Kim Dent-Brown (talk | contribs) m mv comment to live discussion |
217.235.17.209 (talk) |
||
Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
*Unfortunately Squeak has previously made undertakings. On the 25th March 2010 xe posted "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SqueakBox&oldid=352040516#Paid_editing.3F here]. Then on 28th October the Freelancer website received [http://www.freelancer.com/projects/WIKI/Need-Wikipedia-savvy-pro.html the following bid]: "Hi, This looks just the kind of job I specialize in. On wikipedia I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs". I agree that a block is appropriate, either a lengthy (3 month?) one or an indef to be lifted when xe accepts that this behaviour has been inappropriate. [[User:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown</font>]] [[User talk:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D"><sup>(Talk)</sup></font>]] 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
*Unfortunately Squeak has previously made undertakings. On the 25th March 2010 xe posted "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SqueakBox&oldid=352040516#Paid_editing.3F here]. Then on 28th October the Freelancer website received [http://www.freelancer.com/projects/WIKI/Need-Wikipedia-savvy-pro.html the following bid]: "Hi, This looks just the kind of job I specialize in. On wikipedia I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs". I agree that a block is appropriate, either a lengthy (3 month?) one or an indef to be lifted when xe accepts that this behaviour has been inappropriate. [[User:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown</font>]] [[User talk:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D"><sup>(Talk)</sup></font>]] 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
*Keep him blocked; he has no reason to edit, he is being disruptive and he is being paid so I vote Keep Blocked. --[[User:Hinata|<font color="BlueViolet">Hinata</font>]] [[User talk:Hinata|<font color="BlueViolet">talk</font>]] 12:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
*Keep him blocked; he has no reason to edit, he is being disruptive and he is being paid so I vote Keep Blocked. --[[User:Hinata|<font color="BlueViolet">Hinata</font>]] [[User talk:Hinata|<font color="BlueViolet">talk</font>]] 12:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment:''' The message is clear: never be open about paid editing. [[Special:Contributions/217.235.17.209|217.235.17.209]] ([[User talk:217.235.17.209|talk]]) 12:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Possible legal threat == |
== Possible legal threat == |
Revision as of 12:53, 31 December 2010
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. 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) |
|
Pmanderson and Byzantine names
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
- Could an admin willing to do so please review the above thread that was split to a subpage? It has received only a few comments over the past few days, likely due to a combination of the holiday season and being split off to a subpage (where the visibility is lower). Could I also suggest that when long threads that include some form of proposed sanction are split off, that the notice left here explicitly mentions that sanction (or that the urge to subpage is resisted), as it is important that threads like that get full visibility and are not just subpaged without ensuring that traffic to the thread does not drop off. If any admin feels that more discussion is needed before closing, then please unsubpage it. If anyone does review that subpage, could they leave a note here and on Pmanderson's talk page? Also, this subpage pointer will not archive before midnight on 31 December 2010 (I've used the process described at User:DoNotArchiveUntil), so hopefully someone will deal with this before then. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- If this is resolved as a sanction, I would appreciate a time limit on it, whether a month or a year; to do otherwise is an incentive to abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- some one want to formally close this? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- If this is resolved as a sanction, I would appreciate a time limit on it, whether a month or a year; to do otherwise is an incentive to abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- It cannot be formally closed until it has been decided whether a topic ban needs to be enacted and, if so, what its duration should be. If it turns out that consensus is for a topic ban (I cannot tell at the moment), it would have to be formally logged here WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Deb seems to be the only one opposing it, the other two only oppose it becuase its not enough. So consensus seem pretty clear to me for a Editing restriction The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- It cannot be formally closed until it has been decided whether a topic ban needs to be enacted and, if so, what its duration should be. If it turns out that consensus is for a topic ban (I cannot tell at the moment), it would have to be formally logged here WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)
Unarchived (archiving comment) "User blocked indefinitely, this issue can be revisited when the user responds to the issues raised"
Earlier this year, User:SqueakBox answered an advertisement on www.freelancer.com (advert & response) to create an article on an artist. The article was deemed non-notable and later deleted as an A7 speedy. There was an ANI thread on the matter at the time which can be seen here which was scathing of SqueakBox's activity.
Now, the same user has created Beber Silverstein Group in answer to an advert on the same website - advert & response. The article claims no real notability and was sourced to primary and non-RS sources and so I have redirected it back to the (possibly) notable owner.
Previously, SqueakBox said "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing." (here), which is clearly now a lie, because he's denied actually creating this article for money - see his responses at User_talk:SqueakBox#Beber_Silverstein_Group. Opening it up to the community - any action required? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- If he were being honest about it and following COI guidelines, I wouldn't think it is worth taking action. However, since he blatantly lied bout the clear evidence and demanded that the accusation be retracted, it seems that some sort of sanction is needed. I'm not sure exactly what would be effective,, but it should be more than a warning (or admonishment) and less than an indefnite siteban. Perhaps a community sanction prohibiting him from editing BLPs or articles related to corporations (broadly construed)? Also a restriction to one account seems prudent, though I do not believe he has socked. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- If it's generally agreed that User:SqueakBox (normally) contributes productively to the project, why beat around the bush and implement these sorts of topic bans? Why not simply bar him from editing the project for pay? jæs (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's a big if; I've been unimpressed by my interactions with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- If it's generally agreed that User:SqueakBox (normally) contributes productively to the project, why beat around the bush and implement these sorts of topic bans? Why not simply bar him from editing the project for pay? jæs (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I wouldn't say SqueakBox has a huge conflict of interest here, as he has no relation to the subject of the article; his main goal is to prevent it from getting deleted. I'd just say if any more articles that don't follow notability guidelines are created, just delete them. -download ׀ sign! 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that what we normally do to articles that are inherently not notable? In all honesty though, I think that he should be restricted from editing anything to do with paid editing and be restricted to one account (which is also something we kind of already do). I feel as though he should also alert us if he is approached to edit or create an article in a way that will involve reimbursement of some kind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- BLPs and corporations are the most common types of paid articles. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- His conflict of interest is between his loyalty to Wikipedia and the $250 he seems to have been paid to write this article. $250 would be enough to pay my car insurance and gas for a month, so even if it wouldn't win out, even I would be tempted (and thus the interests would be conflicting). The WordsmithCommunicate 19:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I find the very concept of paid editing to be a bit of a terrifying Pandora's box, but the fact remains that the mere existence of a conflict ought not disqualify anyone from editing. If they can't balance that conflict and our policies and guidelines, then it becomes an issue requiring intervention. Does the repeated pattern of creating non-notable articles for pay qualify as such a problem? Seems so. jæs (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes - creating NN articles with useless sources (i.e. both the articles mentioned above) is a clear violation of COI - "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.". Black Kite (t) (c) 20:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I find the very concept of paid editing to be a bit of a terrifying Pandora's box, but the fact remains that the mere existence of a conflict ought not disqualify anyone from editing. If they can't balance that conflict and our policies and guidelines, then it becomes an issue requiring intervention. Does the repeated pattern of creating non-notable articles for pay qualify as such a problem? Seems so. jæs (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that what we normally do to articles that are inherently not notable? In all honesty though, I think that he should be restricted from editing anything to do with paid editing and be restricted to one account (which is also something we kind of already do). I feel as though he should also alert us if he is approached to edit or create an article in a way that will involve reimbursement of some kind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Note here the contrast between Squeakbox's apparently successful $250 bid and the apparently-unsuccessful $250 from Sequoyah who made the contract explicitly conditional on the subject meeting WP:N and on declaring the contract at WP:COIN. I would have no objection at all the a contract like that which Sequoyah proposed, but am also unsurprised that Squeakbox's unconditional bid was preferred by the advertiser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- This is not what I thought wikipedia was all about. I must say that I'm surprised and not a little disappointed that editors can be paid to write articles, of note or otherwise. Quite a business. Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, some people will do anything for a few dollars. Is that really the kind of editor we want on Wikipedia, knowing that future COI problems may not be as easily detected? Chester Markel (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is not the money in itself; the problem is what Squeakbox did to try to get paid. The problems are that: a) Squeakbox suspended hir judgement on notability and primary sources used in the article zie created; and b) that Squeakbox did not declare the COI, which would have drawn the attention of other editors to scrutinise the article. If squeakbox had acted openly (by declaring the full terms of the contract) and had followed editing policies (by telling the client "sorry, I cannot find evidence that you meet WP:N"), then there would be nothing to discuss here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Squeakbox's disruptive behavior is seeking financial compensation without any moral scruples. This suggests that the community cannot trust the user in the future. Chester Markel (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is not the money in itself; the problem is what Squeakbox did to try to get paid. The problems are that: a) Squeakbox suspended hir judgement on notability and primary sources used in the article zie created; and b) that Squeakbox did not declare the COI, which would have drawn the attention of other editors to scrutinise the article. If squeakbox had acted openly (by declaring the full terms of the contract) and had followed editing policies (by telling the client "sorry, I cannot find evidence that you meet WP:N"), then there would be nothing to discuss here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, some people will do anything for a few dollars. Is that really the kind of editor we want on Wikipedia, knowing that future COI problems may not be as easily detected? Chester Markel (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem is that Squeakbox ripped off his client by writing a crappy article. Beber Silverstein is notable.[1] If Squeakbox had made any effort to create a good article that met Wikipedia standards, there wouldn't have been a problem. I don't know who the A7'd artist is. THF (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- "It's is a women owned Florida Certified Minority Business Enterprise,..." Ouch! I'd be pissed if I paid for that: he should have at least mentioned that it was notable for its time as a business owned by women, which is in the NYT reference. Since he is so open about who he is on the pay-for-edit site, and seeing the reaction from other WIkipedians generated by his writing-for hire projects, I would think that others would be less likely to hire him for this sort of thing in the future. You don't get the "bang for your buck", and others will seek reasons to delete it anyway. Caveat emptor Doc talk 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposed solution: three month block
A three month involuntary wikibreak may be sufficient to convince SqueakBox not to violate WP:COI and lie to us about it again. This certainly isn't the first time SqueakBox has caused trouble on Wikipedia. Chester Markel (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this is necessary; this would be very punitive and SqueakBox is known to be a solid content contributor elsewhere. See above for my proposal of an editing restriction preventing him from writing articles on living people or companies, which account for nearly all paid editing. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support a lengthy block; I'd prefer one month, but would oppose anything less than that. Squeakbox has clearly breached COI, twice, despite a promise not to do so again after the first time, and has also lied about the second instance when specifically challenged on it. A month is long enough for Squeakbox to reflect on the nature of trust and the fragility of reputation, and to figure out to apologise to his client for making a fool of her.
- I am aware that SqueakBox has made many other good contribs, so despite the seriousnes of this abuse I would have supported a warning if it wasn't for the lie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think perhaps a restriction on writing articles on "living people or organisations, or any edits for which SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) for". Reword as appropriate, IANAL. That way, it also covers any edits which aren't BLP or ORG-related, but which are still discovered as 'paid'. At present I don't have an opinion about blocks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I support that restriction, and the wording looks fine by me. As above, I'd like to see a block as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think perhaps a restriction on writing articles on "living people or organisations, or any edits for which SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) for". Reword as appropriate, IANAL. That way, it also covers any edits which aren't BLP or ORG-related, but which are still discovered as 'paid'. At present I don't have an opinion about blocks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I Support any restriction, the stronger the better, as I've always found him ... difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Poll
- Proposed restrictions
"SqueakBox is banned for an indefinite period from editing articles about living people or organisations, or any articles where there is a reasonable suspicion that SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) in exchange for editing. If an editor has concerns that this restriction has been broken, further sanctions, including a block, may be administered after a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard." - Sound good? No blocks just yet, but this is a good starting point. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why put up with this at all? Permaban, and revert everything in sight that could possibly be affected by such COI. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Permaban on what grounds? He'll just make another account, and we'd lose someone who's otherwise a good editor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Permaban on grounds of spamming and falsifying sources, with reasonable openness towards unbanning on appeal after 6 months (or 3 if you must) on the usual sorts of terms. 3 months and automatic unblock doesn't seem like enough. I don't see likely heavy COI in SqueakBox's top 35 edited articles by edit count: Cannabis (drug): 507 edits, Javier Solana: 480, Rastafari movement: 479, Honduras: 268, Pedophile movement: 253, Haile Selassie I: 240, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero: 188, Bob Marley: 168, Spanish language: 157, Fidel Castro: 140, List of Internet television providers: 139, 420 (cannabis culture): 134, Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman): 119, Manuel Zelaya: 116, Jimmy Wales: 108, Child pornography: 107, Ted Kaczynski: 106, Gary Glitter: 97, Pedophilia: 89, List of European television stations: 89, Deaths in 2008: 85, Augusto Pinochet: 84, Deaths in 2007: 82, Tony Blair: 80, La Ceiba: 73, Video clip: 73, Crack cocaine: 72, Hashish: 72, Child sexual abuse: 70, Hippie: 69, Saddam Hussein: 67, North American Man/Boy Love Association: 64, Cannabis smoking: 63, IP address: 63, Efraín Ríos Montt: 62. On the other hand they don't seem like really tasteful choices, and it continues in about the same way. "There's no point banning that person since s/he'll just sock anyway" is usually a really bad reason to not ban someone. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Permaban on what grounds? He'll just make another account, and we'd lose someone who's otherwise a good editor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Though given his previous deception, if he's determined to carry on his paid editing antics I suppose he could sock round the restriction as well. Still, it's a start. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Something needs to be done about this since nothing has changed since I first brought this issue up over half a year ago. I've uncovered several of these paid editing articles that have bit the dust through AfD and SqueakBox has always assured me that he would be more open about this pratice in the future. He has not been open about it, calling the suggestion that he wrote his latest piece a "rash lie" despite being totally open about his connection to the SqueakBox account on freelancer.com. This would be a feasible solution to this ethically problematic practice. ThemFromSpace 13:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- We should of course establish that the Freelancer account is not lying about being SqueakBox. Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
- It isn't - SqueakBox admitted that the same account was him during the previous ANI (see link in my first post). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I also can't find any link which conforms this that squeakbox was the owner of the please-make-fake-sources account. It's kinda crucial, so please can you re-post the evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- For background info, this particular incident was regarding the J-sKy article and was discussed on ANI here. I don't think SqueakBox was related to this case, although my memory might not be serving me correctly. ThemFromSpace 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Here's the link: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- For background info, this particular incident was regarding the J-sKy article and was discussed on ANI here. I don't think SqueakBox was related to this case, although my memory might not be serving me correctly. ThemFromSpace 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I also can't find any link which conforms this that squeakbox was the owner of the please-make-fake-sources account. It's kinda crucial, so please can you re-post the evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't - SqueakBox admitted that the same account was him during the previous ANI (see link in my first post). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- We should of course establish that the Freelancer account is not lying about being SqueakBox. Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
Other articles
THF above is right - the two previous articles created early this year were fairly obviously non-notable at the time, which was bad enough, but this is almost worse - if this company is notable then he's clearly just tossing out any old crap in a few minutes to earn his cash. I looked at what he's created since March, and it includes Global listings (deleted as an A7), Diamond Ranch Academy (looks possibly notable), Pressure (reggae musician) (one line BLP stub with one source), and Alacan (probably notable). I have no idea whether any of these were paid for (and asking SqueakBox is pointless if he lied about the last one) but it does seem like an odd range of interests. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can't speak for the others, but Reggae music is within Squeakbox's previous interests. Will Beback talk 02:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Solicitation of fake sources
Before we close this, we should take note of the fact that the last time SqueakBox created an article for money ([Mario Zampedroni]) he went to that freelancer site asking someone to create fake sources he could use in the article. Here is the AN/I thread on the subject, and here is the request he made for the fake sources, mentioning that he is writing an "artist biography". This is the bid he placed to write the Zampedroni article, which was accepted. So, to recap:
1. A little less than a year ago SqueakBox creates an article on a non-notable Italian artist for pay.
2. On 23 March 2010, in and effort to have the article kept, he openly solicits "fake sources" for the article on freelancer.com.
3. On 25 March, he promises never to create another article for pay without being completely transparent about what he's doing.
4. On 21 July, an AN/I thread appears when someone notices his solicitation of fake sources, a thread to which SqueakBox never sees fit to respond.
5. On 3 November he creates another paid article, violating his previous pledge.
6. On 20 December he is confronted about this on his talk page. His response? "Stop talking rubbish." When shown detailed evidence, he replies "that is complete rubbish and I advise you to withdraw your rash lie. I havent received a penny for doing that article or any edits in connection with this subject." All clearly false statements. Although he continues to edit, SqueakBox has not seen fit to reply further, either at his talk page or on this thread. Apparently he thinks if he just keeps quiet it will all blow over like it did before.
I will also note that SqueakBox accepted at least one other project on freelancer.com, the nature of which is not available to non-logged in users.[2]
Conclusion: Nothing that SqueakBox says or does can be taken on trust. He should be banned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I see no insuperable reason against honest paid editing, or honest declared COI editing of any other sort: COI is inevitable, for few people would work on a subject they did not care about. The COI from payment is no worse than the multiple other forms of coi that are in escapable at Wikipedia, and is, arguably, not as disruptive as some sorts of ideological commitment. Since we cannot avoid it, better declared than undeclared, for it can be judged more visibly and openly. I think we have a right and a responsibility to insist upon such disclosure . I think that those who knowingly & repeatedly introduce bad articles for any reason need to be prevented from continuing, and have therefore agree with the earlier suggestion for a block; though there have been many blocks for edit warring, the earlier ones were for other matters, and there have been none since 2008. therefore, a month seems appropriate. I suggest that any attempt to evade this, or to again construct equally poor articles, will be met by a discussion about a permanent ban. Additionally, any further article writing for pay must be declared; if there is evidence otherwise, we should similarly proceed to a permanent ban. The only reason I do not do the block immediately, is that this discussion has lasted for only a few hours, and at the end of a major holiday weekend; there is a tendency here at AN/I to be over-precipitate; in the absence of major harm, we need some time for consideration . For fairness, we also need some time for a response. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- We are talking about flat-out spamming. There's a big progression between "I get paid to work with computers, and sometimes edit computer-related articles (e.g. about algorithm theory)" (not much of a COI), through "I sometimes edit about products that I have used at work" (arguable COI), to "I write advocacy/spam promoting the products of the company where I work" (seriously bad COI). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- i think the creation of fake newspapers and other fakedsources is as erious issues. i have seen many articles in my area of expersietise (science and medicine and health) where a "source" was a link to someones blog or to a Google search of random terms; i think that this is a serious issue which is being ignored in favor of teh sexier and more effervescent paid editing issue. are you allowed to solicit someone to create fake sources for you to cite, regardles of whether or not you are a paid editor or not? User:Smith Jones 05:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- We are talking about flat-out spamming. There's a big progression between "I get paid to work with computers, and sometimes edit computer-related articles (e.g. about algorithm theory)" (not much of a COI), through "I sometimes edit about products that I have used at work" (arguable COI), to "I write advocacy/spam promoting the products of the company where I work" (seriously bad COI). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously this is the real issue here, the open solicitation of fake sources and bald-faced mendacity about editing for pay after promising not to without full disclosure. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for explicitly noting this, Steven J. Anderson. Writing poorly sourced articles for financial gain is a problem; soliciting fraud to accomplish it is a problem of a different magnitude. I agree with DGG above both that some action should be taken and that we need due time to consider that action, the end goal of which should be both to prevent further misuse of Wikipedia and to impress upon the contributor the need to adjust his approach to the project. This can't continue. Deliberately attempting to insert fraudulent sources into the project undermines everything we stand for in the worst possible way. It is about as explicit a demonstration of "bad faith" as I can imagine. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Update comment Please see below. I can't strike anything here specifically, but I see now that there are some problems with the presentation of events here and that there seems to be no evidence that Squeakbox ever did solicit fraudulent sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Banning isn't yet the answer since he still makes constructive contributions when acting as a volunteer. The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions. I think the proposal above by Moonriddengirl is good first step. Of course if he violates this things may escalate, but we shouldn't go this far this soon. ThemFromSpace 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? In the absence of auditing every assertion and claim in SqueakBox's edits to ensure that the sources they purport to cite are legitimate, and fairly represented, a definitive assessment of his contributions would be quite difficult. While such matters are usually taken on faith, the assumption no longer applies when refuted by definitive evidence of malice. SqueakBox has shown himself to be a thoroughly dishonest and unscrupulous editor who would violate WP:COI, solicit fake sources for sneaky vandalism, and who knows what else, all for a few dollars. The only appropriate response to such an immoral user is to be rid of them. Chester Markel (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why not take a look for yourself? His account has been registered on wikipedia for five and a half years. He has about 53,000 non-deleted edits of which 28,000 are to articles. Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Because I would be looking for a needle in a haystack. I assume that he wouldn't have gotten away with editing for this long if he routinely misrepresented or faked sources. If any fraudulent sourcing occurred, it would have been camouflaged within legitimate edits, much like he hoped to conceal his WP:COI violations. SqueakBox knows full well that we can't audit everything he's contributed. Chester Markel (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why not take a look for yourself? His account has been registered on wikipedia for five and a half years. He has about 53,000 non-deleted edits of which 28,000 are to articles. Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked at maybe 100 diffs by now, mostly in icky subjects (checking out a socking theory that didn't hold up). I see some mildly tendentious editing in distasteful subjects,[3] some random gnoming (not always well-considered, e.g. [4] bypasses a redirect but slightly changes the connotation of the source), some reasonable vandalism reversion,[5] occasional addition of sourced info (TMI?), some well-meaning but clumsy removals,[6][7] etc. All of his editing is in a somewhat inarticulate style[8][9] (non-native English speaker? Spanish-language ref added: [10]). I haven't seen anything I'd consider to be a substantial contribution of quality content, but there's an awful lot of edits that I haven't looked at. I agree with Chester Merkel that evaluating a history this large is quite difficult. But my basic impression is we're dealing with (among other things) someone with a borderline WP:COMPETENCE problem everywhere he edits. Turning Wikipedia into a work-at-home scam for editors of this sort is the last thing we want. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? I've edited around him for years, and I would disagree with that premise; he is a tendentious and contentious editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so maybe his edit history is more spotty than I first thought. Should anything be done about this? I for one still support moonriddengirl's proposal above. I think it's a good first step, although others may think its too lenient. ThemFromSpace 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not really qualified to answer that: Wiki seems to have an unhelpfully high tolerance for disruptive editors along with a tendency to indef the wrong editors, and our standards for indeffing, blocking and banning are increasingly unclear to me. I'm just adding background for others to decide how to handle the current dilemma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so maybe his edit history is more spotty than I first thought. Should anything be done about this? I for one still support moonriddengirl's proposal above. I think it's a good first step, although others may think its too lenient. ThemFromSpace 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment My path has crossed SqueakBox's from time to time over the years, & while I wouldn't say I'm a friend of his -- just look at our interaction at Talk:Shashamane, which led me to take this article off my watch list (although I try to monitor all Ethiopia-related articles) & ignore any problems it might have -- I find his latest emphasis of activities not only troubling, but bewildering. SqueakBox is a self-described white Rastafarian, whose previous mentions on WP:AN/I involved his crusade against pedophiles/child molesters -- not the profile of someone I'd expect to decide one day to use his Wikipedia account to make money writing crappy articles. It would be just like, if I may make the analogy, finding THF brought before WP:AN/I for being paid to write deletion-fodder articles on Marijuana-related topics (e.g., "Joe Blow is an influential political consultant who was responsible for successful ballot referenda legalizing marijuana in 37 states.") IMHO, SqueakBox's recent freelancing is a cynical act to make some money from Wikipedia -- a symptom of WikiBurnout. And if I am correct about this, there really isn't anything we can do about him other than to indefinitely block him; he doesn't want to play nice with others here any more. But before we seriously consider this, I'd like to give him a chance to tell his side of the story; I've been known to make mistakes, but I don't want banning someone from Wikipedia to be one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- actually I had the same speculation about motivation as you, and for the same reasons. and, like you, I do not want to do an indefinite ban on speculation. Even if we are right, people have burnout, stay away a while ,either voluntarily or because we enforce it, and some return and do OK after the break. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from very strange defence of Giovanni Di Stefano on the article's talk page - and this perhaps illustrates one of the downsides of paid editing, one naturally wonders if the defence was paid for - I remember SqueakBox as a positive contributor. Paid editing, as I have commented before, is far from the worst form of COI, and the comment that we should somehow be concerned from his customers' perspective if he produced sub-standard material is laughable. The only matters that need attention here are (minor) it would be good if paid contributors acknowledge their potential COI and (major) the request for fake sources - and unless these were actually used there is nothing we should be worrying about. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
- I'm not suggesting sanctions on Squeakbox based on "his customers' perspective." I'm pointing out that, even with a COI, nothing stopped Squeakbox from writing a decent article, and that had he done so, I don't think we would have anything to complain about, even if he never disclosed his payment: a gap in the encyclopedia would have been filled, and we'd all be better off. It's because Squeakbox wrote a bad stub that was indistinguishable from spam that there's now a lot of hullaballoo. (This is entirely separate from the new, and much more serious, allegation of attempting to falsify sources.) COI is only a reason to scrutinize edits closely for NPOV and new articles for N/V/RS. There's nothing inherently wrong with editing with a COI, or even an undisclosed COI, so long as the edits comply with Wikipedia policy--edits that don't comply with Wikipedia policy are problematic even when there is no COI. And if the consensus is otherwise, we need to modify what WP:COI says. THF (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- If we're doing speculation, I'll go for "economic necessity" rather than burnout. I can sympathize: the economy sucks, decent jobs are hard to find, and lots of people have to do what they can to make ends meet. For reasons similar to NOTTHERAPY, we should sympathize with anyone in such a plight, but at the same time we must not let them turn Wikipedia into a spam sewer that other people then have to clean up. Rich F: paid editing of the form "Professor So-and-So gets a grant to develop a series of FA's about astronomy or biology, announces it on wiki, and engages in discussion about what these articles should contain" is one thing; spammers should be banned. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Spamming is bad, however creating articles is not necessarily spamming. The subject may be notable but have insufficient wiki-clue to be able to create an article that lasts 5 minutes. If they pay for the article to be created, and we decide that it is notable then we have gained an article we otherwise wouldn't have. It needs, of course, to comply with VERIFIABLE, NPOV, COPYVIO etc. But this is true of any article. And indeed the discussion above shows a paid editor (or one who wanted to be) setting that out as a pre-condition of work - which is of course the ethical thing to do, as the community may (should) insist that that is the case. All Wikipedia articles are stuff "that other people have to clean up". Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
- Spamming is bad, however creating articles is not necessarily spamming. The subject may be notable but have insufficient wiki-clue to be able to create an article that lasts 5 minutes. If they pay for the article to be created, and we decide that it is notable then we have gained an article we otherwise wouldn't have. It needs, of course, to comply with VERIFIABLE, NPOV, COPYVIO etc. But this is true of any article. And indeed the discussion above shows a paid editor (or one who wanted to be) setting that out as a pre-condition of work - which is of course the ethical thing to do, as the community may (should) insist that that is the case. All Wikipedia articles are stuff "that other people have to clean up". Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
- If we're doing speculation, I'll go for "economic necessity" rather than burnout. I can sympathize: the economy sucks, decent jobs are hard to find, and lots of people have to do what they can to make ends meet. For reasons similar to NOTTHERAPY, we should sympathize with anyone in such a plight, but at the same time we must not let them turn Wikipedia into a spam sewer that other people then have to clean up. Rich F: paid editing of the form "Professor So-and-So gets a grant to develop a series of FA's about astronomy or biology, announces it on wiki, and engages in discussion about what these articles should contain" is one thing; spammers should be banned. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- If he was doing this simply for the money, assuming good faith would lead me to expect SqueakBox to have written a far better article. He knows better than this. The article which triggered this latest thread was something any run-of-the-mill PR flack could have created -- which would have either been greatly rewritten or deleted, & the author banned from Wikipedia. And as The Wordsmith & others have pointed out, when this problem was brought to his attention his first response was to say "Stop talking rubbish" & demand the person retract "your rash lie"; it wasn't to come clean & discuss the matter constructively. One only acts like this if one doesn't give a fuck about Wikipedia -- which that is why I have suggested an indef block for SqueakBox. Because if he is that alienated from or disillusioned with Wikipedia, there is no imaginable editting restriction that will keep him from harming the project or wasting other editor's time. -- llywrch (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if this has been addressed already, but how do we know Squeakbox wrote the fake sources post? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- See here: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- thats fair then. if it wasn an honest mistake than it was an honest mistake. i see no reason to have him taken tou back and shot over this; the reason i reacted so vhemently aeanier was because i had noticed a spring of shoddy and obviously totted up or falsifeid sources in some of the articls I edited and I was concerned that certain editors might have been doing this on puprpose. it wasnt very likely but it was possible, and it wastes a lot of valuable time trying to read through sources again and again to make sure that they arent being misrepresented or faked. since squeakbox admitted his or her erroir, there is no problem between me nad him regarding this issue of paid fake sources. User:Smith Jones 21:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. So if I've understood correctly SqueakBox wasn't sikkant, i.e. he did not write that. I'm glad, because that would have surprised me greatly. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- thats fair then. if it wasn an honest mistake than it was an honest mistake. i see no reason to have him taken tou back and shot over this; the reason i reacted so vhemently aeanier was because i had noticed a spring of shoddy and obviously totted up or falsifeid sources in some of the articls I edited and I was concerned that certain editors might have been doing this on puprpose. it wasnt very likely but it was possible, and it wastes a lot of valuable time trying to read through sources again and again to make sure that they arent being misrepresented or faked. since squeakbox admitted his or her erroir, there is no problem between me nad him regarding this issue of paid fake sources. User:Smith Jones 21:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- See here: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
TL:DR nutshell: this section seems to be misleading, and I suspect that the header and timeline should be revised. I gather from his note at his user talk page that he had responded to that individual, bidding to create an article, but withdrew it with an indication that he may not have thoroughly read the ad. Not a stellar moment, but a pretty significant difference from actively soliciting fake sources!
Evaluating the timeline
|
---|
Now that I am at my own computer and looking more closely at the timeline offered in the opening post of this section, I see that it may be inaccurate in several points:
|
It looks like what we have here is a contributor creating articles for pay that he should realize, based on his time in saddle, lack sufficient reliable sources to clear notability. This seems problematic under WP:COI, and it is particularly problematic that he previously indicated he would not do this and not only did it again but denied it: [13]. This is a problem of a much lower magnitude than falsifying or soliciting fake sources, but still a problem. Paid editing is often a "caveat emptor" situation, but if we know that a contributor is creating subpar articles for money and particularly one who is selling his reputation ("On wikipedia I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs" emphasis added), then it becomes a bit of a black eye for us if we permit him to continue. SqueakBox needs to either abide by his pledge not to sell his services as an editor or to disclose his behavior when he does so, and he needs to make sure that any articles he does create in this fashion meet all relevant policies and inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- How about a block to tarnish his wikireputation so he can make less money with it? It seems warranted based on the above. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- (a) we don't block for that reason (b) I don't think you could tarnish this block log a lot further. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- i agree that we shouldnt block him based on just damaging his reputation since that is resprsehnbile. HOWEVER, i am concerned about weather or not we are legally obligated to notify his employers about his extensive lbock history. they might be paying him with the expectiaton that he maintain a good reputation and contribute aritlces that they can exploit since they willbe around for a while. if he has presented himself as a respected editor in good standing but he has all these blocks, i am concerned that he might not be as effective at his paid editing as he could be and that we might be held responsible for weakening his efforts and damaging his work product with these blocks. is there anyway to oversight his blocks so that they arent publically viewable until he has a chance to respond to each one? User:Smith Jones 22:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- (a) we don't block for that reason (b) I don't think you could tarnish this block log a lot further. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Failure to respond
SqueakBox has been editing today, but has not responded on his talk page or at this ANI, which he has been informed of. I started this ANI hoping that (a) he would respond adequately, and (b) if not, some action on the obvious problems may be taken. There is a danger that neither is likely to happen as the conversation has been fragmented, especially by the somewhat spurious/stale fake sources issue. Does the community believe any action should be taken here, or not? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- His failure to respond to the issues raised compounds the problem. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see: Serial mendacity (the "fake sources" stuff is particularly beyond the pale), refusal to respond to concerns, broken promises, etc... Whatever one's views on paid editing, this kind of paid editing shouldn't be tolerated. He's already demonstrated he's going to game the system. Eith block him indef, or unblock all the past paid editors and editors blocked because there usernames were obviously promotional blah blah blah (which is a lot more honest and transparent than this). This isn't even a hard one.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Has evidence been produced to substantiate the "fake sources" stuff? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- it turned out to be an misunderstanding, MoonriddenGirl. SqueakBox has since epxlained to the satisfaction what had happened and there was no tintent to deceive or present "fake sources' (whatever that means) into Wikipedia. SqueakBox is not legaly or policyly obligated to respond to WP:ANI accusations and no one can force him or control what he says on his talk page. I dont think that the spurious or fake sources issue hshould be held against him since it was blown out of proportion and taken out of context and apart from that he has done nothing wrong re: paid editing. this issue should be closed as resolved in my view. User:Smith Jones 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- The fake source issue is just one of the charges against Squeakbox. Will Beback talk 23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's the point, really. Can we take action against a user for serially lying to the community? Undoubtedly his edits have been sub-optimal (i.e. the paid articles that got deleted), but is the mendacity (i.e. lying about not repeating that failure) deserving of a block or restriction? Because frankly, if that's not the case, can I unblock User:Thekohser, because the issues are trivially different? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- The whole dysfunctional system is supposed to be built on trust. Liars are abusers of trust, whether serial sockpuppet abusers like benjiboi or this guy, who hasn't been caught socking yet but is still a proven liar. Kick him to the curb. Teh community (whatever that really is) does this every day. Not sure why it's so hard to get rid of this problem. But if he isn't indeffed, i wholeheartedly endorse unblocking every account ever blocked for paid editing.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure why it's so hard to get rid of this problem. Because a person with this number of edits is an asset to wikipedia. Thus it is a balancing act. COI policy is unenforceable. The problem is not paid editing, the problem is crappy articles on non-notable subjects. Maybe he needs to be blocked until he comes clean. - BorisG (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Block for at least a month, possibly indef. It's pity that Squeakbox didn't respond to the discussion here; not because zie is obliged to, but because zie might have have offered some reason for me to reconsider my support for a block. However, squeakbox has already confirmed that zie created a previous article with an undeclared COI, at the same time promised not to do so again. That promise has been broken, no defence has been offered, so let's get on with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- has he logGed in yet?? is there any proof that he has logged into his account since all this started? DeeRD (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. See Special:Contributions/SqueakBox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's good then. I was hoping to get his help on an unrelated matter and he has yet to respond to me. I was just concerned that he might not be logged in and might have become preoccupied, especially over the recent holiday season and overlooked this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeRD (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- has he logGed in yet?? is there any proof that he has logged into his account since all this started? DeeRD (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Calling for his ban is inappropriate; the idea is to get him to stop this unhelpful behavior, & if all reasonable efforts fail, then he is shown the door. This is why I recommended an indefinite block: indefinite as in "can be lifted at any time", not as in "an infinite period". An indef block might just work as a clue-by-four to get his attention -- which we don't appear to have. Instead of showing him the door, we give him the choice to either start working with the community. Or find another hobby. -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Bringing to a close
It looks like the community are in favour of a block, but I'm yet to see any solid policy basis upon which to make such a block. The problems people have brought up are:
- Squeakbox has a tendency to make poor-quality paid-editing articles and has incurred the displeasure of the community previously
- Squeakbox has abused the trust of both his clients and the community both by a.) continuing to make poor articles and b.) not declaring a COI (as he undertook to do)
- Squeakbox already has a massive block log, so a short block (less than three months) probably wouldn't have an impact on his editing
- Squeakbox isn't responding to this discussion and seems unlikely to do so
So, folks. The options, if we don't want to see this at ANI again, seem to be that we either "continue monitoring and fixing Squeakbox's edits" or we "block Squeakbox until the community can be sure he's not going disrupt the project by creating sloppy paid articles for cash". Which is it to be? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Previously I believed some sort of restriction might be the best course of action. But since SqueakBox is effectively sticking two fingers up to the community by not commenting, I would suggest an indefinite (not infinite, of course) block may be the only way to ensure a dialogue with the user. As for worrying about the "policy" behind a block, WP:BLOCK says "(blocks may be used to) deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.". Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- this block wont interfere with his ability to comment on his talk page right? while i am uncomfortable with the idea lf blocking someone just to get their attention, it might be necessaryin this case since he wont speak to anyone about these issues. my only concern is that he should have SOME outlet to come to the table, at least on his talkpage if nowhere else, and that all discussion should be CC'd to his talkpage or redirected there to make sure that if he DOES change his mind and want to angage with us, it is at least possibl.e User:Smith Jones 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- My take on this matter has been slightly different from CMLITC's. SqueakBox was caught writing an article on a non-notable subject for money, & agreed to stop writing articles for money. Then he was discovered writing a crappy article on a notable subject for money. (And as THF pointed out above, had he written a suitable article instead, only those stridently opposed to paid editing would have cared.) When confronted with this discovery, he responded by saying it was a lie on his talk page, & since then has ignored all further discussion. Maybe there is no explicit policy against everything SqueakBox has done in this instance, & many would argue his departure would be a net loss to the project, but do we really want someone volunteering who is disrupting Wikipedia in this manner? If someone has a better solution than a block or a ban to stop his low-grade misbehavior, I'm willing to hear it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- 'comment - if his main crime her eis writing a"crappy article" that is otherwise on a notable subject is and is allowed to be on the Wikipedia, why shouod he be blocked for this? every article on Wikipeida starts out weak and stubby; that is why this is a collaborative process, because no one prson can turn out a brilliant, Encyclopedia Britannica style article on their first try all alone. i myslef have made many articles such as Jan Scholten. Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy and Manuel Bonnet that were initlally poorly written and almost on the verge of being deleted; but I was able, with the minor assistance of some other editors, to make this articles into the good and high-quality writing that you can find at those articles today. if I had been blocked simply because the very initial effort was not as good as what is there now, many articles would have gone unwriten and we would have lost an excellent editor. lets not make a mistake by BANNING SqueakBox instead of just doing a reasonable indefinite block. User:Smith Jones 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Block This is really beyond the pale. There are legitimate concerns being raised here, SqueakBox is hurting the encyclopedia by promoting non-notable subjects and making poor articles about possible notable subjects for money, he lied about his activities, `and he won't respond here. Block for at least three months but preferably indefinitely so that this he will be forced to engage the community in regards to this.
SqueakBox has now posted an unblock request
- The appeal is at User talk:SqueakBox#OmniPeace. I regret, because I like Squeak and have previously found him a dedicated editor, that the appeal does not address the communities concerns; that he was prepared to offer such poor quality edits for pay, and that he has not addressed the fact he had already undertaken not to make such edits previously - which undertaking he did not hold to. The fact he has not recieved payment is, I feel, irrelevant. Squeak needs to acknowledge the communities viewpoint in the matter, and give believable undertakings to address the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- While I have found a pleasant repentance in the unblock request "I wont be editing the Beber Silverstein article again or ever accept a paid contract re wikipedia again" there was also "I didnt even know there was an issue" which seems to contradict what LeeHeardvanU reports above, suggesting Squeak is not fully on board perhaps. I don't think an unblock request can be properly considered so early on. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Squeak has previously made undertakings. On the 25th March 2010 xe posted "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing" here. Then on 28th October the Freelancer website received the following bid: "Hi, This looks just the kind of job I specialize in. On wikipedia I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs". I agree that a block is appropriate, either a lengthy (3 month?) one or an indef to be lifted when xe accepts that this behaviour has been inappropriate. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep him blocked; he has no reason to edit, he is being disruptive and he is being paid so I vote Keep Blocked. --Hinata talk 12:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: The message is clear: never be open about paid editing. 217.235.17.209 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Possible legal threat
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Endeology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
According to the relevant policy, legal threats should be reported here. This case is borderline, so I think others ought to take a look. The relevant diff: [14]. The page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endeology. --Danger (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see it as a legal threat. I suspect that what he's trying to say (though without providing verification) is that the FTC regulations allow wikipedia to set its own rules, and hence wikipedia is not subject to claims of "freedom of speech" and the like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't see it as a legal threat either, but I've closed the AfD as a SNOW delete, so given that the editor is a SPA who only edited in that area, the issue is probably moot. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, this one[15] IS a legal threat. As you say, the editor is an SPA who will probably disappear. But if he doesn't, you may need to bring the gavel down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no inclusion, whether implied or explicit, of any “legal threat” in my posts whatsoever. The difference between a “threat” and a simple “reference to statutory writ” for the sake of reinforcing an argument is substantial and should be thoroughly understood before making such erroneous accusations. --Endeology (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, there's really not. WP:NLT is meant to encompass the implications of legal proceedings, so that people don't use that as a method of intimidating other users. Constantly citing your lawyer is not conducive to cooperative editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Under the advice of my attorney, I have a legal right to edit my own posts in a manner that I see fit..." is an attempt to intimidate, and is also bogus. You don't have any legal "right" to edit anything in particular on wikipedia. And your comments are the kind of stuff editors get indef'd for. You're lucky the admins are feeling generous today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Baseball Bugs. Quoting laws and your lawyer isn't going to gain you ant friends here. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. You call down the thunder, even so much as a bad case of static cling, and you'll reap the whirlwind. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 06:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no inclusion, whether implied or explicit, of any “legal threat” in my posts whatsoever. The difference between a “threat” and a simple “reference to statutory writ” for the sake of reinforcing an argument is substantial and should be thoroughly understood before making such erroneous accusations. --Endeology (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, this one[15] IS a legal threat. As you say, the editor is an SPA who will probably disappear. But if he doesn't, you may need to bring the gavel down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio edits, among other things, by Neptunekh2.
I was hoping this user would go away, so I didn't report it earlier. There are a number of problems with this user (such as constant edits like this, this, this, unsourced edits, wrong categories, the use of underscores rather than spaces, etc...), but the main problem right now is the copyvio edits. I tried to talk to the user here back in November, but it was just blanked with no comment. The copyvio edits I have found from just looking through the edits of this user quickly are these, edit/source, edit/source, edit/source, edit/source, copyvio notice by bot on a now deleted article. There are no doubt more, as this user have been editing Wikipedia for almost 2 years. Nymf hideliho! 00:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Those are blatant copyvios (including from BBC News) and should be deleted as such. I have notified Neptunekh2 of this thread. Doc talk 01:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I ran across this editor for the first time this week canvassing to use a non-RS to call a marginally notable actress a Scientologist. May just be a WP:COMPETENCE issue if he/she's been editing for two years. THF (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Contribution survey for this user:
- N Martyn Godfrey: (4 edits, 4 major, +1099) (+400)(+207)(+1099)(+209)
- Alexandra Powers: (5 edits, 5 major, +894) (+228)(+151)(+894)(+252)(+328)
- N Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre: (1 edits, 1 major, +670) (+670)
- 2043: (1 edits, 1 major, +623) (+623)
- Mummy Juanita: (1 edits, 1 major, +604) (+604)
- The Seventh Coin: (3 edits, 3 major, +536) (+536)(+196)(+227)
- The Mummy (franchise): (1 edits, 1 major, +379) (+379)
- Katharyn Powers: (2 edits, 2 major, +337) (+337)(+182)
- Eve (Xena): (1 edits, 1 major, +333) (+333)
- N Toby Proctor: (1 edits, 1 major, +309) (+309)
- Iqbal Theba: (1 edits, 1 major, +297) (+297)
- 26th century: (1 edits, 1 major, +261) (+261)
- List of fictional female robots and cyborgs: (1 edits, 1 major, +242) (+242)
(I removed edits to 13 articles, these were mostly non-constructive edits. You can see the diffs in the contribution survey link above.) This does not pick up non-mainspace edits. MER-C 02:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- The content I removed from the "Television in Botswana" category was cut-and-pasted from two different sources (one that he happily provided in the "Read more" section).[16] Hopefully he will respond here to these issues soon. Doc talk 03:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Just commenting to keep the thread from getting archived as the issue hasn't been resolved yet. Seems Neptunekh2 is nowhere to be found. Nymf hideliho! 01:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, they're around.[17] Not sure why they came to me rather than here, but I'll attempt to find out... Doc talk 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll note that after canvassing at RSN, BLPN, and multiple editor talk pages, yet being told repeatedly by multiple editors that "truthaboutscientology" was not a reliable source and should not be added to BLPs, the editor (apparently) added it anyway. (I say the IP is the editor because of this talk page request shortly thereafter, which only makes sense if the IP and Neptunekh2, who made identical edits, are the same editor.) So add WP:IDHT to this editor's list of problems. The editor has also created two pages that were speedy deleted, Yllapa and More than weird. I'll WP:AGF and suggest a mentor may be helpful, but I'm skeptical. THF (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am positive that the IP is the same editor (look at the use of underscores). We could try using a mentor, but I am doubtful anyone would successfully be able to get through to the editor. As you say yourself, any advice left by the people she canvassed were all ignored, as is this thread. I think it may be complicated when it comes to this editor (see the 4th top infobox on her user page). Nymf hideliho! 12:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have previously (at least a month ago)warned this editor (who previously edited as User:Neptunekh) about copyright violation - so its not as if he doesn't know. As he appears to take no notice, I have blocked him until he responds in some way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- So it is even worse than I previously thought. Seeing 5 year old edits on that other account. Nymf hideliho! 12:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- If her user page is to be believed... can I be her mentor? Please? It'll be strictly WP stuff we discuss: I promise. Doc talk 12:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Whoah! Easy thar boy, I say e-e-e-a-s-y!" Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- If her user page is to be believed... can I be her mentor? Please? It'll be strictly WP stuff we discuss: I promise. Doc talk 12:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- So it is even worse than I previously thought. Seeing 5 year old edits on that other account. Nymf hideliho! 12:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have previously (at least a month ago)warned this editor (who previously edited as User:Neptunekh) about copyright violation - so its not as if he doesn't know. As he appears to take no notice, I have blocked him until he responds in some way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Editor Science&HiTechReviewer
- Science&HiTechReviewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also editing as 96.247.28.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Science&HiTechReviewer is a new SPA who says he's edited previously [18]. He claims to be using this account as part of an experiment for a talk he's giving at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting next month [19]. I've had discussions with him on my talk page here, here, and briefly here; on the talk page of Naveen Jain here; and on his talk page here.
- My discussions with him have gotten to the point where I'm removing most of his comments on my talk because of AGF and TALK problems. I've tried to continue discussions with him, but I'd like some help in de-escalating his behavior, as well as opinions on if editors should be creating new accounts for use in experiments in editing controversial BLP articles. From my perspective, he has a minor WP:COI given his relationship with WEF, he's using Wikipedia as a battleground, and he's disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.
- He's written a EAR request basically attacking me for how I've handled past disputes with Naveen Jain and how I've not changed the article in response to his comments. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Searching through the contributions, there's nothing too egregious from him, just a tendency to focus on the editor as much as the content. I've left a brief note about it, and hopefully there should be no problem; of course, you can follow it up with me, or here, if there is. Trebor (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It continues: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Naveen_Jain. I'm going to avoid interacting with him for a day and see where that gets us. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty uncomfortable with this situation and since the editor in question claims to know Jimbo, I have asked Jimbo to comment.[22] If Jimbo knows what's going on and is ok with it, I'll keep my further opinions to myself. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I've not reviewed his edits, I can't approve or disapprove of anything in particular that he's doing. I do know who this is, and as he has offered to state his real identity, I'd have to say that I think that's a very good idea. Knowing me personally confers no special rights in Wikipedia, but neither should it confer any special difficulties, so I regret that my name has been brought into this at all.
- I'm uncomfortable with "experiments" of all kinds, but at the same time, I think that the right thing to do, in all cases, before all else, is to forget about that sort of thing and focus with passion on the one thing that ultimately matters here: are there BLP issues involving editors who are following all the rules from a hypertechnical point of view in order to grind an axe against someone and write a negative biography that is full of errors and innuendo. Is the biography good?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jimbo, thanks for responding. I was asking mostly what you thought about the "experiment" (which I see as a breaching experiment) and if you felt the editor's identity and affiliations (with their possible attendant COI's) are relevant to it. I haven't looked much into the Jain article disagreement, but if there is a BLP problem with that article, then it can probably be quickly sorted by a visit to WP:BLPN. Science&HiTechReviewer's issues are likely caused by making the sorts of errors that inexperienced editors make (whether he really is an inexperienced editor or is just preteding to be one), e.g. not knowing the right ways to express ones' self on talk pages and noticeboards, etc. I agree with you that it would be good if Science&HiTechReviewer were to drop the airs of mystery and say who he is, though obviously we cannot require this. My opinion is that the "experiment" shouldn't continue in its present form. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any COI issues here, at least not to my knowledge. And as there is a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia, assuming good faith is the right thing to do. While I agree that the experiment shouldn't continue in the present form, I think the right thing to do is to educate him on how Wikipedia works, with kindness. Although he has edited in the past, he is not an experienced editor. I agree that the airs of mystery and experimentation are not optimal, but I am confident that he means well. Again, knowing me confers no special privilege, and I have not approved any of this ahead of time and wish my name had not been brought into it at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- "I think the right thing to do is to educate him on how Wikipedia works" Exactly what I was going to suggest. Science&HiTechReviewer wants to see how Wikipedia works in a controverial BLP article. Instead of trying to work with him as an editor, which is frustrating both of us, I think it would be better just to treat him as someone that is primarily interested in learning and observing, rather than learning to edit himself.
- I will have little time to do this. Can someone help? The recent attempt to delete the article (discussion and AfD) is a good and rather simple example of following policy and the sources rather than swaying to strong opinions. Not much else has happened with the article recently. The discussions and editing on the pre-InfoSpace information went fairly well until it got sidetracked with notability concerns. Science&HiTechReviewer has pointed out a lot of different things to change - some are simple and similar to these pre-InfoSpace discussions.
- I've no opinion on his revealing his identity. Would it help him relax and focus? --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit war
{{resolved|Fluoride article semi-protected.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)}}
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
User Yobo violated the Edit War Rule and should be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yobol&oldid=404856495 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yobol&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.251.228 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Formal community ban of the fluoride spammer
- The above report is by the single-purpose editor currently disrupting articles on the topics of water fluoridation and WikiLeaks, and Yobol appears to have been properly reverting their unwanted additions. I suggest that we consider a formal community ban for the individual(s) behind this mess, since they have gone from spamming and disruption to, now, attempting retaliatory interference against an editor who reverted them. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support for ban. This individual (or group enlisted to help them), collectively linked to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips, have been a real pain and waste of our time. The list of IP hopping socks is getting longer, the DUCK behavior the same, and they exhibit zero ability to learn. We're dealing with real fanatics here. All the IPs need longer blocks. 14 days doesn't cut it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, let's be careful not to publicly describe exactly which of their ducklike behaviors give them away. We don't want them to improve their block evasion techniques. They have several identifying marks, but one is very unique. I've never noticed it before, and they do it often. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- The WP:EDITFILTER may be a better option. His tells are predictable enough for someone knowledgeable (read: NOT ME) to write an edit filter to catch him just about every time. One-note trolls like this are easy enough to filter out. --Jayron32 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support ban. Thanks to SarekOfVulcan for the quit protection of the page; this editor has shown he/she has no intention of following Wikipedia norms. I'm surprised he hasn't been banned yet, with all the socks he/she's created. This section may not get much attention with the resolved header, though. Yobol (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. I've performed some header surgery to hopefully draw community participation here. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I'm tired of this flouride crap going around. Revert and block on sight. ThemFromSpace 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I notice that the SPI has been closed, probably because of lack of use. Actually there is very much activity by socks. The latest: User:66.36.251.192, User:64.120.47.10, User:66.36.251.228, ad libitum. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - sap and impurify his precious bodily fluids. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support absolutely. KrakatoaKatie 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jocular Decline (read: support) - Dental fluoridosis is a major problem where I live, due to the unhealthy fluoride content in the water. And I promised to do some meatpuppeting for perfect strangers. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Incapable of understanding how Wikipedia works, or why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support although noted the above suggestion of adding something-or-other to the editfilter if it's practical. Also, is someone very gently trolling them with today's featured picture, which is apparently formed "from the oxidation of fluorite ore deposits" ? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Spamming is not tolerated on Wkipedia. This editor has lost all of our patience and has caused enough madness to us users. With that said, enough is enough for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I'm tired of reverting the edits. As soon as one article is semi'd, they move on to another one. ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 06:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – do you folks realize that in addition to fluoridating water, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk ... ice cream. Ice cream, folks, children's ice cream?!? –MuZemike 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I pretty much fail at quotes... Nakon 08:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hilarious! You hit the spot. This spammer fails to distinguish between science fiction and medical fact. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is pretty funny. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Dang it, leave it to MuZemike to steal my quotes!
- Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Dang it, leave it to MuZemike to steal my quotes!
- Note - The fluoride spammer. Really? Do we actually need a vote for this? No one is going to seriously oppose this, so end the charade, enact the "ban" and it's over. "Next!" Doc talk 08:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not under any illusion that there will be real opposition to this. I mostly just want to dot the i's and cross the t's so that nobody has to worry about technically being liable for edit warring when they revert this guy. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - due mainly to fluoride lowering my IQ - but also because the editor in question has clearly shown that they aren't interested in furthering the aims of the Project. Shot info (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Community ban for User:Freedom5000 and his fringe POV pushing socks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Community Ban. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Alert. Now they are canvassing sysops for reinstatement! See contribs. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Bye Bye! Phearson (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Wikipedia needs less cranks, not more. If all you've done is promote a fringe theory that would embarass the hell out of a birther, you're not liable to contribute anything of value to Wikipedia. (Sad thing is, thanks to the Net, conspiracy theories are a 50-cent piece a grassy knoll.) —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support community ban. I strongly support this -- I've had to deal with several socks of this user in a few incidents, and it's clear that the user has no intentions of productively editing. I like how AndyTheGrump put it: "Incapable of understanding...why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across". The addition to the edit filter sounds like a good idea to me, though I lack the technical knowledge to actually do it. — GorillaWarfare talk 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Troll?
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Just noticed this user: Lamar burton (talk · contribs) In just two days he has done the following:
- Repeated abuse of {{helpme}} on talk page with LOLcat-esque grammar
- Nonsensical comments on others' talk pages.
- Addition of {{administrator}} to own talk page
- Creation of vanity article Lamar burton
- No other article edits.
I say indef block for unconstructive edits/trolling. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Obvious socking, in addition to the above complaints. I would have taken him straight to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sock of whom? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- We can ponder that at our leisure. I've blocked the editor indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Note he added the admin templates to his page and the trolling on my talk page --Addihockey10e-mail 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I said "sock" because his very first edit was to complain about someone having deleted his article. Unless his first edit was that article, and since deleted, which means he might not be a sock. But either way, he gone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sock of whom? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You thought right about socking. Confirmed as a sock of Quantum or not (talk · contribs), which is currently blocked as a suspected sock of Quantumor (talk · contribs). In the meantime,
IP blocked. –MuZemike 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, well. I was patiently trying to help what I thought was a newbie (see his talk page), though I had about decided that he was either a troll or had insurmountable WP:COMPETENCE issues. If he's Quantum or not he is actually able to write English, which I was beginning to doubt. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Any chance this is our friends User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back or User:Access Denied, who have docmented a habit of doing this sort of trolling? --Jayron32 21:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- MuZemike would have indicated such findings, We cannot simply blame every troll on them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- True, but the specific behaviors in this case are a very close match. --Jayron32 21:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jayron, first of all, Access Denied's IP is blocked, so it's hard for him to return with another sock; secondly, like ResidentAnthropologist wrote above, if CU had found any (strong or possible) connection with TFM or AD, I think the CU would've mentioned that. Finally, could you explain why you believe this could be another TFM or AD sock? HeyMid (contribs) 21:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, the use of silly lolcat and TXT style talking, per User:Bad edits r dumb and User:Wpeditmanbob2. The specific manner of conversing with others matches those well. Of course, it could just be a coincidence. And, has been noted before, there are ways to edit from new IP addresses. I am fully willing to accept that this isn't either of them, just noting that there are behavioral connections which are rather close. I am not demanding that I am right. I am merely offering up a possibility. There's no crime in offering ideas here, are there? I am perfectly OK with being wrong. --Jayron32 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Those two itms are hallmark of 4chan trolls, its difficult to discern them from each other. I only spoke up because I had seen those names dropped in serveral ANI discussions recently. No worries The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Either that or a Pickbothmanlol sock. His MO is to impersonate others. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Those two itms are hallmark of 4chan trolls, its difficult to discern them from each other. I only spoke up because I had seen those names dropped in serveral ANI discussions recently. No worries The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, the use of silly lolcat and TXT style talking, per User:Bad edits r dumb and User:Wpeditmanbob2. The specific manner of conversing with others matches those well. Of course, it could just be a coincidence. And, has been noted before, there are ways to edit from new IP addresses. I am fully willing to accept that this isn't either of them, just noting that there are behavioral connections which are rather close. I am not demanding that I am right. I am merely offering up a possibility. There's no crime in offering ideas here, are there? I am perfectly OK with being wrong. --Jayron32 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jayron, first of all, Access Denied's IP is blocked, so it's hard for him to return with another sock; secondly, like ResidentAnthropologist wrote above, if CU had found any (strong or possible) connection with TFM or AD, I think the CU would've mentioned that. Finally, could you explain why you believe this could be another TFM or AD sock? HeyMid (contribs) 21:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- True, but the specific behaviors in this case are a very close match. --Jayron32 21:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- MuZemike would have indicated such findings, We cannot simply blame every troll on them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Any chance this is our friends User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back or User:Access Denied, who have docmented a habit of doing this sort of trolling? --Jayron32 21:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the Star Trek theme between Quantum or not and Lamar Burton (LeVar Burton) S.G.(GH) ping! 16:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Mathsci disrupting the SPI process
Mathsci (talk · contribs) has develooped an unconstructive mode of behaviour in connection with banned user Mikemikev (talk · contribs), who has been apparently been guily of sockpuppetry on controversial Race-related article. Recently an SPI case was raised against BT35 (talk · contribs). User:Mathsci judged this case and falsely found BT35 guilty without the formality of an investigation. He has displayed an astonishing zeal in labelling alleged socks of this user such as 124.115.214.202, 166.111.120.63, 128.40.189.186, 86.189.26.144, Frostbite Alan2, Frostbute Alan3, Frostbite Alan, In with the old, TohsTogNeroc, 86.189.18.110, Frank Dickman, 86.177.2.57, Juden Raus, Grinkagronk and Suarneduj. It is very nice of him to act as clerk for these SPI, but this is hardly the behaviour of someone who is anxious to disengage from the WP:BATTLEGROUND over Race articles. It looks more like gloating over his defeated enemies to me. However, it is of more concern to see that in his amateur SPI detective role, Mathsci has actually impersonated an admin, leaving a bogus block message with a fake signature here. It seems clear that in spite of his avowed intention to disengage from these topics, he is lurking on controversial race-related pages and tagging anyone who expresses an opinion he dislikes as a racist sock of his adversary. Of course BT35 may be Mikemikev irrespective of what Mathsci chooses to think. After these facts were pointed out on the relevant SPI page by 212.183.140.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Mathsci declared the IP user a sock puppet and used that as an excuse to delete the embarassing comment. This obsession with dancing on the skull on his fallen adversary is contrary to the spirit of his assurances to Arbcomm that he will stay away from this area and disruptive to the SPI process. 212.183.140.36 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is frivolopus request by an IP which seems to be a proxy account. This is very likely to be banned user Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as in the past the account was used in late May for editing articles covered by WP:ARBR&I. Disruptive postings of this type by Mikemikev are mentioned in the ArbCom findings. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seems quite possible. Is Mikemikev banned or just indef blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- After long enough, and enough socking, it makes little difference. --Jayron32 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Site-banned for 12 months. The "impersonating an admin" charge is just barely plausible -- Mathsci signed the block notice as Maunus, but it was several minutes after Maunus had blocked the account, so it wasn't a "bogus block message". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all. Maunus left the message on the user page by mistake and I copied it in its entirety to the user talk page as "housekeeping". The diffs are at the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, makes perfect sense that way. Thanks. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- So, to translate the OP, "I'm a banned user. Please pay attention to me" ? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Any objections to blocking them per WP:BOOMERANG? --Jayron32 22:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- If no one minds, I've taken the liberty of blocking the ip. He appears to be using several ips, so I suppose the only effect this will have is to send the message that he's still banned, and we can just keep removing his edits and blocking his ips until he gets bored and goes away, or gets old and dies. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Any objections to blocking them per WP:BOOMERANG? --Jayron32 22:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, makes perfect sense that way. Thanks. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all. Maunus left the message on the user page by mistake and I copied it in its entirety to the user talk page as "housekeeping". The diffs are at the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Looks like Mathsci copied the block template (with Maunus's signature) from the user page[25] to the user talk page. I can see why that was confusing and probably not a good idea in retrospect, but it doesn't come across as impersonation to me. I'm all in favor of banning Mikemikev if he's not already banned. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from the community ban, ArbCom site banned him for 12 months. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like he was indef blocked as a result of an AN/I discussion, then site-banned by ArbCom for 1 year as a result of the
CCR&I arbitration. I think a permanent community ban would be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)- Yes, you're right. He was blocked indefinitely on August 18 by SarekOfVulcan for making a string of personal attacks (a week before WP:ARBR&I closed). Here's the ANI report ... and this is the diff on ANI [26] that precipitated the block. Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think you mean WP:ARBR&I not WP:ARBCC, let's not get carried away :) Just as a note, usually when reporting supsected Mikemikev sockpuppets I do so by requesting a checkuser. I have made several, some of which Mikemikev has listed above. All my checkuser requests have been confirmed and are listed on the confirmed sockpuppet page. At the moment, during the Christmas-New Year break, it seems conceivable that Mikemikev is with his family or with friends, i.e. editing elsewhere than normal. That would explain the latest set of edits. The editing style confirms the editor, if not the precise geographic location and the operating system/computer (a Christmas present?). Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, R&I, not CC, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Mikemikev's also likely responsible for the disruptive edits to the articles by open proxy IPs like this one:[27] detected here[28] Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, R&I, not CC, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like he was indef blocked as a result of an AN/I discussion, then site-banned by ArbCom for 1 year as a result of the
- Apart from the community ban, ArbCom site banned him for 12 months. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seems quite possible. Is Mikemikev banned or just indef blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Other edits via the Vodafone proxy 212.183.140.***
Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Formal Community ban for Mikemikev
Mikemikev for Socking and Evasion of a ARBCOM site ban and is hearby banned from editing the English Wikipedia
- Support as nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support on the basis of the user's contribution history and repeated disruption of the project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support (I was involved in the arbitration page, and I opposed Mikemikev's edits at the time) Racism, insulting other editors, trying to impose his personal opinions in the article, pretending repeatedly to be someone else while block-evading from an IP, inability to simply drop an issue and calm down, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support "Juden Raus"/"suarneduj" as well as other antisemitic confirmed socks, such as Oo Yun (talk · contribs), indicate someone whose sole aim is to offend others and cause disruption. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support I see no sign that this editor is here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support WP's wasted enough time dealing with him already. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Endorsed; no-one who uses up to 29 socks/IPs to evade an ArbCom ban should be welcome here, period. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Thought he was already under both a community and an arbcom ban, but if a third ban makes it easier to remember, then go for it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support though unneccessary. Could anyone see him being allowed to edit even in absense of a formal vote? --Jayron32 02:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, Lord, I forgot that was what kicked the indef block off. Support like anything. He's under an Arbcom 1-year ban and an unilaterally-imposed indef block for threats of violence. Imposing a community ban would mean that he's got to convince the community that he can come back and be a useful editor -- not just a single unblocking admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support I don't recall any useful edits from this user, even when they were calm. Any future presence is certain to be disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support
Although he's already banned by ArbCom, so this isn't really adding anything new.Nevermind, I see the Arbcom ban was only for a year. Lets make this one a permaban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Use of checkuser data
I am concerned that certain users appear to have privileged access to checkuser information and that information derived from those logs has been discussed here. Please may we know how, and by whom, this information is being shared? Zarboublian (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Where in this discussion do you see an indication that CheckUser information – actual content, as opposed to a description of results – was made available to someone who isn't authorized to have it? I ask, because I frankly don't see it. What am I missing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- There could be an unexpected issue of wikistalking involved here, of the kind Professor marginalia has already mentioned in a related context on the SPI report page. [34] Occasionally wikistalking is handled off-wiki and checkusers are contacted privately. That happened with A.K.Nole and Quotient group (no longer editing) who came to an off-wiki arrangement with a member of ArbCom to stop following my edits. If that were to recommence it would be easy enough to contact a checkuser in private: in the case of persistent wikistalkers that is often the only possibility left open. An account that was started a few days after another was left aside and which showed a tendency to follow another user to sharply delineated project pages would probably result in such a report. But in the case of Mikemikev, matters are quite different as I am just one of many targets. There are no wikistalking issues involved in Mikemikev's case. Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:TenPoundHammer
TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On December 27 [35] I asked User:TenPoundHammer to tone down his edit summaries and to stop removing {{Expand}} from articles while the template is at DRV (per WP:TFD/H [36]). Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of User:Boing! said Zebedee, [37] [38] TenPoundHammer has continued both behaviours.
In these diffs [39] [40] [41] TenPoundHammer yet again "screams" at other editors, just as he was doing before. [42] In this diff [43] TenPoundHammer states "Say that again? All I heard was "blah blah blah, WP:ITSNOTABLE, I hate the nominator."" in reply to User:Newyorkbrad.
In this diff [44] he again calls someone a "moron" and in this diff [45] he states "fanwank" which is the same sort of behaviour he exhibited before in calling other editors a "dumbass". [46] [47] Other edit summaries such as "tell me what lapse in judgement made you think some freaking BLOG would make a reliable source... are you out of your mind?!" [48] and "fail" [49] are also troubling.
Despite asking TenPoundHammer not to remove {{Expand}} while it is at DRV, he has continued to do so while continuing the use of misleading edit summaries such as "fix" and "driveby". [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] In checking each of these articles, the maintenance template placement seemed to have been done both in good faith and justifiable based on the article length. (Note that even if this template is "deleted" it won't simply be "removed" in bulk from articles.)
I also noticed TenPoundHammer has continued other past behaviours including making very questionable AfD nominations, such as Mashable [55] and has also continued to repeatedly replaced speedy deletion tags after they have been removed by administrators. [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] I happened to see this very issue of TenPoundHammer's speedy deletion tagging of {{Freshman Members of Congresses}} brought up on User:DGG's talk page just a few days ago. [62]
While I don't have the time or patience to go through TenPoundHammer's full contribution history of the last week or so, especially as he often makes many edits per minute, I think the above diffs should be more than sufficient to demonstrate some of the continued problems. I don't know what needs to be done here, but given repeated past AN/I discussions regarding TenPoundHammer's behaviour, he clearly still fails to understand that this stuff is simply not acceptable behaviour. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Despite lots of undoubtedly good work, he does seem to be in a particularly bad mood at the moment and is being rude and lashing out at people for no good reason - after my comment here, his response to me is here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- And only yesterday, he was being abusive to JohnCD, here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
- The problem is that TPH makes lots of edits that benefit Wikipedia with less than optimum edit summaries (i.e. the fanwank one - it was, indeed, an edit removing an unsourced sentence which consisted entirely of unsourced fanwank, but, hey, this is a collegial environment). If you can find a major issue with one of TPH's edits that is seriously out of order, then warn him, but I'm not entirely sure why we're at ANI yet. What admin action is required? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think we need some way of convincing him to stop being so nasty to people - he does lots of great work, but going round calling people "dumbass" and "moron" is surely not what we want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's the point I'm making - if his edits are out of line, warn him. As far as I can see, there are no warning/incivility/whatever comments on his talkpage except the one pointing him to this ANI. One would've thought if his editing had been so uncollegial that there would've been some sort of attempt at negotiation before the inevitable ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- No offense, Black Kite, but if you don't see any incivility warnings in his talk page history, you must not be looking that hard. I've got no desire to get TPH "in trouble", but it would be nice if he'd knock off stuff like this. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Would be great, but WP:WQA is the place for this, not ANI - again, what administrator action is being requested? Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, people asking for help often don't know what the answers are - does it not seem reasonable to come here and ask "Can any admins suggest or do anything to help?" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Would be great, but WP:WQA is the place for this, not ANI - again, what administrator action is being requested? Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- No offense, Black Kite, but if you don't see any incivility warnings in his talk page history, you must not be looking that hard. I've got no desire to get TPH "in trouble", but it would be nice if he'd knock off stuff like this. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's the point I'm making - if his edits are out of line, warn him. As far as I can see, there are no warning/incivility/whatever comments on his talkpage except the one pointing him to this ANI. One would've thought if his editing had been so uncollegial that there would've been some sort of attempt at negotiation before the inevitable ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- He often does very good work here --he is extraordinarily effective at finding articles that certainly ought to be deleted. But he would be so much more effective if he did not also nominate for deletion articles that there is no reason to delete--I doubt any editor has a higher proportion of AfD nominations that are kept, often by snow. I see this as the same sort of hasty judgement that leads to unreasonable edit summaries. We're here because these matters have been mentioned to him repeatedly over a very long time, and at AN/I. . Everyone else I can think of who makes AfD nominations rejects as frequently learns from it. He hasn't. We're here in the hope that sombody can find a suitable way to communicate with him. Nobody is at this point asking for sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think we need some way of convincing him to stop being so nasty to people - he does lots of great work, but going round calling people "dumbass" and "moron" is surely not what we want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just seeing so much idiocy around here anymore. Things like !voting "keep but source it better" and then failing to show that any sort of sources exist. Then the article gets kept, nominated again two years later, and everyone says "keep but source it better" again failing to provide sources. Other things too — like an experienced user taking a merge request to AFD, n00bs adding "Character X's socks don't match in this scene"—style trivia to movie and TV articles, people insisting that episode articles should be automatically kept just because the show is notable. Admins who are afraid to invoke WP:IAR because they think someone might protest to the deletion of a template that has only a single redlink on it. "Speedy" deletion that takes longer than a full day before someone nukes it. Niceness has gotten me nowhere with these and countless other issues, so maybe some of us just need a slap with something more serious than a trout. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- TPH, your perception is spot on.But you need to realize something, and to be fair it took me years to come to terms with this myself: Wikipedia is essentially a social community with the encyclopedic content being an incidental by-product. Don't emphasize content over the social aspects. That way madness lies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- And sometimes it's that that gets to me too. I think you'd really have to be thin skinned to take offense to an edit summary of "Fail", for instance. And the thing about not wanting to invoke IAR would sort of fall under the social part too — it seems I have to beg and plead to get any administrative action done, no matter how trivial (mostly G6 deletions, which I've seen sit for upwards of a full day). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- You could try being a little less impatient and a little less shitty - if being nice doesn't work, being shitty is even less effective. And there's really no urgency for most of the deletions you request - who cares if it takes a day to delete something harmless? You work at a very fast pace and spend many hours here, but you can't expect everyone else to do the same and work at the same pace as you. Wikipedia and everyone associated with it are not here to jump at your every command, and other people have different takes on things. In every recent fight you've had that I've seen, the other parties have been civil and have explained their thoughts to you - it's simply not the case that you're always right and have to be obeyed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- PS: I agree that "Fail" isn't an offensive summary (not useful or informative, which is what they're supposed to be, but not offensive) - but what about "dumbass", "moron", and all the other shitty abuse you dish out? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- PPS: Re "Admins who are afraid to invoke WP:IAR because they think someone might protest to the deletion of a template that has only a single redlink on it.": I saw that one, and it was nothing to do with the admin being afraid of anything - the admin simply thought it would be wrong to invoke IAR for CSD purposes because CSD is deliberately tightly defined, and they explained that quite clearly to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- To echo Black Kite's (at least) two questions above, what admin action is being requested here? —DoRD (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know precisely - I can only speak for myself, and all I'm here asking is "Can any admins here suggest anything that might help with this situation?" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- And sometimes it's that that gets to me too. I think you'd really have to be thin skinned to take offense to an edit summary of "Fail", for instance. And the thing about not wanting to invoke IAR would sort of fall under the social part too — it seems I have to beg and plead to get any administrative action done, no matter how trivial (mostly G6 deletions, which I've seen sit for upwards of a full day). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- TPH, your perception is spot on.But you need to realize something, and to be fair it took me years to come to terms with this myself: Wikipedia is essentially a social community with the encyclopedic content being an incidental by-product. Don't emphasize content over the social aspects. That way madness lies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that in general, TenPoundHammer has made a lot of positive edits. My own past interactions with him have largely been positive, but a diff such as this [63] which User:28bytes partially linked to above is not an example of appropriate behaviour. If a new or otherwise non-established editor were to make such an edit, he would more often than not be blocked outright for disruption.
This AN/I discussion [64] from November 2010 (which seems to be a continuation of this [65] AN/I discussion) includes quite a bit of discussion regarding problematic behaviour from TenPoundHammer.
As far as warnings go, in keeping with don't template the regulars, many concerns have been raised by others on TenPoundHammer's talk page without using templated warnings. If he is unwilling to listen to others, including both administrators and non-administrators alike, then WQA would not really be helpful either. Somehow other editors need a way to communicate to TenPoundHammer that the general incivility, hostility, and combativeness, as well as the language of his edit summaries needs to change. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just to add to that, this behavior has been going on for years, and I think it's obvious to anyone with any familiarity that WQA would be a waste of time. Now, I might be misjudging it, but I actually think it's getting worse. When I first encountered TPH several years ago, he was often curt and brusque and made many bad AfD reports, but I don't remember the degree of incivility and abuse that we're seeing now. Over the past month or so, he seems to have been getting into an increasingly bad mood. And that really can't be good for him either - are we seeing signs of burnout? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I definitely see signs of WikiBurnout here. (I suspect every long-time contributor goes thru the Slough of Despond over Wikipedia. Some emerge at the other end with a far less positive attitude towards this online encyclopedia idea & what it has accomplished; some never emerge.) However, the best place to discuss TenPoundHammer's behavior would be in a RfC/U, not a WP:AN/I thread. -- llywrch (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Never had a problem myself with Hammer and I have encountered him more than once, especially early on. Maybe he is getting burned out: I don't know. He's got a "spitshine" clean block log (except for the "joke block") for a long time here. I agree with those above who think this needs another venue. Doc talk 10:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, I think you're probably right, and I guess RFC/U is the proper place. The only trouble is I'd feel bad about doing it - I know it's still "informal", but it does feel like cranking it up a notch, and TPH is someone I genuinely respect for his long-term contributions. I think I'd rather just leave it be for now, myself - I've had my say here, and we've been able to tell TPH what we think is wrong. Hopefully he might think about it, and accept that these are the words of well-meaning Wikipedia colleagues, and we can see how things go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- WHY IN THE WORLD was a bunch TPH's edit summaries deleted? What a gross misuse of admin tools / oversighting rights. There's absolutely NO REASON WHATSOVER to rev delete them. Oversighting is annoying enough when it's within policy, and we certainly don't need admins/oversighters to shoot from the hip and revdelete stuff where a rollback would have done the job. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Which ones were oversighted? Can you give examples? As far as I can tell, none of the links given above have been oversighted. (And tone it down a little, no need to yell.) SilverserenC 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I revdeled a bunch of CHECKYOURLINKS x 20 as being purely disruptive, as they were flooding the contributions list. I stopped when I was questioned on them, so you can see essentially the same text in the general area. Doing it once wouldn't have been disruptive -- doing it 20 times within a minute was, in my opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- And since it was an editsummary issue, rollback would not have done the job. You'll note I only rolled back a couple of edits, where I immediately corrected the link to point to the intended target. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- There's still no justifiable reasoning for suppressing them in the first place. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sure there is. Now that I've undeleted them, go try to read that portion of his contribs log -- or imagine what RecentChanges would have looked like while that spree was running. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, this sort of stuff would get a non-established editor blocked for disruption. TenPoundHammer needs to understand that this behaviour is not ok. I didn't want to initiate a RFC/U because they often can turn very ugly, and I don't think that would have helped here at all.
TenPoundHammer, if you are getting too stressed out, take a break. For a specific diff or set of diffs, simply bookmark it and return to it a few days later. If someone else hasn't fixed it, fix it when you are less stressed. I really don't want to see you end up getting yourself blocked from a stress-induced outburst (I'm speaking from experience here). Edit: After writing this (but before posting) I noticed TenPoundHammer has indeed now gotten himself blocked. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I revdeled a bunch of CHECKYOURLINKS x 20 as being purely disruptive, as they were flooding the contributions list. I stopped when I was questioned on them, so you can see essentially the same text in the general area. Doing it once wouldn't have been disruptive -- doing it 20 times within a minute was, in my opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Which ones were oversighted? Can you give examples? As far as I can tell, none of the links given above have been oversighted. (And tone it down a little, no need to yell.) SilverserenC 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- WHY IN THE WORLD was a bunch TPH's edit summaries deleted? What a gross misuse of admin tools / oversighting rights. There's absolutely NO REASON WHATSOVER to rev delete them. Oversighting is annoying enough when it's within policy, and we certainly don't need admins/oversighters to shoot from the hip and revdelete stuff where a rollback would have done the job. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, I think you're probably right, and I guess RFC/U is the proper place. The only trouble is I'd feel bad about doing it - I know it's still "informal", but it does feel like cranking it up a notch, and TPH is someone I genuinely respect for his long-term contributions. I think I'd rather just leave it be for now, myself - I've had my say here, and we've been able to tell TPH what we think is wrong. Hopefully he might think about it, and accept that these are the words of well-meaning Wikipedia colleagues, and we can see how things go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Never had a problem myself with Hammer and I have encountered him more than once, especially early on. Maybe he is getting burned out: I don't know. He's got a "spitshine" clean block log (except for the "joke block") for a long time here. I agree with those above who think this needs another venue. Doc talk 10:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I definitely see signs of WikiBurnout here. (I suspect every long-time contributor goes thru the Slough of Despond over Wikipedia. Some emerge at the other end with a far less positive attitude towards this online encyclopedia idea & what it has accomplished; some never emerge.) However, the best place to discuss TenPoundHammer's behavior would be in a RfC/U, not a WP:AN/I thread. -- llywrch (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just to add to that, this behavior has been going on for years, and I think it's obvious to anyone with any familiarity that WQA would be a waste of time. Now, I might be misjudging it, but I actually think it's getting worse. When I first encountered TPH several years ago, he was often curt and brusque and made many bad AfD reports, but I don't remember the degree of incivility and abuse that we're seeing now. Over the past month or so, he seems to have been getting into an increasingly bad mood. And that really can't be good for him either - are we seeing signs of burnout? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) I've interacted with TPH many times before. He/she is a good editor and usually had a good trustable judgment. However some of the comments in his/her edit summaries are not WP:CIVIL. Regardless of how good one's edits are it doesn't excuse the brash or sometimes crude use of language. I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. However I agree with Silver Seren, some of those edit summaries did require removing as they could have caused offence to other users. Now instead of dragging the issue out how about TPH is issued with a polite and informal warning about calming down his/her tone of voice and choice of language. If there are any future issues then admins can consider other alternatives. But lets not execute one of our better editors just because he/she has burned out a little. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl indeffed me for the "CHECK YOUR LINKS" rampage which I did using the unlink tool — I'm just so sick and tired of people who don't bother to check where their links are pointing to. I think the indef block was overkill to the extreme, but no matter. I've been unblocked now and I'd say this block was just the wakeup call I needed. All of the "stupid" things I'm repeatedly seeing on Wikipedia may still piss me off, but it seems quite clear now that lashing out on-wiki is a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, she indeffed you for removing dozens of perfectly good links. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)I hadn't spotted that there was an existing thread on this, so i had just opened a new one at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer_unlinking_spree.
- As noted there and on your talk, you need to try a much better explanation of what you were doing. This was simply mass-unlinking without checking, and I make no apology for the indef-block. I am glad that Sarek unblocked you to allow a cleanup, but unless you a) fix every link you have removed, and b) give a better explanation than this, I think some sort of block should be restored.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- And what exactly would such a block achieve? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Unless TenPoundHammer will voluntarily desist from mass removal of links on a multiply-flawed basis, some restraint is needed. The unlinking tool is clearly not safe in TenPoundHammer's hands, and I am not aware of a way of simply disabling him from using it (tho pls correct me if that is actually possible). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- It seems to me that TPH basically said he was lashing out in frustration (and we've seen him getting a bit stressed lately), and that he realizes he needs to stop doing so - he's certainly more than capable of using the tools properly, and I think we should respect what he says and give him a chance now, without any immediate further action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- If TenPoundHammer said he will clean up whatever messes he made and is changing the way he does things going forward, I don't feel reblocking him would serve much purpose. In my past experience in dealing with TenPoundHammer, if he says he will fix something, he has taken care of it. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please check below, under #TenPoundHammer_unlinking_spree. I have just been checking and find lots of edits which TenPoundHammer says he has already fixed, but hasn't. Whatever your past experience, it sadly doesn't match with what's happening now: a tantrum with powerful tools followed by false assurances that a cleanup has been done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm willing to give him some time to find and correct whatever mistakes he made. It is very easy to make a huge mess with automated or semi-automated tools but correcting it manually takes a lot more time. If TenPoundHammer is ultimately unwilling to change his behaviour, he could always be placed under an edit restriction forbidding him from using automated tools. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it does take time, but TPH said that he had already done it. Given his false assurance that he had already cleaned up, I saw no point in trying to monitor whether and when he decided to clean up, I rollbacked the changes which he had not already reverted.
- It seems to me that this spree, and the false assurances of a cleanup, are enough grounds to apply that restriction now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm willing to give him some time to find and correct whatever mistakes he made. It is very easy to make a huge mess with automated or semi-automated tools but correcting it manually takes a lot more time. If TenPoundHammer is ultimately unwilling to change his behaviour, he could always be placed under an edit restriction forbidding him from using automated tools. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please check below, under #TenPoundHammer_unlinking_spree. I have just been checking and find lots of edits which TenPoundHammer says he has already fixed, but hasn't. Whatever your past experience, it sadly doesn't match with what's happening now: a tantrum with powerful tools followed by false assurances that a cleanup has been done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Unless TenPoundHammer will voluntarily desist from mass removal of links on a multiply-flawed basis, some restraint is needed. The unlinking tool is clearly not safe in TenPoundHammer's hands, and I am not aware of a way of simply disabling him from using it (tho pls correct me if that is actually possible). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- And what exactly would such a block achieve? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone should start an RFC/U already, I don't see what admins can do here, but if I had to go find diffs of all the times TPH's unproductive editing has had me tearing my hair out, it would take days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Continued harassment by User:Pieter Kuiper
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked for a long time
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#SergeWoodzing
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing behavor from User:SergeWoodzing - is this truly correct?
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter Kuiper
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter Kuiper
As seen here and below that entry, the user continues to stalk and harass me with rancorous retaliatory actions even though I have asked him several times to stay off my talk page and leave me alone. I reported his personal agenda before here but not one administrator tried to help us stay away from each other. Mr Kuiper needs to stop harassing me and somebody neutral needs to tell him to leave me alone. The latest twist is that he uses frivolous deletion requests as an excuse to show me that he does not respect my wishes to stay off my talk page. He is not doing anything particularly valuable or constructive for WP, just trying his damndest to irriate. Being extremely headstrong and tedious, though not very good at English or knowledgeable about older English literature, he is almost always proven wrong eventually about the issues he brings up regarding English exonyms and such, if the editors he attacks and annoys have the time and energy, and patience with his constant sarcasm and ridicule, to research them and reply. I am losing it. It is typical for him to flaunt his disrespect for others. The basic current problem is that he is blocked on Commons, where I supported his blocks this year along with several other editors, so now he has come here to cause trouble instead. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have a general rule that whenever an editor starts with the STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE stuff, he is the source of the problem. I find little here to make me change my mind. If the deletion requests were "frivolous", it's doubtful that the AFDs would result in a consensus to delete.
That said, User:Pieter Kuiper is indeed banned on Commons for harassment of other editors, which means that we need to look at this more closely than I would normally bother with. SergeWoodzing, can you provide some evidence of actual harassment done on English Wikipedia? Not nominating articles for deletion that you wish had been kept, but actual harassment?—Kww(talk) 01:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- If it is not harassment to stalk people inter-wiki and then put sarcasm, ridicule, personal insults, belittlement, mud-slinging in almost every edit summary (see them from those and previous dates) and talk page comment (see them), then I am wrong in using that word. I didn't think "a good contributor" ..."usually basically right about the underlying issues" (comment below) was allowed to behave like that. Maybe I am wrong about that too? I have never behaved like that or anywhere near it, but then again I make mistakes sometimes and am perhaps not that valuable. And since I don't want Kuiper on my talk page (because he makes me literally nauseous), that makes me automatically wrong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The block reason on Commons is a gross exaggeration - I will only admit incivility. All I did was to respond to a person calling me names on my talk page with a similar vulgarity translated to Dutch. Per the usual differences in wiki-clout, I was the only one getting blocked for that exchange. So now I am editing on other wikipedias a bit more than if I could have contributed on Commons. There is no reason for these repeated complaints by Woodzing. The last one was just closed a few days ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The previous ANI from last weekWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked_for_a_long_time has some diffs. Here and on Commons, the repeating pattern is that PK gets into a dispute with someone who is editing poorly with good intentions, and then takes them to task for it in a rather abusive way. PK is smart and a good contributor, and he is usually basically right about the underlying issues, so it's mostly a civility problem and maybe to some extent a hounding problem. I wonder if some other editors could give SW some gentler guidance than PK has been giving, so that PK can leave SW alone for a while. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please!!!!! Not even gentle is necessary, just civil, without sarcasm, ridicule, mud-slinging, assumpton of bad faith every time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at some of the previous incident reports on this noticeboard, and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl of Vermillandia, it seems that a long-standing situation, resulting from something on the Swedish Wikipedia, has deteriorated to the extent that Pieter Kuiper can call article content a hoax and a BLP problem and SergeWoodzing will immediately cry "I'm being personally attacked.". SergeWoodzing is not coming across as entirely the victim in this, at this point. Uncle G (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Erasing notices and warnings
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Per WP:DRC and Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings I have the ability to blank my userpage. This editor User talk:Daipenmon keeps reverting my blanking of my page. Communication with the editor has been ignored. 94.173.8.12 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked him not to. Prodego talk 00:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: shortly after your post, he blanked his own talk page and then re-restored the IPs talk page. I've left a much more pointed warning to Daipenmon, as the continued restoration of the talk page content despite requests to stop and without engaging in any discussion on that action is, at this point, simply harassment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I believe the No Personal Attacks policy also extends to edit summaries, so this summary referring to "f&#ktards" (my 'censoring'!) is also not wanted. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 02:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Whoops, Same summary. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 02:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just gave 94.* a 4im on improper humor, and pointed them to WP:BOOMERANG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) Indeed, bringing a user to ANI over a policy violation while breaching policy in a rather more disruptive way = WP:BOOMERANG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Except there's no boomerang, as the OP remains unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- This IP is a cafe open WiFi network in Central Edinburgh. Warnings are being issued to the wrong users. 94.173.8.12 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The IP address got the warnings, if the address is the source of significant vandalism, it may still be warned and blocked. If you don't want the warnings, create an account of your own, here is a simple link. Heiro 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- This IP is a cafe open WiFi network in Central Edinburgh. Warnings are being issued to the wrong users. 94.173.8.12 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Except there's no boomerang, as the OP remains unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) Indeed, bringing a user to ANI over a policy violation while breaching policy in a rather more disruptive way = WP:BOOMERANG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It was getting to be boring, so l stopped already--Daipenmon (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
(Previous discussion: [70]) The conflict of interest problem at Nassim Nicholas Taleb has resurfaced. To recap, IbnAmioun (talk · contribs) claims to represent Taleb on Wikipedia. See User:IbnAmioun. All his edits are to Taleb-related articles, and generally in the direction of inflating Taleb's reputation. There's something of a WP:OWN problem there; it's come up here a few times.
The current issue is at Empirica Capital, where, in this edit [71], IbnAmoun removed a data table of fund returns from Business Insider, which reproduced an image of a statement from the fund. The actual numbers aren't as flattering to Taleb as his own public statements, which focus on the "good years" for his fund. There's a legitimate content dispute over how to calculate the annual returns from the figures available, but that's not justification for deleting the whole table.
There's also something of a civility problem. I generally ignore personal attacks, but I'm getting rather tired of this series. The latest round of insults come from 64.131.190.231 (talk · contribs):
- "... Some guys are very vehemently trying to watch his back and sing his praises while others specially John Nagle are hell bent on crucifying him. I don't how much damage the well-wisher-fanboys can suffer and I don't know how much law you guys know but there are causes for lawsuits based on obvious slander. ... Thanks ~JD" [72]
- "Its obvious that this failed nerd Nagle is the biggest Talib fan or is jealous of Talibs fame and wealth. Stop obsessing with his fund returns ..." [73]
- "It is obvious that this nerd Nagle is a celebrity stalker and a nobody who is happy that by doing this nonsense he will show up in a google search with talib" [74]
There's the possibility that 64.131.190.231 (talk · contribs), who seems to edit in concert with IbnAmoun, is a sock. But, regardless, I'd like to ask for a civility block on that anon IP, which edits only Taleb articles. What to do about the IbnAmoun COI situation, I don't know. --John Nagle (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Dear sirs, this civility business is very regrettable but I have nothing to do with it. There is no COI since I do not edit and do not disguise my source of conflict by posting edits on other pages on the occasion. As a representative of Prof Taleb my intervention here is limited to insuring all sources about subject are properly sourced from valid newspapers, nothing else, presenting them on talk page, and removing false information about mischaracterization of Taleb's activities and funds. This is compliance with wikipedia's BLP. User:Nagle|John Nagle has been posting matters about "Taleb inflating his returns" more than a dozen instances, along with a steady pattern of posting degrading the character of the subject Nassim Nicholas Taleb, in addition to posting matters that are plainly erroneous like "Taleb claims about his returns" when it is clearly not Taleb but wsj. Add to that pure original research trying to do analyses on Taleb's funds. All what has been done is revert. Taleb has been under pressure from detractors (owing to his criticism of the finance industry) and we cannot do anything about criticism and sourced matters.
- Let me recap: I only remove false information that make its way into the bio. In the case of the returns in the most recent a finance tabloid gossip blog has data that has conflicted with WSJ not without a reason and not a good source --and I am certain that the source is totally unacceptable with wiki standards (the data is not fact checked, clearly otherwise it would conflict with WSJ and BusinessWeek/Bloomberg). The other accounts are clearly not related to me and there is no "in concert" business. I wonder if these discussions should not be in concert with the wikipedia foundation whom we are contacting.
- As you are well aware, the subject of a biography is entitled (though himself or a representative) to correct erroneous factual information and potentially libelous postings.
- Finally, we believe that user Nagle should be barred from Taleb's page as all his edits show a pattern of Bad Faith (obsessive dislike of a living subject) and clearly have a very strong libel nature to them. Clearly my role here would be close to nonexistent in his absence. IbnAmioun (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- PS- note that it is not about the returns in the data. The data we turned down as a valid source does not conflict that much with WSJ and others. It is innocently incomplete and someone has filled gaps by "guessing" (it was compiled by some "watcher" not by an investor and stopped with partial 2003). So it is a matter of principle of what constitutes a source for wiki. It is also the commentary on the gossip page that is not professional (40% return in 3 years is stellar by any standard). IbnAmioun (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm now the fifth person IbnAmoun has attacked in this way. Looking at IbnAmioun's edit history, he was similarly annoyed with Ulner (talk · contribs)[75], AleXd (talk · contribs)[76], Elroch (talk · contribs)[77], and Sked123 (talk · contribs)[78]. This seems to be his standard behavior whenever anyone objects to his ownership of Taleb-related articles. He's threatened legal action before, and he's contacted the Wikimedia Foundation before, with no effect. His last block for this was 36 hours, on December 16, 2010. Perhaps a longer block would be in order. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting reaction to request a block about the rep of the subject of a bio so you can post matters that clash with wiki standards. Last time the block came as I reverted the "Taleb claims", and the comment "Taleb cannot be a source on Taleb" when it was WSJ, not Taleb making these claims, triggering a shady reaction.
- Now I agree of the sin of some aggressivity in the past these took place without my full knowledge of the rules but took place when Taleb was being savaged by bankers whom he attacked in his book (Paranoia turned out to be justified when death threats were issued against Taleb, see source WSJ). Here this doesn't prevent the truth that Nagle seems bent on posting libelous statements style he is just a trader who writes books, his returns are not good or he is well known for inflating his returns, or similar matters that are just libel. This would disqualify any editor --not counting original research. So I would like Nagle to be completely blocked from the Taleb page. IbnAmioun (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Finally there is an important point about subject: he patently does not discuss his finance activities and is not interested in promoting them. Look at his web site and official bio. His finance background comes page 3, in a rapid mention. So there is evidence of no possible way of trying to use wikipedia for promotion of his financial businesses or record on his part. IbnAmioun (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm now the fifth person IbnAmoun has attacked in this way. Looking at IbnAmioun's edit history, he was similarly annoyed with Ulner (talk · contribs)[75], AleXd (talk · contribs)[76], Elroch (talk · contribs)[77], and Sked123 (talk · contribs)[78]. This seems to be his standard behavior whenever anyone objects to his ownership of Taleb-related articles. He's threatened legal action before, and he's contacted the Wikimedia Foundation before, with no effect. His last block for this was 36 hours, on December 16, 2010. Perhaps a longer block would be in order. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- PS- note that it is not about the returns in the data. The data we turned down as a valid source does not conflict that much with WSJ and others. It is innocently incomplete and someone has filled gaps by "guessing" (it was compiled by some "watcher" not by an investor and stopped with partial 2003). So it is a matter of principle of what constitutes a source for wiki. It is also the commentary on the gossip page that is not professional (40% return in 3 years is stellar by any standard). IbnAmioun (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- RETURNS. Dear administrators, leaving the problem of original research by user Nagle aside, and the fact that Wiki cannot accept blog sources from non-fact checked news services (most certainly they become cited by some circularity). Nagle's motive might appears that Prof. Taleb is not disclosing his bad years and that a cumulative return for the so-called Black Swan strategies need to be presented. It is the problem of survivorship bias that is at the center of Prof T's earlier book. Well, there is data to do so from official sources and (even using the flimsy sources) would give a minimum of around 150% cumulative returns by assuming 0% in years in which the WSJ wrote "single digits" (the data absent was 2005-7 when the strategy was in complete hiatus). Compare that to -23% for the market over the decade. That is the minimum, and the true numbers unpublished lie higher. Prof. Taleb made a statement to that effect in The Black Swan. Now ignoring that might be misunderstanding, not bad faith. But repeatedly ignoring that is a severe problem, which is why we would like Mr Nagle to be prevented from further involvement.IbnAmioun (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've blocked the IP 2 weeks for making legal threats (remarks about how many lawyers Taleb has and how likely he is to sue). Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- First of all I think that in my opinion the article Nassim Nicholas Taleb has improved over the years, and one reason for this is that there are many interested people who know much about the books, articles etc Taleb has written and also about the other activitives. Both IbnAmioun and Nagle are experts concerning this subject in my opinion. For this reason I think a much better solution than blocking of anyone would be if there is some way to reach a consensus in some way. First I would hope that there is more room on the talk page for discussion, both positive and negative, without being accussed of libel or slander. If some statement is incorrect or biased, just say so: "Your statement is incorrect and biased. It is incorrect because ABC. It is biased because ABC.". Second, I concur with IbnAmioun that Business Insider is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as reference. For this reason I think it should not be used as a reference in the main article. However, I think it should be allowed to be discussed on the talk page - where a more detailed investigation and discussion of the claims of this article may proceed. Third, as IbnAmioun writes he has the right to delete material which is libel/slander, and this is also an important way to have a high quality of these biographies and follow the BLP rules. Ulner (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- One more comment about the summary of IbnAmioun above: "Nagle's motive might appears that Prof. Taleb is not disclosing his bad years and that a cumulative return for the so-called Black Swan strategies need to be presented." What is important here is if know information about the "missing years" are found, we should publish nothing about these years on Wikipedia. It will not be acceptable to publish original research with some analysis about these years. However, if a credible source is found which have some criticism or ideas concerning this, it may be acceptable to be included (depending on cirumstances). Ulner (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent intervention. The main matter hanging would then be resolved. The only evidence required is to show that Prof. Taleb's "Black Swan Protection" strategy was not in action in 2005-2007. All other years can constitute evidence for lower bound. We do not need to publish on bio so long as there is backup on talk. And there is a statement to that effect by Prof T that can be provided. And please let us avoid unprofessional statements of the style "meh" and "not so good" in any discussion. (Note that Prof Taleb only cares about substantive matters, and accusations of concealing returns is a substantive matter. ) IbnAmioun (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- On the Empirica Capital returns issue, I've sent that to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Hedge_fund_returns_for_Empirica_Capital., which is probably the right forum. On the attacks from the anon issue, thanks for the block. That was getting annoying. Still not sure about the IbnAmioun (talk · contribs) issue. It's rare for someone to have their very own personal editor, openly identified as such and editing in no other area, promoting their public image. This remains a WP:OWN problem. On the other hand, since more editors have been looking at this article, the hype level has been dialed down from 11 to maybe 9 or so. Progress of sorts. --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent intervention. The main matter hanging would then be resolved. The only evidence required is to show that Prof. Taleb's "Black Swan Protection" strategy was not in action in 2005-2007. All other years can constitute evidence for lower bound. We do not need to publish on bio so long as there is backup on talk. And there is a statement to that effect by Prof T that can be provided. And please let us avoid unprofessional statements of the style "meh" and "not so good" in any discussion. (Note that Prof Taleb only cares about substantive matters, and accusations of concealing returns is a substantive matter. ) IbnAmioun (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Why has this incivil self-confessed COI single-purpose account, with a consistent history of WP:NPOV violations on behalf of his principle, not been permanently blocked? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not mix the incivility with me (some other poster with whom I have nothing to do) and if there has been temper problems any in the past, I agree that it is not permissible. But as explained above, the subject has the right to be protected against libelous statements and remove/point out to false information. That's what makes wikipedia work. And I am not concealing identity of representation. The subject has the right to be protected against errors and libel. IbnAmioun (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
IMEKO vandal advertising SPA
We have just blocked a vandal on nl.wikipedia, using 2 registered accounts (nl:User:Imeko, nl:User:IMEKO-IO) and an IP-address (nl:User talk:192.53.103.200). The registered accounts have been blocked indefenitely, the ip for one day (reason: advertising on nl:IMEKO) I checked the crosswiki contributions, and saw that the same accounts and IP address are also editing here at IMEKO. User:Imeko redirects to IMEKO - TBloemink 10:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Both accounts blocked by Edgar181 and page CSD G11 by me. This organisation may be notable in the scientific field, but that article wasn't. Better to start again. Incidentally, I've changed the title. I don't think he comes under the category 'vandal' in the en.wiki definition. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Signing posts
Is there a rule requiring an established user to sign its posts on talk pages? Or is it just a politeness convention? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't this more like a help desk question? :) Wikipedia:Signatures: "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed." It's a guideline, but lacking some common sense reason why consensus should not be followed should not be ignored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)WP:SIG is a guideline that the community has shown interest in enforcing by block if there is dickery about over sigs. So for all intents and purposes it can be treated as policy if there is great need, as you may recall from participation in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly talking hypothetically. I've run across a user who won't sign, and if he persists in not signing, I'm wondering what the recourse is, if any. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have notified the user of this discussion and of the requirement. I'm marking it "resolved", though the user could still come here and make a counter-argument if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've added what you might term an explanatory warning [79]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Even if it weren't a guideline or policy, if failure to sign created disruption, then it would be uncollaborative to refuse to sign, IOW a punishable offense. Pretty much any behavior, even if normally allowed, is unfortunate if it causes problems. The situation needs to be considered, not just existing policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The user in question, called "Pantergraph", has since given a number of bogus reasons why he "doesn't need to sign", and an admin has warned him. I have a hunch this is not going to turn out well, but we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It all depends on what you mean by "well".... ;-) It won't be a great loss, so that might be considered "well". Uncollaborative editors are never a plus. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I meant "well" for the user, although being banished from a website has at least the potential for educational value for that user. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Luckily, people are signing their posts on Pantergraph's talk page, so he can see that multiple users oppose his actions. ClovisPt (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it is a coincidence that a user who is so resistant to signing has a username that sounds like "pantograph," a device used to do things like sign many things at once. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I meant "well" for the user, although being banished from a website has at least the potential for educational value for that user. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It all depends on what you mean by "well".... ;-) It won't be a great loss, so that might be considered "well". Uncollaborative editors are never a plus. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Anyone know how to fix this? Looks like it was nominated incorrectly. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 15:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless, there's no point in creating an article for an event thats over 2 decades away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy was declined because the new articleis "subtantially different" from the deleted article. People are already adding sources so the article doesn't get deleted. Not sure if this is good or not :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's pointless, but also harmless. I just wonder where to stop. Maybe I should create an Oscar page for the year 3001. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It says the result was "delete", but obviously it's not deleted. In any case, the spelling and usage were not so good, and I've fixed a few things. Now to go work on the article about the 3001 Oscars. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Create it in your user space. In a few hundred years, have someone move it to the article space. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a start at it: "The 1,073rd Academy Awards ceremony will honor the best in visual media for the year 3000. It will take place on February 31, 3001, on www.littleoscar.mars. Thanks to the expert work of her plastic surgeon, actress Dori N. Grey will host the show for the 500th consecutive year." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that's also where the 3006 Summer Olympics bid will be declared. Or do we have an article on that already? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm on it: "The 3006 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the MMMMXXXI Olympiad, are a major intergalactic multi-sport event to be celebrated in the tradition of the Olympic Games, as governed by the Interstellar Olympic Committee (ISOC). The host city of the Games will be Zeus City on the satellite I/O. This will be the first Olympics held since the great computer plague of 2031 that rubbed out the 2032 Olympics, the 2032 Oscars, and other events for over 970 years until an English-speaking Help Desk person could finally be located." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Point of order: in 3000 it will be ssww.foo.mars, since it will be the solarsystem-wide web, or maybe even the gww if that hyperdrive ever gets invented. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that's also where the 3006 Summer Olympics bid will be declared. Or do we have an article on that already? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a start at it: "The 1,073rd Academy Awards ceremony will honor the best in visual media for the year 3000. It will take place on February 31, 3001, on www.littleoscar.mars. Thanks to the expert work of her plastic surgeon, actress Dori N. Grey will host the show for the 500th consecutive year." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Create it in your user space. In a few hundred years, have someone move it to the article space. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It says the result was "delete", but obviously it's not deleted. In any case, the spelling and usage were not so good, and I've fixed a few things. Now to go work on the article about the 3001 Oscars. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's pointless, but also harmless. I just wonder where to stop. Maybe I should create an Oscar page for the year 3001. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy was declined because the new articleis "subtantially different" from the deleted article. People are already adding sources so the article doesn't get deleted. Not sure if this is good or not :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping someone from taking the new article to a properly formatted AfD. After all, WP:CRYSTAL only says that the 2036 Olympics are too soon.... OTOH, there are slim pickings for RS.... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Advocacy in Anti-Semitism articles
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Carolmooredc is a redlink. An admin should know better than to come to ANI with what amounts to "I don't like this user's POV". Especially as within this topic any ANI thread is likely to be unpleasantly conflictual. Yes, we could continue talking here until the cows come home and accuse each other of POV-pushing... but let's not.Rd232 talk 21:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have discovered that an editor heavily involved in editing some articles on anti-semitism, Israel, and Judaism has imported a real life battle into Wikipedia. I am involved in these discussions, acting in the capacity of an ordinary editor, not as an administrator. Please see:
- Dealing with the nefarious influence of Israel Firsters on Congress and in the media (which is mostly owned and/or controlled by pro-Zionists, mostly Jews)...
- Discussion from July 2010
- Carol Moore should be banned from entries involving Jews, Judaism, or Israel. Period. - I agree.
- Current page naming dispute at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media
My request is for a community topic ban restricting CarolMooreDC from any pages related to anti-Semitism, Israel/Palestine and Judaism. We do not need real life activists using Wikipedia as a platform for their work. We do not need somebody who states that the media is controlled by Jews (an outrageous anti-semitic lie) to be heavily involved in a discussion about how to name the article Jewish control of the media.
All editors should be reminded that it is not outing when an editor disclosed that they edit under their own name, and self-discloses their off-wiki activities. (This is admirable transparency, in my opinion.) Every editor should be aware of what topics they have problems writing neutrally about, and stay away from them. They should especially avoid disputed editing of those topics. When an editor fails to do so, it is the community's job to help them keep out of topics where they are likely to disrupt Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, may I ask if the user guilty of something tangible? Is he guilty of vandalism, harassment, or something along these lines? Flamarande (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Persistent violations of WP:CPUSH and WP:NPOV. Please review the linked discussions. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- here is a past ANI about her advocacy that was buried: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=383934323#user:carolmooredc_writing_a_book_and_using_wp_to_make_her_pov Darkstar1st (talk)
- Hmm, sadly I can't help feeling a little boomerang may end up happening here... I'm far far from Carols biggest fan ;) but from here it looks a lot like Jehochman jumped into this latest move dispute by going on a pretty pointy diatribe against the article (ok, we get that it is a canard of some profile and annoyance and should be properly treated as such, but, really, there is a way to address such an issue) some of which was quite strongly directed at Carol. Reading the talk threads I don't think there is a more clear example of having a "point of view" in relation to an article ;). I'm not sure why past history about Carol has been dragged up here on AN/I, that seems to be a case of casting wildly in the dark to try and paint Carol as an anti-semite.. and to win the argument that way. Rather dubiously if I am honest. However it seems a reasonable opportunity to look into Jehochman's involvement in that discussion and possibly slap some wrists or something? I have to say, Jehochman, I'm a little disappointed I always took you for a laid back editor :( (Reading through; both Jehochman and Carol need to step back and calm down, dragging this to AN/I is going to help neither of you. There is incivility and nastiness abound on that page between you two - both accusing each other of the same things, and then turning round and doing exactly what you complain about in the next breath... it's an exercise in getting a headache :) take it off your watchlists for a few weeks and let some others sort it out) --Errant (chat!) 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- here is a past ANI about her advocacy that was buried: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=383934323#user:carolmooredc_writing_a_book_and_using_wp_to_make_her_pov Darkstar1st (talk)
- Persistent violations of WP:CPUSH and WP:NPOV. Please review the linked discussions. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I believe it's forebidden for editors to push their political views on Wikipedia articles. PS: I've always observed that international media was anti-Israel. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sharon would love to have Hamas killing American troops, just like he's delighted to see them killing Jews, imagine if she had wrote Obama delighted in killing african americans??? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance in your making such a comment, and it is definitely uncivil. Stop it. --Errant (chat!) 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- reread the links provided, you will see killing jews was carols words, not mine. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm referring to you bringing it up here, like Jehochman, and adding your own commentary to attack Carol. Stop it. --Errant (chat!) 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Errant, bringing up someones past comments about killing jews in an ani report about anti-semitism is uncivil how? on the contrary, your accusations and demands appear to be the uncivil words. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm referring to you bringing it up here, like Jehochman, and adding your own commentary to attack Carol. Stop it. --Errant (chat!) 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- reread the links provided, you will see killing jews was carols words, not mine. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance in your making such a comment, and it is definitely uncivil. Stop it. --Errant (chat!) 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sharon would love to have Hamas killing American troops, just like he's delighted to see them killing Jews, imagine if she had wrote Obama delighted in killing african americans??? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Jehochman is annoyed cause I was a little late putting up my notice I mentioned him in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Brewcrewer. Or that I was quick to make it clear that you just can't change an article's name back to previous one without doing a WP:RM.
Anyway, people keep dredging up that one email where I went on a rant after receiving a number of thinly veiled death threats from the person I address in the email (who was soon kicked off a number of lists), as I describe in a couple of the discussions linked, including link to evidence. (Why do I feel like there's a central database of links on this incident??) Anyway, nobody's perfect.
However, having a generally known libertarian/pro-peace POV obviously makes one very careful and even Wikilawyerly in one's editing. If I had to do it all over I guess 4 years ago I would have picked an anonymous handle like everyone else here and elsewhere complaining does. Then, like theirs, my POV only be determined from my edits and talk page entries. I have a lot of fun thinking about what that anonymous handle would have been. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Carol, you met me with very intense wikilawyering. Such a response I've only seen in our hottest disputes. Let me be clear: I just bumbled upon a stupid looking page title and decided to improve it, boldly, without digging into the history! The change I made was very obviously an improvement. We don't have articles that start with "Allegations of". We don't legitimize anti-semitic slanders by calling them "allegations". If you didn't like my improvement, you could have reverted it, and explained why I was wrong. I don't buy your excuse that your anti-semitic remarks on the record are excused because of death threats against you by some crazy Zionists. You are welcome to believe whatever you want -- yeah, I'm sort of libertarian too, rock on, to each her own -- but please don't import your personal beliefs into our articles, not blatantly, not subtly, not at all. If you will stipulate that you'll be more sensitive to the concerns of other editors and be less combative, then we are done here. Jehochman Talk 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The name of the article has been changed twice without people bothering to read the talk page or do a WP:RM. I don't know how to revert a title change; I tried and failed. As I pointed out, the place where you found the article first discussed was Wikipedia:NPOVN#Need_neutral_descriptor_for_Jewish_control_of_the_media_article_title about the old title you changed back to, and the post you replied to in that thread specifically said it was a former title. I asked you to read that carefully when I first complained about the change, and again evidently you did not do so. Nevertheless you insinuated anyone (especially me) who supports title "allegations" must be an antisemite. (Like at this diff and in defending Brewcrewers remarks, I link to above.) If you read the Talk Page you'd see people with similar POVs to yours supported the title. I think your POV has been amply displayed right here on wikipedia. At least I'm trying to focus on obvious policy violations, including of Wikietiquette. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The main complaint here seem to be the political views of User:Carolmooredc. While those may not be nice there is no policy against that I'm aware of. You need to show us some diffs where he actually disrupted the wiki. It looks like some people are frustrated he has done nothing blockable yet. The pointy page move of User:Jehochman (from one extreme to the other) didn't help with that. There might still be some merit in this request but I think you would need to make a stronger case. 217.235.31.235 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a bit of hot air over differences of opinion, nothing actionable on an administrative level at this time. Point the filing party at the proper steps of the dispute resolution process and wrap this up. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not see any editing differences that justify any action against Carolmooredc. TFD (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- TDF, i think you should remove yourself given your past anti-semitic comments which were also reported and buried. there have been greedy Jews but having an article called that would imply that Jews were greedy. ...greedy Jews, drunken Irishmen, dumb Poles and ignorant Americans Darkstar1st (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- You will kindly remove that personal attack or I will set up a discussion thread requesting that you be blocked from editing. TFD (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- this happens in each ani report. one is accused, the others come out in support, nothing is done and the editor continues. wp ani are not decided by how fast "nothing to see here" is typed, but an actual defense of the offensive words, or a wp:policy rendering the words immaterial here. so far neither have been accomplished. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- You will kindly remove that personal attack or I will set up a discussion thread requesting that you be blocked from editing. TFD (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
User:89.76.176.180 and UVB-76
89.76.176.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has been involved for sometime in adding poorly sourced content to UVB-76. I have been working to try to improve the article by removing unsourced or poorly sourced content in accordance with the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability but 89.76.176.180 seems now to be insisting on keeping poorly sourced content in the article. More recently he has attempted to add this content whilst resorting to referring to WP:IAR.
The content he has added is all sourced to a personal website, which as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, like other self-published sources, are "largely not acceptable as sources". Even more concerning here is that website belongs to 89.76.176.180. I have raised this issue and he has confirmed that the website is his.
Due to my involvement here I don't wish to act any further at this point but I would appreciate some help with resolving this issue. Considering 89.76.176.180's comment that "If something is on other Wikipedia, it's reliable. Very simple" and the apparent failure of myself and others to get him to understand the verifiability problems here I would suggest this isn't going to be easy. Adambro (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Complex situation at Mdvanii
The situation is becoming pretty complex on this page. We have a User:Alec jiri who is battling a User:Orumsonu. They are both insulting each other over a potential conflict of interest. Alec Jiri is the name of the adopted son of the creator of the Mdvanii doll and the user Alec jiri wrote much of the current article. Now the user is claiming that he is not actually Alec Jiri, merely an acquaintance. I think this may be a user name violation and I definitely think this needs more eyes as it spiraled out of control just as I was sleeping. Any help would be appreciated. --Leivick (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- No comment on the behavior, but I would tend to say that the username (when taken by itself) is not a username violation. Alec Jiri does not appear famous enough for this to warrant a block as a celebrity username, and the username doesn't give me the impression that the account represents more than one person (although the edit you mention where he says he is just an acquaintance might be suspect in that direction). --Ks1stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 19:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm? If he's editing as "Alec jiri" and he's not Alec Jiri my first instinct would definitely be to block. It's OK when someone has the same name as someone else just by chance, but he obviously chose this deliberately. —Soap— 19:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know...I guess if he is trying to come off as actually being Alec Jiri, then I would see it as a violation, but since he has disclosed that he is not, I see it as not that serious. I would say, though, that a more public disclosure (on his userpage and user talk), perhaps, would be for the best. --Ks1stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm? If he's editing as "Alec jiri" and he's not Alec Jiri my first instinct would definitely be to block. It's OK when someone has the same name as someone else just by chance, but he obviously chose this deliberately. —Soap— 19:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Mass upload and tagging of magazine covers
Koream (talk · contribs · count) has recently uploaded a great deal of non-free magazine covers of the KoreAm magazine, with a Creative Commons license tag, with no OTRS permission. I (Mono (talk · contribs · count)) have tagged most of them for deletion under WP:F11; after 1 week, if no permission is given these files will be deleted. I am notifying the community, in case they have any ideas for dealing with this—the user has already been blocked for having a promotional/misleading username. Thanks, Mono (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is a sysop aware of this who is taking care of the uploads. Dusti*poke* 20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Darkstar1st accused me in an ANI thread of "past anti-semitic comments which were also reported and buried".[80] I asked him to remove the personal attack,[81] and he replied that I was defending the remarks of the subject of the ANI,[82] who was accused of anti-Semitic remarks. He also made uncivil comments about the subject of that ANI,[83] which incidentally was closed without action.[84]
Darkstar1st had already complained at ANI about my reference to ethnic stereotypes which had been made as a form of example, and the discussion thread was closed without action.[85] Darkstar1st also argued his position on his talk page.[86] He has repeated the epithets over and over again which shows a lack of sincerity in his finding them offensive and perplexing that he cannot see that there is a difference between mentioning epithets and endorsing them.
Darkstar1st's use of personal attacks is disruptive and he should be warned or blocked to prevent him from continuing them.
TFD (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It looks to me like your "greedy Jews, etc." comment was totally misrepresented by the user Darkstar, either out of not reading it closely enough, or deliberately. You were listing stereotypes. Most of us could make a list a mile long of ethnic stereotypes. Citing that stuff doesn't qualify you as being prejudiced. If that's all he's got, he had best back off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- First, in general I think such complaints first should be brought to Wikiettiquette notice board, but I guess since they happened here... Re: this diff mentioned by TFD where Darkstar1st attacks me, it seems a bit odd that Darkstar1st attacked me for criticizing any political leader who sends people to war when that's the kind of thing we libertarians do all the time and Darkstar1st and I usually debate on the Libertarianism article. But I guess he's revving up for when the Libertarianism article is opened up again for editing in February. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is simple harassment, and Darkstar1st needs to stop it immediately. ClovisPt (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I really can't believe that DarkStar1st is still at this. He was harping on this "greedy jews" stereotype analogy months ago, and was repeatedly told to stop misrepresenting TFD's post by just about every single editor who became involved in the conflict. The misrepresentation is clearly deliberate, because there is really no possible way that he could be misunderstanding what the statement actually meant after having it explained to him in so many different ways, by so many different people. DarkStar1st has been continuously disruptive ever since he began obsessing over the libertarianism article. He should cut out the personal attacks, or be blocked for it again, and since he has disrupted the article for months at this point, I recommend that he perhaps should take a break from libertarianism-related articles, because he seems utterly unable to work in a civil manner on the topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Rereading Darkstar1st's comments in the thread I closed, they're at least borderline blockworthy for the WP:BATTLEGROUND degree of misrepresentation involved in facilitating personal attacks. If there is any other recent behaviour of this type a block should be hard to avoid, and an WP:RFC/U considered. Rd232 talk 09:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Massive copyvio from other Wiki
Today, I discovered an edit on my watchlist where someone replaced an article's source wholesale with the source of the same article on a completely different wiki. The license of Bulbapedia is not compatible with Wikipedia, so it was reverted. However, I discovered that he was using a template made by a new user to the project, which was also a copyright violation from Bulbapedia's formatting. Delebreaub (talk · contribs) copied a series of templates from Bulbapedia to Wikipedia, but I managed to get Prodego to deal with all of the copyright violations. Should anything else be done?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've explained the issue to User talk:Bd6259. As long as they know what's going on now and as long as the problem stops, I should think it would be okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delebreaub's actions are still an issue, even if all of the pages he made are deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but you had already explained to User:Delebreaub. It's now to see if they need further explanation or if they understand the issue and stop. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delebreaub's actions are still an issue, even if all of the pages he made are deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
TenPoundHammer unlinking spree
I indef-blocked TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when zie went of some sport of wild unlinking spree, in which the hammer removed links en masse with a disruptively long edit summary.
Per my comment on TenPoundHammer's talk, the explanation given does not add up.
SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) unblocked TenPoundHammer specifically to allow a cleanup, and appears to have deleted the edit summaries.
I hope that TenPoundHammer will complete the cleanup as promised, but I think that a better explanation is needed about what was actually going on here. So far as I can see, the edit summaries are least of the problems ... because TenPoundHammer was engaged in some sort of mass-delinking exercise without any sign of scrutiny of what was being done. The edit summaries actually did us a favour, by drawing attention to this spree of disruptive edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It seems every single day I find links pointing to disambiguation pages. The first several that I found were all links for people who didn't have articles, so I falsely assumed they were all like that and unlinked. I've done en masse unlinks like this before and never had problems. As promised, though, I have been going back and cleaning them up. As per the other thread on me, it seems I've let Wikipedia get to my head and I'm lashing out at everyone over tiny things, and I admit my "CHECK YOUR LINKS CHECK YOUR LINKS etc" edit summary was clearly out of line. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors. I've finished all the David Porter links accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I thought, the edit summaries did us a favour ... because if this sort of blind-mass-unlinking has been done before, there will have been un-noticed damage on those occasions.
- Your comment "never had problems" is alarming, because you appear to mean that nobody objected to you, rather than that no damage was done. What steps are you going to take to check that the links you removed in previous mass-unlinking sprees are restored? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll have to go back through my edit history then and see if I did do any damage. As far as I can tell, every other instance has been justifiable like the John Reid one — i.e., removal of dab-page links that were in reference to someone who didn't have an article. As I said, I restored all the David Foster links. From now on, if I use the unlink tool like this, I'll check the incoming links first to see if they should be fixed instead of removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Again, this is the wrong starting-point. They may have been links to someone who should have had an article, and you appear to have made no effort to enquire whether disambiguation might be the appropriate response, rather than unlinking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- John Reid, the songwriter, doesn't have an article and isn't mentioned in the dab page. Does it really make sense to leave the link to a dab page where he isn't even mentioned? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I generally had checked before when using unlink. David Foster was a momentary lapse in judgment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm slightly confused...what exactly is the damage that has been done, if, as TPH has said, the links he de-linked were links to disambiguation pages where the particular intended link didn't have a specific article to point to? To me that would seem to be a case for de-linking, since people who click the link aren't going to be able to find the subject article they're looking for on the disambiguation page and there is no more specific article to link to than the disambiguation page. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The issue was that I removed some David Foster links that should have been repaired to point to a musician's article or a Naval officer's article — granted, it wasn't that disruptive since at least half the articles had a valid link and the link to the dab page anyway. As I said, this is the only time that I've ever had a misfire like this with the unlink tool. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Your "cleanup" is inadequate. I just started checking the David Porter links, which you said you restored .. and the first one I checked of those you had not reverted was Liquid Swords. That was an undisambiguated link to David Porter (musician).
I don't intend to examine every one of these links myself, but you have just demonstrated that as well as doing inadequate checks before using the unlink tools, your cleanup is also sloppy. Please can you just restore all the links you removed, and leave it to more careful editors to assess whether they should be removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I restored all the David Porter (not Foster!) links at your requests. I don't think I need to restore the John Reid links since, as I said, all of them seemed to be appropriate because they referred to a John Reid not mentioned in the dab page. If you want me to restore those anyway, then I will. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just restore them all, please, and leave them to be checked by someone who is willing/able to apply more attention to them than you have been doing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW, you said here that you "restored all the David Porter (not Foster!) links". I hadn't noticed that there was also a David Foster unlinking spree, and assumed it was a typo ... but since you say it wasn't, I have been looking around further. In this post on Sarek's talk, you said that Foster was a one-off slip of concentration, but that's not the case, is it? There was David Porter too.
I don't like what I am seeing here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- And more. Checking back further, I find this a link to John Reid, which shoukd have been dabbed to John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan, but was instead unlinked. TenPoundHammer says that he has fixed the John Reid links, and that's clearly not true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Still more unfixed stuff: [87], [88], [89]. All of them were undabbed links to John Reid should be to John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan), which TenPundHammer says he had fixed.
- As to the songwriter, there were a dozen or more links to that songwriter. What checking did TenPoundHammer do see whether a) the songwriter was one of the musicians of that name who already have an article, or b) someone else who should have an article on them?
- Yet TenPoundhammer says the John Reid links have already been cleaned-up by him. Not true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- What are the rules about red-link article titles, or are there any? I've found many a red-link, and in effect they were an invitation to create an article. Sometimes the same subject may be red-linked in more than one place, and once you've created the article, it fills several gaps at once. By de-linking the way Hammer is doing, you would have to search more extensively to re-link them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is policy or not, but I've always thought the general consensus was that redlinks were a healthy part of encouraging growth. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- SGGH is quite right. See WP:REDLINK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if there's a specific policy, but I've always used the criteria that if the redlink is likely to have an article created about them, or should have an article, to leave the redlink as a reminder that an article is needed. If the subject seems unlikely to ever have an article, then de-link them. This calls for some judgment, and enough knowledge to make a crude evaluation of notability. Automatic de-linking of redlinks is disruptive, as much, or perhaps more so, than overlinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like WP:REDLINK says pretty much the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC))
- My other thought is that I think it's generally more helpful to unlink redlinks within an article, say, when an overzealous editor has Wikilinked all the actors in a film's cast, many of whom are generally not Wiki-notable, then it is to unlink the same Wikilink across different articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like WP:REDLINK says pretty much the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC))
- I don't know if there's a specific policy, but I've always used the criteria that if the redlink is likely to have an article created about them, or should have an article, to leave the redlink as a reminder that an article is needed. If the subject seems unlikely to ever have an article, then de-link them. This calls for some judgment, and enough knowledge to make a crude evaluation of notability. Automatic de-linking of redlinks is disruptive, as much, or perhaps more so, than overlinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- SGGH is quite right. See WP:REDLINK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is policy or not, but I've always thought the general consensus was that redlinks were a healthy part of encouraging growth. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The bottom line here is that TPH should just not be using this tool! Can anyone make it so? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- What are the rules about red-link article titles, or are there any? I've found many a red-link, and in effect they were an invitation to create an article. Sometimes the same subject may be red-linked in more than one place, and once you've created the article, it fills several gaps at once. By de-linking the way Hammer is doing, you would have to search more extensively to re-link them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't really want to get involved in whatever is going on here, but from an outside viewer a couple questions do come to mind. First, why was an indef-block appropriate in the first place? Second, why does it appear that bad faith is being assumed here? Tuxide (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- An indef-block is not a permanent block; it is a block until until the issue is resolved. At the time of blocking it was not clear whether the account had been compromised, the editor had lost the plot, or what. As usual, once the editor had promised to claen up, the block was lifted.
- I'm not sure why it appears to you that bad faith is being assumed; it's up to you to explain why you think it looks that way. For me all I can say, is that after unblocking TPH gave several explicit assurances that he had already cleaned up several parts of the mess, and those assurances were false. I don't know whether that's bad faith on TPH's part or sloppiness, just that it doesn't add up to someone who can be trusted to clean up the mess which can be made very rapidly with automated tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am not aware of how big of a mess he made (nor do I care personally), but I am referring to bad faith being assumed against TenPoundHammer considering everything you said in 2. only happened in the past four hours. Tuxide (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- TPH did not say "oops, this is a big mess, gimme time to sort it out". He chose to say that he had already cleaned it up, which he hadn't. So I don't see how time is relevant here: a false "I've cleaned-up" statement is false whether it;s made after 1 hour or 1 week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree that an irrelevant conclusion was made, but I disagree that the irrelevance is concerning time. Time would be relevant on the condition that it would be improbable for him to do such a thing that he claimed. In that sense, I don't care if he claimed he did whatever after a minute if it was clearly impossible to do so. What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence), that what people said his claim was does not necessarily represent what he meant (straw man), and that the people here choose to make a big deal about this apparently impossible claim of his anyways instead of directly addressing whatever the real issue is (red herring). Tuxide (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like you have made up your mind, but your explanation makes a hugely convoluted mess out of something simple: that TPH said he cleaned up various things, when he hadn't. For example TPH wrote Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors, but I quickly found three links which had not been fixed and did not refer to a songwriter: [90], [91], [92]. Please do some fact-checking before you accuse me of logical incoherence or making straw men. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't accusing you of doing either of those things and I don't know where the hell you draw that conclusion. Especially not logical incoherence, but either way now you're misrepresenting my position. I was just reading this discussion and the only thing I care about here is all the ad homenim slinging that's been going on in this ANI convo. That was my initial reason for questioning the assumption of bad faith. Content disputes and conduct disputes are two completely different types of disputes. Tuxide (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- You wrote above "What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence)" ... and now you claim you're being misrepresented. Try to make up your mind why are repeatedly alleging ABF, and when you change your mind don't accuse others of misprepresenting you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't accusing you of doing either of those things and I don't know where the hell you draw that conclusion. Especially not logical incoherence, but either way now you're misrepresenting my position. I was just reading this discussion and the only thing I care about here is all the ad homenim slinging that's been going on in this ANI convo. That was my initial reason for questioning the assumption of bad faith. Content disputes and conduct disputes are two completely different types of disputes. Tuxide (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like you have made up your mind, but your explanation makes a hugely convoluted mess out of something simple: that TPH said he cleaned up various things, when he hadn't. For example TPH wrote Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors, but I quickly found three links which had not been fixed and did not refer to a songwriter: [90], [91], [92]. Please do some fact-checking before you accuse me of logical incoherence or making straw men. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree that an irrelevant conclusion was made, but I disagree that the irrelevance is concerning time. Time would be relevant on the condition that it would be improbable for him to do such a thing that he claimed. In that sense, I don't care if he claimed he did whatever after a minute if it was clearly impossible to do so. What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence), that what people said his claim was does not necessarily represent what he meant (straw man), and that the people here choose to make a big deal about this apparently impossible claim of his anyways instead of directly addressing whatever the real issue is (red herring). Tuxide (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- TPH did not say "oops, this is a big mess, gimme time to sort it out". He chose to say that he had already cleaned it up, which he hadn't. So I don't see how time is relevant here: a false "I've cleaned-up" statement is false whether it;s made after 1 hour or 1 week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am not aware of how big of a mess he made (nor do I care personally), but I am referring to bad faith being assumed against TenPoundHammer considering everything you said in 2. only happened in the past four hours. Tuxide (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- What about an editing restriction against the use of unlink? I could live with that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good solution, if it is technically possible. But I don't see what the restriction should be applied to only one automated tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Have I abused any other tool? This whole discussion has been entirely over the use of unlink. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- TenPoundHammer does not seem to have messed up with any automated tool other than the unlinker, so I do not see any need to restrict his access to anything but that one. I've never used Twinkle myself, so I do not know if it possible to technically disable just that part of it, but even if it's not it doesn't matter. An editing restriction does not need to be any more than simply an undertaking by TPH that he won't use the unlinker on pain of serious consequences. Reyk YO! 05:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I also don't think there's any need for a technical block (which may well not be possible - I don't know). I'd say a voluntary ban on using it is all that's needed. If TPH agrees not to use it, I'd be happy to take his word for it - and if he did use it again, sanctions could be considered then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good solution, if it is technically possible. But I don't see what the restriction should be applied to only one automated tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- What about an editing restriction against the use of unlink? I could live with that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Admin privileges misused during "content dispute"
I'm not sure what to make of this, or how to solve it, but as of right now, a few individuals with the admin bit have used their privileges to remove the discussion notifications for {{Expand}} and protect the template.
User:Brandon clearly doesn't like the display small notification we transclude with templates such as {{tfd}}, {{being deleted}}, etc, and I don't like it much myself, so much so that I've been attempting to improve it so that it is less (as Brandon put it) "disruptive".
That said, we provide links to such discussions because it is important that the community knows of them and participates. In this particular case, the TfD close is widely disputed and the deletion review notification really should be visible. {{tfd}}'s inline notification was visible during the TfD for {{Expand}} (and during this TfD an editor even linked a non-neutral RFC tag into the discussion). Removing the deletion review notification at this point is going to create even more dispute as to how this issue is being handled.
I'm more than happy to work with Brandon to improve the display of {{being deleted}}, and User:Bsherr is also trying to come up with a solution. Using admin privileges (be it one individual or several) to remove and prevent the display of a discussion notification for a widely disputed TfD and deletion review is simply not appropriate. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- You've stated what you believe, but you haven't provided any links to evidence or said what adminstrative action is required. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have no bone to pick in the {{expand}} dispute, I honestly and truly don't care about the outcome. I do however object to dragging protracted wiki-nonsense into article space. There are much better ways to inform editors than littering 18,000 articles with two different notices that no reader has a chance in hell at understanding. I'd personally suggest WP:AN and WP:Watchlist notices . Brandon (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- You could've contributed to a talk page discussion and helped us come up with a better way to display such notifications. We've shown these messages for {{tfd}} and {{being deleted}} for quite some time and I agree, it all still needs improvement. Removing all message display during a widely disputed TfD isn't the right way to go about improving this though. I've been actively working with others to improve {{delrev}} since it originally (as I mentioned on your talk page) used a full {{mbox}} template since we had not previously had a need to DRV a widely used template.
What we currently have is the solution which came about from prior talk page discussions. If you can come up with a better solution to keep otherwise well meaning editors from removing a "deleted template" which is under deletion review from articles, while also providing a link to the discussions, I'm all ears. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I've mentioned WP:TFD specifically covers this situation by advising that the template not be transcluded. I can't believe we've ever trancluded the full mbox either, so this is adding something that's never existed, not correcting a current problem. Please don't frame this discussion like I'm overriding any standing consensus to have these messages transcluded. The trancluded text was added by yourself to the DRV template two days ago and I have yet to see any requirement for {{tfd}} to be transcluded either. If you strongly believe these notices are worth putting in articles, then gather consensus on a visible page and the matter will be settled. Brandon (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The trasnclusion count is actually about 16,078 [93], not 18,000. That also includes 500-1000 transclusions within the User:, User talk:, Wikipedia:, etc non-article namespaces, with the actual article transclusion count at around 15,000. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- You could've contributed to a talk page discussion and helped us come up with a better way to display such notifications. We've shown these messages for {{tfd}} and {{being deleted}} for quite some time and I agree, it all still needs improvement. Removing all message display during a widely disputed TfD isn't the right way to go about improving this though. I've been actively working with others to improve {{delrev}} since it originally (as I mentioned on your talk page) used a full {{mbox}} template since we had not previously had a need to DRV a widely used template.
This is a content dispute. The link provided does not appear to me to show use of adminstrator's tools, and there does not appear to be any use of the tools required? Unless there are strong objections, I am going to move the discussion to a more appropiate place. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- This became a matter for AN/I when User:MZMcBride (
also an administratorcorrection: former administrator) jumped into things [94] to revert to User:Brandon's preference of not displaying the discussion message/links just before the template was protected by User:PeterSymonds, [95] (obviously also an administrator).So yes, I would object to "moving" this discussion somewhere else at this point. I am well aware of what was discussed "off-wiki" just before this sequence of events. The way this sequence of events played out skirts 3RR while "protecting" Brandon's preference and "locking out" any attempt by others (including administrators per WP:WHEEL) to restore the transcluded discussion message/links. While Brandon didn't misuse the tools, and MZMcBride technically didn't misuse the tools, this whole sequence of events is tag teaming with the use of administrative tools to protect another admin's preferred version. Maybe PeterSymonds and MZMcBride didn't think this through before doing this, but the net effect is the same: This is a gross misuse of the administrative tools, no matter how those involved want to spin it.
My own "preference" (and I don't think I'm being too unreasonable) would be to see {{Expand}} placed back the way it had been before Brandon (who I noticed hasn't even been very active lately) discovered and objected to the transcluded discussion notifications, and have him engage in discussion to help us come up with a better way to present this information. No one else objected to it previously, and consensus is that we display such messages when we have such discussions, especially for discussions such as this which have very wide reaching effects. Brandon didn't complain while {{tfd}} was still transcluded, and there is no harm in having these remain transcluded while the DRV and other discussions about this template are still in-progress. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please be a bit more gentle with the readers when you bring an issue here in future, and spell everything out for us. I looked at the history, looked at what you'd written here, and there was nothing that looked untowards. Now that you've actually explained this I'll not move it, of course. Plus I'm looking closer at the history to see if it's as bad as you say... Thank you. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- WP:TFD explicitly states there is no requirement to tranclude the template on article containing the template, going as far to advise against it. So "consensus is that we display such messages when we have such discussions" is simply just not true. You haven't actually shown a single policy or consensus forming discussing that transclusing the template is required. Advertising debates regarding major changes to the project fall under the domain of AN and watchlist notices, not article entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. Brandon (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of this is that you want to transclude the message onto mainspace articles so that editors don't remove the template from them. Is that correct? If so, I'm a little puzzled: why would they think to remove the template in the first place unless they had already visited the template page? —Emufarmers(T/C) 05:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The effect is pretty much the opposite, particularly when the notification box is added to a template which can be used multiple times inline within a single article: this trashes the article(s) quite thoroughly, as happened with Template:Font—no article diff as the template is now deleted. --Mirokado (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Block review:User talk:Skysong263
This user is arguing that their edits were did not qualify as vandalism, and I have to say I'm inclined to agree. The blockingh admin edit warred with them and finally blocked them, apprently never thinking to explain themselves in plain English, instead slapping down the usual series of escalating vandalism notices. While the blocked users edits were probably wrong, I don't believe they constitute vandalism, therefore both the edit warring and the block are unjustified. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the blocking admin here, and I have to disagree that I didn't explain myself "in plain English". I noted on my talk page (with a talk back on the user's talk page) as well as the article's talk page and an edit summary that disambiguation pages are not used to direct readers to external links. The user continued to add the external links despite the explanation, so I put in a 12-hour block. If anyone thinks that the block is unnecessary or too long, then s/he is welcome to unblock, but it's inaccurate to describe this as a content dispute. ... discospinster talk 00:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this as an uninvolved admin, my opinion is:
- External links do not belong on dab pages. So discospinster is correct there.
- Before the block, discospinster did contact the user, and also left a warning with you will be be blocked in bold. The user who was blocked continued anyway.
Given those bullets, I think that the block was justified. However, I would suggest that more detailed warnings, rather than templates, are often more effective in educating users when they are (unintentionally) violating our norms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- My two penn'orth is that while User:Skysong263's attempts to add external links were misguided, they were not vandalism. User:discospinster, an experienced admin and editor should have explained this early but instead simply made a chain of reverts which frankly break WP:3RR. Their warning came only at the end of that chain of reverts, not on the first posting of the external links. My own view is that User:Skysong263 should have their block lifted immediately, with a warning about external sites being given. User:discospinster should be warned that their belief that this was vandalism was mistaken, and that further reversions will break 3RR and invite a brief block. Inexperienced users need help and explanation, not arbitrary blocking. At the very least, User:discospinster should have asked an uninvolved admin to make the block. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree it was not vandalism, but I think that "you will be blocked" is clear enough to get the point across. The blocked user made the same inappropriate edit after being asked not to and then formally warned not to. That warrants a block; I don't think we should let the "vandalism" thing overshadow the actual edits. discospinster should adjust his or her communication strategy, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)Vandalism is the insertion of obscenities, non-sense or blanking of articles. These edits looking like good faith attempts to improve the article.[96][97][98] Is it just me or does it seem like more and more editors are carelessly throwing around vandalism accusations these days? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Yeah, after being warned, Skysong made this response, and chose to revert yet again. It was a valid block, as far as I can tell. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) First, with regards to the comment "should have explained this early but instead simply made a chain of reverts which frankly break WP:3RR" -- I did explain this early. If you'll note the timeline of editing, at :51 User:Pol430 gave the first "test" warning; at :53 I responded to User:Skysong263's comment on my talk page explaining the disambiguation page guidelines; at :55 I noted in the edit summary that ELs do not belong on the page, and User:Skysong263 undid this edit one minute later; at :57 I placed a warning on the user's talk page; at :59 I made a similar note on the article's talk page. So there were two explanations before any type of warning, then one after.
- Second, vandalism is not the only rationale for a block; it also includes disruptive editing. This is what I perceived User:Skysong263's behaviour to be, which prompted the limited-time block.
- Perhaps other administrators would have done things differently, but I don't believe that what I did falls outside of the blocking policy. ... discospinster talk 00:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also, discospinster was not WP:INVOLVED, so there was no need for an "uninvolved admin". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Disambig#External_links guideline: "Never include external links...." It is not a content dispute but a deliberate flouting of guidelines. The block seems reasonable. TFD (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- See also the attacks here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- @TFD: It may not have been intentional so much as hurried: perhaps the blocked user simply didn't take the time to investigate the link they were given. That doesn't change the validity of the block, but it gives a different possible explanation for the edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't see User:discospinster is at fault here, the reverts were valid for the reasons already given. I performed at least one for the same reason. Weather or not the warnings given were correct for User:Skysong263's edits is not especially pertinent now. The point is, that User:Skysong263 should have responded to the warnings with discussion rather than continuing to edit disruptively. Blocks are protective not punitive. User:Skysong263 has only been blocked for 12 hours in order to protect Wikipedia from what was un-constructive editing. User:discospinster's actions were made with the good faith notion of protecting Wikipedia from un-constructive editing, pursuing policy minutiae is rarely helpful to that end. If the user is requesting to be unblocked then the reviewing admin should consider whether they believe on reasonable grounds that the user will edit constructively. (IMO) Pol430 talk to me 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say I'm somewhat surprised at the "two wrongs make a right" kind of arguments I am seeing here. Yes he was warned to stop, but the warnings were for vandalism, which, although clearly incorrect, these edits were not. Therefore, edit warring over it was not an appropriate response and contrary to our policy on such. A brief protection to force more discussion could maybe have been justified, but a block? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would have certainly blocked, but for WP:DISRUPT rather than vandalism - per the link provided by SarekOfVulcan at 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC) the editor was indifferent to the advice they had received and was going to continue. The block stopped the potential for ongoing disruption. It also appears that the account is sufficiently experienced, or has taken the time once they were no longer able to edit to click the links, to be able to Wikilawyer the wording of WP:VANDAL. So, Discospinster may have ticked the wrong box when applying the sanction - but the net result is that disruption to the project was ended (and if that is two wrongs making a right, then sobeit). No need to beat up on a sysop for making an paperwork error in protecting the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Attacks and outing
I would like to ask someone to have a look at this post by User:HeadlessMaster. WP:OUTING and calling me a "pure communist worshipper" in the same post. I guess insults like the "communist" bull go with the territory, but alongside attempted outing its not something I think should be ignored. That is dangerous, serious stuff, and frankly I would like to see something done. There is no way it was not deliberate.
(P.S. I restored the report, I don't think it reveals anything itself and the relevant post has been deleted. I'd like to request the outing to be viewed in light of the rest of the attack.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the outing (maybe I'm looking for the wrong thing?) but it does seem a rather hefty personal attack. --Ks1stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 00:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Was that an revdel or an oversight ? Is there an log of the remove action ? Anyway Fred Bauder has copied the text back in (thats why the links are dead now) wich means HeadlessMaster's text is now misattributed to Fred... 217.235.33.74 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The outing was indeed there. I am also aware that Fred copied the text back (after removing the outing), which is why I specifically mentioned that the text was posted by User:HeadlessMaster. I also posted a new link. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Political prisoner page – Request for opinions on my level of involvement
It has been suggested that I should not be performing in an administrative capacity on Political prisoner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Slim Virgin's opinion carries a lot of weight with me, but in this case I find myself so strongly in disagreement that I’m asking for input from the crowd. This is a follow-up to a previous ANI thread. My brief summary of events prior to that thread:
- There was a low-level edit war on Political prisoner, including reversion of sourced edits without appropriate edit summaries.
- Even brief examination of the other material on the page shows that no clear inclusion criterion had been established.
- The much-newer accounts were making good-faith attempts to use the talk page and were conforming to the de facto standards.
- I first requested and then warned several editors that greater emphasis needed to be placed on collaborative discussion and less on reverting, and that they were only to revert once.
- One editor choose not to engage in discussion with me and reverted twice more without first using the talk page.
- I blocked that editor and opened an ANI thread here. Some discussion ensued.
- My prolix-as-always response to the various opinions in that thread is here.
- The block was lifted and the page fully protected.
Following on from this, I carefully considered the various advices offered. My most recent edit to the talk page of Political prisoner [99] reflects that consideration. Which brings me to the purpose of this posting: Is there general consensus that I'm involved in this in an editorial capacity, and thus should not be acting as an administrator?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just paged through about several pages of the article history, dating back to 2009, and I don't see where you have ever edited the article in question. Where is the contention that you are involved? How can you be involved in an article you haven't ever edited? --Jayron32 03:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Aaron Brenneman is involved via the talk page, you don't need to be involved via the article itself. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- It has been suggested and I support it that Aaron Brenneman is a long time (a couple of years nearly) returning admin who has appeared to be struggling with his admin tools and shouldn't be using his admin tools anywhere until he is up to speed as they say..personally I have watched his contributions since his return and I don't support his admin status at all. Off2riorob (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Bidgee Ah, yes. I just finished reviewing the talk page. Since Aaron Brenneman has expressed an opinion on which side of the dispute he favors, he should probably not have used his tools. I'll admit that the result would likely have been the same, but in the future its always best to ask for someone else to pull the trigger. As a total aside, and irrespective to this, Aaron Brenneman's interpretation of policy regarding removal of sourced edits seems in error. Per WP:BURDEN, contentious material should be removed if the source is contested. Disucssion MUST occur, don't get me wrong, but insofar as material is contested in good faith, where the quality of the source is under good-faith dispute, it is the burden of those who wish to include disputed material to establish quality sources before it is added, not the other way around. The best solution for any contested material is to leave it out while it is under discussion, rather than to leave it in. Always default to "not in the article" until such time as it is established that it belongs. If consensus develops quickly, or if quality sources are found easily, it can be quickly and easily returned. --Jayron32 03:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Aaron Brenneman is involved via the talk page, you don't need to be involved via the article itself. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It is a pity that Aaron Brenneman isn't giving the whole facts of this case, the article history only tells part of the whole saga but the article's talk page tells a lot more and the fact myself and Stepopen discussed why the sources didn't or were not reliable POV free sources to cite on what it was alleged (that Manning and Assange were political prisoners), so I did discuss but not as much as I should have (I admit that) but Aaron Brenneman's threats on my talk page was completely out of line (since he's view that the content was fine[100][101][102] even though another Admin said it wasn't and even has the same view over the new editors [IE: SPAs]) and he should have taken it to ANI then or got a third party Admin to deal with the alleged issues.
Fact is Aaron Brenneman never even warned Cecilex yet threatens myself (twice) and Stepopen?
Aaron Brenneman fails to see what he did wrong and will not settle the fact (Also see the ANI thread over the block) he wrongfully blocked myself more then an hour after I did the undo and the fact that another editor used the rollback tool. Fact is both WP:BLOCK and WP:ADMIN policies were breached. All I have asked from Aaron is to annotate the block stating he did it in error and the it was a wrongful block and a meaningful apology. Bidgee (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't normally reply so quickly, preferring to let consensus build, but...
- @Off2riorob - What I'm "struggling" with right now is the fact-free slag-off you've just committed. While people are certainly entitled to the opinion that I should review, can you please provide a diff that shows both A) someone suggesting that I'm not up to speed and B) policy or guideline that shows I'm not actually up to speed? So far, every time someone says that and I go and reread the page in question (since I pretty much always read them before doing anything, eh?) I'm right. Then when I link to pages and discussion, all goes quiet... Just because you say something enought times doesn't make it true.
- @Jayron32 - Can you please provide a diff where I support one side with respect to the content issue? The editting behaviour I warned and blocked for included removing material that directly supported the newer user's statements. This isn't a question of if the sources were good or not (they weren't) but the editting atmosphere, including ownership of articles.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, you express opinions about the quality of sources at several points, at 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC) and at Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC) for a few examples. By expressing those opinions, you clearly indicate that you think the sources are good or bad; which is taking a side. In general, you probably shouldn't express opinions over the quality of sources, and then block those people who express different opinions than your own. As I said, given the behavior issues it would have likely been the same result, so it would have been better to ask another admin to perform any sanctions. This isn't a "Aaron Brenneman should be desysoped" issue, this is a "Aaron Brenneman made a little mistake, and should likely try to avoid such a mistak in the future" sort of issue. Just try not to perform any admin actions in any situation where you have expressed any opinions. Its better to just ask for another admin to act; if you are right in needing a block against another user, it will be backed up by a neutral admin who can pull the trigger. --Jayron32 05:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond so carefully, but I'm still not able to grok. I'm really sorry. I'm looking at my edit of 01:18, 17 December 2010 right now:
- I have some concerns regarding the removal of sourced statements without clear consensus. I would also consider this edit summary to be highly misleading:
- The "vandalism" was a single emoticon buried in text, and
- The "dubious and unreliab[e] sourc[e]" was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
- I have some concerns regarding the removal of sourced statements without clear consensus. I would also consider this edit summary to be highly misleading:
- I am utterly gobsmacked by the suggestion that this edit makes me involved. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit summaries and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Source citations, my comments of 01:18 are totally consistant with those principles. By the "not to perform any admin actions in any situation where you have expressed any opinions" standard, how in the world are we meant to perform our duties as adminstrators?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)- That one edit probably not so much. The sum total of all of the talk page discussion is likely adds up to a small amount of involvement. You can perform lots of admin actions, for example, you can merely leave a note at WP:AN asking for another admin to administer the block in question. The issue is not in actual impropriety, it is in the appearance of impropriety. As soon as you say "these sources are good, and these other ones are bad", as you do at several times in the discussion on the talk page, it's probably not the greatest idea to block the person who has a different opinion. Note that this does not mean that the person should not have been blocked. As I said several times, they should have been blocked. Just not by you. There's several hundred very active admins, someone else can always pull the trigger if it is obvious. I issue blocks and protections myself all the time, but if there is ANY chance that ANYONE could say I was involved in a discussion or editing, even if its minimal, I always ask someone else to do the dirty work. Blocks get issued, just by people who haven't already been involved in multiple, threaded discussions with the blockees over the content of the article. --Jayron32 05:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Must... resist. Rational... discourse... taking... effect.
- I don't like what you're saying. Like, at all. However it is clearly a tenable position you're putting forth. My biggest concern with it is that we (as admistrators) are better placed to make decisions when we've been involved in the discussion. ("Involved" in the general since, not the wikipedia term of art.) I shall stew further on this dichotomy. Thank you for taking the time to make your meaning more clear to me.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)- I have to agree with Aaron here. The whole point of admins not using their tools in cases where they are involved is to prevent abuse due to conflicts of interest, where the admin is clearly siding with one of the parties in the dispute. However if, like Aaron, they show a remarkable capacity for staying detached from the topic, and are involved in a totally administrative capacity, I don't see how their long-term involvement in the article is not a plus, rather than a reason for them to step out when administrative decisions need to be made. If anything, an admin who has actually had been keeping track of what is going on throughout the course of the dispute will be in the best position to make blocking decisions (which, if done right, require an insanely large amount of research for lengthy disputes) and other difficult administrative choices. I don't understand the logic by saying that a person that has no idea what is going on (or a very limited idea, based on the selective truths that people present on noticeboards) should be preferred over a person who knows a lot about what is going on.
- And by the way, I still haven't seen a single person that insinuated that he was biased, or involved in anything other than an administrative capacity, either provide a diff or apologize for making a baseless allegation. One of these two things should happen immediately. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- That one edit probably not so much. The sum total of all of the talk page discussion is likely adds up to a small amount of involvement. You can perform lots of admin actions, for example, you can merely leave a note at WP:AN asking for another admin to administer the block in question. The issue is not in actual impropriety, it is in the appearance of impropriety. As soon as you say "these sources are good, and these other ones are bad", as you do at several times in the discussion on the talk page, it's probably not the greatest idea to block the person who has a different opinion. Note that this does not mean that the person should not have been blocked. As I said several times, they should have been blocked. Just not by you. There's several hundred very active admins, someone else can always pull the trigger if it is obvious. I issue blocks and protections myself all the time, but if there is ANY chance that ANYONE could say I was involved in a discussion or editing, even if its minimal, I always ask someone else to do the dirty work. Blocks get issued, just by people who haven't already been involved in multiple, threaded discussions with the blockees over the content of the article. --Jayron32 05:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond so carefully, but I'm still not able to grok. I'm really sorry. I'm looking at my edit of 01:18, 17 December 2010 right now:
- I have to say that the interpretation that stating that someone is a political prisoner is a BLP violation due to the term being derogatory is very creative. I see that the whole section has been removed at this point. un☯mi 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- How do you mean, "creative"? It's contentious material about living persons. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
@Aaron - Without commenting on this specific incident, I think you would have to admit that there's been a number of questions and concerns expressed about your admin actions since you returned from your break. Some of these were discussed on your talk page, and never hit AN/I, but you're obviously under increased scrutiny because of it. Don't you think it would be advisable to hold off on performing any admin actions for a while -- say a month or so -- until you're back in the swim of things? After all, Wikipedia got along without your participation while you were away, it'll survive another 4 weeks without your admin input. It would be best to just edit for a while, and monitor AN/I and AN to adjust your understanding of current Wiki-culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:DC - compromised account?
I've seen DC (talk · contribs) around quite a bit, and he seemed like a great editor... until he vandalized the user pages of two editors with the comments "I'm a stupid nigger" and "I'm a twat." He then proceeded to roll back my query about the edits in question. Either DC has officially gone insane, or (more likely) his account has been compromised. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I posted this below, but it appears to be connected to User:Justice America, which is detailed below. Very weird. Dayewalker (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Justice America
Similar to above, abusive editor, or compromised account? I got a profane e-mail and don't believe I've ever encountered this editor, and I can't decipher the autoblock situation on his/her talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Very strange, it seems to be the same message as on User talk:DC's talk page, as mentioned in the thread directly above this one. Dayewalker (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note that Justice America was last majorly active in November 2008, when they stood for Arbcom with this statement. Since returning in early December of this year, all of their edits are problematic. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, then I likely opposed JA at Arbcom. The only other possible connection I can see is that the DC account supported a recent RFA that I opposed after he announced that he would be away most of the week. (And there are a few curiously new accounts supporting that RFA.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- What's the connection with User talk:CassidyQ? Justice America and DC have both gone off the bend, then tagged themselves. [103]. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, then I likely opposed JA at Arbcom. The only other possible connection I can see is that the DC account supported a recent RFA that I opposed after he announced that he would be away most of the week. (And there are a few curiously new accounts supporting that RFA.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
←I'm looking into this now. It appears that these accounts may actually be sleeper accounts. Admins, please hold off on taking any administrative action for a few. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 07:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Once you get it sorted, there's an RFA that will need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be OK to make this into a sub-thread for the discussion I initiated on DC just above? They're both related somehow, and it would be a pity if these threads went into different archives (hence rendering the usage of the word "above" a paradoxical one). --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 07:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Go for it. Tiptoety talk 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) Looking at DC (talk · contribs)'s block log, it appears he has tried to play the "compromised account" angle before. Unfortunately, he was not as smooth in covering his tracks this time. It would appear that Justice America (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and DC (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are
Confirmed socks of CassidyQ (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Y2kcrazyjoker4 appears involved somehow. I'm still thinking that CassidyQ (talk · contribs) is the sockmaster. All blocked now, if someone wants to tag go for it. Tiptoety talk 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) Looking at DC (talk · contribs)'s block log, it appears he has tried to play the "compromised account" angle before. Unfortunately, he was not as smooth in covering his tracks this time. It would appear that Justice America (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and DC (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are
- I've sent you an e-mail; who deal with the RFA and how? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- How can CassidyQ be the sockmaster when the account was created months/years after the other two? Surely either someone has compromised DC's account, or DC has gone troppo with his main account and a sock (CassidyQ)? Of course the second theory is based on DC and JA having been the same person all along. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've sent you an e-mail; who deal with the RFA and how? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I was simply going off of the fact that CassidyQ was the only one currently blocked, so I made her the sockmaster. But, I guess if you want to get technical it would be DC. The reason I am saying the accounts are not compromised is 1) how often does an account become compromised twice, and 2) there is no technical evidence to show it has been compromised. The IPs that they have been using for a while geolocate to the same location of the IP they edited from today. Tiptoety talk 07:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Technically JA would be the sockmaster since he came before DC did (JA: June 2008; DC: August 2009). --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 07:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thanks. I don't think the "compromised" theory holds up either on what I'm seeing. DC's vandal edits had very particular targets, mainly related to WP:ITN. DC has a regular editor there for some time. Looking back through his talk page archive it seems he's had short fuse problems in the past concerning ITN, so this just seems to have been another blast, and very much a blockworthy blast at that. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- (Note to Self: never tag, even if encouraged, unless looking into yourself first.) I'll switch the tags and remember not to tag before making sure again. JA is the puppeteer then? Doc talk 08:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- My bad, sorry. Tiptoety talk 08:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say wait til everything shakes out to figure out who's the master. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- @Tiptoey: no need to apologize: I've seen more than one "completed" SPI report that had to be corrected after the fact. I'll defer to SG and either let someone else correct the tags or wait for further developments. Doc talk 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't wait for me, I've had a leaky roof for two nights, and need some sleep and some time to work on more of this. I 'spose tags can be changed later if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The other interesting question is whether DC or JA had some previous run-in or issue with Tony the Tiger or Candlewicke, which would explain the vandal edits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- You could check their FAC/GA/DYK etc intersection, but TTT is kinda hard to avoid, so I suggest looking at Candlewicke :) I'll look into more of this after I get some rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The other interesting question is whether DC or JA had some previous run-in or issue with Tony the Tiger or Candlewicke, which would explain the vandal edits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't wait for me, I've had a leaky roof for two nights, and need some sleep and some time to work on more of this. I 'spose tags can be changed later if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- (Note to Self: never tag, even if encouraged, unless looking into yourself first.) I'll switch the tags and remember not to tag before making sure again. JA is the puppeteer then? Doc talk 08:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I was simply going off of the fact that CassidyQ was the only one currently blocked, so I made her the sockmaster. But, I guess if you want to get technical it would be DC. The reason I am saying the accounts are not compromised is 1) how often does an account become compromised twice, and 2) there is no technical evidence to show it has been compromised. The IPs that they have been using for a while geolocate to the same location of the IP they edited from today. Tiptoety talk 07:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
jlesco
Jlescoe made a very scary noise on my talk page [104]. Not sure what that is all about, but I never had edited anything related to Mormons. Phearson (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Probably a reaction to a message I left at an IP editor's talk page (presumably his) a couple hours ago. New editor who doesn't seem to know how to identify who he's engaging in discussion. No idea how he found you, but I think you could safely ignore it. alanyst /talk/ 07:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
An IP claiming to be the subject is taking part in an edit war at this article (now up for AfD). I could block the IP as they've been warned, but am not sure that that is the best thing to do. Right now the IP is removing citation needed templates saying that as he's the source of the information they are inappropriate. I've protected for 6 hours to try to get this sorted. Although the IP is getting very hot under the collar, and an editor has put "rv v" in edit summaries, this is just a content dispute with some obvious COI. Is the best thing to do to extend the protection until the end of the AfD (which isn't normal) or just go ahead and block if the IP won't agree to stop? Maybe a couple of other voices will convince him to stop. I've tried. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think SPAs should be blocked. HeyMid (contribs) 10:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've added some advice at the article talk page but I don't think the IP is going to like it. I don't think a block is called for yet - but I agree if the behaviour continues it would be appropriate. I have said as much in what I wrote there so he has had fair warning. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, that was a good note. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've added some advice at the article talk page but I don't think the IP is going to like it. I don't think a block is called for yet - but I agree if the behaviour continues it would be appropriate. I have said as much in what I wrote there so he has had fair warning. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Requesting an unblock regarding the thread further up the page. I don't know the history but seems contentious enough to open it up here IMO. Personally I don't think an unblock is viable so soon. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- And I suspect that it won't be long before others agree, looking at the old thread... S.G.(GH) ping! 11:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have unarchived and re-opened the earlier discussion with a sub heading noting the unblock request - best that it is all kept in one place, where any person who has missed it can review the prevous discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- And I suspect that it won't be long before others agree, looking at the old thread... S.G.(GH) ping! 11:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)