Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Automated creation of incorrect categories

User:Rich Farmbrough is again creating pages based on some script (I hope, it is the only decent explanation for the mindlessness of many of the creations), which generates a lot of incorrect stuff. This is the same thing that happened with previous script based creations he did (see the ANI archives for other examples of this).

In its current incarnation, this lead to the creation of categories like Category:Ice T albums (we already had Category:Ice-T albums), Category:Siouxsie and the Banshees albums) (there was Category:Siouxsie & the Banshees albums already), Category:Booker T. & the M.G.s albums for Category:Booker T. & the M.G.'s albums, and so on. Some have been redirected yet, some still need to be cleaned out. Thirteen categories he created between January 11 and today have been deleted. But this isn't a new problem, he created a number of similar categories in December as well, e.g. Category:Records albums. Over 200 were created and deleted at that time, but he doesn't seem to have learned from that experience.

The Category:Various albums was created, deleted, and recreated, apparently because some infoboxes list the artist for albums as "Various". We now have three articles with this stupid category, with the category explanation "This category contains albums by Various."

This is the umpteenth example of this editor creating a mess for others to clean up, because his scripts aren't tested enough and his edits aren't checked manually (or not good enough).

Can we please have an edit restriction on any automated, semi-automated, or appearing-to-be-automated page creation (articles, categories, templates, ...) for this user? Fram (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I am finding this all a little bit insane. I have had to delete a fair number of duplicates—overall, there is a gross amount of duplication going on through this process. Nearly every category I check has some sort of problem—either a duplication, or an incorrectly spelled name, or something. The user is also creating categories for labels that do not have articles on WP, while consensus at CFD has generally been that if a label has no WP article, it should not have a category for its albums. More care and/or thought needs to go into the creation of these categories, so please, yes, no more of this category creation via script. It's creating more problems than it is solving. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation technically only applies to articles; I'd suggested extending it to categories the last time this happened, but didn't make the effort to really push it as a proposal. In any case, given that existing policy and Rich's existing editing restrictions, it seems entirely sensible and a small step to amend those restrictions and declare that for Rich, the policy covers mass creation in any namespace. In addition, somebody might make the effort to propose amending the policy, which seems a sensible move to me. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • All good ideas, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • December The creations in December were all of categories that had members and yet were non-existent (red-linked categories). They were done in such a way that if the category became empty it was categorised as such and could be dealt with. In most cases that meant deletion.
  • January Some of the categories created needed emptying, which has been done by an assiduous user. I deleted those that were emptied, however many had been created before, and I therefore re-created them as category redirects. There is an automated process that moves articles between cat redirects and their targets, since people have used these categories before it seems wise to have the redirection.
  • Note: There is a lot of inconstancy over naming of record label articles, also there are notable labels (e.g. Compost Records) for which there are strangely no album articles, and (e.g. Authentik Artists) for which there are album articles but a persistent deletion of the label article. Also Category:Siouxsie and the Banshees albums is the correct location, (speedy rename being requested). Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
    

• Comment. I don't think it's much of a defence to say that the December creations were just "red-linked categories" and thus it was OK to create them. Some of the categories were obviously inappropriately named, and many were misspelled duplicates of pre-existing categories. Users need to use judgment and put some thought into creating categories—like making sure a category does not exist for the same thing already—as opposed to just creating something because it was red-linked. When you see two categories—Category:Ice-T albums and Category:Ice T albums on the same article as I did earlier today, you know someone's putting close to zero thought into the application of what they are doing. This type of problem was repeated many numerous times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"The creations in December were all of categories that had members and yet were non-existent (red-linked categories)." So why did you create and delete e.g. Category:Universals Records albums twice in two days? Someone repopulated it between the first deletion and second creation? Or wasn't your script list updated yet? Or the misspelled Category:Warnern Music Group video albums, which you created, modified three times, then deleted one minute after your last modification, only to recreate it three hours later and redelete it one hour after that again? Anyway, if categories are redlinked, the answer is not to automatically create these ctageories, but to check whether they are actually needed or just e.g. misspellings. That would avoid the creation in the same minute of Category:Switchblad Symphony albums, Category:Swithcblade Symphony albums and Category:Switchblade Symphony albums... No one has a problem with you generating a list of potentially needed categories, such a list is useful. But the automated creation clearly leads to many problems which could be very easily avoided, like the creation of misspelled categories. Fram (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes as you can see, as part of that exercise, extensive tidying up took place. The remaining categories from that exercise are

1. Category:1971 live live albums 0
2. Category:1976 Christmas albums 3
3. Category:1978 studio albums 0
4. Category:1997 (band) albums 1
5. Category:22-20s albums 5
6. Category:Alternative albums 0
7. Category:Anti-folk albums 23
8. Category:At the close of every day albums 0
9. Category:Christian alternative rock albums 46
10. Category:Northstar hip hop albums 0
11. Category:Samba albums 29
12. Category:Slapstick albums 0

perhaps you would like to resolve these flawlessly. Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

No thank you, I have cleaned up after you often enough. Fram (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well these categories are nothing to do with me, I did not create or delete them, nor did I categorise anything in them. I was just suggesting something positive for you to do. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, but I have enough positive things to do here, like creating articles and so on. I guess that most people who have had to tag, correct or delete your incorrectly created categories also have enough positive things they would rather do, but maintaining an encyclopedia doesn't just involve creations and additions, but also removing the mess created by others, and making sure that they'll create less mess the next time around. Your latest category creation of this type, Category:Chikayo Fukuda albums is already up for deletion (not by me, by yet another editor who seems to have problems with your creations), so you are still continuing this mess, despite the obvious objections of many people (and who in his right mind wouldn't object against the creation of a category like Category:Spigot Records, In-Effect Records albums? Fram (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• A particularly brutal example from today: Category:Mr. Bear Records, reissued on Spigot Records albums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough has now recreated Category:Yngwie J. Malmsteen albums, which was deleted at CfD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 23), created by Rich Farmbrough yesterday, and deleted by Good Olfactory this morning. He added it to the article Rising Force[1], which already had the correct Yngwie Malmsteen cat as well, and removed it again from that article some minutes later[2], at the same time changing the correct link to Jens Johansson to the redlink Jenshansson (presumably by trying to remove all instances of " J" from the article). That same removal of " J" resulted in changing the correct French interwikilink to an incorrect one as well. Note that all this happend with the edit summary "(Correct caps in section header.)", which was one thing that didn't happen at that article. Can someone please just stop this loose cannon now? Fram (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich even said to someone on his talk page offering to help clean up after him re the creation of bad categories Also might be worth watchlisting them in case I re-create them. What the hell? I've gone ahead, based on discussion, continuity with prior issues and a large dose of oh-for-god's-sake boldness, and amended Rich's editing restriction to prohibit unauthorised mass page creation in any namespace. I would expect the restriction to be temporary by virtue of soon being superseded by an amendment to Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. I would be heartily grateful if (a) we didn't waste any more time on this particular case of this problem; (b) Rich accepts the amendment; (c) someone else does the heavy lifting on moving forward the policy change. If/when it happens, the new restriction should be removed as redundant.

Of course, if anyone feels that this was too bold, and requires more discussion before reaching this outcome, well, go nuts. You won't be doing Rich any favours, since that will entail closer examination of how his behaviour, however superlatively good faith, too often skates disruptive editing. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: did it myself. RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Wikipedia:BOTPOL.23Mass_article_creation. Rd232 ^talk 19:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do something. I don't know what I was thinking when I volunteered to help. I think the intentions are good but it has become quite painstaking to go through each one. And instead of just checking/correcting them, I also attempted to populate them, too. Whether red-linked or not, I'd check "what links here" for the label to see what other albums might be there that hadn't been categorize. Not a bad thing to do, I guess, for completeness, but much more of a laborious undertaking than I realized. The latest thing I'm seeing done is the addition of album categories to film articles because it has a soundtrack section (see Rocky II as an example). Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The population is cool, but not essential, the categories will eventually be populated. Thanks for your help so far anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

I fully support Rd232's amendment. But yeah, as Starcheer... says now we have the issue of tons of movie article being placed in "albums" categories because the article has a section about a movie soundtrack. I would venture to say that this would be a miscategorization. Perhaps a redirect like Rocky III (soundtrack) could be categorized in this way, but not the article Rocky III. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to ask the late arrival question... How are these categories being added? Manually, by script, or by 'bot? (One would think that category creation/addition wouldn't be done by a 'bot as it requires a degree judgment on appropriatness...) - J Greb (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, it looks like script, though I am not sure. I believe it has something to do with what appears in the album template on a page, since he always seems to copy exactly what it says there, whether or not it is spelled correctly. It's not by bot I don't think—it's done through the account User:Rich Farmbrough. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point Olfactory. Excellent in fact. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Rich is also repeatedly creating categories like Category:EMI albums which have explicitly been merged and deleted via CFD. He has not learned from this ANI report and seems to continue to do what he was doing before, though at a slower pace. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea is to resolve these issues properly, rather than relying on the somatic information, if someone is creating an album article and they put in a label description that seems sensible to them they will recreate the category, or at least have to hunt for the correct one. By having a category redirect these problems can be avoided, since a.) they will see the correct category if they look and b.) Russbot will correct it if they don't. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, but you didn't create a redirect! You created a new category. You've now done it twice for this particular category and countless other times without even realizing you were creating a duplicate. Maybe you should do some hunting before you create a category in the first place. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Or it can be built into the infobox, with a switch reading the proper parameter and adding the category. Anything not in the switch list - that is the existing categories and known likely alternate spellings and typos - gets put into a tracking cat - "Album articles with unclear lable information". It may not be the nicest solution, but it keeps scripts from (re)creating bad categories. - J Greb (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that the didn't only repeatedly create the EMI category, but that he also created the now empty Category:EMI Music albums as well, which is one more to delete. Fram (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is actually significant subtlety over EMI record labels, with nearly 100 listed on WP alone (Thorn EMI group was composed of several hundred companies), including the massive HMV, Harvest, and Columbia labels if I am not mistaken, and 1.3 million songs in their current holdings. It is by no means obvious that Wikipedia wishes to categorise some, many or all these together as your tone seems to imply. Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Do I understand well that RF can create (OK) and delete (as an admin) their own pages at their own will? Not even a Speedy needed then? (Deletion of self-created pages documented: "The Category:Various albums was created, deleted, and recreated, apparently because some infoboxes list the artist for albums as "Various"." as fram wrote above), Oh these admins. -DePiep (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As a note, and a note it is: RF is an admin and also an edit filter manager. They know what language is allowed an not. This person can block me!? -DePiep (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If an admin is the creator and sole editor of a page, I don't see a problem with him deleting it himself, especially if it is a very recent creation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the status here?

Honestly, how long are we going to let a person run a bot that is so fundamentally flawed? Someone needs to dig up Kurt Cobain and inform him that, sorry, MTV Unplugged in New York is now an Iron Maiden album. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Rich's editing restriction was extended now to cover creation of categories by script, so I assume he won't be doing this by script anymore. Right Rich? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope that's correct. But even if Rich does desist from doing this particular sort of task, the latest episode is a further reminder of the folly of letting an editor use an unauthorised bot which doesn't even identify itself as a bot. Unless that wider issue is tackled, we'll just have more of these problems popping up in different areas.

I don't know why Rich believes himself to be exempt from the two basic rules of bot usage (prior approval of the bot and seeking consensus for the bot's tasks) ... but it's astonishing that this has gone on so long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, just block him and be done with it. Does anyone believe that his creation of exactly one category per minute between January 16 20:45 and January 16 21:40 was not script-assisted automated category-creation, throttled to be at one a minute only to give a slower (non-bot like) appearance? Fram (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that he is now working on fixing some of the problems he created. The list he is working off of is here. (When I saw the list I thought, "holy crap"—it does give you an idea of the scope of the problem we have been dealing with.) Anyway, I asked him if he was still using the script and he said he was not. I have checked most of the recent creations and they aren't problematic like the script-assisted creations were. I am happy for him to continue if he's fixing what he broke. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why, after so much drama already, is this editor running what appears to be an unauthorised bot right on the edge of what was explicitly banned? It's time that RF got a bot account, and sought approval from WP:BAG in the same way as other bot owners do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about right now? As far I can tell, he has not used a bot nor a script to create categories since this discussion began. He's (manually) working on this list, he tells me, so the real issue at this stage is if that is OK or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking a very small skim... I have to ask where and how he's generated/generating this list... looks like a few "Doesn't look like an preformer" are actually preformers. And I swear I see at least one "Change the category title to a redirect" hash sign included. - J Greb (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if Rich were actually commenting here so he could answer our questions. Maybe he needs to be invited back here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I invited Rich back to comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I didn't comment here is that there was little to be served by doing so. There is a huge task in cleaning up the cats which will have to be done manually, and there are thousands on the list. Certes many are false positives, and doubtless, given band naming conventions, there are more that are not on the list - as I remarked to Good Olfactory this is a first cut. I'm not sure why J Greb " has to ask" ' where and how he's generated/generating this list... ' certainly the question would be welcome on my talk page as one of curiosity or collaboration. Putting it here looks like an attempt to keep the ANI running. Rich Farmbrough, 10:06, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

The long and the short Rich is that the list you compiled looks like a 'bot result - little or no evaluation done, just raw data. And I'm sorry for asking it here, but this is where the general discusion is happening and the list was pointed out to the rest of the community. - J Greb (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The list is merely, as I said, a first cut of examining all the album artists categories. And it is fairly raw, also needs updating. For these reasons it is in my userspace rather than being dropped off at WP:Albums. Many of these will be perfectly fine categories, and some that I have skipped will be wrong. However a good fraction of these need some kind of fix up. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

• This is ridiculous. If a bot account functioned the way whatever Rich is running off his main account is, it would have long since been blocked and not unblocked without assurances from the owner that it will be much more careful. This is just the latest in a string of issues caused by Rich, whom, I hasten to add, I respect deeply, but who is editing so negligently that it's disruptive. He's racked up the best part of a million edits by leaving an unattended AWB bot running 24/7 for months editing much faster than the rules allow, then there was the tagging of the Main Page (yes, the front page of the website, the one that's viewed by 6 million people a day) with {{uncategorised}} with AWB and now this. When are we going to apply the same rules to Rich as we do to everyone else? If this continues, I seriously think it's going to have to go to ArbCom if he won't follow the rules of his own accord and the community won't make him. Sorry, Rich, I've a lot of respect for you and you've done a lot of good here, but the rules are there for a reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  What is ridiculous is that an issue that was being discussed between me and Good Olfactory on my talk page gets dragged here by the user who's actions recently caused the departure of an esteemed colleague. I am certainly glad to see this particular "incident" is not gathering the same level of hostility from bystanders, it is still wearing and unnecessary.

  The difference between a polite and friendly conversation started by Good Olfactory, and involving people who actually work on the albums (notably Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars), and bringing something to ANI speaks to collegial behaviour vs. battleground behaviour. For myself I prefer the former. Rich Farmbrough, 10:06, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  

  Rich, thanks for explaining your views on the tone of HJ Mitchell's comment's.

  However, HJ Mitchell is not the only editor to express concern about your use of a bot which from your main account, without prior approval per WP:BOTPOL. That's a legitimate ANI issue, and it would be helpful if you would respond to the substance of those concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  It's not a comment on the tone of HJ Mitchell's comment's, and I'm sorry you would read it that way. In terms of the suggestion about running an AWB bot I assiduously avoided having AWB source for years, partly because I didn't want to accidentally end up developing it, partly because, I didn't want version control issues but mainly so that I could categorically deny suggestions that I had "hacked the source." I was eventually forced to do that or be blocked. I certainly have not "left an unattended AWB bot running for months 24/7 editing much faster than the rules allow", although I understand that impression may have been formed. My average edit rate is about one edit per four minutes. Rich Farmbrough, 17:56, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  

  Personally I do not care how these edits are being made, only that they stop...either voluntarily by you or involuntarily via block. If edits like the one I noted at the beginning of this sub-section are still happening, then your contributions to this project are dipping into the "net negative" category. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  If you read the thread, you will see that that is exactly what happened, once Good Olfactory began discussing it with me. Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  

Blocked 72 hours

I have just blocked Rich for 72 hours for (repeated) violation of his edit restrictions. Clearly, they are not working, and I propose amending them by cutting the Gordian knot thusly:

• (a) Rich is banned from using AWB to carry out any tasks not specifically authorised via BRFA;
• (b) Rich is banned from applying general fixes and automated redirect replacement via AWB, except where the redirect replacement is an authorised task
• (c) all existing authorisations are revoked and must be re-applied for.

The intention is for simple, straightforward tasks like Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43 to be permitted with a minimum of fuss and risk, whilst more complex tasks are discussed with due care with respect to the risk of things going wrong again. Rd232 ^talk 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Will this prevent things like the addition of unsubstituted date parameters in templates, which had happened in the past, and seemed to be solved or avoided, but which happened again at least the 18th at 19:37[3] and 19:38[4] and was mentioned at his talk page at 19:59[5]; which then happened again at 22:24 the same day[6] and which I again mentioned on his talk page at 22:37[7]; and which happened yet again yesterday at 17:43[8] and 17:44[9]? It doesn't seem as if just mentioning this on his talk page has any effect, and neither had the previous blocks any lasting effect apparently. Fram (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please accept my apologies for reverting Fram's comments above. I rolled back from my watchlist and must have hit this entry instead of the one I was aiming at. Completely unintended, sorry. Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • We'll let it go this time. But if it happens again, we'll have to apply an appropriate punishment. Such as forcing you to watch every episode of Gilligan's Island with no commercial breaks. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • "Small" chance of that.[10] Doc talk 09:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • That will definitely be on my "don't miss" list. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I know this has been suggested before, but I really gotta ask, do we really need the bother of him here? I understand that Rich has (currently) 855,633 edits on Wikipedia, making him one of the most prolific editors here and has done alot of good, but his blocks (all of which have happened since September 2010) have been about AWB or mass-creation (at least from what I can tell) and I am not seeing much effect they have had on him. If not an outright block (of the indef kind...there I said it), then some sort of ban on using AWB (which seems to get him in trouble) and mass-creation. Just seems that it could put some of this continous problems (and ANI threads) to rest. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a bot allowed to run when its operator is blocked? User:Femto Bot is still running. One can also wonder why a task that was approved to run with a frequency of "Estimated number of pages affected: Currently 1 per run, frequency likely to be weekly or monthly" currently runs every 7 hours, and whether updating the same 55 pages for one project every 7 hours is really an effective use of resources, but that's a different discussion. Fram (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot for 72 hours, I don't know the specific rules, but it seems logical to me that if someone is blocked for misusing bots the bots have to be blocked as well. I invite any admin who disagrees to unblock - I won't take offence. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Femtobot does a number of things, you only pointed to a BRFA approval for one of its tasks. Rd232 ^talk 21:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the only edits it did where for that task (it also archives RF's talk page and so on, but that was not relevant to my post). Fram (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please just indef block him until some indication that things will really change

Thanks to User:USchick, who nominated one of the pages for speedy deletion, I just stumbled upon an example of mass article creation from September 2010. Over 100 pages were created (all of them in the Category:Queen's Awards for Enterprise, most of them empty (apart from a date) and unsourced, and since then not improved (it wouldn't be so much of a problem if he created the framework automatically, and then filled the contents manually). A typical example is The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1975). These were a violation of WP:BOTPOL#Mass article creation. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, we have e.g. the articles The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1967), The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1967), and The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1967), but in reality until 1976 there only existed one award, the Queen's Award to Industry[11]. This means that we have three incorrect empty articles for that year alone, and that we lack the correct article. So that's 100 empty and possibly incorrect articles created in violation of the bot policy (23 page creation in one minute, 22:56 on 21 September 2010, is not manual...). Note that even when the article has contents it is highly unreliable, e.g. The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1971) and The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1972) have the exact same content and source? Note also in those examples how the accessdate for the source is always today, thanks to some parametrised dates..

How many more instances of such incorrect runs have gone unnoticed in his hundreds of thousands of edits? No idea, the sheer volume of his edits make any decent scrutiny next to impossible. But the more one looks at them, the more it becomes clear that the error rate is way too high and the policy violations way too frequent. Looking at his response to the block, all I see is "Your link 15 is manually corrected by me.", "The white space edit are due to AnomieBot getting there first.", and "Also the edit to Fitness boot camp does create a substantive change" (when asked what that would be, no answer followed). When the blocking admin stated "I'm tired of your excuses and playing the victim; man up and take responsibility for your actions.", his full answer was "I think I do. There is, however, an old adage, "If it ain't broke don't fix it". While I think there are limitations to that particular saying, it is born our of experience." I have corrected more than 60 of the categories he created, and many more are still in need of such correction. I now will nominate the 100 pages mentioned above for deletion. Many other people are also busy correcting the mess he created. This is a never ending problem (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough), and short blocks are not helping at all. Fram (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234

This user was the subject of a recent ANI on his civility and POV pushing. Most of the users condemned his actions (of which I was one), but agreed that a stern warning, not a block, was a sufficient response. I supported this result, but an admin who had previously interacted with the user noted "that there have to be consequences at some point". Arilang has (thankfully) shied away from civility issues, but I've noticed two very problematic practices that should be brought up and addressed on ANI.

The first, and most important, issue is the egregious amount of copyright violations (WP:PLAGIARISM) by the user. After encountering one of the articles he wrote, I noticed that the writing did not match the style of his talk page contributions, which led me to an investigation of the article. A quick google search revealed that much of the content was taken, or closely paraphrased, off other websites. Going over his contributions, I've noticed a host of other articles with the exact same problems. A few examples from randomly choosing articles off his Articles Created list:

• From January, 2011. This was taken from the product review on Amazon.
  • Compare "Madame Chiang Kai-shek, beautiful, brilliant, and captivating, was one of the most controversial and fascinating women of the twentieth century" (Wikipedia) with "beautiful, brilliant, and captivating, Madame Chiang Kai-shek... one of the most powerful and fascinating women of the twentieth century". (Amazon)
  • Compare "manipulative “Dragon Lady” and despised her for living in Western-style splendor when most of the Chinese still live in poverty... this book is the result of years of extensive research in the United States and abroad and access to previously classified CIA and diplomatic files." (Wikipedia) with "manipulative “Dragon Lady,” and despised for living in American-style splendor while Chinese citizens suffered under her husband’s brutal oppression... the result of years of extensive research in the United States and abroad, and written with access to previously classified CIA and diplomatic files." (Amazon).

I have moved the related article into my sandbox to work on it when I have more time. Arilang ^talk 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From January 2011. This was taken from an Amazon review of the book.

• • Compare "Becker concedes that the American press reported the famine with accuracy, but leftists and communist sympathisers such as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley, and Anna Louise Strong, remained silent or played down its severity. The tragedy could have been averted, Becker concludes, after the first year if Mao's senior advisers had dared to confront him (Wikipedia) with "Becker concedes that the American press (especially Joseph Alsop) reported the famine with accuracy, he notes that other Western "foreign experts" who admired Mao, such as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley, and Anna Louise Strong, remained silent or played down its severity. The tragedy could have been averted, Becker concludes, after the first year if Mao's senior advisers had dared to confront him." (Amazon

I have removed the copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 00:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From January, 2011. This was taken from the product description on Amazon. The quotes used in the "review" section are directly copy-pasted off the Amazon list of reviews.
  • Compare "Based on secret and classified Chinese archives documents smuggled out of China...the most important and mythologized communist China leader" (Wikipedia) with "The most important, most mythologized leaders in the history of communist China, based on long-secret documents" and "classified documents spirited out of China". (Amazon)

The related article has been moved to my sandbox to be worked on. Arilang ^talk 00:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From December, 2010. This was taken from the product review on Amazon.
  • Compare "controls the government, courts, media, and military, and how it keeps all corruption accusations against its members in-house" with "controls the government, courts, media, and military, and how it keeps all corruption accusations against its members in-house". In this instance, the user did use quotes for the following sentence, but this initial sentence remained unquoted. An anonymous IP removed the segment with the editing summary "Removed copyright violation, new summary", but since (judging by the contributions) the IP's POV is different from Arilang's, I assume this is not Arilang's IP.

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From January, 2010. This was taken from a blog posted two days before the article.
  • Compare "which is a satire on the mainland Chinese government’s attempt to “harmonize” China’s Internet with forced installations of Green Dam Youth Escort and the travails of mainland Chinese World of Warcraft players over the last several months" (Wikipedia) with "satirizing the government’s attempt to “harmonize” China’s Internet with forced installations of “Green Dam Youth Escort” and the travails of Chinese World of Warcraft players over the last several months" (Blog).

Not sure about this one, it has been long time since I worked on that article. Arilang ^talk 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From March, 2009. This was taken from a Guardian review.
  • Compare "The Dream of Ding Village is about a community in Henan where almost everyone is infected with HIV/Aids because of unregulated blood-selling in the 1990s. Far more than any of his previous novels, it is rooted in reality, yet Yan says it is no less surreal" (Wikipedia) with "The Dream of Ding Village is about a community in Henan where almost everyone is infected with HIV/Aids because of unregulated blood-selling in the 1990s. Far more than any of his previous novels, it is rooted in reality, yet Yan says it is no less surreal." (Guardian)

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From November, 2008. This was taken from The Times Online
  • Compare with "On 2007 Mr Guo threw down a gauntlet to the ruling Communist Party by declaring that he has formed a underground New People's Party with 10 million members at home and abroad, and he was the acting chairman of the new party."(Wikipedia) and "Last year Mr Guo threw down a gauntlet to the ruling Communist Party by declaring that he was acting as the chairman of the underground New People's Party and claimed 10 million members" (Times)

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From October, 2008. This was taken from this About page.
  • Compare "to generate systematic, multi-facted research in the field of Chinese journalism" (Wikipedia) with "position at the doorsteps of China to generate systematic, multi-facted research in the field of Chinese journalism" (About page).

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From May, 2009. This was taken from Radio Australia.
  • Compare "Amnesty International says these activities spiked around last year's Beijing Olympics, which drew many protestors/petitioners. It's increased again with the recent Chinese National Congress meeting" (Wikipedia) with "Amnesty International says these activities spiked around last year's Beijing Olympics, which drew many protestors. It's increased again with the recent Congress." (Radio Australia)

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 02:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And this was just from randomly picking articles off his Articles Created list, a more detailed review of his contributions will reveal more incidents. Since this user has largely worked on topics that most Wikipedians are not interested in, the user's copyright violations have remained undetected, and the damage could be extensive. A search shows that this practice began as early as 2008, and the user currently has 8,707 edits, so there is a massive amount of content that must be reviewed.

These are not isolated cases, this has been occuring for years and it's going to be a headache to deal with. Now, you could argue that Arilang is unaware of Wikipedia's stance on copyright violations, but this is a user that has been here since 2008, it's difficult to believe he can contribute 8000+ edits without encountering WP:PLAGIARISM. Pretending to be innocent through ignorance is not an excuse. He was notified for copyright problems on one of his image uploads, other users have reverted his edits for copyright violations, he should know better.

There's also the second issue, which may be just as worrisome. In his last ANI, he promised to behave, and began to back away from the articles where his edits attract the most criticism. One of the problems identified in the last ANI included Arilang's habit of adding external links that are of his POV, even if they may be unreliable or unrelevant. He's still doing this, but with internal links, look at this article he creates and the link he adds here, under the See Also section. Judge for yourself. This seems like an attempt to flout his promise to behave, a sneaky way to POV push without triggering the scrutiny of the editors that criticised him in his last ANI.

On his last ANI, he was dangerously close to a block and users advised him not to worsen the situation, which he had been doing. While the plagiarism problems were not included in the last ANI, concerns over POV were. I'm not sure what the best response is, but I leave this up to the administrators and editors.--hkr (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the plagarism is a "new issue" (yes, I know that this is an issue that he should have been aware of, but "should have" is not quite the same as "did know") that he had not been warned about, I am not inclined to advocate for anything other than a warning.

As far as the "sneaky POV pushing," I would advocate now not a one-week cool-off block (which I advocated last time) but a one-month ban from all China-related articles, with an explicit warning that while he could return to them after the one month, if this resumes, he will be blocked at least one month for each instance. I realize that this is a harsh sanction, but I believe that the behavior warrants it. --Nlu (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to protest against the "sneaky POV pushing" label, though on various talk pages I have never try to hide my "strong opinions", but when come to editing on actual articles, I have always tried to write in a neutral style. Arilang ^talk 11:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that this section is written in a "neutral style"? Don't you see how it would be problematic to link this article under the "See also" section of its subject? Please understand Arilang, I sympathise with your POV at times, but when act like this a few days after your last ANI, editors will take notice.--hkr (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the adding Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary to Zhou Enlai is an act of "sneaky POV pushing". On the contrary, it is in the everyday reader's benefit that more info about Zhou as a human being being offered in wikipedia. Arilang ^talk 12:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See? It's this type of response that creates the conflicts you've been involved with. A facetious response like "it is in the everyday reader's benefit" tells me that you're not taking this seriously. It's not your job to "benefit" the reader by promoting a bias. Don't you see how your contributions can be construed as POV? No amount of trouting seems to be working.--hkr (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If Mao Zedong can have Mao: The Unknown Story at the "See also", why is it that Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary became a POV issue when added on to Zhou Enlai article? Arilang ^talk 12:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The former is an article that has been worked on by many contributors and is (somewhat) neutral. The latter is an article that has solely been written by you, was created a few days ago with a clear POV, misrepresents the book it was written on by "selectively" quoting, and was created to (in my eyes), make a point of avoiding the scrutiny of the editors that typically frequent these articles. Strangely, the article acts as a disservice to the book (it's partially available on Google Books), which is much more moderate in its POV and nuanced in its analysis. I do not like Mao, I think the man is a mass murderer, but I care about neutrality, and this is the straw that broke the camel's back, with your last ANI so recent.--hkr (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have clean up Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary a bit, to make it more neutral. Since the article has been created new, I shall try my best to turn it into a more neutral article, just give me a bit more time. Arilang ^talk 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "selective" quoting might be too kind, "completely changing the tone of" is much more fitting. Compare the version of this section with the article its supposedly attributed to. Notice how the first expresses a negative tone of the subject, while the second is positive. Notice that both are attributed to same author, but make completely different points. He's taking quotes, chopping them up, and rephrasing them to make them support the POV he makes. There are ways of being critical while being neutral. Blatant attempts attempts like this are not. I've defended Arilang in the past, but I'm tired of all the final warnings. And the plagiarism issue remains.--hkr (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also copyright problems with his images. This File:People's commune3.jpg, labeled public domain, credits "Google Image Search" as its source.--hkr (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Arilang1234. Yes, quite a few of my uploads did get deleted, but I also had created quite a number of articles at commons, and successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs. Arilang ^talk 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have encountered these editing problems before in my previous dealings with Arilang, in which I have noted that he often inserts Google translated Chinese language blog and forum posts, as well as Youtube videos, as references and external links. While I believe that he added these in good faith, considering his time spent editing Wikipedia, I think he really should spend more time to familiarise with Wikipedia guidelines regarding these matters. Thus, I believe Nlu's suggestion of a one-month restriction on China-related articles to be appropriate.--PCPP (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree we have a problem here. If Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary is Arilang's best attempt at writing neutral encyclopedic material, then this is more than just a failure. Given the long history of prior disruption, it becomes clear his presence is a net detriment to the project. I am willing to impose a lengthy block of disruptive editing here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not convinced he's taken in the message about copyvio after looking at the article. And using Amazon's excerpts from reviews may not be as bad as copyvio but we need links to the originals so we can see the context of the excerpts. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph still contains the copyvio that I listed. The sourcing issues with the excerpts are a problem, but I agree with Doug that the priority should be on fixing the copyvios, removing or rewording the unquoted and closely paraphrased content.--hkr (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Main problem here are copyright issues (and frequently RS problems, as in his new article "Zhou Enlai..."). Perhaps the most constructive course of action would be as follows. Ask Arilang1234 to fix all copyright and RS problems he created, give him a couple of weeks for that, and check if he did it. If he can not, I leave this to judgment of more experienced people.Biophys (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The cases that hkr showed are not a comprehensive review of all of Arilang's contributions: they are random articles taken from the list of articles Arilang created. Given his 8000 contributions, the fact that his copyright and other problems go back to at least 2008, and his unsatisfactory record in fixing the articles so far, it would be prudent to open a broad CCI on Arilang's contributions. Quigley (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote directly from Arilang1234-"when come to editing on actual articles, I have always tried to write in a neutral style"

Again, let us take a look at Arilang1234's "neutral style" Boxer's anti-civilization and anti-humanity evil doing.Boxer members ...The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme. this whole article which has massive sections written by Arilang1234 stank of POV and pure hatred toward some of the subjects he was written about, such as the Boxers, before admin User:Nlu thankfully deleted much of it Дунгане (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote directly from Arilang1234- "Yes, quite a few of my uploads did get deleted, but I also had created quite a number of articles at commons, and successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs"

Is he being serious here? He doesn't seem to have a single clue' regarding rules for uploading images to wikimedia or wikipedia, saying he "successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs", with no evidence that he actually understands why there were allowed to stay on wikimedia while other images were deleted, he evidently has no understanding of public domain or copyright laws. He seems to by playing Russian roulette with his edits. Several entire articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between written English and written Chinese were deleted by Afd, and Arilang1234 himself said Well, your are free to create new articles, as long as they survive AfD, almost as his procedure for writing wikipedia articles was creating them with absolutely no idea of wikipedia rules regarding copyright, content, and neutrality, and seeing whether they get deleted or not.Дунгане (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have moved Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary into my sandbox to show my sincereness, and I shall try to fix the POV problem from there. Regarding other copyvio problems, give me some times, I shall fix them too. Arilang ^talk 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cautionary note: let's not turn this into an orgy of criticism. The issues are still: given what we have seen, what measures should be taken, if any? It should not turn into a regurgitation of everything that Ariliang1234 has done on Wikipedia (and criticism thereof), nor should it downgrade into personal attacks (which it has not yet but appears on the cusp of). My recommendation still stands (but I think we need more opinions on this): no blocks, one-month ban from China-related articles (with a block to come if ban is violated). --Nlu (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. 1. I do not think that creation of Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary can be interpreted as an example of WP:DE by Arilang. 2. Copyright problems. This needs to be assessed. If this is a serious problem in a large number of articles, that's one thing. Otherwise, this just needs to be fixed. When I saw that kind of things in Russia-related articles, I tried to fix them immediately by removing or rephrasing the text and leaving a notice to the user.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The earlier version of the article was clearly disruptive. Arilang's later "fixes" to the article after this ANI was brought up, shows that that he does understand what the concept of neutrality is (it's hard to argue ignorance), and acknowledges that his earlier article was pushing a POV. The idea that he is intentionally POV pushing is later reinforced by a comment on this ANI where he defends the act as a "benefit" to the reader. I appreciate that Arilang apologised, I welcome his desire to improve, but sooner or later, he has to understand there are ways to be critical without pushing a POV. User:Greg Pandatshang and User:Ohconfucius are examples of editors critical of the Chinese government, that do an admirable job at remaining neutral.--hkr (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly protest at hkr using "disruptive" to describe the creation of Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary, which is a notable book reviewed by scholars such as Jonathan Spence and others. And regarding all those POV and copyvio problems, I shall be able to fix them when I have more time. Arilang ^talk 05:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't WP:N, the subject is notable, and notability was never brought up as a concern. The main problem is creating an article with "all those POV and copyvio problems" a few days after being warned about POV, which is disruptive.--hkr (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nlu, the one-month topic ban from China-related articles could work. And the plagiarism issue, although extensive, can be dealt with at CCI, with the coooperation of Arilang. But, because of the WP:COPYVIO, WP:RS, WP:POVPUSH issues related to Arilang's article creations, I propose that a longer editing restriction on article creation be implemented. Arilang should be, for a time, restricted to creating articles in his sandbox, which can be moved to the mainspace upon review and approval by an admin or uninvolved experienced editor.--hkr (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To show my sincerity, I have moved Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady into my sandbox to work on any copyvio problems, and I am willing to cooperate with other editors to eradicate any editing errors. Arilang ^talk 23:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done a bit of rewrite on Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady, and Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionaryand hope that it is OK now. Arilang ^talk 08:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I just found a new one on Plasma economy ("The final crushing irony... etc" from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1359670.stm). POV as well. Potentially a big problem here. Arilang1234, do you understand the problem of copyright violation? And a serious question; how much content have you copied? The one I found dates from '09. The problem we have here is that the use of Chinese sources causes a complication - we need Chinese speakers to check them for copyvio/plagarism --Errant ^(chat!) 09:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cooperation with others

I have look into articles mentioned by user hkr, and have done quite a bit of cleaning up, and I shall continue to do so, until all the copyvio content is removed. I would like to stress my point again, I am here to contribute, not to disrupt. Please also have a look at the number of articles created by me: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Arilang1234&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=none Arilang ^talk 09:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I was extremely forgiving last ANI thread in an AGF manner akin to "really, they won't do this again, who would deliberately get him/herself blocked after coming so close to the edge?", but I have to agree with User:Nlu and User:hrk this go. That's it's been only a few days since last "incident" suggests to me that any kind of block or topic ban would be 100% justified as preventative against further damage to the project. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a second ANI thread about the same user during just a few days, but the only thing he did between the threads was creating a couple articles about books. He is also currently making an effort to fix the alleged copyright violations [12]. Blocking/banning a user while he is cleaning up his mess would be highly counter-productive. Biophys (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. Again, I am not questioning Ariliang1234's good faith in remedying the issue. But what I believe is that during the middle of that process, there will be a trigger for something else to occur. I think a one-month ban from the topic area will be good for him, as well as for the rest of us, to get him to take a step back from the topic area and reevaluate. --Nlu (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue here isn't that he created the articles (this is not a WP:N problem), it's the content in the articles that's problematic, when you consider that he promised to back off making controversial edits in his last ANI, a few days before. Just compare (using an example I gave on Arilang's talk) what Arilang writes in this section with the actual article it's supposedly attributed to. The former is a negative assessment, the latter is a positive one, and yet both are attributed to the same writer! I've never seen a better example of a WP:COATRACK article. Promoting a POV is one thing, misquoting and altering the meaning of your sources to promote a POV is another, and he should know better. I am not against (hell, often I agree with) Arilang's POV. The problem is how he promotes it unrepentantly, in an egregiously conspicuous and heavy-handed manner. I appreciate that Arilang promises to act in good faith, but if you're going to use Wikipedia as a soapbox (which you shouldn't!), do it with a little finesse.--hkr (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You started this thread because of the alleged copyright violations by Arilag. Now you also filed a request for copyright investigation. Let's wait what this investigation would produce.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"But I've noticed two very problematic practices". I'm aware of what I said. If this had only been about the plagiarism, I would have gone directly to WP:CCI.--hkr (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to Arilang; you need to make note of the copyvios you find and clean up so that an admin can revdel them --Errant ^(chat!) 11:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, copyvios are unacceptable in all namespaces. Try working on it offline. MER-C 13:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to user MER-C and Errantx friendly comments. I have begun checking through all of my copyvios editing, and have since removed quite a few of them. I have promised not to repeat these silly mistakes again. Arilang ^talk 07:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

On his last ANI, Arilang was reported by another user for problems with WP:CIVILITY, WP:RS, and WP:POVPUSHing. He was let off the hook, but with the self-enforced promise that he back off from the topic that got him into trouble (Chinese politics and Chinese history), a result that I endorsed. However, a few days after his last ANI, he creates a WP:COATRACK article, violating WP:NPOV and WP:RS, on the exact topic he was specifically recommended to back off from. Contrary to my original assessment, I believe it's time for there to be some consequences. This is a user that has been repeatedly warned for his behaviour, and the cycle of "final warnings" and insincere apologies has gone on for far too long. This resolution is considerably less harsher than the one proposed by User:NicholasTurnbull in the last ANI, which proposed a wide-ranging community ban, and takes into account Nlu's suggestions:

• Arilang1234 (talk · contribs) is subject to a two-month one-month topic ban on editing topics relating to Politics in China and the History of China, except to fix the copyright violations listed in his contributor copyright investigation case. But, in fixing his copyright violations, he cannot add additional content in either 1) a combative or tendentious manner or 2) in repeated violation of Wikipedia policies.
• Arilang can return after the two monthsmonth, but if this resumes, his next ANI could result in a block or a longer topic ban, possibly indefinite.
• This is only an article space topic ban, and Arilang can continue to contribute to discussions on the topic, if he so wishes.

I believe this will encourage Arilang to 1) step back and evaluate his actions 2) explore other topics outside the single one he is interested (and unfortunately, sometimes disruptive) in and 3) use the time to correct the copyright violations in his CCI case.--hkr (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. For a more detailed explanation on the "coatrack" incident, see the sixth paragraph under the "Cooperation with Others" subsection above.--hkr (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I think two months is too long as an initial ban. (Yes, I had advocated for sanctions in the past, but the sanctions were not agreed to as community consensus. With this becoming the first initial sanction, two months is too long.) I'd still suggest one month. I agree with the scope of the ban being limited to political and historical issues, and So God created Manchester's proposal to allow Ariliang to continue working on copyright issues, I think I agree to as well, with some reservations — I think that's going to be too much of a temptation to write in things that will be POV-pushing or perceived as POV-pushing. I don't necessarily oppose it, but I still think that a simple break from the topic is better. --Nlu (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I see your point. I've reduced it to one month.--hkr (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. I think the alleged copyright violations must be carefully investigated prior to making any action. As about other issues, this reminds me the Eastern European wikibattles after looking at actions by multiple editors. Now I realize why NicholasTurnbull suggested this resolution. Biophys (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The massive amount of edits by Arilang1234 will surely turn in a massive amount of copyvio, along with all the unlicensed images he uploaded, no matter how long the topic ban will be, it will possibly take years to fix the copyvio, especially since few people are actually working at the CCI project. Also as i noted above, Arilang1234 doesn't seem to understand why his edits and image uploads are copyvio or unencyclopedic, someone needs to clearly explain to him word by word, at commons people already tried to explain, but apparently he responded by merely switching to uploading at wikipedia rather than commons rather than understanding the rules. In his comment to me on his talk page, he gave the impression as if creating articles which would get deleted later by Afd was almost normal for him, as if he doesn't even know why they are deleted. It has been explained to him multiple times apparently on his talk page and deletion discussions why xxx article was deleted, but he never listened and repeated the same thing again.Дунгане (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Like I have pointed out before, I will try my best to eradicate all the errors created by my wiki edition, and promise not to repeat those "silly" mistakes again. However, shouldn't user Дунгане be busy tidy up his own backyard first?

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Дунгане Arilang ^talk 07:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support enaction as an interim solution. However, there are two problems here that I can see. The first is that given the massive amount of copyvio text added by the user, it is questionable whether there is much to be gained from letting him do it again after the ban has expired. It's hard to see any contributions from Arilang in the China article diaspora that are genuinely productive. If it had been the case that Arilang had made good on the various promises that he made here on AN/I in the previous thread, I would have seen this differently. However, it does strike me that Arilang is editing these articles for the purposes of WP:COATRACKing and WP:WARring on the subject, and there are other editors besides Arilang (with whom negative interactions can be observed in his contribs) who will subsequently have to be given similar editing restrictions. This is not a resolution of the problem, and it will probably return back again to AN/I or else the arbcom with this ban alone. I fail to see quite why such an endless address of this dispute is a useful application of our time. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest the following users are also included in the ban: Дунгане (talk · contribs), Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs), Quigley (talk · contribs); all of these users have been involved in warring with Arilang and have not behaved very much better (the first user currently has an open CCI). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you pulled me into this. The only interaction I've had with Arilang in recent memory, besides commenting on Arilang's ANIs, is my participation in two tame talk page discussions involving multiple editors. Quigley (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo is actually a pro-Taiwan user, just like Arilang. The evidence that users, who share the same opinions as Arilang (not just Kintetsubuffalo, but sternly anti-Communist users like User:C.J. Griffin), have been repeatedly reverting Arilang's edits, speaks volumes on the quality of Arilang's edits. And I agree that it's unfair to drag Quigley into this, he hasn't interacted with Arilang in a while.--hkr (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

and to User:NicholasTurnbull, if you've seen my editing history, i am rather not concerned with Arilang1234's edits and the content of his articles than his personal insults, which was why i am here. in the past two months i believe there is not an instance of me reverting an edit by arilang1234, and much of the discussion at ANI and the talk pages centered on his insults being flung around. I do not believe topic banning Arilang1234 is a good idea, rather, as in an ANI thread earlier, an editor suggested blocks for insults being hurled around, which would increase in time for every new insult. Дунгане (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Enough is enough. I suggest a 1 edit block on both parties if either address any of the terms Seb lists above, or anything essentially similar. Extend this restriction for 90 days. If further issues arise, address within this context. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)"

When Arilang1234 again started flinging around insults, to User:PCPP, thats when i returned into this ANI dispute, and why i'm here know even though the thread is about copyvio, not insults. I know its not binding but Shadowjams suggestion is a good idea. I will apply myself to Shadowjams suggestion as well, and suggest it be submitted as a proposal, but i have nothing to do with the content dispute and request my username be withdrawn, since i edited nothing on the articles named above by User:So God created Manchester. I do not see my username anywhere on this article, or on virtually 90% of the articles Arilang1234 edited, i have never disputed on most of his work.Дунгане (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Nicholas Turnbull, as a wiki editor, I have one advantage that many wiki editors are lacking: the ability to read both simplified and traditional Chinese, as most of the bilingual editors can only read simplified Chinese. By that I mean I am able to read books and academic documents written in traditional Chinese, and translate them into Chinese, to enrich the content of wikipedia. I know I have been silly before, I would just like to make one more apology, and one more promise: I will do good this time.

And, in response to your above comment, beside Дунгане, who is adding Islam stuff all over the place, and no one ever said anything, PCPP is not an angel, either, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603 Arilang ^talk 10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a useful skill of yours. However, as you probably already know, the English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources over foreign language sources, and reliable source translations of foreign language material over translations by Wikipedians (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources). Whilst in no way would I demean your language skills in this regard or their utility to Wikipedia, I would be concerned that given your track record in misrepresenting source claims that such translations may be more of a vehicle for inserting "opaque" WP:OR into the China articles in such a way as non-Chinese speakers cannot refute the source inclusions. I would therefore be wary about endorsing your efforts in this regard. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is, from now on I will do good. Arilang ^talk 11:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment All my edit warring With Arilang1234 consisted of me removing derogatory remarks about barbarians, banditry, and looting on the article to which Arilang1234 added these adjectives to describe subjects, and responding to outright insults about my alleged inability to speak english on the talk page of the Boxer Rebellion article. Without previous provocation from me, Arilang1234 went ballistic, accusing me of inserting communist party propaganda [13][14] and not speaking english, despite the fact that before i even had this dispute i warned against using Chinese government Communist sources and i criticized communist ideology. Seeing as you all understand my english, i have serious doubts whether Arilang1234 was sincerely suggesting that my english skills were so poor he couldn't comprehend them or rather he was sending a cheap insult. I have never provoked him before he started making snide remarks about my language ability. Arilang sought to put blame on an entire ethnic group for the war, saying "From the above sentence, it is very clear that 剛毅(Manchu official) was the main player in the Boxer Rebellion". as he did not add this particular line into the article, i tried to explain that hatred and insults toward the (manchu) people is not encyclopedic material, and he even went more out of line, bringing in references to "prove" that manchus are barbarians, which led to another ANI thread created by Nlu after i complained to him about this.

Arilang1234 claimed he was removing "unreferenced content" which had a referenced I have never misrepresented my edits in an edit summary on that article.

There was no significant content dispute, except for the insults being hurled into the article and the talk page, which was why i brought up earlier ANI threads about Arilang1234, due to his constant claims that i speak "pidgin english", which was a rationale he gave for not paying attention to any of my attempts to talk it out with him.

And if editors actually look at my CCI it is over 6 months old, i have already checked dozens of articles and cleaned several, and i have asked 3 admins to work on my CCI case. I asked User:Rjanag to do it but received no response, my request is somehwere in his talk page archives, and i asked one of the CCI admins, User:VernoWhitney to do so but he is frequently busy hunting for other copyviolations. My requests are still availible on his talk page or talk page archives.Дунгане (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User Дунгане's above 40 plus lines of comment, he/she used "i" about 14 times, "I" about 4-6 times, "english" 3-4 times. When a writer is confused about the use of "i", "I" and "e" "E", it is apparent that he/she really need some basic English writing tuition. My advice to Дунгане is a friendly advice, not a "cheap insult". Arilang ^talk 02:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"friendly advice", from a user accusing me of speaking pidgin english, who doesn't know how to spell savages and properly grammatically arrange a sentence- "Extremely stupid", not "stupid to the extreme" is very rich. Arilang1234 accused me of speaking Chinglish and Pidgin English, which have negative connotations, and have absolutely nothing to do with capitalization" (Arilang1234 notes that i don't capitalize my i's and english), rather, the distinguishing features of pidgin english and chinglish are incomprehensible and nonsensical grammar which look foolish to a fluent english speaker.Дунгане (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have told everyone that I am not a native English speaker, and I always welcome friendly advice and constructive criticism from other editors. Arilang ^talk 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• OpposeI support the resolution by User:Ohconfucius below.Дунгане (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Off topic - content issues

Reliability of Arilang1234's translation is called into question User:Arilang1234 has inserted unreliable translations into articles. saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", claiming that the Chinese communist party "only" attack the KMT and not Japan, yet the majority of the wikisource article he himself wrote in chinese is about the Communist party encouraging attacks against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here I put the wikisource article through google translate in the link, so everyone can read it, and see that Arilang1234 either cannot read what he himself added to the wikisource article, since he created it, or is just flat out not telling the truth. I don't accuse people of lying lightly, but it appears in this case that Arilang1234 deliberately misrepresented sources.Дунгане (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC) And wikisource itself is not accepted as a source for wikipediaДунгане (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC) The Google machine translated article is here The imperialist occupation of the Chinese Communist Party at the Northeast for the second time the Declaration, a declaration made by the CCP in 1931. In this declaration, Japan/Japanese/Japanese Imperilism was mentioned 16 times, whereas KMT/Kuomintang/Chiang Kai-shek was mentioned 38 times. If this is not enough to show that what is the real target of this War Cry declaration, let's have a look at the slogans at the end of the article: (1)Up!Students in all of China's peasants and soldiers and all the toiling masses! (2)Strike, strike, strike operations, strike, against Japanese imperialism! (3)Participate in all demonstrations and rallies! (4)The masses of armed workers and peasants, students! (5)Automatically obtain the freedom of speech assembly and association publication! (6)Entered into with all the imperialists against the Kuomintang secret of all! (7)Against all imperialism, hit imperialism! (8)The Soviet Union against imperialist attack on the KMT, the armed support of the Soviet Union! (9)Capitulated to imperialism against the KMT, the KMT down! (10)Down with imperialism, the only force supporting the Soviet Red Army! (11)The only support the anti-imperialist movement the Chinese Communist Party leader! (12)Long live the victory of the Soviet revolution in China! Just look at these War Cry slogans, "Japanese Imperialism" is mentioned only once, whereas KMT/Kuomintang is mentioned four times. You don't need to be a "Professor of Chinese Studies" to work out who(Japanese or KMT) was the real target of this War Cry Declaration. "Elementary, my dear Watson." Arilang talk 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC) This is a content dispute. Without taking sides, ANI might not be the best place to argue about it, for either of you.--hkr (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested resolution 2

I watched Arilang start off on WP, and was impressed by his undoubted enthusiasm for China-related-topics, and for starting articles which were potentially worthy subjects for this encyclopaedia. I also noted, however, the often mediocre quality of articles he created. The articles are often problematic in terms of language, content, political bias, and structure; he also tends to use a majority of Chinese language sources (often for want of English language sources because these are matters of little interest to the Western world), which poses problems for verifiability. In the past, he has invited me to examine some of his work, but not all have been sufficiently interesting to me; not all subjects are notable, IMHO. I have gone in and corrected, for example, his version of the Deng Yujiao incident, making significant content, style and referencing changes. I will just say I have not experienced any bitter confrontations with him, but his apparently poor interaction with certain others comes as little surprise, as he has very strong opinions which he expresses vocally in talk pages, but also has a tendency of permeating his content work with. I had hoped that he would have better learned the ropes of Wikipedia since he arrived in 2008, but he appears to be carrying on being aware only of WP:BOLD as policy. What I find of greatest concern now are problems with copyright.

I would suggest that, at a minimum, he should clean up all examples of copyright violations of which he is aware. To demonstrate his good faith, he should execute this in the most transparent manner by first creating a list of all articles where he is aware of such copyright issues, and then by working off that list, making progress comments to each and every article so listed. I would also suggest that Arilang worked exclusively those articles, and refrain from any further article creation or content addition elsewhere on WP. That way, others can interact and monitor the progress, and give guidance as required. I believe that Arilang (and his fellow editors) would benefit by Arilang being on civility parole and 1RR for three months. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Further to my suggestion above, I have now created a list of articles using Arilang's contributions history. He should now go through the list and remove all those where his involvement has only been minimal. The cleanup effort should proceed from there. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Ohconfucius for your list, I have begun to work on it. Could you tell me where did you get the list? There is another question I like to ask you, like in the case of 2008 Chinese milk scandal, my initial contributions may have POV and copyvios problem, but the content has since being removed, or integrated, does it mean that the article is now clear? Arilang ^talk 04:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It's compiled from your contributions history, using AWB, and thus should include every article you have touched. Yes, it will include articles like the 2008 Chinese milk scandal – I actively work that one, and I'm fairly sure it's clean. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Arilang1234 does not need to be topic banned, his content is of no concern, rather, the insults he chucks around are extremely offensive and rude, and if Arilang1234 is put on watch for civility and rudeness i will also submit to that too.Дунгане (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

if you've seen my editing history, i am rather not concerned with Arilang1234's edits and the content of his articles than his personal insults, which was why i am here. in the past two months i believe there is not an instance of me reverting an edit by arilang1234, and much of the discussion at ANI and the talk pages centered on his insults being flung around. I do not believe topic banning Arilang1234 is a good idea, rather, as in an ANI thread earlier, an editor suggested blocks for insults being hurled around, which would increase in time for every new insult. Дунгане (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Enough is enough. I suggest a 1 edit block on both parties if either address any of the terms Seb lists above, or anything essentially similar. Extend this restriction for 90 days. If further issues arise, address within this context. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)"

Who's Seb? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Seb az86556Дунгане (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

When Arilang1234 again started flinging around insults, to User:PCPP, thats when i returned into this ANI dispute, and why i'm here know even though the thread is about copyvio, not insults. I know its not binding but Shadowjams suggestion is a good idea. I will apply myself to Shadowjams suggestion as well, I have little to do with content disputes with Arilang1234, i edited nothing on the articles named above by User:So God created Manchester. I do not see my username anywhere on this article, or on virtually 90% of the articles Arilang1234 edited, i have never disputed on most of his work, they contain strong anti communist POV, as i am not a communist agent, i am not interested in removing them.Дунгане (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made a list of my edits to remove copyvios and POV content

User:Arilang1234/Records of removing copyvios content, I welcome all the constructive suggestions. Arilang ^talk 03:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am happy to see you accept my proposal. I have copied over the relevant entries. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral, with a further comment. I still believe that a topic ban is more appropriate, but I am not going to oppose Ohconfucius's alternative proposal. Meanwhile, I would again urge Дунгане to not turn this into a regurgitation of everything that Ariliang has done. Frankly, it looks petty and clouds the issue, and makes it look like it's a grudge rather than genuine criticism (constructive or not) of Ariliang's behavior. Keep to the point. If there is problematic behavior, stay with a neutral description of the problematic behavior, rather than make it into emotional accusations. --Nlu (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with all of Ohconfucius' observations; it nicely sums up my concerns over Arilang's behaviour. But I'm not sure if suggesting that Arilang avoid the topic, using his own self control, is enough. Why not go one step further and make the thing official? Arilang did not heed the suggestions in his last ANI, so there remains some doubt (and I think justifiably) if he will this time. I'm optimistic about Arilang, I appreciate that he wants to improve, and I have no qualms about his eagerness to change, but I'd like to see him demonstrate it first.--hkr (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I just hope I'm right that Arilang is not beyond redemption. I certainly hope he can moderate his direct tone and contribute positively to the project. He seems to have taken up my suggestion to transparently work through and clean up after himself, which is a good first move. He, like anyone, is sensitive to harsh or unfair criticism, but has indicated that he is receptive if criticism is constructive. Arilang should also appreciate he and others may have difficulties relying on simple written communication, because many of the common communication cues (facial expressions, body language, tone of voice) are lost, which often has the effect of making humour or even sarcasm translate poorly. I will try and cast a closer watchful eye over his activities when I can. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by total outsider: I have no familiarity with this beyond having read this thread, but maybe it would be useful to ask Arilang to explain in his own words what the meanings of neutrality and copyright are? Not only might he learn something from such a process, but there would be no possibility of claiming ignorance later, should he have a rebound.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

CCI now open

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Arilang1234 Any contributor with no history of copyright problems is welcome to help with this or any other open CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl for the notice, just to let you know, I have begun working on the problem:

User:Arilang1234/Articles with copyright issues, and I will see to it that all the copyvios edit done by me shall be removed. Arilang ^talk 23:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson - another controversial/disruptive page move: Juan Carlos I

PMAnderson has once again unilaterally moved an article instead of submitting a move request via the WP:RM process.

Back in August (August, not November, this is important and easy to get confused about) was a discussion and decision about the title in which I was the closing uninvolved non-admin (trying to help with the backlog); the decision was to move Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I, as proposed:

• Talk:Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain#Requested_move_.28August_2010.29

Note the detailed explanation in my move decision comment there and the lack of any challenge to that decision at that time.

A subsequent discussion from November 2010 proposing that Juan Carlos I be moved to Juan Carlos:

• Talk:Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain#Requested_move_.28November_2010.29

This proposal was closed as no consensus.

For the last couple of days there has been a new discussion about all this (which I've followed but managed to restrain myself from participating, thank you very much), along with a move war apparently based on a misunderstanding which resulted in a 24 hour lock of the page just yesterday[15]:

• Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Juan_Carlos_I

Note the edit summaries of the brief move war that preceded the talk page discussion for those two reverts (User:GoodDay, odd) and the intervening moves (User:Kotniski, even) from yesterday:

1. GoodDay: "moved Juan Carlos I to Juan Carlos I of Spain over redirect: There was no RM consensus to move this article to Juan Carlos I)"
2. Kotniski: "moved Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I over redirect: this has been stable for long enough - do a move request if you want to change it)"
3. GoodDay: "moved Juan Carlos I to Juan Carlos I of Spain over redirect: No consensus was reached for change to Juan Carlos, in last RM (November 2010))"
4. Kotniski: "moved Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I over redirect: see explanation at talk - mover was looking at wrong discussion)"

Also note that the person moving the article yesterday, GoodDay, thought the discussion/decision he was challenging was the one from November, not August. On the talk page, this oversight was acknowledged.

Yet despite all that controversy, PMA took it upon himself to move the article soon after the lock expired despite any evidence whatsoever that there is consensus support for it[16], and clear evidence that there is opposition to it [17]

In the discussion just cited above, here is how PMA rationalizes engaging in the very behavior he has been warned repeatedly to not engage in[18]:

This would be reversing an improperly closed move request [edit: from 5 months ago, and after there was another intervening move request], closed by a non-admin who is deeply involved in such issues[my involvement in WP:NCROY issues, especially 5 months ago and prior, was very light], despite extenxive opposition. This was the 5-3 #Requested move (August 2010), above; not the more recent failed move request. This was not consensus then; it is not consensus now. If this cannot be simply reversed, we may have to request that the closer be sanctioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The title since the improper closure is not stable. It was protested then and now, and a request to move it to a third possibility has been undertaken in the meantime. A move reuseat will only confirm this; but the proper placement without any consensus is where it was before this process began; which was the title for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with my move decisions being reviewed by an uninvolved neutral and possibly reversed; I welcome it, though I suggest after 5 months the grapes are way past being merely sour and I agree with Kotniski that at this point the only proper course to take is reassess consensus via another WP:RM discussion.

People accuse me of being disruptive for posting too much on talk pages about title issues, but while I might dream of pulling a stunt like this, I wouldn't actually do it. And believe me, it is a stunt, and PMA knows it (warned and even blocked more than enough times), but he obviously doesn't care. Is there anyone who does care?

Instead of reverting PMA's unilateral move myself, I decide to file this AN/I.

I know what I think should be done in this case, but my history with PMA suggests I best just report the facts and stay out of it, which is what I'm doing. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is growing wearisome. Is there a page-move or article-titling controversy that PMAnderson is not at the center of? It never ends. I'm beginning to believe that, if he were removed from the matter entirely, 90% of all article-title wars would evaporate overnight. After seeing this go one for years, I am beginning to feel that he's an aggrivating force in these controversies, and something, perhaps some sort of community imposed editing restrictions, may be in order at this point. --Jayron32 05:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit war on this unstable page before I acted; I explained my action at length on the talk page as restoring the status quo ante, in the absence of consensus. Any admin who sees consensus, or any group of editors who can establish one, is free to act on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Born2Cycle is again making a content disagreement with his own (improper) action into a conduct dispute.

• The placement at Juan Carlos I is based, if anywhere, on this move request, which Born2cycle himself closed as a move.
• He is not an admin.
• He has a deeply held position on what titles to use on monarch articles, and closed in accordance with it; if he were an admin, he would be considered involved.
• The discussion was at 5-3, when he moved it.

is is manifestly improper; and there has been a discussion over the last several days protesting this move as ungrounded, including another replacement of the article where it was. (The explanation of my move as restoring the long-standing stable title is at the end.) Until an uninvolved admin decides there was consensus to move this page from its old title, where it was stable for years, it should stay there, shouldn't it? If an uninvolved admin finds there was consensus to move, he is free to do so. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if Born2Cycle were reminded not to close move discussions unless the result ismanifestly clear; and not to drag ANI into his content disputes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If anybody feels I should have dragged ANI into this myself, please say so, and I will apologize; but I try to avoid drama on this much-crowded page. If so, please consider it done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As Fastily deleted the blocking redirect as uncontroversial, you should not have moved the page with no discussion. I've locked it in its current location to avoid move warring, but I think it belongs where the last RM discussion placed it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Was the last move discussion (actually the next-to-last, since Born2Cycle's action inspired another move request; there is no consensus on where his POV would place the article) properly closed? If not, why should an improper action have binding force? If any editor from one POV can close move requests to suit himself, the nationalist editors will have a heyday moving articles to suit their various Causes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, Fastily deleted the redirect because of the move discussion, so I'm hesitant to call it an "improper action". And the last move request showed there was no consensus to move it away from the then-current title. You overrode two closed move requests without discussion. Regardless of what I may think of other parties' discussion styles, That Was Not Cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion linked to above is not the only time Born2Cycle has been closing move requests to suit his preferences; he was also roundly criticized fot it here; and there may well be other cases; if may be useful to look at his move log. Can we at least agree that this should stop? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. As a single-purpose campaigner for a particular approach to article naming, Born2Cycle cannot in any reasonable way be considered to be uninvolved in RM discussions. I agree that this should stop, and if B2C does not explicitly commit to refraining from RM closures, enforcement should follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Said closure was in August. Sanctioning him for it at this point would seem a bit much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) The page was moved 5 months ago. Is Born2Cycle actually doing this now? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I voted on the proposal, so am not uninvolved. I didn't know Born2Cycle wasn't an admin, and the custom is that only admin closures are really binding when the close isn't obvious. However the latest name is now stable. Since there is so much anger, the most obvious solution is for some kind of majority poll where several possible locations are listed for 'discussion' but where there is no prejudice against any name because of precedent. Thoughts? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) All I can say is that the name Born2Cycle moved it to didn't look stable to me. It was opposed at the time; it is protested now; and another move request in November suggested the article be moved to Juan Carlos, on the same arguments as Born2Cycle used. A discussion of all possibilities is the only way to reach consensus; but what if there isn't one - again? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In my suggestion, there wouldn't need to be consensus; just a majority (no prejudice against any name because of precedent). If we are entirely honest about it neither name actually has "consensus" in any meaningful sense of the word. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reason the title is "not stable" is because someone admitted they were looking at the wrong discussion. And the other issue is that you (Pmanderson) have been previously told that your habits in moving pages is not welcome on this project, yet you still see fit to act without a consensus behind your actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please put it back to the stable name (i.e. the one we had for many months before GoodDay through a mistake, and PMA in full awareness, came along and started tampering with it). If individuals are going to be allowed to just come along and impose their own preferences over consensus, we may as well abandon the discussion process altogether, and just decide on article titles according to who's best at maniuplating the move-warring game.--Kotniski (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The stable name is where the article was for at least five years; Born2Cycle's isn't. see comment above after edit conflict. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I have to just say this since PMA is predictably trying to make this about me. Back then, five months ago, I was trying to help with the WP:RM backlog and I might have been a bit overambitious in that effort, including closing proposals that were not unanimous (if you limit yourself to only the unanimous ones, you can't help much at WP:RM). Anyway, I was called to task for that (though not for this one, and despite the fact that it's very common and uncontroversial for many other non-admins to do this as far as I can tell), and I've essentially stopped making potentially controversial decisions (and the WP:RM backlog grows).

The incident related to my behavior which PMA is questioning here is from five months ago and was not even questioned until the last day or so. The incident related to PMA's behavior that I'm questioning here is from less than five hours ago.

By the way, I have explained in more detail how and why I made that closing decision five months ago here. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

For information, I've opened a new discussion at Talk:Juan Carlos I of Spain about what the article should be titled. <moan>It seems always to be me who ends up starting the discussion process after disruptive behaviour, never the disruptive users themselves</moan>--Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The August 2010 RM, should've been closed by an administrator. Though I supported having the page moved to Juan Carlos I (back in August 2010), I still object to the RM ruling & subsiquent move. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have complained to Born2cycle a couple of times in recent weeks about his practice of moving articles to the title that matches his personal preferences, having "judged" the arguments subjectively rather than seeking consensus. I also see some inconsistency in his attitude to this move - compare with his comments at User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Peter_I_of_Russia where he agrees that controversial moves made without consensus should be reverted as soon as possible. Deb (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're conflating two different scenarios, Deb.

1. Potentially controversial moves that occur without going through WP:RM (like what we were discussing at User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Peter_I_of_Russia, and what PMA did here) are widely held to be inherently wrong (regardless of whether the move is "right" or "wrong") and need to be reverted quickly and swiftly. Then, if someone really wants to move it, they are encouraged to go through WP:RM as should have been done in the first place.
2. Decisions and moves that are made normally via the WP:RM process, but are questioned, including maybe because it was contentious and closed by a non-admin, are not inherently wrong and so should not be swiftly reverted but should be brought to the attention of admins, either at WT:RM or here at AN/I, so that an admin can review the closing and decide whether the decision was reasonable or not (and potentially reverse if not). This occurs at least a few times a year.

I believe my position on this has been consistent for years, if not forever, and I'm pretty sure it reflects the consensus of the community on how these matters should be handled.

If consensus has changed... that the rule about non-admins not closing contentious discussions should be strictly enforced, then, yes, I agree those kinds of moves should be swiftly reverted too. But as far as I can tell, non-admin closings of contentious discussions occur multiple times every day, and nobody seems to mind. It's not reasonable to have a consequence which treats these non-admin closings as being inherently wrong when the community does not generally treat them as being inherently wrong. That would be an inconsistency. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Two proposals

Withdrawn

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty much sick of these two editors appearing here over and over again for the same reasons, so I offer: Proposal #1 (withdrawn) User:Born2cycle is permanently banned from moving articles, and from participating in article move discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, including discussions about article titling guidelines or policies. He may, if he desires, make a single suggestion on an article talk page of a proposed move, but he may not add a requested move template to the talk page, and he may not participate in or close any move discussion that arises. This community ban may be appealed on WP:AN after 6 months. Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Comment - Huh? Did I do something wrong? --Born2cycle (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Support. B2C's flooding of dozens of discussions with the same arguments at extraordinary length is causing way too much disruption, and it's time to put a stop to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Seriously? Even if "flooding of dozens of discussions with the same arguments at extraordinary length is causing way too much disruption" did apply to my behavior, which I deny on several grounds, how is it disruptive (preventing people from editing articles)? And since when is staying out of edit wars and move wars and instead focusing on trying to achieve consensus through civil discourse on talk pages an offense at all, much less a sanctionable one? I thought that's what we're supposed to do? --Born2cycle (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC) As you have been repeatedly told by many editors, your flooding of discussions causes WP:TLDR problems and turns them in a long series of debates with you rather than proper multi-way discussions. If anyone is inclined to believe your claim that it doesn't apply to you, just look at how B2C has flooded this RFC with about as many posts as all 50 other RFC participants put together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose - B2C's move-discussion arguments may be a bit tiring, but this AN/I report appears to be made in good faith and trying to WP:BOOMERANG it back to B2C for something done in August seems a bit disproportionate. As best I can tell, B2C did the right thing here: report the problem rather than join in the move-warring. 28bytes (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose Born2Cycle, like PMA, is a valuable contributor to the RM process, one who contributes intelligently if idiosyncratically. A ban on moving articles would be justified only by a pattern of habitual disruption; but as far as I can see his sin was not knowing the RM admin-preference custom ... 5 months ago. Punishing either of these users is not desirable at this stage, and think this poll is a distraction from finding a solution to the Juan Carlos problem. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose It appears that B2C is to be banned from participation in move discussions for the sin of being persistent. It certainly can't be for incivility or even for acting outside consensus. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose, B2C will no doubt take note of the advice given here about flooding discussions, other than that there doesn't seem to be any current problem with this user.--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Support - The editor is on a crusade, and crusades are not appropriate in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Opposse - B2C meant well. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose - too strict. Something more limited would be better. After all, his original point here, about PMA's non-consensus move, was valid. Someone else want to try to craft a #4?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Pretty much the only thing Born2cycle does these days is contribute to article move discussions, so his activities would be extremely restricted. I wish he would be more constructive, but I wouldn't want to force him into writing articles. Deb (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose for now, with the hope that the user will take to heart the concerns about flooding discussions and badgering opponents to his article naming campaigns.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Proposal #2 (withdrawn) User:Pmanderson is permanently banned from moving articles, and from participating in article move discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, including discussions about article titling guidelines or policies. He may, if he desires, make a single suggestion on an article talk page of a proposed move, but he may not add a requested move template to the talk page, and he may not participate in or close any move discussion that arises. This community ban may be appealed on WP:AN after 6 months. Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Partial support. PMA's move was unwise. However, unlike B2C, PMA does not flood or overwhelm discussions, so should not be banned from that. IF PMA is restricted to the discussion pages rather than to performing moves, I don't see a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose I repeat my comments on Proposal 1. PMA's problem is that he loses his temper more easily than he should, but he is a valuable contributor to RM discussions and gagging him would be bad for the process and Wikipedia. And I say that as someone who disagrees with him frequently. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose - it's not PMA's discussion of moves that's the issue here, it's unilateral moves themselves. If he agrees to takes a move he wants to do to RM and discuss it, that would seem to solve the problem, no? 28bytes (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose I don't see any reason to stop PMA participating in RM discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose, per Deacon (and as someone else who disagrees with him frequently).--Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose, ain't nothing wrong with passion. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose, no particular reason I see to ban him from the discussions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Proposal #1 and 2 above clearly did not represent the general feelings of the community, so I withdraw both of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposals

Proposal #3 withdrawn

Proposal #3 — withdrawn in favor of Proposal #6, below User:Pmanderson is banned from moving articles and from closing any move discussions. He is, however, welcome to propose moves and add requested move templates to the talk page, and he is welcome to participate in any move discussions to make his case why moves should or should not be done. Comment as proposer: I don't know if this is the right solution, but IMO it seems to get closer to the issue at hand here. 28bytes (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC) If anything, this would indeed seem to address the actual problem at hand, though I would add "when knowingly controversial" or something like that, so as not to get in the way of normal useful behaviour.--Kotniski (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC) With that condition added, it sounds fair. Even if I think Pmanderson is "right" in his moves, he shouldn't do it without something resembling consensus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose, I don't view Pmanderson as disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I have never closed a move discussion - and would not do so unless there was an enormous backlog and unanimous consent that a page be moved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #4

WP:NCROY is marked as deprecated or failed proposal, as it clearly doesn't have anything resembling site-wide consensus, and appears to be a platform from which move-wars are regularly launched.

• Support as proposer. *** Crotalus *** 15:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per the growing inconsistancies of monarchial article titles. There was a time when we had'em all nice & neat under Monarch # of country. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The exceptions are clearly delineated, despite the amount of argument they entail, and we need something of the sort to get consistency for historical names.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It isn't a proposal; it has been a guideline for four years - probably longer - and it has been our practice for much longer; I believe the distinction between policy and guideline is younger than this page. The convention has evolved to cover a complex area of article naming; those who would simplify it either to establish an artificial consistency or to have no consistency at all have always rebutted each other. This is the middle ground. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek of Vulcan. There are many possible approaches to naming this sort of article, and the guideline provides stability for thr bast majority of articles within its scope. --17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally. If there is a desire to change or deprecate a guideline, it must be done through discussion on that guideline's talk page, not through a discussion of a limited number of admins on ANI. Resolute 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's useful, particularly for new users, to have some guidance with the aim of achieving consistency - but maybe the conventions ought to be frozen for a while to give us all a chance to recover. Deb (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: a necessary naming convention for a field with confusing naming options. Also, this is the wrong venue to make the decision.   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #5

That Born2Cycle be admonished not to close move requests made through WP:RM. This is slightly more restrictive than most non-admins; but since he has been

• closing move requests without noting that he is a non-admin - and this discussion shows this has led to some people assuming that he has made an admin close
• closing move requests without consensus
• closing them on issues on which he has a strong POV, in accordance with his POV. Admins should not close issues in which they are involved; why should non-admins?

this seems reasonable and minimal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. If he has stopped doing this, so much the better. if not, it's time to stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as only administrators should close & make rulings on RMs. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That's goes against what Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions says. I agree that this particular close probably wasn't suitable for a non-admin but non-admins have always been allowed to close certain RMs so it seems perverse to penalise someone on the grounds you give. Dpmuk (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have been told in the past that there is no need to note that you are a non-admin when closing a requested move and indeed there is nothing that says you have to at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Therefore I think your first point is unfair. No comment on the rest. Dpmuk (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Most non-admins do, however, say Non-admin close; it may not be necessary, but it will save a reviewing admin trouble. Non-admins should be free to close requests where there is no doubt of consensus - and no admin action is required. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Well I haven't been saying NAC since this comment on my talk page and because of what it says in the instructions (when I have been pushing the boundaries a bit, and only a bit, recently to help clear the backlog I've made it clear in the edit summary that I was a non-admin). It has also become accepted practice for non-admins to use G6 if necessary after an uncontroversial close (many more admins seem willing to do a G6 than close a RM so this speeds things along). I'd agree that non-admins shouldn't be closing anything that requires more complex action than a G6. Dpmuk (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
        • • The point is only really important in conjunction with the other two problems. If everybody who looked at B2C's closes had said, "Yes, of course, anybody would do that; it's obviously consensus", we wouldn't be here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
            • That's a standard nobody can meet. Many RM closes can go either way, and the outcome often depends on who closes it and how they decide it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Which is exactly why someone with strong opinions[19] on article naming should not close them.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose In most, if not all RM closers, there are hurt feelings. It doesn't matter if the user closing is an Admin or not. Singling out Born2Cycle because he makes many RM closings, that many admins are not willing to do, is a bit much. He should be rewarded not admonished. I have suggested in the past, that there should be a non admin privilege, similar to Rollback, that allows non admins to close RM discussions. This way, not every non-admin can close an RM, and closings can be monitored more easily, and the tool taken away for abuse, like Rollback privileges.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue with Born2Cycle isn't just that he isn't an admin, but that he strongly opposes naming conventions that don't strictly follow the common name principle. He is not a neutral party. Both of the royalty article moves he made in contradiction to the royalty naming convention.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He may very well have had a conflict of interest on these closures, but that is why I propossed to have Non Admin closures as a privalege, same as Rollback, rather than something any non admin can do on their own.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requested moves says "Non-administrators should restrict themselves to: Unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days)." Has B2C been closing discussions contrary to that? 28bytes (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. See Talk:Juan Carlos I of Spain#Requested move (August 2010) and Talk:Queen_Victoria#Requested_move, the two other people have have noticed. How many more there are I don't know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- he has been closing discussions that were borderline enough to make admin closes preferable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: a partisan should not be closing move discussions. The user is not a neutral observer in page name disputes.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm curious... Will, do you believe this rule, "a partisan should not be closing move discussions", applies only to me, or also to all the partisans who have voted in support of this proposal so far?

    Also, please remember that everybody has a bias... the issue is whether that bias is put aside in making decisions from an NPOV. When was the last time you think I made a non-NPOV decision in an RM discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Giving a view in an ANI thread does not make one a partisan.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose a formal ban but would suggest that B2C consider voluntarily excusing himself from closing RM discussions on topics where his strong views on naming (which I share in general) are well known. Not only should closers be fair, they should be seen to be fair. However well B2C interprets consensus, his known and entirely legitimate POV will mean that a significant grouping of editors will feel, fairly or otherwise, that the decision has been prejudged. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #6

As I see it, there are two problems here:

1. The initial NAC close of the Juan Carlos I move discussion by User:Born2cycle, which was a poor decision since Wikipedia:Requested moves (which B2C is no doubt familiar with, having edited it himself on occasion) specifically advises non-admins against closing discussions that are contentious.
2. The unilateral subsequent page move by User:Pmanderson, when he knew there was serious contention about the title.

To avoid problems of this nature in the future, I propose:

1. Born2Cycle be advised not to close any move requests, and
2. Pmanderson be advised not to make any unilateral page moves unless the move is clearly non-controversial and has not been subject to any debate in the past. He is advised to take all but the most obviously non-controversial move proposals to WP:RM for broader discussion.

• Support, as proposer. 28bytes (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Whatever my action may have been, it wasn't unilateral; I knew there was a problem because there were loud complaints at WT:NCROY, and I found more on the talk page. I restored the status quo after other people objected to the move; isn't that proper when the propriety of a move is plausibly disputed and there is no consensus? If somebody can see consensus or make one, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There are often complaints about moves - those are not excuses to justify the unilateral decision to move it back. Complaining about a move is not the same as supporting an immediate revert. The proper course in egregious cases of improper moves is to take it to an admin or file an AN/I, as I did here, or request it be moved back as uncontroversial at WP:RM (though that usually applies to only recent improper moves). Starting a move war is not the right answer. When questioning a decision/move that went through WP:RM, the proper course is to ask another admin to review the decision, not to unilaterally decide to revert it yourself. If an admin agrees the decision was improper, then the admin will revert it. But you know all this, yet you reverted anyway. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Although WP:RM specifically advises that non-admins should not close discussions that are contentious, that is not common practice. In these days of a large WP:RM backlog, it is common practice for non-admins who are knowledgeable and experienced with naming policy and the RM process to close all kinds of discussions, including relatively contentious ones. It is unfair to single out one of those non-admins for engaging in behavior five months ago that the community largely considers acceptable despite what WP:RM states.

  PMA has been advised to not make unilateral moves before. He continues to do it, as long as he feels it's justified, and continues to defend it. See above. These are empty words. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Go to RFCU or pretty much anyplace else

Good gravy. If the solution to a problem requires a poll with six options, ANI is not the venue of choice. Please move this to a more appropriate venue or seek actual dispute resolution. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone please look past all the disruption above about an incident from 5 months ago and address the incident in question (from yesterday), please? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It was. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Implement the community sanction for which there is already consensus

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names#Proposed community restriction concerning Pmanderson, there is a community sanction proposed by me which I believe has community consensus for implementation. It looks like it was forgotten about after being split to a subpage, but just needs an administrator to evaluate and close the discussion, and to note the sanction at WP:GS.  Sandstein  00:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that Sandstein's proposal had consensus, but perhaps was forgotten, after being moved to an ANI subpage. Mathsci (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This proposal would have most definitely prevented this thread. It should be implimented—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't know how PMA even found himself at Juan Carlos I except to rip at his "opponent" (no history of him at that page -or- commenting on the previous threads he cited concerning it). Doc talk 08:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this thread has gone on too long; nobody reads all of it. As I said above, I got to the page from WT:NCGN#Juan Carlos I, the governing guideline, where there are vitriolic complaints about B2C's original move, as not consensus. I agreed - and I am one of the majority on the !vote now ongoing who agree with the guideline - so I replaced the article to the status quo pending either a determination by a neutral admin that there was consensus, or the formation of a new consensus. Under the same circumstances, I would have done so no matter who had moved it first (that the mover was not a neutral admin are two of the circumstances). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm dubious about whether you would have done the same if it wasn't me, but if so, that would be even worse. Consider the coincidentally similar situation that occurred at Talk:Ann Arbor a few days ago. A non-admin closed the discussion and moved when there was no indication of consensus support. In that case, unlike in mine, the mover who was not a neutral admin did not even leave an explanation, explaining how the arguments were weighed, or anything like that. What you're saying is you would have reverted it. That's wrong. I didn't. I brought it to the attention of admins to let them decide. And that was a "fresh" move, not one that had been stable for 5 months. I still wouldn't unilaterally reverse an action that was part of the WP:RM process, no matter how confident I was in it being blatantly wrong. I respect the process the community has established for these kinds of things. That's the difference between you and most of the rest of the community, and what this is ultimately about. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see unanimity at Talk;Ann Arbour; but it is much closer to consensus than either of your closures (especially if repetitions by the same editor are discounted). But this comes up against another circumstance; I agree with that closure, and reversing it on procedural grounds alone would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; it would not serve the encyclopedia. All are necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that the crucial difference for you about whether a unilateral reversal by a non-admin of a closure is justified is whether you happen to agree with it. That's the problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this would have prevented the current situation. I was seriously considering reverting the move of Juan Carlos I myself and was pleased that someone else did. The discussion at the article's talk page now does appear to vindicate (though it does not excuse) PMA's action. I also think that the dropping off of interest in the original proposal shows that there is less of a will to carry out these sanctions than might be thought from looking at the original discussion. I think that is partly because of the subsequent problematic actions of another user. Would Sandstein be prepared to repeat his proposal here and people can comment on whether they still think the action appropriate? (A simple "Yes" or "No" should suffice.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)

The discussion has already taken place at length here on ANI. The result is clear; it just needs to be implemented.  Sandstein  17:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest what all this shows is how many do not apply the NPOV principle to these issues of internal strife. A lot of people obviously feel animosity towards me due because they disagree with me on issues involving article titles and how vocal I am, and seem frustrated that they can't "punish me" by any legitimate mechanism, so try to get away with as much punishment as possible, perhaps subconsciously, any chance they get. And when I make a non-admin move, about the only blemish in my record (never mind that non-admin closes of contentious RM discussions are generally treated as acceptable by the community despite what WP:RM states), that's a chance, even if it was five months ago (they'll take what they can get). To see if PMA's behavior is being judged neutrally here, I suggest the following questions be considered:

• If, back in August, someone besides me, anyone but me, had made the same closing decision I had (it's not as idiosyncratic as some seem to imply - there have been countless RM decisions made by deciding consensus by quality of argument rather than raw vote count of those participating when raw vote count is a majority but not a big one), and, PMA would have reversed it the way he did five months later, and someone besides me filed this ANI, would there be any difference in how this discussion would be going? If so, why would that matter in deciding whether PMA's move was justified and whether it should be reverted and he sanctioned?
• Would there be any difference in how the current voting at Talk:Juan Carlos I is going?
• Would PMA have even made that revert if it wasn't me who had made that original decision?
• Let's be honest, and I'm not the first to even suggest this. Didn't PMA do this revert precisely in order to take a swipe at me rather than improving the encyclopedia? Isn't that what this is really all about? If he did it in order to take a swipe at anyone other than me would his action be judged any differently? If so, is that okay? It's okay to take a swipe at me because you can't "get me" for anything else? Really? Is this Wikipedia or junior high?

Does anyone believe these people are even trying to be neutral here? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

B2C, you have consistently taken a highly partisan view on naming issues. That's your privelige, but when your main activity is campaigning for a particular approach to naming, it is complete nonsense for you to claim that your own weighing of arguments in an RM discussion is neutral or uninvolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you're serious or just trying to bait me, but I'm taking this seriously. And thank you for recognizing the consistency in the positions I take. I try to reach all positions I take about naming by following logical paths from the underlying principles outlined at WP:TITLE; that's why they're consistent. If you're talking about the party of principle, yeah, I'm partisan.

First, the conflict of interest rule only restricts us from closing discussions that we've participated in. I had not participated in that discussion prior to my evaluation and closure. Extending that rule to argue that someone with a strong opinion about naming should be restricted from making such decisions arguably has some merit, but I suggest that consensus for new rules needs to be established before they are enforced, and certainly should not be enforced if they are established five months after the incident in question. As far as I know consensus for such a rule has not been established. If you know otherwise, please let me know.

Second, we're all biased and it's challenging to put our biases aside in these situations to make neutral decisions (for example, the challenges you're having in trying to be neutral here, if you're actually trying, are quite obvious, as demonstrated by your ignoring the questions and issues I just raised about you and others not being neutral here with respect to evaluating PMA's behavior, and instead shifting to the question of my neutrality at the decision 5 months ago), but I believe I did that reasonably well in that case, within tolerances generally accepted by the community, though I acknowledge it's not ultimately up to me to decide.

Third, whether that or any other closing RM decision was unjustified due to any reason including bias from the closing non-admin is a question that an admin should consider when reviewing the decision. It is not a decision for another biased partisan like PMA, you, Bugs, GoodDay, or Deb to make, five months later, to justify an RM-avoiding revert based on that decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How am I biased? I'm a republican who doesn't push his polticial PoV on monarchial articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Biased?" Funny stuff, coming from a user who's on an agenda he acknowledges will go on for years, and which is of no value whatsoever to the wikipedia readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't think he or she is biased is making my point.

I don't deny my bias. Acute awareness of one's bias is required to be neutral. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can explain how I am "biased", you had best not make that comment again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be preferable to deny one's bias and not let it guide one's actions, than to proclaim it and act on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course. That should go without saying. But it's virtually impossible to not be influenced by bias of which you are unaware, or in denial about. The first step towards neutrality is awareness of bias. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And the second step is not to act on your bias where impartiality is required. On this matter, you are an advocate, not a judge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You and I disagree about whether my advocacy for adherence as much as reasonably possible to the principle naming criteria set forth at WP:TITLE makes it impossible for me to be an impartial judge, but the point is it's not a matter for either of us to decide. That's why the community has created rules against making unilateral moves when there is potential objection, a WP:RM process, users with administrative privileges, and mechanisms like AN/I. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You have yet to explain how some conformist "guideline" overrides common usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see: User:Born2cycle/FAQ#5._Please_explain_how_some_conformist_.22guideline.22_overrides_common_usage.. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For an example of a properly held & closed RM, check out the discussion at St. Louis Blues. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Another example (though B2C didn't do it) of an article RM being declared 'consensus to move' hastily & without consensus, is the article Ivan the Terrible being moved from Ivan IV of Russia. I'd hardly call a 4-2 support, a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Make that 5-2, (I am surprised I said nothing); probably still not consensus, but Ivan is one of the monarchs overwhelmingly known by nickname (to quote the guideline). But it can wait till next time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Incivility, trolling, etc

Shah 88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Shah 88 is posting trolling insults. "Indon" is an offensive and derogatory word for Indonesians, hence this is pure trolling. There are other references to "Indonesian barbarians", etc. I'm not aware of the full history but he's recently been the subject of a wikiquette alert. While i removed his placement of userboxes on article talk pages, I haven't been involved with him and these insults were directed at other not me (I'm often mistaken for an Indonesian on wikipedia). --Merbabu (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

PS - additional diffs. [20]], [[21]], and even in his [summaries|]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia_national_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=408566146%7Cedit summaries. He's been asked nicely to calm down. --Merbabu (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to ANI notice. --Merbabu (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've issued a 24 hour block. User:ErrantX has nominated the image for deletion on Commons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if the graphic had said "African-Americans are trash", the indef-hammer would have been brought down swiftly. 24 hours for such blatant racism/ethnicism is way too generous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, speaking of personal attacks, that's pretty insulting, Bugs. I don't typically hand out indef blocks to people who have clear block records after three years of editing unless a pattern is demonstrated. I'm sorry if you perceive me as being racist; certainly, I don't think I've ever done anything to support that view. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Thanks, Bugs, for clarifying. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: In no way did I intend to paint Moonriddengirl as racist. I hold the admin in high esteem. I merely argued that 24 hours seems too lenient for such outrageous ethnic bashing. Certainly the editor can be given a longer or indefinite block if such behavior is repeated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The user has stated very clearly as a Malaysian an attitude towards Indonesians and is not the slightest concerned that such an attitude does not fit with editing on Wikipedia - I would consider that sufficient room for sterner caution, regardless of whether the comments and behaviour was for one day, or only a few edits SatuSuro 14:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If the editor learns nothing from his block, he'll be back here, and with a longer block the next time. The editor can choose to be cooperative, or he can choose not to edit here any more. It's up to him at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, his continued use of the slur here is concerning. It was uploaded to Commons after his block here and after he received notice that his prior image had been nominated for deletion. SatuSuro, you're an admin on Commons; can anything be done about an image name that embeds such slurs? Can it be moved? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Between MRG and me, we've arrived at the conclusion that it depicts Malay fans stepping on a banner or scarf that says "Indonesia". Taken in isolation, it could be the same as a Red Sox fan stepping on a Yankees pennant. But is it strictly sports, or is it more than that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok so much chatter here and hes back as a sock User:Indog and in good form - sorry cannot answer about commons - will be back about 10 to 12 hours - way past my sleep time SatuSuro 15:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock and indeffed the name account. It's so blatant I'd be likely to wonder if it was an impersonator if it were not for the slur at File:Pijak mafla indon.jpg. That makes it look more like a colossal act of burning bridges. I'll see if a checkuser can identify a range, but a rangeblock may have unacceptable collateral damage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pijak_mafla_indon.jpg&action=delete - cheers SatuSuro 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(Having been invited here to check) It looks fairly  Unlikely that User:Indog and User:Shah 88 are related. The only commonality here is the same country. –MuZemike 18:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MuZemike. I've reset the block for 24 hours, and I'll leave another admin to decide what response to his unblock request is appropriate. It looks like somebody was trying to take advantage of this situation to give him the boot, unless it was somebody sharing his anger at the subject of harassment, but either way it was not Shah. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Could be a meatpuppet though. Said editor had previously tried to recruit another editor to his cause in order to circumvent 3RRR [22]. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Another account

This account which was blocked last week has a similarly offensive user name, the same modus operandi, similar targets, etc. Could a check user be performed to see whether there is technical evidence to back up the behavioural evidence. many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Might as well add the just-blocked User:Indon babu belanda to this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm looking at a rather busy IP range with other uninvolved editors who share similar user agents, but I am not seeing any proof that the IPs I am looking at are from a library, computer lab, etc. That being said, Shah 88 (talk · contribs) and Indon sial (talk · contribs) are  Likely, probably closer to  Confirmed when looking at the behaviors. Indon babu belanda (talk · contribs) is  Inconclusive, but that account was abusing an open proxy. –MuZemike 21:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And another

Further - 16:10 (21st) (User creation log) . . Naughtiestboy (talk | contribs) new user account

this user and their behaviour might need to be closer examined when we see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Naughtiestboy - Why choose those three pages to do that to if it isnt the same source? SatuSuro 09:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Indefblocked as vandalism only account. Keep 'em coming. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

New trolling by Shah 88...

I'm not going to respond on a troll's page, so I'm putting it here for the opinion of others. User:Shah 88 has now posted the flags of several separatist movements in Indonesia. Here Remember, Malaysian Shah has been goading an Indonesian editor. I'm not Indonesian, so it's not getting to me, but I (and obviously Shah) know how very sensitive the issue of separatism is to Indonesians, and in a way that westerners may not understand. For Indonesians, their unitary state is like an article of religious faith.

There was also this link he posted to a Malaysian Chinese editor alleging a lack of patriotism amongst Indian and Chinese Malaysians. diff and the actual link.

I haven't been involved with this editor until I commented here about his attacking of another editor (Gunkarta) I'm familiar with. And surprise surprise, right on cue, I'm also the target of the 2 or 3 offensive vandals that have sprung up wherever Shah goes.

So irrespective whoever these alleged Shah impersonators are, the Shah account itself clearly hasn't learnt much from their 24 hour block. --Merbabu (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

block request

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. Obvious troll is obvious. Fences&Windows 02:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiki Wikip Wikipe is a new vandalism-only account plastering AfDs on all sorts of pages. Please block. Schwede66 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The first nomination was correct; that article wasn't in English. HeyMid (contribs) 17:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The second is a major city.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I declined the AfDs as bad-faith nominations, but I don't think it's time to block quite yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on people, AGF only goes so far. New users who never attempted to edit Wikipedia before don't show up out of the blue and start nominating articles for AFD. This is obviously the sock of a disgruntled ex-Wikipedian. --Jayron32 19:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So why it's not blocked yet, it's a typical trolling account? Ibluffsocall (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Confirmed as the same person:

• Crouch, Swale (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipwedia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hamish Griffin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• FRGFDJ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• George Alfred Scott (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wiki Wikip Wikipe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Chestcrash GD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Groton Wood (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged all the confirmed socks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Southstudentxx

I am not sure if this is the right place but I found a bunch of accounts that were recently created that are adding reviews to book articles. They are all written as 8th graders. They appear to be a school project and all the accounts are User:Southstudentxx with the numbers 1-15 (so far) in place of the xx. ~~ GB fan ~~ 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

See if you can find the teacher account and direct them to Wikipedia:School and university projects and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination and Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors. These are not sock accounts and are perfectly legit, but it looks like they have a bit of a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. I wouldn't go blocking them per WP:BITE, but it would be much more fruitful to educate the teacher and let them instruct the students on how to do it "right" rather than to chase down each kid... --Jayron32 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to find the teacher account, but it is starting up again today. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please accept our apology - will look at the links. This is the misinformed teacher. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southstudent2 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No apology needed, at least as far as this random editor is concerned. It's fantastic you want to introduce your students to Wikipedia and teach them how to contribute. The only real issue is the nature of the contributions, as we're an encyclopedia and not a repository for book reviews of this type (see [[23]] for more information). The links above should point you to resources and advisers to help you integrate Wikipedia into your class. In addition, I wanted to point you at the Children's Books Wiki (suggested originally by User:Robina Fox), which appears to collect reviews of this sort for YA literature. I haven't examined that wiki in detail, so you'd need to check it out and see if their guidelines and practices fit in with what you're doing. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

New user neutrality board

I've gone ahead and set up Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/users (WP:NPOVNU). I've done this in response to concerns that we see all the time, namely that editors have no clear recourse for dealing with accounts that persistently and aggressively push a point of view in violation of NPOV, but who violate no other policies.

The point of the board should be as an alternative to a user RfC, or one step before it. In the case of users who don't realize they're perceived as regularly violating NPOV, the board could act as a gentle corrective, perhaps making further dispute resolution unnecessary. My thinking is that we could try it for an experimental period—say, six months—then decide whether it's worth keeping. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh lord, I fear there are more problems with that than its worth. Lets give it a try, may be my concerns are unfounded The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea at all, and have explained why (briefly) on the talk page. I'll see what others think before commenting further - I think debate is probably better conducted there than here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not opposed to this, yet. The issue should be handled at RFCU but that is almost never helpful. This alternative, maybe. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Why not? What's wrong with any idea that is an experimental alternative (apparently optional) step before our very first completely toothless step in DR? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin proposed this board in the middle [Later clarification: someone else's] (failed) WP:COIN which I believe was retaliatory against me for a Wikiquette complaint. The editor repeatedly has stated he wants me to stop editing certain articles, even though his POV is clearly very strong. So look for a battle of the edit diffs there! For this reason alone I think it should AfD until it is approved by the community.

The board has this tag, but does not link to the specific policy under which it was created so we can learn what that policy is. A search of the word “trial” was not helpful. Please direct us to the appropriate spot here and in the template. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, Carol, what you posted above was misleading, because it implies I brought a complaint to COIN against you. I commented on COIN that a neutrality board might be a good idea, but nothing more. The board idea is not connected to you or any other user. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

{insert reply} I corrected the unintended confusion to make it clear that another editor (whose WP:ANI against me had already failed) originated the WP:COIN where I first saw your proposal. You have not stated that you brought the proposal up anywhere else before proposing it there and creating it within 24 hours or so. You still haven't made clear exactly under what guidelines this board was originated. It sure sounds like anyone can start a noticeboard and I got a very narrow and specific one I'd like to start. :-)

It should be noted that in May 2009 SlimVirgin more formally proposed the rather similar Wikipedia:Neutrality_enforcement - to be applied to the Israel-Palestine issue. The proposal failed with a red X. So maybe it's easier to just do the proposal and ignore the screaming from other editors later. I'm just waiting for someone who wasn't under attack when it was created to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miscellaneous it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out that there appears to be a serious problem with this, as has just been noted on the 'neutrality board' talk page: this 'noticeboard' is proposing to implement a policy that doesn't as yet exist. It appears to be based on the assumption that someone working within Wikipedia policy can still be 'tried' for 'non-neutrality'. This runs counter to basic Wikipedia norms as I understand it, which suggests that the content not the contributor should be the concern. Unless and until Wikipedia policy is changed to reflect this (which I would oppose most strongly), this 'board' has no justification to start touting for business, and has about as much credibility as a recent attempt at a 'talk page straw poll' kangeroo court (which incidentally seemed to be involving some of the same issues, if not necessarily the same people). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That template was thoroughly misleading, it gave the impression that board had some kind of weight or recognition in policy. I've replaced it with a {{proposal}} template. Fences&Windows 01:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Now to the content - what is this for? We already have venues for dealing with neutrality. SlimVirgin seems to be getting ahead of herself. Fences&Windows 01:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add that template, and I don't mind which template is used. There's a discussion about the board at WT:NPOVNU. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops that was my bungle, open to trout. No intent to mislead any one The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Need more noticeboards discussion

Yes, we're badly in need of more noticeboards. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I lolled. I admit it. un☯mi 05:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right; I suggest Wikipedia:Creation and maintenance of noticeboards/noticeboard. Though really we might just need a noticeboard per user; something like Wikipedia:Noticeboard/User:Example, Wikipedia:Noticeboard/User:AnotherExample etc. Maybe every time someone posts to that board, the relevant user could get an orange notification flash up when they log in... Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"It is the third worry—that Wikipedia has become ossified and bureaucratic, discouraging new users from contributing—that is the greatest cause for concern. In recent years its most active contributors have become obsessed with obscure questions of doctrine and have developed their own curious jargon to describe the editing process." The Economist, 13 January 2011. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

True that. I've wondered sometimes whether it would be helpful for newbies in particular to have just one obvious place to go for help with absolutely anything, instead of being forced to navigate the morass of possible places, and in the process having to squeeze their concern into one of a number of well-defined boxes, where the options make great sense to experienced Wikipedians but probably rather less to newcomers. Wikipedia:Grand Central, perhaps, would either resolve the issue immediately if it's trivial, or else move it to the right place. Either way, it would include a note on the best place to go in future. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I quite like the "Grand Central" idea. An anything goes (as long as it's about Wikipedia) discussion page. New editors would be encouraged to go there with questions and queries. An effort should be made to keep things civil and friendly, perhaps any flame wars that develop could be encouraged to move on elsewhere. I'm aware we have similar pages, such as the Village Pump, but these don't serve the same purpose in my mind. Rehevkor ✉ 18:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone's going to point out the existence of Wikipedia:New contributors' help page and Wikipedia:Help Desk, so it may as well be me... those pages, for me, focus on more practical/technical/basic issues, and are already busy enough. Grand Central would focus more on all the other stuff - "what do I do about..." content and behavioural issues of all types. I'm also wondering if there couldn't be some clever way to set something like that up so that it wouldn't be a single, really busy, hard-to-edit page (like ANI, only maybe worse). Perhaps something involving transclusions from user talk pages or subpages. Rd232 ^talk 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

At least you left Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests for me to point out. :) Franamax (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical gizmos like new noticeboards can't possibly fix this problem, which stems from more ingrained aspects of the editing policies, resulting in a general sourpuss attitude among the regular users. If you really want to do something about the problem, the first place to start is delete all the user-talk page templates. Look for "Weiterbewegung" in the ANI archives from a few weeks ago for why this is necessary. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's now Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard

Now with 4 for and 4 against, SlimVirgin has decided it's been "Consensed" to call it the Advocacy/Noticeboard. The name change being the only thing with any thing like that kind of support. Oi! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally think that experiments are a good way to go, but I'm really not sold on the concept for this board. To the extent that it's useful, it duplicates COIN and NPOVN. Beyond that, it's just another parent to whinge to about "inconvenient" editors—you know, those editors some people would like to evict from certain articles because the sources are on their side and thus they "win" an "unfair" share of content disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Having a noticeboard as a subpage of an essay is a bit strange. What is the main topic of this noticeboard? If it is neutral point of view then it should be a subpage of that policy. If it is "advocacy" we should strengthen commmunity consensus on the advocacy page (at least rework it and get it up to guideline status) before creating the "advocacy noticeboard". I think this latter idea would be a good goal to push towards. ThemFromSpace 08:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"What is the main topic of this noticeboard?" It appears to be Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) 212.183.140.51 (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Something fishy on Pelican State beach

Without intending to be insulting to the uploader, File:26 pelican.JPG is one of a series of not very good images of a man on a beach and I would not use it to illustrate any subject. The file was uploaded to Commons today. Geographically unrelated IPs have been adding the image to various articles, which seems, well, odd. The IPs that I've noted so far are 75.212.88.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 75.87.252.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 80.178.14.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 205.143.67.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). If anyone wants to do some digging, the image is also used on the French-, German-, and Spanish-language Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I would have offset the man a bit more to give prominence to the horizon but IMO it looks kinda nice. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems harmless enough. If DC is concerned, the best bet might be to take it to a discussion page on Commons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Photographs of places which contain a person as a prominent subject is a related discussion. The uploader in that case is different, but the issue is the same: deliberately adding images posed to feature this one individual without clearly identifying him in many articles on California beaches. Bugs, I disagree that Commons is the place to discuss this - as far as Commons would be concerned, they are properly licensed images that could be useful. The issue is that they have been uploaded precisely to saturate many articles here with the what is recognizably the same person. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was the quality of the photo that was at issue, and which could be discussed at commons. While it's true there's a guy in the photo, I downloaded it and blew it up and he's not identifiable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, the biggest issue is the saturation-bombing of one person's appearance in a large number of articles. The middling quality of the images is also an issue, but it is a much smaller one. I uploaded cropped versions of the previous uploader's images, but I'm not going to have free time to do that for these for a while; eventually, I will end up doing that, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding another one: 89.204.153.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Having read through the thread Gavia immer pointed out, it is clear that Commons users Albianmoonlight and Sfcamerawork are one and the same. I don't think we need someone using sockpuppets to spam Wikipedia with their amateur photos - I mean, we've got Shankbone for that... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny. But I must ask, since I'm an ignoranimous: What rule are these photos violating? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not know that they are breaking any rules, per se, but the addition of the same poor quality image to many articles runs contrary to the guidance of WP:IMAGE. Don't you find it odd that IPs seemingly originating in different countries are all interested in the same image? What about the sockpuppetry on Commons? I have worked out what's going on here, but in the interest of WP:BEANS, this is a possible vandal tactic - add the same innocuous Commons image to many articles on several different wikis and then change it to something like File:Virgin Killer.jpg. That is not the case here, but when something abnormal like this is brought up, one should probably look a little deeper than wondering which rules are being broken. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is apparently related to a gallery in San Francisco. Perhaps someone from the WMF could walk over and ask them to cut it out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, and I would certainly like to see an admin comment on this situation before this discussion disappears, as it's not clear what course of action should be taken, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I started a sockpuppetry case, since this shows no signs of stopping. Any Commons admins want to weigh in on what can be done about this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope it's not bad that I've removed this image from the other language projects. Particularly their placements at the top of other language versions of Solitude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). And it is highly likely that this image will ever be deleted off of the Commons unless it can be proven that the image isn't actually in the public domain.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bigboysssssss

I'd like some input/review on whether I am dealing with Bigboysssssss (talk · contribs)'s edits of his own user page and of Talk:Rape properly. The user is claiming that the edits were not improper (or, at least, not vandalism). I disagree, but I'd like someone else to look at the situation as well. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• The only way to apply good faith to this user's edits is to assume they are burdened with twisted social norms. Looks trollish to me. I don't see a long WP career in their future. Tiderolls 10:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • After looking at the deleted dif I would have to say he's here for "trollz and lulz". The intent of the post IMHO was to generate classic usenet style "flames". (groups like talk.feminism use to be full of crap like that) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Aside from the editor's claimed connection with File:Charaandlouise.jpg, isn't there a rule about not uploading photos of non-notable alleged friends? He also said something about "shagging" those stunning babes. They don't look to me like they need any carpeting, but ya never know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to flat out ask. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • It's a a dance, BB... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Just as they nowadays say about Rock and Roll: it's music. -14:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• The edit to Talk:Rape was straight vandalism. The rest of the edits are totally unconstructive, and unrelated to contributing to the encyclopaedia. I shall give a message to the user explaining what Wikipedia is and is not, and see how it goes from there. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I see that I was too late: the account has been indefinitely blocked while I was writing that. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Also indef'd on commons, for "abusing multiple accounts". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. What do i want to... (talk · contribs) and Bigboysssssss (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed here on en.wiki. Also,  IP blocked. –MuZemike 01:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin Fainites intervention

After a discussion I had with administrator Fainites on his talk page regarding his decitions, I had come to a conclusion that reporting the incident here would be more appropriate. Resumingly, Fanites has intervened in a situation where he ended up severily punishing one side and providing support and protection to a continuos disruptive behavior by another user.

• It all begin on January 8th, when Faintes blocked User:Слободни умјетник for reverting 3 times (logical block, here), but fails to block User:DIREKTOR that made a total of 7 reverts in those same 24 hours. (see: revision history of Yugoslav Front)
• In the following days discussions took place on article´s talk page, and several other users and a bot edit the article (all minor edits). User Слободни умјетник makes a first edit (after block) on January 15th where he simply corrects the articles translation to another language, and is followed by DIREKTOR´s reverting of him, 3 other editors and a bot. Next, Слободни умјетник reverted direktor´s reverting, and direktor reverted Слободни умјетник. At the end, Слободни умјетник end´s up blocked by Fainites for a week, and direktor has his version protected.
• Also, and during the time discussions took place, Слободни умјетник has civily participated, but direktor has been in the meantime canvassing as seen here, further edit-warring on other related articles, as seen here, phalsely acusing other users of socking (here and here), even after a clear indication by Fainites not to phalsly acuse of socking, as seen here, joining several coments with clear ethnic provocation donne in several ocasions on the discussions on article´s talk page.

Resumingly, how can User:Слободни умјетник be blocked for a week for one "revert of a revert", and User:DIREKTOR is not blocked and his version protected after edit-warring several users 9 times on that article, 5 times on a related one, phalsely and purpously acusing of socking even after his attention being called for this, canvassing, and exploring ethnical prejudice in several ocasions? Anyway, all this is well explained in a conversation I had with Fainites on his talk page: User talk:Fainites#Article_protection. FkpCascais (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any complaint against Fainites personally, from reading that discussion he seems to have been very patient in explaining his decision to you. You are asking AN/I to review whether Fainites was correct in his underlying decision, rather than alleging personal misconduct in his admin capacity, am I correct?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean the explanation how this edit is "editing the infobox" (and woth a week long block) while all others done by direktor are acceptable? He has been patient, but he has failed to explain it. He has also failed to correct the situation, so it may be considered personal missconduct and admin abuse, specially if we have in mind how a new editor receved such a hard punishment thus indirectly being disencouraged to edit further, and a problematic and disrupting editor receved protection. FkpCascais (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

For background - this and this is how it started. I don't have much to add to what is on my talkpage. I blocked Слободни умјетник the second time because, after I had stopped the earlier edit-war about the info box and helped along a discussion on the Yugoslav Front talkpage about the infobox in which all parties have joined, Слободни умјетник chose to change the info-box again, before the discussions had reached a satisfactory conclusion. DIREKTOR and Fkp are at least seriously discussing the issue and making proposals. I appreciate that I was concentrating on the infobox war and other edits have been reverted as collateral damage as it were. However, in the circumstances the continuation of the edit war over where the Chetniks go in the infobox seemed particularly egregious to me.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fkp does not fully understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:BRD). User:FkpCascais feels that he should be allowed to team-up with a pal and game the system by using WP:3RR to push any edit they like. What we're seeing is essentially rage at being thwarted in the attempt.

Edit-warring is NOT a means by which we achieve article changes, Fkp. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, an ANI complaint about User:DIREKTOR - it really is 2011 in Wikiland. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not against direktor, but against admins that tolerate and protect his disruption. You also had a similar one last year, didn´t you Less? FkpCascais (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And no Fainites, Слободни умјетник did not "changed the infobox", he only did two edits, one simple edit (first edit) and a revert (second edit) an from what I understand you want to show the second edit (the reverting of direktors reverting of several users) as "editing the infobox". FkpCascais (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On first inspection, as an uninvolved admin, it appears that Direktor hasn't done anything wrong here. Everyone pushed a little hard by our usual standards, but Слободни умјетник pushed the hardest and the only person to clearly pass the line by which I'd sanction someone.

The WP:ARBMAC arbitration case sanctions could allow us to be more interventionistic here and sanction all of you, technically, but I don't know what that would prove. It wouldn't be preventive - Direktor and FkpCascais seem both to be doing about the right thing now on content / actual edits fronts.

I think this was a good call by Fainites. If it wasn't, then you need to convince us with a better history including diffs; having stepped through all the disputed edits on the article, but without extensive context and references review, I conclude that it appears that he acted properly. If you think he didn't, you have somewhat of a burden of proof to demonstrate so in detail. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The diffs are well provided. The story is quite clear. Direktor by doing 7 reverts in less than 24 hours, further reverts in other related articles, canvassing and making phalse acusations of socking has donne nothing wrong? And Fainites blocked another user for "editing the infobox" when he didn´t edited the infobox? Strange... FkpCascais (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes he did edit the infobox again in the middle of discussions Fkp. You did first on the 10th and I reverted you. And yes - I could have blocked all 3 of you for edit-warring earlier but you and DIREKTOR stopped, apologised and were discussing constructively. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, looking at what you've provided you haven't proven your case. Unless there are some other diffs you can provide, I think this should be marked as resolved. AniMate 09:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No Fainites, that is NOT "editing the infobox" as all here can see, but reverting. Anyway, if you consider that edit to be "editing the infobox", so should be considered the previous one from Direktor, here. AniMate, again doing the best to close a thread where direktor is in question. FkpCascais (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Meatpuppet" witch hunt on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

I'm concerned with what appears to be an ongoing assumption of bad faith on the WikiProject Automobiles discussion page and related areas. Background: User:OSX started several simultaneous merger discussions which proposed that articles on hybrid and electric cars should be merged into the corresponding articles on their non-hybrid counterparts. Someone opposed to these mergers notified Autoblog Green, which published an article discussing the issue from the anti-merger POV. Note that the Autoblog Green article does not tell new users to join, though it does say "head over to Wikipedia and contribute if you've got some clout there." (Note that this appears to be attempting to elicit wider participation from established users.)

The pro-merge faction on WP:AUTO was not at all happy about this. One pro-mergist claimed that another specific Wikipedia user was the source for the Autoblog Green article. OSX then retaliated by opening a sockpuppet investigation and openly accusing the user of a "rock-bottom meat puppetry attempt". He then unilaterally removed the comments of everyone who, in his opinion, had been "canvassed." I am not aware of any precedent for this (unless known banned users are involved), so I have reverted that change. Note that one of the alleged "meatpuppets," User:Cazort, has an edit history going back to June 2009 and covering a wide variety of subjects.

I find all this highly problematic. It stinks of article ownership — the impression is that WP:AUTO would prefer that "outsiders" not comment on its discussions. That isn't how Wikipedia works; everyone has a right to participate. I'm posting here to see whether it's possible to generate consensus on which of the actions taken during this incident, if any, were inappropriate, and what if anything should be done about it. *** Crotalus *** 16:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would not consider myself in the pro merge camp. I have opposed about half of the proposed mergers, but I still think that this email tip to a green car blog is highly problematic. As I have said before the fact that it was sent anonymously indicates that the sender knew what they were doing was inappropriate and wished to avoid scrutiny. The language is similar enough for me to be confident that it is Mariordo who has specifically avoided denying that he sent it. The publication of these blog posts has brought in a number of single purpose accounts all opposing merger, this is a problem when we are trying to develop a consensus. Debates should not be decided by who can drum up the most off Wiki support by emailing sympathetic blogs. --Leivick (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DR. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The blog is clearly inciting a case of meatpuppetry to affect the outcome of the merge discussion, which is completely unexceptionable. Probably the best course of action is to then place a not-a-vote notice at the top, tag all SPAs, and then allow an uninvolved editor to close the discussion after a couple of weeks. It's unfortunate that the blog did this, but it is something that can be worked through. —Farix (t | c) 18:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So it's unacceptable for third parties to comment on Wikipedia's article inclusion standards? Why? We're supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Does that only mean "anyone who is willing to spend hours mastering Wiki-jargon"? How many TLAs should people have to memorize before they're entitled to an opinion? If a substantial number of our readers think that having these as separate articles is a good idea, why not take that into account? We're not talking about unsourced fancruft here; these are major products that have been reviewed and discussed multiple times by reliable sources. Given that, whether to merge or not is a decision that should be made with our readership in mind. *** Crotalus *** 19:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is wrong to canvass for support for or against an issue, regardless of whether the canvassing occurred on or off Wikipedia. The solution I gave was a way to deal with the canvasing without bitting anyone in the process. —Farix (t | c) 20:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The original canvassing is from this site and the poster has photo of self in car at bottom of page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two ways to deal with this. One would be to react in a punitive fashion towards the new users and anyone who is thought to have brought them here. The other way would be to try to communicate with these new users, explaining to them how discussions are conducted here and what kind of arguments they might want to use or avoid if they want to influence consensus. Or is their input irrevocably tainted by having seen a "canvassing" page? *** Crotalus *** 19:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that these SPAs were canvassed means that their votes are, in all likelihood, not being made in a neutral manner. Because of this, the discussion has already been skewed and canvassed SPAs certainly do not represent consensus in Wikipedia. I almost think we should have a rule that you have to have a minimum number of edits to be able to participate in an AfD (so long as it isn't an AfD about a page you created). Silverseren^C 19:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is that these votes were acquired by canvassing a particular group who the canvasser thought would support their position. This creates are real problem. I don't have an issue with new voices, but I don't want debates skewed based on who can solicit the most people to come vote for their side. --Daniel 19:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment:Is that you, Leivick?---North wiki (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you ask? It is obviously me I just changed my sig, it still links my user page. --Daniel 05:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Silverseren's idea about a minimum edit count rule for AfD (500 edits?). I believe that it would help cut down on sockpuppetry there and compel those that are really determined to have to contribute to the Wiki in a positive way (something we don't get now).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think 500 might be a little high. 100 edits sounds like a good amount to me. That, at least, would show that you are unlikely to be an SPA. Silverseren^C 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out two things: one, this case isn't an AFD, it's a merge discussion; and two, this seems to have gotten off topic a bit. What should be done about these accounts with regards to this incident? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect discussions are really only one step removed from AfDs. We just don't have a specific system set up for them, that's all (beyond RfCs). Silverseren^C 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I believe this sort of thinking has been rejected before due to the fact that AFD's are not a vote. Admins are tasked to weigh the strength of arguements. As long as that still stands I can't see an arbitrary edit count bar being accepted.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's always been true that it is difficult for an admin to close opposite to what the majority of voters have stated. There have certainly been a number of cases where discussions were closed based on the votes themselves. Silverseren^C 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is getting a little OT. The discussion at WP:CAR is not an AfD nor is this the place to discuss changes to AfD policy. This issue is about off site canvassing. --Daniel 20:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment:Is that you, Leivick?---North wiki (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the consequences are for offsite canvassing, because it is difficult to prove outright, but at least four editors including myself are very confident that Mariordo is behind these deceptive acts of canvassing.

• At GreenAutoblog (archived version) the anonymous tipster writes, "I consult Wikipedia often and a few years ago did my bit in trying to upgrade the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid". Coincidently, Mariordo attempted to clean up the plug-in hybrid after beginning significant editing to that page in March 2009, which is a "few years ago" now. The anonymous tipster clearly wrote that they attempted to upgrade an existing article that at a point in the past was a featured article, but no longer is. No other editor has made significant edits to this article after 2009 besides Mariordo and the confirmed sock puppet Nopetro who has many similarities with Mariordo (not making any allegations here, just pointing out some similarities, of which many exist). On the topic of sock puppets, BenB4 was the editor who originally promoted the plug-in hybrid article to FA (it is now delisted). BenB4 is a confirmed sock puppet of Nrcprm2026. So we currently have two separate confirmed sets of sock puppets that have edited the same article extensively, and now another user (Mariordo), a user who has a history of completely disregarding WP:Canvass (see below). If these are the same users (again I am not making any allegations, just pointing out potential links), it is possible to come to the conclusion that sock puppetry was previously the preferred method of garnering increased support in discussions, and canvassing is now the preferred means of doing so. The editing patterns of all these users are very similar, and at least one of the confirmed group of sock puppets claimed that English was not their first language, and have a Spanish connection. Mariordo also claims that English is not his first language, and he too speaks Spanish as a first language. There are very few other editors with such a strong interest in hybrids and electric vehicles. Both Nopetro and Mac (also a sock puppet) have made significant edits to the same pages that Mariordo edits prior to his arrival at this project, for example flexible-fuel vehicle, which is one of Mariordo's good articles. There are others, but I need time to go through the contributions of all these editors for comparison.

• In the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger, Mariordo uses the obscure term "glider" no less than six times, and is used twice more by the anonymous tipster. No other editor has used that term in any discussion pertaining to these mergers. As pointed out to me by another user, this term was a favourite of Mac, a confirmed sock puppet.

• Other GreenAutoblog terminology and syntax used by the tipster is verbatim to Mariordo's, but not of other editors. For example, "environmental performance", "environmental and social impacts", "green fancruft", "contributing to reduce dependence on imported oil", "mainstream", et cetera. The argument that electric and hybrid-electric vehicles "reduce dependence on imported oil" has been an argument that has been exclusively pushed by Mariordo (there are about three separate references to this argument). None of the other opposing voters have used this argument, they have argued on different grounds.

• On GreenAutoblog, the tipster confuses the "Honda Accord Hybrid" for the "Toyota Accord Hybrid", and Mariordo made the exact same mistake here.

• The tipster also links to the exact discussions with hash tags linking to the exact section headings. Not that many people follow WikiProject discussions except editors of the encyclopaedia themselves. There is a very limited number of potential people who would have done this, and all other evidence points to Mariodo (especially the admission to making significant edits to the plug-in hybrid article).

• American spelling again points to an American author, and Mariordo claims to reside in the United States.

• Mariordo has a strong history of canvassing votes on Wikipedia in these discussions. During the Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid merger in mid-2010 he was warned about this. In the second proposal in late-2010 at Talk:Hyundai Elantra he again resorted to canvassing to gain an unfair advantage (soliciting only those who supported his view in the previous Camry discussion). Then in the current merger discussions he sneakily asked a couple of other users to join in. Since he now knows that he can't really get away with canvassing in the way he has done so before (I've always reported it), I suspect this off-site canvassing is the latest attempt of doing so.

Daniel, you mentioned on the WP:CARS talk page that you "could go deeper into [your] reasoning if needed" in regards to the reasons why you suspect the "anonymous friend" is Mariordo. Do you have anything further to add? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: OSX, I think it is important not to take those terms out of context. I'll take two quotes from the e-mail from 'anonymous' to AutoblogGreen: "those opposing the mergers argued that those vehicles are notable enough to have their stand alone articles (some of them had been available for years) and these cars feature environmental performance content not found in the regular parent article." "Reading through the long discussion is amazing, info related to the environmental and social impacts of automobiles is called green fancruft, ..." As far as I can read, apparently, the anonymous tipster used the term 'fancruff' as a quote of those editors agreeing merging various articles who littered the discussion using such term in a dismissive way. In my opinion, the tipster is not the one who would use such a term. I also think terms like "environmental performance", "environmental and social impacts" are quite popular among anyone who is concerned about the environment and regulatory side of the automotive industry. -North wiki (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised why there are no discussion about the clearly demonstrated assumption of bad faith exhibited by editor OSX and his "unilaterally removed the comments of everyone who, in his opinion, had been 'canvassed.' " and his repeated use of 'meat puppetry' in discussion page, which I think, shows disrespect and dismissive attitude, see here and here.---North wiki (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There nothing wrong with pointing out similarities with other users and making a case of "meat puppetry" if there is reason to suggest so. I have given a number of reasons to support my suspicions, and another three editors have openly spoken to me about theirs. I have reason to believe that Mariordo has engaged in meat puppetry, even though he has specifically denied doing so. What others have pointed out already, is that while Mariordo denies being the person behind the "WikiLeak", he is in full support of the leaker's actions. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Historically, removing potentially canvassed votes is not supported as a usual or usually tolerated response. OSX, while I agree that there's been canvassing, I believe that was not the right response.

Putting up a warning label on the discussion to provide context to canvassed contributors is normal. Asking closing admins to keep canvassing in mind is normal. Notes that particular contributors have few or no edits outside a particular thread ("This is a new user," etc) are normal.

I know where you were coming from, and agree there was a problem with canvassing based on the evidence so far, but the best practice here is to do those things, not remove them.

OSX - as a recommendation, to defuse the conflict here, I recommend that you restore any still deleted comments and take those other responsive actions I listed above.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, thanks for responding. I deleted the comments under the impression that it was okay, but since you've confirmed that things should be done differently, I will accept that. Another user already restored the comments yesterday. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 03:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the involved editors, and am quite disgusted with the way this entire process is turning out. The bad faith shown by a group of editors who believe that any merge of content is akin to anti-environmentalism is quite shocking. One of the users flushed out by the blog posting (High voltage41) has also posted vaguely menacing notes on mine and on another talkpage. I would welcome it if a few admins took a look at three or four of these merger discussions (they're not all about green cars, by the way - but no one else has resorted to this kind of behaviour to defend their interests) and then making an informed and unbiased decision which could set some sort of precedent. Then I could finally get back to useful editing.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

OSX opened yesterday a investigation here [24] accusing me ofWP:MEAT/Sockpuppet, so I do not believe necessary to defend myself all over again here. Just because it is pertinent to this discussion, please see here a sample of OSX bad faith, because there is no record of inappropriate canvassing by me as he asserted above, only in his mind. That formal canvassing accusation raised by OSX ended up in nothing: one admin explained that my behavior was within the policies, and another admin had to call your attention for making threats and a list of demands (not counting the votes of the alleged canvassing).

Finally the editor who opened this discussion raised the issue of the misbehavior of OSX and some other editors at WikiProject Automobile, and OSX moved the discussion towards the Meat puppetry process ongoing in another page. I believe dealing with the resulting canvassing from the blogs publications in this page is proper, and applaud the warning tagging done in on discussion section. Nevertheless, OSX managed to deflect the discussion in another direction, away from the alleged witch against the editors opposing the mergers and particularly against me. When that point is addressed I will be willing to provide all the diffs to show that OSX has effectively assumed a position of article/discussion ownership, has blanked edits contrary to his position in similar discussion, made threads of unilaterally disregarding other editors votes (so this is not the first time he does so - just check the second link I provided at the above), made retaliatory canvassing to compensate for my proper notifications to regular/main editors or the creators of the article being discussed, made plenty of uncivil and aggressive edits against me, and his blatant disregard of several wiki policies justifying his behavior in alleged wikiproject guidelines (which he does not understand do not supersede wiki policies), and even making up his own rules (i.e. he does not understands that consensus is not counting votes). Just let me know once the discussion returns to the main issue at hand to provide the evidence.--Mariordo (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariordo, I have not deflected any discussions at all. Any editor is welcome to propose a merger at any time. The mergers that I have targeted are based on what I feel will be the hardest to argue (hybrids and EVs), so I have proposed several at once and will continue to periodically suggest mergers of articles that I would like to see merged. Whether you like this or not is irrelevant, as many things happen here that I don't like. Since I initiated these merger discussions, the votes have been slowly falling the way of supporters. In my original discussions at WP:CARS, support sat at barely above 60 percent. Now just about every regular WP:CARS editor that has participated agrees that the pages should be merged, except in the cases that these are too long. Editors who opposed the Camry merger are now supporting other similar mergers. This probably frustrates you, but that is how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not really cater very well for niche interests as it is general-purpose website—specialty websites exist for the enjoyment of fans.

While I have heavily participated in these discussions, I don't "own" them. I really don't care what diffs you show (i.e. me removing the canvassed votes, which has already been dealt with). As has been noted before, blame-shifting and flatly denying sound evidence against you is nothing less than frustrating. The seriousness of your suspected off-site canvassing is a gross violation of what this community stands for, and I think you have lost a lot of respect as an editor.

I have also never said that consensus is counting votes. What I said was, "Not once in my time at Wikipedia have I seen a "no-consensus" declaration given to anything over 65/35." This not counting votes argument is just a convenient line for you to shout because opposition in general, far outweighs the support. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, you should pursue a dispute resolution. This is a well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another, which is what the disappointing off-site canvassing has achieved.

The evidence is extremely strong in pointing towards you. The anonymous tipster's language is identical to your style, but very different to the style possessed by the other opposers (of which there were only three, and these editors haven't been particularly active in these discussions). Other editors have suspected you and only you, so you can't ignore this. As mentioned above, you have been the only main contributor to the plug-in hybrid article in the last few years, and the tipster admitted to making recent large-scale edits to this page on GreenAutoblog. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this conversation is getting confused because Mariordo has not made a clear confirmation or denial of the allegations. Did you send this anonymous tip? If you did, why did you send it anonymously? If you didn't, why have you not made this clear earlier? We can dance around with accusations and evidence, but without a clear confirmation of your stance it really is largely a waste of time. It would go a long way to showing your good faith if you could clear this up. --Daniel 05:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A users repeated incivility towards other editors

Resolved

 – Blocked

The User:Onetonycousins has been blocked before (see here) for incivility towards other editors in his edit summaries. Despite this, he hasn't seemed to have learned to be civil. Recent examples include:

• Calling editors warnings/notices to him "usual nonsense." (see here)
• A personal attack at me in an edit summary (see here): "Way to ignore the explanation. Linking to that article is factually wrong. Nothing to do with your political bullsh*t, that's been resolved; you have your ROI. Now take your ignorance elsewhere." - this in response to me amending something to match an agreement made between other editors which he didn't even get involved in.
• The following edit summary (here) "Fixed page butchered by morons."
• Another edit summary tirade (see here): "Restored material deleted by antifootball man. Get a life, it's not wikipedia's fault that nobody gives a sh*t about gaelic games"

I believe a longer block than the previous 36 hour one should be imposed to try to get the message through to OneTonyCousins that such bad faith and snide personal attacks in his edit summaries aren't acceptable on Wikipedia. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe a visit to the local psychiatrist should be imposed to try to get the message through to Mabuska that behavioral tendencies such as stalking wikipedia users aren't acceptable and may be signs of emotional imbalance. Drop the unionism and give yoga a try for a few weeks, you might develop a sense of humor. Onetonycousins (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That comment was unusually offensive and insulting, no matter what this is all about otherwise. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I blocked Onetonycousins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 36 hours for similar incivility in October 2010. I am doubling the block to 72 hours this time.  Sandstein  18:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice call, Sandstein.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to state for the record for all to see - i didn't stalk you Onetonycousins, i was particpating in a discussion opened by Mooretwin on League of Ireland intros. We reached a consensus in the end that was verified by an admin (Rockpocket) and i went to implement it - you decided to revert it even after i pointed you to the discussion. Then you got offensive. Just because you have the page on your watchlist doesn't eqaute to me stalking you. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed his talkpage access, because he didn't quite get the concept of "blocked for harassment". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good call, Sarek. I imagine the next block will be of significantly longer length, after that little exchange. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Copying content from userspace

I'm not sure of any other place to put this, or even if this is reportable. A user, Edgars2007, who by the way appears to be a native speaker of Latvian, copied content from an unfinished user page of mine (which has now been finished and "published" to Wikipedia [probably not the right words, but oh well]) to a new page that he/she "created" - List of cricket grounds in New Zealand. The content that he/she published to the page was incomplete and contained elements that were incorrect. The user does not appear to have created or edited any other pages concerned with cricket, and upon looking into it, I found that one of my edits, created at 08:50 on Jan 20, was identical to the page that he/she "created" at 09:23 on the same date, 33 minutes after my edit. I have not interacted with this user before, and he/she did not inform me that he/she was posting my (incomplete) work. I have since completed the page in my userspace and published to the page. While I am not really concerned with it, as the information would have been published any way, I do not really think it is 'right' to copy what really is my intellectual property. I am wondering if this could be looked into or if anoyone else has an opinion on this. Thank you. Bozzio (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Marked as copvio, since it's not attributed and breaks WP-licenses. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

While copying from another user's space is considered rude, I'm not aware of any prohibition against it. User space is completely visible and subject to the same licenses as the rest of Wikipedia. The attribution issue is being discussed at Talk:List of cricket grounds in New Zealand. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware that all of the pages on Wikipedia – not just articles, and including pages in userspace – are covered by the GFDL. (It's part of Wikipedia's terms of use.) Another Wikipedia editor is free to copy anything that you've saved anywhere on Wikipedia at any time, as long as they follow the terms of the GFDL. In this particular case, the other editor failed to do so; one key requirement of the GFDL is the identification of the original author of the work. Had Edgars2007 properly credited you as the original author when he copied your draft, there would have been nothing wrong with him reproducing your work (incomplete or not) elsewhere on Wikipedia. (For that matter, the material could be reproduced anywhere else in the world, on- or off-line, as long as the copies and derivative works remained GFDL-licensed and continued to adhere to the GFDL's terms.) If you don't want to make drafts or intermediate versions available to other Wikipedia editors, then you should prepare them elsewhere. While you (as the author) retain copyright over the text that you write, the GFDL is an irrevocable license under which anyone else may use your intellectual property. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Co-licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, per WP:Copyrights. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And if it's unattributed, it's copyvio, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I've seen an editor blocked for consistently refusing to do this. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia will die

[25] The users who want it to be an encyclopedia will be driven out, while the fringe POV pushers will remain.

So what admin action do I want? A review of the indefinite block and ban of jps (see above diff). Timotheus Canens wrote: >>You have declared your intent to edit "through anonymous, untraceable, unblocked proxies" to fix what you perceive to be "egregious errors", presumably in articles that are within the scope of your topic ban, namely, pseudoscience and fringe science.<< It looks to me as though Timotheus Canens assumed bad faith by presuming that jps meant articles within the scope of his topic ban. Without that assumption, the justification for this indefinite block and ban falls apart. Cardamon (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I do see that jps threatened to edit anonymously, although long ago he was told twice to never do so. Cardamon (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If they were not articles he was banned from then why the need to edit through "untraceable proxies"? The rest of us manage to edit just fine through our normal connections. --Golbez (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with the history of this, but the comment which lead to the block does appear to be a clear statement of intent to use IP accounts to evade arbcom restrictions to me. Given that the editor was only topic banned (though they've recently been blocked for 3 days for evading this ban), there's no reason for them to have not used their main account to edit in areas unrelated to the block if that's their intention. All up, this looks like a good block to me. I'd also suggest that a) if Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs) wants the block lifted he should ask for this and b) it would have been good form for you to have discussed this with Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) before bringing the matter here. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It really makes no difference which articles. A banned editor isn't allowed to click the "edit this page" tab for any reason, regardless of whether they use a registered account or an anonymous IP. Period. The only exception is at the beginning of their ban period where they are allowed limited access to their talk page, and even then, if they misuse this privilege for anything other than appealing their block or ban, that privilege is usually removed. Enough is enough, regardless of the editor's POV or value to the project. In this case JPS, sad to say, has revealed a spirit that just won't work here. Maybe he'll grow up someday. I hope so. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

@Nick-D I brought it here because I wanted to get multiple opinions, especially from those who have not been involved in this fiasco. While there is probably some acceptable way that jps can ask for the block to be lifted, note that his Wikibreak enforcer was set to January 16, 2012 at his request. [26] Cardamon (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Second Cardamon. As all of you commenting here should know, JPS has a wikibreak enforcer running for the time of his topic ban, which amply explains why he cannot edit any kind of articles with his main account. I also see no way in which this block is preventative - in fact, its purely punitive, in direct violation of WP:BLOCK. And what it punishes (but not prevents) is the thought "crime" of a user who might, in the future, anonymously improve Wikipedia content. What a crime. This block is pure process-wonkery, and should be reverted on that alone. If you want to wonk processes, find a process that supports knowledgable mainstream editors and hits fringe POV pushers, not the other way around. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephan, first change the rules regarding sock puppetry and block evasion. Don't subvert them. An admin should know better. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that JPS was not long-term blocked, I fail to see how this is relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment from someone who's been on the receiving end of jps' worst behavior. An example: when I first was editing wikipedia I got in a dispute with him over some pseudoscience issue - so, he started writing offensive things on my talk page while sockpuppeting as an IP, in order to bait me into a block (most of my early blocks were due to him or another editor he worked with, before I figured out that game), and when an admin hinted to me that the IP was him (which I'd already surmised, incidentally) jps then attacked that admin for 'outing' him as a sockpuppet. how twisted is that? I don't particularly want to see jps effectively banned, but he's got to learn (somewhere) that he just can't use any ugly means he wants to to achieve his otherwise reasonable ends. There's a line where the cure becomes worse than the disease, and sometimes jps doesn't even pay that line lip-service.

Frankly, the guy needs to show some humility. If he did that I'd be a lot more sympathetic with his position and would like to see him work his way back into the project (because he does good work where he doesn't lose perspective). the question is how to get him to do that - I had no luck trying to talk him through it before his block. --Ludwigs2 09:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the guy needs to show some humility - that's the key of the issue. Wikipedia has moved and is moving from a consensual model to an authoritarian model. And people who don't abide by the authority usurped (no doubt with the best of intentions) by ArbCom and its minions, or who question the wisdom of this change, will be targeted just for that. Next expect WP:IAR to be abolished - it has already been hollowed to near uselessness. We should all have voted for Gianno in the last election... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what he said.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Cardamon and Stephan. Also note that the throw-away nonsense that started all this silliness has now been thrown away: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ, vindicating JPSs original actions which were criticised. The person who wasted everyones time creating that page is, needless to say, unsanctioned in all this William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A deletion "vindicates" gross incivility on multiple pages, and threats to sock from untraceable addresses? Interesting take on all this, I must admit. Collect (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I say: vindicates his original actions which was to get this worthless page removed. Its also interesting to see who stirred up trouble by trying to keep the worthless page William M. Connolley (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but are there more difs to this action which would allow editor unfamilar with all this a way to look at what brought all of this about better? This reasons for the indefinite block I'd like to know if JPS actually did use any other accounts to circumvent? If he just said he would but didn't, wouldn't this be a punitive block? It seems like there is more to this that's not being said here. Would someone fill in the needed blanks to explain how this all came to fruitation? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance from neutral admin on AE Jmh649

I have recently filed a request on AE [27] and as has happened twice in the past the same admin. has shown up. I deal with a user who is in clear violation of an arbitration multiple times, yet Future Perfect dismisses the case as frivolous. If this case is frivolous then Arbitration might as well close up shop. Is there an admin who will take the time to look at this case and the arbitration it is based on and give thoughtful reading of what is going on. I'm not sure if I'm on the right Notice Board please direct me if not.(olive (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

Having read the the request, looked at the diffs and read much of the article page, I concur that the request is not actionable. It seems to me that Doc James and others are doing a good job of ensuring the article properly reflects NPOV in describing the actual state of independent scientific research into the health benefits of TM. Principle 10 of the Arbcom decision states "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." I see no evidence that the edits complained of have been "peremptory" or "done to excess", or that the sources removed were in fact "reliable sources" for the claims they were making. Therefore there is no clear violation of WP:ARBTM. We have to distinguish legitimate article improvement from disruptive editing; Arbcom have never even remotely suggested that the former should be restricted by provisions designed to deal with the latter. EyeSerene^talk 12:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Olive, I think what the admins on AE are trying to point out is that the case did not say "You may never remove content that cites a source", it said "You shouldn't regularly remove content that sites a source without good reason". We would never say the former - not everything that can be sourced is appropriate for an article. Jmh649 has explained his reasons for those removals and they seem soundly based on Wikipedia policies. He's also pointed out places where some of these removals were discussed and in each case he provided, the consensus was that his actions were proper. If the community decides that the material isn't appropriate for the article or including it violates a policy, then Jmh649 is well within bounds to remove the material. Shell ^babelfish 12:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's an active double standard in play here and no Doc is not representing the research accurately fairly or honestly. One would have to spend some time with the studies and the body of research to see what he is doing. I'm shocked that not only is he getting away with this, but that the arbitration is being interpreted differently dependent on who you are. I don't refer to the comments here. Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the time spent. (olive (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

Latest socks of Limbeone

The latest in a long series of socks of blocked Limbeone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to include UniversityNet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AcademicAssoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GroupAccad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AcademicNet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), HistoryUnit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can someone do the honours with an WP:SPI and blocks, please? The modus operandi includes references to "Central European Waste Management" and "Frederick von Strasser", but the succession of press releases last month seem to be the only internet references, and the predecessor companies' names also appear fictitious, so I believe the whole thing to be a spoof. Regardless of the vandalism, the string of edits by new accounts today seem fairly strong evidence of socking. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)