, especially with what Blackmane and Kusma have unearthed. I'm also open to moving these all over to userspace, to be returned only after source verification and content verification is done on an individual basis. —SpacemanSpiff 14:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• SupportNeutral if Jaguar (talk · contribs) can fix all of them up within a month, then it's fine. However, if he cannot Nuke the new pages Jaguar made. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I don't have any expectation based on the conversations above that these are going to get fixed. Or if they can be fixed. There's a lack of understanding by Jaguar that even if most are accurate, the extremely unacceptable error (which appears to be randomly distributed through the set) rate introduces too many errors with little or no notice to readers that there are errors. Shadowjams (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, and I would also suggest that Jaguar does not attempt to "create more outside of China" as such mass edits of a similar nature could be considered as further disruption. GiantSnowman 15:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yup. I can grudgingly accept geospam when it is properly prepared, extracted from data we know to be reliable and then carried out in an automated manner (which means that if there are any obvious screwups that these can be resolved with a bare minimum of drama). None of that is true here. "Turn all redlinks blue" is not an end to itself, and general community consensus is that the acceptable error rate goes down rapidly with an increase in editing rate. And whether or not Jaguar was privy to the debates or not, we've been down this road before, and the pattern is the same as always: the editor responsible repeatedly denies the scale of the problem until it is revealed to be wholly unmanageable, and yet still insists that the positives (of having more articles) outweigh the negatives (that the articles contain either no information at all, or objectively false information). The worst thing that can happen is that Wikipedia becomes the canonical source for information on a subject (due to our huge PageRank) while that information is wrong. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This popped up on my watchlist, and I thought, "Oh, it can't be THAT bad." It can, and it is. We now have thousands of articles of which we have no way of ascertaining the accuracy. And we have a user (Jaguar) who left a comment that basically amounts to a threat if these are deleted. I think the time for action is here on this issue. LHM 15:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support because we are encyclopedia first and playing ground for whiny pouty children second last. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't that be "second last never"? GiantSnowman 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• (ec) Fetchcomms, I think that's needlessly personal. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, given the header box Jaguar has seen fit to place on their talk page, this is somewhat accurate now. Blackmane (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • He removed 'not' from the longstanding header box in response [10] to a complaint it was no longer accurate. When I saw it it seemed more like wry humour used in a stressful situation than obstructiveness. Anyway ymmv. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Blackmane - you can do exams at any age, and that certainly doesn't justify describing another editor as "whiny, pouty" - their response, however, perhaps does. GiantSnowman 16:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Theirs is an unacceptable response certainly. Although as an aside User:Geogre/Comic did spring to mind. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Now you're at it! Jaguar (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Jaguar, go read the poem "If—". You don't have to read much less respond to all comments in this section, and sometimes it's better not to do that. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I've read it. I think you're right. Jaguar (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I had been meaning that I was going to revert their attack on fetchomms. As for the childishness, I was referring to the info box that was below the exam one. oh well, moving along then Blackmane (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Multiple(edit conflict) Sadly, I will have to Support this motion to delete. However, if there is an option to put them into some sort of incubator outside of article space I would prefer that. Jaguar, it's great that you chose this set of articles to create and I applaud you for that. It's also great that you agreed to go back to correct errors and that shouldn't take all that long if you get stuck into it. However, the problem here now isn't just the article errors, it's the referencing. It took me almost 25min to look for the correct page in the reference (I don't know how long it took Kusma) when clicking on a link that should take me straight there, but can you see the problem with doing that for 10,000 articles? If I had to do that for all 10,000 articles, that's almost 170 days worth of editor man-hours. The other problem is that you are more concerned with the rate of your article creations rather than the accuracy of your article creations, this you freely admitted to. The very fact that you failed to check the accuracy of the location information prior to creating the article is also very concerning. The example I highlighted before I easily checked by entering the name into Google maps. You could have done this before creating the article and corrected the list before creating your article, but instead you chose to take the information at face value and prized speed above accuracy. None of us here want to delete your articles out of spite or malice but out of consideration of the huge expenditure of editor hours required to clean up. Blackmane (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Changing them based on Google maps would be so great either – the example you pointed out might not be an error, as noted above. But I agree with you that the real problem here is the lack of referencing, which has been inherited from List of township-level divisions of Henan and similar articles, and multiplied several hundred-fold. Kanguole 17:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That's why I said it was a first order approximation. Given the scale of the problem, sampling merely a handful of articles is hardly statistically relevant. I was aiming for a hand waving estimate on what might be the upper limit of the problem, but as we see now, I most likely have vastly understated and underestimated the scale. Blackmane (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, there is a bunch of problems that leave no other option, IMHO. 8000+ stubs with barely one sentence and one basic infobox. An unknown percentage contains errors or is totally mistaken. Not based in any reliable source, so they are impossible to verify. The creator fixed a few after a lot of prodding, but the fixed articles still contain basic errors and no reliable source (example of one "fix" made, only the glaring error in the name is fixed, the only source is still a Chinese forum with lists of names, it links to a list of articles not to the specific page that holds the information, the name is not translated to Chinese so I can't even search its Chinese name in the forum to find the correct page and translate it, never mind that the whole article still seems to be based on the unsourced article List_of_township-level_divisions_of_Fujian). The whole thing should be deleted as salvageable without complete rewriting, and future mass creations should be based on a reliable database that is cited in the created articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• 20-Mule Team Support: Oh hell yes. "This is an encyclopædia. If we can't be sure that something is accurate, it shouldn't be in article-space," given above by bobrayner is .sig-worthy if Wikipedia had .sigs. Something I've often said is that Wikipedia is not a race - we don't hand out door prizes for the most new articles (deletions, prods, redirects, AfDs) thrown up in an hour's time. There is never such a burning need for an article that WP:V and WP:IRS has to be set aside. Ravenswing 16:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - doubtless Jaguar means well, but these are unreliable (because they're unreferenced) and hard to check (because they lack such basic information as the Chinese characters, pinyin and district). They're a net negative – best to start over. Kanguole 17:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - 8,200 incorrectly sourced articles about locations that may not be where they are listed, which may be named incorrectly, and which may not even exist is a serious concern, and there's no easy solution other than starting from scratch. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Torchiest and others. 8200 completely unreferenced pages is a serious problem. Under the circumstances, I suppose we might be able to give someone a few days to copy them to disk, but nothing more than that. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's probably not necessary to pile on, but for future events with different editors it may be desirable to get a clear consensus that the mass creation of junk stubs is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Sure, the pages look pretty, and if someone else cleaned them up, it would be handy to have been the creator of many articles. However, as described above, this is an encyclopedia and content-by-guesswork is not acceptable. Mass creation means there must be sources that are ultra-reliable—the content must be known to be accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I am not convinced by his contribution to this section that Jaguar understands what he did wrong, or has the capability (or time) to fix them. Correcting misinformation is much harder than starting from scratch with new information. It is better for an encyclopedia to have a lack of information rather than misinformation, since the misinformation could be seen as authoritative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support: If Jaguar had made 10K articles all based off a reliable source (say, an official government census, if China has such a thing), and even if all that source verified was the exact location of the place and its governmental hierarchy (township, city, etc.), I would say that these could be kept, even if they had lots of template errors, missing info, etc. But right now, we don't even have evidence that these places exist, other than that some previous Wikipedia editor added them to a different Wikipedia list. As Johnuniq said, consensus is already clear but the overall message needs to be more clear: mass article creation must be at least a little bit reliable, and there appears to be a relatively high chance that any given article in this series isn't just incomplete or mal-formatted, but actually completely wrong about its most basic fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment — since when was ANI the new AfD? I appreciate we're talking about a large number of articles here, but I don't believe it's wise to set a precedent that articles can be deleted based on ANI consensus. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe a similar action occurred in the past when an editor mass created articles on Pakistani townships. However, I think what we're aiming at here is an agreement by the community to put forward 10k articles for deletion. How that would be properly managed without having ANI look like AfD (except in the case of blatant copyvios) is another question. Blackmane (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • AfD is designed for single articles. However, as long as editors have the ability to create multiple articles, we'll need the ability to delete multiple articles sometimes - and trying to shoehorn them into AfD can be rather disruptive. I don't want to get hung up on bureaucracy - AfD is just a way of gauging the community's stance on whether an article should be kept or deleted, and we're getting the same community discussion here. Considering that it all came about of an AN/I dramathread, discussing it here is probably the best option. However, in future we might want to explore better ways to deal with mass-deletion proposals. bobrayner (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support As I've said on Jaguar's talk page, just fixing up the Chinese characters in the stubs is a potential nightmare because of the ambiguity of pinyin. It would be better to start again. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support and don't waste any more time discussing this - absolutely obvious need for mass deletion. Not fair on other editors. Jaguar can always recreate them properly. That they were his hard work is irrelavant, I could put an enormous amount of effort into had creating an obscene piece of ascii art to illustrate auto-fellatio but I can't imagine that it would be kept. Alternatively if anyone wants to write a bot to do it, I don't see any problem with userfying all of them for him to fix over the next 97 days or whateveer... Egg Centric 13:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I was the one who amassed together much of the lists of these township-level divisions. As Vmenkov said this morning, the errors are actually quite sparse, so generally the issue is not whether they exist or are located correctly. Also, I have occasionally checked through Jaguar's creations and have noticed that if an error (such as linking to Hebei in an Anhui location) is present in one article, it is prevalent across the other township articles in that province. If deletion proceeds, I suggest, beginning this December at the earliest, that a bot with the ability to download all relevant information from these lists and use a template from which to create articles is implemented.

Is the problem limited to China?

I looked further back through Jaguar's article creations (long list on the toolserver here) and noticed a bunch of other placenames. I took a sample of some Spanish ones created in September 2011:

• Callús
• Bigues i Riells
• Badia del Vallès
• L'Ametlla del Vallès
• Alpens, Barcelona (A duplicate of the pre-existing Alpens which already has some content and sources)
• Vita, Spain
• Sotalvo

Each of those was created with a simple copypasted "{{Expand Spanish|topic=geo|date=August 2011}} '''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' is a village in..." (yes, that translation warning tag is backdated, and no, there's no evidence that they were actually translated from anywhere). Each claims this is the source, but that is the front page of an (english-language) wiki; searching it for those placenames returns zero results. I haven't counted, but there seems to be a large number of Spanish geostubs wilfully created with a single "source" which doesn't actually mention the subject. bobrayner (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That does appear very concerning, and it's also concerning that Jaguar doesn't seem to have owned up to it. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Jaguar was sanctioned for some reason other (I'll have to find it later) which limited them from creating articles without at least one source. However, this looks like just plain gaming of the system. I think Jaguar has just done a google search for something like "China census" or "Spanish census" then simply copied the link of whatever was the first search that popped up and used it as the source without checking it. Blackmane (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Followup Yep, Googling "Spanish census" returns this source as the second hit. First hit is the National Statistics Institute of Spain. Ironically, Jaguar could have punched in Callús and gotten quite a bit of information from the NSI which they could have used to populate an infobox rather than use an uninformative wiki. Blackmane (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) Your assumption about e.g. China although reasonable is wrong, Blackmane. The sanction you refer to is his having autopatrol temp revoked last summer by the way. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I remember about the autopatrol rights being removed the first time. There was another restriction imposed, but I'll strike my first statement anyway as it's not relevant at the moment. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this looks like a pattern for his Spanish edits as well. We should probably add everything from San Clemente, Cuenca to Santa Olalla (another 531 articles) to the list. His Serbian entries (544 of then, which run from his last Spanish creation to his first Chinese one) are equally suspect: Stančići (Čačak) is sourced to this, for instance, which from my best guess is a collation of census figures which doesn't mention the settlement in question at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That looks to be the French portal for accessing various census data from around Europe, but again Jaguar has linked to the main page which is useless for anyone who doesn't understand french. Blackmane (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The autopatrolled bit was returned on 12 September 2011 with "per discussion with editor - Jaguar is expected to create articles with at least one reference". The Spanish articles predate that so I also sampled some more Serbian ones which are later creations. These also appear to have been copypasted without sources. (Even the transliteration was copypasted - there seem to be many different placenames which are all written as "Јеловац" in Serbian - so we can be sure that there are a lot more factual errors out there waiting to be found). I shouldn't clutter this subsection with more lists/examples - can we focus on resolving the deletion question? bobrayner (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

At this stage, aside from the deletion question, I think ANI needs to be considering some sort of community sanction on Jaguar. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see that some of you are arising concerns about my other articles. I must tell the truth that at the time of creating the Spanish articles I had a hard time trying to find a good enough census, so that Spanish census was the only one I could find. The Spanish articles I created back in August/September were my first bunch of mass creations and I didn't create much. I don't see any errors with the Spanish articles and they are nothing compared to this Chinese articles, I must admit. I then went to create a couple of thousand Serbian articles, again I really can't find any errors at all with them. I think it's just the Chinese townships that have errors, but then again, not all the Chinese townships have errors, only a proportion of them do. Jaguar (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You say "that Spanish census was the only one I could find", but that source doesn't actually mention the settlements. The best source you could find was one which didn't even mention them, but you went ahead and created 531 Spanish articles anyway, each using that link as the "source"? Wow. You're already in a hole; I'd urge you to stop digging. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Weighing up several factors, such as intention, maturity, age, chaos caused and so on, I propose that Jaguar should come back to ANI after the first five articles he creates, the first twenty after that, and then the first two hundred after that to get the community's approval, for the avoidance of doubt creating no more articles after each "milestone" unless he has received approval. I don't think any kind of ban is appropriate yet but it may be after we see what he does next. He should be on note that he has caused a great deal of trouble, failure rates of 30% are simply not acceptable, and that it is only his age, enthusiasm, and willing to engage in discussion that has prevented worse consequences. He is also recommended to seek out mentorship. Egg Centric 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that's a step in the right direction. I've been on Wikipedia since 2009, I don't really think I need mentorship! Coming back to ANI seems like a good idea. I've had my Autopatrolled taken away anyway so if I create any articles NPP could review them. Jaguar (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You absolutely need mentorship or at least someone to hold your hand, because you are not quite getting the enormity of what you did. Egg Centric 15:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• For a variety of reasons Egg Centric, several things about this section are ill thought through. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And I've changed the title. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm in favour of some kind of community sanction but I agree this is fairly ill considered at this point. We need something that would work, rather than arbitrary points at which Jaguar would get a "report card". Not to mention how ANI would get filled with pointless "reports" about how Jaguar was doing. I would like to see see some sort of conclusion to the above discussion, then for some fresh discussion on what kind of sanction, exactly, Jaguar should have (probably an editing restriction), rather than people needing to !vote on a proposed set of arbitrary sanctions. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm currently working on this very thing (conclusion/discussion/recommendations). --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Jaguar should be topic banned from creating any new article in mainspace, and should instead demonstrate in user space how they have taken on board all of the above. GiantSnowman 14:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x2 No, no and no. Jaguar should be placed on an indefinite article creation ban, except under the guidance of a mentor, leading nicely to the next requirement. Jaguar must seek adoption to understand how to source articles properly. Assuming all the good faith in the world doesn't help justify approaching 15,000 virtually unsourced stubs. The failure rate is already incalculable without including the problems with the Spanish and Serbian stubs. Blackmane (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm sympathetic to Egg Centric's position, but I must agree with 92.6.200.56 here - this particular proposal is probably not helpful right now. Personally, I would argue that a key problem with Jaguar's previous edits is that they need so much adult supervision; a solution which centres around even more supervision by other editors is probably not optimal. Further, if we're still getting denial and avoidance from Jaguar, a solution which allows even more articles to be created is just saving up more drama for the future. bobrayner (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• (non admin suggestion) As Jaguar and other seem to be opposed to adoption; an alternative option could be to remove autoconfirmed status, which would enable most editing, but would require a pair of eyes extra for article creation. There seems to be no disruption in any other field than new articles, and this won't stop him from making articles so he still has the potential to show for a few months that he is capable of creating articles with sources conforming to WP:RS. In view of his presumed age, I don't think it is fair to give him much more rope and to have to end up with stricter solutions in the end... L.tak (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That's already been done. The focus here should be on how to repair the extant damage: Jaguar is guaranteed to get blocked if he dpes this again regardless of sanction, so this whole subsection is just cluttering up an already-busy ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • • Then I am mistaken, I thought "only" autopatrolled had been removed and not (auto)confirmed. Indeed, then this section is not necessary at all... L.tak (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. Everyone has got this all wrong! I've been on Wikipedia for three years, I don't need "adult supervision" or an "article creation ban". I'm not going to mass create any more articles now. I think everyone is misunderstanding me for a good for nothing mass creator. I've brought up for GAs, done three GARs and created 2011 England riots and Operation Ellamy. Those articles have been expanded so much.

To be honest I think I've ran out of time. I would rather edit with full rights than being kept under a close eye by ten different people. If it is going to carry on like this, and all my articles, all my hours of hard work, get deleted, then I will leave. I have tried but I failed. Jaguar (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all I must say I think the way Jaguar is being treated here is quite appalling. Failing to adhere to WP:AGF is by far the worst problem on wikipedia than somebody creating stubs or understanding why they do so. I'm witnessing an extreme reaction here to subjects which are all verifiable and indeed combined cover several million square kilometres of the earth's surface, even if in Chinese and indeed verifiable on the reference provided in the articles, although there are clearly quite a few which don't even link to the region on the website given which I must say was very careless of Jaguar and I prompted him many times to check the links before starting a new batch. I'm failing to see this as a huge issue, given the lack of traffic the articles get and I think a bot could reasonably be programmed to fix the ref error links and if possible the article soveridden with something similar to that bot on Chinese wikipedia, hopefully with more data. Yes, the articles are placeholder stubs and the extent of work needed to expand them is enormous but if wikipedia is to even attempt to achieve anything near even world coverage one cannot ignore millions of square kilometres, especially when there is already information on the web in Chinese to make them all encyclopedic and valuable. Contrary to what Bob Rayner thinks, I don't continue to endorse sub stubs on geo places, especially as more and more sources are becoming available which can produce some meatier stubs with useful facts. However, in the long term of wikipedia what Jaguar was attempting to do is to try to plant seeds for growth and wants to see them flourish which is highly commendable. I still sense a moral panic and overreaction here so something which could quite easily be fixed by an automative tool and build upon what we've got.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Would you please answer my question below? Thank you. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at a global map coverage of major world settlements on wikipedia in relation to the country is generally not bad, although most African nations of course still pretty sparse but we generally have most sizeable towns covered. But if you examine a map of China and Russia in particular the coverage on here is shocking beyond belief. In relation to the population of China representing 1/5 of the world population roughly and the sheer number of towns with sizeable populations, some with millions still missing on wikipedia I personally see improving coverage of China one of the most important priorities for the whole website. Whilst Jaguar's new stubs are far from ideal as a start, I appear to be the only one who can really see the importance of having encyclopedia articles on them. We could potentially have hundreds of articles on topics within each township. Some townships cover tens of thousands of square kilometres. China and much of Russia is a blackhole on wikipedia in terms of knowledge. We should really be trying to organize something which can productively and efficiently produce articles on them and overide the articles. Nuking them all in my opinion is not a move forward, problematic or not. They could be recreated by a bot, as indeed could most articles on species. I agree wikipedia articles are best manually written and researched but in areas where we literally have a frightening lack of coverage we need something more powerful to at least give us a decent start. People here seem perfectly happy to delete the subs which are rendered useless for their lack of content and their minor errors of formatting/sourcing but nobody here is really thinking encyclopedically apart from one editor who mentioned the Chinese bot in just how important it is for the project to be improving coverage in this area. We should be spending more time discussing a way to cover Chinese townships adequately rather than continuing to attack and threaten the editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

We give Jaguar a specified timeslot, in which Jaguar has to fix every stub. Let's say 2 months randomly. In that time he would have to: Fill in Chinese, correct references, add coordinates, add more sources. That would judge if Jaguar actually wants to fix them, and thinks they mean something. Of course, other editors could help. Just a proposal, as always. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Prevention

Continued from above. We've made progress in the proposed deletion debate. It's important to know what failed, if we're to achieve real progress and resolution. We've existing policies and measures (regarding mass creation tasks) designed to make them go a lot smoother than this did and to prevent such problems in the first place. N.B. I've asked Dr. Blofeld (talk) to return to this thread.

Dr. Blofeld, above I asked how come you and Jaguar hadn't talked about wp:masscreation policy. I didn't really get an answer; you replied he wasn't a bot, the policy writers didn't assume good faith and you felt stubs valuable or useful. How come you didn't talk about the large-scale creation policy? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Get yourself an account and we can talk. Above all I find it amusing I continue to be implicated in mass stubs... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• You're clearly not going to answer. You've avoided doing so twice above and now again. OK. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Why would I be compelled to discuss an invented purported policy over something which I'm not involved in? Editors have their own brains to think for themselves. Contrary to me being a criminal mastermind I'm not some puppetteer directing on here. If there was really some strict "policy" restricting manual article creation, why I ask has Jaguar been able to generate articles for near 6 months without even a glimmer of a mass complaint?? Why is it now? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I think you're rather underplaying your role. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(I've not reached the scale of mass creation you have, Dr. Blofeld yet! I don't think I do bad against WP:MASSCREATION, I make up to 25 articles at once, check them, and make more.) I think Jaguar might have been thinking that more articles would be better for his stats, and maybe wasn't thinking about the encyclopedia that much, thoughts? --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Rate/speed and number of new articles is irrelevant if the stubs are correctly sourced and contain some sourced useful facts as a start. This is why I oppose "policies". If you're going to complain about that then the whole fabric and way in which we approach wikipedia and its very openness needs major reform as let's be honest the average article is utter crap, even if we're gradually improving. And frankly I see much worse problems in stale unsourced articles than could ever be created by shortish sourced new stubs. That said, a bot really is needed for generating initial articles on populated places and if programmed correctly could do it far more efficiently and quicker than a human could. The problem of course is lack of editorial interest in expanding them, like the Rambot articles on the US.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one thing. All the stubs do is just tell you what something is, and they mostly have the lowest notability possible that's why people don't edit them! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 18:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So you don't like or 'oppose' a site Policy. A Policy created to prevent precisely these problems. From what I see, you act to disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, and worse, you involve a young guy to do it. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you were commenting on what I said, I'm just stating what the reality often is with my stub creations, they don't get edited by many people. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't commenting on what you said. 92.6.200.56 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Jaguar's contribs are interesting. For a long time he quietly worked on local interest articles – even helped get one to good article status, and the occasional film/game. Any article creations were in keeping with that and involved nothing large-scale, unreferenced or high-speed.
• 21 August 2011 was the day that everything changed. That day he ga-reviewed an article, on an oilfield in the Sudan. Your article.
  That very day, he began to create microstubs on Spanish villages. Unreferenced stubs, containing a trans-interwiki tag. They bore a startling resemblance to articles you've created and argued for in the German politicians substub incident. Many were and still are unsourced substubs on the Spanish-wp as well. He was quickly stripped of autopatrolled for creating the unref'd stubs. That's when you told him "no point in adding a reference", it was "redundant" and an interwiki tag was enough. [11] Moments later adding [12] "sometimes this is the easiest way to get English wikipedia working towards such content at all costs".
• The sea-change in focus and its timing is striking. We'll probably never know if you advised the mass-creation by email or otherwise. [13] But we certainly know what prompted the Chinese stubs. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• The highest amount of contribs to his talkpage after him come from you, Dr. Blofeld. In the first or so comment you encouraged him to violate WP:V saying "No point in adding a reference" to an article he makes if it had a translation tag. ...This was in a thread called "Unreferenced stubs" where he'd just lost autopatrolled for creating stubs without a reference.
  
• The one who enticed him to ever start creation of the Chinese nanostubs was you. At the time he wasn't working on anything like the scale of this or on Asia period. Until you advised: "could next create stubs on List of township-level divisions of Hebei and the others", [14] "just reference them to www.xzqh.org", [15] later mentioning you couldn't speak Chinese.
  
• Everybody is responsible for the edits they make. But let's not be distracted by this simple truth. You've been a constant whisper in the ear of an impressionable young editor. You told him sources don't matter if there's an interwiki-trans tag. It was you who told him to just reference to xzqh.org, a key problem we've seen. You directly urged him to create the stubs we've been discussing. Your part in this isn't trivial: You've been a driving force. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I encourage anybody to create articles on Chinese townships, for sure, so long as they are properly sourced. It really is a desperately lacking area of wikipedia which I believe needs major attention. You've also taken what I said out of context. I said it was pointless adding a source to a website for the sake of it without directly linking and sourcing actual data. The link to a website with no verification is pointless, you may as well just create them unsourced if you're not going to bother to add actual information. You continue to try to blame me for this incident. Its also amusing to me you have nothing better to do with your time than fish around on things I said. Quite pathetic in fact and the fact you can't reveal your true identity by logging into your account.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

mmmm delicious drama Egg Centric 19:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

More diversion attempts. You know about and "oppose" the mass creation policy. Or as you call it "invented purported policy". You've been repeatedly told about the mass creation policy and referencing, such as here where you wrote "As for a lecture about referencing, p-lease, tell me something I already don't know. Occasionally, just occasionally WP:Ignore all rules is neccessary". Playing the part of an experienced knowledgeable editor you've approached multiple contributors, often young. Anticipating a desire for approval and desire to make a difference you tell them they're doing good works. Despite being aware of the Policy, you deliberately neglect to bring up the requirement of pre-approval & consultation for mass-creations, in your drive to get such stubs produced "at all costs".
The cost is plain to see. Massive disruption, heaps of people spending time trying to clear this up, the editor saying all this is "most upsetting thing I've ever heard" along with us having to watch as he rushes around like a Brave Little Toaster trying to fix problems we know are beyond all his efforts. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying I should be vindicated and burned at the wiki stake (or wiki toaster) for my crimes? Aren't we, eh, getting a little personal? Its quite amusing to me you continue to paint me with the sub stub brush. My editing no longer revolves around mass stubbing on the scale it used to be in the days where wikipedia needed a huge boost in trying to work towards systematic bias and it might just be possible my whole project outlook has changed quite considerably. Referencing is dramatically improving, to the point it is is now possible to create decent new articles about quite a lot of non anglo places. If there are quite a few editors who find me inspirational, they must be seeing some merit in my work on here and vision for the project which far exceeds the small minds of people such as yourself who don't even have an editing account on here. Big words for an IP and wiki nobody. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no witch hunt here. I don't find this amusing and it's real clear Jaguar hasn't either. You've said a few times you don't nowadays get involved in stubbing. This comes across as gamesmanship when you "significantly encourage" others to do so. Similarly in the older discussion just linked you claim you never run a script or bot, yet said above you do so by proxy i.e. commission others to make your AWB edits. The thread isn't about decently-referenced accurate articles about places. I would support sanctions against you specifically designed to prevent you directing anyone else to undertake mass-creation stubbing without letting them know it must be pre-approved and possibly require community input through WP:VPPR/WikiProjects. A repetition of this is no good for anyone. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, you are easily the most prominent advocate of (and indeed participant in) the mass-creation of geographic stubs. You pretty much single-handedly forged an agreement that, in principle, Wikipedia should endeavour to mass-stub settlements around the world. This is extraordinary enough in itself in that in the case of literally anything else except for human settlements the community does not consider existence to equal notability. Your exceptions were hard-fought and predicated on very strong guidelines: specifically, it must be proven that these settlements exist by reliable sources in every case, and the stubs must be accurate. We cannot afford to weaken those rules, given the extreme lenience under which they are afforded this type of article. Surely you must understand this given the drama which surrounded the significant effort which went into establishing these rules in the first place? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Over-zealous speedy deletion tagging

Editor A:-)Brunuś has been abusively tagging pages for speedy deletion: please see Special:Contributions/A:-)Brunuś and the editor's talk page, particularly at User_talk:A:-)Brunuś#Your_speedy_deletion_tagging. Repeated warnings from several editors have elicited no response there, but he has just posted to my talk page after I posted that I was about to report him to the admins.. He appears to be tagging the pages in good faith, but is quite misguided about speedy deletion and is WP:BITEing many new editors. Can some admins please step in and cool his/her jets a bit? Thanks, Scopecreep (talk)

I'd say that his twinkle access could be temporarily removed, until he can demonstrate proper knowledge of CSD.--Slon02 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Last I heard it was no longer possible to revoke twinkle access, has that changed? Monty₈₄₅ 19:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to re-consider my WP:AGF, having seen this WP:POINTy addition. Scopecreep (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not to sure about the "WIKIPEDIA-SUX" notice on A:-)Brunuś' userpage. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of them look fine, I just sent one of his CSD turn downs to AFD. It wasn't a speedy, but it needs deleting. That said, if the user is abusing Twinkle, a sanction can be voted on it. It is easy to tell if someone is using Twinkle, even if it can't be physically ripped from someone's hand. He has 705 edits on the en.wiki [16] since 2008. Not sure we are at that point yet, so I say give him some WP:ROPE and see what happens in the next 24 hours, he may be imploding anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A brief lashout that doesn't harm anybody is IMO fine. I just wish this editor started communicating instead of carrying on and showing his frustrations by pointy articles like that. Despite other good CSD work I see in this users history, without him providing more feedback, I cant but agree with revoking twinkle for a few weeks. Lacking the technical means, this can be construed the same way topic-bans are. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think you guys are reaching for the wrong tool. One can easily nominate things for speedy deletion without any automated tools. A temporary topic ban on CSD tagging is what we should be discussing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fair point. I could support that too. Say two weeks, and specifically allowing PROD. I would like to stress that the problem is far too many bad taggings amongs a large majority of good taggings. Anyone in favor, against? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • I'm getting a bit less open minded now. I was going to suggest he read Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters and summarize it a bit, but he has refused to come and address the concerns here at any level, while continuing to tag, and tag rather sloppily. He needs to come here. I will leave a note to that effect on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

24.185.205.143

Resolved

24.185.205.143 (talk · contribs)

What's to be done, if anything, about this odd one? The IP user began by posing a near-gibberish question on Talk:Mary Poppins (film). What we've seen since looks like classing trolling behavior. Not exactly on the order of ItsLassieTime or somebody like that. But just weirdness, and possibly starting to branch into other disruption. Any ideas? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a job for the Teahouse. Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, per [[WP:Watchtower]], you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate. If it's a new user, we should help them. If it's a troll, we should ignore them.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to ignore escalating (though childish) disruption. An admin has now lowered the Admiral Boom on the IP for 2 weeks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

See, I told you there was no reason to get excited. The low-key approach is always the... erm. I'll just shut up now... if that's OK with everyone... --Shirt58 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to say anything more, I can't stop you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

IP 198.228.200.157 Disruptive Editing on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

personal attacks, deleting others talk comments by IP 198.228.200.157 - see [17], [18]. The latter occured after being warned: [19], [20]. Short block requested. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to MBisanz. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Now 198.228.200.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) WP:EVADE block of 198.228.200.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), continuing the personal attacks and edit warring at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin - see [21]. Block of latest IP for block evasion plus semi-protect of Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin requested. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Its a bad candidate for protection, its a high visibility article, semi-protected article. Protecting the talk page will leave no way for new/IP editors to contribute to the article, and will make it harder for them to alert us to any potential issues, which given the nature of the subject is a problem. Further there have been recent constructive IP/new editor contributions to the talk page. Better to just play whack a mole with the socks for awhile. Monty₈₄₅ 05:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be a very small range. A 12-24 hour rangeblock would probably cause minimal disruption if it keeps up. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Either Rangeblock or block of latest IP would be appreciated. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's 198.228.200.x 's latest foray.[22] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I just hit 198.228.200.144/28 with a rangeblock for 72 hours (that only hits up to 16 users), but my guess is that it needs to be a little bit wider than that. If the same person pops up, bring it back here and I or someone else can see if there's a viable larger range. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Trouble with stale Kosovo move proposal

We have a bit of trouble at Talk:Kosovo about an old move/merge proposal that has been sitting around for over three months and has gone stale with a "no consensus" situation. Some participants have tried to formally close it [23][24][25][26][27], in a non-admin, involved closure, which in a case like this I understand can be legitimate (there is no clear requirement move closures have to be done by admins, and in this case the "no consensus" outcome seems obvious). One newly arrived editor, Ottomanist (talk · contribs) has strenuously opposed the closure, reverting it several times [28][29][30][31][32]. The article is under Arbcom sanctions and a general 1RR, although it seems not quite clear whether the 1RR applies to the talkpage too.

Personally, I can somehow sympathize with Ottomanist, who argues that the process was hijacked by national interest factions and doesn't represent a legitimate consensus the way it is now. This is indeed the case (it's one of those cases that will never be solved properly unless editors with preconceived opinions determined by collective national interests are decisively sidelined; a whiff of Macedonia is in the air). I'm involved, as I !voted on the same side as Ottomanist earlier, but I agree with the editors on the other side that at this point it makes no sense to force the process open again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I agree, but I do not sympathize with Ottomanist. He's not a neutral party over there, and every single major discussion on Talk:Kosovo is bound to be "hijacked by national interest factions" to some degree - from both sides. I have seen ample evidence of "solidarity" within both the Serbian and the Albanian "factions", on that talkpage specifically and in general.

Imo Ottomanist's actions are, in fact, a good example of the type of behavior that makes-up a big part of the problem on that talkpage. The discussion was effectively over in early March, but because he disagrees with the result of the RM, he has kept it open for several months through talkpage edit-warring. I was rather amazed when he reverted Future's closure of the thread, and I'm reasonably certain he's actually hoping this report will help his cause as well - every vote counts, you know. That kind of fanaticism and WP:HORSE is just disruptive (although I think the WP:HORSE would actually have decomposed long ago in this case :)). -- Director (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't generally disagree with your assessment; just a factual correction: Ottomanist didn't "keep it open for several months". He only started editing last week. The move process was just sitting around stale for so long, but formally it was still legitimately open when he first tried to comment on it. (Actually, I remember somebody had tried to close it some time ago, and back then it was me who reverted the closure (once) because at that time I felt it was inappropriate to have a closure by an involved party.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Its really besides the point. Will someone just close that thing? Its been up since January. -- Director (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As the thread has been closed by an admin (Future) [33], I've now re-instated the closure. User:Ottomanist is clearly opposed to closing the thread for POV reasons, and imo really ought to be warned and/or sanctioned for reverting an admin closure and edit-warring [34][35][36][37][38] against everybody else on the talkpage of a sensitive article under WP:ARBCOM probation. -- Director (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite banal now - everybody knows that Serbian editors act as a bloc. I don't see why impartial editors don't get on to this- the whole free, English-speaking world recognises that the Republic of Kosovo has the same borders as Kosovo. The issue is summed up best by one editor:

"We had lots of polls on whether to split Kosovo. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the wrong version got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality."

Ottomanist (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "everybody knows" Serbian editors oppose the move, pro-Albanian editors (like yourself) support it, and there are uninvolved editors on both sides. There is no consensus for the move. Not only was the thread closed by an admin, it was closed by an admin that actually supported the move. The RM has been up since January, there's been no debate for two months - and it is over. Nobody is "gaming the system", except you - by keeping the RM open until you have your way. Keep content disputes on the talkpage please. -- Director (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll let the admins decide if there are two Kosovos or one. Ottomanist (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know, "there can be only one Kosovo!!", right? Please tell me you're not here trying to canvass admins? Perchance you are unaware that this is not the place where people "decide" on content disputes? Frankly I can not believe you are actually hoping to use a report on your behavior to close an RM in your favor. -- Director (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if there are one or two but I do know a lack of consensus. Closed it again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that Ottomanist is in fact not a new user, but rather a sock of Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as this [39] makes obvious (that and the unique combination of pro-Albanian and pro-Ottoman POV, which made Interestedinfairness stand out from other users in this area). He owns up to being a returning user [40], but won't say what was the name of his old account. The bit about being a casual user is malarkey, as Interestedinfairness was anything but a "casual user". As Interestedinfairness, he had racked up a block log, and also gotten a formal ARBMAC warning and a one-month topic ban from Kosovo, for disruptive behavior. Thus, starting a new account is problematic per WP:SCRUTINY. At a minimum, he should be compelled to disclose his former account on his userpage. Athenean (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Now it makes complete sense. After I attempted to close the thread, the user actually followed my contribs and reverted my edits on a completely unrelated article (Government of National Salvation) [41]. Sort of like "get away from my article or I'll oppose you on that one". "Casual user" my foot. Athenean, just post an SPI report. -- Director (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he did disclose the previous account, on being asked ([42]), so there's nothing much an SPI would be useful for. But of course I agree he's been disruptive, and I'm slightly curious why no admin has got the banhammer out yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: the user is now edit-warring on the Republic of Kosovo article. To be precise, he's revert-warring to push his deletion of large chunks of data without consensus. He's also accused me on my talkpage [43] of working as a group with WhiteWriter of all people, my best friend [44]. -- Director (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

also I would like to remind parties involved that Republic of Kosovo is a 1RR protected article, any violation of that rule is instantly blockable that includes both parties--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:BruceGrubb's disruption of WP:RS/N

Could an administrator please take action against User:BruceGrubb for disruption of the WP:RS/N process? In particular, IDHT over clear snow, leading to escalating personal attacks. We normally don't need admin supervision as it is a low intensity space, but BruceGrubb has issues with WP:IDHT (the initing cause of the RS/N thread [45] [46] [47]), WP:NPA ([48], "Because you are all basically the Smithsonian is not reliable and that is TOTALLY MAD AS A HATTER INSANE." ), WP:BATTLEGROUND ([49] [50])—these amount to disruption of the collegial atmosphere of WP:RS/N. They appear to be an enthusiastic editor, who has some issues getting in the way of a vast and positive contribution to the encyclopaedia. While the user's civility issues need to be dealt with elsewhere; the disruption of WP:RS/N needs to be restrained, and immediately so. (User notified) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that in case you are not aware of it, Bruce Grubb was topic banned on WP:AN (need to look at his talk page history to see the link I guess) partly due to the use of "less than reliable sources", self-published items, etc. and WP:Walls of text was mentioned there. So it is ironic to have a RSN dispute now.... History2007 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fifelfoo is IMHO trying to cover up what IMHO are obvious attempt of WP:GAME the results. He archive the thread after only three short hours and now tries to revert to that version and I call WP:VANDAL. @History2007 the sources Fifelfoo is disputing with his behavior are Niemi's Robert History in the Media: Film And Television ABC-CLIO ISBN-13: 978-1576079522 Saburo, Ienaga The Pacific War 1931-1945 [http://pantheon.knopfdoubleday.com/ Pantheon) ISBN 978-0394734965 Peterson, Barbara Bennett (2006) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, preserver of spirit and hope Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116 Dick, Bernard F. (1996) in The star-spangled screen: the American World War II film University Press of Kentucky -- It (Prelude To War) claims to provide "factual information of events leading up to World War II" — a valid enough aim." Rollins Peter C.; John E. O'Connor's Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History University Press of Kentucky - "It's (Prelude to war's) aim was to provide factual information of events leading up to the war" Alpers, Benjamin Leontief (2003) Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture by University of North Carolina Press pg 178-179 - "Capra defend the film's style, maintaining that it was simply the most effective way to package fact." Thomas Patrick Doherty's (1999) Projections of war: Hollywood, American culture, and World War II Columbia University Press Page 72 Gordon Martel's The World War Two Reader (reprinting much of Benjamin Leontief Alpers work) Psychology Press (ie Routledge) pg 167-168 Let's see four modern University Press book and a modern work published "publisher of quality academic books, journals & online reference" in my favor. How this relates to the matrer History2007 talks about I would love to see him explain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I've checked only Rollings/Peters, and you read a very small snippet out of context. The source emphatically does not support your claim. Just a few lines down, the approach is called "plainly interpretative", and half a page down, it describes Dick's account (which you take as gospel) as "naive" and claims that "the central tenet of the genre was [...] promoting the state". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC) That would be a matter to discuss on RSN WHICH IS MY POINT. By archiving it after only three hours and continuing to fiddle with it (see [[51]] for that nonsense) Fifelfoo is preventing any meaningful discussion on the matter ie WP:VANDAL. I should mention Rollings/Peters is talking about "Dick's personal account" and shifts back and forth in the text between that account and his own views on the matter. Rollings/Peters do NOT say that Dick or the film itself stated that "it's aim was to provide factual information of events leading up to the war" but rather throws that sentence in the middle about talking about Dick's personal account. So is that Dick's view or Rollings/Peters? Again a matter to be thrashed out in RSN--if we are given enough blasted time to do so.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I would comment that I have not looked at any of the sources discussed here, but only noted the WP:AN issue with Bruce Grubb above because it included a number of RS and source misrepresentation discussions before. History2007 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC) If you haven't looked at ANY of the material (which would by definition include Prelude to war itself) in THIS case why are you wasting our time getting involed? IMHO it comes off as WP:HOUNDING--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC) No, I had seen that RSN discussion but did not want to be involved given that I did not know the topic. Yet given that "issues with sources" had been mentioned on AN before, it might have been appropriate to mention it here. That's all. History2007 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC) History2007, your lack of knowledge regarding this specific case is making your position ridiculous. As I stated in the RNS Prelude to War was produced by the Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government making it an official US document and therefor an official view of the United States Government for 1942-1945. Kindly explain how THAT position relates to the case you keep bringing up. WHERE is misrepresentation in THAT statement regarding Prelude to War itself you claim I am making? SHOW US or stop wasting our time and don't divert the issue either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I would suggest calming down, your aggression does not help your case. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I don't think History2007 is the person who looks ridiculous here. The fact is that you are repeating exactly the pattern of behaviour that got you topic banned from Christianity articles. It appears increasingly evident that your wilful adoption of contrarian views and attempts to force them into articles by twisting sources is a general behavioural problem. You can't do it one area any more, so you do it somewhere else. On the topic in question, you may or may not be aware that is claim that WWII somehow began in 1931 has been made before; there was a dispute about the lede approximately a year ago (I haven't time to look up the diffs). Of course even your own source is called Prelude to war. No one doubts that the the Eastern theatre of war emerged as an extension of the long-standing Sino-Japanese conflict, but that does not mean that the World War began when the Sino-Japanese war did. The illogicality of that claim is obvious. A local war is not a world war. Rather the Sino-Japanese conflict became absorbed into the World War that began in 1939. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• BruceGrubb's disruption of RS/N continues. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is also noted that BruceGrubb has also acted wildly inappropriately in this discussion as well, with egregious violations of WP:CIVILITY. I believe that, as Paul B has noted above, there is increasing evidence that BruceGrubb has little if any ability to either act in accord with behavior guidelines or recognize the applicability of WP:FRINGE to any number of sources which meet basic RS standards. I believe the evidence is becoming increasingly obvious that some sort of general sanction or restriction may be in order. I personally believe that the time has come to consider civility restrictions, based on the grossly unacceptable "Mad hatter insane" comment and others, and possibly probation from some policy and guideline pages. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• As a regular editor on RSN, I agree with Fifelfoo's opinion, that BruceGrubb's attitude is not appropriate for RSN. He has referred to me, in his most recent all caps outburst, as "mad as a hatter insane" as well. He seems to be annoyed that the other editors at RSN don't agree with him, and is often the case in these situations, instead of taking a disinterested 3rd party opinion, has decided to argue the point at length. Which would not be a problem if he restrained himself to the issues, but he has not. His behaviour on the page seems clearly disruptive to the board's function. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Two things here. @Paul B: Prelude to war clearly states and I quote again "remember that date: Sept 18, 1931 a date you should remember as well as Dec 7, 1941. For on that date in 1931 the war we are now fighting begun." A letter to the editor of LIFE Sep 21, 1942 Page 6 states "You think World War II began in 1933, by Hitler's seizing power, but the Chinese people shall insist that World War II began on Sept. 18, 1931 by Japan's invasion of Manchuria. "He knew the story well, because it had been he who transmitted the orders for the Japanese troops to march that snowy September 18, 1931, which is actually the date when World War II started." Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific Even the obscure The China monthly review: Volume 98 1941:SEP-NOV pg 353 states "Although we didn't realize it at the time, World War II started on the night of Sept. 18,' 1931, when a small clique of Japanese officers secretly issued orders for Japanese troops to move from their barracks in Manchuria and Korea,..." @Despayre: I meant the position of holding of what editors saying what I believed to be reference to the Smithsonian program titled "Titanic's Final Mystery" to be unreliable to be mad hatter insane NOT the editors themselves. Key difference. Besides in the Prelude to War I set the perimeters under which I was looking for reliability which you, Binksternet, Fifelfoo promptly ignored: "reliable source for the US views of 1942-1945" WP:IRS clearly states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I did NOT ask regarding "current historiography of WWII" (Fifelfoo), I expressly stated "All Documentaries have some propaganda elements to them" which Binksternet ignored with his comment. I stated that "Although during the war itself Prelude to War stated 18 September 1931 was the date the world war started," was what I wanted to add which you also ignored. I said nothing nor in anyway implied Prelude to War itself was scholarly. None of you three addressed the reliability of Prelude to War within the perimeters I originally set so of course give I have ADHD I was going to get peeved about ignoring the context reliability which was clearly spelled out up front and doubly so when it appeared the Smithsonian program titled "Titanic's Final Mystery" was getting the same unreliable song and dance--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Bruce, this is ANI, not the talk page of the WWII article. It's not the place to go into detail arguing the toss about what the documentary actually said, or interpretations of it, nor is it the place to discuss its reliability as a source. Thatr would be back on RSN. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Paul B, you made a comment about Prelude to War that made no sense given what the film itself and contemporary sources said. I note that Colonel Warden also has commented here on the flaws in content with regards to the WWII article and you have made no comments on that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC) No, I went straight over and corrected the error, which was just an easily made slip. And I replied to your points on the talk page. Neither I nor Colonel Warden filled ANI with walls of text arguing the toss and distracting from the issue. Paul B (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC) What's interesting here is that, while these various editors have been fighting over the start date, some blatant misinformation has been slipped into that part of the article and been left there for over two weeks now. This is the statement that "the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany, and subsequent declarations of war on Germany and Italy by France and most of the countries of the British Empire". In fact, so far as Italy is concerned, it was Italy that declared war on France and the British Empire and that didn't happen until 10 June 1940. The error was introduced by another editor who has a good quote from Bertrand Russell on his user page, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves...". Warden (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC) One of the sources above effectively states that while Sept 1, 1939 is a commonly referenced date when WWII begun is more a where you were situation. In Asia is 1931 or 1937, for Europe 1939 is the most comment date I have seen and for US December 7, 1941.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed civility restrictions on BruceGrubb

Proposed - I suggested these in my comment above, so I guess it is sorta incumbent on me to formally propose them. Some of Bruce's comments indicated above have been so appalling that I think the name WP:CIVILITY is inadequate to appropriately describe them. Nor is this the first time that Bruce has displayed problems in this area. His recent ban from Christianity related content was at least in part brought on by similar behavior there. I believe that this editor has a significant, long-term problem with civility and reasonable behavior, as demonstrated here and elsewhere on this and similar wikipedia space pages. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed probation on BruceGrubb

Proposed - As I am the one who suggested them above. Basically, Bruce, if you can't behave on noticeboards and the like, I really don't think that we are obligated to allow you to continue to post there. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am familiar with BruceGrubb from the editing of Weston Price and its talk page. A while back he militated against Ronz in the same unacceptable tone that he is using here with Hrafn. Perhaps in this case his edits have been even more unreasonable. His two targets could not be more different: Hrafn vociferous, stating his views openly; Ronz very much the opposite. However, the edits of BruceGrubb have been similar for both. Mathsci (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Militated against Ronz?" Please. Ronz is one of the most infuriating editors to deal with on this entire project. That someone got frustrated with Ronz isn't a black mark, it's normal. I was also involved at Weston Price and I can tell you that Ronz was heading towards trouble in that situation, not BruceGrubb. I have no comments on anything else. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I spend a lot of time at RSN as you can see. I have no axe to grind, never met this editor before, and have never edited that article. The fact that I disagreed with him, and then he goes on to make personal comments about me in other RSN question/sections (I've never seen him active on the page before, certainly not recently), works like a deterrent to me helping on WP, I don't like being insulted any more than anyone else. His behaviour needs adjusting if he wants to continue to use/contribute to that board, imo. (if this section is for admin comments only, please remove this text without asking me). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh there is no Hrafn involved here in this thread. I should mention that as I pointed out in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive747#User:Ronz_behaviour it was frustration at nothing being done about an editor that seemingly everyone that had actually encountered had some form of problem with and the "oh this isn't our problem" and apparent "I not hearing you because you used the wrong form. La La La" attitude in the board up to then. Ronz had been so bad that even Jimbo Wales himself had to warn him about his actions.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be with your edits, not anybody else's. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As Griswaldo said as far the Weston Price article was concerned that was not true.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeated false vandalism accusations by User:Nick Cooper

User:Nick Cooper will not stop leaving vandalism warnings on my page. I have repeatedly explained to him that disagreeing with him in a content dispute is not vandalism, and have asked him to read WP:NOTVAND at least seven times. He continues to leave false warnings on my page, and is now reporting me for vandalism [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Both are well past 3RR. May be somewhat counterproductive, but not obviously trolling. Strong candidate for WP:LAME. a13ean (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Page protected for 3 days, either editor will face a short block if they post to each others' talk pages again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The inherent problem is that 89.100.207.51 did not understand the remit of the page, deleted content, and then ignored all explanations as to why they were wrong. Since then, they have attempted to turn the page into what they mistakenly thought it was - and now claim it should be - rather than what it has been for over five years, and indeed from the day it was created. Apart from being downright abusive, 89.100.207.51 has consistently failed to offer any rational justification on the Talk page as to why the page should be changed, and has ignored all the explanations as to why it was created in the form it was, and what its remit is. It is also notable that the page is question is based on another one, but 89.100.207.51 has made no attempt to make similar changes there. I've explained all this numerous times, but 89.100.207.51 refuses to acknowledge or discuss any of it. I'm not sure what difference three days is going to make. It is also unfortunate that the page has been locked in the form 89.100.207.51 wants it to be, rather than the long-standing version that existed up until the point this dispute started. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that there was an editing dispute going on, instead of continuing discussion, you starting issuing vandalism warnings to the IP, the IP started issuing you warnings for issuing inappropriate warnings. Without weighing in on what the outcome of the underlying content dispute, it seems the IP editor was discussing in good faith, and even when other editors suggested you may be wrong, you disregarded that and kept on going at it the the IP and failed to adhere to WP:AGF. Step away from the conflict for a few days while the page is protected and then take a look at your own conduct. Monty₈₄₅ 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Which "other editors" are you referring to? The three who replied to 89.100.207.51's slanted RFC before anyone had had a chance to explain the actual background and remit of the page? Nick Cooper (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically Murry1975's comments. More generally, what I don't think your getting is that there is no definite remit of an article, it is by its nature determined by consensus. Also, regardless of the remit of the article, you need to understand that WP:Vandalism is editing with the intent to disrup Wikipedia, and I haven't seen anything to justify your classification of the edits that lead to the edit war as being vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 21:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975 said that the article should have remained in its original state pending the 30 days of the RFC. 89.100.207.51 ignored that, and kept changing it back to the version they wanted, while claiming consensus long before the 30 days were up (and which aren't yet). 89.100.207.51 originally claimed that the content did not match the page name, but rather than propose or discuss a change of name, they insisted that long-standing content should be deleted. How is this constructive? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case, what about the de facto consensus evidenced by an article being in an essentially stable form for many years, generally only edited as appropriate by editors interested or knowledgable in the field? Does that count for nothing, just because an editor unfamiliar with the subject stumbles across it, and manages to gain some short-term support amongst other previously uninvolved editors to change it? This dispute started because 89.100.207.51 removed content from the page twice ([63], [64]), which was reverted by Mervyn first ([65]), and then myself ([66]), with similar explanations in the edit summary, all on 27 April. 89.100.207.51 deleted the content again an 28 April ([67]), at the same time opening an RFC on what they though the remit of the page should be, rather than discussing the issue on the Talk page first. 89.100.207.51 gained initial support from three editors - none of whom had edited the page previously - before I reverted the page to its long-standing version on 2 May ([68]). No other editors offered an opinion after that point, apart from Mervyn, who disagreed with the RFC on 4 May, yet 89.100.207.51 started claiming "consensus" from 8 May, just ten days after opening the RFC. Nick Cooper (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling my editing "spitefully destructive censorship" [69] is abusive. If you don't want people to abuse you back, don't abuse them in the first place. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And that's enough to justify you saying "Go fuck yourself"? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. "Go fuck yourself" only expresses my personal distaste with how you're behaving towards me. Calling my edits "spitefully destructive censorship" adversely affects my standing in the community, as does your twenty or so deliberately false accusations of vandalism, and your refusal to pay attention to the twenty or so times that I asked you to read WP:NOTVAND and explained to you that disagreeing with you is not the same thing as vandalism . 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So where does your repeated refusal to accept the original and long-standing remit of the page fit in, and to even acknowledge let alone answer questions put to you? This cuts both ways. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The remit of a page is decided by consensus. Not by you. Not letting you have your way does not make me a vandal, and does not make it okay for you to call me a vandal. I repeatedly directed you to WP:NOTVAND. You know that I'm not a vandal. Yet you continued to post fake warnings on my page. Over. And over. And over.89.100.207.51 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin closure requested

Resolved

 – Topic ban enacted. AniMate 03:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin or group of admins is requested to please review WP:AN#Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike and effect a closure. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack review

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

---

Just wondering if anyone sees anything actionable with regard to this comment, particularly in light of the recent arbcom admonishment. -Scottywong| converse _ 19:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

...meh Juliancolton (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an escalation from the personal criticism that you started, to be honest - there was no need to attack Hipocrite at that RfA, no matter what you thought of his opinion on voluntary recall. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's the "attack"? -Scottywong| converse _ 19:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but look: either we really do mean it when we say that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA mandates that you do not respond in kind to personal attacks, ever, in any way shape or form, or we don't. One would think that someone admonished by ArbCom for incivility would take especial care, oh, I don't know, not to be uncivil. Either Malleus doesn't get it, or he doesn't give a damn; the distinction doesn't matter a bit. Ravenswing 20:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing Mealleus does is actionable. He's been blocked so many times that whatever he does is understandable since he's been so wronged in the past. You should know that. Besides, that's nothing. Malleus has called me a pretentious asshole and pretentious twat. At least yours didn't involve a body part. Of course we could say civility is violated in these instances, and it's an ongoing problem, but we would of course be wrong, for some reason. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Scottywong, if you cannot see that your comment about Hipocrite was a condescending put-down, then I have to question your judgment. I think you need to walk away, cool down, and come back tomorrow and rethink it - and not escalate things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Boing on this. — Ched :  ?  20:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What comment are we talking about? Someone post a diff, for those of us not privy, please. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this one — Ched :  ?  20:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll admit there was some attitude given (purposely) in my comments at the RfA. However, I fail to see how this is justification for being called a "pretentious prig" without consequence. Just thought I'd test the waters here, feel free to hat this thread if it's clear that nothing will come of it. -Scottywong| yak _ 20:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, now, hang on, this is awesome. As long as I can claim that someone had it coming to him by way of a comment I can claim was "condescending" or contained "attitude," I can say what I want about him, and there can't be any comeback to me over it? That's good to know! Ravenswing 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to remember that new rule for the future as well. It seems to only apply to certain editors though, and ironically it's usually the least civil ones. -Scottywong| babble _ 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Scottywong is begging for the boomerang here - there is nothing to see here apart from his disruptive unnecessary escalation - we can focus on that and his recent poor personal admin actions fully protecting his user pages from discussion whilst under usual investigative discussion.Youreallycan 20:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm is disruptive, but insulting someone explicitly isn't? Ravenswing 20:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• An opener reports and their desire to close the report when the focus has moved to their actions is not something users should edit war about - shame on you ENT - there is discussion about this admin unresolved and your closure is not correct at all - Youreallycan 20:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive unnecessary escalation you say? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• (I'm not going to war to unclose this, but I would argue that SW asked for it to be closed iff it's clear that nothing will come of it, and adequate time has hardly been given for comment by anyone who didn't find it immediately) Answering what one perceives to be rudeness or condescension with overt nastiness and name-calling is pretty clearly not adhering to our civility policy, which quite clearly states that everyone is responsible for their own behavior, and that claiming to have been provoked does not excuse you from attacking someone. It's exceptionally clear at this point that Malleus has been warned, in every possible way, about his incivility and knows better than this. It is also, unfortunately, very clear to me that the community is for whatever reason - I suspect institutional inertia - unlikely to deal with this issue adequately, and that this thread will probably result in name-calling and insults among people who weren't even party to the dispute in the first place. We all know very well that any attempt to admonish or block Malleus will cause an uproar, on both sides of the "civility divide". Though those above who say that Scottywong needs to cool off, and probably apologize to Hipocrite, are right, that doesn't excuse Malleus's behavior here. As unpleasant as the prospect is, I'd say that the only route open for dealing with further (accusations of) incivility by Malleus is to go back to Arbcom and request either Arbitration Enforcement or a review of the Civility Enforcement case (which of the two it is is beyond me - is AE used for cases where there aren't specific restrictions, but rather admonishments?); the community is emphatically incapable of handling the issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't need an apology, as I assumed one when the comment was edited. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This closure is a restriction of discussion in regards to an unresolved issue - I am following a One revert edit pattern but I have let the closer User:Nobody Ent know on his talk page that I consider this unresolved and that I object to his edit warring closure - Youreallycan 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What can be tried is to replay the entire exchange on a sandbox page, and see if you are all capable of communicating without anyone feeling insulted. Count Iblis (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Something of note

Does this look suspicious to anyone? When this is used, I am beginning to think that they are socks, with information being deleted very slowly. I would SPI this, but since I don't know the sockpuppeteer, I am going here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and this, which added a user from two years ago who did exactly the same thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• The behavior suggests there is an experienced sock master behind them, given the effort taken to avoid red-linked user page and user talk links. The socks themselves haven't really done anything that bad, removing content from an article months/years apart when none of them have been blocked isn't exactly serious sock puppetry. Monty₈₄₅ 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Merridew? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Doubt it. Jack is back as User:Br'er Rabbit, with the blessing of Arbcom, apparently. Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

CU results being posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Casadesus. --MuZemike 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an odd one. The edits don't seem bad in themselves, and the socks haven't been disruptive. The parent account (Casadesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been around since April 2008 but has a clean block log. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to evade scrutiny as there aren't any sanctions against the account. I'm mystified as to why he seems to have created no fewer than twelve socks, none of which is older than 23 March this year. Ordinarily I'd suggest blocking the guy but I suggest given these rather bizarre circumstances that he should be invited to explain his reasons. There may be a legitimate explanation (e.g. other people using his computer). I've notified him on his talk page, though as he's not edited since 2 April we may be in for a wait. Prioryman (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stürmburg, as it is possible that that I may have hit a false positive there (I have not blocked the user, yet), and that user has not edited that article. --MuZemike 22:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Stürmburg is the sockmaster. The first sock in the sequence that you found, namely Sobamlo (talk · contribs), dates back to 23 March while Stürmburg was created on 14 May. None of them seem to have been used for very long or for many edits. Some haven't been used at all. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any simultaneous socking - accounts seem to have been created and then discarded one after the other, being used consecutively rather than simultaneously. It's an unusual pattern, to say the least. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree here, as I think that Casa and the others share a similar characteristic, as they all remove text. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do not understand why the edits were reverted. The article was considerably improved by those edits - better sourcing, improved sentence structure, better grammar. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to revert to the "other" version, I will be going back to the most recent one. Risker (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they also removed information, which was useful. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It also removed a lot of biased information and interpretation of sources, and corrected errors and contradictions. This process is called editing. Just because someone's stuck information into an article doesn't mean that it is good information or valuable information or does anything to increase the understanding of the subject. Risker (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

True. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted back to the article's condition after the work done by the "serial accounts". I have no objection to knowledgeable editors discussing whether or not the edits made by those accounts improve the article or remove too much; however, the discussion would be more appropriate on the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullying tactics from User:Seb az86556

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

---

Constantly reverting edits and data links on my user page that I have inserted to record another editor's project investigating the suspected dozen or more IPsockets of my IP address. I have a personal interest in this project, of course, as it implicates me, as an editor. To understand how this system of reporting works I am watching closely to observe how another editor, attempting another WP:Bullying tactic to suppress my edits, alledges I can post from various cities hundred of km. away from each other. I have attempted to give notices and discuss this perceived harrassment with this user with several attempts on my and his talk page. He just ignores any comments, refuses discussion, deletes any discussion I make on my, or his, talk page and posts more threatening or belittling text. If this is the way editors, attempting to help out, are treated something needs to be done about the constant wiki-spam injected into readers pages about being able to edit articles. From the few dozen IP addresses I have observed, this is not the case and an Internet propagated lie to the public. It doesn't take a genius to see that IP editors are targetted in Wikipedia by a certain group of seasoned editors that will bully IP editors until they give up. User:Seb az86556 certainly fits this description. I have spent more of my latest edit time defending allegations inserted in to my IP talk page than I have editing. I have attempted to get assistance but constant "look at me" notices, from some, distract from this process time. From my past experiences in these matters the user in question will be the major deciding factor in this matter and therefore I have lost any faith in the system. I would like it to go on record and perhaps after hundred of complaints, about this WP:Bully, somebody will wake up and rescue the WP methods before it crashes as a useful tool. Thanks 99.251.114.120 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)
• 99.251.114.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Adding links only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody please notify Seb az86556 of this? I understand I am supposed to notify the editor involved. I do not know understand how to use templates and he will only inject more warnings on my talk page for vandalism. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You just copy the template from the instructions, paste it onto his Talk page, and sign it. I find it helpful to put it in its own section, but it's not strictly necessary. Anyway, I've done it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that anyone has done anything to you that was unwarranted. At least some of your editing pattern appears to be disruptive. You were blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights on May 9 for edit warring. That block was extended for personal attacks on the same day, and again extended on May 10 for a week because of inappropriate use of your Talk page during your block. Other than your global criticism of how IPs are treated generally - this is not the place for that - I don't see why you're here except perhaps to draw further attention to yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have time to give this the attention it deserves, although I have looked through the IPs contribs somewhat. All I can recommend to the IP is "duck!". I'm pretty sure one of my famous heart to heart talks wouldn't do the trick here as I think the IP lacks the clue factor to benefit from it. As such, I will leave it to someone else to apply the proper inspection and remedy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TJD2 has been continuously changing or removing sourced content

These edits all pertain to the article Falling in Reverse: [70][71][[72][73][74][75]Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have continuously reminded this user to consult the talk page about the genre, but they continue to revert my work without explaining their reasoning. This user refuses to discuss at the talk page, and made a revert which removed/blanked sourced information that had been since added, as well as an updated image. We have established on the talk page that FiR is Post Hardcore and not screamo. If a source said they were country for example, it would be unreliable and we wouldn't put it in the article; the same goes for screamo. This has already been discussed. TJD2 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see you discussing it either. There this section, "Links to proove FIR is metalcore", which basically consists of a bunch of guys wanking over what songs are in what genres and why they are experts. Allmusic is generally considered to be reliable for genres, and they list a bunch of genres including screamo. Edit-warring aside (I'm going to count reverts in a moment), Hoponpop appears to be correct. Besides, you keep removing a reference to Allmusic--on what grounds? No, those edit summaries that boil down to "shut up it's on the talk page", well, it's not on the talk page, at least no consensus that can be called reasonably argued on the basis of reliable sources. Oh, if a reliable source calls something country, it's country. You seem to be arguing from your own taste and convictions. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Looking at the history I see more nonsense: you, TJD2, accused Hoponpop of "blatant vandalism"--that's obviously false. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism as in removing information that had since been added (images, past members, etc.). At the time I saw it as vandalism but it was an admitted oversight on their part. I'm not arguing from my own tastes, I am simply pointing out that there was a discussion on the issue and the users involved came to a consensus. I was merely protecting that consensus. As a side note, I was not even involved in the discussion save the fact that they listed a song that wasn't by FiR as an example of pop punk. BUT I would gladly discuss the genre changes with Hoponpop if he was willing (though he is not). TJD2 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling something vandalism when it is not automatically escalates a situation. Your next step in content disputes is dispute resolution ... otherwise, I'm not sure what you're requesting from admin? A block for content arguments? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm requesting the user be temporarily blocked.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds? There is no reason to temporarily block, as I was merely protecting the interest of the consensus reached on the talk page. Now that you're telling me it should be there, I'll protect that interest because it was ordered by an admin...it's that simple, no need to escalate the situation past this. TJD2 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violation from user: EmJhay Sowkie

EmJhay Sowkie (talk · contribs) has been creating multiple Phillipines-X bilateral articles all with some form of copyright violation. at least one I got speedy deleted.

At least 4 notifications/warnings have been made with no change in behaviour [76].

number of the articles are lifted from foreign ministry websites or news articles including:

• Paraguay–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bolivia–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chile–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Palau–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Venezuela–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Philippines-Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LibStar (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

user now indefinitely blocked. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled across this mess while working the CSD queue. I've indef blocked the editor, but would appreciate some help in cleaning up the remaining copyvios. It looks like just about everything he's written is a copy/paste from a news source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad someone else caught these I kept seeing them in the queue but was busy elsewhere. Ridernyc (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A nuke caught most of the "relations" articles, and I deleted the rest. All I looked at were copyvios. The closest to non-copyvio was one copied from the New Zealand government, but that one was still under a "no derivatives" license. The rest were either unspecified or explicitly marked as "all rights reserved." The "Philippines-Foo relations" seemed to be the problem, I didn't find any issue with the templates he's made, or edits to existing articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty clearly a sock, though I can't recall whom. There was a big to-do over an editor creating an insane number of "relations" articles, but it's been so long ago I can't remember the user. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review

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

---

I have just blocked User: Badmachine indefinitely. I'm not the first admin to do or propose this--see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Badmachine Blocked and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#my user page. I gave Badmachine a clear final warning for disruptive behavior in this edit; this was in response to him suggesting that a stained glass of Jesus be used as the main picture for rapper Lil B, because, in his words, "thats lil b isnt it? ". This user, while sometimes making good edits to mainspace, is nothing but a bloody drama magnet outside of it, particularly in reference to his userpage. The specific behavior that prompted the indefinite block was the most recent incarnation of his userpage, which I deleted.

Now, why did I delete a userpage out of process, and block an editor who I know has been unblocked for? Because the most recent version of the user page made specific claims that a specific, living human being (or, possibly a fictional construct of Badmachine, but WP:BLP does not allow me to guess) was the perpetrator of child pornography, molestation, etc. Of course, no references were provided (yes, userspace is not article space, but nothing is exempt from WP:BLP). There is absolutely no conceivable way in my mind, given the vast amount of attention that has been paid to Badmachine's userpage before, that he could have possibly thought that this was acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, the userpage admitted two particularly relevant points: " Badmachine took up his current view that trolling is a necessary part of the evolution of Internet users into thicker-skinned people" and "Badmachine remains particularly amused by the hypocrisy stemming from the fact that Wikmedia hosts every sort of porn imaginable, yet prevents images of penises on his user page, despite Wikipedia's claim of being uncensored." This was WP:POINTy, to say the least. This user is only here to push our buttons, for the lulz, shall we say. The mainspace edits simply cannot make up for this disruption.

Could I conceive of a path for Badmachine to return to active editing? At a bare minimum, it would involve the permanent deletion of his user page, the removal of anything from his user talk page not added by another user or put there as a response to another user, and an understanding that any disruption anywhere would mean a return to a blocked status. Do I think it's worth the effort? Certainly not.

Finally, please note that I am now walking away from the computer (because I have to go home). I strongly suggest that no one undo this block without a clear community consensus. Should a community consensus arise at a later point, fine. Also, another admin should take a look at the deleted content, and determine if the specific claims about child pornography require WMF involvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see User_talk:Badmachine#May_2012 - I've posted my own comments there. I've also restored the 'offending' userpage, which I can attest is Badmachine's own biography, and have redacted and suppressed material that may be required by policy. Feel free to judge accordingly. However, I strongly believe that whether Badmachine should be blocked for 'trolling' or whatev, he should not be blocked for posting his own brief life-story to his user page. This is just seriously wrong. Please read my own comments on his talk page. I cannot unblock myself, as he's an RL friend so that would be just wrong, but please take what I'm saying into consideration. I can't sit by and see him blocked indef for posting his life story - Alison ^❤ 08:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And I have deleted it again, because it still was a blatant BLP violation. Furthermore, you shouldn't have used the tools in this case Alison, since your COI clerly makes you involved (albeit with the best intentions). Voicing your opinion, like you did here, is perfect, but you should have left the rest to others. Fram (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Badmachine has been quite successful; we still get drama-threads like this one which absorb other editors' time. Giving extra attention is not the solution. Can't we get back to working on the encyclopædia's other problems? bobrayner (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block As I noted at User talk:Badmachine on May 13, "No individual action warrants an indef block, but in totality it is clear that WP:HERE applies—Badmachine is just testing the limits of Wikipedia." It does not matter whether the user is a troll or not, the issue is whether what they are doing is significantly different from what a clever and patient troll would do (it's not). Prior to the current issue, the user's page has been deleted by user request four times (log). That should not be necessary. It is not reasonable to apply WP:AGF when a user displays a GNAA logo on their talk page and posts "More amusing to Badmachine is that the prevention of penises is at least somewhat justifiable, but that the addition of the GNAA logo to his userpage makes Wikipedians shit their collective panties" (that was on the now-deleted user page)—what the user fails to appreciate is that we are (mostly) adult, and we don't care about porn/GNAA/whatever, so long as it happens somewhere else because this is an encylopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block; nothing much against trolls in general. But their actions should not be welcomed here. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Good block - the user is clearly here to troll & disrupt. GiantSnowman 09:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wow, what exactly is wrong with all of you? I imagine it must be some sort of mental disorder. It's pathetic really. Allison comes and reverts a deletion, because she apparently knows the guy (hence the involvement I assume) and as such vouches for the veracity of the user page bio, which was termed offending and as such the obvious problem, so her involvement actually increases her weight of opinion in this particular matter. But that isn't what this is about, is it, no no. This is about the inabilities of many wikipedians to see past their own self-righteous ideals. Ideals that make wikipedia the crap that it is today...it was once a wonderful place, now it has devolved into a bunch of man-childs arguing over jokes made on TALK pages for god's sake and factual user bio's confirmed by someone who apparently knows the guy. Grow up. You people seem like something from a kids in the hall episode about a wayward mental facility in French Quebec. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, mysterious IP whose first edit is to AN/I! Thanks for making my point for me. bobrayner (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Badmachine has posted a link to a pastebin copy which is supposedly (I'm not doubting the veracity, just that, well, it is pastebin, so I can't confirm it) of an article from the Ohio Dispatch that confirms key portions of the original story--the perpetrator, the conviction, some details about the crime. It doesn't of course identify the victim. This may change some people's views of the block and/or deletion, so I wanted others to be aware of it. Also, the user had posted an unblock request, which User:Boing! said Zebedee declined. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the deleted user page also contained negative unsourced statements about other (possibly) living people, e.g. a member of his family. Fram (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that the first few paragraphs of the Columbus Dispatch article dumped in the pastebin link are a verbatim transcription of the actual article published on the indicated date, page number, & etc, as can anyone who creates a free account at the newspaper's website, which is required to search its archives. The rest of the text is behind a $3 per article paywall. The article accessed directly via the newspaper's doesn't mention the "Jr." appendix to the given name of the perpetrator, btw, but that's only included in the file name or heading on pastebin, not in the body of the text provided there.

Not that I think any of this is relevant, unless we were to allow an article in mainspace about it. --OhioStandard (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)  late edit - note timestamp

• Regardless of the content of the user page, surely this is a case of WP:NOTWEBHOST - "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." GiantSnowman 10:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In practice that is rarely enforced for active editors -- for example, how is your atheism relevant to the encyclopedia? Nobody Ent 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you're playing devil's advocate, but there's a massive difference between a small userbox and a massive autobiography full of criminal accusations about BLPs. GiantSnowman 10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying focus on the actual issue at hand, which is the blp, not an archaic widely disregarded policy. Nobody Ent 10:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• In addition, it's not only the user page that's the problem here - that is merely one issue, among many. GiantSnowman 10:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• While WP:NOTWEBHOST does make some very broad suggestions about what is / isn't allowed, none of it is distinct. Looking back at Wikipedia:User_page it clearly states: "There is no fixed use for user pages, except that usually one's user page has something about oneself" Now I would consider a biographical page about the author fully about oneself as suggested here. While the other page (something that is hidden away and even refers back to User_page as the primary source of information on namespace content) clearly says it is not a social networking site and should have some relevancy to the encyclopedia. If you take this to mean he should not have his bio on there, then please, from your own, User:GiantSnowman I request that you remove "Hello, my name is GiantSnowman, and I live in North Yorkshire. I am an English Literature graduate who works in finance, and I occassionally blog for the Huffington Post. I am interested in politics, literature, film, and music; strangely, my edits on Wikipedia do not reflect this at all – instead I concentrate mainly on the beautiful game." as it too is fully irrelevant to the encyclopedia. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, there's a massive difference between briefly explaining a bit about me and listing what areas interest me, both on & off Wikipedia, and a massive autobiography full of criminal accusations about BLPs. GiantSnowman 10:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Except it is a completely arbitrary (and nothing shown in either WP:NOTWEBHOST nor Wikipedia:User_page suggests that there is a limit on how much one may commit to their biographical data within their talk page. So the idea that his is massive and your's brief, is really of little relevance. Now the content of unsupported criminal accusations, would be an issue, except that isn't what this is. It is a statement, in his bio, that the man was subsequently convicted of said crimes and as such are not accusations, but a statement that a man was convicted for crimes prefaced in the bio. These are two extremely different cases. One is a risk of libel as no proof or lack thereof can be ascertained to meet legal requirements outside of a court, which would have to convict to give veracity to said accusations. So yes, ensuring that such accusations are not made is extremely good policy. However, to say one was convicted of said crimes, is not the same as it can be proven based on a plethora of documentation available to the general public. While his ability to keep it or not isn't as much a concern to me as how arbitrary the ideology of what rules he's violated disturbs me greatly. If there are rules that state definitively something he's done in that bio (without arbitrary definition as it has thus been) then I can fully see value in that. I've just not yet seen it. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I endorse the block, as it is not appropriate to use Wikipedia user space to make unsupported criminal allegations (whether true or not). I declined the unblock request largely because the request itself included a link to a screenshot of the user page containing the unsupported allegations. Badmachine has responded by saying he can go and get proof of his allegations and hopes that that will allow him to restore them to his user page. But I think that is largely missing the point - user pages are not meant as web hosts for this kind of thing, and editors' time should not be wasted checking the veracity of allegations made on user pages. But having said all that, I place great store on Alison's words, and I'm happy to accept her assurance that Badmachine is not intentionally trolling here - he has clearly suffered some events in his life that could cause serious damage, and I think we should take that into account. However, Wikipedia is not therapy, and I don't think Badmachine's detailed life events should be posted here. I've suggested that he posts a brief bio with no names named, and I would support an unblock if he agrees to post no more than that on his user page (and I think his giving us some idea of what he wants to do towards improving the encyclopedia would help). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I still find the ban unacceptable and the fact you keep calling them "allegations" of any sort shows a lack of understanding of what the term even means. There are no allegations in his bio, as the suggestion was that the man was convicted of the crimes and as such they aren't a suggestion of criminal allegations, ie. they're not a statement revolving around the act of the crime and it's assertion of it happening rather around the conviction and the preface of what for and not at all surrounding a plead for action based upon what you incorrectly label "allegations". Please see Allegation for further information. That aside, the suggestion of "brief" bio is a rather arbitrary term. For myself who can write novels about whatever subject I happen to be writing on, brief may find itself several pages. Which obviously many other wikipedians would too, considering the length of some of the talk page bio's I've come across. What I actually see here is a wikipedian who many have a problem with because he doesn't necessarily fall into their self-imposed clonal mold, he's from different circumstances, from a different mode of thought, but a wikipedian, a competent editor, and an otherwise decent person. This whole thing is ridiculous and I find the fact any of this happening a black mark on wikipedia's open and non-discriminating nature. Sad, very sad. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Honestly I think the user page is a sideshow and not really a major concern (i.e. could easily be fixed). The elephant in the room is the ongoing trolling as evidenced by the blocking admin. Badmachine exhibits the traditional usenet toll behaviour, as Alison noted, and can't seem to restrain himself. That is disruptive IMO. At the very least, for an unblock he needs to agree not to engage in that again. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • so it is okay for an admin to use a non-issue for the reason to pursue a ban to get people riled up so that his case that normally failed to reach a ban consensus would be easier to push through? That isn't very good behavior in and of itself. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Nobody is pursuing a ban - this is a block review. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I meant block, It's extremely late. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • BTW, concerning the word "allegation": If a person claims that someone else has been convicted of a crime, but does not provide proof of that conviction, then in that context it is an allegation - whether proof of the allegation actually exists does not change that. Calling it an allegation implies no ill-will towards the person making the allegation and does not in any way suggest falsehood. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Note AGK has made a statement vis-a-vis checkuser. Nobody Ent 10:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment: I am typically quite sympathetic towards these types of things, but I also understand the poorly considered postings on the userpage in regards to trollish, legal allegations of pedophilia or child porn, and concerns regarding possible BLP issues. I'd also have to think a bit of research into the AGK post in regards to it now being a CU block as well would be needed; along with the great advice offered by Boing. Great respect to Alison, and sincere sympathy to BM - but a blog would likely be a better outlet for much of what was deleted. — Ched :  ?  10:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• So now that's settled, there's the issue of an admin using tools to undo a deletion (admittedly one done out of process) on the grounds of personal friendship with the party in question. That certainly shouldn't be waved away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see it as Alison "undoing" the required deletion, just implementing it in a different way - she did, after all, remove the actual offending parts. Perhaps she shouldn't have done so, but I don't see it as a big deal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What Boing! said. And there are few users, I think, who are as inclined as I am to object to genuine abuse of the tools. I'm not an admin, btw. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Alison probably shouldn't have done it - given her open COI - but there was certainly no admin 'abuse of tools' or anything of that nature, and it has since been quickly & cleanly rectified. GiantSnowman 11:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thumperwad is not correctly seeing the case here. What Allison did was restore that which she, herself, knows to be true and factual, which is due to the very fact she is friends with BM. Namespace in no way is required to meet the standards of the encyclopedic information, the original deletion itself was excessive and could have been handled with much lighter hands, removing, and perhaps locking his userpage until a discussion on the content allowable was made. A block / deletion was well in excess. Allison did nothing wrong here, this is a case where it is assumed that a friendship is a COI, where in reality the friendship provides inside knowledge of the veracity and thus non-disruptive in intent reasoning behind the bio. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you refrain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP is obviously a sock of the user in question. I'm surprised it's not blocked already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That was indeed my immediate thought as well - both use double spacing, and these arew the IPs first contribs on Wikipedia - but the Geolocate doesn't match... GiantSnowman 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• considering the userpage was previously a wall of penises, I'm finding it difficult to take the biography at face value. Don't feed the trolls. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • whether you take it in any way, is really of little consequence imho. As long as it doesn't violate explicitly any rules, namespace doesn't need to be cited. Not in most cases, nor in cases where you have doubts about it's veracity. However, Alison, who apparently is an IRL friend of BM, stated that it is all true, and personally I find that enough to take it at its word. That being said, I don't see how this is really a troll even if it were false, the wall of penises appeared to be a (though not sure it applies to namespace) a case of WP:POINT, but really neither does much to actually disrupt anything, except for some reason people allow it to take up there time by creating an issue where one really doesn't exist. That's like blaming little Debbie for being fat, because those little cakes are just so tasty. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP applies to all namespaces, you are not allowed to make unsourced negative comments about living (or possibly living) people in user space, and even reliably sourced ones should be used with utmost caution, as the purpose of a userpage is not to post negative information about other people. Fram (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • and I've not argued against WP:BLP being a valid consideration in this case. In fact I agreed with that above. Although I think the block and deletion of the userpage was excessive and simply removing the offending material (which was only a small portion of the bio) would have been sufficient. from WP:BLP - "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", however later it is stated, "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Now, in the case of this block, it seems it defaulted to the latter, without consideration of the first step action appearing in the rule's heading. There was no removal of the offending sections of the bio, rather the entire bio was removed and a block instated. While yes, it is possibly a violation of WP:BLP, and as being even a possible violation removal is priority without considering of discussion on the matter, blocking is not the intended first response for a violation, nor even subsequent violations unless as stated the violation fo WP:BLP is persistent. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by User: Historiographer

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

---

User: Historiographer wrote a personal attack using a racial slur Jjokbari: "Japanese users, who diminished to Korea-related articles like Kusunose, are kept always annoying deeds that. In those days, I'm also used to do that like you against these troublesome Jjokbaries".[77]] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So please leave a {{uw-npa1}} template or a personalised warning; a single statement is not grounds for blocking or other administrative attention. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for three month by an admin Future Perfect at Sunrise for "nationalist battleground attitude, chauvinistic attacks, edit-warring; also disrupting discussions with poor English". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You have significantly changed the meaning of the users comment by taking it out of context, the remainder of the diff you point to paints a different picture. Penyulap ☏ 14:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a common thing to say "oh I used to get concerned about something, and now it doesn't bother me" For example, "I used to get concerned about people coming to my talkpage trying to troll me, but now I don't let it bother me"

The exact expression used, same diff, is "Please, Don't mind too." I don't see this as a personal attack using a racial slur, I see it as giving wise advice not to be upset, using the racial slur as an example of how upset you should not become, as in don't mind being upset (or engaging in racism), be like me and "Don't mind too." Penyulap ☏ 14:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for further information, and the admin who blocked may be busy as it's taking a while to respond. I went ahead and asked for the block to be reviewed, however, as it's the first time I've done so, I probably used the wrong tp, lol. Penyulap ☏ 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting rather amusing as the help pages, policy, guidelines only give advice on how to appeal your own block, not how to appeal someone elses, there is like, zero mention of it at all. Have to look into that one.

Meantime I am blatantly admin shopping, as the first one I got, I never even left the checkout with it before I noticed it was broken. I wouldn't mind a response on this one that I can at least leave the store with. Penyulap ☏ 15:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The awkwardness is due to the fact that you can edit when you're appealing someone else's block, while blocked people appealing their own blocks have to go about it all on their own talk pages or through email. Please take it up with the blocking admin; if you disagree with his reasoning, please bring up the issue (calmly/peacefully/etc.) at WP:AN, using a header of something along the lines of "Block review requested". Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I had asked for clarification first from the admin, on their talkpage and on the users talkpage, I got a response to the second unblock request which was better than the first, I think it would be helpful here if I was to add your advice into the block pages, because maybe I am a complete idiot (or maybe there a few bits missing before I'm complete) but I couldn't see anywhere on any of the block appeals pages how to request further information or review of someone else's block. Penyulap ☏ 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving response to parallel thread at WP:AN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Nationalist-motivated vandalism by the user:星光下的人.

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

---

Nationalist-motivated vandalism, of List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and of List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Charles,_Prince_of_Wales, at [78] and at [79], respectively. Cannot write English properly, and many of his edits in the English Wikipedia were unhelpful, or even downright disruptive. Edit-summaries were often left blank, if they were not rants, and in Chinese, instead. Fairly nationalistic Userpage at the Chinese Wikipedia, at [80]. The user appears to be pursuing some fringe theories (possibly over the use of surnames) over Chinese historical articles, across the different language-versions of Wikipedia, or that he is in fact simply trolling. The User was indefinitely blocked, according to these, at [81] and at [82], in the Japanese Wikipedia, at [83], by the User:Vigorous action, at [84], for "Move-Vandalism" (ブロック設定を無期限に変更しました。ブロックの詳細(アカウント作成のブロック、自分のトークページの編集禁止) (ブロック破りを認めたため。荒らし: 移動荒らし。)) ([85]; [86]), and later also for suspected sock-puppetry [87]; [88]; [89]; [90]. I had reported this to the wikipedia:AIV, but was recommended, as it is too complex, to bring this matter up to here instead. I thank you. — KC9TV 08:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Blank edit-summaries and poor English are things we help editors with, not typically block them over. You have a rather bizarre definition of vandalism that does not match ours - and your massive overuse of vandalism templates is rather WP:BITEY. You've even been removing comments from your talkpage calling them vandalism when they're not. Have you attempted to resolve this issue with the editor themself yet in a polite, non-template-laden manner? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what you mean by a fairly nationalistic user page at the Chinese Wikipedia, there are userboxen about being against independent Tibet and Taiwan, and being pro PRC, but it certainly isn't over the top, nor would it have much bearing on changes to British royalty articles on English Wikipedia. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

For a Chinese, probably not. For a non-Chinese, probably a bit. I see. Well, it is always a little strange indeed when some one who is struggling with English suddenly goes on to edit the articles for BOTH the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales, and enclosed ALL of the Duke's titles, even down to the title of H.R.H., as being "citation needed". Was he seriously attempting to seriously challenge the Duke's right to hold and use even the H.R.H. title? And why did he not do the same thing on the Chinese Wikipedia? And he is anything but a new user; old enough to get himself a block on the Japanese site for moving pages without consultation. — KC9TV 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone is cn-ing the article in it's defining language rather than the local server language they may be looking for a definitive reference. The obvious solution here is to give them several, which they may very well copy onto the local server. Penyulap ☏ 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do hope that all this is in fact nothing sinister, and I might apologise if it is. Well, anyway, but the edit to the entry of the Prince of Wales's titles was a little too skilful. Instead of tagging, he skilfully re-arranged the Prince's titles, so as to give the readers a possibly misleading impression that "the Prince of Wales" were not (or might not had been) the same person as "the Duke of Cornwall". [91] The Prince, Duke of Edinburgh, for example, probably DID say something rude about the Chinese. There were even some talk over the Internet, by some Chinese, of "boycotting" the Royal Wedding, back in the year 2011, because of that remark, but that was probably just simply Internet Trolling. I am not actually sure how all this play into this. If only he could just come out and say something in writing, even in Chinese. If he just doesn't like the two men, well, fair enough. — KC9TV 14:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you perform further experimentation on the editor by feeding him/her a few references ? and if so what happened ? Penyulap ☏ 15:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

He only tagged ONCE, and it was reverted, reversed or undone, and there are NO further edits in either of the two articles. I am not sure as to what his intentions on the Chinese Wikipedia, his home Wiki, are. — KC9TV 15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but according to you he's a vandal that needed level 4 vandalism templates at least twice! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, but he DID ALSO mess up Prince Charles's (the Prince of Wales's) titles. Is my original statement "T.L., D.R."? Still, an edit-summary would be "nice", but there was none. Well is he, anyway? — KC9TV 15:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've come across 星光下的人 several times in articles relating to ancient Chinese states etc. Although he can be tricky to deal with and somewhat intransigent, I would not say that he's a vandal or up to anything "sinister". The major issue is that he doesn't speak English so it's hard to explain policy to him. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 15:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

@Penyulap, User:99801155KC9TV did not engage 星光下的人 in discussion, even though it is clearly written on top of this page that one should "discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". User:99801155KC9TV simply slapped on 2 vandalism templates at User_talk:星光下的人 and then came here. Hanfresco (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Look the way I see this is not a matter of counting how many more languages 星光下的人 can speak than the complainant, the issue here is coming to ANI because "Citation needed" is too hard to understand as a request for a citation. Give him a citation as requested. Coming to ANI saying 'oh he has been blocked before and this is some kind of reason for blocking him again' is nothing but despicable. READ ENGLISH -> CITATION NEEDED. END OF DISCUSSION right there. Penyulap ☏ 15:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We so need to put up little fences here, IP filters to keep out asia, a little great wall for china, and a blasted big 100 mile (200km) high steel and stone monolithic division you can see from mars between the British and the Americans and their ENG:VAR, because I swear sharing this little English language is too hard for the lot of you. Penyulap ☏ 16:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Adal Sultanate

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

---

a user in the article Adal Sultanate keeps removing my input and reinstating it with his own bias revision and misrepresenting the reliable sources i have listed in the articles language section. i am requesting that admins add this page to the watchlist and do something about the users revision of my work Baboon43 (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. Continue the discussion on the talk page, and if you can't come to an agreement, take it to WP:DRN. ANI is for "incidents" requiring immediate attention of admins only. Since all the edits by both parties appear to be in good faith, interfering would be beyond the scope of ANI and thus improper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• You might also follow the links at the top of the talkpage to wp:WikiProject Ethiopia and wp:WikiProject Somalia they might be able to give a second or third opinion on their discussion pages. Penyulap ☏ 13:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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

RfA disruption

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

---

I think it's time for someone to tell Malleus that he's said enough on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avicennasis. I dare not tell him myself since he's currently edit warring with multiple users on my user talk page, which probably makes me involved.

At the RfA, he's belligerently badgering various support voters (1, 2, 3, 4), asking baiting questions of the candidate, and even badgering the nominator below his nomination statement.

See all of his edits to the page here. Looking for an uninvolved admin to ask Malleus to stop contributing to that specific RfA, per this Arbcom remedy. Thanks. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 14:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the term you are looking for is bludgeoning. That it was you that brought it here is surely to be a topic of discussion, which I don't look forward to. This might have been better handled on the talk page of a neutral admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can assure that I'm not trying to simply get Malleus "in trouble". Yes, we've been having a bit of a run-in lately, but this complaint is unrelated. I stopped by Avic's RfA this morning to see how it was going, saw Malleus' abuse there, and decided that enough was enough. The RfA process is stressful enough as it is, Avic doesn't need a classic Malleus temper flare-up to add to the stress. -Scottywong| communicate _ 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions, hence my link. I just don't think bringing it here was the best solution, all things considered. I would have perhaps dropped a note on an admin's talk page that Malleus is friendly with, for their opinions on the matter, as he would be more likely to consider their opinions in the matter. But then again, I'm always singularly focused on getting the desired results with the least amount of possible side effects, so I tend to think differently than some. I doubt Malleus would consider my opinion in the matter or I would have already made a polite request on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have tried discussing it with him instead of running straight here, this is the 2nd time in two days you've brought Malleus to ANI.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 14:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[ec]Personally I didn't find Malleus' comments any more disruptive than the snotty remarks directed at some who opposed Dipankan001's RfA. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, the regular Scottywong vs. MF ANI thread. I'm not really interested in the ArbCom ruling, sorry. It probably would be good if Malleus stay away from the RfA (on second thought, I'm not so sure about that), but I don't see how his comments are over the line. There's edit summaries in that history that are probably instantly blockable for some and they're not his. Dennis, the talk page of an uninvolved admin--it's better to not pick a fight in the first place, IMO. If one disapproves of Malleus's tone, switch the channel. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Seriously Scottywong? You're bringing Malleus to ANI twice in 24 hours? Did you spend a lot of time trying to sort these problems out away from ANI? Did you consider that Arbcom Enforcement might be the best place to ask for Arbcom enforcement? Or are you just trying to stir the pot? Worm^TT · (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• And the drama continues. Drmies, Scotty should have dropped a line on YOUR talk page and got your opinion in the matter and allowed you (or someone similar) to decide if mentioning it to Malleus is appropriate. I have no problem with SW taking exception with MW's bludgeoning, but I question his judgement in bringing it here *knowing* that others would look unfavorably at it, thus undermining his case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No one would accuse me of being neutral in this matter, Dennis! ;) Battle lines are drawn anyway, and this thread also will continue and end predictably: after some comments back and forth someone will decide that the comments are not actionable and that this stirring of the pot serves no purpose. Mind you, I think I voted for Scotty's admin t-shirt, and I have no problems with them as far as I know, but adminship should come with a warning--that it's even more important to stay away from such unfruitful enterprises and from editors with whom one has had conflicts in the past. If he had asked me I would have said "don't do it." Scotty should realize that in this case there is no need to defend the defenseless, and that another such thread only stirs the shitpot and maybe even calls his judgment into question, as you suggested. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • And actually, you and I agree for the most part. They both voted against me at RfA, so I have no dog in this hunt. I like them both and just accept them as they are, even if they don't share the same feelings. My point (ie: solution) is that Scotty should be wise enough to let his concerns filter through a neutral party, since there is bad blood here. I do the same with you and others all the time. It is a reality check, so I know I'm not overracting. Let me be clear, nothing Malleus has done is actionable, even if he has been rather active. Scotty should have sought a second opinion before coming here, which likely would have resulted in his not coming here at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I tried] old chap Egg Centric 15:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• I see no problems with Malleus's comments. He has questioned one or two supporters, in an environment in which opposers have been seriously badgered and abused for years with nobody even batting an eyelid. Malleus's comments have been civil too, and only got perhaps a little snarky in response to snarking from others. And I see one case in which he is responding to a personal attack from Shadowjams on Hipocrite. That RfA is not perfect, but singling out Malleus when there are examples of more objectionable behaviour there seems pointy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I don't particularly like this supporter badgering but it isn't any worse than the oppose badgering that happens all the time either. I have basically come to the conclusion that it is best to let Malleus be Malleus. He's an excellent content contributor and I believe dragging him here every other week (or two days in this instance) isn't exactly beneficial to the project. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• I do see a problem with Malleus' comments, but I also see that others have poked him sufficiently so that he can justifiably claim only to have been reacting. I find MF's worst contributions to be little worse than those of his accusers. If we drowned him in honey, rather than sousing him in vinegar, might he not sweeten up? Wouldn't it be a turn for the better even if we tried and failed, rather than assuming the worst and having ourselves proved right? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is exactly why this noticeboard is broken. "I find MF's worst contributions to be little worse than those of his accusers." Wikipedia civility and NPA policies don't mention that you're supposed to judge someone's actions relative to the actions of the person who is reporting them. If you have a problem with my behavior, then by all means, start up a thread about it and let's discuss it. Otherwise, let's discuss whether Malleus is being disruptive at this RfA, particularly considering his long history of disruption at this venue (as evidenced by his topic ban). I fully expected the predictable backlash from Malleus' considerable cadre of wikibuddies. Despite all of your assumptions of bad faith about me, I'm simply looking out for Avicennasis. This isn't about me, so please don't make it about me. If I had someone badgering multiple supporters as well as the nominator under his nomination statement at my RfA, I certainly would appreciate someone looking out for me, since clearly any attempt by Avic to stick up for himself at his own RfA is likely to generate a few opposes from Malleus' harem. Apparently no one else has the balls to stand up against Malleus, so if I have to take one for the team, so be it. Can we all just think about Avic for a moment rather than your allegiance to Malleus or whatever preconceived notions you have about me? Thanks. -Scottywong| talk _ 15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • [ec] Come on Scotty--that RfA is far, far from being derailed. I make no assumption of bad faith, though I am saying that bringing yet another ANI thread was not a wise decision. FYI, I have a HUGE set of balls, a bunch of sets of balls actually, and this bit about "Malleus' harem" is, pardon my French, a load of bullshit--thanks for your good faith in my judgment and that of others, including those who are not on Malleus's dick (like Dennis Brown), as far as I can tell. I think this is getting the better of you and I urge you to go get some coffee in a place without WiFi before you make more insulting comments at those who don't agree with you. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  I suggest we focus on Scottywong's erratic behavior in recent weeks, including yesterday's dig at Malleus followed by today's dig and his insult of "Hippocrite", which was redacted with a misleading edit summary.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC) insult of "Hippocrite", which was redacted with a misleading edit summary.

  How was the edit summary misleading? He removed a part of a comment which he felt unnecessary, which is basically what he said in his edit summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  Blade, please stop enabling Scotty's abuse of non-administrators. He removed his insult of Hipocrite, without apology. An unecessary part of a a comment would be the duplication "a a". But you knew that.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  "unnecessary" as in ""Ann, that was unnecessary!" is one colloquial way of saying "uncalled for", "gratuitous". I'm pretty sure I've amended my own posts with the comment "removing unnecessary sarcasm" too. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's how I read it, I'd never thought of it otherwise. Noted for the future how other people might perceive that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• ANI is not the first place you go to find resolution, you know this Scotty, it would be 2nd or likely 3rd. I expect this from new users, but not admins. I don't assume bad faith in you at all, I find that anyone replying multiple times is troublesome, even when it is not actionable. That isn't the point. Surely you are smart enough to know that since you two are "involved", that people are going to consider the messenger, which is why I suggested you filter through a 3rd party first, to make sure that your interpretation of "incivil" isn't colored by your own bias. Even if you are right, you have to realize people are going to question you, so it would be better served to allow someone else to bring it up if they agree with you in cases where there is obvious bad blood. If your goal is to find a solution to a problem, then these extra steps actually save you time and problems. Scotty, once you realize that you are continually shooting yourself in the foot, it is time to take your finger off the trigger. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Look Scottywong, if I had to choose a side of the fence in this issue, I'd certainly choose yours. I've had my share of flareups with Malleus in the past. It just seems that bringing the issue here causes more problems than it solves. What would you like to occur? Should we ban Malleus? Then we lose his content contributions. We could create a topic ban from RfA but I believe that would be more trouble than it is worth. Malleus cannot drag an RfA down on his own. Let him have his comments, supporters do not need to respond to any badgering. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since I mentioned ban, I would like to add that it was purely hypothetical and that I wouldn't only oppose it on the basis of the loss of content contributions. I don't see anything here that warrants a ban or a block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No one is asking for an outright ban of Malleus. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

But that's your only choice, as Monty very wisely observes below. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As Malleus and Monty have noted, that is the reason I mentioned it. Upon review of the two incidents I saw those as being the only two related outcomes and both have no merit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• First, it has become standard practice for editors to call out opposes at RFA that are poorly reasoned or wrong. It seems entirely fair that the same standards should be applied to support !votes, and RFA may be improved if supporters start providing more detailed rationales for support. Second, more generally, returning to AN/I for every little perceived misconduct of MF is just not a productive use of time. The overriding concern should be how do we best improve the encyclopedia, at this point it should be clear to anyone that MF is not likely to change his conduct as the result of reports to AN/I or short term blocks. Short term blocks that are unlikely to change behavior are inconsistent with the blocking policy. That leaves the community two realistic options, decide that MF as a major content contributor, minor bouts of incivility included, is a net positive to Wikipedia, or that the problems with MF outweigh his positive contributions and pursue a long term block. I personally think we are better off having him around. Monty₈₄₅ 16:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ok, I just want to get this straight so that I understand it next time. It's ok for Malleus to refer to me as a "pretentious prig", because I made some comments to another completely unrelated editor earlier that day. And it's ok for Malleus to badger the nominator and various supporters at RfA (despite a recent arbcom resolution which clearly shows he has a history of disruption at RfA), because I was the one who reported it. And it's ok for Malleus to edit war on my talk page to restore obvious trolling comments, after I asked him twice to refrain from posting on my talk page, because hell, he's Malleus and that's what he does. I just want to make sure that this is the logic we're now using here at ANI, so that I hopefully can restrain myself from making such frivolous complaints here again. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  You keep claiming that there's some ArbCom restriction on my participating in RfAs, or some decision that I've disrupted RfAs; where have you got that idea from? Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Potstir.gif Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• If someone were to be referring one of the people we have an article on as a pretentious prig, how many people would descend on the person and claim horrible policy violations (c.f. the Andy Hawkins fiasco, where people claimed we were being too insulting by referring to his comments as infantile and trolling). How do we get from that to this when it comes to the people actually in the community, to whom at least in my opinion we have a greater need to show some decency? I'm of the view that neither approach is right on the matter, but clearly this is too polarized for a lot of people to take a rational look at what's going on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit in my watchlist, which related to this arbcom decision. The page did not begin with "Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship" and the reverting editor was not an administrator so I reverted. That being said, I feel it relevant and I thought I would mention it here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Scotty linked to this, but therein lies the rub, Scotty is "involved" with Malleus, thus why I said he needs to filter through the neutral 3rd party admin and let them determine and take appropriate action. Coming here to do so was the mistake, as so publicly asking for a 3rd party, well, might be seen as pointy and hoping that one of the many will agree with him. Had he chosen to be more discrete, he might have found a more receptive audience, or been properly informed it doesn't apply. Again, he shoots himself in the foot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• My primary purpose wasn't actually to call attention to the arbcom case. I wanted to confirm that my restoration of the comments was correct in light of the decision. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I missed that obvious point. Yes, I think what you did was both bold and proper, as no uninvolved admin has chosen to exercise their rights to ban Malleus from participation, and even if they now did, this question was not disruptive and already existed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes all that's needed for a lie to take root is that it's repeated often enough. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Completely uninvolved comment: I don't see MF's comments as disrupting the RfA in any way. An RfA is, after all, a place where opinions are actively solicited. So, whether they're being given in a !vote or as a response to one should all be one and the same thing. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between Scottywong and Malleus Fatuorum

I am proposing this at risk of drawing this incident out further than it already has, but I feel the best way to solve this problem and prevent future issues is an interaction ban between the two. Scottwyong does have a legitimate concern (i.e. Malleus calling him a "pretentious pig") but repeatedly bringing up the issue causes many more problems than it solves. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I suggest we force them to wed and share a 1 bedroom flat instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely unacceptable. If Sc ottywong as an administrator can't be trusted to behave with a degree of decorum then he should be desysoped, not pandered to. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unnecessary. I've asked Malleus to not contribute to my user talk page, and as long as he can control himself and respect that request, I don't think we'll have too many problems once he gets over this temporary episode of admin envy. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• My proposal wasn't only directed towards Malleus. Was the comment "temporary episode of admin envy" even remotely necessary? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• How much of this civility for thee, but not for me from our admin corps will we need to watch before one of you insists on accountability? Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Amin envy? - get over yourself - a worthless shiny badge - get yourself off the noticeboards and go do some mopping work with it in the Admin backlogs before we take it off you. - Youreallycan 18:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have historically opposed the very notion of interaction bans on this project. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Re: "temporary episode of admin envy": Scotty, get a grip of yourself, man - you are not behaving the way an admin should. Go switch off, calm down, switch off the computer, have a week off - or whatever it takes to calm your anger. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Point: I believe the phrase was "pretentious prig" rather than "pig" - a huge difference I think. (noted at the risk of jumping headfirst into the former category myself.) — Ched :  ?  18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As in the famous cartoon character, Poky Prig. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed ban on Scottywong commenting on Malleus

I would prefer desysopping, but let us start with the obvious.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I see your point here, but I can't imagine anything being worse than a one-sided interaction ban (which is basically what this would be). Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ryan.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support desysopping - I support desysopping - the user has issues recently that were not resolved sufficiently imo and he is continuing along on a similar pattern of drama - not required in an admin - its easy to remove his additional privileges and then he will not need to adhere to such high standards of contributing. I support liberal desysopping give it, take it , why not - its just a website. Admins are just faceless users who have said the right things to get the shiny badge, if they stop saying/doing the right things once they have the shiny badge, simply take it back..Its no big deal, its not like he would be blocked or anything as severe as that, he would just loose his shiny badge. Youreallycan 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again, completely unacceptable. You need to get a grip on the behaviour of your administrators, not continually be desperately trying to find excuses for their poor behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed community acceptance that these two will never get along and should simply try to avoid each other

Not trying to be absurd here, truly, but nothing in this ANI is actionable, and at the end of the day, what we do here is try to find solutions. Fix problems. Sometimes there is no solution and you just accept it and move on. No one is getting blocked for any actions, an interaction ban might look good on paper but isn't going to be effective and will just become the basis for yet more actions in the future. Both parties would be doing us all (and themselves) a favor by trying to avoid each other and by filtering their concerns through a neutral third party before coming to the boards. I find them both equally rude to each other and other editors often enough, so we are left with a draw. If anyone wants to consider actions against another editor in the future, I highly recommend that they remain so civil in their dealings with them that the one-sided nature of the event is more obvious.

• Support as proposing party. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable. I've found in dealing with MF that if you treat him like a jerk, he'll treat you like a jerk right back. And if you communicate in a mature adult way, you get along fine. Most of the questions he raised at the RfA were fair questions that need to be asked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  That's a fair summary. I treat you the way you treat me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'll accept this As I mentioned when I came up with the idea of the interaction ban, I was aware of issues that could cause. That being said, I still wouldn't oppose my ban proposal if other members of the community felt it necessary and it may be a necessary step to take in the future. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Just so you know, my absurd oppose wasn't a comment on your idea, it was a comment on the absurdity of the situation. If I wasn't clear, I would apologize. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No problem, I found it quite humorous, I intended to reply, but I seem to have run out of wit for the day. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per Bugs. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support and furthermore, I command everyone to go write or review an article instead of posting here any more. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  So I'm just supposed to grin and bear it am I? Not bloody likely! Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  No, you are supposed to do what you do so very well, write articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  I understand that grinning and bearing it isn't very appealing to you, but FAC is getting pretty backlogged and some of the articles have real problems with the prose. It would probably be like shooting fish in a barrel for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  Then find an admin to help. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I was tempted to support the underlying point, but the narrative "I find them both equally rude to each other" in the context of the referenced RfA leaves the implication that MF was rude to Snottywong. I didn't see it, so cannot support a finding that suggests he has. Did I miss it?)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• My comment was more general in nature, based on my own observations over a long period of time, and not necessarily related to any diffs provided or this one "event". The point was similar to my closing the previous ANI that Scotty had opened, found above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  So basically you were talking shit. Nice. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mainly because the same can be said of nearly anyone who calls Malleus' behavior into question. He responds to those with pointed insults, the other party brings a complaint, and then it becomes "these two just can't get along". When one user has so many such relationships, one has to wonder if the problem is still always equally mutual. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fortunately, we only have to consider if the problem with Scotty is equally mutual for the purpose of this exercise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think regarding it that way is a problem. It seems that no matter how many times this happens, we consider only the present two parties; and if taken that way, yes, it seems like an equally mutual issue. I'm not sure why we keep choosing to disregard the history, which paints a different picture. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• PS, who exactly is allowed to comment on Malleus' behavior and not end up being sent to a corner opposite him? The people who support him and would never bring a complaint like that, or the achingly neutral people like Sandstein and DGG who probably wouldn't comment on a behavioral issue if you punched them in the face? We're running out of people here. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  And not before time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support/Oppose I support for the sake of stopping drama and I oppose for the sake of stopping drama. I rather wish someone would just delete this entire discussion, save us all a lot of trouble. Though, admittedly, this discussion is a perfect example of how Wikipedia, especially ANI, is organized into cliques that fight with each other. Many of the usual suspects are here in this discussion and, in my opinion, I wish they would just shut up and go away from ANI, forever, dear god. Silverseren^C 18:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Kind of meaningless. Both SW as well as MF are grown up (in terms of Wikipedia edits anyway) and can figure things out for themselves. Someone should just close the entire thread and throw it away. --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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

1RR per week violation on Republic of Kosovo

Ottomanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Ottomanist violated 1RR per week on Republic of Kosovo article. Article was placed on probation per WP:ARBMAC, in order to stop this kind of questionable edits. this was first revert, where i reverted his edit, and moved to talk. This is second revert by DIREKTOR (talk · contribs), and third, again by Ottomanist. User was warned on talk page about ARBMAC, but he insulted me. See see talk for more of that behavioral, and several other warning, after which he reverted again. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is whether users with a degree (such as my self) should bother spending time editing on here? I clearly posted on the talk page about editing the lead, which looked like a law essay about Kosovo's status. I edited the lead to follow wikipedia standards, keeping the information about its contested status, whilst adding a history section (properly sourced) and also something about the recent conflict in the 1990s.

Judge for your selves which lead better conforms to wikipedia standards.

We can't keep the RoK page in a state of confusion for ever. Ottomanist (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is basically a content dispute, but I'm verging on fully protecting the article for a little while. I'll give it some more thought later this evening if someone hasn't already done something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This was already reported above (Trouble with stale Kosovo move proposal). The issue, as you might notice, is really one disruptive user, who shifted from one POV-pushing campaign to the next one. Imo it would be a mistake to have his non-consensus changes protected (keeping WP:BRD in mind). As regards the 1RR: practically all edit-wars can be classified as content disputes. The point is that the article was under WP:ARBCOM probation. -- Director (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost all editors here have at least one degree I should think. The school kids tend to stick to NPP, vandalism reversion, and so on. Egg Centric 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And that Ottomanist is a returning sock! I have just find out in the section Direktor presented above! --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

He also told me to go away which was quite rude--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)