Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:55, 10 December 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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.

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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to archive?

Is the discussion (for now) at WP:V over with? It's hard to parse it at the moment. Alexandria (chew out) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not over... just temporarily on hold as we wait for a triumvirate of admins to officialy close the the RfC. Their determination this will determine the direction further discussions will take (for example, will we be using the current text as a base line for further discussions and edits, or will we using the proposed text as a base line?) Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent events as of 8 December

Unfortunately, of the three uninvolved admins who volunteered to close this big RfC (HJ Mitchell, Black Kite and Newyorkbrad), one is known to have been unavailable and one has not made a single edit in almost a week. That leaves only HJ Mitchell. In discussions that spread over WT:V#It doesn't take this long to determine consensus, User talk:Newyorkbrad#WP:V, User talk:Cla68#WP:V RfC, User talk:HJ Mitchell#WP:V and possibly further locations, it appears that HJ Mitchell got the impression that it is OK for him to co-opt Cla68, resulting in a committee of 4 edits with 2 actually available. Cla68 accordingly created a "deliberation page" in his user space.

In my opinion this is highly inappropriate, even though the initial reactions were agreement by two editors (Nuujinn, Blueboar) and no protest. Cla68 is not an admin (not really necessary, but his failed RfA sheds some light on whether this is the right kind of person for the job), is not completely uninvolved as he voted in an earlier RfC about the same policy sentence (again not completely necessary), and whether he is in good standing depends on whether someone under an active Arbcom sanction qualifies for that. More importantly, the ARBCC topic ban was for, among other things:

• battlefield conduct – disqualifies him from determining consensus in a way that will contribute to a peaceful and lasting resolution
• inappropriate use of sources – disqualifies him from determining consensus on the first sentence of WP:V.

In order to give the immediate negative feedback that people need if they are to learn anything from their mistakes, I nominated the "deliberation page" for deletion. See WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation page. Hans Adler 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:DimitrisLoveIvi not here to build an encyclopedia

DimitrisLoveIvi (talk · contribs) has been here since September, and has never edited anything other than their User page. They are using their User page to keep track of an imaginary game which they are running on other websites. I asked them on their Talk page what their purpose of being on Misplaced Pages was for, but they have yet to respond, even though they have edited since I asked. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have blanked the page under WP:NOTWEBHOST. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm tired of running into these editors. Usually, we blank, sometimes we delete after an MfD. It's nice to see this here, as a kind of a test case. Let's go with a proposal: I say we indef-block editors who use WP as a WEBHOST and who don't communicate any intent to contribute positively when asked. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • DL has made a grand total of five edits to mainspace: to Triunfo del Amor (telenovela), Soy tu dueña (3), and Ivi Adamou. The user page should definitely be suject to an MfD. Merely blanking it doesn't keep him from coming back to it. LadyofShalott 05:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • My blanking was simply a preliminary move. I'd support MfDing it as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks Lady--I guess I didn't look carefully enough and thought that they had only edited their user page. But an MfD is, practically speaking, only formal; the page can be recreated. Of course next time the admin has a tool in hands: previously deleted and not significantly different, but that only works if an admin (or another editor) runs into it. Any discussion on the editor rather than just the user page? Drmies (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I think it's a matter of order. Get rid of of the user page and warn the user about its inappropriateness. Then they either (a) actually contribute to the encyclopedia - yay! (b) go back to the non-useful behavior, (c) do some mix of a and b, or (d) disappear. If (a), then great, problem solved. If (d), then not-so-great, but problem solved. If (b), then indefinite block is in order. Scenario (c) is the most complicated, but maybe least likely. LadyofShalott 05:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Lady, your smile makes the world go round. Lead, and I will follow. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Rather than indef people, we could just make a new CSD covering WP:WEBHOST violations in-userspace. causa sui (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• That would be a lot quicker than MfD, yes. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, but it sounds like a rather vague definition — I seriously doubt that it would be specific enough to pass muster. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I see Excirial went ahead and deleted it before the MfD had time to run. I also see that DL has yet to respond at all to the discussions. LadyofShalott 02:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• So, we have precedent for administrative deletion? Drmies (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have seen these type of pages deleted before under WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTWEBHOST, and i am yet to see a MFD where this type of page survives (in cases where the page is not related to the 'pedia whatsoever). If there was some kind of value for the encyclopedia in the page i would have waited out the MFD, but in this case i felt that a snowball would do precisely the same thing as waiting. Excirial 07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the editor returns, he can make a case for the pages' usefulness at DR; doubt it'll fly, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Guys you destroyed my contest! http://www.youtube.com/user/DimitrisLoveIvi?feature=mhee find a way to fetch it back now! Please :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitrisLoveIvi (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've undeleted it. You appear to be online right now, so you have one hour to get it before I re-delete. --Golbez (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• What i should do? DimitrisLoveIvi (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• You go to User:DimitrisLoveIvi. You copy the information to your own computer. That's all. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why its bad to keep them here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitrisLoveIvi (talk • contribs) 17:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Because as you have already been told several times, Misplaced Pages is not your own personal WP:WEBHOST--Jac16888 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• But I can't keep them somewhere else :( Let me keep them here! http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bernhardinamusic/sandbox this user has a same contest as me and he keeps them here<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitrisLoveIvi (talk • contribs) 18:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Tough, thats not what Misplaced Pages is for. WP:OTHERSTUFF--Jac16888 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Restore them so I can move them on my sandbox :p

No, because it's not what your sandbox is for either. And I have nominated the Bernhardinamusic page for deletion too. If all you're here for is your contest, then I suggest you look elsewhere, because Misplaced Pages is not for you--Jac16888 18:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

DimitrisLoveIvi reposted the deleted material as User:DimitrisLoveIvi/sandbox, so I deleted it per G4. I have also closed the Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bernhardinamusic/sandbox as "delete". I have left a final warning at User talk:DimitrisLoveIvi. I have left a "first and final" warning at user talk:Bernhardinamusic. Bencherlite 18:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

...and Jac16888 has blocked DimitrisLoveIvi in between me leaving a message for him and leaving the message here. Can't say I'll shed too many tears; it was something I considered doing myself. Bencherlite 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They reposted the content 2 minutes after your warning, So I have blocked the account indef--Jac16888 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good call. And I have declined the unblock request because the reasons given ("Why blocked me? Its not fair -.- Misplaced Pages is free to make edits. I didnt make anything bad." and "I didnt make anything bad im just building my contest") hardly demonstrated an understanding of the problem. Bencherlite 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I was not aware of these rules. I use this account to make real edits at Swedish language Misplaced Pages. I did not see why it would be harmful and for me it was a great tool to create tables. It will not happen again. Sorry for taking your time. Bernhardinamusic (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed a new CSD

I'm starting a discussion about a new CSD here: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposed:_New_CSD_for_WP:WEBHOST_violations_in-userspace causa sui (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I *think* this is vandalism, but it's systemic....

I happened to be looking at the current UEFA Champions League season, and FC Otelul Galati was listed in 4th place in Group F, but it looked strange to me. It displays as O%C8%9Belul Gala%C8%9Bi (it's a capital T with a comma under it, in case it doesn't render). In the body of the Galati article, however, Galati is spelled with a small t with the same mark, and in the FC article both instances of capital T are small. Therefore, I would assume that something is not right, but the change seems to have been made across the board in every instance where "Otelul" or "Galati" is part of an article title. If it's fine, it's fine, but otherwise it's systemic vandalism that I cannot figure out just from looking at history. MSJapan (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may interfere. This is all part of a convoluted and obnoxious battle, popping up all over the place, in which neither side is entirely right. For technical reasons (as you noted, not all diacritics display right with most displays) and because it was simply a non issue until two years ago (when the Romanian Academy issued a couple of half-assed pronouncements on which diacritics it prefers), wikipedia, like most of the online community, has opted for the simpler version: Ţ, ţ, Ş, ş. This as opposed to Ț, ț, Ș, ș (subtle difference).

Romanian wikipedia has decided it was switching to the now official version as of last year, but the change it performed is non-systematic and created many articles which still used both spellings in the same body of text. Just like that, but they still proclaim it to be a 100% move to a better version. Let me be clear about it: necessary it may have become, but better it is not. I have heard several Romanian users argue against the move on various, quite solid, grounds.

The main disadvantage is that the task of moving articles around is accessible to even the barely literate, and various wikipedia sections, including the English one, have had a surge of article moves which only reflect the apparent consensus on Romanian wikipedia. So far, since no system was conceived to approach the issue globally (as much as I dislike the new diacritics, I would endorse a global, complete and actually thought-of change), and since, again, anybody can do it, this is exceptionally random. At least one user I know of who did this was blocked for what was admittedly a disruptive activity - said users don't realize that just doing this were they feel like it loses internal links, messes up the format, punctures holes through recognized content etc.

I for one have repeatedly tried to get a centralized discussion going as to what we should do next, but I'm aware that this comes out at the worst possible time, with all the debate surging about whether we even should have diacritics in article titles (let me restate my position on that one: yes, we should). The result was nil: no computer literate user was ever capable of conceiving of a tool to automate the changes; the argument was restate that we should not be changing things at all, but simply revert those comparatively fewer recent changes; the possibility of confusion with the entirely opposite diacritics used in Turkish or Azerbaijani was brought up, as a major argument against mass changes. See for instance my latest attempt at determining consensus.

In my own editing work, I am left with the following compromise: I write articles with the "old" diacritics, and staunchly revert moves to the new ones in the body of text, because they create huge format problems until such time as a global solution is applied. I do not however revert moves of titles: Viața Basarabiei, Pitești, Alexandru Tzigara-Samurcaș use "new" ones in the titles, "old" ones in the body of text, simply because it's the only option that works so far. Dahn (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out another aspect, that may become relevant in the future: although I'm a Romanian editor editing from Romania, I generally do not use the standard Romanian keyboard, and therefore did not install the default Romanian keys. I find it impractical, and in other programs I tend to set my own character keys. This means that, when I write wikipedia articles, I use the character icons listed at the bottom of the editing window - most users may not be aware of this, but there is a character map hidden somewhere in the menu over the "Please note" part, in the same set as "Insert" and "Wiki markup", but under "Latin". Ironically, the "new" Romanian diacritics are not listed there at all, meaning that, even if the changes were applied or I were to want to apply them, I would be starting off with a huge handicap. Someone please fix this anomaly, regardless of the desired outcome. Dahn (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not vandalism. Everything displays essentially correctly for me with both Firefox and Internet Explorer. However, the letter ț (looks like a t with a comma or short ascending stroke below it) is a bit fatter than the others, suggesting that it comes from a different font. Hans Adler 10:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's probably because the font you are using to view Misplaced Pages articles doesn't have that glyph in it, so your browser is falling back to use a different font which does contain that glyph. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As a user who heavily lobbied for the new diacritics (comma-below) on ro.wp and also as the one who implemented the change, I feel obligated to make a few clarifications:

1. The change MSJapan noticed is certainly not vandalism. The truth is the large majority of people do not care about this subject, even in Romania. They just write with the characters provided by their operating system: cedilla-below for Windows XP and previous, comma-below for Vista, 7 and Linux (and I believe, also OSX)
2. Dahn has made above a series of untrue remarks that need to be corrected:
   1. Romanian Academy issued a couple of half-assed pronouncements on which diacritics it prefers - the Academy has made it very clear that the correct spelling is and has always been with comma-below; in the same period, some of its representatives, together with people from IBM, Microsoft and other big IT companies, as well as some FLOSS translators had a series of meetings that lead to the change of the characters in Windows systems, as well as better support from other vendors. So this was not just a declaration, it was followed by action.
   2. wikipedia, like most of the online community, has opted for the simpler version - there is no simpler version; the simple version is the one supported by the user's software (see my remarks in the first paragraph); Misplaced Pages needs to adapt to the best of its capabilities to the user's requirements
   3. Romanian wikipedia has decided it was switching to the now official version as of last year, but the change it performed is non-systematic and created many articles which still used both spellings in the same body of text - that is simply false. At no time were there articles with both spellings. We had some articles with the old version and some with the new during the transition period (a few months last year). In 2011, the only articles containing cedilla-below diacritics are doing this because it is needed (either for illustration purposes or because the name comes from the Turkish alphabet, which has the letter Ş ). We mark these with a special tag. If you find what seems to be a mistake, we would appreciate some feedback at the Embassy or Village Pump there.
   4. I have heard several Romanian users argue against the move on various, quite solid, grounds. - that is correct; but contrary to what Dahn seems to be implying here, these complains have not been ignored. We implemented a JavaScript system that allows the user to write with the characters it prefers and then converts the cedilla-below letters to comma-below unless the word has been marked with the special tag. Also, if the user's system is unable to show the correct diacritics, we convert them to cedilla-below. So where you see squares on en.wp, you will see comma-below characters on ro.wp
   5. said users don't realize that just doing this were they feel like it loses internal links, messes up the format, punctures holes through recognized content etc. - not entirely true; in june 2010 i asked for redirects to be created from comma-below to cedilla-below titles; this created over 9000 redirects that can be safely used in articles in either form. If needed, this process can be repeated.
   6. no computer literate user was ever capable of conceiving of a tool to automate the changes - totally false. At ro.wp there is a working system that empowers the user to use the diacritics supported by his system. The difficulty of applying it to en.wp is how to distinguish Romania-related articles. A perfect algorithm for this might be impossible to find, but I can imagine a few solutions that would cover most cases without any risk of false positives.

I apologize for the pretty long message, but I felt the need to clarify some points. If at any time you need help with adapting the content to work with both kinds of diacritics, feel free to leave a message on my userpage.--Strainu (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Strainu, I could carry on replying to your contentions about my "untrue remarks", but, really, is how I relate to these issues really the relevant topic here, or is it the issues themselves? For instance, under your point 6, how is it "totally false" that a real bot for the task has not really been created? It is very much true that the one working on Romanian wikipedia, despite all the self-congratulatory language, is anomalous and inconsistent: User:Anonimu (praise be to him) mentioned the magnificent case of Hadin Süleyman Pașa, a Turkish name Romanianized in ro:Ștefan cel Mare. So far, as in many other instances, Romanian wikipedia does not solve the problem as much as it ignores the problem, with Potemkin village results. And it is even more obviously true that no such bot was conceived for the English wikipedia, for the reasons you yourself acknowledged as true; if you click on the discussion page I linked above, you will perhaps note that a(nother) user, User:Kotniski, had been attempting to do it over here, but that it came to nothing. (I do believe it would be in the best interest of wikipedia if you and Kotniski, together with User:RashersTierney, should have yourselves a powwow, as you're clearly the most qualified ones, and the only ones still regularly active, to have taken an interest in this matter.)
Also, you don't seem to realize that the bulk of my comments is about half-assed manual moves on the English wikipedia, not about whatever happened to Romanian wikipedia: those comments I made that were not explicitly about Romanian wikipedia, including those about broken links etc., refer strictly to the problem as noticed by MSJapan, which is that of inconsistencies on the English wikipedia. That is the purpose of this conversation, and not the various issues on Romanian wikipedia, where I'm sure you did a good and honest, if incomplete, job. I also do not have any objection to your redirect creation, but it has not yet answered to the issue of article space diacritics, nor has it prevented some Romanian users, some of whom can hardly speak English (one of them blocked as a result), from making parallel manual moves that leave the articles a) inconsistent; b) incomplete. Do you realize what it means when a guy will change twenty out of forty instances of ş in one article, and then leave it for dead? Because that's what some have been doing, and not only do we all have better things to do than cleaning up that mess, but we need to send a message that this should not happen, and then make some sort of centralized effort to see if we're actually intending on performing the move at some point in time. Dahn (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, let's keep the ro.wp discussion on our userpages.

Going back to en.wp, I don't see the issue in having mixed diacritics for a while, as Romania-related articles are only a tiny fraction of the encyclopedia. For most people, the difference between comma-below and cedilla-below is almost invisible. The poll that we had last year showed that less than 10% of the users saw squares (mostly IE6 and mobile browsers). For the rest, the font substitution worked more or less. I expect that in the last year and a half the situation has improved, with many desktop users switching to Win 7 and mobile users switching to Android.

If some links are broken, the simple solution is to create redirects in either direction. If templates depend on the diacritics to display correctly, the fix should be made within the template. Of course you will have people with an attitude (Baican was also banned on ro.wp for disruptive editing), but that will happen regardless of the solution chosen.

The ideal solution for en.wp IMO would be to convert the page titles to the new letters and then gradually convert the articles with a human-supervised robot (i.e. the person running the robot should check each change and repair the damage, if any). Doing this on a wisely-chosen subset of pages would go fairly quickly.--Strainu (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, were here's more of the problem that I'm facing: I'm all for creating redirects, but which one will we eventually prioritize, and are we even considering it? And consider a redlink: how do I create a redirect to that, short of actually creating the article and adding enough sourced content just so it doesn't get deleted as unsourced (do you picture how exhausting that is?); and how do I anticipate the redlink at the moment: do I go for the new diacritics, from a text that uses old ones everywhere else, or do I just hope that the theoretical person who will jump ahead and fill the redlink will also have read your post, and has the same vague concept as me of what needs to be done? Your suggestion about templates is not simple at all, not in practice: in the absence of a bot, one would have to manually recheck and/or move every article included in any one template, just for the sake of decorum; many do not care about this problem at all, but those who do will have a gargantuan task to complete, without ever being sure that it is the desired outcome, and risking countless clashes with users who have not been informed about the issue and may regard mass article moves as insidious vandalism.

I am all for your bot solution (notice above where I mention me not changing new-diacritic titles, or where I venture to suggest a supervised bot), but it's seems like every time we approach this subject somewhere everything gets submerged in eerie silence or we get absorbed into off-topic threads. Considering I'm, for all practical purposes, computer illiterate, I can't be expected to follow up on the few attempts at creating a bot; I am, as I have said, willing to help in whatever way I can, even against my conservative instincts, but for Chrissake, let's see something happening one way or another. Dahn (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And, yes, it is an issue when en:wikipedia has mixed diacritics, as indicated by this discussion here. And this is not just for aesthetic reasons. This is especially the case with a random mix of diacritics within one article, where incomplete changes to the new form would be insidious and hard to revisit by either a bot or a human being who wants to preserve his sanity by the end of it all. Dahn (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

<pin dropping>Kablam!</pin dropping> And there's that eerie silence I mentioned... Dahn (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That silence you're talking about should show you this is a non-problem for en.wp. The only real problem is to make the users aware of the fact that some editors write with ş and others with ș, often without realizing it and certainly without bad intentions.

I personally would favor the comma-below versions because that is the language rule. However, it doesn't matter which redirect you're creating now, since it's trivial to change it further down the road. Also, who said anything about creating redirects for non-existant articles? You create the redirect when the article is created, either automatically or by hand. This doesn't have to be done by the creator of the article.

If redirects exist, there is no problem with templates (I assume the parameter names are written in English, without diacritics). The only possible problem would be an if that compares something with an article name, in which case you can just duplicate that. But let's be serious, how many templates do that? I dare to say they're under a dozen.

The thing with mixed diacritics is that they're heavily biased one way or another (i.e. either many comma-below diacritics and a few cedilla-below or the other way around). This makes it easy for a human editor either to mark the exceptions or to clean up if the robot fails.

You might wonder why am I against a definite solution on en.wp if I pushed for it on ro.wp. The answer is simple: today, more than ever, the writing style is mixed, with roughly half the users writing with each version and unless you are willing to impose a conversion script (very, very hard to do here), you will still have mixed pages after the robot has been run.--Strainu (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"That silence you're talking about should show you this is a non-problem for en.wp." Actually I think that this very thread shows that people are confused about the inconsistencies. Whether they are or aren't thinking of this as a problem, and whether you yourself give a hoot about the practical problem a user like me is facing (though I can easily point out other Romanian users who have identified the same problem), the problem is still there.

"I personally would favor the comma-below versions..." We're talking past each other. Again, please look closely over the link I provided; if you do that really carefully, you will notice that the changes, in just one article, follow an absurd logic: only some of the ş instances were changed, none of the ţ ones. Whatever option you or I like best is irrelevant, as long as good content is being marauded in this way - if I'm to "sofixit", what would be the most sustainable option, to change them all back to what they were, or to change to the new versions the ones that careless users don't bother with? And how can I even be expected to go from article to article fixing that stuff, when it could conceivably be solved (yes, not entirely, but still!) by a bot.

"You create the redirect when the article is created, either automatically or by hand. This doesn't have to be done by the creator of the article." I am obviously talking about redlinks in one article, the ones that happen to contain the disputed diacritics. Does one change them in anticipation, knowing that not all editors are aware of what we may or may not use for a style guide, or do I spend a lot of pointless time trying to figure out if those articles don't show up, under different names, say, right now? Since I cannot create redirects in vitro, I can only hope that a bot looking for certain parameters might/will move those articles as they appear, instead of me having to do this thankless labor-intensive task for the sake of preserving consistencies. Sure, there will always be overspill - like articles that have entirely misspelled titles -, but I can only hope there is a third choice between taking on an absurd workload or just ceasing to give a damn about articles.

"If redirects exist, there is no problem with templates..." Templates are supposed to highlight the articles they refer to, and there should be consistency between what's used in the article and what's in the template. It's not about how many templates, it's about how many articles. Try applying your solution, say, by cleaning up articles from this template, and let me know when you're done, so I can point you to another sector of our Augean stables.

"This makes it easy for a human editor either to mark the exceptions or to clean up if the robot fails." Again, I'm all for a bot solution to settle them one way or another, but, again, the prospect one like me is facing now is having to do, undo and redo changes applied by "well-meaning" editors who have one idea or another, without even knowing if I'm doing the right thing. Also, these changes are not in fact as clear-cut as you make them seem: in the Iorga example I mentioned, and in similar ones, what editors actually did was to reduce that margin, because they stopped mid-way; unless I police every such instance I could be bothered to care about, the margin will just keep getting smaller and smaller, and the consequences more annoying to fix.

"You might wonder why am I against a definite solution..." Sure we will still have mixed results, but surely you can see the advantages: a) a resolution as to what diacritics we should actually be changing to (instead of chaos); b) a bot to run and rerun though the old and new articles; c) less rather than more of an inane task to do manually. Sure there's going to always be a need to drive a tractor through a field come spring, and the field is never going to yield 100% of what I put in it; but that doesn't mean I should do it with a wooden plow and horses, or stop doing it at all. Dahn (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Dahn

There's a heated discussion here. In this section User:Dahn launched a series of personal attacks against me, and apparently he is unwilling to put a stop to it. A chronological and not exhaustive list:

• : a very poor editing practice. It basically says: "I have peeked through fragments of these two books and exclusively used them to shut up those who disagree with me on the talk page."
• : You see, here is the behavioral issue I was talking about: why would you even think it's necessary to (yet again) harangue me
• : Do you see the point I'm making, or is this the part of the post you never actually read
• : Yes, Daizus, you fail to see a lot of things
• : I can only reasonably assume you don't actually read them
• : The rest is really your unexpected and unlikely tribute to Romanian paranoia, according to which everyone opposing an idiotic rationale that was stated by a Romanian do so because they follow a secret agenda; you don't know and can't rationally explain what that agenda would be, but there must be one.
• : regardless of your immature attempts to bully me
• : if you can't deal with arguments about why you're not always right, then perhaps you might reconsider whether you're even doing yourself service by stating your opinions here. It's not like we're all waiting on you to enlighten us. Really, it isn't
• : since you again cite (willy-nilly) WP:COMPETENCE, I would like to point out two relevant part of that essay. You will find them under "Social incompetence" and "Grudges". Those are the only two reasons I can picture why you, Daizus, would continue to misrepresent and rant against my arguments which suck cockamamie travesties, manipulative rhetoric and (so very) self-important slogans. Really, these might (still) work on the WikiProject Dacia jungle, but I hoped you would instinctively adhere to a more sanitary system of reference in the out-of-universe world. Now I know for sure that is too much to expect.
• : I will repeat openly the claim that your rationale above justifies esoteric and paranoid claims
• : Most of your posts is a string of childish insinuations
• : not necessarily because I intended, but because the alternative is disgusting. Much like your solipsistic machismo above
• : the very fact that your argument relies on that taunt is part of the behavioral problem I referred
• : problem with understanding my previous must be elsewhere, somewhere deeper in your ego, and beyond my powers to address
• : you're embarrassing yourself with anyone but the WikiProject Dacia mob, and their approval is not something to look forward to
• : your invoking of how I "assault" Saturnian for having debunked that claim of his is purely rhetorical and inflammatory hogwash
• : that I rushed in here to "shut you up" is also hogwash, and comes from the same solitary dungeon of your imagination
• : At long last, do you even take yourself seriously anymore?

I know I was also uncivil and employed a variety of similar insults and rhetoric techniques ranging from "inane digressions" to "attention whore" and "it hurts your ego?" and even "this buffoonery of yours reflects lack of good faith, as the alternative is not at all flattering". I know there's no excuse to use personal attacks to reply to other personal attacks and if sanctions are to be applied, they should or may be applied to my user account, as well.

However I also pointed out repeatedly that Dahn used ad hominem arguments and he attacked (Dahn was particularly sensitive on the word "assault") me and other editors, I tried to dodge or ignore several of his acid remarks (by not replying to them, however once I also said "you can insult me all the way you want - it says more about you than it says about me "), I pointed out that personal attacks have no excuse ("even if you believe you're justified in doing so, you have no excuse to make gross personal attacks ") and I also warned him of a report ("just be warned I'm one inch away of reporting this burst of invectives to an appropriate forum") - none of these had any effect. At some point Dahn said "Au revoir" only to come back with more insults. He also openly refused to admit his behavior ("There is not one a hominem to be found in any of my replies to you"). Please also note some of his attacks speculate on group membership: WikiProject Dacia members, Romanians, males

But there's more to it. From the same page, here are some of Dahn's replies to other users (or about them):

• If our entire readership is dead stupid, yes, that is a likely outcome
• Incidentally, it's Romanian users who tend to get confused about the names of people they supposedly know better - I can show you examples of Romanian users
• given the embarrassing nature of your rationale for changing the article title
• I certainly don't need your bogus, bombastic, poisoning-the-well, self-referencing, pidgin warnings in the meantime
• Do you understand this when I mention it the third time around, or is the English I'm using still too complicated and I need to literally draw you a picture?
• I know appeals to emotion work on the average overheated Romanian troll, but you're already embarrassing yourself and everyone else here with the "punishment", "dignity" etc. demagoguery.
• I have not answered your question because it is childish and inflammatory, like most of the things you have posted on this here page
• Saturnian was being absurd, Codrinb was being manipulative

Daizus (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I can only urge readers of this post to actually focus on what I have said on this page, to what, and in what context, and to also reflect on what Daizus has been repeatedly stating over there. One of the reasons why this guy won't fully quote diffs to back up his ludicrous claims is that, in his renditions, he has cut down my phrases in half, which most often alters their meaning - and not even then are these actually personal attacks. To even have to deal with his sickening half-truths and outright lies about my behavior on yet another thread he opens just to troll is frankly not in the books for me at this junction. Dahn (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• his sickening half-truths and outright lies
• another thread he opens just to troll

I rest my case. Daizus (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In my initial report I did not provide diffs, since it's only about several consecutive replies. Added per request. Daizus (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the bitterness on that debate arise mostly from your own side, Daizus. You definitely need to take a deep breath, and a few steps back from the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dahn's comments on the "average overheated Romanian troll" or "Romanian users who tend to get confused" arose also "mostly from my side"? Even if I'm bitter, does that justify comments about "my tribute to Romanian paranoia" and other similar remarks? And the last reply there is Dahn's (still launching insults) not mine. Daizus (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a disgusting attempt to label me as anti-Romanian. I strongly urge admins who assess this case to look closely at what parts of the quotes are missing in Daizus' account. They will perhaps note that I am not aiming my comments at Romanian people (I am in fact a Romanian guy), but referring to the usual behavior of some Romanian editors - notoriously so in the context where the very discussion to move the article was initiated (though not necessarily continued) by a particularly obnoxious brand of Romanian nationalism - in the linked discussion, you will note that several Romanian and non-Romanian users make the same statement, particularly in regard to Saturnian's behavior (at the moment, Saturnian is the subject of another AN/I thread, initiated by an editor whom even Daizus will cite as an outside voice of reason). I don't intend to waste a lifetime on debunking this spiteful nonsense. Dahn (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And whatever this person claims at this point I did to him, and however he may tailor my posts, let me also note: I am not the one to have tarnished him with epithets such as "attention whore" and the like. If anything, I am sorry I ever did try to engage this person in serious conversation, he's just not accustomed to that by the looks of it (Minor note: "which suck" in one of those posts is actually intended as "with such"). Dahn (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How and where have I labeled you "anti-Romanian" (it's not about being anti-Romanian, but about employing stereotypes to discredit users: "Romanian trolls", "WikiDacia Project mob", etc. )? On what grounds do you assess the "usual behavior of some Romanian editors"? After all, you judged my arguments based on your experience with Saturnian, you even have accused me of defending his claims ("you implicitly defend the stupefying claims that the anglicization hurts Cuza's dignity (Saturnian)"). And since this thread is about personal attacks, let's note again your wording:

• this is a disgusting attempt
• this spiteful nonsense

Daizus (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough. This thread is not going to benefit anybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully someone can take action here. I have a much longer list of unwarranted offensive language and attitudes from user Dahn. But I am not going to waste my time and list it until someone is ready to look at the case. However I can say that user Dahn manages to create a very poisonous environment around the Romania-related articles. A lot of people have been blocked through his machinations and a lot of people are turned off and giving up editing after dealing with Dahn. As you know from recent surveys, many editors are leaving Misplaced Pages and the novice ones are meeting a lot of hostility: User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_distressing_trend_of_editors_leaving_Wikipedia, Editor Trends Study. I understand that user Dahn has been around for a while and has created a large number of articles (some of them I really like!), but his attitude is 100% contrary to Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers behavioral guidelines and to the clearly defined strategies to enhance everyone's experience: March 2011 Update on strategy. I notice that his constant personal attacks, ironies and insults are ignored constantly, although the Romania-related article talk pages are full of them. But his constant and massive presence in almost all conflicts on Romania-related articles and well as in the incidents board (as both accused and accuser), not only denotes a very active contributor (which is positive!) but also someone who thrives from conflict and can't collaborate, simply believing he is too superior and always right. Someone needs to look deeper at the case from this perspective. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

An RFC/U may be an avenue if action is not taken here. As you've seen above, administrators are loathe to act on AN/I reports that don't create the appearance of seeking a resolution. Having completed an RFC/U would give us something more to work with. causa sui (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I'm made to waste even more of my time and nerves on such threads, I would like to advise administrators not to take these new allegations at face value, but rather have a look over these diffs, which I think amply show Codrinb's serious hounding, racial epithets and stalking directed at yours truly, and his long-standing, hardly bearable, attacks on my dignity: ; . Whatever this individual claims I ever did to him or said about him (no diffs, of course!), I have never, ever, resorted or even felt a slight need to resort to such language, such vicious misrepresentation, or such grotesque conspiracy theories; the only thing that's left for him to say is that I eat kittens. For his previous attempt at gaming the system by depicting me as a harasser, see this thread - I think it is telling that the other users commenting there have been quick to identify his claims as nonsense. His only tactic is proof by verbosity: the hope that empty allegations, if circulated enough on this page, will help him score points with the impatient. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think an interaction ban would help you both return to productive editing? causa sui (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there is little mainspace editing interaction between me and either of those users, it would hardly affect me; were it not for Codrinb's stalking and his being canvassed to participate in discussions where I happen to be a party, it would only formalize my personal resolution never to have to engage this character in conversation. Note however that he is still the one chasing me around and opening up venue after venue to bring up the same "facts" about me and how I bathe in the blood of his various verbally incontinent friends. As for Daizus: I simply engaged him in a topical debate, because I believed him to be a reasonable, if easily irritable, user; as mentioned, now I know better than to ever attempt that again. But whatever else comes out of this thread, I hope that Codrinb will at least also receive some form of mentoring, because it is frankly terribly stressful for me, and for anyone, to have to deal with this aggravation and unrelenting mobbing in several places over more than two days on end. I frankly regret not having taken this guy to AN/I when he first produced those horrible and highly disturbing attacks I linked to in those diffs above, I'm sure he needed some cooling off right then and there.

But whatever decision you adopt, please don't make me participate in yet another discussion on this topic. I'm frankly exhausted from just having to confront myself, a fourth or fifth time, with the same obnoxious string of accusations these gentlemen have concocted between them. Dahn (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just what I was going to suggest, Dahn: nobody can "make" you participate in anything. Do yourself a favour and go edit somewhere else for a while. Daizus, that goes double for you. You're in violation of WP:BOOMERANG here on ANI. I haven't read the whole of the exchanges between you and Dahn at Talk:Alexandru Ioan Cuza very carefully, not being a donkey that enjoys having its hind leg talked off, but from my spot checks your own posts are at least as aggressive as Dahn's — that's a conservative estimate — and in my eyes they have a bigger dose of character assassination. I suggest you both take some deep breaths and leave that article and its talkpage alone for at least a few days. You too, Codrinb. Your argument that you could post diffs of the user's 'machinations' if you wanted is stunningly unimpressive. And as for Dahn being responsible for editors leaving... ack. At least try to be a little more original. Perhaps he's responsible for global warming? Bishonen | talk 22:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry at Carl Jung

Looking through the revision history of Carl Jung, it seems obvious that this article has been the victim of persistent sockpuppetry and vandalism. See for instance edits by Guitarani (talk · contribs) like this and edits by Guitarani2 (talk · contribs) like this. (I shall notify both users in a moment, as required). This has been going on probably for months now, and those rather obvious sock accounts are probably only two of a swarm; I suspect the same user has been editing Sigmund Freud and Abraham Maslow as well, again using a series of different accounts. Some of edits made by the person behind those accounts actually seem helpful, but many more are just random dymb vandalism. I understand that there is a standard procedure for reporting sock puppets and suspected socks, but I'm not familiar with it, so I thought I'd comment here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Both the above named accounts have vandalized Torero in addition to Carl Jung, so this is really, really blatant stuff. See also Guitaristani (talk · contribs), which follows the same pattern of vandalism to Torero and Jung, and has a rather similar username too... Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed just those three accounts. Keegan (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack quack - all three blocked and tagged, Guitaristani the presumptive master. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone file an SPI for posterity for this? Should this resurface in future it'll be much easier to revisit an SPI case instead of ANI archives. WilliamH (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider it done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Хорошинда

Хорошинда (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After creation this attack page he has continued to make personal attacks in next diff. Alex Spade (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The attacking commentary on their Talk page was removed weeks ago and has not been restored as far as I can see, and I don't quite understand how "Hello, pider!" is a personal attack - is "pider" an offensive term in some language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

It's Russian for "faggot". --NellieBly (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the Russian for "Commie Rooskie"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate has failed me again! GiantSnowman 11:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

But the Urban Dictionary didn't! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP's name translates as "Horoshinda". A Japanese pretending to be Russian, perhaps? (Despite the proximity of Pearl Harbor Day, I'll leave out the obvious retort.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good tires, yes? (Хоро шин да) ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 14:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Khorosho in russian means good so I'm guessing this is some kind of personal dimunutive to make it a nickname about a child. (Its too, er sweet to be seriously intended for any Russian adult.) Spartaz 15:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User notified... GiantSnowman 11:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me! What is going on? I wanted to write "Hello spider"! May be, the one letter was not written? I am sorry for my bad English! I have learning English intensively now!--Хорошинда (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to write hello spider on the talk page of someone you have never interacted with before? Do you have any plans whatsoever to do anything constructive here? Spartaz 15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I know this user from Russian Misplaced Pages! I should like to welcome and remind about myself to him! I took name Хорошинда from Simlish! I gonna contribute in the articles of Astrakhan--Хорошинда (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now, Alex indeffed you on the Russian wikipedia so you decided to come here and insult him. Looking at the totality of your contributions you have nothing you wish to offer us here and you have wasted quite enough of our time by importing a dispute from RU on to EN. Spartaz 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User indef blocked now. Spartaz 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, for non-russian speakers the referenced reason for the block was destructive behavior which presumably means disruption. Spartaz 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Take pity on our little Commie friend. He suffers from hammer-and-sickle cell anemia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does Russian = commie? My 10 year old was born in Moscow, does that make him a commie too? If you haven't got anything useful to add except to sterotype 220 million people with a tired old saw that died 20 years ago then you need to get a life. Bedfore youy answer I'm well aware that I need one too. Spartaz 15:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Check out his user page before you go griping at me. P.S. Correction: That "tired old saw" died thirty years ago - around the same time Communism itself died. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really 30 years ago now? It only seems like yesterday I was watching the wall come down on the news but damn its 15 years since I was posted to Moscow. Blimey, I think I must be getting old. Anyway Bugs, can't you see how cruel it is to mock a user at the same time an admin is in the process of blocking them off the 'pedia. Dammit, you have been around long enough to know the signs and it wasn't a good time to make a funny - yeah even when it was funny. It wasn't the right time or place. Spartaz 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was assuming good faith and teasing him at the same time. Yes, it is cruel to kick a user when he's down. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

man, you really need to work on your timing.... I know you meant no harm but cummon, its clearly a child we are dealing with here (he says he is 17 in his block appeal) but it was starkly obvious and irrespective of how badly behaved he is we should do our best to manage the ejection process with kindness and respect. Spartaz 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know he was going to be indef'ed. In fact, I'm not altogether sure why he was. He claimed the "faggot"-in-Russian thing was a typo. I would have given him one more chance. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bugs (and all other droogs) I'm just surprised some other lewdie didn't creech for a bolshy tolchok in the vonny rot of this malchik's litso, for his chepooka govoreeting, real horrorshow.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC and drive-by comment:) Maybe Baseball Bugs is making too much of this, but Хорошинда does have several "Ima commie" userboxes, doesn't he? As for all Russians being commie as a stereotype, I think that's misrepresenting the Solzhenitsyns of this world, but come on! :D Dahn (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia is populated by millions of good people, many of whom have a sense of humor. :) For example, the very first edit by Good Tires Yes is pretty funny: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bell Pottinger

As you may be aware, the PR firm Bell Pottinger have been caught editing articles on behalf of their clients. Following an investigation led by Jimmy Wales, and with assistance from WilliamH (talk · contribs), Keegan (talk · contribs), Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) and Panyd (talk · contribs), we have identified at least 10 accounts belonging to Bell Pottinger, only two of which are particularly active (100+ edits). At no time were any of them considered respected community members, nor did they skew any votes or gain any rights beyond autoconfirmed. Most of their edits were reverted. A report will be coming later in the week detailing things a bit better.

In the meantime, these articles were edited by Bell Pottinger accounts, and will need checking for factual accuracy and neutrality. It is not necessarily a list of clients of the company, and there may be false positives mixed in, as well as articles which have had undue negative (as opposed to positive) weight put on them - please pick something you’re knowledgeable in and give it a good scrub down. Most articles only have an errant commercial paragraph, but some will need more work. Mark the articles with  Done on this list when you’re finished.

On behalf of Jimmy, Keegan, WilliamH, Chase and Panyd, The Cavalry (Message me) 12:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this here? Seems like fact checker and editing are editor, not administrator, functions. Seems like one of those banners that appear above watchlists (e.g. like the ArbCom elections) would be more appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's headline news in two European countries, is causing a major political scandal in the UK, and involves sock/meatpuppetry from 10+ accounts. See the article in The Independent at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-founder-attacks-bell-pottinger-for-ethical-blindness-6273836.html. We need somewhere to discuss it, and this is an incident which administrators will be interested in, and which administrators can help with. I honestly think that this is the best place to have a preliminary discussion, and to get as many 'eyes on' the issue as we can. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A list of the accounts involved can be found here. WilliamH (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this an incident which editors will be interested in, and which editors can help with? As there are far more editors than administrators, getting as many eyes on implies targeting all editors (which naturally includes administrators). Gerardw (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this sort of thing could go on WP:VPM (although we do seem to use this place as a general noticeboard..) --Errant 13:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is also the most watched noticeboard, as far as I'm aware. Regardless, it looks like several editors have found it already ;-) The Cavalry (Message me) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am confident that this is a pervasive problem because of how we traditionally (and procedurally) treat PR editors; good work all round in tracking down the accounts and articles in this case :) --Errant 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I daresay this will be cross-posted in several places, but bearing in mind that over 5000 accounts alone have this page on their watch list, and that this is a significant incident requiring admin intervention, this is definitely a good place to get eyes on this. And thank you. WilliamH (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with those who think this was the wrong venue. It took me the longest time to figure out the difference between AN and ANI, but I eventually realized that ANI is for Incidents that Require Immediate Admin attention. AN is more an announcements board – items there may be extremely important, but they do not necessarily require immediate action by admins. Technically we don't have the right kind of board to cover "extremely Important Announcements of interest to all editors". Absent the ideal board, AN is the best option as a high traffic notice board, but not ANI. It creates a bad precedent, for anyone thinking something is very important and it ought to get a lot of eyes on it. --SPhilbrickT 14:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was rather hoping we could focus on the issue at hand as a priority - I will look into moving this all to WP:AN instead if people prefer that venue. The key issue here is not which noticeboard this is posted on, but instead that we have a list of articles that need fixing and a rapidly evolving news story. Let's not get bogged down in Parkinson's Law of Triviality! The Cavalry (Message me) 14:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Though the investigation may lead to actions by administrators and so this noticeboard is okay, I would support closing this thread and moving the discussion to AN as a stable space to consider general impact and a consistent set of actions, across what might be a wide group of accounts, for administrators with an eye to future policy improvement. Flagging it here was a good move to quickly attract interest by experienced folks, but this is more than an incident that might be resolved in 24 hours. Fæ (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "nor did they skew any votes".. see this AfD. Gobonobo 15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, well spotted. Fixed now. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Only in our bureaucratic nightmares did I dream we'd be discussing whether or not this is the appropriate noticeboard for the notice and not discussing the contents of the notice. Keegan (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that an editor requested page protection and reversion deletion of User:Biggleswiki at RFPP. I am just going to refer this back to you because it's too complicated for someone to handle at RFPP without any background knowledge. Please make the appropriate judgment on page protection/oversight. Malinaccier (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created this (temporary) template which should be added to the suspected articles. The template should be deleted when things get sorted out. PaoloNapolitano 18:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, no that's not a great idea - way overkill. This is best handled on the one page - no need to slap templates about. No need to revdel or protect the user pages either. --Errant 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw this on the news and immediately went to ANI to find the relevant discussion, its the obvious place for it. That being said, the accounts are blocked so is there anything left to do? Have the relevant articles been POV-checked? ThemFromSpace 18:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See status list for POV checking updates. Gerardw (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky

Boris Berezovsky (businessman) is a client of Bell Pottinger and there is an admitted COI editor on the article (User:Kolokol1) - Kolokol is the URL for International Foundation for Civil Liberties (as well as being a chemical agent used in warfare, from which the foundation obviously takes their URL - the foundation being used in "warfare" against its opponents). The foundation is run by Alex Goldfarb, a close Berezovsky associate, who came to public recognition during the Litvinenko affair when he headed the Berezovsky PR campaign. The foundation itself is funded by Berezovsky. Berezovsky is a client of BP, and Goldfarb too has used BP for PR exercises, as per this and this. A legal case in the UK recently began in which Berezovsky is suing Roman Abramovich for billions of dollars, and in the lead up to the beginning of the case, the article has seen a whitewashing of the Berezovsky biographical article by Kolokol.

• Here Kolokol1 is asked to declare whether they have a COI
• Kolokol1 refuses to respond directly to the question
• After again being asked, Kolokol1 states he has "an interest in Mr. Berezovsky being treated fairly and objectively"
• Here Kolokol1 confirms "For the record, I am associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care."
• Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)/Archive 3 and Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman) is full of instances where the editor has used cited policies and the like, which once reading this, put some things into perspective. There are many instances of Kolokol1 stating for the record that it was his intent to remove negative information from the article, regardless of what it was, using WP:BLP reasoning for doing so, regardless of the use of only highly respectable and reliable scholarly sources, yet engaged in original research and falsification of information as per this and this, and argued for this to be kept in the article.
• The editor's edits to the article have been mainly subtle changes, which when looked at individually do not raise alarm bells to those who are not well-informed on the subject. When looked at overall, the edits to the informed editor look like a PR hatchet job in the leadup to Berezovsky's lawsuit, and I made note of this on the talk page only a few days ago.
• This subject is a little unusual, in that one would need to make use of both English and Russian language sources to paint the picture that was desired, so I probably wouldn't expect BP IPs to be utilised, unless they have fluent Russian speakers on staff, but the hatchet job on the article is obvious to editors who are familiar with the subject. But obviously it is unacceptable that an admitted COI editor was given free reign by the community to perform the hatchet job on the article in the runup to the beginning of a highly public court case involving Berezovsky. Y u no be Russavia 23:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Crikey, didn't we have some indef blocks due to this topic not all that long ago? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we did. Deepdish7 (talk · contribs) was indef blocked after he expanded the article, which did have some problems but which weren't fixable, and which was reverted wholesale by Kolokol1. DD7 was eventually blocked for disruptive editing, after he kept inserting the information which was being reverted by Kolokol1, and other editors (who were obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter). It is wrong that an admitted COI editor was allowed to continue to edit the article, especially after they all but declared they were going to perform a hatchet job on it. Y u no be Russavia 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, Russavia takes every opportunity to dredge up his already-discussed complaints about the Berezovsky article and certain editors involved in it. I really don't see what any of this has to do with this topic (Russavia did the same tacking on to another topic at ANI recently where he happily dragged me through his imagined mud). Even assuming Berezovsky is a client of this PR firm (I don't see a source for that, but Russavia believes in the drowning-you-in-links approach that only occasionally support what he says), what does that have to do with anything? Anyway, for those masochistic enough to care, here are a couple of previous discussions at ANI about Berezovsky: and .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are already two sources. But here's another which clearly states:

Other entries changed by accounts associated with Bell Pottinger include those of the founder of the law firm Carter Ruck, London-based Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and at least two large financial firms.

It is a well-known fact, to any knowledgeable editor, that Berezovsky is close friends with Timothy_Bell,_Baron_Bell, and this friendship and client relationship is even mentioned and sourced in that article. Y u no be Russavia 23:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The link to the list of problem articles is in the opening of this topic. Berezovsky's article is on that list. Why did you need to single out the Berezovsky article, AND why did you need to go through the history of your complaints about the article? There's no reason for the Berezovsky article to be singled out. This entire subsection you've created has no business being here. It's just you and your pet peeve.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should create a "Promotional editing noticeboard" where concerns over users posting promotional content to several articles should be taken forward. Additionally, users who have been flagged several times for promotional editing should be reported to the noticeboard so the appropriate actions can be taken. PaoloNapolitano 20:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, another noticeboard, just what we need. Sort of a WP:COIN for multiple offenders. I hope not.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Commercial and promotional editing is a much bigger issue than plain COIs. By having a separate noticeboard we can raise awareness and much more easily get the "bad guys" out of the game. PaoloNapolitano 20:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Very decent of you not to respond in kind to my sarcasm. I'll let others with more historical knowledge decide whether your suggestion has merit.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The links provided above, like this and especially this one show the editor's connection to the subject too obviously (the editor says: "I am associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care".) Given this statement, and since Berezovsky article is known by now to have been involved in promotion by Bell Pottinger, I suppose that it requires more attention and perhaps a separate investigation. GreyHood 20:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont' see how the two links you pick out justify a "separate investigation". First, they don't demonstrate that the editor is part of the PR firm at issue here. Second, if you have evidence he was, then it would be better to add that to the list of articles at the top of this topic with the editor's name (the list identifies editors for the Berezovsky article but not Kolokol1).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor openly declares connection to the subject and says (s)he doesn't care if it is considered COI. The subject of the article is involved in the current court proceedings with billions of dollars at stake. The article is found to be involved in promotional editing by other editors from Bell Pottinger, and the subject is a client of this firm. So, on one hand, we have evidence that commercial promotion attempts (direct violation of COI) are going on the subject of the article, and on the other hand we have an editor who declares connection to the subject, declares COI, gives hints through the username that (s)he might be connected to an organization connected to the subject. GreyHood 21:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If that's what you think, then I would voice these concerns at Misplaced Pages:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations rather than here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What I mean there should be some consistency in treatment of COI. If we have a small 100% proven COI at one article, but do not pay attention to another huge COI in the same article, declared by the user personally, that's strange. GreyHood 22:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But the declared COI was taken into account at the time of resolving the rather messy editing situation of the Berezovsky article, by far more neutral admins and editors than Russavia. I long ago stopped even looking at the Berezovsky article because of the level of discord associated with it, but it seems to have worked itself out. Now Russavia - and to some extent you - want to bring it up again in light of this topic. If it's related to this topic, it belongs in that list. If not, but you and Russavia believe it merits revisiting the article, then start a new topic on the article and on that issue. God help anyone who has to evaluate it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Bell Pottinger

Because the current situation may create a want on the part of Bell Pottinger to do "damage control" or hinder efforts to the group of wikipedian's investigating, I like to propose that:

1. All known IP addresses that belong to Bell Pottinger company, broadly construed, be banned from the English Misplaced Pages for a finite period of at least 3 months, and reviewed afterwords to see if their continued ban beyond this time frame is appropriate.

2. All editors found editing for/on behalf of Bell Pottinger for the purpose of paid editing or advocacy, be blocked for the remainder of the time frame that Bell Pottinger is banned. Phearson (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In my mind this is already done. The underlying IPs we have for Bell Pottinger and Chime Communications are blocked indef, and we're indef blocking accounts as we find them. There's nothing constructive from public relations firms editing encyclopedia articles, even if the pretext is to make things "factual" and "neutral point of view". Keegan (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing constructive from public relations firms editing encyclopedia articles, even if the pretext is to make things "factual" and "neutral point of view". - says who?  Volunteer Marek  04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made that argument before, but have been challenged in that regard. Paid editing is still allowed on Misplaced Pages as long as it is within our rules. However in this case, you are correct. This PR firm I think needs an officially sanctioned Ban though. Phearson (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But any kind of ban should be based on documented violations of policy not "oh this might make us look bad so we're gonna engage in some dubious PR ourselves by just ban hammerin'" Volunteer Marek  04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As Keegan just said...that is already essentially in place. Swarm 05:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Keegan just expressed his own opinion on the matter. S/he's of course entitled to it but the question is "what basis does this opinion have in actual policy". WHERE is this "essentially in place" (the use of the weasel word "essentially" is not really helping here). I see no diffs or evidence here. Volunteer Marek  05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. A sustained campaign of sneaky editing despite an egregious violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV is a valid reason for banning. To pile more onto that, it's also a violation of WP:SOAP — if you edit in order to make your client look good, you're definitely using Misplaced Pages as a means of promotion. These terms are policy: they've violated multiple major policies. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A sustained campaign of sneaky editing despite an egregious violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV - if this is true then you'll have no problem providing actual evidence and diffs of this "egregious violation". Also, from what I understand of the case, WP:SOAP is completely irrelevant here - did this account pontificate and rant and rave on talk pages somewhere? If so, where? You're just throwing irrelevant Misplaced Pages boogeyman code-names just to make something look "bad". Evidence please, or spare me the misguided and/or phony outrage. Volunteer Marek  05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the moment - Jimmy is supposed to be giving a talk to them on how to edit Misplaced Pages ethically, being open about who they are. I'd hate to see his talk scuppered by a blanket ban. In addition, some of the articles actually added useful content - for example, Mbombe and Maverick (Internal Security Vehicle), which are pretty decent start-class articles that were created by Bell Pottinger. Let's not jump the gun here. The Cavalry (Message me) 06:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol. It's hard to keep up with the official policy of the Kremlin on these matters these days. What does Uncle Jimbo desire at the moment? Maybe we misread his intentions and we better back track. Seriously, we have actual policies in place, and the only question is whether or not these accounts violated actual policy. Anything else is empty posturing and fake outrage. And oh, I like how we're admitting now that there WAS in fact something constructive done by these accounts (as opposed to the previous "There's nothing constructive from public relations firms editing encyclopedia articles") - but perhaps that's just realizing up to the fact that edit-for-pay, COI-driven, company sponsored accounts are actually more competent and more respectful of Misplaced Pages policy - as she is written - than your average know-nothing editors, including, or especially those that spend their time populating drama boards such as this one. At the end of the day it's still the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (which includes people affiliated with some company) and us content editors usually kneel down at the altar of discuss content not editors. Why should that be thrown out the window? Show me the damage done, then we can talk. Volunteer Marek  08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, with all due respect, you can't have even looked at the evidence in the most cursory way to imply that they didn't break existing policy in very dramatic ways. The policy violations are numerous and clear. They violated WP:SOCK in multiple regards, including multiple-voting in polls. There are many instances in the record of blatantly dishonest edit summaries. There is more than enough evidence to indef ban the ip number per the proposal. At the same time, in my talk last night with Lord Bell, they appear to finally be understanding that they have behaved badly and need to make amends. Given the media scrutiny they are under, and that I am personally going to read them the riot act, there is every possibility that they will become model citizens going forward. But I'll go further: policy at Misplaced Pages is going to change to make it even more clear that PR firms can not behave in this way without facing the consequences.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

they appear to finally be understanding that they have behaved badly and need to make amends; as a PR friend of mine said once - "All is fair in love and war, and PR". Including doing the "right thing" every now and again. Apply doses of salt accordingly. --Errant 09:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Regretful oppose for the reason stated by Cavalry. One of the few downsides of my lifelong atheism is that I cannot coherently wish for people to spend an eternity in hell being continuously raped, tortured and punished by Lucifer et al., which is what I would rather like dishonest PR consultants, sleazy marketing douchebags and deceptive spin merchants like Bell Pottinger to be subjected to. As Cavalry points out, let Jimbo talk to Bell Pottinger. If that doesn't go ahead, or they are not receptive to operating appropriately, then community ban the whole company. But if they are receptive to changing their ways, give them a chance. I'm sceptical: the idea of "ethical PR" makes about as much sense to me as a square circle or a functioning train system in London. But let's wait and see if Jimbo can have any effect. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, well, I think it is not hard to understand the concept of ethical PR! Misplaced Pages itself has many volunteer press contacts who work to bring good work to the attention of the press and to stand ready to answer questions from the press. Other organizations, without a large and well-informed volunteer community, hire people to do that same kind of work. There's nothing inherently nefarious about it at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. De facto they are banned already, of course, in the sense that no admin would unblock an obvious Bell Pottinger account. Regardless of the general question of paid editing, competence is required for editing Misplaced Pages and this company has proved that they do not have it. Some form of paid editing may be acceptable, but a firm that regularly creates articles full of puffery, edits non-neutrally, creates absurd coatracks such as a section about this house in Giano's Blenheim Palace article, and occasionally even votestacks in AfDs – such a firm is clearly not a net positive for Misplaced Pages.
  Of course they may acquire the necessary competence at some point in the future, or they may outsource the Misplaced Pages aspects of their business to someone more competent. Nevertheless they should be banned indefinitely. Indefinite does not mean infinite. Once they have their shop in order and want to resume editing Misplaced Pages, they can contact Jimbo, the Foundation or the community directly with supporting information, and based on that the community can then lift the ban. Whether that is in their interest from a PR angle is not our problem. Hans Adler 11:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  Response to the argument that we shouldn't act because Jimbo is already in charge of the matter: I am not changing my !vote because I would prefer any hate caused among Bell Pottinger and their clients to be directed against an essentially anonymous crowd rather than targeting Jimbo. I think the community would be much more immune to any attempts at retaliation. Hans Adler 16:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:COIN states "This noticeboard may be used to... get help with proposed article changes if you are affected by a conflict of interest. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here...." Presumably Jimbo is offering the same or similar guidance according to the opposition above. It might be best to try to shunt paid editors into an established process than go directly to challenging a socking arms race. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jimbo is in discussion with them. It's senseless to ban them while this is a developing issue. WilliamH (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WilliamH. Off Wiki actions by Jimbo are in progress. We shouldn't do anything in the interim. Propose it again if you still believe it justified after Jimbo has finished dealing with it. --GraemeL 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mulitple IP address creating disruptive edits

Forgive me if I am not quite doing this correctly, first time: The user currently using at least four IP addresses (98.92.249.28, 74.232.63.35, 184.37.2.116, and 98.92.244.252 see concrete proof here for two of them and here for an admission of multiple IP's: quote "As far as the IP address, I, like most people have a static IP address, that means that every time I turn the computer off, then on again, I am assigned a new IP address by my ISP. This is not within my span of control and is actually a safety measure put in place by ISP's to minimize hacking. So unless you're a hacker, it should be a good thing") has been continually editing the Chronology of the Bible page in a way that is disruptive, and has been reverted by several different editors, including myself, Lisa, Jeffro77, and ArthurRubin. His/her latest edit is without a doubt disruptive here (the "Warning" at the top of the page, since reverted). User refuses to use secondary sources and continously attempts to insert OR (by his own admission quote: "If you had said your objection to that particular part of the revision was that it was OR, I might have had to agree with you, or that it was without a legitimate source and mere speculation, which it was presented as, thus the term "likely", as that particular section came as a result of my own personal research into the matter of just who the ruler of Egypt was at the time of the exodus. It was presented as speculation, just as is done in many encyclopedias"). Vyselink (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They aren't too technical. A static IP means that when they reboot they would always get the same IP address :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the multiple IP addresses that I'm really talking about. It's more the disruptive edits (see again here where he reverted back to his "Warning"). Vyselink (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC) And now that you mention it, I totally missed the "static" mistake on my original reading. :-) Vyselink (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, It's a Dynamic IP address, not a static one, but still beyond my span of control.Also three of the four usersUser:Vyselink, Lisa, Jeffro77, plus one known as Blackcab have formed a little social group so they can circumvent the rules regarding reverting the page,I am not familiar with the other user, the information they are posting, never mind, look at the pages talk section and read it for yourself rather than me re-stating everything. Also look at the talk pages of the respective persons involved( Blackcab, Jeffro77, and Vyselink), as they appear to have collaborated on several disruptive endeavors before this one regarding pages where Jehovah's Witnesses are involved. They've created a situation where "the Fox is watching the hen house". I added a Warning to the top of the page "Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs" because the page is so inherently false that it calls for one, and as of this point I have formally requested the deletion of that page because I feel it is beyond hope of repair. If Misplaced Pages is simply looking for the views and assertions of these few extremists, let there reversions stand, However if accuracy is in any way involved in what Misplaced Pages is seeking, they need to be stopped from continuing there disruptive course. They refuse to discuss the material at hand, and simply revert the page, while making claims of a "fringe" and NPOV, while reverting to their own "fringe" sources and violating NPOV themselves What they are doing is in essence vandalism of the page because they are erasing the properly source material of others because they personally don't like the source material which I think is in violation of Misplaced Pages's own rules regarding source material. I have stated that I am willing to discuss the dates in the chart I submitted, they apparently are not willing to discuss, only revert to material that is not supported by other than a fictitious source. Which is another point entirely, the source they use does not contain the information they present, only a small portion of it and it is not properly referenced as to page number where the information is located on the source. I can only assume this is to conceal the fact that the material is not really provided by the source the present. The rest is OR. And yet they would challenge, two or three sentences that I presented as being theory, not as fact, on a subject on which ONLY theory exists, because the facts are uncertain.72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, you haven't formally requested the deletion of the page -- that's a different process. You just posted on Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion, which means pretty much nothing. That said, though, I do have some concerns about this page -- it's mostly cited to primary JW sources, rather than to analyses of JW doctrine, which is what we should be using. All the analysis is on the WP side, which is an WP:OR violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My initial complaint was about disruptive edits, mainly on the Chronology of the Bible section. As far as the JW Beliefs page, I have attempted to talk with the IP user about what, specifically, he wants to change. I found it interesting that a user that wants to use JW sources for everything he does complains about an article that (as SarekOfVulcan just pointed out, and as I pointed out on that talk page) uses OVERWHELMINGLY JW official sources. Vyselink (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I am confused as to how to go about requesting its deletion, perhaps you could help me through the process. Secondly I looked up the other user mentioned and here is an excerpt from his talk page addressing another person I also don't know

NESARA Page

The edits are well sourced and verifiable, the truth and many agree and we will change the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirianet (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the (improperly formatted) sources you've added are reliable. Truth is not that important to Misplaced Pages, but the fact that none of your statements have a reliable source is adequate to remove it. Furthermore, the real (albeit not actually introduced) NESARA deserves some space in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My question is this, why is this person allowed to make edits when the truth matters little to him by his own admission? He states "the truth is not that important to Misplaced Pages" If that is the case, then perhaps, Misplaced Pages should be shut down....We will see if this guy is right or not with this instance, as he appears to be another friend of the social group and had made the latest revert on "chronology of the Bible"72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be Misplaced Pages's admission: Verifiability and not truth. As soon as you learn what WP:CONSENSUS means, the easier your life will be (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently anyone who disagrees with the IP user is part of the "group" (watch out Sarek, you're next). Until I searched the Chronology of the Bible pages edit history, I did not know of the existence of Arthur Rubin or Lisa. This is getting off track however. I was, and still am, seeking a possible solution to this IP users disruptive edits. His nomination for deletion of an entire page that he has yet to argue any changes for should be proof of that. Vyselink (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My sole appearance at the Chronology of the Bible page was to warn the anon user that he/she is about to breach 3RR. For that, he/she called me an apostate and immediately declared I was part of a club and editing with my "friends" at Misplaced Pages. This person has now urged me to read a passage from the Bible, which apparently will explain everything. BlackCab (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor claims that a 'social group' exists among those who have pointed out his edits are inappropriate. No such 'social group' exists. I have never met any of the other people (as far as I am aware, none are in my country). I have disagreed at times with each of the other editors.

The fact of the matter is that the anonymous editor is pushing the views of a minor religious group and trying to present them as if they are broadly accepted.

The anonymous editor claims his edits are well sourced and based on the Bible. However, his edits are sourced from JW publications that calculate their chronology based on the dogmatic selection of 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem, for which all secular sources assign within a year of 587 BCE. There is therefore not any secular consensus for the promotion of their fringe chronology.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The biblical passage is not what BlackCab seems to think — the IP seems to have left that as a warning rather than as an explanation. Much of the Epistle to the Hebrews is historical, but this chunk is simply a warning not to reject God. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that BlackCab understands the thinly veiled 'warning'. Reading between the lines, BlackCab is just being subtle.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

More of the same.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And he has responded again, indicating his dismissive attitude toward Misplaced Pages's policies, wherein he states that his use of a dynamic IP will mean he only gets banned for a limited time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Harvard/Science Po Adverts

I hesitate to bring any matter to ANI and cause "wikidrama" - but I was so bewildered by this "event" that I don't know where else to go. Put simply, I logged in and was presented with an advert for an externally influenced research project. I had no previous notification that adverts from external advertisers were now accepted on wikipedia - even for "game theory" economics tests by well meaning post-doc students. Allowing institutions such as the relevant two featured - Science Po (Publicly funded by the French Government) and Harvard University (A private university, with lots of external influences, for example, to prominently advertise and potentially influence wikpedia contributors is totally unacceptable to me. (imagine we announced a partnership with, say, the Bill Gates Foundation, to display adverts/ surveys for logged in users - this is exactly the same in my eyes.)

I don't wish to be a hassle to other contributors - but I do think our policies in these areas are very important and I strongly object to this kind of dubious advertising. I would ask that administrators or whomever has the relevant authority immediately disable these adverts unless and until there is a clear and sufficiently broad (i.e notifying all potentially affected participants!) notifications of such adverts with consensus to re-enable them. (note: I tried to include a screenshot of the advert in this post - but apparently 2000+ constructive edits is nothing compared to the risk that I might be a spammer so I could not find out how to include such a link - If you have not seen this advert feel free to contact me and I will send you a copy!) Ajbp (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See: meta:Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior ; Discussion at meta:Research talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior

Please spread the word to help quench a potential ForestFire here folks :-). Jerome is working on getting a proper link in the banner. Could folks see where else this question is popping up, and help CentralizeDiscussion at the above discussion page? Thanks! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this; it's recruitment for a legitimate scientific study, its methodology has been vetted, and we are an educational resource. I might have a question or two about the validity of a self-selecting sample in a population as lopsided as "logged in Misplaced Pages editors", but I'm presuming that they either wanted this particular profile in participants or that they allow for the bias this is likely to introduce.

Heck, I participated. It was a rather fun exercise (even though I kinda felt like I was "cheating" because of my familiarity with game theory).  :-) — Coren  01:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, these kinds of games/studies are designed so that knowledge of game theory can't help you (much - I guess it could if you're a complete dummy but then you're probably not going to be studying game theory anyway). I'll avoid linking to the relevant articles per comments below. But hey, for example, it would've been nice if they tried to get WikiProject:Economics or WikiProject:Gametheory on board with this before it just got sprung on everyone. Volunteer Marek  03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, says participants shouldn't discuss what was in the research to avoid influencing others who may not yet have participated. BTW as per the above links it was discussed at AN here Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study although more from the point of whether to post talk page notices. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be a very poor secret that "An experiment on decision making" refers to game theory research, really.  :-) It's the actual substantive exercises that they prefer would not be shared ahead of time. — Coren  02:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the fact that "giving away" that there's a game theoretic aspect to the study is not that big of a deal (hell, any study of human behavior has a game theoretic aspect to it). However, there is actually one pretty vital piece of information that's part of the study which you're not made aware of in the beginning and which you only find out after you're done (unless I missed the notification somewhere), which may potentially impact your choices and which does involve some ethical questions. I'm assuming the people who designed the study ran this by some kind of Research with Human Subjects Ethics committee externally, but... since they're recruiting on Misplaced Pages it seems like this should've been checked here as well, though I'm not sure with who - which does suggest that Misplaced Pages might not be well designed for these kinds of endeavors.

I think people are more annoyed with the fact that this came out of nowhere than anything else. Volunteer Marek  03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, I was not referring to your comment hence the indenting. (I was actually thinking of posting that before I saw your comment.) However it seems likely this thread could easily become a place where people will want to discuss the details of the study, so I hoped to head that off. Nil Einne (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That blogpost's not a binding agreement, though. The only way the researchers will learn is from their mistakes...

I don't want to sound like too much of a grump, because I'm not opposed to this in principle. But why is there no kind of FAQ? What is the purpose of the research? How is it funded? Is WMF getting paid? If not, why is it happening? --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously it's not a binding agreement but I thought people here may be interested to know and while it's actually fairly obvious, I'm sure it didn't occur to some people that they would prefer there is no discussion. I don't think the researchers don't want to learn, but they would prefer that any discussion about the actual research either be emailed to them directly or I presume wait until after it's over. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Spam is spam ... so it would seem Jimbo was just kidding when his last fundraising pitch said Misplaced Pages doesn't take ads. (And the researchers should have read Voluntary response bias ...) Gerardw (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The banner is spammy and should be removed ASAP. The situation is made even worse due to the close relation Jimbo has with this group. Giving them pride of place like this compromises our integrity and should not be tolerated. The fact that this was snuck in without any en.wiki consensus or discussion is shocking. ThemFromSpace 02:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, I now see that there was discussion of this on en.wiki some time ago, with a majority of the non-WMF participants opposing the idea . ThemFromSpace 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair some of the nos were specifically over their idea at the time to spam talk pages Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Berkman are cool people who do cool research, and they have helped wikipedia a lot. WMF gave them the go-ahead without nicely asking us first. Whilst I do suggest some torches and pitchforks in the near future for .. certain persons... I hope that we can still figure out a way to let Berkman do their thing, and not let them be the victim here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Where to centralize discussion

Eyeballs are currently across at least 3 different locations on WP and Meta. To prevent ForestFire, we need to merge to 1 location. Please feel free to link everyone to that one location . (ANI and VP pages are ephemeral, and never the best location imao), the meta page has the advantage of being a page dedicated to this subject. If you have a better location, please supply! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Centralized discussion exists at-->> meta:Research talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The adverts are not appearing on meta. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Put the discussion here, where the actual editors are, rather than where the unaccountable bureaucrats would prefer the discussion. Though I know that's a radical suggestion.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an unaccountable bureaucrat, and a wiki is a wiki. We just need 1 location so everyone is on the same page, ;-) .But so be it, then we'll just have to keep track of everywhere <sigh>, and try to centralise discussion right here, as much as possible. A full list of locations where discussion has occurred is being maintained at meta:Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior#Discussions_about_the_banner. Please update that, at least. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on this links there looks like no substantial discussion at any of them. Did I miss something? I think the most responses were from 3 different folks. This is clearly the best place (i.e. where the actual warm bodies are). Sigh, indeed.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much true, sadly. That said, the best previous discussion was at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers_requesting_administrators.E2.80.99_advices_to_launch_a_study (this is also listed on the meta page, above) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)This is the same link as was posted by ThemFromSpace

Why was this discussion reopened? What admin action is being requested? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a request that information be provided with regard to the notice. --FormerIP (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. Btw, i see that there appears to be a "COI" in the editing of one of the people involved. Jimbo the great and his friends have been dealing with the Bell Pottinger folks with blocks for that very reason. Perhaps a similar smack down is forthcoming? (here's a link )Bali ultimate (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which one? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since we've agreed to centralize here, shall we close the centralization sub-heading? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason I opened this discussion was to request that an administrator blocked these adverts (they ARE adverts), which were not approved or discussed by the community. However, it seems clear now, having spoken with Kim and the Berkman representative - that admins don't have the power to do that and that the fault for this notice lies firmly with the WMF. But I invite further discussion on how we can take steps to ensure that such mistakes cannot be made in the future. Ajbp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Ummm...no. This is not the forum for centralized discussion. What admin action is being requested? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying a centralised discussion has to be held here or that the discussion needs to be centralised, but "please could admins arrange for information about the current research collaboration to be provided to editors who are interested?" does not seem to me to be an inappropriate ANI question. --FormerIP (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What's being requested? "Immediate removal of the banners." (And, of course, a chance for the peon volunteers to have their say).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I might not be the OP, but I am suggesting that there should be information about the purpose of the banners. ANI seems as good a place as any to raise that. --FormerIP (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

People are rejecting centralization it seems. Note also further discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Search_banner_Wikipedia_Research_Committee ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A note about the legitimate ad concerns expressed by some folks above

Hi all! As this thread has been started out, I wanted to jump in and, as a member of the research team running this study, make a quick statement about what we are trying to achieve here. This study seeks to understand the dynamics of interactions and behavior in online social spaces. We already started a conversation here back in March 2010 about how we should invite Wikipedians to participate in this research project (see here). We had a readily implementable plan to advertize this study to Wikipedians at that time (i.e. posting individual invitations to user talk pages), but the community was quite unhappy with this. Using a CentralNotice banner was suggested as a convenient alternative instead. So after our research procedures and methods went through a thorough review by the Wikimedia Research Committee, our research team at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and Sciences Po worked on implementing that contact solution in coordination with WMF (throughout this collaboration, we actually worked together to enhance the banner features available to the community by developing a code that allows to display CentralNotice banners only to a small subset of users depending on flexible user metrics, so that we could help reduce the general banner overload for this study and in the future). The reason why the banner features our logos in not that the Berkman Center or Sciences Po wanted to advertize themselves (those are not for profit research institutions). Our first banner proposals did not feature our logos. But we simply figured out that people would like to know who is running this study right from the start in a noticeable way, so that they don't have wrong expectations or misunderstanding about who is actually running this project, especially as the banner redirects users to a third party website. I am truly sorry that this gets interpreted as an ad by some, but we were acting in good faith here...

BTY, the study is doing great so far, and I'd like to thank all community members for this! Please consider participating in you haven't done so yet and get an opportunity to see the banner. I very much look forward to discussing our results directly with the community on all relevant fora, including next Wikimania, as soon as it's over. I have high hope that we'll advance the "big picture" together! :) On a side note, please consider that you can reach us directly at: berkman_harvard@sciences-po.fr. We very much look forward to receiving your comments and answering to any questions you may have indeed! Thank you! SalimJah (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to note here the need for your project to provide better disclosure in general, and particularly with respect to information that is being collected about Misplaced Pages users, even those who click on the banner but don't participate. The simple act of clicking on the banner gives both one's Misplaced Pages identity and one's IP address to a non-Wikimedia web site, because of the hidden form field submission (to the best of my technical knowledge). Such information has always been 'delicate' on Misplaced Pages itself, and someone from Wiki____ should have seen that this technical approach is problematic, not to mention reminiscent of spammy web site tactics. I'm surprised that that in itself isn't getting folks upset. I defer to real web developers, but this comes across as a rather technically dishonest way to establish a relationship between a Misplaced Pages user and your project. (I participated in the survey and have no prejudice.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered here: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#A quick note on privacy --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Problem

It's pretty obvious that the reason a lot of people have a problem with this banner is because it sort of popped up unexpected. It LOOKS like an advertisement, and this is particularly obnoxious coming right on the heels of a fund raising drive which used "Misplaced Pages has no advertisements" as part of its pitch. So... ok, if we're gonna have "non-commercial" advertisements popping up, that's fine, I guess. But where was this discussion held? Where was this decided? On media-wiki? Which most people that actively edit en-wiki don't pay attention to? I was pretty surprised by it and I have never seen anything like it before. I ... might actually be okay with but I'm definitely not okay with it just being slapped in there without my input. And IF we're gonna have "non-commercial advertisements" popping up on readers unexpected, who decided on this particular one? There's a dozen of more worthy non-commercial ventures that would deserve Misplaced Pages attention then some study on how Wikipedians interact with each other. Maybe this discussion was held somewhere but most editors were not aware of it and this definitely was going 'over the communities' head'.

And I'm gonna come right out and say it - at the end of the survey you have a chance to donate your winnings to Red Cross (and also WMF, but who cares about them). Which means that if you really are the "charitable" kind of person, you should play the survey as selfishly as possible (since you don't know if the other people playing the survey are as nice as you), maximize your own personal winnings and then donate all of it (essentially, donating other people's money in the process). Honestly, I'm kind of pissed because I could've given a bit more (other people's) money to Red Cross had they told me that earlier (maybe there was some notification about it, but I can't verify anymore). Volunteer Marek  07:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If it looks like an advert, it is an advert. The banner says "Please help" under logos and by-lines for two organizations that are not Wikimedia. With this precedent there is no constraint on the partners the WMF may choose to allow free advertising for next. With prospective future partners for sponsorship of research and collaboration under discussion such as Google or telecoms companies, the question is are we happy that our users will log in and see Misplaced Pages carrying a large Google logo at the top of the page? Regardless of the goodwill and charitable motivation behind this banner, it shows a clear lack of judgement for how to implement the principle that Wikimedia projects will always stay free of advertising. I discussed this banner last night on IRC with RCOM and DEV representatives who pointed me to the WMF, who have pointed me back to RCOM; I do not appreciate being given an unsubtle run-around when my complaint was as simple as requesting that an apparent advert is removed from Misplaced Pages due to the potential for negative long term press impact it may have. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, someone just added the logos because they thought people might like to know who's running the experiment. AFAIK, the logos are pretty much optional, and can be removed without issue. The request is to participate in the experiment, not to promote PO or Harvard->Berkman. Would this cover most of your concerns? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was explained above by SalimJah that the original banners didn't even have logos but they were added because it was felt people would want to know who is running the survey. This is the same thought I had very early on when I first saw the banners. And the truth is they're right. Whatever mistakes were made here, I think it's clear if there were no logos etc, people would be complaining that they thought it was the WMF itself or they thought it was fake (actually there still were) or simply that they weren't sure who to make a fuss about without clicking on the link, etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually guessing the media isn't going to really care. The truth is what happens to logged in users isn't going to be a big concern to them unless there is an uprising over it with a lot of people threatining to leave and it's a slow news day (which with the EU crisis and the Virginia Tech shooting it isn't). Also there's some criteria to when the banner shows. I don't know what, the discussions haven't specified just said there is but while the banner appeared for me, someone I know with an account but only 3 edits didn't get it. This isn't surprising since otherwise some joker is going to try and sign up 1000s of acounts just to participate multiple times. (I believe it's also random.) In other words, those users (although I often use the word interchangably this time I mean as opposed to editors) who signed up for an account just for preferences or for the very occasional edit probably aren't going to see it either. I.E. Even less reason for the media to care. This doesn't mean it's okay, that's moot to my point. I'm simply saying that this isn't really something that's likely to have a 'negative long term press impact' Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There only needs to be one example of what looks like an advert for this to be thrown up by the press every time Jimbo says that we will never carry advertising. Arguments such as it is only displayed to logged in editors or that we only do this for sponsors of research will look like thin justification. With regard to Kim's point, yes if the banner was replaced by a standard text only central notice, it would look a lot less like a blatant advert. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the press are much more likely to throw up the yearly donation banners which IMO in some ways are more clearly adverts (not that I care) and appear to a much wider range of people and for much longer. However I stick with my view that the truth is the press doesn't really care. Most of those mocking wikipedia for their adverts saying they will never have adverts are from random blogs and the like not because it's hard for them to make the argument the donation banners which say we don't have adverts are adverts but because it's not really a big deal to them. In fact whatever the flaws in the donations campaigns, I think it's obvious they get a lot more of marketing attention behind them like working out how to run an effective campaign and which banners work and which don't, in other words stuff which most people would associate with an advertisement. For this banner, it seems clear that it's hard far less thought and research behind it then the donation banners ever do. (And speaking of third parties, remember how the donation banners mentioned matching donors in 2008 or whenever it was?) Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yuck
Advertisement :(
So, it took us 11 years; but we do accept them in the end.

Anthere (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, someone just added the logos because they thought people might like to know who's running the experiment. AFAIK, the logos are pretty much optional, and can be removed without issue. The request is to participate in the experiment, not to promote PO or Harvard->Berkman. Would this cover most of your concerns? - No, it doesn't even begin to address them. In fact, it does nothing but try and derail the conversations into irrelevant tangents. Who really cares where the logo came from? Who gives a fuck if they're optional or can be removed - so can pop-ups on my browser, should we have some of those? And the claim is that this is just "participating in an experiment" but NOT promoting "PO or Harvard->Berkman" is specious. How about if, oh, I dunno, Procter-Gamble slapped up a banner which requested our readers to "participate in an experiment" but did NOT promote their product? Bottom line is, I've been hearing about how "Misplaced Pages doesn't have advertisements" for the past six years I've been here. Hell, I saw it again just a few days ago in the statements made in the recent contributions drive (the one with the pretty faces in similar kinds of banners). But now, all of sudden, here we are with a blatant freakin' advertisement up top.

Now, this might be a "good kind" of advertisement, this might be a "scholarly study", it might not have had some logo that no one cares about in it originally or whatever, but ... here we are with a blatant freakin' advertisement. Everything else - about how "it's complimentary to our educational mission" or how "it's fun if you know some game theory (?)" - is just some really lame ass excuses.

This totally got sneaked into the encyclopedia. I don't remember seeing ANY major discussion about this. Is somebody going broke and in desperate need of money or something? Actually, I'm one of those people that would NOT have much of a problem with advertisements on Misplaced Pages, but the way this is being done is just a major insult to the average editor who has contributed throughout all these years believing in the "no advertisements" (again, repeated with a straight face as recently as last week) mantra. Volunteer Marek  11:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this wasn't intended as an advert in the first place. I'm going to Assume Good faith here. The research committee were the folks who put up the banner, I guess they saw it as one of those internal notice banners wikiprojects sometimes use - apparently wrongly. There was a fair-sized discussion earlier this year (though could have been better). This discussion ran/is currently running in multiple locations, because the CentralizeDiscussion notices were removed. Please refer to the other locations for more information about current and previous discussions on this matter. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Kim, I put it to you that there was no clear community consensus to allow advert style logos in central notices for institutions favoured by RCOM or any other non-WMF group. The responsibility for any challenge to Wikimedia website content that appears to breach our values with regard to never carrying adverts for other organizations remains with the WMF. Pointing to other groups, forums or diffuse inconclusive prior discussions about other topics does not help resolve the issue raised here. Unless the WMF firmly supports carrying these logos on its websites in an advert style banner, then the WMF should in turn follow the principle of assuming good faith and remove this apparent advert whilst it is being actively challenged here and not replace it until a credible consensus is achieved. --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is roughly what I told them yesterday. In the mean time, I'm kind of hoping that modifying the banner (or some other measure) would prove acceptable, of course. In general, I'd rather not have Berkman and Science PO become collateral damage between us and the WMF --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess they saw it as one of those internal notice banners wikiprojects sometimes use - huh? Can you point me to where some WikiProject has ever been given the opportunity to throw this kind Misplaced Pages-wide banner at the readers? If so, there's a couple of Wikiprojects I'm involved in that would love this kind of exposure. How do we sign up? Honestly, what are you talking about?

And I keep hearing about this supposed "fair-sized" discussion. If it was that fair-sized, why is this such a surprise? It's pretty obvious that the decision did not involve the broader community (some folks might have patted each other on the back somewhere but that's not what we're talking about here). Volunteer Marek  11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much literally what I told the relevant rcom folks yesterday.

In the mean time, if we just yank the banner, Berkman and Science PO (Good People) end up as collateral damage from yet another WMF/Community SNAFU.

They're really nice and committed to helping us. When I talked with them, they tell me they have put something like 18 months of work into just getting ready. It really sucks that someone dropped the ball.

If we can't find a middle of the road in the next 24 hours or so, well, so be it and that's that then. But could we try to find a temporary solution, so that the innocent bystanders don't get squashed? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you consider the much larger number of innocent bystanders represented by everyone with an account on Misplaced Pages who logs in anywhere on the planet whilst this banner advert is still present. You have to admit that is quite a valuable piece of internet real estate for a banner advert that we are giving away for free and that the WMF chooses to have no authority over. The issue here should not be how nice Berkman or SciencePo are, but whether we have a common understanding of our shared values and are prepared to stick to them. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you would prefer if this valuable piece of real estate was sold for its real value to someone willing to pay big bucks? I really don't understand the hysteria here. It's like saying "Oh no, they changed the voting age from 21 to 18! Next it will be mandatory voting from birth!" I suppose the real genesis of this controversy is the state of relationship between the WMF and various project communities. Some folks just can't tolerate the WMF making any decisions with a project impact, no matter how those decisions might be objectively evaluated. This clash with "authority" can be seen by the number of objections framed as "but they didn't ask me first!" Nathan 14:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've remarked before, and even bearing in mind comments below which suggest there is a problem with the banner appearing more often then it should, it seems clear that not everyone logged in with an account it getting the banner as I know from personal interaction. BTW I should clarify that the person who wasn't getting the banner was trying before it was disabled. In fact I logged in to my account with their computer and still got the banner myself. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree the logo issue is a non issue. It's clear some people do consider the logo makes it worse and possibly even for some it would be acceptable without the logo. This doesn't mean the logo issue is the only issue, simply that it is one issue worth discussion for some. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just posting here to add another point of view; I was not upset about the banner and see no problem with it. It may well be the case that many editors, like me, were not upset and are not looking for a forum to express their views, and so are not posting here. I think it's possible that a smaller percentage of editors dislike this banner than might be guessed from the views expressed here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Disable?

Ok; so rather than this turn into a lengthy debate here we need to know if admin action is required. It is (as I pointed out on the VP(t) thread) within our technical ability to disable display of the banner via CSS. If the community consensus is to disable the banner pending further discussion then any admin can do so. Either way this is probably better discussed at another venue (and definitely should be). So, smei-formal !vote. Should we temporarily disable the banner pending discussion. --Errant 12:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I may have been too slow (I hid the banner for myself earlier) :P According to the logs (]) Beria has turned it off in the last few minutes. --Errant 12:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support the banner being staying switched off. ErrantX, I don't think I understand your prologue; if the consensus here is clear, then this is a consensus. You seem to be pre-empting any !vote as meaningless by saying we ought to have another discussion in some other place, which rather defeats your proposition to disable this banner. Could you clarify the intention? --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, well, I figure any lengthy discussion over whether to allow banners such as this, and whether we need to implement controls to require discussion with the community over banners is not best done here on AN/I. The only extant thing we would need an admin for is whether to turn this banner off now, or have a lengthy discussion first... All of which has been pre-empted anyway :) --Errant 12:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The issue here is really about transparency, which removing the banner doesn't fix. If the result is to compromise or karate-chop the research then that would be extremely unfair on the researchers, who have acted in good faith. --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The cat is out of the bag now, disabling the banner is potentially hurting the study and disallowing users who are interested from joining the study at all. What we do need ASAP is a watchlist notification linking to a FAQ about the study, even better if this is also directly linked from the banner itself. Many users are (not suprisingly) distrustful of the banner that suddenly popped up. Anger over this mess, although understandable, should not be a reason to disrupt the study itself. Yoenit (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Beria Lima BOLDly switched the banner off on meta. Brion has said that the banner should have been very infrequent, but seems to have gone to 100%.

You know my first thought when I saw it? That it was malware. That my browser had been hijacked. Unlikely as that is browsing in Linux. My second thought was that it was being inserted by rogue JavaScript on the site. - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Same here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Requests to disable Banners can be handled by any Meta admin. I made this page for any future requests, Meta:Meta:Central_notice_requests please feel free to add a link to the consensus page here once the voting ends here. As David already informed, Brion and Beria disabled the banners for now. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has no legitimacy

Why is this discussion still going on? No admin action has been requested, and admins have no special authority to make a decision over the banners. The above !vote has absolutely no legitimacy. Community discussions need to do be decided by the whole community in a community forum (such as the Village Pump), not by admins (which are only a tiny fraction of the whole community) on an admin board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

At some point ... I don't know when ... that consensus seems to have changed. Until yesterday, I (non-admin) saw no good reason to have ANI watchlisted. However, as indicated by the "Bell Pottinger" discussion above -- and the fact the Kim Bruning considered this a valid place to discuss this advertisement (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study) it appears ANI has morphed into admin intervention + community bulletin board. The description at the top of the paged has been changed accordingly: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." Gerardw (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not consider this to be a good place to discuss this matter. . Others disagreed . --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Village Pump; you mean... a much less watched forum than this one (by a significant margin)? I suggest that if you want to solicit wide and immediate community input on an issue (in this case one requiring an admin) this is the place :) (it was only meant to establish a quick consensus of immediate admin action before doing as you suggest; punting this to a wider community discussion.. so keep your blooming hair on :)) --Errant 14:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just posted notices to other strategic locations pointing editors to the common discussion. I hope you do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying there - it doesn't parse :) I do plan to open a discussion over this wider issue, but not today. --Errant 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to say that to reach a broad audience, we should just post notices to other strategic locations pointing editors to the common discussion. I hope you punt this to a wider community discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean like this?  :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

PROD changes?

I just saw a new article, Runtry and put a prod saying "Does not meet notability requirements, see WP:FIRST".

I used twinkle, but it's added a message saying If you don't want the article deleted:

• edit the page
• remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
• save the page

]

What's going on here? Is it really best to advise people writing things like this to remove PRODs just because they think it notable?  Chzz  ►  02:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ehh, Chzz, that's how PROD's work. They are uncontested deletions. If someone removes it, that means it's contested...--v/r - TP 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really an ANI issue but I'll give my opinion about this. IMV, PROD is best for articles that nobody gives a rat's ass about. (but "nobody cares" should never be the sole reason for deletion) Therefore, anything recently created or with recent major edit activity should be sent to AFD from jumpstreet. If one does use PROD for an active article then they shouldn't feel put out when it turns out that somebody does "give a rat's ass" and removes removes the PROD tag. Also, any article suspected to be a hoax should probably also go to AFD first to make it immune from recreations and REFUND requests. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This isn't an issue for ANI in any way shape or form. Edit the corresponding template if you disagree with its current version. {{sofixit}} applies. --slakr 02:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That said, it looks like it's been transcluded in an extremely sneaky way via {{Proposed deletion notify-rand}} that made it difficult to track down: it either uses {{Proposed_deletion_notify-rand/default}} or {{Proposed deletion notify-rand/new}} based on the time of day. --slakr 02:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Normally" a PROD notification says e.g. "The article <X> has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: <eg>;

This event does not seem notable; I can't find any information at all in google news, the only things I can find (via Google) are non-reliable sources and promotion from the companies involved. While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on <linked> the article's talk page.

Apparently, some recent amendment changes PROD to apparently mean something quite different. That's what I am asking about.  Chzz  ►  02:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Did the WMF discuss this anywhere before implementing it? I looked around at a few of the relevant talk pages and couldn't see anything ... Jenks24 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why they would be exempt from our recommendation to be bold. Of course, nothing is stopping other editors from reverting the WMF (as far as I know)...but I don't see why you'd want to. All the new template does is explain in more detail how Prod works. As TParis said, editors have always been able to remove prods for any reason or no reason at all, even if they haven't fixed the problem--by definition, Prod is supposed to be for completely uncontroversial deletions. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so, if not exempt from BOLD, it's not exempt from BRD, yes?  Chzz  ►  05:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

WMF is running a series of tests to try to measure if various templates improve editor experience and retention. See generally Misplaced Pages:WikiProject user warnings/Testing and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject user warnings/Testing/Twinkle for planned Twinkle tests. This is not intended to be a permanent change; it's only a test.--Kubigula (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes was just a short test, too. I'm sorry, I'm sceptical now. I've not seen any proposal for any of this testing on our lovely wiki.  Chzz  ►  05:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I felt a bit put out too the first time I found myself leaving a different than expected message via Huggle. However, I was ultimately intrigued and saw the value in what they are trying to do. They typically make an effort to publicize and solicit comments on the proposed tests, though it still often ends up being a surprise to those who use the templates. I can't speak to the specifics of where this particular test may have been discussed.--Kubigula (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing experiment in using alternative templates for Huggle. Huggle has warned users when they first boot it up for a while now, and there was the option to opt-out on an individual level. In general, the Huggle warning experiments seem a good thing, but it would be nice for the community to have better feedback options. I am not wild about the fact that the new shared IP block templates for Huggle seem to have removed any mention of the word "block" so as to avoid offending people by actually telling them that they have been blocked. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As a quick note for clarity, WP:PROD has not changed in the least. The policy has been explicit since (literally!) day one that any user, regardless of involvement, may legitimately object to a proposed deletion by removing the tag. The phrasing on the tag has been changed to make this clearer and more explicit on how this is done, but the talk of "some recent amendment ... means something quite different" isn't really accurate. Shimgray | talk | 13:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It does seem as though the instructions were just made more clear. Not sure about the process used to make that change, but the change seems reasonable. Chzz, what do you feel has changed policy-wise? Hobit (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I have reverted user:Slakr's change to Template:Proposed deletion notify-rand/new, which I felt was unreasonable and not in line with the policy. I have also reworded the bolded part to "If you think this article should not be deleted", rather than "If you don't want the article deleted". Yoenit (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hey guys, the PROD redirect was changed to a randomized A/B test as part of the testing taskforce of WikiProject user warnings, not as an attempt to just be bold in a sneaky way. It was done with prior notification on the Twinkle talk pages and with the direct consent of AzaToth (the main developer). We changed the redirect because it was the most low impact way of starting the test, as it meant we didn't have to muck with the script directly and update its GitHub repo. Thankfully you reverted the template randomizer on the 30 day mark after the start of the test, :) so it actually coincided perfectly with the testing schedule and nothing else needs to be done at this point other than analyze the results. As for documentation... every one of the tests put up by any project member is documented extensively on the taskforce pages, we've been covered in the Signpost previously, and we provide anyone who signs up a talk page newsletter too. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the amended template compared to the previous one is, that the old one makes it quite clear that "You may prevent the proposed deletion but please explain why Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised" (my bold). Ie, it explains the concerns, and suggests that the user try to address them. The new template reads like a simple instruction on how to stop it being deleted without considering the reasons.

I'm sure the amended template would encourage more people to remove it - but is that a good thing? If an article has been PRODded for a good reason, then simply removing it without addressing the concern is likely to either a) leave an unacceptable article on Misplaced Pages, or b) create additional work through a deletion discussion - as it has done in the specific case I mentioned. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Runtry - where seven other editors have now spent time evaluating something that has no realistic chance of being 'acceptable'.

I'm totally in favour of the PROD concept, that anyone can remove it without a reason; however, indicating that there is no need to bother about the reasons is inappropriate.

It will probably make for "good statistics", but I do not consider it beneficial; also, I feel that this trial should have been discussed more broadly than one rather obscure talk page - which only two users even responded to.  Chzz  ►  02:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, the PROD policy says: "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion}} tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required to... Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page."

That's why the next line of the template after the steps is, "It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page." If you disagree then try to get the proposed deletion policy changed and we'll rewrite any template to comply. In any case, it was just a 30 day test, and it's done. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

New editor repeatedly adding uncited material, no edit summaries, no talkpage

A new editor Sallesyd (talk · contribs) is adding uncited material into the Moundville Archaeological Site, even after repeated talkpage messages to add citations with the material and removing blocks of cited material. I have left numerous messages, but no edit summaries or talkpage communication, the user many not know what the orange banner at the top of their screen is. Can I get some help with this? I've reverted them several times, after a couple of day interval asking for cites. Am approaching 3RR with them and would really like to step back and let someone else help, maybe they could get through? Heiro 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Notified them of this discussion, but don't know if it will do any good :-( Heiro 03:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be a little more aggresive in your warnings, including using templates for adding unsourced material, and templates for blanking sections of the article. I would escalate the warnings until the editor stops or you can go to WP:AIV. On a single purpose account with such a history, AIV may be more receptive to imposing a block, essentially using a very broad definition of vandalism. I would also address the issues on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For vandalism I do, maybe too aggressively at times, but I have the feeling the editor might actually be trying to add valid information. I don't want to scare them off needlessly, just get them to use talkpages, edit summaries and citations. I'm afraid I may have to go to the 3RRboard as they are now at 4RR and still no talk pages, etc. Heiro 03:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We are trying to use talkpages and our response continues to get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallesyd (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has deleted any talkpage posts. And who is "WE"? Heiro 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. My team members and I (we are a group of students in a class) are attempting to change the article Moundville for our Archaeology class at our university. We did not know the orange banner was for us, sorry, we are new to this. Also, the information that you deleted from Moundville Archaeological Site was information gathered by our other team members, though unfortunately we could not get the in-text references entered when we did the post. Sorry for the inconvenience. Also, the numbers in brackets were references our team members put in, it is not directly copied from another site, so no it does not violate the copyright, we did not know the exact code for entering those. Also, please understand we are trying to IMPROVE this article, we are not VANDALIZING it. If you could please refrain from deleting our material for the next few hours, we will finish our project and have all references in. The problem is that you delete our material too fast to allow us to enter the references. Our project will be finished tonight, we are not trying to cause any conflicts. Sorry for problems. Thank you User:Sallesyd —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Ok, first. See the bluelinks in my posts on your talk about WP:WOA and WP:SUP? GO DO IT NOW or have your professor do it as soon as they can. We have procedures for this. You must follow them. Second, see the bluelinks in the last sentence of my first post on your talkpage? Follow them and you can learn how to do the citations. Do this before attempting to edit again, or it will be removed again. Also, one account per person, that is a very strict rule here. These are all important. Do this correctly, follow our policies or you risk having this acct blocked from editing here. OK? Sorry if this is coming off strongly, regards. Heiro 03:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Heiro, I'm not even the person you're directing your comments to, and that comes off not as "strongly" but as "aggressive, mean, and threatening"--especially the all caps COMMAND in the second sentence. Yes, role accounts aren't allowed, but most people don't know that, so let's try to encourage them to do things the right way rather than ordering them about. Mind you, I agree that the information should be removed until it's verified, but now that we've got a conversation started, let's see if we can find a way to get the info into the article, properly cited, and possibly even get some people interested in editing Misplaced Pages in the long term. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a more detailed message on the Sallesyd's talk page and created a sandbox to work in. I'll add the article to my watchlist as well. Unless someone else thinks there's still administrative work needed here, this thread can probably be marked as resolved. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, real life came up for a few hours. Also, sorry for the aggressive tone toward them, but it took 6 talkpage messages and finally opening this thread to get the first response from them, I was starting to get a little frustrated. And, I suspect that this group is related to the State College, PA area(geolocation from multiple IPs), which for the last year have used multiple IPs and several named accounts to edit roughly 15 or so Native American historical subjects, never with citations, sometimes actually copyvio copy and paste ins, and almost never edit summaries. Its the same editing style and this is one of the articles that has been hit before, but I can not say for sure that this is the same group. I've left numerous messages at the IPs and named accounts talkpages asking for citations, leaving blue policy links and links to WP:WOA and WP:SUP, I was doing it so much I made a short message on my user page that I could just grab and paste in whenever they popped up again. If this is from the same school, then this is the first real conversation I've managed to get out of them in the last year. I don't want to drive them away, we could use the help at these articles, that is why I brought this issue here in the first place instead of AIV as suggested by another user above or the 3RR board. My very first message to them 2 days ago included links to 2 pages about citations and how to add them here along with a welcome template with other links. Sorry again, will try to be a little more inviting and less aggressive in the future. Heiro 06:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• My team members and I (we are a group of students in a class) are attempting to change the article Moundville for our Archaeology class at our university. We did not know the orange banner was for us,
  - The user(s) need to be made quite clear that editing as a group on one account is strictly disallowed, and they should all sign up fo individual accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian appears to disagree. Regardless, Qwyrxian seems to have the issue under control, and, for my part, I apologize if I "incited" Hieronymous to more aggressive action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be a little more clear: I agree that 6 people cannot user one account per WP:Role accounts. I, disagree, however, with Heiro's claim that 6 people on 6 different accounts can't simultaneously work together on one article as part of a school project or even just independently. Ambassadors, for example, used to have (may still have, I stopped my association with the program recently) an "editing Friday" where as many people as possible were encouraged to tackle the same article. As long as the 6 editors don't attempt to use coordination to disrupt normal editing (i.e., to try to go to 18RR), it's fine to work on the same article. Heiro, I also want to say that I understand your frustration, as I've also dealt with both official and unofficial school projects, and when they don't interact in any way, it's very easy to feel like you're up against a brick wall. If this particular group becomes a problem again, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to followup. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Email abuse from Mailiantor address

I have twice previously reported abusive emails (apparently from Jarlaxle Artemis) sent to me via Misplaced Pages email, from accounts registered using Mailinator address. I have today received several dozen more such messages. All were sent from the same Mailinator address used by previously blocked users. How is it possible for a serial vandal to continue registering accounts and to send email from an address already known to be used for such abuse and threats? RolandR (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My memory of the previous discussions is there is currently no way to block domains from being used for the email function. Considering the very large number of alternative mailnator domains and the fact the's no published list I wonder whether approaching Mailinator about it may be a better bet. Since they don't actually send emails, they don't really have an address to contact them about abuse but it seems they do have scripts to try and stop abuse. And says that if people ask nicely and there is a good reason for it they may stop accepting emails for the site. Perhaps if someone here were to ask nicely they may do that for us. Since we don't require emails to sign up I think it's questionable why people would need to use mailinator. And while we could implement methods to reduce abuse like captchas, it would take resources that may be better put to other users. Something along those lines may be enough to convince them to block people getting wikipedia stuff. Of course this won't help with the large number of other stuff disposabile no signup email address services but I guess it's a start Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which are the accounts? Sending an e-mail from one's Misplaced Pages account is a logged action, viewable by us CheckUsers (the contents and recepient is not). Even if the account edited and was created out of the scope of CU retrieval, it could still help in forming, for example, a range block. WilliamH (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rianhoxie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vlyvtrmln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RolandR (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Both unsurprisingly confirmed, along with several other accounts. The IP was blocked a couple of days ago. The accounts in question were created as sleepers a while ago to avoid CheckUser detection. Sorry I can't suggest anything better, but the only option at the moment (if only applicable to you), would be to disable e-mail on your account. WilliamH (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have already disablred email because of abusive messages (including death threats) from this vandal. So we have a situation where one determined bully can successfully disrupt the running of Misplaced Pages, preventing numerous legitimate editors from fully accessing the features of the project. This is not good enough, and I do not get the impression that this problem is being addressed is taken seriousl. If Misplaced Pages cannot prevent a racist thug from misusing the email facility to abuse editors, then it would be better to disable the option entirely for all editors, rather than oblige those of us who face this to cut ourselves off. RolandR (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your impression is mislaid - it is taken seriously, it's being discussed in the appropriate places, and I would be surprised if a technical solution won't be established. WilliamH (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that assurance, but can you say where discussion is occurring?. I strongly agree with RolandR's point: it is unacceptable that MediaWiki has no ability to stop an idiot from abusing editors in such an obvious manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN close request

Can an admin please close this discussion if you have the fortitude to actually read it all its an interesting discourse. As it stands its going nowhere, its bordered on NPA violations since it started the only reason its not been here before is that the editors been there seen that for years or are single focused. At this stage even the neutral people who responded to the request are on the edge, the reality is that sometime in the future it'll be coming to WP:ARBCOM discussion near you. Gnangarra 11:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Russian Copyright Violaing IP addresses

Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See Also

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Rangeblocks Requested,Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#IP hopper at Misplaced Pages:OTRS noticeboard, WP:OTRS Noticeboard#Beatles1.ru,Misplaced Pages:OTRS noticeboard/Archive1#Permission to use materials of the website: sexology1.narod.ru

Once again we're back here after a Collection of BEELINE-BROADBAND/CORBINA TELECOM IP addresses attempt to donate copyrighted content they don't have the rights to. I have attempted multiple times to explain to this user the rules we MUST follow for content that is suspected of being copyright infringement. Now that the OTRS noticeboard was semi-protected, the IP addresses are attempting to convince me on my talk page that they have the rights and are in the process of registering the US copyright. Based on the fact that in previous attempts we've treated the IP editors who are pushing this content with gentle hands and they have not gotten the point I feel that it's time the gloves came off. I'd like to notify the IP editor, however they have yet to confirm what username they're going to register under, so I will drop the notification on my talk page as a response to the IP editor. Hasteur (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Editor has elected to regiser as Ivan Lopakin. I've droped the ANI notice on their talk page. Might some writers in russian try engaging in the user's assumed language to explain the problems? Hasteur (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that will be of any merit. I've lost count how many times it's been explained to him that what he intends to do is impossible for legal reasons. A range block is impossible in terms of the ranges he uses and the MediaWiki software's limitations, but it doesn't matter because there's an edit filter in place (for Beatles songs). Effectively, his modus operandi is staking claims for other people's intellectual property in such a way that cannot be reconciled with U.S. law, where WMF servers are located. Personally, I think it's a troll. He didn't have any luck with the songs, so now he's moving on to something else. WilliamH (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They're using four or five different sets of IPs. I tried grouping them together into ranges, but even then they're too big to block. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 16:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I explained all on your talk page. I am not one of bad users, which use the range of the CORBINA. People can be good or bad. As known. Mistake, the words of last editor. Troll and 7000 of souls. It was joke may be. Thanks ! Ivan Lopakin (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

In other words then, a tedious waste of precious volunteer time. Blocked. WilliamH (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Occidental Petroleum article and talk page

Hi, I’ve been working on some revisions to the Occidental Petroleum article with other editors as I have a COI, which I disclosed on my account page and on that article’s talk page, but have run into some problems with another editor that has repeatedly undone several of my and other editors’ revisions without displaying a willingness to engage in constructive discussion or reach consensus. Despite attempts to work out some compromised material on the talk page, this problem persists. This user has also deleted comments from the talk page that he appears to disagree with (see series of revisions on December 9th) and rearranged other talk page posts so that some are now out of order.

In the interest of keeping the discussion civil, I have not engaged directly in conversation with this editor, but have reached out to other members of the community. I have notified this user of this post and am hoping I can get some help to constructively resolve this issue.

Thanks for your time. CBuiltother (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I was also involved in this as I was asked for my opinion. I will refrain from blocking or warning Cowboy128 as I have edited the article. However I do feel we have reached the point where either a last warning or a block is probably required. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE are the main policies being flouted repeatedly here. --John (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat

I've just received this apparent legal threat, but I'm not sure the proper procedure when it comes from an IP - I blocked 48 hours, but it's a mobile IP so it will be dynamic, and I'd be happy for anyone to change my block as appropriate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: This was the edit I reverted that triggered it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We should at least point them to the WMF, or point the WMF to them. We don't want to follow WP:DOLT to the letter. causa sui (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also dug a little deeper. One of the units listed there appears to be an element of vandalism, especially based on some of the prior edits. I've got a feeling that the inclusion of that item is what got the IP riled up. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Claims to be representing the DOD/Federal government, yet refers to a link to a state government entity conducting the alleged "investigation". And says, "Information submitted on this page was applyed on false pretense." Aren't basic grammar and spelling skills required of state and/or government employees? Doc talk 19:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind that the mentioned agency was from one state, while the WHOIS for the IP indicated that he's in another. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is all this stuff clearly in the citation? I'm searching line by line and some of it is there, while some of it isn't. We may have an over-reliance on a single source plus post-hoc vandalism that got through because nobody bothered to check it out. I'm getting the impression that this is a WP:DOLT story from start to finish. causa sui (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note sure what WMF contact details are appropriate - would be grateful if someone could give them to him if you know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  When in doubt you can send people to OTRS and the emails will get to the right people. causa sui (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

User:117.211.90.154

117.211.90.154 (talk · contribs)

This user has been blocked 4 times edit warring and personal attacks. Today, it appears that they're removing variable amounts of content from different pages with no explanation. Their edits might suggest that it's a shared/school IP but I can find no actual evidence that supports that (here's the whois). Since they day they came off their 3 month block (Nov 22nd), they've made 49 edits that all seem to either be inserting WP:OR, unexplained removal of unsourced content, or unexplained removal of sourced content. Also, since then, they've only left one talk page message which accuses others of "vandalization". I'm surprised this hasn't been caught sooner given their history. On its own, I don't see that this behavior would necessarily warrant a block but given their history, I think it shows that they haven't learned anything from their previous blocks. OlYeller21 20:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked 6 months. --John (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threat

A legal threat has been made on page Duncan Lunan by user:DALunan who appears to have a conflict of interest and wishes his page taken down see . Edinburgh Wanderer 22:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor has been notified. MarnetteD | Talk 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

... and with a concern about WP:DOLT, I've only temporarily blocked him, and am trying to engage in discussion on their talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

... and I have now contacted OTRS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rude etiquette, name calling, and swearing

User Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently entered into the discussion pages in Evolution as fact and theory. This user is swearing, accusing other editors of being "creationists" POV pushers, and being disruptive instead of contributing to the discussion. Several of the editors, including myself, have been working in the evolution pages and contributing without incident. I posted a kind letter to the user and it was deleted with the following comment: "Etiquette in Evolution as fact and theory: Stay the fuck off my page." see here: . This is the kind of behaviour that has also been exhibited in the discussion pages: "See WP:FUCK. So I can use whatever fucking language I want to fucking use at any fucking point in fucking time." and "Why the creationist POV-pushing here?" - while no user is pushing any such view. Some editors have made genuine contributions that can be backed up with WP:V and have made legitimate posts. However, OrangeMarlin is resorting to other kinds of attacks: "Creationists POV pushing attempt to use the English language to conflate real science with their false "beliefs". Period. And Clavicle...spare me your personal attacks. I have NEVER fucking accused you of being a Creationist or a POV pusher. However, your and Thompsma changes may unintentionally assist the creationist POV.". The reality is that Thompsma and I have made lots of contributions to other science articles. This user has come in as a bully and is using foul language instead of contributing in good faith. I've asked the user to cooperate and to get along, but this is not working. Hoping to find someone's assistance. Thank you. I will now notify the user that this is being discussed here.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The user has been notified, but deleted the notification from their talk page here . Stating: "(→Administrator's notice: Like I've ever fucking cared about AN/I's)"Claviclehorn (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am involved. I can understand that the bad words are upsetting, and they should not be used. However, this report is premature and misguided. First, things like this should be discussed at WP:WQA—there is no incident which requires admin intervention yet. Second, if there were some actual engagement with the comments at Talk:Evolution as fact and theory there would be less need for loaded language. While some are offended by the bad language, others (myself at least) are offended by the pointless discussion. Primer for anyone interested: the article concerns scientific responses to the creationist dismissal of evolution: it's only a theory. A large amount of discussion has arisen around a poorly defined proposal to remove one of the standard arguments (i.e. gravity is only a theory). Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm an editor who believes such language in inappropriate in a professional environment, even if - and perhaps particularly if - it's virtual. However, the editor has a long history of using the word fuck, admitting he is cranky, and I think enjoying the hell out of himself for being blunt.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The foul mouth is not needed and just plain ignorant and rude. Oh well. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Claviclehorn has only made substantial contributions to Evolution and Evolution as fact and theory.

Thompsma has edited a wide range of articles on biology, but since July 2011 the majority of his edits are related to Evolution and Evolution as fact and theory.

Orangemarlin is.... a bit forceful when it comes to defending the represention of science from the mainstream point of view. He should learn to tone down his language.

This is probably related to a disputed merge. Uninvolved commenters are needed at Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Shouldn.27t_be_merged_with_.27evolution.27.

Someone familiar with the topic area should look at Talk:Evolution and Talk:Evolution as fact and theory and discern if there is creationist POV-pushing going on or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am an editor and involved. I am finding the posts by OrangeMarlin disruptive, rude, and inappropriate. The proposal to change gravity is only a theory is not poorly defined, it has been written with extensive citations by myself. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and can be reserved for the talk pages. OrangeMarlin is being disruptive to that discussion and accusing others of being creationist POV pushers when this is far from the truth. Editors, such as myself, are working in earnest and trying to make an honest attempt to raise a legitimate point. I have made many contributions to the article, including a significant amount of work on the lead - and the body of the article. Things were going well, until OrangeMarlin jumped in. I am flexible with other editors and generally get along. I would prefer to get along with this user, but I think OrangeMarlin is not willing to move in this direction and has instead resorted to being foul mouthed and wasting the time of editors who would like to discuss the actual topic.Thompsma (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good thing I'm not evolved enough to be familiar with the topic area. I don't suppose WP:INVOLVED and WP:EVOLVED mean the same thing, do they?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read (quickly) the discussion at Evolution as fact and theory, and, frankly, I find OM's comments to be productive. His language could be toned down, but he makes valid constructive points. Even if I didn't think that, I agree with Johnuniq - there's no basis for administrative action - this topic should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not exactly a fan of Orangemarlin and have gone on record saying very bad things about him. But here I am absolutely shocked to see him arguing reasonably and constructively against what does appear to be creationist POV pushing. Not calmly, but he is calmer than I would be in that discussion. Hans Adler 01:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and maybe someone can tell Georgewilliamherbert to stay the fuck off that page, in words that he understands? His trademark method of escalating disputes by painting everything as a pure matter of superficial civility is the last thing that is needed there right now. Hans Adler 01:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am new to that article's discussion. While OrangeMarlin does use language I wouldn't use myself (well, not here, anyway), I can understand his frustration. Thompsma, while claiming to not support the creationist view in any way at all, wants to remove one of the of the most effective retorts to those ignorant creationists who say "...but evolution is only a theory". He presented what he claimed was an alternative proposal, but which was really a bunch of unclear reasons why he thought change was needed, then got cross with me when I kept asking exactly what his proposal was. I really don't think he had one. He just didn't like that section of the article. Maybe what Thompsma is doing is done in good faith, but his efforts are not very helpful, and seem to largely comprise "I and my nice friends have been quietly playing here for a long time. Don't bring strong thoughts into our lives." He cannot express his position very well, which may be just a lack of skill, or he could be hiding something about his true motivations. But all very frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A glance at Talk:Evolution_as_fact_and_theory shows "discussion" that would try the patience of a saint. And Orangemarlin is no saint (he likely would protest against accusations that he is one). The article needs input from a wider audience to offset the not necessarily helpful approach of certain individuals now participating there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not in any way forwarded a creationist POV. I am a scientist and I have contributed greatly to that article. Let's make that clear. "Thompsma, while claiming to not support the creationist view in any way at all, wants to remove one of the of the most effective retorts to those ignorant creationists who say "...but evolution is only a theory" - this is also false. I have suggested integrating the material and getting rid of the section heading. I've suggested an alternative - a section on belief that more broadly covers other literature. This is the problem. OM has created a distraction and others are misinterpreting the text I post. For a creationist I have made quite a few significant contributions to the main evolution article. I've also wrote a significant portion of the evolution as fact and theory article. For someone who hasn't helped, if we were to remove the work I contributed - the article would not be very far along. People must be free to make honest contributions without being accused as a means to bully or obstruct legitimate contributions.Thompsma (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall make my point even more strongly. The gravity comparison is THE most effective retort to those ignorant creationists who say "...but evolution is only a theory". It should not be buried in the article without its own section heading. You may well be a scientist, but you haven't made your reasons clear. THAT'S the real problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I’m uninvolved here, but I’ve been aware for a little while of OrangeMarlin having a persistent problem with incivility across a broad range of articles, and I think it’s overdue for administrators to take a closer look at his behavior in general. Here are four recent diffs of some of his incivility outside of this topic area:

• “Jclemens is full of shit”, subsequently changed to “Jclemens has something up his ass”.

• “Jclemens is absolute douche. Probably a little pussy that would hide in his mommy's basement. Wouldn't have the balls to talk to me like a man. GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU TINY LITTLE MAN JCLEMENS.”

• “So, Jclemens, the pathetic little pussy who probably thinks being a janitor is a step up in life, gets to cast lies against me and get away with it? Then I can't even tell him he's a fucking asshole?”

• This one’s too long to quote, but it’s directed at both me and Jclemens, and has the phrase “Go fuck yourself” four times in one paragraph.

Jclemens is a member of ArbCom, and OrangeMarlin’s grudge against him appears to be because Jclemens suggested that OrangeMarlin be sanctioned for incivility during the abortion arbitration case. The proposal didn’t pass because OM was unable to participate in the case due to illness, but it probably would have passed if not for that.

I’m kind of amazed that OM has been able to get away with this sort of thing for as long as he has. I’ve seen editors get indef-blocked for less than this, and that was when comments like these were being directed at an ordinary editor, not a member of ArbCom. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Racconish and ConcernedVancouverite persist in quoting from non-existent sources and undo corrections

Dear Administration,

Editors Racconish and ConcernedVancouverite persist in quoting from non-existent sources and repeatedly undo corrections to the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/Davina_Reichman

I have been accused of sockpuppetry and COI. Both of these allegations are unfair and incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Davina_Reichman&diff=465042298&oldid=464947464

Please see: non existent sources removed and translation corrected

The article "Have your iPad in hand? Now you need a little black iDress". Vancouver Sun: p. C.3. June 1, 2010. ISSN 08321299. Proquest 2049290071” does not exist.

Nicolas A. Palmer, senior editor of The Vancouver Sun, confirmed that the article was factually incorrect and was deleted. The indexing of the article "Have your iPad in hand? Now you need a little black iDress". Vancouver Sun: p. C.3. June 1, 2010. ISSN 08321299. Proquest 2049290071” been deleted from the databases of ProQuest, OCLC and WorldCat and no longer exists.

The following article from Cambio has been mistranslated: "Vestirse con iPad también se puso de moda" (in Spanish). Revista Cambio. June 8, 2010. Gale A237227979. "Davina Reichman, gerente de la empresa El director creativo de la empresa es Luke Staley, especialista en hacer prendas elegantes, sencillas y clásicas para la mujer y Davina Reichman, quien desarrollo el concepto."

The Spanish translation of

“Davina Reichman, gerente de la empresa El director creativo de la empresa es Luke Staley, especialista en hacer prendas elegantes, sencillas y clásicas para la mujer y Davina Reichman, quien desarrollo el concepto.”

into English is

'Davina Reichman, managing director of the company The creative director of the company is Luke Staley, specialist in making clothing elegant, simple and classical for women and Davina Reichman, who developed the concept."

The relative pronoun "quien" is the singular form of plural form “quienes".

Cambio does not state “they developed the concept”. Cambio states “Davina Reichman, quien desarrollo el concepto.” – translation “Davina Reichman, who developed the concept”.

“Page, Emma (November 4, 2010). "Classic but quirky designs".Mosman Daily: p. 56. Retrieved November 4, 2011.” is an irrelevant source as it does not mention iClothing.

Thank you for your assistance in this regard.

Yours sincerely, OliviaBlond (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC) OliviaBlond

Firstly, you have to notify those 2 editors of this topic. Secondly, your userpage reads "My name is Olivia. I am Davina's concerned friend. My bête noire is when people dispute and disrupt notable articles.", added by you . That contradicts "I have been accused of ... COI. ... incorrect." Domenico.y, who is a friend to Davina (there are photos on Flickr) confirmed you as Davina.R flatmate . Simply put, why are you wasting AN/I time, Davina was blocked for COI. You should be too for acting on her behalf as "concerned friend". Ma®©usBritish  01:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree (except that she did notify the two editors, although she messed up the template). I stopped looking at the Reichman article a long time ago - so much ado about so little.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My Son Marshall, My Son Eminem problem

Because I reverted another editor three times previously, User:Eeekster re-added content that I removed which is content that I added myself and tagged me for 3RR. I explained that tagged information will make it so that the article will not be applicable for DYK. SL93 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because it's a 3RR violation. Eeekster (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really violate 3RR. It started with me removing an editor's tags on content that I added. Then I decided to remove the content because of the tags and because I wanted it on DYK. SL93 (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I count six reversions you (SL93) made in the space of less than an hour.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The last three were so that the article would be eligible for the main page. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And so? Is that one of the exemptions to WP:3RR? I'm surprised you came here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For featured articles, it is allowed. For DYK, it should be the same. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The exemption I assume you are referring to states: "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page" (emphasis added). The article isn't anywhere on the main page, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It was removed by another editor. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And DYK articles cannot be approved with tags for the main page. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, you're saying it was on the main page at the time you reverted? And then it was removed? I forget how to look at the history of the main page, but the edit summary history of the article doesn't read that way. And even if you are correct, you are supposed to make it clear in the edit summary that you are claiming the exemption, and you didn't mention the DYK thing until I think the 5th reversion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that. DYKs go through a nomination process. Articles cannot pass that process with any article issues. SL93 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So the exemption doesn't apply - it's not intended for what you would like to happen, it's intended for something already on the main page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So basically you following that rule like the Bible is stopping me from helping build a quality article. Why are you against the removal besides pointing to that rule? SL93 (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:IAR please. SL93 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that if I violated 3RR, as you clearly did here, I wouldn't have the nerve to come complaining to WP:ANI. I realize that despite being touted as a bright-line rule, admins sometimes give editors leeway on violations in extraordinary circumstances. However, I must say that wanting an article to be a DYK on the main page isn't what I would consider an extraordinary circumstance. Perhaps others here are more sympathetic to your position than I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's improving Misplaced Pages so it is a WP:IAR situation. It isn't just about DYK, it is about improving the article and improving Misplaced Pages a little bit as a result. SL93 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a reason to break WP:3RR. You should just drop the stick, admit fault, and everyone can move on. See my comment below. It's no longer an issue.--v/r - TP 03:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I did a ton of googling on this and this is what I came up with and what I did. I couldn't find any other source for Mrs. Nelson suing anyone to correct any information. I think the source we have isn't a reliable source. Two lawsuits I could find involving the book were 1) From 1999 well before the book was written to address the song My Mom, and 2) Mrs. Nelson was sued in 2009 from someone else who claimed he helped her write the book. Neither of them involved correcting information in the book which seemed odd to begin with because she wrote it. So I reverted SL93's removal of the sentence and then I reverted myself with my rationale. That should solve the warring. If my rationale is flawed, someone uninvolved can feel free to revert me and make a more informed decision.--v/r - TP 02:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to repeat your searching efforts, but I agree that the source used for the assertion is unreliable. Also, the assertion itself was weird - she sued whom? to correct what? Makes little sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please answer this. After reading WP:IAR, do you really think there was no good reason to violate the 3RR rule? SL93 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, I think you were out of bounds. And, as I just said on my Talk page, I've gotta get off Misplaced Pages and eat something. So, knock yourself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And you still haven't put forth how it doesn't go by IAR, which is a policy, and just pointed to WP:3RR. SL93 (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Because WP:IAR says any action "improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages". An unstable article, due to edit warring, is not improving Misplaced Pages.--v/r - TP 03:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There wouldn't have been an edit war if editors did not revert my removal of content that did not improve Misplaced Pages. SL93 (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Improving Misplaced Pages is ambiguous. Both sides in an edit war feel they are improving Misplaced Pages. Thus, WP:IAR would apply to both sides. Essentially, if WP:IAR applied to WP:3RR, then it would defeat the entire purpose of WP:3RR. Both sides honestly feel they are the ones improving Misplaced Pages. That's why we have WP:3RR and why WP:IAR doesn't apply.--v/r - TP 03:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the purpose of 3RR to stop an article from appearing on DYK? It will be eligible with a couple hundred more characters. SL93 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, why don't you just continue with your interpretation of WP:3RR and WP:IAR, and we'll just recap this conversation when you've been indef blocked for edit warring. Do you think that will improve the DYK process? You're lucky you didn't get blocked this time. Your really failing to get the point. You are so focused on your point of view, you've refused to look at this from the perspective of Misplaced Pages. You've made an article unstable by edit warring. Edit warring happens because edits feel they are improving the article by reverting to their version. That's what an edit war is. WP:IAR would completely circumvent WP:3RR everytime if it could be used as a excuse or exemption. There would be no such thing as WP:3RR. You have 5 days to solve the tag issues on the article. That is no reason to edit war. Even if you had one day, the rule on tags at DYK exists for a reason. You can't simply remove the tags and send it to DYK without fixing the problem. If you can't get that, then you have serious competence issues. Drop the stick and don't use IAR for 3RR again.--v/r - TP 03:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The tag issues can't be solved which is a problem. SL93 (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called a talk page?--v/r - TP 03:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried that with Eekster. It didn't work so I brought it here. SL93 (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_2#Tally_of_actual_votes_at_Afd

I'm really concerned at the pillorying of the closing admin for supposedly having closed the AfD prematurely (a.k.a after 12 days, when the closing instructions say to close it after 7.) It's getting rather really nasty, and really needs some calming intervention. 86.** IP (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait what? How is closing after 12 days consider "premature" when the instructions say 7?--v/r - TP 03:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is bizarre. The argument seems to be that an AfD should be kept open until their is a consensus. This would (a) mean that any 'no consensus' closures were invalid, and (b) that the admin would have to assess the AfD first, and then decide whether to close it. Not only is it not the way it is done (regardless of arguments over the wording of policy - though I think current practice is in accord with this), but it would make a nonsense of the whole procedure to have repeated assessments of 'consensus', by (presumably) multiple admins, with the first to call 'consensus' making the decision. Bonkers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Talk:Muhammad by User:FormerIP

WP:TPO states, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

Original edit:

Diffs of edits by User:FormerIP:

Similar, earlier today:

Could someone persuade FormerIP to take a little break from that talk page? The discussions are quite difficult enough without these pranks. Cheers, --JN466 03:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards