Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 21 May 2012

• 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)

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

'Jaguar/Sandbox/3' edits

Live discussion moved from archive 732.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This error exists in a large number of articles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 7) Errors like the ones pointed out here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How bad is this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A sample

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of all these pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go fuck yourself you prick. Jaguar (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't that be "second last never"? GiantSnowman 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• (ec) Fetchcomms, I think that's needlessly personal. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, given the header box Jaguar has seen fit to place on their talk page, this is somewhat accurate now. Blackmane (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Multiple(edit conflict) Sadly, I will have to Support this motion to delete. However, if there is an option to put them into some sort of incubator outside of article space I would prefer that. Jaguar, it's great that you chose this set of articles to create and I applaud you for that. It's also great that you agreed to go back to correct errors and that shouldn't take all that long if you get stuck into it. However, the problem here now isn't just the article errors, it's the referencing. It took me almost 25min to look for the correct page in the reference (I don't know how long it took Kusma) when clicking on a link that should take me straight there, but can you see the problem with doing that for 10,000 articles? If I had to do that for all 10,000 articles, that's almost 170 days worth of editor man-hours. The other problem is that you are more concerned with the rate of your article creations rather than the accuracy of your article creations, this you freely admitted to. The very fact that you failed to check the accuracy of the location information prior to creating the article is also very concerning. The example I highlighted before I easily checked by entering the name into Google maps. You could have done this before creating the article and corrected the list before creating your article, but instead you chose to take the information at face value and prized speed above accuracy. None of us here want to delete your articles out of spite or malice but out of consideration of the huge expenditure of editor hours required to clean up. Blackmane (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, there is a bunch of problems that leave no other option, IMHO. 8000+ stubs with barely one sentence and one basic infobox. An unknown percentage contains errors or is totally mistaken. Not based in any reliable source, so they are impossible to verify. The creator fixed a few after a lot of prodding, but the fixed articles still contain basic errors and no reliable source (example of one "fix" made, only the glaring error in the name is fixed, the only source is still a Chinese forum with lists of names, it links to a list of articles not to the specific page that holds the information, the name is not translated to Chinese so I can't even search its Chinese name in the forum to find the correct page and translate it, never mind that the whole article still seems to be based on the unsourced article List_of_township-level_divisions_of_Fujian). The whole thing should be deleted as salvageable without complete rewriting, and future mass creations should be based on a reliable database that is cited in the created articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrator John repeatedly forcing preferred versions

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

John (talk · contribs), an administrator, has been in a slow edit war at Adam Yauch for some time now regarding a category. John repeatedly asserts that the category Category: American Jews cannot be used because according to BLPCAT the person has to self identify. The problem is that he complained to the BLP Noticeboard and was basically told that BLPCAT doesn't apply for various reasons (mainly because none of Yauch's living relatives are adversely affected by us putting him in that category). John continues to stick his fingers in his ears over this issue, and has been in a slow edit war at this and a couple other pages regarding this category. He also claimed in his most recent summary that my addition of the category was unsourced, however multiple sources have been provided on the talk page over and over again. Whenever one of his arguments is satisfied by sources or by him being told BLPCAT does not apply, he keeps engaging in circular logic by once again going back to the other claim (either BLPCAT or referencing) to gridlock the discussion. He is also implying that people who want to include this category are anti-semites/racists as he keeps inappropriately referencing yellow badge and single drop rule. John is engaging in policy wonkery and continually using his discredited arguments to force his preferred versions. I believe this behavior, from an administrator no less, should be reviewed and dealt with. Night Ranger (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this be better served at WP:BLPN? It isn't an "incident" (ie: ANI) as much as a content dispute with BLP implications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

John already posted there some time ago. He was told BLPCAT did not apply and the discussion there died out. He is playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and continues to invoke BLPCAT. The content dispute is not at issue, the issue is his behavior, which is unbecoming an administrator. Night Ranger (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we get some diffs of both the edit warring and the usage of inappropriate terms on his part? A link to the BLPN discussion would be nice too. Silverseren 05:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Yauch was a practicing Buddhist. Calling him an American Buddhist might be acceptable. Labeling him a Jew sounds like an agenda. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

However, some sources say otherwise, such as this Jewish Week article. Not to mention Forbes. Mayhaps he is ethnically Jewish, but religiously Buddhist? Silverseren 05:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice here is not to label someone's ethnic group unless he's notable for being in that ethnic group. Woody Allen qualifies, for example. Yauch? Doesn't look like it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Except the Beastie Boys were known for being Jewish kids. Hot Stop 05:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a number of sources discussing how the Beastie Boys as a whole were known for being Jewish and it was one of the early reasons why they became noticed by the public. Silverseren 05:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources would be good. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Like this Jewish Chronicle article? Good enough? I mean, "The Beastie Boys paved the way for today’s Jewish hip hoppers who don’t have to come from the ghetto to be ‘for real’" and "they put Jews at the forefront of the genre in its early days" is clear enough. Silverseren 06:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Or this Forbes one "They were three white Jewish kids from Brooklyn"? There are more in Yauch's article too. Hot Stop 06:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Then John had best explain his actions. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is curious, though, that the Rolling Stone obit didn't say a word about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times says something about it in passing, well into the article, so it doesn't sound as if their being considered Jewish was any big deal. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion would seem to belong at the RFC or elsewhere in the article talk page not here. But as I understand it, as with nearly every single dispute of this sort I've seen in recent times, the dispute is whether to label him 'X (American) Jews' or 'X (American) people of Jewish descent', so it's more complicated then simply whether there are sourced that label him Jewish in some fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see from the talk page and the BLPN discussion. More specifically, it seems to be about what Category:American Jews encompasses, since the American Jews article includes both religion and ethnicity and Yauch is clearly ethnically Jewish, but not religiously Jewish (he's Buddhist). Therein lies the confusion. Of course, if said category applies to both, then the Jewish descent cat is pretty redundant in its use here (though there are certainly people of Jewish descent who would not be categorized as religiously or ethnically Jewish), so it gets even more complicated there. Judaism discussions always end up being a mess. *sighs* Silverseren 09:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As with Silver seren, I would say some diffs would be helpful. There seems to be an ongoing RFC on the content dispute and I only see two edits to the article from John, nearly 2 weeks apart so I'm not seeing anything needing administrative attention. Even if there was some poor behaviour on the part of John (I'm not commenting one way or the other), the level would suggest at most a RFC/U. Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• The relevant archived BLPN discussion: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive152#Adam_Yauch. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing where he may have abused the admin tools. I see complaints against him as an editor but unless tool abuse may be shown there is no need to review his actions here on this board. This looks like a content dispute.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 11:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinly-veiled personal attacks / accusations of antisemitism

He's still blabbering about BLPCAT when he was told at BLPN that it didn't apply, and he's still accusing me of antisemitism by invoking things like yellow badge. This has nothing to do with content disputes but with BEHAVIOR. See here . So is this completely fine? Should I just assume that since he's an administrator it's fine to keep attacking me and claiming that my position is one of racism and anti-semitism? Night Ranger (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Attack account

• Anderson Cooper Exposer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already reported to AIV. The only reason I brought it here is that it also smells a lot like someone's sock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and locked, but I don't have local CU. MBisanz 04:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually non-SUL, but thanks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's also oversighted, so no log entries. I've been told that this is User:Mr. Kruzkin.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for JIM ME BOY

• JIM ME BOY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anderson Cooper Exposer is a sock of this guy. I'm surprised there's no community ban yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah Egg Centric 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. If he has created 30+ sockpuppets, and has still been socking 'till today, he deserves nothing other than a community ban. →Bmusician 12:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Anil99seo

• Anil99seo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zylog Systems Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have warned Anil99seo at least twice about the clear conflict of interests they have regarding Zylog Systems Limited, a company in which they are employed (per their own user page). The editor is a WP:SPA and the edits made are very much to glorify the company, against WP:NPOV. In addition, external links which I keep removing (mostly per WP:ELNO #19) are re-introduced with no discussion or explanation. The editor will not discuss their edits or conflict. Some intervention is required to make the editor at least discuss the matter. --Muhandes (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked until this person can show a basic understanding of WP:EL; I've got to say, having SEO at the end of your name is a very good way to get you blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Prophet of Hell

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

From the very first interaction, extreme hostility and incivility (). He's been warned and blocked for this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality just a few weeks ago (), but apparently didn't learn anyhting. Constantine ✍ 06:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And he continues, this time in German (). Constantine ✍ 07:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. I would have looked past the edit-warring and the personal attacks, and the fact that he did all that immediately after coming back from the last block should not be held against him, but getting all the "ß" and "ss" and the commas wrong when writing German is really unforgivable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard "Vollidiot" in almost thirty years, since I quit watching dubbed movies on German television. Ah Fut.Perf., you Communist misbirth, how time flies. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Snakehands

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

Could someone take a look at the edits of Snakehands (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and determine what action is needed for this editor? Apart from approximately four edits this year, every single other one has been to edit war over changing a section title on Diane Abbott to non-neutral and quite probably BLP violating ones. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The user has already been blocked by Dennis Brown for 24 hours for violation of WP:BLP. Dipankan 13:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked Edits like this and make me think they don't understand what "neutral" means, and they seem to have a clear agenda that is inconsistent with the goals of building an encyclopedia. The fact that they have added the term "racist remarks" as a header multiple times tells me they don't understand our policies. This is clearly a BLP violation, and flagrant enough that I have blocked them for 24 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

can somebody please remove a unfair template from the userpage

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

there is a template about reverting everything at user "c h a o s n a m e" user page (the one with a information symbol) it is unfair to the user as no other banned user page has that, so am asking can somebody please remove it 66.225.195.47 (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There are other banned user pages that have it too: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:BannedMeansBanned --92.6.200.56 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Denied Template is consistent with our methods and goals. Why this matters to you, I have no clue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsure how to deal with a grossly uncivil IP user

IP user 71.164.252.201 (talk) made this grossly uncivil comment on Cobi's talk page: after ClueBot NG warned him for vandalism: How should I deal with it: user warning template, request for immediate block, request for RevDel, what? ChromaNebula (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked 48 hours and deleted, I think (I'm still new to revdel, so check me). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Checked - it's fine. -- Dianna (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. I wasn't sure how to respond, and I thought the people on AN/I would be able to help. What should I do the next time I encounter a personal attack or other incivility? ChromaNebula (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is at this extreme level, here is fine. If it is more minor, Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Starkiller88

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

Starkiller88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-confessed vandal who has been involved in a long-term campaign of adding deliberate misinformation to a number of articles associated with Fobos-Grunt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Alexander V. Zakharov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Anonymous (group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I also believe that he has been using IP sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny, is engaging in serious disruption to make a point, has made several potentially libellous edits; accusing scientists and engineers on the Fobos-Grunt project of treason, particularly Zakharov, who he also claimed would die in 2015, or "be disappeared".

Between late January and early April, a large number of IP users began adding unreferenced OR, speculative and POV statements to Fobos-Grunt. In April the page was semi-protected after the issue was raised at AN3 by BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs). At around that time, Starkiller turned up, and started making similar edits to those the IPs had been. Given that his account was blocked repeatedly a few years ago for persistent OR and disruptive editing, I believe that before semi-protection Starkiller was logging out to add OR so that it couldn't be linked back to his main account so easily. 119.40.118.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), one of the more active IP users, has the same editing pattern; editing articles related to Fobos-Grunt and Anonymous, and also changing the word "planet" to "exoplanet" in articles relating to several fictional worlds (edits by Starkiller and the IP). Most of the other IP addresses involved were in the 115.133.*.* range. I did a whois check on a few of them, and all the 115-block addresses I checked were registered to Telekom Malaysia, with 119.40.118.34 being a Malaysian university, so there does seem to be geographic correlation between them. On several occasions he has forgotten to log back in when replying to messages, such as here, proving that he has been editing from 115.135.144.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which also tracks back to Telekom Malaysia.

Initially, he seems to have been insistent on adding claims that the Fobos-Grunt mission would not be repeated, and that it's project team had been disbanded, based on speculation that Russia was about to join the European ExoMars programme. After a while, this effectively came to pass, so he started taking the opposite position; that the mission would be repeated, based on the opinion of a single scientist. His claims were repeatedly removed by a number of editors, however he kept adding them, and attempts to discuss the issue at Talk:Fobos-Grunt proved fruitless. Eventually, BatteryIncluded made a series of posts on Starkiller's talk page in an effort to get him to stop claiming that the repeat mission was planned, however this simply caused Starkiller to start claiming at every possible opportunity and with as much emphasis as possible, that there would never be another mission to Phobos, at any point in the future..

In addition to the claims about the scientists behind the mission being wanted for treason, he started adding claims about a planned Anonymous operation, entitled "Phobos-Gone" aimed at taking down the Fobos-Grunt website, and conducting vigilante acts to "bring those responsible for the failure to justice". He added the claim, accompanied by one or two references which linked to user-generated content on Pastebin, to Fobos-Grunt, Alexander V. Zakharov, Lavochkin, Timeline of events associated with Anonymous, Anonymous Operation and Anonymous (group). He also created four redirects relating to the alleged campaign, before admitting during the resulting RfD discussion that he made the whole thing up in retaliation for a mildly incivil post that BatteryIncluded made on his talk page after he had repeatedly stonewalled more polite requests to stop being disruptive. Making this point also appears to have been the cause of his insistence that there would never be another mission to Phobos. I am particularly concerned with the way he has since been pursuing this matter off-wiki, creating accounts on Blogspot, Twitter and Youtube with which he appears to be inciting criminal and vigilante activities against third parties in order to make the claims he is adding to these articles genuine.

He has been repeatedly asked to stop, but he just apologises, waits a day or two, and then starts editing again. I have sent him final warnings for both disruptive editing and long-term vandalism, which he has ignored, so I believe this now needs to be dealt with by an administrator. --W. D. Graham 15:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be imbedded somewhere up in Graham's detailed post above, but people should really view this video added by Starkiller (and later correctly removed). Although I understand the serious disruption to the project caused by Starkiller, the video is at the same time a hoot. As for the merits of Graham's request for "dealing" with Starkiller, sanctions are, I hate to use the word obviously, warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Digging just a little makes it pretty obvious that this person is not here to build an encyclopedia. I would lean toward doing an indef and just be done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, blocking indef now. I'm not interested in having a drawn-out conversation over whether he's been "warned enough", the intent here is very clear. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Once you've used this as a reliable source, you've shown you don't belong here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Long-time user blocked with no discussion

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

My main accounts, User:Chutznik and User:Shalom Yechiel, were blocked with no discussion whatsoever for reciting the real name of a user whose real name was already well known. This indefinite block for a user who has more than 30,000 productive edits to Misplaced Pages, and created about 400 new articles, was completely inappropriate and should be reversed. Throwaway777 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it an indefinite block, it's also a ban. Therefore, this account is getting blocked, and your only choice is to appeal to the arbitration committee.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of respecting this illegitimate ban. First of all, bans are to be imposed by the community, not unilaterally. I demand a full discussion appropriate for a uuser with my extensive tenure. Second, if the ban stands, I will evade it with my existing sleeper sock which has more than 100 edits. Throwaway777 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter, but I will implement the technical aspect of the aforementioned blocks. Regardless of whether or not the block was "legitimate", those accounts are blocked, and therefore this one will be blocked. And so now it is. Do not evade blocks. If you want to appeal them, then do so, probably most appropriately with WP:BASC if the normal unblock methods are not working for you. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bravo. Utterly brilliant move by Throwaway777. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody explain where this "ban" comes from? I see no ban discussion and nothing, not even a block message. The indef block may well be legitimate, but I really don't see how a ban could be created in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not listed at Misplaced Pages:List_of_banned_users either. Something fishy is going on here. Monty₈₄₅ 17:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I feel we're missing something here. GiantSnowman 17:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I make no comment on the ban (or even if it exists). My thought process was simple: Blocked, blocked, not blocked. Make them all blocked. Done. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I've filed this user's first and probably not last SPI. Would like a CheckUser to investigate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about this, but can find neither a community "ban" discussion nor an arbcom decision "banning" these accounts, notwithstanding that they've been described as such on the user pages by Raulxx (can't remember the numbers).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4)Even if there is no ban, we can create one right now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• User:Raul654 notified of this discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 18:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that I think of it, this is not good admin conduct.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, they were unilaterally banned by User:Raul654 a few days ago . The main account hadn't made any edits for some weeks. Apparently, an undisclosed sock of "Chutznick" had referred to a longtime admin former editor (no edits on the main account at least since 2010) by his real name (a real name disclosed by the admin editor in signing his correspondence on a variety of wikipedia-related mailing lists) in an obscure AFD. That's about the whole of it.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How did you find that out? I couldn't figure out even this much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The alleged sock is User:Throwaway666.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Unilaterally banning people is not something that administrators should be doing. This behaviour is unacceptable on the part of Raul654. Misplaced Pages:Ban#Decision to ban lays down the ban parameters, and unilateral banning by an admin is not permitted. -- Dianna (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've just been notified of this discussion, so I guess I should note that my block on the user was merely a necessary and purely technical tweak of Raul654's block, and it should not be construed as endorsing or commenting in any way on the original block. That said, no administrators can impose bans outside of arbitration enforcement, and unless there's a specific provision of some Arbitration decision supporting this (and there might very well be, I haven't been following ARBCOM stuff much over the years), then the ban is void. However I would suggest waiting for Raul's comments to determine whether there was a specific Arbitration Enforcement provision he was referring to in banning the user. In any case, outing is clearly unacceptable and the community should probably formally ban the user anyway. Snowolf 18:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Is a ban the typical response to a first offense of outing, where the editor being outed has publicly identified themselves before? (Its still a sort of outing, but seems a less egregious type) Monty₈₄₅ 18:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, so much drama while I was out. A few days ago, Shalom/Yetchel/Chutznik/whatever-he's-calling-himself-these days used a sockpuppet to post the RL name of a former editor (someone who had not edited in two years) to Misplaced Pages, and then bragged about that action in a well-known off-wiki forum. He's already admitted that earlier in this thread, but defended his actions by claiming that it was OK because that former editor had previously disclosed it on some of his emails. Misplaced Pages:Outing contradicts his defense.

When I saw his bragging, I blocked him, and all of his sockpuppets that I could find (namely: user:Placeholder account, user:Crystal whacker, user:Chutznik, user:Shalom Yechiel, and user:Shalom) and tagged them as banned. In retrospect, I probably should have tagged them as indefblocked. It didn't really occur to me that people would get so upset about such a triviality. A little while later, Snowolf removed my original block comment (because it linked to the URL of the outing) but left it unchanged in every other respect. Raul654 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it now. Endorse indef block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In light of the above explanation it appears the block was reasonable, and while I personally think an indef length is a bit excessive, its certainly within the reasonable discretion of the blocking admin, and not something that needs to be overturned. Monty₈₄₅ 18:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Endorse block. Indeed, I merely changed the settings because the current design doesn't allow for suppressed/revdeleted block reasons for blocks currently in place (well, it does but it leaks them all over the place). Snowolf 18:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd endorse the block just for his threat above to evade using a "sleeper" account. But yeah, sounds like a good block otherwise too. Equazcion 18:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Formalize ban for Chutznik

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

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

Since I see no discussion saying he's banned for real, let's rectify this. !vote below.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - firstly why did you say he was banned, and secondly what has he done to now merit a ban? GiantSnowman 17:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I believed the {{banned}}, until I realized it was placed there with no link. Doing sleeper sockpuppetry and outing is definitely ban-worthy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is a link, but it ia to the incomplete list of banned users, and it didn't have those accounts listed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This is ridiculous... It says hes banned on his user page so lets formally enact a ban here? Its beyond words... Monty₈₄₅ 17:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Indeed. I have no idea what the guy has supposedly done to deserve a ban. Something about outing, according to the second block message? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Monty, this is not the right time. I didn't see the ban either, but he undermined his whole case by threatening to sock, making me less than sympathetic to his cause now. That doesn't mean a ban discussion is proper in the heat of the moment. Needs review to see how the tag got there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Good luck. I just spent a chunk of time trying to research whether there was a ban discussion at AN or ANI, or whether there was an arbcom ban, all of this because we don't computerize bans properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Usually block/ban requests are accompanied by evidence of wrong doing. None was presented. I would push to have the account unblocked immediately.--JOJ 18:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

Before we get all excited and go off half cocked, it would be nice to simply try to review the situation. I support the block because he threatened to sock, and he was already an admitted sock, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I now agree that we should wait for a ban. Perhaps this user will calm down and stop the socking.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What a cluster mess of ECs. Yes, that would be a good idea. I wonder why Raul put the tag on there to begin with? It seems to have started this whole drama-fest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Both administrators notified--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The socking threat is definitely inappropriate, but it should be considered in light of the fact that it appears the editor was banned out of process, and that was what the socking threat was in response to, which should certainly mitigate the threat, even if it doesn't excuse it. Monty₈₄₅ 18:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't excuse it, and that's somewhat important. I can think of cases where administrators were desysopped after being blocked because they unblocked themselves after being blocked out of process. The one that performed the block? Still an admin. I don't want to resurface that argument, I just want to point out that you don't go around doing your own thing just because you were blocked unjustly. There are procedures all the way up to arbcom on how to fix the problem. That being said, blocks are meant to prevent disruption to the wiki. So if the block reason is unnecessary, and we can be guaranteed that the user won't go around socking (which, to me, requires that this user tell us who this sleeper account is, immediately), then I wouldn't be opposed to an unblock. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, he was using a sock, while threatening a sock. That is recursive socks. I was already reviewing, and would have removed the tag, politely told him, and still would have blocked the sock he used to complain, as a matter of policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any evidence why a block was needed in the first place. Creating alternate accounts is only inappropriate if evading a block or creating mischief. There are occasions where alternate accounts are justified, but unless the accounts were being used abusively, I don't see why an initial block was initiated.--JOJ 18:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have been blocked unjustly and you sock to prove it, you should be blocked. Instead, you email ArbCom. There is a system in place to deal with this. Bypassing the system, even if you are right, will and should get you blocked. If the initial block was wrong, ArbCom needs to review it, not everyone at ANI. I'm tempted to think that someone needs to simply close this entire dramah fest, as nothing can be done at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the users' posts on "the other site" they're hardly bothered about the block, instead they're just out to taunt checkusers, so I agree with you - why waste time caring? If they were actually upset by this then it would be a different matter. Egg Centric 19:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still at a lose as to why the account was initially blocked. No evidence has been presented to justify that block.--JOJ 19:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(Self-admitted violation of Misplaced Pages:OUTING) if you simply check the block log. The actual offense would be redacted as to not be in public view. He wasn't arguing the block, only the ban anyway. Again, someone needs to close this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Desysop or RfC/U

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

I'd like to see how close Raul is to being desysopped, or the possibility of an RFCU.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's yet another hasty move, after your equally hasty move of proposing the formal ban against the other guy. Relax. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Lets slow down a bit. While it appears on the face of it that Raul at least made an erroneous ban notification, I think it would be prudent to wait for an explanation from Raul before we start talking about RfC/U or desysops. Monty₈₄₅ 18:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He probably should not be desysopped, but what I see is a user forced to sock because he was "banned" by an admin w/o consensus. I actually looked at the original account's contribs and they are constructive. Geez, LQT would definitely help the EC's.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• An indefblock on all those accounts was definitely in order, whether Raul called it blan or indef block is trivial and has no relevance. Its a mere matter of semantics and a goodfaith inquiry could have made him changed the wording in the blocknotices. Nothing to see here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shardul Pandey

There has been an insanely high influx of ip editors at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shardul Pandey. While it is possible that the editors are just so interested in the article that they feel the need to argue for its inclusion, I believe it is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. All of the ip's are from Karnataka, Bangalore (found using Geolocate). In addition, there was a rapid spike in page views when the article was listed for deletion. I considered waiting for the closing administrator to review it and make his own decision on the status of the ip's, I also considered starting an SPI. Instead, I came here because an ip has accused me of being canvassed into the discussion . I was never contacted about the discussion, I found it through WP:AFD and I was the first editor to take part. What is the appropriate action to take here? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to semi protect it right now to make sense of it. Although the IP geolocate says it's static, these aren't. But I think a rangeblock will have collateral damage. —SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, FPaS beat me to that. —SpacemanSpiff 17:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I go ahead and remove the baseless claim that I was canvassed in? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, but I've commented there on its unlikelihood. Dru of Id (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Over-zealous speedy deletion tagging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think you guys are reaching for the wrong tool. One can easily nominate things for speedy deletion without any automated tools. A temporary topic ban on CSD tagging is what we should be discussing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

something spanish

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

86.176.93.37 (talk · contribs) no idea what, but looking at the contributions possibly someone with a clue about what is what can tell me what I'm asking ? (notified) Penyulap ☏ 18:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To me it looks like a vandalism-only account--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably guess I should be blocked 86.176.93.37 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A British Telecom IP in the 86 range with a hard-on for Darkness Shines screams of a Nangparbat sock.Ankh.Morpork 18:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Probably guess I should be blocked " sounds like Penyulap (talk · contribs) logic to me Penyulap ☏ 19:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikhounding and inappropriate article tagging by User:Neutralhomer

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

Despite having been warned to twice "drop it" by admin JamesBWatson (first warning, second warning), Neutralhomer is Wikihounding me by edit-warring and inappropriately tagging the article on my home town, Taos, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article which he had not edited until he disagreed with me templating another editor. Pertinent discussions (and forum shopping) can be found:

• User_talk:JamesBWatson#User:Yworo
• User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#User:Yworo
• User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#User:Neutralhomer
• User_talk:JamesBWatson#Taos.2C_New_Mexico

Someone please at least have a further word with him about this activity. Yworo (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the one sided story. I invite anyone to look at the history of my talk page at Yworo's posts and you will see this isn't just me. My favorite is where he tells me to "take my Aspergers induced lack of social skills elsewhere and stop harassing me". He later apologizes for the comment while insulting me. Insults do not an apology make.

The Taos article has many problems which I addressed with the templates (since editing the article isn't going to happen). The article has problems with original research, lack of references, references which are unreliable, cleanup problems, non-notable information, tone and peacock words and other problems. It needs a through cleanup and as someone who has done a fair amount of editing in the town/city area of Misplaced Pages, I know what I am looking for. I have asked WP:CITIES to come in and help, again since editing the article isn't going to happen. There isn't any problems from me, but WP:OWNing from Yworo on the article. As for everything else, see his talk page history and mine (and our contribs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The accuracy or lack thereof of your tagging is not the issue. It's your behavior of intentionally using the tagging in an attempt to escalate a conflict rather than drop it as has been recommended to you by two different admins which is the problem here. It's clearly intended to intimidate and harass me, rather than for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, which is the definition of Wikihounding. Yworo (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are taking it that way, sure, but I wasn't doing that. I was tagging the article, had posted to WP:CITIES and was moving on. If I was escalating things, I would have reverted you when you put the radio stations list back (with unreliable sources). I finally just said "f*ck it" and let WP:CITIES handle it. They handle all the town and city articles, so they know what they are doing and if they remove it (and you edit war), it makes you look bad. I was done. You escalated the situation by posting to my talk page (after we had agreed not to post to each others talk pages) and going to ANI. Neither of us are doing a very good job today, are we? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You've just admitted in the first paragraph of your first response your motivation and grudge. I was going to point out that anyone who looks at the situation would be able to see clear through you, but you've made that unnecessary. I won't be bothering to watch or respond to this any further since you've just shot yourself in your own foot. Have fun! Yworo (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from some experience: Beware of editing subjects that are too close to your heart. That's where you have to be extra careful to be sure things are well-sourced, notable, encyclopedic, etc. Even safer, never edit subjects that you're close to. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Why, because you insulted my Aspergers? Come on! If I hounded all the people who insult my Aspergers on a daily basis, I would be a really tired person. That isn't my motivation for anything and you have to do alot more to me to get me to hold a grudge. All that does is piss me off for a few. My motivation is the Taos article is a freakin' mess and you are OWNing the thing to the point no one can edit. I'm not the one with the grudge, it looks like you are. But have fun not defending yourself.

Bugs has a point, when I edited my hometown article, I had to be VERY careful and I had multiple people working with me to make sure I didn't include everything (and I tried a couple times). That article went to FA and then TFA. So, I think I know what I am doing when I edit a city/town article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And if you look at the edit history, you will find I've made no major contributions to the article. I've primarily removed promotional language, rewritten for clarity, tagged the article myself when there have been problems, added sources, and monitored the article. Little or none of the content is my writing. Your tags and claims are completely inaccurate. There are not "many problems, lack of supporting references, tone of the article, lots of original research, and needs a ton of cleanup", anyone who takes the time to read the article will be able to verify that for themselves. They certainly shouldn't take your word for it, due to you transparent ulterior motives. Yworo (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question for all: Yworo "intend to remove the tags unless the OP explains in detail precisely where the problems are in this article." I would be that original poster and the article in question being the Taos, New Mexico article. So, my question, since editing the page probably isn't a good idea, how do I respond? Here on ANI or not at all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is a remarkably petty dispute. Yworo, your list of diffs in your initial post don't even support your complaint. I go along with what James said in one of your diffs: "I urge you to both to drop your quarrel. Both of you have some valid points, but both of you are being very unconstructive." Move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Works for me, as that was my plan to begin with (after I handed off to WP:CITIES). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Gigantic trouting to Yworo for opening this, a bigger one for editing his hometown's article so unobjectively, and no chips to go with either cut of fish (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• After disconnecting myself from the ANI thread, his talk page and the Taos article, Yworo has saw it fit to edit the Stephens City, Virginia article (one I am currently editing) as some sort of weird one-up-manship or something. He is obviously escalating things and I am just trying to do some work. Also, this would be the second time his has insulted my Aspergers saying "implementing Misplaced Pages wide consensus, FAC does not override the technical issues experienced by the disabled". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• From the previous edit history, it doesn't look like he's referring to you, but to the visually disabled. Perhaps more to the point, this is not the way to get this topic closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I have blocked Yworo for this egregious edit summary. It's a mere 12hrs, so it's not punishment - it's allowing them to rethink their phrasing towards other disabilities now and in the future. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the edit summary - it seems he wants to accomodate people with sight issues. --NeilN 00:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I said above. @Bwilkins, do you think that Yworo was attacking Neutral, or is there something about the "phrasing" that bothers you? Frankly, I don't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is he now going after Stephens City, Virginia? To me, it seems like Yworo is not getting his away, so now he is going after that article in retaliation. --MuZemike 00:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked, as that was a clear misreading of the edit summary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with unblock. He might deserve blocking for other reasons, and it might be POINTy behavior, but as an uninvolved party, I see nothing even vaguely like an "attack on a disability". People should be blocked for the right reasons. --jpgordon 02:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I just have to say, in my opinion, that a number of admin who responded above are simply too lazy to actually look into a situation and responded without any investigation. Neutralhomer spent a day and a half, starting at this edit at 09:07, 19 May, devoting nearly 50 edits to making false reports against me with two or three admins, starting to edit Taos, New Mexico simply to annoy me, removing 5 radio stations from the list of stations serving Taos, New Mexico for flimsy reasons, coming just short of violating 3RR reverting the deletion of those stations, then to avoid breaking 3RR, instead inappropriately tags the article, and that is all just fine and dandy with you. But I make 3 or 4 legitimate edits to an article he is interested in and I get blocked. Please, step through his edits starting with the one above. He made very few edits to other articles or talk pages except those involving me for a day and a half, instead obsessing with reporting me to multiple admins and repeatedly telling me that I am not following the "rules". But he's not hounding? Give me a break. I suggest every admin who made a comment above but did not step through his edits do so now. And then consider whether you should voluntarily submit to a recall. Yworo (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the complete list of his edits during that period. Every single one except the struck ones have to do with reporting, intimidating, harassing, or attempting to browbeat me into interpreting the "rules" his way:

Removal of the stations not licensed to, but only received in a place, seems reasonable. He was also right about reverting your vandalism warning to the IP for this: , as there was no reason to assume it was intentional disruption.

This removal: seems a bit a like overkill; it had problems but I think it could've been cut down rather than removed entirely. This complaint: seems mostly unfounded, since it was about inappropriate use of rollback, and I only see one of his quoted diffs as actually being a rollback edit (or at least a revert lacking an edit summary): , and that was inappropriate rollback use.

Basically, I think you both jumped the gun on each other, and I'll have to agree with the other recommendations here that you both just drop it. There's nothing all that troubling in either of your complaints against each other, except perhaps the fact that they were made. Equazcion 03:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Re the radio stations, the stations listed were either in suburbs of a very small town (5,000 people, still less than 10,000 including the suburbs) or have rebroadcasters located in the town to serve it. Also, there is a clear consensus on the talk page to include these stations. The articles on the suburbs are stubs, nobody is going to look there for the left out radio stations. Nor did he move the stations into those stub articles. It's vandalism, pure and simple. Yworo (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As for the Albert Ostman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) vandalism warning, did you look at the article history? There had been a series of IP edits of that nature, that was simply the last of several. No, you didn't do any investigation either, did you? Someone coming here with an issue shouldn't have to justify every fucking edit they make with diffs, and admins who don't bother to investigate simply make the false complaints seem legimate to other admins, who then also don't investigate. If you were an admin, I'd call for your recall. But you are instead just intentionally muddying the waters with insufficiently researched opinions. Yworo (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't about a content dispute. You're here because you wanted to make a hounding complaint, and it looks like everyone thinks that's not at issue here. As far as ANI goes, this is resolved. I'd recommend bringing the radio station issue back up on the talk page, or starting a WP:DRN. I'd probably wait a bit though, you should both take a break from each other for a little while. Just friendly advice. Re: the vandalism warning, Albert Ostman only had two other IP edits, and I'm not seeing either of them as vandalism either. As far as "intentionally muddying the waters", I'm not sure what reason I would have to do that, but alright. Equazcion 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't look very hard, same IP, same vandalism . Inserting "SUPPOSEDLY" in all caps. The quickest way to get this to stop is to tell the IP that's it's not appropriate, and the warning was customized to point to WP:SAY, where the explanation of why we don't use such words can be found. Yworo (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to any posts here as I have been working on updating an article. Just for the record, I did apologize for the accusation of misusing his Rollback, but not before removing the accusation from a post I made on his talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at my next edit after , that you statewas inappropriate rollback use? You would have seen a null edit with an edit comment explaining I made a mistake, I hit rollback instead of undo by mistake, they are very close together in my browser and I sometimes make mistakes. Then a do a null edit to explain it. But no, you didn't look for that either, just repeating the unjustified accusation. Yworo (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The first insertion was all-caps, the second was a lowercase misspelling. There's no reason to assume these were anything but mistakes, barring something further. No one said you shouldn't tell the IP that it's not appropriate. That actually would've been fine. Use of a vandalism template, though, is generally reserved for cases where there's no doubt the damage was intentional, so the revert of your placement of it was warranted. No, I didn't bother to check your next edit after the inappropriate rollback use, but you shouldn't rely on people here to catch everything (and then insult them for it? especially when you're trying to get help). Thanks for pointing it out now, and yes I see the rollback was a mistake that you corrected. Well done. It appears neutralhomer neglected to see your correction too though, and it's unfortunate that it added to the escalation of this conflict, but it still doesn't denote hounding. It's time to chill, because it appears nothing else will come of this. Equazcion 03:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My point here, in case you missed it, is that unless you have bothered to look at the article history, you misinterpret things and don't see the context. And multiple admins have been doing just that, not bothering to look at the context before jumping to conclusions. And looking at the context is really part of their job, and if they are not doing it, they are doing a disservice to everyone who reports a problem here, regardless of the outcome of the report, or who is really right or who is really wrong. They have been simply repeating inaccurate accusations without investigation. And wrt Ostman, inserting non-neutral words that cast doubt on a report is vandalism, regardless of the fringe nature of the subject, and I will continue to treat it as such, regardless of your opinion. Yworo (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the hounding allegation appears moot now that neutralhomer has agreed to focus elsewhere, I'll just point out that WP:VANDAL outlines exactly when that term is to be used, and your definition doesn't fit. If you continually misapply it, you'll find yourself on the receiving end of these ANI reports in the future. Equazcion 04:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Folks, I am working on other articles and I have handed the Taos article off to WP:CITIES, so I no longer have a horse in that race. The page is also off my watchlist, along with Yworo's talk page. I have moved on from this mess. I may not be watching this thread (since I will be working on other pages), so if anyone has a question for me, please alert me to it via my talk page and I will be sure to respond. Outside that, I have moved on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Illegal fake message bar

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

User:Lugnuts has an orange bar on his user page resembling the "You have new messages" bar. Bars such as these have been deemed illegal on user pages in this RFC, as well as WP:SMI, a Misplaced Pages guideline. Lugnuts has repeatedly reverted removals of the bar, as shown. He has also ignored attempts to notify him of why the message bar is illegal on his talk page, as shown. Can it be deleted and he not be allowed to put it back? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

But it is funny, and we have a policy of WP:IAR. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but to me it seems silly to ignore a rule when a long RFC took place regarding this exact type of case. IAR generally only applies when there is a broad rule with a specific application that seems to detract from Misplaced Pages, but in this case the guideline and RFC are aimed exclusively at this specific case. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Aye, WP:IAR speaks to improving or maintaining the project, and the consensus was apparently to specifically disallow those entirely because they did the opposite. -— Isarra ༆ 00:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an appalling state of affairs, I expect that you notified Lugnuts long before anyone had the chance to paste fake block templates on his/her talkpage. Damn! Spoilsport

There is the old you don't have new messages trick. and iar is for the plus side of the scales.Penyulap ☏ 00:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've warned the user, and removed the false bar. I'll block if he restores it: consensus is clear that this is a form of disruptive editing.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the chance to reply! How sad this user has nothing better to do than this. Jesus wept. Lugnuts (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerned by an editor

hi

i have seen this edit summary in 'recent changes' where an editor says 'f--- off and die' which i think is not very civil and i don't know if[REDACTED] administrators need to be told of an editor saying such things to another editor. the other editor says smething about a pretend new messages sign and the editor deletes the message with 'f--- off and die'

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lugnuts&curid=4868225&diff=493620426&oldid=493595952

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.102.100 (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's just someone venting, presumably because others have removed a fake message bar from their user page (see above). I support the removal of fake message bars, and I support CIVIL, but this matter does not need any further attention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

24.185.205.143

24.185.205.143 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

IP 198.228.200.157 Disruptive Editing on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trouble with stale Kosovo move proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifelfoo is IMHO trying to cover up what IMHO are obvious attempt of WP:GAME the results. He archive the thread after only three short hours and now tries to revert to that version and I call WP:VANDAL.

• @History2007 the sources Fifelfoo is disputing with his behavior are

• Niemi's Robert History in the Media: Film And Television ABC-CLIO ISBN-13: 978-1576079522

• Saburo, Ienaga The Pacific War 1931-1945 [http://pantheon.knopfdoubleday.com/ Pantheon) ISBN 978-0394734965

• Peterson, Barbara Bennett (2006) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, preserver of spirit and hope

• Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116

• Dick, Bernard F. (1996) in The star-spangled screen: the American World War II film University Press of Kentucky -- It (Prelude To War) claims to provide "factual information of events leading up to World War II" — a valid enough aim."

• Rollins Peter C.; John E. O'Connor's Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History University Press of Kentucky - "It's (Prelude to war's) aim was to provide factual information of events leading up to the war"

• Alpers, Benjamin Leontief (2003) Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture by University of North Carolina Press pg 178-179 - "Capra defend the film's style, maintaining that it was simply the most effective way to package fact."

• Thomas Patrick Doherty's (1999) Projections of war: Hollywood, American culture, and World War II Columbia University Press Page 72

• Gordon Martel's The World War Two Reader (reprinting much of Benjamin Leontief Alpers work) Psychology Press (ie Routledge) pg 167-168

• Let's see four modern University Press book and a modern work published "publisher of quality academic books, journals & online reference" in my favor. How this relates to the matrer History2007 talks about I would love to see him explain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've checked only Rollings/Peters, and you read a very small snippet out of context. The source emphatically does not support your claim. Just a few lines down, the approach is called "plainly interpretative", and half a page down, it describes Dick's account (which you take as gospel) as "naive" and claims that "the central tenet of the genre was promoting the state". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be a matter to discuss on RSN WHICH IS MY POINT. By archiving it after only three hours and continuing to fiddle with it (see ] for that nonsense) Fifelfoo is preventing any meaningful discussion on the matter ie WP:VANDAL.

I should mention Rollings/Peters is talking about "Dick's personal account" and shifts back and forth in the text between that account and his own views on the matter. Rollings/Peters do NOT say that Dick or the film itself stated that "it's aim was to provide factual information of events leading up to the war" but rather throws that sentence in the middle about talking about Dick's personal account. So is that Dick's view or Rollings/Peters? Again a matter to be thrashed out in RSN--if we are given enough blasted time to do so.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I would comment that I have not looked at any of the sources discussed here, but only noted the WP:AN issue with Bruce Grubb above because it included a number of RS and source misrepresentation discussions before. History2007 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't looked at ANY of the material (which would by definition include Prelude to war itself) in THIS case why are you wasting our time getting involed? IMHO it comes off as WP:HOUNDING--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I had seen that RSN discussion but did not want to be involved given that I did not know the topic. Yet given that "issues with sources" had been mentioned on AN before, it might have been appropriate to mention it here. That's all. History2007 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

History2007, your lack of knowledge regarding this specific case is making your position ridiculous. As I stated in the RNS Prelude to War was produced by the Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government making it an official US document and therefor an official view of the United States Government for 1942-1945. Kindly explain how THAT position relates to the case you keep bringing up. WHERE is misrepresentation in THAT statement regarding Prelude to War itself you claim I am making? SHOW US or stop wasting our time and don't divert the issue either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest calming down, your aggression does not help your case. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think History2007 is the person who looks ridiculous here. The fact is that you are repeating exactly the pattern of behaviour that got you topic banned from Christianity articles. It appears increasingly evident that your wilful adoption of contrarian views and attempts to force them into articles by twisting sources is a general behavioural problem. You can't do it one area any more, so you do it somewhere else. On the topic in question, you may or may not be aware that is claim that WWII somehow began in 1931 has been made before; there was a dispute about the lede approximately a year ago (I haven't time to look up the diffs). Of course even your own source is called Prelude to war. No one doubts that the the Eastern theatre of war emerged as an extension of the long-standing Sino-Japanese conflict, but that does not mean that the World War began when the Sino-Japanese war did. The illogicality of that claim is obvious. A local war is not a world war. Rather the Sino-Japanese conflict became absorbed into the World War that began in 1939. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Global warming denialism as fringe science?

Is there a consensus on Misplaced Pages about labeling global warming denialsm as a fringe science/pseudoscience?JoelWhy (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there an incident you are reporting? To your question, the subject of global warming has not really been discussed much on Misplaced Pages </sarcasm> but you might try and work your way backward. Quinn 16:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No incident (yet). I patrolled a new page on An Inconsistent Truth, which is some "documentary" trying to cast dispersions on the science (and on Al Gore, in particular, because, as we all know, Al Gore is a famous scientist, and all of our conclusions on global warming are based on his findings...) Anyhow, I cleaned up all the NPOV issues in the article and I noted in the Talk section that if he wants to summarize the movie, that's fine, but that he can't try to make any factual claims based on the movie that aren't in line with the science. Having dealt with my share of denialsists, I don't think he'll be satisfied with this (but, who knows...)

Anyhow, I'm really more interested in this as a general issue. I noticed that we don't use the word "fringe" on the Global warming page or the Global warming controversy page, which I found a bit peculiar. So, I wanted to see where things stood on the issue.JoelWhy (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards